User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 28

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

i was treated badly

I was unilaterally blocked as sock of someone else, without any sockpuppetry case nor checkuser, by an admin who calls himself Category:Rouge_admins. Please give a look at user talk:lara bran and user talk:vinay412. I edited using new accounts so as to hide my ip for privacy from non-admins. Thanks. Affirmative so 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Jimbo Wales is never about to respond to this message, because he rarely ever responds to messages on this talk page, but if you have been blocked as a sockpuppet, and if you give away the account that was blocked you will end up blocked as another sockpuppet. You will have to email the blocking admin. The sunder king 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


did you ever think about making a wiki-game? an online world where everyone can contribute content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second Life? --Carnildo 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good editor

I used to be a vandal on other wikis. But then I stopped. I don't know any other stewards, but can I be a patroller?--Dummmmmmy 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A recent changes patroller? Of course you can! You needn't seek permission to patrol the recent changes. That's why it is so readily available to anyone - the 3rd bullet point option down in the interaction box to the left. :-) Be sensible though with it though. Lradrama 08:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he's talking about patrolled edits, something we've not implimented here. --Deskana (talky) 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Yet," if some people have anything to say about it...=David(talk)(contribs) 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange disappearences

Hello your highne--I mean Jimbo. There has been a strange dissapearences of image and that the images were replaced with a red "X". This can be found on {{God}} for starters. If you still see the images. It is probably my computer. Please, fellow users I have final chance to message Jimbo and I would be satisfied if he responded. This is also an important message so please do not erase it (unless you're Jimbo). This is meant to be taken politely.--Angel David 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is already being discussed at WP:VPT, and the developers are working on it. I believe that they fixed it now. Prodego talk 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical misinfo comparison to BLP

I finally went off on a rant about something that has been bothering me for a long time; I'm aware that our general disclaimer is supposed to cover it, but the blatant medical misinformation on Wiki has as much potential for harm as do BLPs, and I suggest that highly reliable sourcing on medical articles needs to enjoy the same kind of policy strength enjoyed by BLPs. My rant is here; I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I would agree with you in spirit. But creating a policy that suggests we should treat articles (for sourcing or any other aspect) as medical resource guides is folly. Even indirectly suggesting it is okay for someone to get medical advice from anywhere but a medical professional is not allowable. VanTucky Talk 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not suggesting that; I'm suggesting we need a more concerted, coordinated means of cleaning poorly sourced info in medical articles, as we have on BLPs. Raul has provided some useful input on the discussion at the autism page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a great idea. I just wanted to say that actually creating a separate and specific policy ala BLP that even acknowledges that we should maintain medical articles at an "advice-worthy" standard is dodgy. I guess I confused your reference to the BLP with a desire to create a new policy. VanTucky Talk 18:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I probably confused you, since I'm generally fussed about how to fix this situation :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. Good luck with the proposal. VanTucky Talk 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image resizing and Image changing

Do you think that this new rule is good thing or bad thing because I think its stupid. DarkFalls deleted a couple of my images and put his on or left somebody elses resizing on there and it is pissing me off. I am forced to put those up for deletion because of it and I had them on this site for one or two years. DarkFalls needs to leave my pics alone or else I will try to kick him off the Administrators list because I have had enough of him and I am getting sick of him. How long have you had this rule because if this rule stays in play then why bother putting any photos on this site at all. This rule could turn this site into a text site without pictures again. Jimbo question only please let him answer it. Thank You.--Stco23 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CSD warnings

Jimbo, I do not expect you to answer, but someone will. The {{speedy}} templaters posted on articles where deletion is suggested have always been pink. Now, suddenly, they are white, which makes working the page significantly harder. Is there a reason for this change? Was there consensus? And if no, could someone please change it back? I do not personally know how to do this; I am sure I could figure it out, but if there has been a consensus decision (which I did not see) then that could be seen as vandalism. Help. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure either, but it looks like Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation. Hut 8.5 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already asked at Template talk:Db-meta, it's because (as Hut points out) a standardisation of all our templates. It does look OK, just needs to be a different colour. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks ok, and we can cope with it, but having templates printing in different colours is easier to work with. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could someone spell standardization, please? I will go to change the article spelling. (Boldly.) Music is my business 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errr...sorry, I do not know how to change templates and such...someone? The templates and talk page all seem to have the word spelled incorrectly. Thank you. Music is my business 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Standarisation" is an acceptable correct spelling, the British variation. Into The Fray T/C 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ^ Now this whole thing is really embarrassing for many of the people that use Microsoft Word, dictionaries, spell check, and grammar check. 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to standardise the way we spell standardization. :P Prodego talk 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least you added the "d" back into the word. If you Google your "Standardisation" guess what you get? Wikipedia spelling it with a "z". What a riot! lolsMusicgarden 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes. Speedy templates have regained their pink background. violet/riga (t) 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the article templates have been redesigned, basically with a bright side bar to replace the previous background tint. There is currently debate taking place at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes as to the desirability or otherwise of this change. Tyrenius 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Jimbo, I doubt you look at your talk page very much, but since your a dev, I thought you might be able to help. I was renamed by Raul654 from Wikihermit to CO. While the edits were being transferred to CO, I created Wikihermit to prevent impersonations, per recommendation. Well, when I did it, those edits still on Wikihermit got stuck there, and never moved over to CO. Do you think you can fix it? :) /me begs, as was told to do by Raul654. Thanks, CO2 01:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit? Daniel 06:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is inactive, so that wont help, SqueakBox 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. There's a reason why it's inactive. Daniel 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From User Page

This was posted on the user page. I've moved it here. =David(talk)(contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"Reply[reply]

Dear Mr. Jimbo,

Your site is very confusing. It seems that anyone can edit and delete anything except domain name. I suspect whether this page is created by you or created by anti-wikipedian, anti-social elements. I am unable to figure out who is cop, who is good civilian and who is bad civilian.

If this page is created by you (and if you are owner of this site),please answer my questions.

1. If anyone can edit anything, how can new user like me believe which page is indeed official and not created by anti-social person or group of persons?

I guess you're confused, thanks to the Essjay controversy. But don't worry, all articles are required to have an official source to back it up. Information on this site are merely fact; all opinion-based content (read WP:NPOV) and promotion/soliciting are strictly prohibited. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. How can new user confirm who is moderator/administrator of this site? Any poster can say that he is moderator and show me false page created by that poster himself as proof.

I really hate to say it, but being paranoid can even make Planet Earth seem like it was created by a conspiracy. Moderators (called administrators) are elected by debates between Wikipedians (See WP:RFA for more information). Sure, anyone can nominate themselves for adminship, but you'll need backup from fellow users, and an overwhelming support by the community. Let me show you a particular rejected nomination: Example --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're missing the point that was being made. OP wants to know how s/he can identify admins as s/he believes since anyone can edit anything anyone can edit any page to make it appear they are an admin. However in fact a user can't make themselves an admin if they are not. Specifically Special:Listusers/sysop will only show real admins and you can also use Special:Listusers to see what status, if any, a use has. Nil Einne 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. Why don't you create site index page (WHICH CAN NOT BE EDITED BY ANY POSTER) mentioning your official policies, names of moderator(s), contact details? That way new user will trust that it is indeed official policy of your site.

What's the point of WP:IAR? You'll be notified (in your talk page) anyway, if you do something wrong. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People keep deleting my posts. Maybe this post will also be deleted. Will you please tell these people to become polite human being?

Well, if your 'posts' are appropriate, then there should be no reason for other users to delete your posts. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


viran 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Website

I am sure this website in the future is going to be a great example for virtual governance. I am sure this website is attracting ideas from all over the globe. In future the real world policies and real time law practices could really shape up from the policies those are getting constructed here. You really have a great head and with the support of million more heads involved here I am sure this website has a great future. Just try your best to keep things as authentic as possible. I can read from your snap that you are a good man (I am not a face reader, but I get some feelings looking at a persons face if he/she is a good person). Try your best to keep everything as good as possible. BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Che Guevara

I am wondering, since you placed the POV tag on Che Guevara all the regular, experienced editors have left, if you would be willing to address the issues created by the tag. The page has been locked down since you placed the tag on the article. There does not appear anyone with the stomach to try to clarify the problems you saw and try to address them. Perhaps you would be willing to do so, since your feelings toward the page were strong enough to disrupt further editing of the Feature Article. Without follow up on your part, everyone who was working on the article has deserted the project or is too afraid to contribute.

I am of two minds on this matter, as there are definite benefits in having the page locked down. Consensus was so difficult to arrive at previously, and probably will not be arrived at again without a great deal of pain if the page were unlocked. Further, the locked down status prevents further damage to the article. Maybe having the article locked down for the next many more months or years is the way to go. Regards, --Mattisse 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not agree with the article being locked down. I didn't lock it or order that it be locked. I had a complaint about the article, my complaints were partly but not completely addressed, and there is nothing special about me as an editor which would require any special course of action. :) Feel free to improve the article using your best judgment.--Jimbo Wales 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors tried, but the disruption was too great after the tag was placed. The proposed modifications for the article's lead used quotes without sourcing, so no agreement was reached. There are no editors working on the article via suggestions on the talk page anymore—just talk page messages by vandals and entries by an editor arguing that the use of content notes is inappropriate in Wikipedia articles. Before it was locked down, there were close to 100 edits, all of them reversions or additions of unsourced material. Personally, although I was not an editor of the article, I prefer the lock down as I would hate to see the beauty of the article's craftsmanship destroyed by the arbitrary removal of the content notes or infinite revert warring over the addition of unsourced material. --Mattisse 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We cant lock down this article "form months or years", that is a really bad idea that damages the project overall. As its been 2 months I have requested unprotection. Sometimes removing referenced material is fully justified whereas term locking down is never justified, SqueakBox 17:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear, the problem was not the removal of referenced material but rather the continued addition of unreferenced material, leading to edit warring. --Mattisse 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasnt aware of the edit warring but strongly believe that unsourced m,asterial should be removed, ie if in doubt remove the material and put the burden on those who want the material there to prove it is sourced AND relevant, SqueakBox 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came across the request at WP:RFPP and have unprotected the page. Two months is really too long to keep such a high-profile (featured) article completely locked up. We'll turn into Encyclopedia Britannica! If edit-warring again becomes a problem it can always be re-protected, but hopefully enough time has passed that things can be resolved amicably. MastCell Talk 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Matisse, I think Che is far too important a figuire in modern Latin American history to even consider permanently locking the article, SqueakBox 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately there's an IP editor who's been frequenting that page for a very long time who's a habitual violator of WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Look for talk page posts on shifting IPs that use a hand-signed moniker "El Jigue". DurovaCharge! 07:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Mediation

Hello! I am ja:user:Penpen. In 21 Jul 2007 I was blocked by Sys.OP Lonicera of ja.wikipedia (There is no ban system in ja.wikipedia.) And in 29 Jul 2007 I appealed. But Sys.OP Lonicera have done no responce. So please make informal mediation between Sys.OP Lonicera and me, or recommend somebody who can make informal mediation. In ja.wikipedia there is no Mediation Committee. So I request for mediation to Ms.user:Anthere. She answered me that it won't be a job of Wikimedia Foundation board and she adviced me that you may be able to help me. So I make this request. Thnak you.Penpen0216 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt that Jimmy will have the time, unfortunately. However, if both of you can speak English (my Japanese is extremely limited), then I'd be happy to informally mediate a dispute between yourself and Lonicera. Cheers, Daniel 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you really take down Uncyclopedia

(Just cleaning up the page so there is no confusion... Uncyclopedia was temporarily down due to a technical glitch. I love Uncyc and it isn't going to go away of course.)--Jimbo Wales 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important proposal

Hello, I have a proposal for a competition which could encourage encyclopedia building, and also perhaps bring excitement, coordination and fun into the community. My Idea is called the Wikipedia Cup and is a yearly comptetion in which 32 of the best users picked by the wikipedia community contest each other in editing skills until there is only one winner. Who gains the cup template on their userpage. At each round only half of the starting amount gets through. For example. 32-16, 16-8, 8-4, 4-2, 2-1. A special set of established wikipedians announcing who goes through. This could be a great idea for wikipedia. The sunder king 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More of the topic is being dicussed, Here. The sunder king 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is Jimbo Wales's talk page. In my opinion, it is not a forum for general discussion. I feel that, if you want to bring the attention of the community to some issue, the village pump is more appropriate. A.Z. 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ich habe deine Benutzerseite gelesen, und den Hinweis gefunden dass du gerne einfache Nachrichten in deutscher Sprache auf deiner Diskussionsseite liest :). Darum schreibe ich mal was :-P. Ich muss sagen, dass ich es gut finde, dass du Deutsch lernst. Ist mal was Anderes, denn häufig wählen die Menschen Französisch oder Spanisch als Zweitsprache :). Hab ja vor einiger Zeit deine Benutzerseite gesehn und dein Babelstein war noch de-1 - und heute sehe ich nach und es ist de-2. Weiter so :). Grüße aus Leipzig . Anbei eine Anleitung zum Reallife ;) de:Image:RealLife_Anleitung.JPG (hab ich mit meiner Sockenpuppe hochgeladen ;))--Ar-ras 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heißen Sie willkommen zu Wikipedia, und glückliches Redigieren! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I just wanted to leave you a note to let you know that the article you created, Mzoli's, was speedily deleted because it didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. WODUP 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's now been WP:PRODed following the undeletion. Carcharoth 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prod template removed. AfD can't be far away... Carcharoth 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. I added some categories. Can you find some reliable economic sources about the funding? Carcharoth 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD nomination of Mzoli's Meats

Mzoli's Meats, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Mzoli's Meats satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Mzoli's Meats during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^demon[omg plz] 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OMG! You templated Jimbo! :-) Carcharoth 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:No no no, this can not be done! :) Navou banter 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[1]Reply[reply]

I wouldn't be suprised to see this on your userpage... (: Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<joke>The Jimbo deserves better. WP:NOTABLE?</joke>--PrestonH 02:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats

Jimbo, I realise you're frustrated by the AfD of Mzoli's Meats, as I am too, but will you please reconsider the last sentence of this? You seem to have offended quite a lot of people, and despite the fact that I agree with what you said (up to the last bit), that last sentence seems more problematic than anything, even though I'm sure it wasn't your intention. Please do consider what I've said. :-) --Deskana (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Jimbo's comments there, as I've expressed on that page. If users are so quick to assume bad faith (especially when it comes to an established, trusted editor who obviously knows policy and procedure), they should reconsider their comments or leave the project entirely. =David(talk)(contribs) 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that it's a problem how good, established users are treated, when it comes to speedy deletions. Actually, I wonder what circumstances it would be appropriate to speedy delete something created by an established user (except for author-requested deletions). Once people have been around a while and demonstrate they know policy, they should be given a lot more good faith and time to develop articles. --Aude (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS - I don't know the details of this trip to South Africa, but know you have been going there on a number of occasions. Want to say thanks for your outreach efforts, in spending time in South Africa. I'm sure what you do is very helpful to them. --Aude (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article hhas now been deleted [2] in an out of process way with an extraordinary edit summary. i was jsut about to add a source and don't appreciate this kind of disruption to good faith editors. Good on you for creating it, it sets a good example and hope it will bve restored soon, SqueakBox 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article has been restored, no harm done, SqueakBox 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have a question: Why did you even make these comments?

You can dispute the article on the merits of the notability (though not successfully, I think), but the assumptions of bad faith in this argument are just shocking. Some people should excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby.

Because Jaranda left.

May I ask why you made those comments? Because he was pretty offended by them, I and I was offended too. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well arguments like "Once again, people are trying to give Jimbo some god-like status and put him above the rules" from demon are pretty offensive too and the kind of thing that is offensive to Jimbo (I imagine) and others, let alone the anon comment "There appears to be no lower limit to groveling before the throne of the God-King. Wales is the owner of a for-profit wiki business so I think he knows exactly how to advertise in wiki format. What next? Burger bars, hotdog stands? The article is advertising pure and simple." Jimbo as an editor should be left out of the arguments and one can understand him feeling narked. We should stick to notability arguments, and BTW I dont understand why Jaranda took the arguments as personal, soem of his comments were IMO wrong but he doesnt seemt o have been the target of Jimbo's ire based on what I can see of what he and others said, SqueakBox 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not discounting what are obvious breaches of AGF and civility on the part of some in that AFD, but the way to deal with civility is to be more civil, not less. Now, me saying such a thing is (to be perfectly honest) the pot calling the kettle black, but two wrongs don't make a right. VanTucky Talk 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how this is a case of pot kettle black. Jimbo was saying he felt the behaviour on the page, specifically the failure to AGF was shocking. He didn't comment on a lack of civility. And I fail to see how you can claim Jimbo wasn't AGF. While the leave the project comment was probably unnecessary, I think it was a fair way for Jimbo to illustrate how poorly he felt the behaviour was without being rude. Telling someone that given their behaviour is so bad that they need to consider whether they are best suited for participation in the project is harsh but not necessarily incivil or biting Nil Einne 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pot/kettle analogy was in reference to my own lack of perfection when it comes to general civility. I did not say or imply that Jimbo was not assuming good faith. I meant that his "his leave the project" comment was reacting to an assumption of bad faith and incivility with equal (if not worse) incivility. Anytime a user spitefully suggests that someone is generally unfit to participate, it is a breach of WP:NPA. There is an enormous difference between saying that certain actions are not acceptable and that a particular individual and their character is categorically unsuitable. The suggestion is doubly hurtful coming from such a highly respected person such as Jimbo. Someone with that amount of influence needs to be more considerate of the weight his comments carry. VanTucky Talk 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it is uncivil to suggest that some people really should not be editing an encyclopedia. We depend on social goodwill, congeniality, and mutual trust. I have no problem with the speedy delete, the AfD discussion, etc. I did have a problem with the absurd accusation that I was somehow "advertising" something. (What, do people suppose I own restaurants in Guguletu, for goodness sake?) I do have a problem with me simply trying in my own small way to improve wikipedia by writing about something in good faith and then having admins accuse other people of Jimbo-worship at the drop of a hat. And I really really have a problem with an admin who would take so much offense at a remark not even remotely aimed at him that he would WP:POINT delete the article in the hopes of being desysopped. People that immature really actually should not be sysops in Wikipedia, period, full stop. It's ridiculous. There was no need for any of this drama. The AGF thing to do when an experienced editor makes a stub that you don't like is not to speedy it or nominate it for deletion, but to talk to the person about it, or (horrors) even try to pitch in and make the article better. And if it doesn't improve after a few days, then there is plenty of time for deletion then.--Jimbo Wales 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bottom line is: your assessment of the situation is true, but being right doesn't negate the cruelty of your statement. Users have done some foolhardy things, but I still empathize with their pain at being ejected from the project. Anyway, enough useless rehashing. I think I might try actually contributing some content ;) VanTucky Talk 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being ejected from the project would be very painful but Jimbo didnt indefinitely block anybopdy he merely made a suggestion, SqueakBox 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh right, I forgot Jimbo's pronouncements have so little influence. I know Jaranda was not blocked, but Jimbo's comment was the impetus for their disappearance. VanTucky Talk 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its a big burden to put on Jimbo that he has to be more super-perfect than the rest of us, I know leadership is a lonely place but all the same. What baffles me, though, is why Jaranda could possibly have thought the comments were directed at him as that isn't how it looked, he was criticising one admin (not Jaranda) and a couple of anons from what I could see and for obviously incendiary statements. Jaranda was making reasonable arguments and Jimbo's criticism wasnt aimed at reasonable comments, SqueakBox 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sort of like how you didn't allow the article about Arch Coal to improve, before you deleted it in a fit, anyway? --The Iraq 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. Wales, for an example, what if I told you "you should not be an admin of an encyclopedia." That's how Jaranda must have felt. I, and I'm sure Jaranda LOVE wikipedia, and to be told he should not be editing it must have been a real kick in the head for him. I realize it was a misunderstanding, but it cost an admin (whom I liked.) Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I send Jaranda a message. (S)he will be sorely missed my me and the other Wikipedians here.--PrestonH 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happened to the king of hugs and kisses? Trying to hold a project together... you will rescind if you know what's good. MessedRocker (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want to relate the comments to any particular editor or group of editors, but in the AfD, I too was troubled by the tone of that particular comment and expressed the hope that upon consideration Jimbo would withdraw it. This in spite of the fact that my view was that the AfD should have a Keep result and, had I not been moved to comment in the discussion, had been considering closing it as Keep myself. Newyorkbrad 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are exactly my feelings. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimbo drove User:Zoe away with inappropriate comments, and now he seems to have driven Jaranda away. Jimbo, you really need to think about your comments before you make them, and then, if you see that people take them in a manner which questions their committment to the project, you should retract them and apologize. Corvus cornix 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If people choose to leave because of Jimbo's comments then that is not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. I can't comment on the Zoe issue but it seems to me in this specific case Jimbo was saying he felt the behaviour was shocking (I agree) and he felt that given the behaviour the people should consider whether they had the temperament to participate in the project. He didn't in any way question anyone's commitment in this specific case. Note too it was quite clear he was referring to multiple editors not just Jaranda and he did not address Jaranda or any editor directly. He only referred to behaviour which he felt was unacceptable and clearly Jaranda felt s/he was one of the people guilty of that behaviour. And if someone is unable or unwilling to accept specific criticism of their behaviour and chooses to leave because of the criticism then this may ultimately be good for the project. The ironic thing here is that Jaranda was failing to AGF by accusing people of idolising JW but then left precisely because s/he were (indirectly) criticised by JW Nil Einne 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People said that Jimbo, due to his stature as founder of the project, surely knew the inclusion policies. Jaranda complained that they did that. There's no assumption of bad faith there, it's just taking WHAT THEY SAID. -Amarkov moo! 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um did you actually read the AFD? While one or two people's comments indicated they were because Jimbo created it, others had their own rationale's. Some seemed to suggest that it was because Jimbo created at first but later clarified they would have voiced the same opinion if any experience editor created it (which may be bad reasoning but it isn't uncommon in AFDs and accusing these people of lying is clearly not assuming AGF). However Jaranda at least and I believe other editors appear to accuse all keep votes of being because Jimbo created it. Additional comment. I got halfway through the AFD and I only counted 2 comments which appeared to be saying keep because Jimbo created it. All the rest had their on rationales. (For example some of them said keep because an active editor i.e. Jimbo is watching and will hopefully improve the article) Some of them were poorly explained perhaps and other's were perhaps just poor rationales. There's nothing wrong with saying you feel the rationale is poorly explained or just a poor rationale. But accusing such a person of having an ulterior motive simply because their rationale is poor or poorly explained is by definition failing to AGF. Accusing all editors of having an ulterior motive, well that speaks for itself IMHO. Nil Einne 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not there was an assumption of bad faith doesn't really matter to me - if someone assumes bad faith, should that really be a reason to tell someone to leave the project? Suddenly, {{uw-test}} looks much more tame in comparison. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
N.B. Jaranda appears to have a history of coming back and then leaving again. If anything, it appears multiple factors drove Jaranda away and the JW comment may have been at most the straw that broke the camel's back. Nil Einne 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it was un-civil because it's like saying "if you don't do this, you should get the hell out of here." I understand what Mr. Wales was trying to say, but that was a harsh way to put it. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"If you don't like the article, go and do something else" is what was basically said, which is rather disappointing :( * Aillema 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say it was "If you don't understand how Wikipedia did work and should work, go and do something else", but I digress. My main point here is that people should never leave because of something Jimbo says or does (well, unless he bans you, as he can do). In the long run it is easier to respect people who stay or leave on principle, not according to what Jimbo thinks of them. And I fully support what Jimbo said. Not because he is Jimbo, but because what he said makes a lot of sense. Carcharoth 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. By prodding or posting a "Delete" on that AfD, there were only a couple of assumptions that could be made: That Jimbo didn't know the WP:N policies, that he knew but misunderstood them, that you disagree with his interpretation of them, or that he knew but blatantly ignored them. The first (he didn't know the policies) and second (he knew but misunderstood them) are preposterous; of course Jimbo knows and understands the rules, having written or participated in the writing of many of them. The third (you don't agree with his interpretation of them) should be addressed on the talk page, accompanied with a {{notability}} template, and using an AfD as the last resort. The fourth (he knew but blatantly ignored them) assumes that Jimbo was trying to harm the project in some way. It is an assumption of bad faith and a borderline attack. And as a personal attack can be a blockable offense, those who subscribe to this idea are basically saying that they don't agree with one of this project's core, guiding principles - civility - and have no reason to be here. That page does, after all, say "Use Wikipedia in a civil manner or not at all." I simply think that some people should realize that our established editors are not trying to screw us. =David(talk)(contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
E kala mai, but the second one you list (that Jimbo knows the policies, but misunderstood) is not "preposterous". The article he originally wrote read, "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa." That's it. He did leave a note saying "just a stub for now, will be adding pictures and more in coming days... I need help finding reliable sources though", however. So would an article like this meet our inclusion guidelines? Not necessarily. He gave no context, and asserted no notability. So it is not "preposterous" to think perhaps he misunderstood. Errors happen. (But the whole thing did spin out of control, and that is sad.) Let's all just move on. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would have been better if Mzoli's was started in User space... but too late for that now. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The fact that Jaranda has been neither de-sysoped nor blocked shows how greatly tolerant Jimbo and others are. That Jimbo gets full on criticism for doing a good article creation but Jaranda gets nothing but praise on his talk page in spite of his appalling and highly immature behaviour deelting the article mid afd indicates something very wrong with the project, IMO. Just because Jimbo is a in a position of authority and is successful is not a reason for young rebels with attitudde to shoot him down. What is going on here is far worse than any comment Jimbo made on the afd and he is the one who should be pissed off for the way his good faith and appropriate stub creation has been treated, indeed how he himself has been treated. An appalled SqueakBox 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I fully concur with "People that immature really actually should not be sysops in Wikipedia, period, full stop. It's ridiculous." It's not remotely unreasonable to expect competence and maturity from our admins. Friday (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't see anything wrong with Jimmy's comment. Look at the diff for goodness sake... you've got someone accusing Jimmy of posting advertisements and Jimmy complains that there is a problem with assuming bad faith. I agree with him. It's unfortunate that Jaranda took it personally, but only Jaranda controls Jaranda's feelings. --Gmaxwell 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is ridiculous. This situation exploded out of nothing. A respected editor created a stub article and even said in the edit summary that more sources were coming. If I created a stub and said that, I would hope I would be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed a couple days to expand the article before it was AFDed. Or, I would have created the article in my userspace before moving to articlespace. But honestly, Jaranda's reaction is extremely childish. Jaranda felt insulted and stormed off like an adolescent, misbehaving on the way out. Ridiculous.↔NMajdantalk 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't attack me, other admins did worst when they left, like Doc glasgow deletion of WP:DRV. Editors like you guys is the reason I'm not coming back 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes but 2 wrongs dont make a right, Jaranda. Admins who use their admin tools to disrupt the project are not useful tot he project and leave non admins feeling abused, but perhaps other editor's feelings (especially mere humble non-admiosn who cant fix yoyur damage) don' matter to you, SqueakBox 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only did it to prove a point that I was upset over Jimbo inapproviate comment, if I really wanted to disrupt, don't you think I would have deleted the Main Page instead. 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I made another suggestion to you on WR, did you see that? The problem was that you disrupted the editing of someone like myself who was trying to edit the article and therefore I have the right to certainly be nmore psiised off than you, and exclusively with you to boot. Deleting the main page would ahve disruptive to many of our readers, and based on comments of Jimbo that were not even aimed at you but at some bad faith editors that would have ben even more unacceptable. When somebody pisses you off and then you hurt innocent bystanders in your outrage, well you have to learn to deal with your rage (as we all do online, and even Jimbo is just a normal human being who gets angry too), SqueakBox 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It was just a joke. Or at least I thought better of it and canceled my plane ticket to South Africa. I guess it really is hard to tell if someone is being absurd or serious here. Forgive me for trying to up the drama revolving around the formation of the Mzoli's Meats article.-BillDeanCarter 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. Ok, I forgive you. I was just going to recommend the sausage, that's all. :) --Jimbo Wales 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh... although the way you phrased that could have been a little better. Now we're gonna have to put up with soooome people going on about how "Jimbo likes the sausage." D'oh. :-) --Ali'i 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is all part of Jimbo's clever Open-Source Sausage (TM) for-profit venture capital funding scheme. We are accepting flesh donations. Sorry, Jimbo, I had to let the cat out of the bag (and into the sausage) as we are now in the proof of concept stage and are looking for contributions. Anyone care to, ah, umm, "lend" a hand? (Don't contribute if you object to your contribution being ground up with other contributions.) WAS 4.250 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just one more point here. Obviously any idea that Jimbo was advertising the place is silly, but it is possibly to advertise a place without owning it. The Arch Coal case was interesting. Sometimes good faith article edits and creations end up giving some places more coverage than their notability warrants. I don't think that is the case here, as I've been involved in improving the Mzoli's article. Carcharoth 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, advertising without owning is common. Example (for comparison purposes): Attacking Anxiety and Depression. --Mattisse 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the Arch Coal case involved COI (paid) editing, and so although ownership wasn't involved, there was still an ethical issue. Here, I just quite innocently found the topic interesting and worthy of an article.--Jimbo Wales 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jimmy, you're wrong, once again. Gregory Kohs stated on Wikipedia's own mailing list that "nobody paid for [the Arch Coal article] at any time, since it was just an experiment". You assumed it had been paid content, you deleted it, then you defaced the user's User page -- all in response to an experiment whose purpose was exactly that, to see how vindictive you might be about something you actually didn't know anything about. It's amazing that so few people see how terribly wrong you were in your handling of paid-to-edit content on Wikipedia when it arose in the summer of 2006, especially when an organization tried to do so in the disinfecting sunlight of full disclosure. --The Iraq 17:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly hope it won't put you off doing more of the same on your travels in the future. You have such a brilliant opportunity to travel to interesting places in a way that most of the rest of us don't and to use this for the benefit of wikipedia seems very positive to me, SqueakBox 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Welcome to the world of AfD, Jimbo, and all the reasons why it's so broken. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfa too (disruptive admin actions), SqueakBox 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think AfD or RfA are broken in themselves (though perhaps it's just the idealistic non-cabalist in me), but I do think that AGF and attack violations should be better defined. Guess I'll just join Jimbo on another "damn-fool idealistic crusade..." =David(talk)(contribs) 12:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimbo I need help..

Hello. I am a new user and I haven't edited much since my employer didn't allow me to use my work computer for non-work related purposes and I didn't want my IP traced to his work. However, I was a frequent reader and follower of Wikipedia, and spent many hours at work reading different articles and policy pages in order to familiarize myself with the site. In any case, I was notified today that this would be my last week at this job because my fascist employer said I spent too much time on Wikipedia. I am very upset and was wondering if this was very common, and what I could and should do about it. Thanks. Haute Fuzze 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well calling your employer fascist is something you perhaps shouldn't do as it has nasty connotations. I guess the answer is get a more amenable employer or dont read wikipedia when you have been told not to and are being paid to do something else. Wikipedia cannot support any claim that your employer was wrong to fire you if you were reading wikipedia on his/her time. As an employer I would do the same, its okay for me to edit here but not for my employees, as they are being paid to do something else, SqueakBox 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is meant to be a hobby and nothing more. Don't let it interfere with other life commitments, because it can be very destructive, whether it be family, work, school or friends. We're all glad to see you're willing to become a great Wikipedian, but I can understand how your employer feels about this. I hope he changes his mind, and if he does, stay off Wikipedia at work and, when you get home and you have time, enjoy yourself with it! It'll be something to look forward to. :-) Lradrama 10:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the fact that I'm reading this from work a potentially negative sign? Into The Fray T/C 13:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably, but I am, also. I'm scheduled for layoff next month, what are they going to do, fire me? ;-) =David(talk)(contribs) 13:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal attack on you by User:Shutterbug

This user evidently changed the wording of the post later, then an admin removed it, but you should be aware of this:[3] This user was formerly known as User:COFS as in church of scientology. It has been reported to WP:AN/I. --Fahrenheit451 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Farenheit451, that's more of an insult of you if it's an insult of anyone. The arbitration case remains open where you could submit this as evidence. DurovaCharge! 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that case closed today.--Fahrenheit451 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you should be aware of this - Yes Jimbo, you should be aware of every time someone "uses your name in vain". I propose the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Jimbo's name used in vain" where we can properly address these violations of common decency and tranquility. That way administrators can handle these important matters and you will not have to concern yourself. --Justanother 12:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justanother, please don't involve yourself in F457's problems. We'll deal with him. - Jehochman Talk 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a "we", too. And if I do not highlight his behavior it may well continue unabated. As it has for quite some time seeing as this behavior on his part of concentrating attention on the editor rather than the edits with spurious claims of PA and incivility "greeted" me when I arrived here over a year ago ([4]). But if you are interested in helping to address it, then "Welcome aboard". --Justanother 01:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To both parties, in sticky conflicts the best thing to do is take the high road. Raise your own actions above suspicion so that, if the other individual is really up to no good, their own misbehavior is abundantly clear to anyone because it arises without provocation. You have the advantage now of being post-arbitration, which means a variety of seasoned editors and administrators are aware of the conflict. Please do not forum shop or engage in tit-for-tat because that only hurts your own credibility. DurovaCharge! 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mzoli's, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice; a good thing. What a great lesson, indeed. Musicgarden 15:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks and a ?

Dear Jimbo,

Thanks so much for creating wikipedia.

I found out that my father's favorite book was Atlas Shrugged,

so, it is interesting to find you are an Ayn Rand fan.

(My father died when I was 13.)

My hope is that wikipedia will expand way beyond

what former encyclopedias. (It already has but

I am hoping it will go further.)

I have used wikipedia for years and contributed to

talk pages. I recently came up with a new

definition of the word phuck. Phuck by this

definition: phuck=machine intercourse e.g. I am phucking my computer

to send you this note. I got censored by someone

who thought I was making a joke.

I could not be more serious. He allowed

for my article but then I ran into a new censor.

The original censor suggested I do a new article

phuck-a-thon. I created phuck-a-thon

but the article was almost instantly deleted.

So, how do you get into wikipedia without

creating some act of violence is my question?

It seems like the quickest path to wikipedia

is to be involved with some act of violence

which makes violence become a dominant theme

in Wikipedia. I would like information

without violence to become more dominant.


Festus Christopher King--3.14thagoras 03:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)--3.14thagoras 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watch the news; its the same everywhere. You have a much better chance of appearing on the news if you kill someone than if you do something good. If you get on the news then that creates a reliable source and possibly notability and you might get an article. It's just the times... Mr.Z-man 03:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is why are you so desperate to get into wikipedia. Wikipedia has a lot of information that predominantly has nothing to do with violence and arguably most people on wikipedia aren't noteable because of violence. It's true that for the average person in the street, one of the simplest ways to achieve notablity is perhaps to achieve notriety from some act of violence. However for most people this is hardly a desirable goal (thankfully) and indeed I think most people are not particularly concerned about being on wikipedia at all. Just try your best to make something of your life and if you eventually achieve sufficient notability to be on wikipedia then good. If not, who cares? Nil Einne 18:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Jimbo. Wikipedia is very cool. Thank you for all of your hard work. – 09:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simon Wessely and Byron Hyde

Simon Wessely

I am very concerned about your attitude to Simon Wessely. He is an extremely controversial figure within ME/CFS yet any debate about this is stifled by JFW and other ADMINS even when Wessely's own words are cited from published articles. To me this makes wikipedia simply stand for the the "truth of the biggest most vicious gang in the playground". It stinks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:24, 24 September 2007

Byron Hyde

At the same time Byron Hyde MD chair of the Nightingale Research foundation, who is acknowledged within the ME community as a hero for his legal battles against the establishment, his championship of the rights of ME patients is up for deletion proposed by the same JFW and his "friends" who defend Simon Wessely. Any references to his publications get wiped including his book on electron microscopy which was the first to tackle the subject within medicine. So again Wikipedia stinks. It simply supports the "establishment" and ADMINS with a POV. I bet if I posted Maureen O'Neill it would not get wiped- who is she? A minister in the Canadian government and wife of Dr. Hyde- BUT even she would say she was less notable than her husband. So again wikipedia stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:24, 24 September 2007

Context! Red hot context - get your context here! Simon Wessely and Byron Hyde, plus bonus semi-protected AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, this and this might be of interest, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich lerne Deutsch auch!!!

Ich lerne auch Deutsch in meine Schule. Das Welt ist sehr klein oder?

(The One 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Reporting family spam, mostly non-notable and unsourced

Jimbo, early last year, user Elonka (talk · contribs) made a lot of articles on her family, most of them which are unsourced OR and non-notable, for example Antoni Dunin. If you look at the references, they are basically trivial (e.g. one name in a list of names). Inspite of this, they all exist to this day. They can be found here: User:Elonka/Genealogy. I tried to clean up these articles, but I was threatened to be blocked, told by admins to give it up, was complained about on IRC and was wrongfully blocked once by Kylu (t c) so you're the last resort. Here are the most important points:

  1. These articles were created by Elonka herself in violation of WP:COI which clearly says: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."
  2. Articles are mostly non-notable and unsourced OR
  3. You yourself have removed unsourced/poorly sourced content from one of her family articles stating correctly that every statement needs a reliable source.
  4. She dared to tell me: "please stop working on articles related to me". Shouldnt she be the one who should have been warned for creating them in the first place?
  5. According to some admins who I'll not name, Elonka "has made a lot of powerful friends". I got the full taste of that when I was stopped/threatened in some way or the other by some admins and told to stop working on her articles (WJBscribe (t c), Shell Kinney (t c) and Durova (t c) among others).
  6. Her friends might mention that I've had conflicts with her before on some issues but thats not relevant.

I can say a lot more but I'll stop and keep it brief. Basically, this unsourced non-notable family spam is still there (Antoni Dunin is just one example). I doubt anyone even reads these articles besides her or her family members. I'm not here to go into lengthy debate with her or her friends. I'm here only to notify you of this. Thats all I could do after being harrassed/threatened and blocked by her friends. Its up to everyone else now to clean up these articles or they'll be left here as they are, which is more likely to happen unless people follow policies, step in and do the right thing instead of trying to protect the feelings of their friends. I think I can safely say that the articles will continue to exist. I can bet anyone $20 that not one of her family articles (except Raphael Kalinowski which looks like a valid article) can be stripped down to reliable sources. I tried to do it and faced unimaginable opposition and resistance. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference, that specific article was discussed extensively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin (2nd nomination), a month ago. I didn't express a keep/delete opinion there, but this looks a bit like a combination of forum shopping (if not beating a dead horse). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Matt57, but to me this reads as "Nobody else agrees with me so I'm appealing as high as I can". --Deskana (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It appears from what I see that most people agree they are at least notable. I have seen articles on less notable people that is for sure! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chris, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too agree. --Aminz 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I'm named in this thread I'll respond. Elonka did start those articles when she was a new editor and, as she became versed in site standards and the conflict of interest guideline, ceased to edit them. Now that The New York Times is making pre-Internet back issues more accessible some of the referencing issues should be easier to resolve. Matt57's interest in this topic aroused the concern of a number of seasoned editors and administrators, myself included, because it appears to have its origins in a disagreement between himself and Elonka over policy interpretations on a wholly unrelated topic. DurovaCharge! 04:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See #6. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's an example of a non-notable person: Jan Czarnowski. Why does this article exist? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matt, a variety of uninvolved people have made the same criticism. I do not do so out of any affinity for Elonka but based upon the merits of the situation, and I find it quite troublesome how swiftly and consistently you brush aside these criticisms. This is rapidly undermining the reputation you have built as an editor. Please reconsider. DurovaCharge! 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you focus on the article at hand instead of on me or Elonka or other unrelated disputes? Jan Czarnowski. Is this article notable or not? You're afraid of giving an opinion because Elonka is your friend, that is it. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 12:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jimbo see? This is what has been going on. Like Durova's comment above, people focus on anything but the article themselves. Anyway, it looks like the family spam will continue to exist here. Not many people care about this issue. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 12:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matt, I'm the sysop who gave JzG a civility block warning and I like the fellow. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel I was the sole defender of an editor whose ideology I abhorred. It is exceedingly rare that a conominator at RFA expresses willingness to withdraw the nomination during the candidacy. I expressed that and I articulated the conditions upon which I would have withdrawn. That's hardly the action of a biased supporter. These facile accusations of favoritism and bias are in very bad faith and run entirely contrary to my record. Please entertain the possibility that I, and others who have expressed similar opinions, may be read at face value without ulterior motivations. DurovaCharge! 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may have been impartial in other areas but in this case you were not, as you refused to look at this certain article objectively. Thats why I pointed this out to Jimbo. You are a friend of Elonka and like others, are unable to look at these articles objectively. You're afraid of saying or doing anything that your friend might not like. Thats all there is to all of this. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matt57, you think Durova is unable to look at these articles objectively. Perhaps. But I do not interact with Elonka, am nobody's sycophant, have a history of standing up for the little guy here at wikipedia and from my inclusionist POV, Durova is right here and while you have a point that there are COI and RS concerns, the point is to build a great free encyclopedia and in my opinion, Elonka is helping us to do just that. Please relax and help other places in wikipedia. You are helping too. Wikipedia will benefit if the two of you help on different articles. Life's too short for this. Be happy. Help elsewhere. OK? WAS 4.250 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matt, I refused to step into a kangaroo court where you posed as judge, jury, and hangman. If you have any serious challenge to make regarding my conduct then bring it to WP:RFC. I'm open to recall. I doubt Jimbo will intervene, but I make it exceedingly easy for the community to take away my sysop tools. DurovaCharge! 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's strange that you don't even deny that in this instance, you're attacking the editor, not the edits. Matt has been blocked for a month over this when he's just been upholding wikipedia guidelines. Another black mark. Arrow740 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also telling that you bring up the possibility of a recall when no one has suggested that you shouldn't be an admin. This is a straw-man argument. Arrow740 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability "abuse"

  • Jimmy, I believe that some editors are abusing "Notability" having articles removed, claiming they are "non-notable" to them. You had said that Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, and that verifiability was the criteria for inclusion,[5] (including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT).
  • I seem to spend 80% of my time arguing about "notability", an impossibility if editors do not agree. Wikipedia has many articles that I do no consider "notable", but I accept that others do.
  • Examples AfDs include: a magazine Pensée IVR, an engineer Ralph Juergens and Electric universe (based on the book) and articles, all of which include citations.
  • Please can you make a statement declaring whether "non-notability" can be a reason to delete an article, and consequently whether a number of editors can determine the notability of a subject on behalf of everyone else. --Deeper Black 11:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are they using arguments listed in WP:AADD? That page might prove useful... =David(talk)(contribs) 12:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-notability can be a reason to delete an article. Its in deletion policy and speedy deletion policy. As to "whether a number of editors can determine the notability of a subject on behalf of everyone else." - of course; we shouldn't have to poll the whole website whenever something or someone potentially non-notable is nominated for deletion. Consensus is formed by whoever shows up for the discussion. Finally, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, not the only criteria. Also, you phrased it as "abuse" - do you believe people are using it with malice? Mr.Z-man 03:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reading through one of the Wikipeidia email lists, I see that while "notability" can be established, and used as an inclusive whitelist, "non-notability" can never be established and consequently should not be used as a blacklist. Non-controversial articles are uncontested, such as the 1000 articles on 1000 pieces of space rock, every single episode of obscure TV shows, fictional TV character biographies, and even individual articles on different shades of color.
  • How can 20 editors decide the notability of a minority subject which may be notable, for example, to only one in a hundred Tibet monks?
  • So yes, I think that "non-notability" (and other excuses) are being used with extreme prejudice to exclude unpopular or controversial articles, on the spurious grounds that mention in an encyclopedia would give the subject unwarranted credibility; This is digital bookburning. --Deeper Black 09:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no 'blacklist'. Sometimes when editors persist in recreating an article even though there's clearly a consensus that the subject is not noteable the article will be protected against recreation but even then it isn't blacklisted. And most of the time when an article is deleted there is no prejuicide against re-creation. If and when the subject becomes noteable or new details are unearthed then an editor is perfectly entitled to re-create the article. And actually single episodes are often contested when the episode itself isn't noteable. Other editors can decide the notability of a subject based on references that are in the article. If someone is only noteable to 100 Tibet monks then it is rather unlikely there would be any references for an article about the person. Generally speaking we should not have articles on extremely obscure people nor extremely obscure theories theories. Being an engineer hardly makes someone noteable there are millions of engineers. Publishing a book on a theory doesn't make the theory noteable. Note that a book is often not a reliable source particularly if it is self-published or published by a vanity press and has received few or no coverage from secondary sources. There is a big difference between a source and a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a place for people to publish their original idea and if the only source is a book which has received little or no coverage then effectively it is OR. Amongst other things, if the book has received no coverage then obviously there is no way we can write a balanced article since no one is going to have criticised something no one cares about. It's the same with biographies on obscure people. If there has been no coverage outside of what the person has written then for all we know that person is completely fictitious and doesn't even exist. Nil Einne 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I meant that "non-notability" is effectively being used to blacklist (incorrectly), since "notability" is used to whitelist.
  • I don't need a critical review of asteroid 572 Rebekka in order to describe it an NPOV fashion, and it also not particularly notable. Asteroids that are notable are so described, the rest are not. Likewise, I don't need a critical review to describe the most objectionable, obscure, controversial theory on the planet; if I judge the theory, then I do, but without critical review, I don't.
  • Original research refers to information provided by editors without verification. A poor source should not be used as a citation, and is no problem as the subject of an article.
  • Non-notability and lack of criticism are no reasons to exclude an article. --Deeper Black 22:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a way, non-notability is. If we don't allow exclusion of notability, Wikipedia becomes a free web server, which we cannot allow. It would eliminate all reliability of the project, and make it just an open-source Freewebs. No thank you. Should there be a more specific definition of notability? Perhaps. =David(talk)(contribs) 18:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree, this is a matter of basic logic. You can not demonstrate non-notability. Non-notability is "undefined", not "is". WP:V & WP:RS ensures reliability; notability is a merely a subjective characteristic of an article subject, that differs from group to group --Deeper Black 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-notability is clearly a good reason to delelte articles, we are actuaslly trying to create the sum of notable and sourced human knowledge that doesnt harm anyone, SqueakBox 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some notability is subjective - notability is a measure of the size of the people group to whom a particular topic has an impact. For instance, Peyton Manning has little to no impact on someone in Spain who doesn't follow American football. But to someone in Indiana (a group of millions), or to fans of American football worldwide (an even larger group, probably over a billion), Peyton Manning is very notable. On the other side of the coin, my dog Strider has an impact upon very few people: My family and our immediate friends (a group of fifty people or so). There's no disputing that my dog isn't very notable, and doesn't meet WP:N. =David(talk)(contribs) 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your dog primarily fails WP:V in suitable WP:RS. I suspect that the Indian dog Heena is not notable to anyone outside of India, and the article requests improvement, not deletion. Just because you and I do not consider a subject to be notable, does not necessarily mean it is non-notable. --Deeper Black 09:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You missed the point of my entire post. That's exactly what I was saying - just because we do not consider a subject to be notable doesn't make it so, that is true. But if only a few people worldwide can consider something notable, it cannot inherently be notable. India is a large population, and a very great deal of people are impacted. However, my dog does pass WP:V, as he is a registered purebred Golden Retriever. He has information on file with the Indiana humane society, which is undoubtedly a WP:RS. But he's not a notable subject, great dog though he is, as only those close to me have been impacted by his existence. That was what I was saying. I'm sorry if it didn't come across correctly. =David(talk)(contribs) 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worried about the future state of Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo,

I used to be an active Wikipedia user, but then deleted my account, because I felt I spent too long here. Since then, I joined the Citizendium project and think that Wikipedia really needs a better structure to ensure that it isn't overtaken in quality by Citizendium.

However, after a while, I thought that I'd come back because I think WP will be the better project with a bit of tweaking. The anonymnity here is brilliant - if possible, I'd rather not give out my real name, and I'm sure other people share this view.

But, at the moment, I think WP is losing structure. At the moment, CZ has "Workgroups", which are similar to Wikipedia's Wikiprojects. However, there are many more Wikiprojects here than Workgroups at CZ. I think that these need seriously trimming down in number. And, over the last few months, I'm sure you've noticed that talk pages are becoming full of banners from all the Wikiprojects, and everything just seems to be getting out of control.

As a solution, I would set out a clear, limited number of Wikiprojects, and merge a lot of them. Next, instead of the Wikiproject banners, I would have a box saying:

"This article is a member of the following Wikiprojects:

1. Example 2. Example2"

The other rule I would enforce would be stopping these abbreviations. Reading through a deletion debate, if you are fairly new to them, requires you to click a link to understand everybody's argument. One person will say "See WP:BALL" and the other will disagree and they themselves will be presented with "WP:BITE". This, as a new user, could be very frustrating. As a rule, I would try to stop people using such abbreviations, or, if they must use them, do so only for entering the URL e.g. Don't bite the newcomers.

These are just my thoughts, and I'm sure you could improve them; alternatively, if you disagree, I would have no problem with criticisms.

Finally, thanks for providing the greatest community-oriented project in the history of mankind (yes, I'm serious!). SevenFiveOne 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insert obligatory link to Wikipedia:WikiProject reform here... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tada! {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}.↔NMajdantalk 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there is me thinking we don't have enough wikiiprojects, which shows that people disagree in what they value, SqueakBox 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would changing the number of wikiprojects will do anything? ←BenB4 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that Citizendium has more workgroups than we do may well be down to the fact that they are less established than Wikipedia, and not because having fewer workgroups is necessarily better. In time the number there will increase as well. Hut 8.5 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Moderator's Choice

Hi Jimbo, thanks for starting something wonderful. Myself and my children use Wikipedia almost daily to gather information and to simply "learn" - what a concept! From school projects to just getting a "fix" to an information junkie, Wikipedia is a modern marvel in regards to the information age.

The reason I am writing this to you is that I felt that I wasn't treated fairly by one of your moderators today and was offered no solution by this individual to correct a submission I added today.

I decided to register today since I happened to be surfing and came across USA Best Realty under "list of franchises." I noticed that USA Best Realty was in red and it did not have a link to an information page explaining what is was. Since I am an agent and an independent contractor of USA Best Realty, I added a very short description and was instantly refused submission due to an "Advertising Infraction." What puzzled me the most was that the administrator who quickly deleted my submission gave me little in his or her description as to why this extremely short bit of information wasn't allowed. I questioned some of the submissions he/she started which were business submissions. My question was "why do you allow the submissions you started to stay on Wiki and the one I started to be taken off? The reply was that the business the administrator submitted was "notable" in his/her opinion and offered no further information to my request.

You see, the problem I have is that under the list of franchises there are many companies that have links leading to a Wiki page which displays information on that company. The information I submitted is factual and poses no threat to the anti-advertising law you created upon forunding Wikipedia. Why are others allowed to display very "advertising type" information on your site and the company I work with USA Best Realty can not even have a short description of what it is.

I know this is extremely petty in your world but "equality" and "fairness" is the basis of survival for this living organism you created - Wikipedia.

I respectfully request that you please allow the post that was submitted today.

Thank you for reading this request,

A. Rivera Ariverawpb 03:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, Ariverawpb, thanks for your favorable remarks about Wikipedia. Thanks also for your willingness to help out by joining in and contributing with the rest of the WP community. Although you may feel dismayed by the reaction of some, please know that your contributions and viewpoints are definitely well-taken, and worthy of equal consideration.
A quick glance at List of franchises reveals quite a *lot* of red links. This indicates that many articles in that "conceptual space" have received scrutiny by WP contributors, and some have considered much of the content to be inappropriate. Although some may disagree with this, the basic point is if you really think something is being unfairly omitted from WP, the best way to proceed is to attempt to discuss it with all interested parties, and have thorough substantiation to support your viewpoints.
As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation relies on voluntary contributions. Consequently, we all share a mutual responsibility to ensure that this excellent resource is indeed used and maintained properly. Sometimes that involves making tough calls and applying closer scrutiny to some kinds of content. Please don't let that discourage you, because we all want to make sure that this site remains a great place for ourselves and our children to learn, participate, and grow. dr.ef.tymac 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also WP:CORP. ←BenB4 10:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semantic MediaWiki !!!!!

When is Wikipedia going to unleash the power of Semantic_MediaWiki??? Us Minions' are wasting precious edit power on "stupid" info. Lets get some RDF action and take wikipedia to the next level. Chendy 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freebase may be of interest to you. They have imported a Wikipedia database dump (I don't know if they do regularly) into a tagged database, providing fully boolean/relational-like searches.
A quick look made me doubt they are maintaining their field population very well. ←BenB4 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RDF? Cough, gasp: ... as reluctant as I am to engage in technology debates ... I ask you to seriously consider why RDF "next level action" has not yet transpired the way you might like. How many human beings (who don't make money selling books or teaching seminars on XML) would rather type this:
       <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
               <dc:title>Tony Benn</dc:title>
instead of this:
   Note: This is a Wikipedia article about a person named Tony Benn.
... hmmm? Even if you aren't expecting people to consistently type RDF by hand, you still have to program a user interface to generate it, and that won't be trivial. Unless you teach babies to speak RDF out of the womb, most people will just look at it and see a bunch of gibberish that they cannot be bothered to decipher or learn. For additional perspectives, see also Metacrap, and weigh the viewpoints expressed in that essay. You are of course free to make up your own mind. dr.ef.tymac 03:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not very familiar with the difference between RDF and Semantic_MediaWiki, i guesss i don't understand rdf. The thing which seemed attractive is the relative ease at which semantic data can be incorporated into wikipedia, and how it would disrupt things too much:

from :

Consider the Wikipedia article on Berlin. This article contains many links to other articles, such as "Germany," "European Union," and "United States." However, the link to "Germany" has a special meaning: it was put there since Berlin is the capital of Germany. To make this knowledge available to computer programs, one would like to "tag" the link


in the article text, identifying it as a link that describes a "capital property." With Semantic MediaWiki, this is done by putting the property name and :: in front of the link inside the brackets, thus:

[[capital of::Germany]].

In the article, this text still is displayed as a simple hyperlink to "Germany." The additional text "capital of" is the name of the property that classifies the link to Germany. As in the case of categories, the name of the property is arbitrary, but you should try to use re-use properties that already appear elsewhere. Chendy 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Chendy, that makes sense -- a good thing to remember is that there are usually multiple ways to go about conveying the same kind of information. For example, although I am not aware of a mainstream mechanism to support "properties" on WP links, WP does support Categories (e.g., take a look at Category:Capitals_in_Europe). It would be nice if every single link could be neatly formatted for automatic processing by a computer, but, as I implied previously, there are reasons why this may have practical limitations.
That's not to rain on your parade or enthusiasm for Semantic MediaWiki, but rather to encourage you to take a closer look at some of the underlying issues if this particular area of development interests you. Who knows, after discovering some of the major challenges in this area, you might be able to discover a breakthrough. (See also, Semantic Web, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)). dr.ef.tymac 14:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a strong suspicion that parsing infoboxes is going to be orders of magnitude easier than getting everyone to use a new extension's wikicodes. ←BenB4 10:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyone should also consider, however, that human beings don't necessarily have to be the ones who enter data into a Semantic Mediawiki framework. It certainly wasn't a human that input about 25,000 corporate listings into a semantic framework on this wiki. RDF is really useful to the end-user -- albeit painful for the data-entry person. That's why I'm convinced bots are going to take us to more useful semantic databases, but that's just my opinion.
The advantage? The end user is just one click away from finding all the companies that are incorporated in Delaware, or just as easily a click away from finding those located in Brooklyn. I suppose you could then build a special search that could find you all companies located in Brooklyn but incorporated in Delaware. Or, build specific searches by NAICS code and city, state, phone number, or whatever. You could do the same thing with lists and categories on standard Wikipedia, but it would take thousands of users many decades to build that kind of functionality, since the combinations are nearly infinite. With semantic RDF, it's actually pretty easy, once the data's encoded with the right semantic tags. --Libertyvalley 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting debate, but as far as I have heard, the reason Semantic MediaWiki is not going to be deployed into Wikimedia sites anytime soon is that there are serious performance and scalability concerns surrounding it. You may want to ask a developer for more details, but you need to keep in consideration that Wikimedia sites have at least 33,000 hits per second... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True 'dat, true 'dat! I wouldn't be surprised if this Centiare wiki (above) has about a millionth the traffic that Wikipedia has. --Libertyvalley 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked user wants to comment on Wikipedia policy

See discussion on blocked user's talk pageRickyrab | Talk 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC) thank youReply[reply]


Hi Mr Wales; I read on the signpost that your headquarters are moving to San Francisco? I was pondering, will this cause any problems in regard to accessability to the site or problems with the servers? I'm not up with computer technology, so correct me if I'm wrong. It's just that usually when companies merge or move, there's problems for the users - will this be the case? Anyway, regards. Spawn Man 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC). P.S. Thanks for creating Wikipedia; I don't know how much sunlight I'd be getting if it weren't for this site. ;) Cheers...Reply[reply]

Spawn Man, I hope you don't mind me responding. We have interacted on dinosaur articles before, I know you helped make those articles better, and I consider us to be friends. The hardware is not moving. Only the wetware not directly associated with the hardware is moving. People who are trying to raise funds and make contacts with Über-geeks will move to Cali while the computer servers and the hands on people (person?) will remain in Florida. My information is mostly from here. WAS 4.250 05:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn you! I wanted a reply from Jimbo on my talk page! ;) Nah seriously, thanks for that Was - I see now; thanks for the info. However, shouldn't all the "Über-geeks" already be in San Fran with Silicon Valley and all that? I think it's a good move in the end; you can't go wrong if you're near Silicon valley... Cheers, :) Spawn Man 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Cheers, :)" right back at ya. You always make me laugh. WAS 4.250 06:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, they say laughter is the best medicine. If they don't give me a subsidy soon I may have to begin charging you for it Was... ;) Spawn Man 07:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Comment

Greetings, I don't quote know what the protocol is for leaving a message on your talk page is, so I appologise if I have jumped the queue. I am part of the Article Rescue Squadron (A group setup to save articles that contain encyclopedic topics from deletion), and there is currently both a debate going on as to the use of our {{rescue}} template, and a TfD request regarding the said template. Before the current debate started, the practice was to place the template on the article page, within the AfD code comments (example) with a request in the template not to remove the template until the AfD debate has been closed (example). The debate currently rages as to if we (the ARS) are allowed to place the template on the article page, and if it should be placed in the AFD comments code. If you have a moment, can I please ask for your guidence/comment on the debate and/or TfD? - Fosnez 13:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you want the guidance of Jimbo Wales on this? He is of course free to give his opinion, but why go actively looking for it? This is the kind of thing the community has to decide on, and it is not really important or disruptive enough to need a final vote from a higher authority. Fram 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not really trying to take this to a higher authority, I believe Jimbo has the same as "power" the rest of us. I do, however, value his opinion on this matter. Mainly because in some ways his opinions reflect the "spirit" of Wikipedia. Fosnez 04:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing debate at Talk:Myanmar

Hello Jimbo! There is a discussion currently underway about a proposal to move the Myanmar article to Burma, which currently redirects to Myanmar. This proposal has brought up important issues from both sides about our naming conventions for countries, and as always your input on the important issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your consideration, and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis 20:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I know this question will never be answered by Jwales as he hasn't got the time, and the question is actually based towards wikipedians. Am I allowed to improve this userpage? The sunder king 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, yes... but we would much rather you stayed around! (THAT WAS A JOKE, GOBDAMMIT!) LessHeard vanU 12:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User banned because of wrong accusations and misbehavior of admins

I (and a few others) need your help and advice. Is there any way to contact you via E-Mail? Please write your answer here. Thank you. 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To email him, you have to set up an account with an email address. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not possible. My IP has been accused many times of being the IP of a sockuser or the banned user. So I do not want to make the impression that I am a sockpuppet user. I am writing to you because of User:Tajik who was banned because of wrong accusations (as has been now confirmed in a new checkuser file). Since then, he has retreated from (the English) Wikipedia and usually does not react to emails. His ban was endorsed by an ArbCom whithout giving him the chance to defend himself. He was prevented from participating in the ArbCom because of the wrong accusation (i.e. that he uses sockpuppets). In that process, he was banned from Wikipedia. Now, many months after the ArbCom, a new checkuser file has confirmed that the accusations against him were wrong. Many users have protested back then, but the responsible admins (some of them notorious for their unorthodox methods) still refuse to admit their mistakes and to unblock him, or to start a new ArbCom. Since then, countless other users have been banned, alledgedly all of them sockpuppets of User:Tajik. These include User:German-Orientalist, an Iranologist from Dortmund, Germany, and User:DerDoc, an Austrian physical doctor from Vienna. Countless others have been accused by User:Atabek (a very controversial Wikipedian), including User:Ariana310, User:Beh-nam, and User:Mardavich - but checkuser proved that these users are unrelated. A neutral admin needs to investigate the case, because I and a few others have the impression that some people just wanted to muzzle Tajik. In case of the very first accusation which got Tajik banned, the admin who banned him did not have any checkuser proofs. He simply banned him because of the similarity of their names (!!!). The alledged sockpuppet was User:Tajik-Professor, a well known sockpuppet of a another user, namely User:NisarKand (a banned user who propagated pro-Taliban POV), and a declared enemy of Tajik (in fact, he had vandalized Tajik's user page, calling him a "rat"). An admin (I do not know his name) had told Tajik to contact Jimbo Wales. As far as I know, Tajik wrote an email to him. But he did not receive any reply. So, now I am writing him, asking for help. The Turkey-, Iran-, Caucasus-, and Afghanistan-related articles are a mess and subject to constant conflicts and edit wars. Tajik was one of the very few who took care of these article, contributed to at least 3 FA articles, and 4 or 5 "good articles". He earned the respect of academics, such as User:Ali_doostzadeh and Oxford academic User:Sikandarji (with whom he completed the article Babur, now a GA). I worked with him on Afghanistan-related articles, including Afghanistan and Gardez. Since he got banned, all Afghanistan-related articles have become messy again, filled with POV. It's interesting that all sockpuppet accusations began after Tajik was banned. Not even the responsible admins claim that he had any sockpuppets before. Even if the accusations were true: the abuse of sockpuppets certainly started after Tajik was banned because of a wrong accusation. Your and Jimbo's help is needed. See also Tajik's last message on his talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I've always wondered what the odds were of two different people, each innocent of sockpuppetry accusations, would meet. Abusive sock accusations, especially the kind where ArbCom becomes involved, are so infrequent when measured against the size of the project and the number of editors, that the probability must be fantastic. That such an event has occurred above is truly indicative of what a small world we live in. - CHAIRBOY () 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello ... this is User:Tajik. A fried told me to write here ... A while ago, I was banned by User:Thatcher131. Now CheckUser has confirmed that the accusations against me were wrong. ... I need your help, Jimbo. Admin User:Alex Bakharev told me to ask you for help. - 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally!!! Why didn't you asnwer my emails?!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know much about the case of User:Tajik and I will not comment. However, I am aware of a case where a person personally know to me Anwari Begum was banned permanently probably because her name was similar to another user, Anwar saadat, and her first edit was to Ajith Kumar, a page with which Mr. Anwar saadat was also involved. From that day of November, 2006, I became a little skeptical of the process of banning users on guesstimate without proper and complete investigation. In fact, myself and Anwar saadat Anwari Begum (her screen name), were logging on to Wikipedia from the same Internet Public Outlet in Chennai at that time as my home internet connection was down for weeks for technical reasons. --Bhadani (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comment. What do you suggest in this case? Obviously, the admins are not interested in investigating this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also very concerned about this case. I had probably the worst interactions on Wikipedia with user Tajik, of anybody who did not provoke him. I don't think he's an accurate editor, and I don't think he understands how to use academic sources, and he certainly has no comprehension of how to discuss them to reach a usable conclusion with other editors. I can make no excuses for his behaviour, which I think may eventually have led to a community ban.
I accused him of stalking me and chasing me away from articles on Afghanistan, and I stand by these accusations against him. I believe his edits show a strong and historically inaccurate bias that makes Wikipedia's Afghanistan articles look like greater Iranica. I mentioned this on the mailing list. The one person who bothered to check the accuracy of what I said about the serious problems with Wikipedia's Afghanistan articles, readily confirmed that our Afghanistan articles are inappropriately and inaccurately written from a Persian perspective. I stand by this. And Tajik and a couple of Iranian editors are responsible for this.
Tajik will accuse me of having a Pashtun bias for all things Afghan, and a bias for Pasthun editors. I was raised by Pasthuns and cannot deny this. But I know and love plenty of Tajiks, also.
None of this changes for me the utter improbability of Tajik being the sock puppets he was accused of being. He didn't sock puppet. He didn't make the sock puppet edits he's accused of and was banned for.
If Wikipedia falsely bans users they create the type of bad blood that cannot be overcome. I don't know if the administrators involved in this case simply made a mistake and truly believed that Tajik was sock puppeting, or if something else was going on. However, Tajik has not used the sock puppets he is accused of being, and for which he was banned.
People don't readily get over being falsely accused, tried, and convicted of things they did not do. And rightly so. If Tajik was banned solely for sock puppetry, as is the case, it is not correct, because he was not and is not guilty of the crime.
I won't be Tajik's friend if you allow him to return. I don't know if Tajik can edit responsibly. I do know, however, that people should not be banned from Wikipedia for that which they did not do.
KP Botany 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am second to KP Botany's request. Tajik used to be a very stubborn user, often to the point of disruption, but he is a very knowledgeable and devoted Wikipedian, so I believe the total balance is positive. There was a lot of valid criticism of his actions on the arbcom, but the last straw, the assertion that he is the master of User:Tajik-Professor is almost certainly an error. The edit pattern is quite different and besides Tajik is not that stupid to choose such an obvious pseudonym. Quite possible that one of his enemies intentionally framed him. In short if I were the God-King of Wikipedia I would have given Tajik a second chance. Alex Bakharev 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Alex, since you would give a second chance in this case, what do you think about a similar case of User:AdilBaguirov, whose ban was reset due to your recent block of User:Londium as supposedly a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov - [6], a claim which was nevertheless disproven by RfCU - [7]. Atabek 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is really strange, that by now, User:Tajik-Professor has been unblocked, but User:Tajik is stilll banned! Although Tajik-Professor was by far more disruptive than any other of the editors mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:45, 18 September 2007

I support unbanning Tajik and Tajik Professor. Tajik is a very knowledgable person. He has created and contributed to many Wikipedia featured articles. Also like Alexander Bakharev has said, he is more than smart enough not to use the name Tajik-Professor. I will be glad to do act as a mentor/coach and enhance the positive contributions of Tajik. He is capable of many positive contributions in Wikipedia as demonstrated by many of his academic style editing. --alidoostzadeh 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wonder why a user banned by the Arbitration Committee [8] can continue freely editing Wikipedia? Isn't this a fundamental violation, which can lead to a chaos? What force will ArbCom decisions have, if the banned user is freely editing any page he/she likes under IP address or sock account, and even brings charges against administrators or other users? I would like to emphasize here again that despite User:Tajik's brunt of accusations, assumptions of bad faith, and attacks against myself:

  • a) I never participated in his blocking case or ArbCom decision,
  • b) I did not and do not oppose or support the technical rationale behind his blocking/unblocking

I only oppose a banned user from editing one and the same Safavid dynasty article over and over (most recent just 2 days ago again [9]), being warned and banned with sock IP addresses, some of which continue editing this page. If it's the same IP range, reverting the same page or attempting to add the same content for months now, and being banned every time, does it really matter if the username is German-Orientalist, Tajik, Tajik-Professor, etc.? This is a blatant violation, regardless of the content of edits. In the rest, it's up to Wikipedia community and administrators as to how to enforce the rules that I believe are made to streamline and not disrupt the editing process. I do agree with Ali Doostzadeh that Tajik is capable of positive contributions, I told this before. Although I would support Ali Doostzadeh in coaching Tajik, when and if ArbCom decision is reverted, Ali's prior attempts to do so have failed at Safavid dynasty. Thanks. Atabek 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Safavid article has failed because of many users. Even now that Tajik is not around, the article still has a dispute tag and two other tags. But I do not think anyone has offerd to do mentorship/coaching on Tajik. I never offered to do coaching in that article as I do not think the process applies to a single article. The article had its dispute tags, locks and problems before I joined Wikipedia. It still has its problem after Tajik has been banned from editing it. Also Tajik was not involved in the Armenia/Azerbaijan arbcomm which is a much more serious issue. --alidoostzadeh 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ali, the archives of Talk:Safavid dynasty clearly show that the consensus achieved on the page in spring of this year was spoiled due to disagreement by User:Tajik, after which the tags went back in, despite my and your efforts to keep it balanced. After his ban, User:Tajik continued in his attempts to edit the article. Actually, although I was the one who proposed at Talk:Safavid dynasty to keep the tags in the article until it's balanced, the one reinserting [10] the tags was anonymous IP [11], yet again from the same IP range as User:Tajik. Again as I said, I don't have an opinion on blocking or unblocking of User:Tajik, I only opposed a banned user editing Wikipedia using IP or user socks. This is an excessive disruption. Thanks. Atabek 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Atabek, the problem was that the consensus was made during the absence of Tajik. He was away for a two month wiki-break. It was not a good decision on my part and the part of others users not to involve him on the final consensus. Thus Tajik did not really have much of an input on the consensus and neither did another users. For now I think the problem of Safavid article is persisting (despite the absence of Tajik) and it is better to discuss the conext of those edits there. I can gaurantee that many users (not only Tajik) abused the talkpage on the Safavid article and the Archives are there. I do not think Tajik spoiled a consensus since he should have been involved in drafting the consensus. I made a mistake in not consulting him during his wiki-break which exacberated the problem. Thanks.--alidoostzadeh 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ali, certainly Tajik was welcome to discuss his edits, and despite his editing via identified IP socks, I offered him (or his other username User:German-Orientalist) to share his comments on the talk page - [12]. back in June 2007. But instead he chose to edit the article directly again. It's clear by now that all IPs appearing in this thread above as well as those from the same IP range, editing Safavid dynasty are one and the same user. For doubts you may want to check [13] and [14]. Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of contributions by Tajik, which I actually found sometimes a bit more constructive comparing to few other users' on Safavid dynasty. This has strictly to do with violating Wikipedia editing policies by a banned user, and, although I am positive of the idea, I have doubts you will be able to coach or control him in this matter based on prior experience. Thanks. Atabek 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Atabek: not User:Tajik edited the Safavid page, but I did. You can see Tajik's IP on top of this page ( And in fact, it is you who is constantly assuming bad faith against others. This is not only my observation, but also that of other users. You are in constant edit wars and ideological and ethnic conflicts with Iranian, Afghan, and Armenian users. And you accuse everyone of being or using sockpuppets. Almost all of the sock puppet accusations against Tajik can be traced back to you. You even managed to get User:DerDoc banned, although it is evidenced that he uses an IP from Vienna in Austria. And you claim, that you have not participated in Tajik's ban process is not correct either. Your very recent comment on this page is the best proof for this. You are one of those who are seen as Tajik's enemies, and it is no secret that other enemies of Tajik - most notably the vandal User:Rabeenaz who is a sock puppet of User:NisarKand - ask you for advice on how to chase and bully Tajik. In fact, Rabeenaz has accused many other Wikipedians of being sock puppets of Tajik (just as you did), and he tagged different user pages without any permission after asking you for help on your talk-page. You have no proofs for the claims that Tajik used any sock puppets, and your favorite accusation against him has been proven wrong (in the process, the alleged sock puppet Tajik-Professor has been unbanned). Tajik's alleged sock puppetry was the main accusation against him which got him banned, and that ban prevented him from defending himself in the arbcom. In other words: he was muzzled. That also means that the whole arbcom was meaningless. An arbcom that bans a user without any justification and muzzles him has no credibility. Neither do all the others who use that fake arbcom as an excuse to legitimize their own unfair behavior against Tajik. You, Atabek, have been the subject to 2 different arbcom, and you really deserve a medal, because both times you managed to escape a ban. And as one can see in your discussion log (and in the discussions of your enemies), it is clear that an other arbcom is also coming. This time, your disruptive general "bad faith" attitude and your bully-attacks against Tajik should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Tajik, this is the link [15] to ArbCom case, by decision of which you were banned. I don't see my name appearing anywhere in that page. And also why would anonymous IP from the same range as User:Tajik continuously edit the same article in line with User:Tajik, attack me like above, accuse me baselessly of hating Afghans or User:Tajik, and ardently support User:Tajik unless that anonymous IP is the identity of User:Tajik? I haven't had anything against any Afghan user, unlike you accuse me above. Regarding your other accusations of myself, ArbCom decides as to how to restrict users based on their violations of specific policies, it does not matter if they went through 1 or 101 ArbComs. I have no idea who User:Rabeenaz is, not even interested in his/her edits.
By now, I believe WP:AGF is the fundamental editing etiquette in Wikipedia. Based on those, your attempts to have your ban lifted should not involve assumptions of bad faith, attacks against other users, or multiple sockpuppetry violations. It could be as simple as showing that you would be a constructive Wikipedia contributor in good faith. I don't see how that's demonstrated by your posting above.
Besides User:Tajik, as I indicated above there is also User:AdilBaguirov, against whom 6 requests were filed [[16]] and only one turned out to be likely. And we don't see any user or even an administrator supporting his ban to be lifted. But the rules should apply to everyone equivalently sharply.
I believe those were my two cents for now. I will address further notes on this topic as necessary. Thanks. Atabek 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Atabek, thanks for proving my point that you always assume bad faith. I was already active in Wikipedia before Tajik came here, and I know him through many other Internet sites. Actually, anyone who is involved in Afghanistan's politics knows Tajik, be it in or PalTalk - everyone knows him. And honestly, I do not care if you think that I am Tajik. I cannot prove otherwise. And it is irrelevant anyway. What matters is that Tajik was banned because of a fals accusation, and that his enemies do whatever they can to keep him banned. You are one of them, and you constant bad faith attitude towards everyone who seems to have the same position as Tajik proves this. By now, you have accused at least 10 other Wikipedians of being sock puppets of Tajik, including User:Mardavich, User:Beh-nam, User:Ariana310, User:Pejman47, and many others. And you were proved wrong, in all cases. This is surely assumption of bad faith. Not against one particular user, but against many. You were lucky that you were not banned, Atabek. Instead, you are on a revert parole. That's because you had the chance to defend yourself. Tajik, on the other hand, was muzzled. That means that admins actively prevented him from taking part in the arbcom, and they banned him without giving him the chance to say a word. And that you support this trial shows your general bad faith attitude against Tajik. The fact that you writing in this page (I have no idea how you got to this page) and that you are writing against Tajik shows your bad faith assumption, and proves that ouy have a grudge against Tajik. User:AdilBaguirov was party to an arbcom, he did have the chance to defend himself, and he was banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year. So no matter what happens, he will be back after 1 year. This is not the case with Tajik. He was muzzled, tried, and banned - and some people, such as yourself, are still into that witch-hunting, still bullying him, and still assuming bad faith. This whole case proves that the Middle Eastern articles are a mess, and that there is a serious political and ideological problem. And as you have said above, rules should apply to everyone equivalently sharply: you, Atabek, are known as a suck puppet user, you are known as a disruptive user, many Wikipedians are convinced that you are propagating Pan-Turkist and Turkish-nationalist bias, many are convinced that you have a grudge against Iranians, Afghans, and (especially) Armenians (to the degree that you openly deny and reject the Armenian Genocide; that means that you are officially a criminal according to the national law of France); you are known as a disruptive Wikipedian who plots against other and who always assumes bad faith (you have accused dozens of Iranian, Afghan, and Armenian Wikipedians of being sock puppets, and in all cases you were proven wrong); you take sides with anti-Armenian and anti-Iranian users; you have threatened and insulted other Wikipedians (see the detailed list by User:Hajji Piruz). So, all in one, you are probably more disruptive than Tajik or even AdilBaguirov. Why should these two be banned, while you are still here?! Rules should apply to everyone equivalently sharply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Tajik, this place is not for discussion of content of articles or assuming my stance on particular subject. And I don't see how a French law targetting an individual for his opinion on historical events is supposed to be applicable or relevant in Wikipedia. Please, refrain from further attacks and WP:SOAP. This discussion is about a contributor (a.k.a. User:Tajik - yourself) publicly appealing to be unblocked through anonymous sock accounts. This is not about content of the articles or individual user positions on various content subjects. And I think you should stop blatantly violating Wikipedia rules by continuing to post and incite others using sock accounts [17]. Atabek 16:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this thread is getting out of hand and personal and I do not think some comments are helpful. I simply think instead of this back and forth, we should concentrate on the matter which is user Tajik. Other users case should be in a different section. Overall I believe user Tajik has contributed positively to many Wikipedia articles and thus he should at least be given a chance to defend himself in the Arbcomm. Some of the issues in Wikipedia are emotional and political, but I believe the current Armenia-Azerbaijan II Arbcomm requirements should apply to user Tajik (1 r.v. per week and requirement for high civility). The Armenia-Azerbaijan II Arbcomm outcome was excellent and it imposes civility on various articles where civility was lacking and emotional outburst present. Other than that, I can also do what is in my disposal to make sure he complies with all Wiki-guidelines. --alidoostzadeh 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ali, reading the banned user's response above, I don't see how the lifting of ban will address serious issues with WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. Users in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom are restricted and banned for violating these policies in first place, and the banned user above already violates all of them while being banned and appealing for unblock. As I said, if the ban lifting decision is taken, it should apply to all users with equal and lesser violation records. And I mean all users regardless of their ethnic background or stance. Thanks. Atabek 16:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Atabek, you still continue to assume bad faith, violating the most recent policy of Azerbaijan-Armenia II. Even if Tajik has violated WP:SOCK, it was certainly after he was banned because of a wrong accusation. I fully understand that muzzling Tajik is in your interest. I fully understand that you support the decision of the admins to foist a wrong accusation on Tajik, then ban him, and then keep him silent. But this is not about what you like. This is about justice. You can continue accusing me. You are known for your bad faith assumption. In fact, you just jumped into this discussion in oder to further propagate bad faith assumtions and to bully a user who is not able to defend himself. But here are respected Wikipedians who are asking for an unblock of Tajik. Your opinion, Atabek, has no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? Tajik is indefinitely banned by the arbitration committee. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/E104421-Tajik Any appeal of his status should be directed to WP:RFAR. DurovaCharge! 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know how to do that. Could you maybe help?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
E-mail the case clerk. DurovaCharge! 07:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trulexicon- would you please explain this?

The second voting says;

"9/20/07 PH2 5 5 5 5 I am a sock puppet on Wikipedia named Trulexicon."

Here you state you are a sock puppet where you edit in both the Larry Sanders article and the Jimmy Wales article.

Your comment of being a sock puppet at the very least should be a block of posting anything to either of these articles, but my personal opinion is that your account should be permanently blocked as a sock account which you seem to proudly announce on the external link. But this of course is not up to me so I will bring it to administrator’s attention. I know there are admininisrator's who post here, so woud you please check this out? Clarify, I am saying that Trulexicon said he is a sock puppet not that Jimbo Wales is, sorry for the confusion Jimbo. I thought this would be the place to let you and the others know about this behavior. Again, please except my apology! --CrohnieGalTalk 13:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are being cryptic. I have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously, I am not "Truelexicon" and obviously, I did not post that. --Jimbo Wales 02:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you attribute that statement to Jimbo? I would think if Jimbo had a sockpuppet he would not be so stupid as to tell everyone on the internet, he knows better than that : ) Mr.Z-man 02:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it's a conspiracy! (: Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the key phrase to understanding this is: I know there are admininisrator's who post here, so woud you please check this out? - where here = Jimbo's talk page. They aren't accusing Jimbo of anything, but posting here as they don't know where the right place to post is. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the way it is phrased: "Here you state you are a sock puppet where you edit ... Your comment of being a sock puppet ... your account should" really makes it look like they are accusing Jimbo... Mr.Z-man 03:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know, but I think they are accusing the person who put the thing on That's the "you" they are referring to. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, but Trulexicon has stated that he is a sock puppet on this page amd the Sander's page. I though all of you would want to know this since he is also editing the articles. If this is not the right thing to do, please then delete it. I was just trying to help.--CrohnieGalTalk 12:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 000 000th article pool

Just a proposal, since there are 5, 10 & 20 million, what about a 3 millionth article pool? 10 million seems pretty unrealistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuz610 (talkcontribs) 20:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ten million articles seems like a reasonable target for late 2011 or so. --Carnildo 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gosh, was just thinking how old I'll be in 2011! Scary really... Spawn Man 05:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The behavior of prominent Wikipedia editors has been exposed to sites such as reddit.

The Mzoli's incident has gotten a lot of attention now. The discussion, as a whole, was the embodiment of everything I hate about this site, which is that many prolific contributors, sometimes even administrators, are arrogant, stubborn, and, worst of all, condescending. I am unsure if it was your intention to begin with to bring the horrible true nature of prolific Wikipedia editors to light, but behavior like that from these people needs to cease. It discourages new editors from even bothering to contribute and encourages editors to be just as nasty to anyone else. This site has a great thing going for it, but it can not continue if this is the direction we are headed. Thanks. 15:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't like it, don't take part in it, but at the end of the day the nomination of Mzoli's was inapropriate, but after all Jimbo defended that article. this nomination is also pathetic. The sunder king 15:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This behavior is exactly what I'm talking about. 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what you mean, many wikipedia editors are hated for their decisions, please see the dicussion at the top of the page, and tell me what you think of that. The sunder king 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some here would argue that the prolific contributors are discriminated against because wikipedia favouritises new users (good faith assumptions). I think a bit of both is true. The actions of certain admins re the Mzoli article and its unwarranted afd was indeed appalling, SqueakBox 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are plenty of experienced editors and admins that are very nice though. Phaedriel, 4u1e and Wimt are just a very few of a number of Wikipedians who are some of the nicest people you could ask to be with on Wikipedia. Lradrama 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree totally. I have been very fortunate to meet and interact with wonderful editors and administrators. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion requests

Dear Sir, I really want these articles deleted immediately because of personal reasons on my talk page. Can you help me sort this out:

Retrieved from my Userpage:

United Nations-related subjects

  1. Secretariat News magazine, 15 January 2006*
  2. United Nations Tour Guide, 15 June 2007
  3. United Nations Art Collection, 02 August 2007

United Nations interpreters

  1. Jesús Baigorri Jalón, 15 January 2006
  2. Tuan-Li Diana Liao, 15 January 2006; expanded on 30-31 May 2007
  3. Brigitte Andreassier-Pearl, 15 January 2006
  4. Igor Korchilov, 16 January 2006; expanded on 28 May 2007
  5. Pavel Palazhchenko, 16 January 2006; expanded on 31 May-01 June 2007
  6. Elena Howard, 29 May 2007
  7. Elisabeth Heyward, 30 May 2007
  8. United Nations Interpretation Service, 31 May 2007; brief historical background added on 09 June 2007  Done
  9. Raul Galer, 01 June 2007
  10. Alberto Reyes, 01 June 2007
  11. Jeffrey Tao, 01 June 2007
  12. Stephen Pearl, 02 June 2007
  13. Hossam Fahr, 02 June 2007
  14. Ashraf Kamal, 02 June 2007
  15. Ruojin Wang, 02 June 2007
  16. Coralie Ress de Tomassi, 02 June 2007 (proposed), added to List of UN Interpreters, 08 June 2007
  17. Silvia Maginnis, 02 June 2007
  18. Nora Weiss, 02 June 2007
  19. Jacqueline Mitchell, proposed on 03 June 2007; added to List of UN Interpreters on 08 June 2007; revived on 26-28 July 2007  Done
  20. Jean Neuprez, 03 June 2007
  21. James P. Nolan, 03 June 2007
  22. Vyvyan Pinches, 03 June 2007
  23. Jean Herbert, 03 June 2007
  24. Guillermo Suro, 06 June 2007
  25. Monique Fong Wust, 06 June 2007
  26. Donald Lineburgh, 07 June 2007
  27. Robert Confino, 07 June 2007
  28. Anthony Mango, 08 June 2007
  29. List of UN Interpreters, expanded, 08-10, 16, and 23 June 2007
  30. Lynn Visson, 27 June 2007
  31. Edith Macherez, 14 July 2007 (note: too short for DYK per Rigadoun on DYK:Suggestions)

- Dragonbite 23:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see this too: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rodsan18

Einige deutsche Sätze

I'm pleased to hear that you are learning German. That's why I'm gona write you a few german sentences.

Hallo. Ich würde mich sehr über eine Nachricht in meinem User Account von dir freuen. (Name: h34d @ Wann kommst du denn das nächste mal nach Deutschland (nicht privat, sondern auf eine Messe/Tagung/Vortrag usw, wo man dich reden hören kann?)

I've also got a question (I know this is no support area here). It's more suggestion a than a question (I also know that you aren't able to change anything here :D)

Why isn't it possible to link all the different local wikipedia sites/user accounts of the sites? I've tried to send you a msg, but I realised that it's not possible to have one user account for the german and english wikipedia. So I was logged out on the english version. (Don't have a account here). Same with Wikipedia/Wikinews/Wikiquote! That's sad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See m:Single login. Hut 8.5 19:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feature Suggestion

Hi, i am a relatively new user on wikipedia, what i do not like on wikipedia is confusion about times, for example a game is set to be released at x o clock in PDT, okay good enough but what if the time would be automatically converted to the user logged in (or the timezone the user's ip is in) so for example me, i always forget what AM and PM stands for i always use UTC +0 and 24 hour clock in everything i do, and i admit i am not a math genius so even calculating time is hard for me, i just recently found out that i have to count in "Daylight savings" wich is not used in my country (iceland) so say for example, and i want to show time i could use (as an example)

{{date&time|01.01.2007|12:01|-8}} or something like that, dates might have to appear if it goes over the dayline (you know what i mean)

and when i, for example view the site with that code i get 19:01, 01.01.2007 and maybe a small symbol telling that this time was automatically converted from xxxx

Please tell me what you (or other users) might think - Gunnar Guðvarðarson 15:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Jimbo. I've boldly created Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements, based on my assumption that the elections will follow the same timeline as last year. I'll leave it to you to announce it, declare it open, or whatever. By the way, did you know "jimbo" is a word in Swahili? (It means state or province.) The amazing things the interwiki-robots tell you in their edit summaries... Picaroon (t) 02:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing against Jimbo, but I feel it would be more Wikipedian if the community declared it open, or whatever. A.Z. 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just read the page of the Arbitration Committee, and I saw that "all Arbitrators serve at Jimbo's discretion, and are not automatically removed at the expiration of those terms, but only by the appointment of a replacement or otherwise by Jimbo's will." In this case, I guess it makes sense that he declares it open, though I don't see why the word "Jimbo" shouldn't be replaced with the word "community" above. A.Z. 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would anticipate that ArbCom elections will proceed this year at more or less the same time with more or less the same system as last year. The one change that I am considering is to have the existing ArbCom more formally review the candidates who have crossed the threshold and more formally make (private) recommendations to me. Traditionally, of course, I simply follow the votes directly for existing seats, and judge based on votes plus experience for expansion seats. That seems to have worked pretty well. Any changes should be made slowly and conservatively I think.--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Thought-Provoking Question(s).

Who invented Wikipedia? What caused them to invent Wikipedia? Where was Wikipedia invented? When was Wikipedia invented? Why was Wikipedia invented? How was Wikipedia invented? So Why is Wikipedia important?

Feel free to answer one at a time. 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you may be interested in reading History of Wikipedia which I believe answers most, if not all of your questions. Jon513 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey there, Mr. Wales.

Recently I was defending a set of articles that had been put on AfD for being "too short" and non-notable, mostly due to the fact that DVD commentary, a great secondary source, had yet to be released. Many of the articles were still being edited and sourced, albeit slowly. I was reminded of a short story I had written while studying surreal humor in my philosophy class that paralleled the basis of Lincoln's famous "A House Divided" speech, which I wrote into an essay called WP:INSPECTOR, also known as Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built (if you have any better ideas for a title, let me know).

Soon after, someone asked me on the IRC channel whether or not my essay was regarding your recent remarks about the AfD for Mzoli's. I replied that they were not, and later saw the article in the Signpost about the AfD. I found it interesting that these two events coincided.

In any case, I wanted to get your sentiments regarding WP:INSPECTOR. Thanks. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 03:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, i was just curious as to why this user page is watched so heavily. I added a small vandalism to jimbos user-page to test how long it would take before it was deleted, and it only took 12 seconds. Why only for this page??? why not for all pages on wikipedia??? Maybe if this "policy" was applied to all pages you wouldn't have crap staying on ur pages for 3 weeks before it's deleted!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traffic.LessHeard vanU 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that this guy kind'ov created the site somewhat helps... --WhereIsTheCite? 02:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. By the way, we'd love to have every page on Wikipedia watched like that, but we have a very limited number of editors for the number of articles we have. This is a highly-trafficked (and highly-vandalized) page, so many people watch it. You might want to consider creating an account, so that you can have a watchlist. You can definitely help! =David(talk)(contribs) 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People use wikipedia articles for info and if the articles are vandalised then the info is incorrect and this can have devestating effects (especially on uni/college students doing exams or assignments) whereas if jimbos page is vandalised it doesn't have devestating effects (unless someone is doing an assignment on him!). So why do you people try to "save" this page where your time would be better spent trying to stop uni/college student from failing??? If you ask me, its just another reason why wikipedia sucks. ( 10:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]


Without Wikipedia I would have to read through the textbook to find my answers for my homework. It probably would have taken twice as long!!! PS How do u stop procrastination?????? :) 10:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you fit this into your travel schedule?


My name is Lennart Guldbrandsson (Hannibal, press contact on Swedish Wikipedia), and I got a request from the Free Software Foundation in Europe. They are holding a convention on the 7th and 8th of December in Gothenburg and would very much appreciate if you would appear as one of the speakers. I realise, of course, that you are a busy man, but I'd still thought I'd give it a shot. The details of the Convention is here: There are several other speakers, see

Please respond through my email adress: l_guldbrandsson(at)hotmail(dot)com.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Lennart, aka Hannibal (though not on enwp, where I'm 21:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Requests for comment

Mr Wales you may find this request for comment interesting. The sunder king 10:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i am a footballer in nigeria 15yrs, please i want you to sponsore me please reply tp olokpa4real[at]yahoo[dot]com, please i need your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mzoli's AFD mess

Best wishes and a free beer from Germany, too

...has been mentioned in the LA Times[18] :) Melsaran (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know Jaranda said Thursday on WR he had spoken to the press but this article doesnt take sides, seems very fair and only mentions yourself and demon. I think their claim that the old guard are less deletionist than the average editor is totally incorrect and the opposite is true. While the wikirage site looks interesting, its not full of angry people but gives the msot commonly edited articles on wikipedia, Deaths in 2007 unsurprisingly being the msot edited, SqueakBox 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikirage is about "What is the rage". When I was interviewed for the LA Times article, I made it clear that I do not approve of the deletionists perhaps that is why you might be mistaking Wikirage for a site for angry people. w3ace 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. Slow news day in LA. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jimbo is famous. Wikipedia is famous. The process that created wikipedia is mysterious and nonintuitive. The processes themselves are changing. People are interested. It is news as much as a congressman tapping his foot in a bathroom stall is news, once you understand the context. WAS 4.250 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good grief. This reaches a new high (or is it a new low?) of me being unable to do anything that doesn't make the news.--Jimbo Wales 10:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup. The solution, Jimbo, is to make lemonade from the lemon. Get an agent. Make money. I can see it now: "This is Jimmy Wales, founder of the completely free Wikipedia encyclopedia, the best place to start when you don't know something, and an inappropriate place to stop if you are doing serious research." (Stage direction: Whispered aside to the camera as if telling a secret: "Because its free and has no ads, and is owned by a nonprofit I founded, I make no money from it." Stage direction: face expression says am I an idiot or what?) "I have traveled NUMBER-GOES-HERE miles using NAME-GOES-HERE airline. It's inexpensive and reliable. I trust it. You should too. By the way, 100% of what I get for this ad will go into my daughter's college trust fund. Here's a picture of her when she was two. Isn't she cute? She enjoyed riding on NAME-GOES-HERE airline too." WAS 4.250 11:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean you're not used to it by now? :P GlassCobra 10:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should think the above statement makes you front runner for the Professorship of The Bleeding Obvious Chair at You Don't Say? University of D'oh!. LessHeard vanU 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Congratulations, in re: Mzoli's. A wonderful testimony to how things can work, the article is. Wow, is the correct response to how well the L.A. Times moved on this issue. Hear, Hear. 13:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another Great Article was just published Wikipedia founder may not write I don't speak Deutsch, but I love this translated alliteration, "And naturally: Embittered quarrels between experts and notionless, notorious know-it-alls."w3ace 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article in SPIEGEL is the reason why I came here.
The more articles you write the more admins you will know. -- Simplicius 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"a new high (or is it a new low?)" - Depends on whether this is a limbo or a high-jumping contest. --Asthma bronchiale 09:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So now we should revisit the significance of Mzoli's -- frankly anywhere Jimbo Wales visits is significant do to the press that will follow. w3ace 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jimbo, I translated Mzoli's to german due to this article in the Spiegel – and it's the same there as it was here. de:Mzoli's is requested for deletion. Maybe you remember our fine discussion in fron of the de:c-base in 2005; seems that Uli had won that game years later, Mzoli's is one sign to remember. Thank you for that article and discussion, it took me back on earth and reality about Wikipedia future – time to find another horizon. Greetings from Berlin with the hope to meet you again someday, Achim Raschka (formerly known as Necrophorus) -- 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:How do you say strongly oppose deletion in German, SqueakBox 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Behalten means keep, SqueakBox 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to write a Spanish version later on today, SqueakBox 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC) We now have a version in Spanish too, SqueakBox 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, Mr. W...

...Did you do it on purpose? I mean, did you mean to make such a controversy and point or was the article's creation just some random afterthought? --WhereIsTheCite? 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had no intention of making any controversy. I was sincerely trying to make the encyclopedia better by adding something of cultural importance.--Jimbo Wales 10:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, if I might add, the incident reconfirmed that the Wikipedia system works. The initial posting should have been CSD A7 speedy deleted, and it was. The deletion was addressed through discussion, where substantial new material was presented that justified keeping the article. The article was kept based on consensus regarding the newly presented material. There is no favoritism, cabal, etc. regarding Wikipedia content. Everyone is treated according to preestablished policies/guidelines. The main drive behind Wikipeida articles is reilable source material. With it, you can post an article; without it, you can't no matter who you are. It is just that simple. -- Jreferee t/c 15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia in the news

Hi Jimbo. I regularly read Wikipedia's mention in Google news to address within Wikipedia issues raised outside of Wikipedia. Before the WikiScanner scandal, about half the news articles seemed to address "can we trust Wikipedia" and the other half cited to Wikipedia. During the WikiScanner scandal, the "can we trust Wikipedia" crowd appeared to move on to exposing those in power editing their own Wikipedia articles. Now that the scandal has died down, the "can we trust Wikipedia" crowd largely has not resumed their "can we trust Wikipedia" chatter. I'm mostly seeing citations to Wikipedia with a few grumbling citations to Wikipedia (e.g., "well, I don't trust Wikipedia, but here's what it says"). The WikiScanner scandal seems to have prompted the "can we trust Wikipedia" crowd to study Wikipedia a bit and come to better understand where Wikipedia fits within the Internet information-conveyance scheme. At least that is the perspective I get from reading Wikipedia items appearing in Google news. -- Jreferee t/c 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Mr. Wales, if you didn't know already, WP:CSN is up for deletion and WP:RFA was up for deletion, but closed as speedy keep and an RFC opened. Neranei (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When is your birthday?

Jimbo, one thing that bugs me about Wikipedia (and democracy in general) is the bureaucracy that goes along with it. A perfect example of this is the 8:11 (UTC) 5 Oct 2007 revision of your Wikipedia biography. As you will see is you take a look at it, there has been so much confusion and, well, disagreement, over the date of your birthday, that is written as "early August 1966."

So, for the record, when is your birthday? aido2002talk 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimbo has compared himself, in relation to Wikipedia, with Queen Elizabeth II. As you may know, the Queen has two birthdays - an official one and one which is the anniversary of her birth. I suggest that with Jimbo he has his own family birthday, and one for when there is some cake in the offing... LessHeard vanU 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A great man

Jimbo, what's going on? I've been trying to...message you. Of course, everyone else anwers my problems. I've been trying to communicate from your direct message. You're kind of like the mystery of God. A great man and creator of something. But I never get your response. I would talk to you. But I can't--Angel David 01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Don't worry I'm not going to break into to song /\_/\!

Someone keep blocking my ip

Someone i know (& hate) keep vandalising wikipedia to block me as he share the same ip . He used the usernames User:Someone not like you User:I'm blocking my friends ip User:Mr wiki vandal is there any advice i can get to help me . Richardson j 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's not much we can do to prevent this sort of thing. Here's how it works: when administrators block a vandal, they usually block the associated IP address temporarily, normally for no longer than 24 hours. If you get caught in this autoblock, you can request unblocking according to the standard procedure that comes up on the screen that tells you that you can't edit. It's tough, but you'll learn to live with it. By the way, when you're logged into your own account, autoblock should not stop you (correct me if that's wrong). Shalom (HelloPeace) 02:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yay! :)--Angel David 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names in other languages

How did you find out what your name was in other languages? did you go to some website? If so can you tell me which? Thanks!


Signed to archive KnightLago 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just checked, and...

This editor is a Journeyman Editor, and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Signing to archive (I added this to his barnstar page) KnightLago 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view on the barnstars

I said this at the barnstar's main page. I said it to an Administrator, who is responsible for all the awards system - User:Transhumanist. They didn't notice. So, with all due regards, respect and appology (if needed) I am addresing you, mostly because I don't know whom to addres about this issue and Wikipedia is your creation. I think that one of the tings about Wikipedia is that it should be a collaborative project. And that is the oppurtinity for people to change the way the Wikipedia runs, so that it becomes better place. I think there should be a change in the barnstars and awards thing. There should not be any barnstars and awards. I think that the whole idea of the barnstars is flawed. No disrespect of course for the people who have worked on the articles and earned their barnstar. But that have slightly undermining purposes in respect to the other editors.- For exemple, I'd like to present - yes, egotistically - myself. I've been working on Wikipedia for 3 years and I am among the 3000 editors who have the highest number of edits. Of course quantity doesn't mean quality, but I regard myself as a progressive and capable editor. I have made some great contributions. I don't want to brag about it - I consider it one of my greatest personal achievements to be part of this project. However, I am sure that there are people around the world who are contributing as much as I am and are here probably longer than I am. These people don't have a barnstar to flash around. We just do it, because of our love to Wikipedia and the community. I don't want a barnstar. I am perfectly happy the way I am, though sometimes I feel a little bit envious about other people's barnstars. And I feel that jealousy creates friction. It does so, because people shouldn't have a special order for their selfless and voluntary contribution to what is Wikipedia and to what Wikipedia stand for. I don't regard myself as any special than those editors, who have barnstars, and neither are they. These barnstars just undermine most of the oustanding editors, who are contributing to Wikipedia and who are doing their work without any expectation for a reward. It undermines them, showing most of the other editors as a selective clique, who have a barnstar, who deserve a barnstar, who are special. They are not. We all are not. We are part of the same project and none of us are more special than the others. The should not be special barnstars and awards. I hope I made myself clear in this issue and my plea will not be disregarded.

Regards: Painbearer 03:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The attitude towards Barnstars is where the problem lies. Barnstars are not meant to be rewards. They are meant to be tokens of appreciation. I believe the problem is as bad as you say it is though. Nobody on their RfA ever says "I have X barnstars" to show they have the qualities of an admin or something. When it is rarely mentioned in a nomination it is worded such that emphasis is given to the person who gave the barnstar, eg. a highly respected Wikipedian.
The other issue is that even if we delete all of barnstar, people will then start to give receive other pretty pictures, like cookies, flowers and chocolates. Since those pictures are needed for the mainspace, we can't delete them. The barnstars I have been given inspire to work harder on Wikipedia. They are gifts, not awards. Barnstars show that there are others out here that value your FAs, vandalism fighting efforts, and maintainance tasks. Barnstars are a way to thank people. If someone wants to "brag" about their number of barnstars, let them. They don't understand the purpose of them and are acting childish. GizzaDiscuss © 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Gizza wrote, and more. Barnstars are not official in any way. A Barnstar means just the same thing as someone writing "Thank you"; except possibly looking snazzier. I've got a few, and I appreciate them, but I don't treasure any one of them any more than 7 words I got from an admin towards the beginning of my editing, that I put in a little "bronzed" box at the top of my user page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An important proposal

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (Topic #39 "Link to featured article revisions") for a proposal concerning providing links to the originally featured revisions of featured articles.--Avant Guard 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My names is Drinitol I speak spanish quisira decirle algo mire señor por favor quiero que me de una oportunidad en wikipedia en español me han bloqueado para siempre y he creado muchas cuentas títeres ya no puedo mas quiero que me desbloqueen el Usuario Drinitol por favor ya no hare mas cuentas por favor o sino ya no podre me gusta mucho wikipedia por usted por favor yo no quiero vandalisar wikipedia en español yo queria colaborar por favor que me lo desbloqueen el Usuario Drinitol,plis o si no hare mas cuentas

This is an unblock request (He's been blocked "para siempre" or forever) for those who don't speak Spanish. He says he has changed his ways. —Cronholm144 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also a veiled threat at the very end of his statement, about unblocking him or else... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's a banned user, with over 50 sockpuppets. He's asking for his 1st username to be unblocked or he will continue creating sockpuppets. THat's the last part. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you release an image under a free license for us? :-)

Dear Mr. Wales. I've made a few requests of Flickr users to release images before, but this is the first time I've been able to do so on their Wikipedia user talk page ... umm ... gulp.

Anyway, we have a Wikipedia article on Ana Marie Cox that doesn't have a freely licensed image, and I saw your nice photograph with her on . I normally ask Flickr users if they would be willing to change the license on their photo to Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, but I somehow imagine you also know about the WP:GFDL license which we are also allowed to use. If you can release the image under any of those, we could use that image for our article. You would be credited as the image owner, and other attribution details you request, within reason.

If you agree, please change the license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and I'll upload it to Wikimedia commons with what attribution you desire. Or in this specific particular exceptional case, you being who you are, I imagine just writing what license you prefer will suffice, and a hundred eager editors reading your talk page will break their mice in a rush to upload it first. If you don't agree, I'll ask another Flickr user if they would be willing to release their photo instead. But for various reasons I somehow thought it might be best to ask you first. :-)

Thank you, An Anon E Mouse Wikipedia editor, --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! It was easier for me to just switch the license on flickr. Do you want me to ask her for a better picture?--Jimbo Wales 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She looks fine in that photo; I've seen much better pics of you, though.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit of a crappy cellphone picture though. I am starting to take around a proper camera with me more often, so hopefully in the future I can do better.--Jimbo Wales 00:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! That was a faster response than I expected; I've gotten used to you being away in India or such and taking a day to respond. I'm not sure whether I'm pleasantly surprised I got so many hours to upload it before someone else did, or disappointed there wasn't the wild stampede of uploaders I expected. :-) Anyway, the image is at Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Image:Jimbo Wales and Ana Marie Cox.jpg, and in the article at Ana Marie Cox. If you can get a better picture, we'll take it, of course, but this one isn't bad, it's a face view, she's smiling. Would you prefer we trim it to focus solely on her? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikimedia and wikia are closely realated because the search engine was developed for wikipedia and you plan to make profits from wikia so you can donate to the foundation.--Arceus fan 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the above section which will explain why, I believe, you are mistaken. --Banana 01:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bible articles

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales, To avoid controversy, several readers requested that the sprawling Bible article be divided fairly into articles for the various bibles of the world. The Christian Bible did not have any independent article, though the Tanakh already had its own article. Without losing any information, an already-existing (redundant) disambiguation page (Bible (disambiguation)) was pointed to separate articles for the various bibles. This edit was high-quality, conforming to all of Wikipedia's standards. Without discussion, the administrator Shirahadasha‎, reverted this refinement for no given reason, possibly a bias for his religion of Judaism, redirecting the Christian Bible article to the general Bible article, effectively deleting several high-quality additions to the Christian Bible article. He then locked the general Bible article after reverting all of my high-quality edits, even simple edits such as alphabetization. The general Bible article does not adequately treat the Christian Bible until its second half, focusing its first half primarily on the Tanakh and Jewish interpretations of it. There will be endless controversy with inevitably biased results until each Bible is allowed to have its own article on an equal footing. Deleting and redirecting articles for the various bibles, without comment, surely violates Wikipedia's policies. For an administrator to delete the new article on the Christian Bible and redirect it to a long sprawling general article for no reason other than personal point-of-view is an abuse of power as an administrator. It would not be good to lose my high-quality edits and to waste my work implementing requested changes because of an administrator abusing power. It is not good policy to disallow a fair treatment of the Christian Bible, with its Christian exegesis, as this document has been one of the most influential documents in the history of humanity. Please help by allowing high-quality requested improvements to the bible articles and by addressing the abuse of administrative privileges by Shirahadasha‎. How does one become an administrator? I am extremely interested in Wikipedia and in preserving the rights of all editors to contribute freely and collaboratively to their topics of interest. Wikipedia needs administrators who are not going to abuse their privileges. I would like to volunteer as an administrator. I am currently a Ph.D. student in Computer Science at the University of California-Berkeley. Sincerely, looking forward to your reply, Luqman Skye 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimbo's generally not the best contact for these highly specific content disputes. I also see you started a request for abritration, which is meant to be a last resort, only after you've exhausted all other avenues dispute resolution. Also, the ArbCom can help rule on the applicability of certain policies, but it's not really their role to sort out content disputes. Instead of contacting Jimbo and the ArbCom, if I were you, I would join Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible and continue to discuss these concerns among the regulars involved in that project--if enough of them shared your view as to the inappropriateness of Shirhadasha's changes, you could easily demonstrate consensus to revert to the previous scheme of articles. I would also consider opening a request for comment to solicit outside opinions on whether anything inappropriate took place. Hope this helps.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Privacy breach -- Canadian university professor

In Revision history of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus several names of real peopel, including a professor at a Montreal university, are tossed around and serious allegations are made. I have tried several times to remove the name of one person, only to have it reverted by a Wikipedia user who apperas to hold a personal grudge against this professor and may be a student of his. I think this should be done for several reasons: 1. We have no proof that this person has ever posted on Wikipedia and might be impersonated and 2. the breach of this person's privacy outweighs some old dispute on Wikipedia. Lafarge Dodger 12:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use the incident noticeboard instead; you'll receive a much faster response to your concern.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should probably be pointed out that Lafarge Dodger (talk · contribs) is likely a sock of the banned editor Arthur Ellis, according to checkuser. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, and I was just wondering if you could sign my userpage???? Thank you so much for creating such a great thing! Thank you soooooo much! YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 10-12-2007 • 21:47:39

Please don't be offended, but comments like this are usually discouraged (as you can see an editor already removed your comment once). —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry then Jimbo... Ignore this if you want then. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 10-12-2007 • 22:36:03


Hi Jimbo! First of all: I really love Wikipedia :D. Excellent idea of you to found the Wikipedia - be proud of you because of it. I read you are currently learning german. I´m a native speaker of german, and I´m ready to translate german messages from user to you into english! Dagadt 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help me

Hello, I am hoping you can help me!

I recently came under the radar of someone whom I believe to have some kind of obsessive/compulsive disorder.

He made all kinds of false allegations about me, got other Wikipedians to harass me, and generally made my life miserable-displaying my private info to others, and when I tried to delete these things off of my own talk page he accused me of being a "vandal" and blocked my account.

Please help me!! I simply just want my info to vanish now, but when I try and do this, he takes off my deletion tags within minutes (he is constantly on Wikipedia)

Because of the nature of the emails he has sent me, I fear being hurt or raped (he knows where I live, what I look like ect)

Please help me.Helpme20 19:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see someone is trying to help on your userpage, so I will make a comment here. I suggest you email the Foundation with evidence of the alleged (I apologise for the formal language) removal of notices on your pages, and cyber stalking. The Foundation may help you remove the details, or the page, that exposes you to possible stalking, and may also identify the alleged stalker so action may be taken if found appropriate. If you are uncertain how to do this, email an administrator or responsible editor you are familiar with who can advise you and help you further. LessHeard vanU 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to say...

...I really admire what you said about the 08 Wikimania in Alexandria. Another reason I'm proud to be a Wikipedian! VanTucky Talk 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexandria sounds a great place to have wikimania, SqueakBox 21:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

Hi there, Jimbo Wales.

I just want to let you know as per a user's request, I have contacted you to say that there is a discussion regarding rule changes for WP:RFAR at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Proposed_rule_changes. You are welcome to join in there. Thanks. Greg Jones II 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind. A user said there that our community must form its opinion whether it's view is that you should appoint anyone you wish or whether you should use the last election results as a guideline. There were several candidates with solidly above 70% support who were not appointed as there were enough with over 80 % support votes. If that is the case, I will wait before petitioning you. Greg Jones II 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old forum posts

Hello - I feel ridiculous presuming to comment here, but I have mentioned some very old forum posts concerning open-access journals, allegedly written by you, in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev. They may not be relevant at all, but if they are you might be able to shed some light on the matter. Obviously you get a lot of messages so please feel no obligation at all. Thanks --TreeKittens 07:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right to vanish

Note:I am Ionas68224

I am "infamous" on Wikipedia now, and I would like to just peacefully use my right to vanish and leave. I have been quite rude, but I am angry with my self for some real-life problems with organisation, my parents, et cetera (I am 11 years old). I would like to exercise my right to vanish by all my posts on talk pages (from the Ionas68224 main account) being signed [[User:RightToAnonymity|<font color="#DF4">RtA]], all my pages to be blanked (so they cannot be accessed by Internet Archive Wayback Machine) and then deleted, also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ionas68224 and the sockpuppets' user-, talk-, and sub-pages to be deleted along with thwe main account pages deleted, except for the userpage. I want the main account to be renamed to User:Right_To_Anonymity, and my sockpuppets to be renamed to whatever you want. All evidence of sockpuppetry should be deleted. Oversight the diff of the renaming. Oversight or delete the diff that shows my sockpuppet tags and Suspected Encyclopedist sock tag. Please delete all my pages, sign all my comments RtA, and overrsight mentions of me or my bad reputation.

  • Do not block me indef for this, because I may (just may) want to return.
  • Do something like Wik, only even more covert, as I explained above.
  • Do not make mentions of my bad history.
  • Do make it impossible (if you can) to find me. All AN/I, AN, etc. threads filled out by me or about me should be deleted.
  • Do make me as vanished as possible.

Please just let me peacefully vanish. I am also being cyberstalked and harassed by User:Harris Morgan, see [19] RtA 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you walk away now and don't make another edit for a year or two, some of what you want will occur. The more trouble you make, the more we can't give you what you want because we will need to keep data of your behavior to help us recognise and deal with future problems from you. So just go. And good luck. WAS 4.250 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, will this happen? Please? Are you telling me to "fuck off"? RtA 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not saying "fuck off". I'm saying if you want to leave then leave. Continuing to edit wikipedia is not leaving. As for "Will it happen?" Not if you keep editing Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should take a more accommodating view toward this type of request, at least if this is the first time "right to vanish" has been invoked. If the user reappears and resumes editing abusively after leaving, of course, that is different. It would seem especially approprite to accommodate a request of this nature in the case of a younger user, although of course do not (nor should we) really have any means of authenticating such a claim. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To put my two cents in here, if he wants to start off with a clean slate and become a productive editor, I think that that should be allowed; we can always use more productive contributors. However, if he chooses to come back as a POV-vandal or whatever, that is something completely different and should be dealt with sternly. Neranei (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am Ionas Rand editing from the Clark County Young People's library. The only reason I keep editing here 4.250, is that no one will fulfill my right to vanish and my wish. I am leaving for an indefinite period of time, and if I decide that I want to edit constructively, I would like the account unbanned now "just incase" I do want to come back. I am still editing because people like Ryulong think that my block (which only was supposed to last a week) is an excuse for constantly harassing me and outting unwanted tags on my userpage. I admitted to sockpuppetry. Ryulong refuses to remove the Encyclopedist tag from my userpage constantly just because I said he should be desyssopped. Because of one statement, he constantly blocks me, harasses me, and makes comments like this and this are rude and unnecessary. If he was not an administrator, and he acted the way he did, he would be blocked. Then, he talks some bullshit about my grave and banana peels. It is people like him that cause me to act this way. I am a kid with lots on my plate, and it only further frustrated me. He also caused me to leave.

However, some people have been the candle of hope in a dark room. I would like to thank Phaedriel (talk) for always putting a smile on my face and also being a tenacious figure in this WikiPediTatorship, keeping her head cool in hot times. I would also like to nominate Switch for adminship, not because of his politics (which I highly do agree with, but not the reason), but for his great contributions to Wikipedia and his recognition of the Community as well.

User:Encyclopedist was also a very helpful user, and if I could, I would give him adminship, and unban him. Not because of his controversial statements, but because of his great contributions to Military history articles, and African-american topics. Sad he is banned, he seems apologetic.

I would like my wish to be fulfilled, and that's why I'm still editing. To get my wish across. --204

Insulting people is not the way to convince people to help you. Also, Right to Vanish is more of a request than a demand.
You're asking for logs to be oversighted, which is almost never done and requires a developer to do.
"Do not make mentions of my bad history." - Effectively impossible, we can't make that into a policy.
"All AN/I, AN, etc. threads filled out by me or about me should be deleted." - Some (easier to find ones in archives) might be courtesy blanked.
Please see m:Right to vanish for what is generally done. Oversight is almost irreversible, it will likely not be done. Most of your requests go far beyond what is normally done. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello mr wales

Hello mr wales and other wikipedians, you are invited to join my new wikia project The Alien research wiki. It would be brilliant if you were to participate in editing. The sunder king 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I would like to say nice job for creating such an awesome site.

You did a great job in creating wiki! I saw the places you travel to and i have been to all those places with my mom. I love traveling too!Irishforever16 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Jimbo Wales is the man. I love you for making such a helpful site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beat it, Trevor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I apologize for what happened with the Mzoli Meats incident. I overeacted. I didn't like the comments that you said, and I deleted the article WP:POINT. After more comments, I purged the password and removed my syrop status. Still don't agree with an article, but I'll deal with it. Jaranda/Jbeach56 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quotations from you on Template:Fact

Hi. I suggested that your quotations be moved. There's no reason for just your opinions to be on section 0 of the talk page: it makes it look like they are more important than other people's opinions. A.Z. 02:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking User:Rbraunwa's account

Thanks for blocking Robert Braunwart's account after his passing. He was a wonderful editor who added articles about New Spanish viceroys and expeditions to Wikipedia, researching the information in obscure Spanish histories. I helped him now and then with ethnobotanical information, such as translating American Indian plants names to Latin, and edited some of his articles when I had the time. He was a kind and considerate editor, carefully adding small pieces of information, over a long period of time, that have enhanced Wikipedia's collection of information on the Spanish settling of the New World, making our articles in this area a unique resource on the Internet. This summer I started translating older geographical works from the Spanish to help Robert a bit more with some of the New World Spanish garden articles. As I corresponded with him on the Indian translations, he had my e-mail address, and his partner sent me a notice of his passing. I will miss him a lot. KP Botany 07:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wolof Wikiquote

Dear Jimbo, could you stop the closure? I want to create articles, I speak Wolof. Here is the discussion. SF-Language 09:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wow. That was fast. I changed the smiley face in comments to a sad face, and it changed back within seconds. I'm not sure whether that's good or a little sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make sure you read WP:POINT, and maybe even WP:WHY. Welcome to Wikipedia! =David(talk)(contribs) 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section had been removed. A.Z. 17:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need advise, have problem with a user

Dear Jimbo, don't know if this is a right direction to report an abuse. the user Behnam [20] attacks me with some cheap words (some of the words like "benamoose watanforosh" are in Persian which are very dirty that I don't want to translate) (see [21]). He/she removes the photos from [22] while these photos are still there, he/she himself has marked these photos as being from wrong source. Please guide what to do. Sodaba 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a user is vandalising, or commiting personal attacks and disruption. You can always repor to WP:AIV, or start a case on WP:ANI. The sunder king 12:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weiss article

First of all, I apologize for my ill-considered comment that served to cause more drama, which wasn't appropriate. Again, I appreciate your response and I'll get back to editing military history articles and trying to help improve the project. Cla68 09:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Daniel controversy and Edit-count wars

Dear Mr. Wales,

I do question whether the below person, 'User Daniel', should be so highly ranked in Wikipedia. Attempts at dispute resolution here:

Have been met with underhanded responses, including:

--deleting requests for mediation --making threats of blocking users --deleting comments made by others --refusing to communicate with others

Instead, User Daniel has basically 'talked down' to several persons.

COMMENT: In regards to THIS edit:

We find the user stating that use of placeholders is OK and he just doesn't want his name on the list. But checking the 'edit history' shows he deleted about ten names, not just his own, and did not use placeholders, and further threatened to 'block' any editor that undid that.

Now, I am going to say this: this is a 'poison pill' situation, and it simply is quite unfair to attach a lot of other edits. I could agree, in theory, to all the demands that this user made...using placeholders and not putting his name back. However, with the way he edited it, the actions and words don't remotely match.

Let me say this: I'd rather have the entire list deleted, than insist that we remove placeholders. Also, another issue: if someone dies or their account is no longer being used, yet they made 100,000 edits, shouldn't they be listed? In baseball, do we delete Babe Ruth from the home run list because he died? What is the point of this list, anyway? Who 'owns' the edit counts? Is this 'public' domain? Shouldn't it be? And trying to say 'anyone can add themselves or delete themselves' simply makes this list garbage. So, either we list everyone (using placeholders to hide those that do not wish to be listed) or we might as well delete the entire list. End of story.Ryoung122 10:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed one name (see my original edit), and I then reverted to my version when this user readded my name against my clearest instruction. Daniel 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Did it ever occur to you, Daniel, that it was NOT MY INTENTION to re-add your name? On a list of some 3,000 persons, I simply added back the 'placeholders.' All you had to do is replace your name with 'placeholder' INSTEAD of abusing the 'revert' power to make some dozen changes all at once, when only ONE of the changes is the one you intended to use. Further, this is a typical case where DIALOGUE would have ironed out this issue...once we realized that we were 'editing past one another', then a quick compromise could have been reached. However, two attempts at dialogue were instead met with deleting my message from your talk page. Such behavior appears to me to be an abuse of power.Ryoung122 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Now Daniel is blanking my comments in lieu of responding to my arguments. This is really what Wikipedia-speech-and-interview-givers do? Uh oh. --W.marsh 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC) The MfD was starting to lose focus, I'm guess that's why Daniel removed the section - the comments weren't centered around whether the page should be kept. I'm sure Daniel did not do it so he didn't have to respond to your arguments. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC) He also blanked comments I made directly about the page. At any rate, I don't believe someone with an obvious COI is a good candidate to decide what is and isn't related to the focus of the MfD... this isn't even to put him down, deletion discussions can often take unexpected (in a good way) directions from the various tangents people go on. Blanking comments, aside from obvious trolling/vandalism/etc., is not a good idea and can disrupt the gathering of consensus. --W.marsh 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Well, in that case, what part did you want restoring? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding further drama, I'll settle for a link to the pre-blanking diff, so people can read it without undue history crawling. --W.marsh 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC) For further discussion, please see this link, which contained more discussion near the bottom of the page between User:W.marsh, User:Daniel and User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the two reasons I want my name off this list is because, nearly every media interview I do, the interviewer asks me about this list (someone must have forwarded it around through AP etc.), and they look at my number (whatever it is - somewhere in the 300's, IIRC), and imply that I'm the nth 'best'/'most powerful'/'most relevant' Wikipedian, something I'm sick and tired of explaining. I feel that it should be within common courtesy for me to remove my name from the list on this reason alone. The other reason, which is far more sensitive and will not be explained here, (IMO) justifies extreme measures. Daniel 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If the goal of an administrator becomes 'maintaining power in media interviews', I do question whether this user has the 'greater good' of Wikipedia at heart, or has become a 'Power Baron' who has used his 'early' position at Wikipedia to 'lord it over' others. At a minimum, the above behavior is not what one would expect from someone serving on the 'arbitration' committee. Yes, I do risk negative consequences by daring to stand up to such bullying. However, I do believe that all Wikipedia editors should have the greater good of Wikipedia, not their own 'power' status, as their 'first love.' Matthew 6:33

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 00:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please try Requests for Comment or the Arbitration Committee before posting here. Cheers. — Thomas H. Larsen 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Arbitration Committee page says it is a page of 'last resort.' Besides, I believe that Daniel is on the committee, so that would be a conflict of interest, no?Ryoung122 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should make a list of people you'd like to punch

And it should start with whoever thought it would be a good idea to revert this. Or if you're a pacifist maybe, rather than punch, tickle somewhat aggressively or something like that. 11:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should wikipedia discuss about Criticisms on various topics?

"I see a lot of articles on Wikipedia stating something like, Criticism to Windows Criticism to Da Vinci code, Criticism of Coca-cola etc., etc., etc., I agree that, we should have a NPOV. But so long as the criticisms are a part of the main topic.,it's fine. Does an article that speaks only about Criticisms satisfy the "notability" criteria of an encyclopedia? Do you think that there can be reliable citations for such articles (esp if it focusses only on criticisms)?

there are always people who hates coca-cola, who hates windows, who hates Da-vinci code. But is Wikipedia a place to argue that? Can some one think on this? i think we should have a rule like, Wikipedia is NOT a "critical analyzer" or something like that... Criticisms should only be in a section of the main article. For example, the article Da Vinci code can have a critic's remark. But I don't think(My POV) this is a notable article, even if it has *valid* citations. Just wanted to know others consensus"

The above comment was posted here... I know u r busy... But please reply... your reply could make a difference. Mugunth 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I saw that you blocked this guy indefinitely recently, noting in the block log that his username suggested a "role account". Do you realize that he's been editing for over two years? He's got like a billion edits and no prior blocks, and according to his userpage he seems to have done some appreciable work on the wiki. Perhaps there's another way to deal with this that doesn't involve an indefinite block?? Milto LOL pia 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an easy way to deal with it. The user can ask a bureaucrat to move his edit history to a new username. Happens all the time. - Crockspot 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand Jimbo's POV on this one. Wouldn't a polite note on the user's talk page explaining why a name change is required resolve the issue? Ronnotel 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Jimbo supports a rename/unblocking, I can carry one out for Ombudsman. This would clear Ombudsman's block log, due to the way the software performs them. --Deskana (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guys, the block was about harassment more than the name. Jimbo's note on the name just suggests to me that he didn't realize that Ombudsman has a history here. Milto LOL pia 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can be pretty sure that Jimbo does know that. The block log entry suggests that he just mentioned the username as an extra. If Jimbo steps in and blocks someone out of the blue for harassment, he probably knows things that the rest of us don't. ElinorD (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt it's anything so sinister, ElinorD, it was a Wikipedia Review link. Milto LOL pia 19:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And in this case, the WR link actually was being used as a personal attack (it was to a thread discussing an editor that Ombudsman was in conflict with that he was using to smear him), so it would be against even the milder-than-BADSITES link policies that have been proposed. Still, an indef block on first offense seems overly strict. *Dan T.* 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stated reason for the block aside, I think it's worth examining Ombudsman's contributions here (both before and after ArbCom sanctioned him as an editor with a "longstanding history of tendentious editing"). This isn't a simple case of a username issue or a single posting of an "attack" link - this editor has had a fairly long-standing negative effect on Wikipedia, and I would surmise that some of that played into Jimbo's decision. MastCell Talk 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is way too much drama on Wikipedia. As a top ten web site we can expect an increase in sustained low-level indefinite-length campaigns to affect Wikipedia article content. We can also expect less than perfect decisions and collateral damage as we do our best to remain NPOV against the POV pushers. I support this decision because of the name, because of his POV pushing on vaccines, and because of his unnecessary incivility. You can't clean house without getting rid of something. WAS 4.250 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's part of the reason for the block then I really have no opinion, having never encountered Ombudsman before. I'm just making sure Jimbo realizes that this is not just a run-in trolling account. Milto LOL pia 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia, and his behavior was simply unacceptable. The fact that he has been sanctioned by the ArbCom before was enough. Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia. However, out of concern that an indef block was too harsh without warning, I will now change it to a week... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If he returns to editing in the same manner, then I will indef block him myself. This is his last chance, period. As MastCell says, this user has a long history of problems. This block did not come out of the blue. --FloNight♥♥♥ 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent Flo. May I suggest that everyone here concerned with civility quietly, with gentleness, using e-mail where possible; remind everyone they know who has been assuming they are untouchable (because they are admins or just highly respected in general) with their insults "troll, idiot, vandal" and attitudes (we disagree so therefor you are trying to hurt wikipedia when you insist you are right) to set an example. Let's do this for real. WAS 4.250 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The structure of the Wikipedia project is such that an increase of hostile behaviour comes naturally. Once an inner circle of power has taken shape, there is no way back. Guido den Broeder 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone has a different analysis. I think the key thing is the us versus them attitude. Example, in a recent wiki mail a person claims that we would never attack them yet calls them a stream of vile names in that very mail post. WAS 4.250 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fund Raising Video

Very nice job on the fund raising video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Grants

Um, what do you think about this and do you think lesser know Wikimedia projects could benefit from these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Severe problems outside of Wikipedia

For the past few months I have closely been watching the website, "Wikipedia Watch" and its outrageous content. I am concerned however that Daniel Brandt is continuing to expand the website, and the list of real names and details of sysops is growing rapidly, aswell as the websites content overall. Something must be done about this as the growing hivemind section of the website is putting wikipedians real lives in danger, and I have emailed Jimbo to dicuss the growing problem. The website is proving just to be a wikipedia attack site which is going to cause nothing but problems to wikipedia and its editors. However there is no way Daniel Brandt is going to take this down, and I don't think there is anyway we can stop this happening. We need all wikipedians to keep their identities, age, pictures and locations secret from this man who searches forever through google to find them. We must warn the other wikipedians for their own personal sake. The sunder king 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure we should encourage people to remain anonymous when editing wikipedia, and I would strongly argue that for wikipedia to take such a stance would be counter-productive and could be seen as giving in to Brandt. However, discussing this issue is positive IMO, SqueakBox 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Positive criticism is just as it stands, it is positive. Editors should know that any contributions to this project, can and will be seen and used, and / or scrutinized, by the world at large. There is ultimately no privacy on the internet. We are all being watched at some point or another. That is the nature of the medium. Once and Forever 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Daniel is doing an admirable job on his "watch" while helping to make the world at WP, a better place. We need people like Brandt, Nader, et al. There is more transparency when people are willing to use their real names despite the potential for negative consequences. The net is serious business. We should not be able to hurt people; especially not from behind a veil or a mask. Greetings from Bariloche, Argentina. Ciao! 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you definitely want to edit Wikipedia anonymously, it's probably not a good idea to become an admin or other administrative enforcer on a website that's one of the top 10 most visited sites in the world. Outside observers like Brandt have their reasons for demanding more transparency from this site, and it's something that we all need to consider as each of us decides our own level of involvement in this powerful and influential project. Cla68 07:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this gets to the point where your real name or a picture about yourself are required on Wikipedia (or goes anything like Citizendium), I'll be gone in 5 seconds flat. We should have the right to remain anonymous in the sense that we don't have to give out our real name. --FastLizard4 (TalkLinksSign) 05:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right to Vanish

A. I am hoping you can help me, I have had several editors try and help me with "The right to Vanish", but a stubborn harasser keeps bringing back my personal info. Please advise? The editors keep deleting, but this guy is bizarre and frightens me through his personal attacks.

B. I am very angry about this, as I have a number of great contributions I made to Wikipedia, but somehow this person became very centered on me and my contributions and would check up on me on regular basis, which made my experience on Wikipedia very uncomfortable.

C. When I have made requests for help through Administrators, he finds out and blanks out my requests, I am sorry but this is truly weird. I have not slept in days. See below link where he brags to admin Yamla about his harassment and how he is controlling me.Saltandpepper69 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tiffany (Saltandpepper69) 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to look into this, but this account was only just created. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is being dealt with by the WMF Office. --Yamla 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scrolling ad

Dear Jimbo,

I've been a loyal Wikipedia reader and editor for years. I have a few FA's in my name and I strongly believe in what we're doing here. That said, the scrolling ad is a bad idea. I took the advice of the users above and edited my monobook.css file, but I think a lot of newbies might not know how. Instead, they will simply turn to other sources, such as the umpteen million online mirrors of our content. Once again, thanks for all you guys are done. I don't mind you raising money, just please stay away from blink and marquee.

Sincerely, Lovelac7 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What scrolling ad do you refer to? I only see a small ad on top of the page. Is that called a scrolling ad? I don't see why it would bother people too much. If newbies find it difficult to eliminate it, then the same newbies may find it difficult to know about the fundraising. Besides, apart from asking people to donate, the ad serves a second purpose: it keeps people updated on the advancement of the donation. If the ad is removed, the amount of money raised will definitely be less. No one likes to ask for money, but if your FA articles are to be remained online, so they can be read by others, Wikipedia needs to raise money. I'll rather have an ad put up for a month every year, than experiencing slow servers, as we did in 2005. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked the other threads above and read about some weird scrolling ad. I haven't seen it. I guess you could ignore my irrelevant message above, altough it may still apply to people who may disagree with the static ad. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original version of the ad had a scrolling sections straight out of 1997. It's not there anymore. --Carnildo 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Weird that I missed it. It must have lasted for only a few hours, because I check Wiki on daily basis. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your video

This is the first time that I see the man who "had enough" on video, and also get to hear his voice. I was expecting to hear a southern accent, but I guess you worked hard on losing it. Keep up the good work! ;) --Thus Spake Anittas 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Jimbo,
watched the video and - it was very warmly, it deeply moved myself. You are not so perfect looking like an news anchor, but the hole video with this soft backgroundlife and the very good talkscenes in combination are! The well known aims conjuncted with the fitting adorned graphics look great. The animation at the beginning was really needed and seems vital to me. Thanks you, the the truth in numbers team and all technical and brainworking helpers for this really fine way to tell our sense in feelings, Conny 06:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)...Reply[reply]

Colbert Report

Hey, I just saw your user page and saw you on the Colbert Report a while back, wanted to say thanks for your success. You were mentioning African languages forming and at the time I was working on leading the project (though lost interest due to more interest in the project). Just wanted to say I have bought Wiki shirts and scored 180075188 on the wikiholic test. :) Anyway, just wanted to say hi! Cheers mate! --Girdi 05:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop the spam

I'm not sure where else to post, so I am posting here. A advertisement for, with a moving news ticker, has started appearing at the top of pages. This is extremely irritating. Wikipedia editors primarily support the project through their edits, not their wallets. This ticker is very distracting, and is affecting my ability to concentrate on improving the encyclopedia. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a way to cancel it. This innovation will make me less likely to want to donate money to the foundation, and I am sure I am not alone. Please stop it. Geometry guy 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want it removed, add the following line of code to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css...
.fundraiser-box { display: none; }
That will remove it. --Deskana (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the fix, but this step is just wrong in principle. The Wikimedia foundation should not make itself an exception to WP:LINKSPAM, and this appears not just in one article, but prominently, at the top of every article. It undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Geometry guy 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:LINKSPAM was not written with something like this in mind. It clearly does not apply, and attempts to make it to do so to prove your point do not portray you in the best light. A simple complain would have looked much better :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I am a pretty moderate and laid back editor by Wikipedia standards, and I don't feel a particular need to portray myself in any light, nor am I in the business of proving points. I agree that WP:LINKSPAM was not written with this in mind: this goes so much beyond adding an advertising link to a few hundred articles. This is the first time I posted here. I made a simple complaint, but in truth I am shocked that Wikipedia is allowing this. Does it not give you pause for thought that a regular editor should react this way? Geometry guy 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. I see someone (perhaps you - if so, thanks) has added a dismiss tag: this is a step in the right direction.

That add is now back with no way of removing it only making it smaller. I will never donate to wikipedia now cause of this. ExtraDry 08:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Users who are not logged in do not even have the opportunity to make it smaller.
I recognise that the Wikimedia foundation has given a great deal to this project. Regular editors such as myself have given much less, but we have given something, because we believed in the ideal. However, if this ad is now the modus vivendi, then I should set up, and add a link to it from each article I have substantially edited. Everyone who has contributed should be allowed to link to a donations ad. Is that the way we want to go? Geometry guy 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would simply prefer an explanation why the Board of Directors is being allocated $201,000 just to meet a few times and oversee the operation of the Foundation by the Executive Director and staff, who are being allocated over $600,000 to do so. This project is getting less and less credible every year. Dennab Resu 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the Board of Trustees/Directors (I think they are calling themselves "trustees" now) plans to directly hire consultants and experts to help them run a top ten web site, knowing that they themselves are not experts at that. The executive director needs money to run the foundation and the board needs money to evaluate the executive director. They are finally getting their act together, and doing it right costs money. WAS 4.250 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Soccer team

I've created a 'lil essay Jimbo that you might find an interesting read - it basically compares us humble editors to a soccer team set up. I personally think it explains the hierachy rather nicely! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I loved reading that article. It made me smile, well done! Lradrama 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Mr. Wales. I'm wondering why you don't want your userpage protected, as pretty much everyone vandalizes it. There are barley any constructive edits ever. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps Jimbo likes reading the wheatisms?LessHeard vanU 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikia doesn't seem separate

Dear Jimmy Wales. your page says that your Wikia is a completely separate organization from this Wikipedia. But you are part of both. Another guy (an old partner of yours from chicago?) is a part of both. And Angela Beazley is part of both. Plus, aren't there something like 10 thousand links from Wikipedia to your Wikia site, where you make money from ads? There is a lot of talk on this encyclopedia about neutral view and not having a conflict of interest. But you make a profit from Wikipedia this way, don't you?

There's no way on Earth that Wales will respond to this. It hits way too close to home (and wallet)! -- 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uhhh. . .what links are you talking about? And how would Angela Beazley being involved in both projects make Wales money? I don't think your comments make much sense. --Banana 04:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."1 Timothy 5:18 WAS 4.250 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the people are the same, therefore its the same organisation? Wow, that's quite the leap. --Deskana (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both sites have the string "wiki" in their names too. Connect the dots, man. - Crockspot 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say it's "quite the leap" to ignore that three principals are deeply involved in both organizations, to draw the conclusion that the organizations are "completely separate". What part of "completely" or of "separate" are you having trouble understanding? -- 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should assume good faith. The initial question was concerned that Jimmy Wales' user page says, "Wikia is a completely separate organization," which it clearly does say that. Then it's pointed out that three key principals of Wikia also serve on Wikipedia's board of trustees. Then you all make jokes about it. I guess blindness is a problem on Wikipedia? --Earthboat 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you examine the makeup of BOD's in the corporate world in general, you will often find the same people on different boards of companies that are partnered some way on projects, or share similar goals. To the average anarcho-socialist, this would be evidence of a conspiracy in and of itself. But in the real world of business, it is just business as usual. - Crockspot 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if donors to the Foundation realize they are contributing to a "business", then? And why describe them as "completely separate", then, if they are partnered some way on projects, or share similar goals? --Earthboat 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not describing anything about wikipedia/wikia, I'm just telling you that it isn't uncommon to find people sitting on several BODs. If there was something funny going on between the non-profit and for-profit entities, I am sure that the IRS would have already crawled so far up Jimbo's ass, he would be spitting out Bryl Creme. - Crockspot 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People reading this discussion might care to read:

WAS 4.250 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well other all wiki's have wiki in there name so i guess it's to do with the mediawiki software Richardson j 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So its impossible for 3 people who worked together on 1 project to go start another similar one? What projects have the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia partnered in? Here is the Wikimedia Foundation's Mission statement, here is Wikia's About Wikia page. "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally" versus "supporting the creation and development of wiki communities on any topic people are passionate about." Besides the fact that they are both released under free content licenses I'm not seeing any similar goals either. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is all well and good, but the initial question seems to be ignored. If there are so many similarities and cross-overs in leadership, why say that the organizations are "completely separate"? That just sounds like Jimbo is hiding something. I don't think it would be so alarming to say what the Wikipedia article about Wikia actually says: "Wikia, Inc. has close ties in terms of personnel and resources with the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia and other collaborative projects. Both use the same wiki software application called MediaWiki, maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, key players at Wikia simultaneously serve the Foundation in high-profile capacities -- namely, Wales (Chairman Emeritus), Michael E. Davis (Treasurer), and Beesley (serves on the Communications Committee of the Foundation and also chairs the Foundation’s Advisory Board)." It would seem that there's more trouble (with a capital 'T') right here in Wikipedia City than certain editor are even willing to consider.
That being said, I'd like everyone to take a quick look at the Board of Directors of the Linux Foundation. You'll see representatives from Motorola, HP, IBM, Novell, Intel, and Oracle. What you don't see are THREE representatives from IBM or Novell or Oracle (or Wikia). You get the difference? One arrangement is perfectly understandable and acceptable. The other orientation would be suspicious and cause for concern. --Libertyvalley 15:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WikiMedia's evolution from amateur hour to professionalism and accountability has been slow but consistently in the right direction. I see nothing that indicates WikiMedia will not continue in the right direction. Michael Davis, for example, is bowing out of WikiMedia in December 2007, I believe, helping the COI issue. And WikiMedia just months ago hired on a professional to be acting CEO. We are getting there. See evidence here. WAS 4.250 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that 'evidence' of 'getting there' is written by the Chairwoman, and they can't even translate her words into decent English, I'm not sure they're past the amateur hour. And isn't that Sue woman supposed to be the executive director? Strange that they're coordinating an 'ED committee', then, right? --Be Excited About Reading 03:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transparency and not wasting donor money on paid writers to perfect imperfect English in e-mail does not constitute "amateur hour"; but rather characterizes a lean efficient and revolutionary new paradigm for successful organizations that is eagerly being copied across the globe. (Well, maybe not, but my characterization is as valid as yours.) Sue is expected to be the next ED, but she is not confirmed yet in that position. She could decline. She could prove herself unfit. A better candidate could spring forth from god knows where. It's a process. It's not strange at all. WAS 4.250 03:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who said anything about 'paid' writers? Any peon volunteer could clean up that confusing slop in about 14 minutes. Just to be clear, you think the use of 'Hmm's in the publicly-released summary of a board meeting is moving in the right direction? How is that more professional than at least leaving out the 'Hmm's? It's no wonder no outsider's wanted to be an executive director of this project for at least a couple of years. --Be Excited About Reading 05:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People have offered. She prefers her current ... hmmmm ... style. Lot's of people want her unpaid position. It looks great on a CV. People will pay you for speaking engagements. The progress in professionalism is in hiring professionals like Sue to do what used to be done by unpaid volunteers like the current board members. When you are dealing with a serendipitous success like Wikipedia, the most important thing is to not make radical changes that mess up whatever unknown "chemistry" created the success. Unfortunately the success has not so far included sufficient funds for doing all that really should be done (like the foundation knowing the real names of wikipedia's admins). WAS 4.250 12:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For whatever its worth Angela isn't on the Wikimedia Board and hasn't been for quite some time. In a few months the only Wikia overlap will be Jimmy. It would be unreasonable to expect that none of Wikimedia's trustees would have involvement with other organizations. Of course there are risks that trustes might act on behalf of outside interests, but that is why they do not act alone. --Gmaxwell 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the guy's question above still goes unanswered -- why does Wales go out of his way to say that Wikipedia and Wikia are "completely separate". Even people who are sort of defending the relationships that do exist are saying nothing to address the question. Why is Wales saying they are "completely separate" when they are apparenly very clearly not? -- 04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would you ask such a thing? Isn't it utterly obvious that Wales wrote it because he believes it? In his mind they are in fact completely separate. Like for you your bedroom and bathroom are completely separate. While to me at this distance, your bedroom and bathroom are all part of your house and not separate. What is important is that the COI issues are well understood and are being handled appropriately as per the links provided. The whole point of anything being a COI is that the person involved is too close to the issue to make objective judgements about it. This doesn't magically change just because the person too close is in charge of something. I wish Bush could understand that! WAS 4.250 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My questions here have been ignored too. What projects have they supposedly partnered in? What are the similar goals? Mr.Z-man 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your questions are based on an offhand reply of mine, ie., "partnering" and "shared goals". FYI, I haven't got the foggiest idea what Wikia is up to, so don't start building a case upon my ignorance. I was just commenting about how it is not uncommon for the same people to be on several BODs. This is the second time I have had to qualify my comment, so please stop using my words to bolster your "case". (Probably why your questions are being ignored.) - Crockspot 21:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, my question was more in reply to the reply to your comment. I'm not building a case at all - If anything I'm agreeing with you - they are not closely related. Mr.Z-man 03:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going by memory, I believe I remember reading that Wikia has donated money to WikiMedia, that Wikia uses and has improved the copy-left Wiki software developed and used by WikiMedia/WikiPedia, that Wales promotes both Wikia and WikiMedia at events whether the event is for one or the other, that Wikia and WikiMedia both promote the free culture movement and copy-left copyright use. WAS 4.250 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a quite thoroughly researched blog article that sums up the whole problem pretty neatly, if you ask me. It's called (redacted). I'd say the most damaging evidence is that there are nearly 150,000 links to Amazon properties from Wikipedia, and Amazon then invested $10 million in Wikia. Then principals of Wikia are literally guiding the Board of Directors and the ultimate content decisions on Wikipedia. With 2,000,000 articles, is it really necessary to have 7.5% of them (if you averaged it out) with a link out to Amazon or IMDB? I'd say "no", but it would seem appropriate if you were running a link traffic racket. Hard to believe there's not more outrage about this. It doesn't help that Mister Wales hired some 24-year-old to Wikia, then tried to "install" him on the Arbitration Committee, the highest authority on Wikipedia rules (below the Board itself, I suppose). This doesn't look good, and the fact that Wales hasn't even responded may be telling. --Tom Doniphon 02:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that the Wikimedia Foundation goes out of its way to not get its nose in content disputes or decisions in Wikipedia, the rest of your post doesn't seem very credible. Nor is the fact that you use the appointment of Essjay to the ArbCom as proof of a massive conspiracy to milk link revenue for Wikia, because you're selectively quoting facts. You conveniently forgot to point out that Essjay at the time had been held in high regard within the English Wikipedia community due to his work within Wikimedia holdings, and that he was an administrator and bureaucrat in Wikipedia, prior to beginning working in Wikia. You also didn't consider that IMDB is frequently used as a source of data by "regular" Wikipedia editors, who couldn't care less about who gives money to Wikia. Maybe there is not an outrage because people don't take those intrigues seriously? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#IMDB WAS 4.250 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is, of course, 101% appropriate for a Wikipedia page on an actor, actress, director, or movie to link out to the corresponding IMDB page. It's massively useful to see who else starred with who / in which movie. People (i.e. our readers) do this all the time, and IMDB is the site to do it at.
IMDB may have its problems (as does Wikipedia), but that's no reason not to link to it. You may be able to construct a conspiracy theory "explaining" why there are so many links from Wikipedia to IMDB, but that's not the real reason there are so many links from Wikipedia to IMDB. (Think about it. If there were such a conspiracy, we'd either have (a) Jimbo surreptitiously inducing thousands of ordinary editors to add IMDB links, or (b) an outcry over IMDB links and a call for their removal, but with removal opposed by The Cabal. But there's no evidence of either of these things happening.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folks, the deep reasons for the song-and-dance about never-the-twain-shall-meet are 1) avoiding "self-dealing" between a charity and for-profit corporation 2) getting people to work for free is very difficult and it's dangerous if the idea takes hold that volunteers' work is being monetized. Now, regarding "self-dealing", remember, though Jimmy Wales may present a guru-dreamer image for press interviews, he's a former options-trading firm employee and a reasonably successful Internet businessman. It is absurd to think you're going to catch him committing serious IRS law violations for a trivial amount of money. He's completely clean there. People tend to "think small", imagining bottom-feeding ways of squeezing some chump-change via tawdry tactics like spammy links or penny-ante tax tricks. That's not what it's about. -- Seth Finkelstein 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has stated that, "The two entities, however, are distinct and separate with no managerial links", but the evidence shows that there have most definitely been (and for the time being, remain) three persons with managerial links -- Wales, Davis, and Beesley. Earthboat 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's artful phrasing, which comes off as much stronger than the narrow meaning it'll be given if you press them. That is, if you ask and get a reply, you'll almost certainly be told something that reduces to "Wales, Davis, and Beesley" aren't managers, so the statement that there are no managerial links is true. And of course it's true, since all it really means is that the paid employees who do the day-to-day operations are different. You're reading it as something like "no high-level links" - but that's not what it said. And of course there are high-level links, that's obvious. But their exact characterization is a bit more nuanced, which can lead to confusion. -- Seth Finkelstein 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confusion, perhaps. Deception might be the better word. Too bad Essjay didn't ultimately slip under the radar... then there could have been four managers/directors/arbitrators with links between Wikia and the WMF. As I said above, look at any open/outside Board of Directors. It's rare to find so many people from one company either sitting on that Board, advising it from an Advisory board, or (if Essjay had prevailed) judging policies at the highest level of administration under the Board. The beauty of this is that Jimmy Wales not only doesn't see this as a problem, he flat denies (in his head and in his words) that this non-separation even exists! Too funny. I wish he would answer here, but he seems to be AWOL from this discussion. Libertyvalley 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AWOL stands for Absent Without Leave. Why would Jimbo need your leave to be absent from this discussion? --MediaMangler 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I point out above, Jimbo has both legal and financial reasons to say what he does, so I severely doubt he'd say anything new even if he were participating in this discussion. Meaning the following in fun, what would you expect him to say? "You caught me! I never thought anyone would look at people who stand to make millions from Wikia, and Wikimedia eminences, and see the connections. And I would have gotten away with it all, except for those rotten kids!". I'm just saying that people shouldn't waste their energy on making a strawman he could knock over with a breath. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The plot thickens. WAS 4.250 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, this is all well-known. I have notes on much, much, harsher stuff. I don't go around posting it because there's really no point, in that if the original insider criticisms didn't affect him, powerless outsiders repeating those criticisms certainly won't make any difference. The monetization of Wikipedia via Wikia is no secret. It's just not the sort of chump-change methods people usually think of, since they're not used to the scale of tens(?), hundreds(?) of millions of dollars. Here, read this Business 2.0 article: Wikipedia founder hunts for gold "Jimmy Wales built Wikipedia into one of the largest and most collaborative sites on the Internet - but has yet to make his fortune. Here's how he plans to fix that." -- Seth Finkelstein 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seth, Jimbo has done well by doing good. Where is the problem? (I know you think people are sucked into contributing based on their flawed perceptions, but I find that true of all of society.) WAS 4.250 04:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm not sure this is an appropriate place to outline all my objections, but let me just briefly cite my column on the Essjay affair: "One of Wikipedia's major public relations successes has been in misdirecting observers into a narrative of technological miracles, diverting attention from analysing its old-fashioned cult appeal. ... A charismatic leader, who peddles a type of spiritual transcendence through selfless service to an ideal, finding a cadre of acolytes willing to devote their lives (without payment) to the organisation's projects - that's a story worth telling. But not abetting." -- Seth Finkelstein 10:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I remember reading that. Seth, it is good writing if the goal is effective use of rhetorical devices to produce an emotional response in the reader. But it is poor sociology, substantially misrepresents the evidence that I know about, and provides no evidence at all for its one sided over-blown conclusions. I believe you to be a smart and usually fair-minded person, so I'll take the time to respond to the specifics. Not for the purpose of winning debate points, but to hopefully open your mind to the idea that just mayb