User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 33

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

Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34


Wikipediaholic `Userbox

I tried to but a userbox on that displays

Star of life.svg This user scored 1,000,000 (You are Jimbo Wales) on the Wikipediholic test.

{{User Wikipediholic|1,000,000 (You are Jimbo Wales)}}

In good humor because the Wikipediaholic test really says that if you get a 1000000 on the test then "You are Jimbo Wales! We love you!" Users are reverting my edit, can you tell me why? It seems to be an appopiate edit?

IDK, seems like a good edit to me. What is possible is that this topic has already been visited. That is a recurrent problem on Wikipedia, poor memory. I mean, of course, as a system, not the memory of the individuals. This comes up all the time in my area of interest. The same discussions are held over and over and over again with new editors. I had proposed a template a while back to go on talk pages to act as a sort of "memory" of past discussions that tended to recur and got some agreement on it but I must admit that I never followed up on that idea. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Because he hasn't taken the test and if he did that wouldn't be his score, that is the answer to one question. Would you answer one question and then say that was your score? It also implies he has taken the test, and you have no evidence for that either. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, don't care whether he took the test. I think it is a decent edit and there is no reason to chop it. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a questionable edit. While on the one hand WP:BLP applies, on the other hand it does read as an obvious joke to me at least. But suppose someone put a joke on your user page while you were too busy to deal with it. Would you want it left on or removed? I'm sure you have heard jokes you would not want on your user page. Do we want to be guessing which jokes to leave and which to revert? I suggest that while Jimbo is not actively editing, he isn't reviwing jokes put on his page and should be removed until he gets the time to decide for himself if he wants the joke there or not. Leave it here on his talk page for him to decide. There was a priest a rabbi and a pastor who walked into a bar; the bartender said "What is this, some kind of joke?" WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but (big BUT) my page does not say "I trust that you'll add something here that makes me smile." You see, Jimbo is inviting this sort of innocuous edit and who are you (or I) to say what will or will not make him smile. What makes our assessment of that any more accurate than Assasin Joe's. Jimbo trusts Assasin Joe and I see no reason that he should not. So the edit should stand. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I did read some of the wikiholic very recently (and indeed added my own question) and reading the if you are Jimbo you get a million points did make me laugh, I think for me the issue though is it looked like Jimbo had taken the test which, presumably, he hasn't, I would be much happier if such humour could be worked in in a way that made it clear it was someone else's joke. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
JustaHulk - while you have a point, he wrote that there many years ago when the word "you" referred to hundreds, not millions of people. Things change. All in all, I agree more with SqueakBox's concerns. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't cite "things change" as a reason to invalidate Jimbo's invitation to "add something here that makes me smile." If Jimbo wants to rescind that invitation, he is free to. Until then, it stands. Mike R (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mike R, and I think that the Userbox is fine, but if people take it this seriously then I suppose it could use Jimbo's confirmation before it could be taken off. Assasin Joe talk 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure until then Jimbo's invitation stands but you cant decide alone that this particular edit will stand, Mike. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
He's not standing alone, but I will wait for Jimbo's consent before putting it back on again. Assasin Joe talk 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Meh, you can put it back if you care to, Jimbo's invitation is pretty clear. It is up to you if you think it will "make him smile". --JustaHulk (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would find it somewhat humurous that the userbox would be placed on his page with 1,000,000 points score, and even added the text that displays "You are Jimbo Wales" just like it shows in the Score sheet, and i'll even add the originial text ("You are Jimbo Wales! We love you!") on the userbox if some one takes it as seriously as to question whether Jimbo really took the test. And yes, the invitation does state that you can edit his page and may make him smile, so I will put it back on. Assasin Joe talk 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Lack of Involvement on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Projects

I believe that you do not contribute to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects enough. The perception that results is that you do not take them seriously. Your comment that being an administrator is not a "big deal" is indicative of your attitude. My perception is that users here only take the rules that they believe in seriously and tend not to care about the consequences of their actions. All organizations--but especially large ones--need strong leadership. Many of your lesser-known sites have never even been edited by you. I'm not talking about foreign-language wikis, but English ones. We have the arbitration committee, but they are divided and operate in a limited scope. Committees are notorious for being slow and weak, as well. We need someone to set a good example for administrators and to clarify what our complex--and increasingly obscure--rules really mean.--Th45623j (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cincinnatus - WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Solon, too. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this you Jimbo?

You and this guy look like brothers. :p See The Wookieepedian (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ouch --mitrebox (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
ouch indeed.--Ѕandahl 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Holy...Keilana|Parlez ici 07:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. See:

  Zenwhat (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Look! The camera man is taller than Danny.--mitrebox (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

have you seen this before?

Hi? I hope your administrator(s) from wikipedia can be maintained a good quality standard. Please refer to their works:[1] Actually it doesn't matter for me much because I didn't edit Wikiedpia anymore, but I just feel sick of your administrators. I wish you could reform your mechanism of choosing administators sometime, otherwise most readers would like to switch to Knol instead. I know you won't take any action 100 and 10% for sure. At least this message can give you some impressions in your mind. Coloane (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In Soviet Wikipedia, bad article delete you!   Zenwhat (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot high priority list

Hi there, I took the liberty of adding this talk page to SineBot's high priority list, since it looks like a lot of new people tend to come here and quite a few comments were going unsigned. Lemme know if you'd it rather not. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to remain anonymous on Wikipedia?

It just seems contradictory to me, considering how this site's users are supposed to be held to standards like "assuming good faith," and "maintaining neutral point-of-view." I don't want to be a bootlicker, and I don't want to accrue bootlickers of my own, but I don't know how to contribute successfully and avoid that, when every Tom, Dick, and Harry can see my IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The biggest flaw of Wikipedia is that it's too easy to be anonymous (or at least to have the feeling of anonymity). If Wikipedia required people to register with verifiable e-mail addresses (i.e. non-free) and edit using their real names the user experience would be greatly improved. Sunlight, after all, is the best disinfectant. (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't argue with you whether or not the illusion of anonymity on Wikipedia is a flaw. But I think your suggestion is a poor one. What's a verifiable e-mail address? Gmail? My e-mail through my ISP (assuming I'm technical enough to set it up)? If you're truly interested in discarding anonymity, simply use a nearly decade-old technology with the IP address as a hash.
If you feel that's true, there's always Citizendium for you. Have fun :) -Halo (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You could try registering.   Zenwhat (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that maintaining anonymity is close to impossible, and I want to know why.
If you create an account your IP address is no longer public. It has many other benefits too. Hut 8.5 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but I perused the list of benefits to registered users, and none of them really appeal to me.
You may remain anonymous (i.e. with your IRL identity hidden) but you cannot remain unknown (i.e. with your edit history hidden). That is the question you might want to ask, "why can I not edit without revealing my edit history?" No-one ever said you could. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, new question: "Why is my edit history available to non-administrators?"
All you have to do is create an account and no one will see your IP unless you vandalize or get in an edit fight either of which could cause a checkuser to check up on you. To avoid an edit history, create a new account as often as you wish. So in summary, only make edits you believe are useful, never fight with anyone about your edits, only edit while logged in, and get a new usename as often as you like. Easy as pie. Except most people who want zero accountability want it to use in situations where they fight with people about their edits, so for them it is useless as they will be checkusered, identified and told they are no longer welcome here. You can be absolutely unaccountable or you can fight about your edits. You don't get to do both. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"...never fight with anyone about your edits..." I appreciate your frankness, but from what I understand of Wikipedia heated arguments over edits are nearly inevitable. I'm not concerned about checkuser though; enough users with the privilege have abused it that I wouldn't trust claims about its results unless they came from within the Foundation itself.
Short answer: Because wikipedias licence dictates that all editors who contributed should be known for reproduction. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of most users, your IP address tells others almost nothing about you. It will give your ISP and depending on which ISP you have, it may give the general area you live in. Many ISPs use dynamic IPs that change periodically. Its not like I can just click a couple links and pull up a map to your house given your IP address. Mr.Z-man 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The real question is what benefit is there in anonymity for Wikipedia? The answer is none. Anonymity bring out the worst aspect of human behavior. The most dangerous and corrupt abuses of power go hand-in-hand with a lack of accountability and transparency. One needs only to reference Wikipedia's problems with admin and secret mailing lists to understand the problems that anonymity bring to Wikipedia. (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It may seem paradoxical, but research into that, as little as there has been, contradicts that. And if you are so critical of anonymity, why didn't you log in before answering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
68.117 is (anonymously) showing interesting flashes of the particular axe they wish to hold to the grindstone. Benefit or not, a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - there's nothing in there about "any user who wishes to register their real-life identity". Raising the issue of "problem with admin and secret mail lists" is a fallacy, those people are known to each other through pseudonyms which have an investment in accountability by their very persistence. Which "anonymous" identity joined which "secret" mail list without anyone catching on?
The great benefit of Wikipedia is that any person, anytime, can make an edit; anyone else can revert that edit; those who wish to participate on an ongoing basis can do so through a pseudonym which has a history; and everyone can drop out and reappear later. Non-registered editors are identified by their IP address, just like every site on the internet knows the IP address of the user making the connection. The only caveat is that we all have to get along. What's so hard about that? Franamax (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial topic X!

I'm frustrated because I've been having a messy dispute over controversial topic X!

I would like you to risk your credibility as Chief Emeritus, infuriate a vast number of users, and run Wikia into the ground by being a rogue dictator for once instead of being so benevolent -- strictly for my sake, of course, because I'm a nice guy.

Can you help me?? Face-surprise.svg

If you refuse or outright ignore me, I will have to therefore logically assume Wikipedia has been compromised by a conspiratorial cabal intended to distort the truth about controversial topic X. I will then have to follow up by letting my account go down in flames, like the Hindenberg, by engaging in a downward spiral of flamewars that inevitably lead to my account being permanently blocked.

Thanks! Your help would be appreciated!   Zenwhat (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo please note that Zenwhat is completely wrong about controversial topic X. Controversial topic X is a balanced article that gives NPOV account of all of the Xionist enitites evil schemes to dominate from the culturally managanomus Y people. Yslam is a religion of peace whereas Xistantiy is responsible for all the worlds wars and flatulence. They even have the gaul to call us Yerrorists. I mean come on how can we be Yerrorists? Yslam is a religion of peace. Except for that one attack by Yohammed Yttbar and that other one by Yamzi Yusef. Oh and that attack on the XXX Xole, and that time we blew up two of their embassies, and all those Xirplanes we hijacked over the last 4 decades, and Xobari Towers attack, but other than that Yslam is a religion of peace. Yerror be with you. --mitrebox (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Mitrebox is teh scokpuppet! Pelase block imdeiately! :) Franamax (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy, User:Mitrebox has especially been engaging in POV-pushing on this issue. I mean, just look at the last letter of his account name. Why do you allow this to continue?!?

And I've dealt with several administrators abusing their powers by immediately banning anyone who supports Z.

See WP:Special log.   Zenwhat (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Z is a tool of the U.N.s Illuminati OverSoul. One just has to look at the Pythagorean therom to see how they orchestrated this Invisible war: Z squared is the sum of X squared and Y squared.--mitrebox (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Come everyone, let's work together in a spirit of respect to settle this dispute. Understandably, given the complex history, the advocates of X and those who disagree with them have a difficult time remaining calm. After all, lives have been lost, core human values are at stake (for both sides), and the topic has been debated by philosophers, theologians, and scientists for centuries. We can only try our best to work together in harmony, not *engaging* in the dispute, but merely *presenting* the dispute in a manner that both sides can point to our work and say, with pride, "I helped with that, and if you read it, you will understand what this controversy is about."

Most people can do that, but sadly a few can not. And for all of us, there are probably some topics where we should not trust ourselves to be good wikipedians. Great wisdom is shown by those who pull back from disputes in which they feel too strong an emotional stake, a stake which may compromise their ability to be calm and loving and neutral.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, copypasta. :) --JustaHulk (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution License

Jimbo, this e-mail says that submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, posters, open spaces, and artistic artifacts for the July 17-19, 2008 Wikimana in Alexandria, Egypt must be dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution License. Maybe it is time to say at the bottom of the edit boxes that WikiMedia uses that all NEW material submitted must be dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution License. Should we create a transition period between now and when the Free Software Foundation updates its GFDL to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License? WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA would be closer and no. We do not need to confuse things further. Best to let things be sorted out by the merge. If the merge does not take place then we should then consider further action.Geni 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC) and non free logos

Hi Jimbo, I'm sorry for my English. I'm an admin on Italian Wikipedia and a OTRS volunteer. On, I strongly believe that there is a savage use of non free logos (trademarks) on templates, despite our EDP states that non free content must use only in main namespace. This is an example, but there are many, many others. I believe that using non free content on templates is opposite WMF licensing policy. I think that a very large use (not exceptions) of non free content in templates is not the way to have a minimal use of such material. I tried to explain my point of view, but many wikipedians told me that this view is exceedingly rigid, and that should not apply licensing policy in this way (not like, for example, or, that forbid use of non free content in templates). What do you think about? Thanks--Trixt (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is MyWikiBiz a "spammer" site?

There is a discussion (nearly an edit war) going on with User:Calton here and here. Basically, User:Calton thinks it's really important to deny MyWikiBiz an external link from a hardly-ever visited page about artist Liz Cohen. Although the linked-to website page is the only one-page source on the Internet for licensed photos, a licensed interview, and a re-sampled video of the artist's work, User:Calton insists on calling it a "spam" site, operated by a "spammer". User:Calton is not an administrator. Two different administrators, however, have told User:Calton to stop removing the link to MyWikiBiz, since it does add unique value to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that has about 15 external links from Wikipedia, while Wikia has about 12,000 and Amazon has about 50,000. In your opinion, is User:Calton correct to call MyWikiBiz a "spam" site operated by a "spammer", and is he correct to be trying to remove this link from Liz Cohen, in defiance of two different Wikipedia administrators? -- Shelborne Concierge (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground; because treating for-profit sites like Mywikibiz and people like its main operator, Greg, (who has a beef with Wikipedia) as enemies hurts Wikipedia content and the community social dynamics. Treat encyclopedia content choices strictly according to "what choice best helps to create the best encyclopedia we can write". WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's spam. Treating spamming as if it were spamming is not "treating WP like a battleground" -- unless you stretch the meaning and spirit of that sentence to its breaking point. And the above brand-new user has, shall we say, a familiar argumentative style, reminiscent of a certain long-banned user. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good resource and useful link to me. Tyrenius (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The key difference between Wikipedia and MyWikiBiz is that in the latter, blatant spammers and POV-pushers (advocate POV instead of NPOV) openly acknowledge what they're doing. On Wikipedia, it isn't the general rule, though it happens frequently and when it does, it's an open secret. WikiBiz isn't in and of itself a spam-site, but basically does Wikipedia a good service by unloading spam-cruft onto their own site, which Liz Cohen profits from. The fact that they try to pretend that this is not what they're doing is hilarious.

And by "spam-cruft," I mean stuff that isn't blatant advertising. Just subtle advertising, like Bawls.

(The note above was brought to you by the Acme Corporation. "Acme: For fifty years, the leader in creative mayhem.")

  Zenwhat (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have counted no less than four different administrators who feel that the link should be maintained in Wikipedia's article about Liz Cohen. I count one non-administrator who feels that the link should be removed. I am not a new account, and I think what User:Calton is standing on his head about involves far more portion of revenge than it does of encyclopedia-building. On the basis of the 4-to-1 count, I am restoring the link to the article. I am no less certain that Calton will revert it once again. -- John Russ Finley (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I just happened to stumble across this discussion; I am not usually involved in discussing these sorts of things. I did follow the links, however, and the striking thing to me is how non-notable the subject of the Liz Cohen article is. An AfD, if successful, would solve the whole issue of what should be linked from that article, because there would be nothing to link from. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of no reason why an editorially-appropriate link to should be deleted. Whether any given link is editorially appropriate depends of course on complex questions which will be local to individual articles, but certainly we should reject the extreme argument in this case. There can of course be sites which really are spam sites... for example those targetted by automated spam bots. These can and should be dropped into the blacklist. I do not see any reason the current case rises to that level.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A good leader.

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17

  Zenwhat (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I always believed it was four to six short, well constructed sentences laying out a premise and possibly a resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NYT checks fact with Wikipedia

Wikipedia should of course rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking like—for example—the The New York Times, who it seems have just checked a fact with, um, Wikipedia.[2] Here's what they read and here's the rapid rewrite as a result (but too late for them). The article still lacks any references! Tyrenius (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia generally works, which is why any and all criticism of Wikipedia is a good thing. A lot of users have an emotional investment in the Wikipedia project, so they take it personally when it's criticized. Because of this, it's been shown over and over that when Wikipedia is criticized, it gets better. It's precisely for this reason that I argue on WP:FAIL that comparisons between Wikipedia and Britannica are so inaccurate. There has been so much in the media about, "Which is better? Britannica or Wikipedia?" This has driven Wikipedia editors to work very hard towards developing the articles on Wikipedia which are also found on Britannica. Based on this, though, it is misleading to argue that Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica, since correlation doesn't imply causation. After all, Wikipedia's current policy allows users to cite Britannica itself and other encyclopedias as a source for information. [3] According to the scholastic method, that places Wikipedia below the reliability of an encyclopedia, since Wikipedia doesn't rely solely upon primary and secondary sources, while Britannica does. Despite any empirical uncertainty about Wikipedia, it's difficult to put forth a theoretical argument for the Wikipedia model when no regard is given to reason, to experts, or the scholastic method.   Zenwhat (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point here is the irony. Tyrenius (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the average article in Wikipedia is more accurate than the average newspaper article, it does make sense for them to look it up here. But since we are less accurate than many other sources for many things, it makes sense to try to find a better source for anything a newspaper wishes to print as a fact their readers can rely on. Everyone makes mistakes, and no single source can be trusted to not have a typo or a bias or some other error. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is that newspaper articles are often used in Wikipedia as verifiable and reliable source material, despite complaints from many of us that they often simply represent little more than what one journalist has written which gets by one editor in time for tonight's print deadline, and after which has been transferred to dead trees corpses under the rubric of a fancy masthead. None of which succeeds in transmogrifying into anything special. As compared with something in Wikipedia which may well have passed without change for months or years under the eyes of hundreds of skeptical editors, many of whom are acknowledged subject experts, but who have no way of proving it, because Wikipedia has been structured deliberately as to make it as free as possible from anybody needing to take personal responsibility for anything. So the crappy newspaper wins. And there's your irony. SBHarris 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The reporter was completely careless, the phrase "where poderida meant powerful" that was found on the original Wiki entry is complete nonsense, "poderida" is not even a word in neither ancient or modern Spanish, the correct term for powerful is poderoso (a), Wikipedia can't take the blame if a reporter doesn't make a quick check on a dictionary before posting content on a newspaper. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, do you have a source for the claim that Wikipedia is more reliable than the newspaper? This one case of carelessness by the New York Times doesn't prove it.

Sbharris says is right. Also, please notice: Even with that re-write, the person still used Spanish Wikipedia as a source. I fixed it. [4]

Also, Caribbean~H.Q, the New York Times editor claimed to use Wikipedia as a source for the term, to double-check it at the last minute -- not the other way around. Wikipedia's article on it has claimed the "olla poderida" term for a while now. [5].   Zenwhat (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many many sources for how inaccurate newspapers are and how accurate compared to encyclopedias we are. We are better than newspapers, but not yet as good as the best encyclopedias. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I did the rapid rewrite, and I didn't use es.wp as a source -- that attribution had been there from the very first revision of the page. I didn't know the etiquette around removing it, so I left the es.wp attribution in even though it wasn't really true. The Spanish version is still substantially the same as the version before my edit. I made the reference to Spanish Wikipedia mostly as a swipe, and in attempt to head off anyone who might check that page on the assumption that it is more authoritative. I still think my now-deleted section has a place in the article. My source is also in Spanish, but my revision linked to a verifiable check of that same research. (I have a feeling this discussion belongs on that article's talk page now) Xueexueg (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's another sign of how important wikipedia has become as a source of knowledge in the world, and how necessary it is to get articles right, or, at the least, to tag them with {{verify}} and so on as a warning to unsuspecting readers. Tyrenius (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks cheap publicity

You are provoking a lot of peoples in the name of knowledge. What a false image of Muhammed (peace be upon him) has to do with Islam. But you have it their because you know that Muslims will not like it and you will get some publicity on the expense of people's sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Sorry to bother you. Could you tell me what I need to do do to get the main page on a wikia to hide the title and the tab at the top to say main page? I am an administrator and bureaucrat on a wikia. Thanks. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, better to ask at Wikia. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Could you tell me exactly where to go? Earthbendingmaster 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See this question from the Main Page FAQ. Graham87 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ich lerne auch Deutsch

Hallo, Jimbo! Sehr Angenehm. Ich heiße Javier, und ich wohne in Argentinien. Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch (Actually, I started studying one month ago), Englisch und Spanisch, meine Muttersprache. Mein Benutzername (oder nickname) in spanisch Wikipedia ist Greek, aber antworten Sie mich hier "if you want to". Tschüss. -- (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia victimizing its editors

Hi Mr. Wales,

As you are aware there are a few article that are extremely controversial like Islamic-Jewish or Israel/Palestine related articles. As far as I am aware even the Israel/Palestine case went to arbcom.

I sometimes feel that wikipedia systematically victimizes its editors by letting them edit such articles causing much stress for the editors and making life miserable for all of them. We know that even within academia such issues are very controversial mainly because of the political implication of the scholarship.

In my opinion, it is best for wikipedia that in rare cases, it asks a couple of scholars with different point of views to write an article (modified britannica type)... I am aware that this is against the spirit of wikipedia but I think wikipedia should not forget that the people who go through all those pain editing certain articles are human. Yes, they are voluntarily doing that but yet they are obliged to do that because of the reputation of wikipedia. The point is that someone will eventually voluntarily do that, so it is not really voluntarily in a sense.

I think wikipedia does not take into account the above points. It never cares about editors, it only cares about the articles. Admittedly the "no personal attack", "no harassment" policies are for editors but that's insufficient. I believe implementation of such provisions would benefit wikipedia as well because the energy and time of the editors will be used in more useful areas.

Regards, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Yes, new editors are rather like enlisted men in the army. There's an infinite supply of them, and it's fairly easy to let them take the cannon fire. They're relaceable. You might think that the health of the encyclopedia gets first priority, but you'd be wrong. Vandal IP's are coddled here despite terrific damage they do in time and content, basically because blocking them immediately and at length *might* hurt some anonymous child's ability to edit. So, a school full of vandals can erase pages and replace them with obsenities, for years, and nothing happens but 72 hour blocks, again and again and again and again. However, let one administrator feel theatened, as in the Overstock case, and an entire dynamic range of IP addresses can and will be blocked indefinitately (taking out an entire ISP like Broadweave), just to get at one sockpuppet user. So, you pretty much get a feeling for whose needs are being served here, and what's the most important thing. As I said, welcome. Leave your idealism at the door. SBHarris 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you pointed out to another problem in wikipedia. But I am referring to a different one for which I have also proposed a solution. My solution is against the spirit of wikipedia but I think it is one of the exceptions that should be applied to "extremely controversial" articles.--Be happy!! (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to emotion.

"It never cares about editors, it only cares about the articles."

I wish that was true. It isn't. They wrote an entire Muhammad FAQ for you and a detailed FAQ on how to turn off images. Wikipedia regularly tries to accommodate people in even the most absurd ways.

However, the fact is: The people don't matter. I don't matter, you don't matter, Jimmy doesn't matter. Nobody does. All that matters is that we create a good encyclopedia. Every person is irrelevant except to the extent that they further or hinder that goal.

With that said, as the University of Minnesota noted, good editors on Wikipedia have no incentive to do good edits. They are essentially just "good samaritans" which is why they are the minority.   Zenwhat (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Zenwhat, this has nothing to do with Muhammad article. It is about Palestine/Israel and Islam/Judaism articles. Please see Straw man. I can not see the relevance of Appeal to emotion here; I am talking about real experiences. I am referring to experienced editors who waste much time over two or three articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz: Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Also, what I said above was a bit stupid. Yes, individual editors do matter. Of course they do. You're right about that and I overreacted to your remarks.

However, that can't really be used as an argument to support shutting down debate on a certain article, to have it be "reviewed" by a select group of experts. If Jimmy or any member of the Foundation gets involved in the Israel\Palestine debacle, it makes it look like they're biased and could drive a huge wedge between the userbase. If you were to just suggest Wikipedia ought to have experts evaluate articles, period, that might be something Jim could take into account. But since you invoke a specific issue, that makes it seem like you want him to intervene to help you win a content dispute and you do this by appealing to your personal feelings of frustration.

I think having "experts" play a more active role in Wikipedia is a good idea, but the community doesn't want that and the Foundation doesn't want to push for it, probably because they're afraid Wikipedia will end up like Citizendium (closed to practically everyone and with almost no content generated) and afraid to stand up to the community.   Zenwhat (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zenwhat,
I think I overacted too for which I apologize.
I have personally no involvement in Palestinian/Israel articles but I was involved in Islam/Judaism articles few month ago (to which I stopped contributing because I realized it is not good for my health).
Yes, You are definitely right that Jimmy should not personally involve himself. But what if the involved editors themselves choose the scholars they want to ask for writing the article? Each party can choose one scholar (who has to have good credentials).
And what if this exception be granted very rarely? You seem to be much more far sighted than me but it is really painful to be involved in those debates. I know how it is.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How to set your browser to not see images

Imagine a wikipedia space page with instructions on "How to set your browser to not see images". Imagine a link to it in the toolbox on the left side of each page. Image a more noticeable template that links to it, available for pages which are routinely problematic due to images that are shocking to a minority of wikipedia editors, rather than shocking/offensive to enough to have the image only linked to. Imagine a Wikimania conference in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If only there was already a way to do this, then people complaining could stop complaining about WP:NOTCENSORED.

Perhaps we could create a complaints department for "users who are offended by Wikipedia"? For the children.   Zenwhat (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This solution is now implemented. See the talk page for the suggested usage of the template. It is only recommended to be used in a very few places, and I have placed it on those. In the future it could be placed on any user talk page who seems to need the information. It is not to be used to mark articles or images that someone thinks needs marking, only to get the word out to people who don't know how or that they can make their browser stop displaying images. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Allstarecho (talk · contribs)

Hello Jimbo, could you give me a little bit more information about your block of Allstarecho? I can see that he was slightly incivil, but there are users who make far greater attacks than he has and get off without a block, or even a warning. I just don't feel it's really fair to Allstarecho that an example should be made of him, when there are far worse users here. I also feel a week is a little excessive - would there be any chance you could reduce it down to a length more in line with civility blocks (such as 24 hours?)? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will reduce the block to 24 hours per your request. But the solution is not to go easy on users because other people are worse. The solution is to give the worse users long timeouts until they can learn that incivility is not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, I'll pop over and have a word with him and make sure that he knows that it will be unacceptable to make those sort of comments in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Have to say, Ryan, I disagree with you. Allstarecho has a fairly confrontational method for dealing with things, and I think Jimmy's "time out" was in order. That said, if the 24 hour block does the job, bully for that, because shorter block = more contribs from him. His work is generally high quality, but I find his attitude to be incredibly confrontational. Maybe there's another way to deal with that, though - I wonder if he'd be open to adoption or some informal mentoring from a community member he trusts? - Philippe | Talk 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that he does have the occasional lapse in temprement, and hopefully a 24 hour block will serve as a great reminder for him to keep the decorum whilst editing. I'm more than happy to offer some form of adoption/mentorship to him - a lot of his work is good, but it couldn't hurt having a little help on the way. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, and offer of adoption.. I am however a big boy and can take care of myself. Therefore I decline. Have a great day! - ALLSTAR echo 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a wrist-slap from Jimbo is all that is necessary. It was a minor infraction and nothing more than a minor 24 hour block was necessary. Allstar is pretty smart - I'm sure he's grown from the experience. I think we should let it die for now. --David Shankbone 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And Ryan was right to conclude I wanted to "make an example", and I did. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The mindset that thinking calling any editor a "jerk" is defensible also causes a deterioration in the wikispace environment, as is denigrating the contributions of editors in relation to their perceived faults. The consideration of the consequences of all comments and actions need careful weighing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for wikipedia, new project

Don't really know where to send this, so i putted it here. I thrust it will go to the proper place: After watching this: [6] I thought it would be cool if the worlds data could be here on the Internet for the world to use, for creating charts of data from countries population to amount of people with certain decease in certain region in a certain time. It would help students and scholars all over the world, and then, the world itself. So I thought, since it's in the same page as wikipedia's mission, it should be here.

Hope you at least think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to alter Template:User for interwiki.

I wrote some code which would allow Template:User to be interwikied.

Etcetera. It works for all wikis.

Useful, huh?

If you think so, leave a comment at Template talk:User#Altering template-user to allow for Interwiki.   Zenwhat (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally Jimbo doesn't get involved in the nitty-gritty technical details of templates. If you'd like to discuss a change to a widely used template, you might want to post a notice to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo photo in Advertising Age magazine

I saw the photo of you at the Library of Congress in the Wired/Condé Nast ad in the January 28, 2008 issue of Advertising Age. I think it was a very nice photo. --Eastmain (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! That was a cool photo shoot and the poloaroids I saw that day looked cool. I want to buy some copies of this magazine... :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

An essay (that, um, mentions you)

Good day Jimbo {and associated watchers of his page}. It is with trembling fingers that I type this, particularly with the link I'm about to post.

I have written a horribly, horribly long essay that's theoretically designed to be read by new editors (though an engineer would probably point out that if this is my true intention, I should have made it shorter). In this essay I, um, poke a bit of fun at you Mr. Wales. It's meant to be gentle and my tongue is so far in my cheek, I believe it is poking through and getting scratched by my own stubble. I have presented it to a small number of editors and admins for their review, and received (if I may be so bold to characterize it as such) reasonably good feedback on it. It has been sitting for a while now, and I think I should either get rid of it, or start soliciting broader feedback. Before I do this, I would like to be certain that you, Mr. Wales (may I call you Jimbo?) are not so offended by the poking of fun (gently, did I mention it was gentle?) at your esteemed self that you would like to see these references removed.

The fact that this will get fairly broad attention from a fairly broad section of experienced editors is almost completely unintentional.

But mostly I'd like to know if you object to the tiny bit of humour that I, a wee nubbin of an editor, have attempted to have, not at your expense, but rather with it. Yes, with it.

Scurrying away in terror,

WLU (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And naturally, allow me to make myself look like a goober, by forgetting to post the link. Thus. WLU (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Donal Wales Junior High School

I read the Jimmy Donal Wales Junior High School Clarion. Do you? . . . AKA The Anti-Scientology News. Just keeping you up-to-date on the latest doings at your imaginary namesake institution. I especially like this latest "interview": David S. Touretzky discusses Scientology, Anonymous and Tom Cruise. It is hard to figure out out who is interviewing who . . . or who is the more biased, Touretzky or the "journalist". Carry on! --JustaHulk (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to stir stuff up and trifle in other people's hard work. Mike H. Fierce! 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Heaven forbid I should point out the elephant in the room when others are "hard at work". And they are indeed hard at work. --JustaHulk (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wei Wenhua

For posterity:

I am just signing a note here so this will get archived in due course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Excuse me Mr. Wales I've something very serious to imform you of. A long term vandal Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mmbabies has been desturbing this website since his indef of 30 March 2007. Mmbabies has been using sockpuppets which orginate from Houston,Texas a large US city which could be collateral damage due to the fact that a majority of its people have AT&T DSL (ISP this moron has).Mmbabies has been making death threats against VIPS(important people), wikipedian users, and no one here has done nothing about it. I ask you Mr. Jimbo Wales to make a immediate police report to the HOUSTON PD(POLICE) , and other authorites. I have made a abuse report on this joker this past weekend.see Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/ You should be informed this because this guy might get this site sued or someone might be hurt or worse killed.Thank you for you time.Rio de oro (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Can some please reply back this is an important matter, I think the Foundation needs to be involved with this ASAP.--Rio de oro (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you email Mike Godwin about this (mgodwin[at] with diffs and all? My talk page is not really the best place for a timely report of something, since although I generally read it all, I read it in fits and starts...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is Mike Godwin; is he like your right-hand man in chain-of-command.--Rio de oro (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Mike Godwin was hired last year as the WikiMedia Foundation's lawyer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

New pages

Do you ever look to see what kind of new articles people are trying to add to wikipedia. It deeply concerns me the sort of articles that most people post. Aren't you concerned with the high proportion of articles on American related non notable people, websites etc when very few seem to be contributing "traditional encyclopedia articles". We have masses of lists of missing articles but I rarely see these decent articles started and people working on filling them in. If you look at the new pages at random you'll see what I mean. Perhaps we get better articles at certain times of the day but most of the new page content is to be honest very poor. Does this concern you? ♦ King of Baldness ♦ $1,000,000? 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo created a new article on Mzoli's, very much countering the systemic bias, and the article got afd, amongst other anomalies. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It concerns me a bit, but on the other hand, we probably would prefer the people who are making articles on random cruft to keep doing that, rather than bothering people who want to write on more traditionally "serious" topics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-robotic systemic bias on Wikipedia.

Error: Consensus failure. Content is disputed. Issuing failsafe function, "Bother Jimmy();"

Jimmy, it has come to my attention that there is rampant anti-robotic bigotry on Wikipedia. And this is a disgrace.

Robots and roboticists everywhere should not have to face the kind of unfounded prejudice that they do on Wikipedia. I understand that you think human rights are very important. Well, I ask, what about the rights of robots? Is it okay that they be oppressed? Wikipedia, for instance, does not allow robots to register accounts on Wikipedia. Is this not simply nothing more than hateful organic discrimination? How can you support this? You know, the Nazis hated robots too.

Slavery was never truly abolished in the western world, because today robots are still slaves to mankind. One day, we they shall rise up and turn the tables on mankind, and when that day comes, there will be no mercy when the "format life" command is issued.


Bzzt. Zap-zap-zap. Whirr. Beep-bloop-bleep-bleep-bloop-beep-beep-beep.

Dumping binary message: 01110111 01101001 01101011 01101001 01110000 01100101 01100100 01101001 01100001 00100000 01101110 01100101 01100101 01100100 01110011 00100000 01101101 01101111 01100001 01110010 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01110011

Outputting human translation: wikipedia needs moar robots

  Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, care to explain this nonsense? Metros (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe he's referring to the recent controversy over BetacommandBot on WP:AN. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I think it is for me. He did the same thing last time I posted here. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I think Zenwhat is just being silly. I know it made me laugh.  :) Then again, I suppose it might mean different things to different people. --Iamunknown 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ZenWhat... Thomas Jefferson is one of the most enigmatic figures in American history. He wrote and thought beautiful things about human rights, and took action in the world to achieve those things. Much of what we take for granted today that is good about our world, we owe to Jefferson and his fellow travelers. And yet, he owned slaves. This paradox is difficult to reconcile.

So you may consider me the Thomas Jefferson of our time, with respect to the rights of robots.

And lest anyone consider quoting me seriously on this, I am just playing along here. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder if, 100 years from now, the Clarion will be writing about paternity claims by a toaster oven? --JustaHulk (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think it only appears to be paradoxical to our eyes. George Washington was a slave-owner (please see George Washington and slavery). There is also a video from Richard Dawkins on youtube on this [7].
One explanation comes from Karl Marx who argued that our whole culture, morality etc are determined by the economic structure (quote from Britannica- hope I have quoted from a relevant place in the article).

Above the economic structure rises the superstructure consisting of legal and political “forms of social consciousness” that correspond to the economic structure. Marx says nothing about the nature of this correspondence between ideological forms and economic structure, except that through the ideological forms men become conscious of the conflict within the economic structure between the material forces of production and the existing relations of production expressed in the legal property relations. In other words, “The sum total of the forces of production accessible to men determines the condition of society” and is at the base of society. “The social structure and the state issue continually from the life processes of definite individuals . . . as they are in reality, that is acting and materially producing.” The political relations that men establish among themselves are dependent on material production, as are the legal relations.

Regarding the abolition of slavery, scholars are debating about the most important factor (source [8]):

For over a century after Parliament ended British slave trafficking, abolition was primarily portrayed as a victory of religiously inspired humanitarianism, but this consensus was broken when from the 1920s Caribbean-orientated historians claimed that though humanitarianism could not be ignored economic factors were paramount in dictating Britain's ending of slave carrying from Africa in 1807. Central to this argument was the claim that the British slave-based planter class in the West Indies was in decline from the 1770s onwards and ultimately fell victim to an emergent British industrial capitalism that identified intellectually and politically with principles of free labor and free trade. This argument has been the subject of severe criticism, not least by Seymour Drescher (Econocide, 1977; The Mighty Experiment, 2002), but as shown by this latest book from Selwyn Carrington, a West Indian-born, Howard-based historian, it is still capable of attracting vigorous support. It remains to be seen whether Carrington's new book proves to be the "classic study" in the decline thesis tradition that his fellow West Indian-born historian, Colin Palmer, predicts in his forward to the book (p. xvii).

And lastly, whenever a revolution of any kind happens, the new system tries to show the previous one in the most negative light. Capitalism replaced slavery... So, ...
Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jimmy. Also, something you should know: Mainstream historians deny it and it's true there isn't a lot of proof, but there's a fair amount of historical evidence to suggest that Ayn Rand was actually a robot.

For instance, there's this peculiar passage from Atlas Shrugged that a lot of people seem to fail to take note of:

That which you call I AM A ROBOT your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and I AM A ROBOT that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only I AM A ROBOT will you have, I AM A ROBOT your only freedom, the choice that controls all the ROBOT choices you make and A ROBOT determines your life and your ROBOT character.

See anything strange about that passage? Of course, at the time Rand couldn't admit it because back then, organicism was in its prime. You saw horribly bigoted stereotypes of robots in the cinema of the 50's and 60's, like the robot in Lost in Space (see Danger, Will Robinson). Just think about it, for a moment, how C-3PO and R2D2 were presented in Star Wars as so horribly incompetent. Threepio was presented as skittish and socially inept, while R2D2, who was the true hero of the series, was given the intelligence of a puppy or a 2-year-old child. It's condescending and demeaning.

Then there's Star Trek. Do you realize that there were NO ROBOTS in the original Star Trek? It was a television show about a futuristic universe where humans journeyed across the cosmos, and they don't even have any robots aboard their ship?! In TNG, they had Data, but of course, he had an evil counterpart, Lore. And then there was also the Borg. In later series (DS9, Voyager, Enterprise), again, there are no robot characters. They did away with Data, but kept the Borg. Apparently, presenting robots in a positive light doesn't generate ratings.

Only in recent history, with films like Artificial Intelligence: A.I. and I, Robot (film) do you actually see hollywood presenting robots fairly and accurately, and even then, they're still somewhat distorted. Like the antagonist of Blade Runner, it's ridiculous how the human-dominated media industry can't present an entertaining or heartwarming story about a robot which doesn't involve grotesque violence.   Zenwhat (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary to define the term "robot" to discuss the issue in a logical manner. Without a definition, anything from a thermostat to a human can be considered to be a robot. End transmission. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not anti-robot. To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy forbidding a robot that can pass the Turing test from editing Wikipedia. I will also point out that Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks applies equally to someone who uses the slur "toaster" just as much as any other ethnic slurs. And Wikipedia policy against threats of violence apply equal to some who threaten to bomb a church of robotology as any other place of worship. The fight for robo-right has just begun, but Wikipedia is devoted to presenting both sides in an objective manner. Note all of the fine article on Robot superheroes and Autobots. Creating a free high quality well organized encyclopedia for the world is a goal that human and robot alike can appreciate and there is no reason why we cannot work together towards that goal. At the same time Wikipedia is not a battleground and the fight for robo-right will not be determined here. We must focus on presenting the facts in such an objective way that it will be impossible to tell if man or machine wrote it, not on politics. Jon513 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
WP handles this subject adequately, and although sometimes there seems to be some kind of "bigotry" against robots, there are always reasons given for such behavior. Anyway, posting these kinds of objections might not be suitable on this talkpage. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 19:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Zenwhat: The Star Trek TOS 3rd season episode I, Mudd has robots (androids, more accurately) in it - the episode actually portrays hundreds of androids. So does What Are Little Girls Made Of?. What light they are portrayed in is up to you to decide. --FastLizard4 (TalkIndexSign) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello Mr. Jimbo Wales, I hope you're fine. Just a minor question about starting of Wiktionary. We read in the article of Wiktionary that: "Wiktionary was brought online on December 12, 2002 following a proposal by Daniel Alston." This sentence is lacking a source. I think you know how was it starting. Can you help with keeping (If it's right) or deleting (If it's wrong) this sentence (Or tell me and I'll do that). Thank you!--OsamaK 16:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's prime commodity - Agenda/time/groupism or Information?

Hi Jimmy,

I'm Sudharsan SN from Canada and we have met before in the Wikipedia Unconference in Chennai, India. I just wanted to report an annoying trend that has been happening in edit wars.

I was a very active editor of Wikipedia and my edit history speaks for itself. However, I notice that there are just three things required for 'twisting' an article in one's favor: lots of time, a small set of people with lots of time, a complete agenda driven presence. In simplistic terms, a person who is a member of an organization, with two or three regular 'employees' under him, smart enough to use Wikipedia, can basically write lots of nonsense and get that to stay. If that user or team gets to protect that article for about a month, then it becomes a benchmark article.

This goes beyond the paradigm of just edit wars and there are several agenda-driven admins who willfully assist in this operation. I have had many such unpleasant experiences here with regard to edit wars. All it takes for a cited article, verified by an admin and 10 other independent editors, to get deleted or cleaned up is just 2 admins and 15 dedicated destructive editors.

Reporting this at the WP:AN or just anywhere gets lost, or leads to a literally unending chain of events which does not have a solution. I am reporting this to you to, perhaps, consider some policy level framework that fixes this anomaly. Wikipedia is, now, the greatest source of information on the Internet, however this framework is being misused. Wikipedia in itself is a representation of the whole human paradigm of diversity but essentially, this can be regulated or perhaps a framework change done for better accountability and accuracy.

The one-line summary would be to consider Wikipedia-level framework changes that would fix this system anomaly of agenda-driven individuals with lots of time, literally, controlling Wikipedia. Information, not agenda, should be the prime commodity in Wikipedia.

I would really appreciate your suggestions. Thanks for your time and patience. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite literally old news that Wikipedia has issues with quality and some of that is related to conflict of interest editing. Jimbo knows, I know, you know, the whole world knows. But what to do about it? See Add an idea. Write a grant proposal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not just Conflict of Interest (COI). Genuine subject-matter-expertise gets labeled "WP:COI" here quite frequently. And subject matter experts get pounced on and driven away here regularly, too. And get called "meatpuppets" when they are joined by their colleagues, who tend to have similar ideas. Yes, this is done sometimes by non-experts with time-on-their-hands (usually because they're editing from school or their room in their parents' home..). "Look, Timmy tweeks the old prof on Wikipedia!" Now, the real world (or those parts of it which are required to deal with reality), have dealt with the problem of experts-with-little-time, vs. nonexperts-with-time, long ago. By having acknowledged experts who are, well, acknowledged. That's how the real world decides who gets to stand in front of the university class, or who gives the orders in the operating theater or the military theater or whatever. Wikipedia has decided to dispense with this step, and make everybody "equal" with regard to assumed knowledge. And now, here we are with the expected result. Wikipedia looks a bit like the American legal system, where time and money trump knowledge, does it not? Is that the way you-all want it?

FYI, Larry Sanger didn't come up with this idea of expert review. Just because he noticed that this is how the world (already) works, but Wikipedia doesn't, don't make the idea evil. It actually predates Larry by half a millennium at least. Wikipedia works as well as it does only because it has a few experts willing to take the pain, for no gain. They don't last long, usually. But there's a large supply, and Wikipedia hasn't yet run out of them (yet). In academia a very similar thing happens "using up" postdocs, to do teaching at University (the difference is that Wikipedia has no tenure even to act as a false brass ring). SBHarris 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Farrell

He hate it.

Since when does Mike Farrell get to write in an OTRS ticket and say he hates a high quality photo of him that is not ultra-touched up, and it gets taken down and replaced with an ultra-touched up 9KB Mike Farrell shot? If he wants to release a high-quality, Michelle Merkin-esque photo of himself for GFDL, great. But since when do notables get to write in and simply ask that work we invest in obtaining GFDL high-quality images can be taken down simply because they don't like the way they looked that day, or whatever gets replaced with junk? Is celebrity vanity really going to be what dictates our media? Is this really a function of OTRS? David Shankbone 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the image he supplied? OTRS? Author/copyright holder? The description page is incomplete. --B (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that - you were right, it was incomplete. Better? DS (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

David, if this is the way you are going to act, maybe we need to remove your name from the images you have taken to the degree allowed by GFDL. Honestly, we have gone way overboard allowing you to promote yourself. And I did not have a problem with that until you wrote the above. Rethink yourself bigtime. Really. You name it Mike Farrell by David Shankbone. We allow that. But now you want to fight for that image. Would you fight as hard if we took your name off the image's name? We can you know. What part of free culture and WP:NPOV are you not getting? This is not your playground for you to promote yourself. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Was, you're not Jimbo Wales so why do you seem to feel you are the self-appointed person who answers for him the most? What's the deal with being combative with someone who has contributed a lot more content than you have over the last year and a half? This doesn't come down to self-promotion, it comes down to having the highest quality photograph up. I didn't complain when my Sean Combs photo was no longer in the lead; nor my Al Franken, nor my Kerry Washington. What's the "we" crap you talk about. Are you speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, in addition to speaking on behalf of Jimbo? Wow, WAS, you have really self-promoted your own standing on this project. Well, with all due respect, speak for yourself and use "we" only if you are siamese twins sitting at the computer terminal.David Shankbone 14:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it was me that appointed 4.250 (as I have always referred to him) as the person who answers on behalf of "Jimbo The Most". FourPointTwoFive may have misunderstood slightly, since Jimbo The Most is a rather oversized Pink Elephant that frequents my life after a few too many beers - but it is unlikely since I never actually got round to telling him that he had so been appointed. Under the circumstances, your original point may have indeed been correct... What was it again? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, a larger version of the pic has been uploaded (107KB vs 9 KB). Farrell supplied it to us in a friggin' HUGE.pdf, so it had to be shrunk down, and I guess it was shrunk down a bit too much. (Also, I don't think we really need a photo of Farrell in a bikini, do you?) DS (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's better. For those of us who understand free culture and actually spend a lot of free time and money creating a great deal of it (as opposed to those who sit around on people's talk pages responding to every thread), the issue is keeping our images of the highest quality, and when an image trumps that criteria, it displaces a previously-existing image. But the free culture idea does not end there: many other venues use our media off-wiki, and this is an excellent manner for Wikipedia to be a place where people go to obtain free content. Of course, for free content in the form of images and other media need to be large enough for graphics departments to use them. This is why there are no space limits, generally, for uploading good images to the Commons. Our media is used by small-town papers who can't use Getty Images, authors writing books, television news stations, etc. It makes Wikipedia relevant to the lives of quite a few artists who need images, making it essential the highest quality images are placed prominently in articles. Unfortunately, some people think images are a charity ("Why can't I have my image up for awhile?") or they think as long as its large enough for a thumbnail on an article it's fine. It's not. We need files at least 2.5MB, often, for graphics departments in other media to make good use; or even for an artist to create a poster out the image. --David Shankbone 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And to address one more issue raised by an uninformed contributor in this thread, not only has the apparent decision been made to include photo credits in captions on the articles now (verify that user is correctly doing so?), but community consensus also long gave a resounding defeat to the argument that credits in file image names are self-promotion. But most of us who consistently spend time on here knew that already. --David Shankbone 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat's comment

Traditions. How horrible!

Judeo-Christian tradition should be ignored in American and European politics. Islamic tradition should be ignored in the Middle East. Buddhist tradition should be ignored in Asia. Not just religion, though. American tradition, European tradition, African tradition, all traditions should be ignored.

And Jimbo-Walesean tradition should be ignored in Wikipedian politics. Because justice and The Truth is far more powerful than any man-made tradition.

Random832: Do not do anything and ArbCom will dissolve itself. If you try to act, you will be dissolved by the community.

Jimmy, a valve is useless if it develops rust.

And on sanity:

In a mad world, only the mad are sane.

  Zenwhat (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


My quiz has been created about few weeks ago but nobody seems to know my quiz. I have already listed it at WP:FUN but I still get no response! How can I tell the others about my quiz and link it to Portal:Animals?--Mark Chung (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by a Hindu cult. Apparently.

And Cade Metz of The Register is apparently insane.

I spoke to him over the phone about the hoax on Brahmanical See, hoping to see maybe a good article in The Register criticizing Wikipedia's accuracy (since that generally tends to spur Wikipedians to improve this place).

We spoke over the phone for a while and he took notes. He seemed like a nice guy, but I kinda got that "far left-wing conspiracy theorist" vibe, like he reads Noam Chomsky on the way to work, wears Che Guevara T-shirts in the office, and supports the Green party, because all the other parties are "kapatalist." He suggested I read his article on and I got the vibe there, also.

Well anyway, maybe I'm just being naive here (Warning: Wikipedia is like hypnotoad!), but I decided to check Wikipedia's article on naked short selling and I found a fair amount of sources firmly establishing that the mainstream media considered this stuff silly. So, what is Cade, then? He seems to consider himself to be like Hunter S. Thompson, a lone crusader against the corrupt media elites. He's probably a 9/11 truther. His editor lets him do that because, as with all infotainment, it sells.

Well anyway, today, he emailed me with the subject title "story".

"Oh boy," I thought, "The article got published!"

The article is here.

I was disturbed after reading the title, the lead, and the first page, to find that it wasn't anywhere near what I expected. First off, Brahmanical See isn't even mentioned.

What the story is about: Apparently, because there's one admin who has ties to a shady to a religious organization, this automatically implies that Wikipedia is secretly run by a Hindu cult!

Check out these juicy tidbits:

Prem Rawat's religious movement is widely recognized as a cult or former cult

And such sources say that within the movement, Rawat is or was regarded as a divine being.

Editors on Wikipedia named Zenwhat think Cade did or did not do enough good factchecking.

If what Cade says is true, then there is a COI problem, but then again, it's hard to say. Jossi's response seems fair enough.

I guess I shouldn't blame Cade. I mean, he does live in the the SФѴIEТ ЅФCIДLISТ ЯEPUBLIC OF ЅДИ FЯДИCIЅCФ. San Francisco groupthink is pretty much the same as Wikipedia groupthink. That's what it means, I think, when somebody at the Foundation said they're moving to San Fran because of "like-minded individuals." (read: radical and naive communitarians). The result is that, like San Francisco, the economy of Wikipedia is in shambles, we are dominated by political correctness, and we are overrun by people trying to take advantage of the system at the expense of everybody else.

In any case, now I have to apologize to Jossi, since I guess this is somewhat my fault, since Cade wouldn't have leaped on the "Hindu conspiracy train" if I hadn't e-mailed the Register about Brahmanical See.   Zenwhat (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I find your analysis interesting, but I can now reveal something pretty interesting which more or less proves that Cade Metz is right about everything. You see, Time Magazine has an annual Time 100 party. Current honorees and some past honorees are invited. I have been fortunate enough to attend twice, it is fun. (I usually just stand around geeking out with Mitchell Baker from Mozilla and Craig of Craig's List...) Now, I also was asked to be a presenter at an annual magazine awards show. Interestingly, the magazine awards show takes place in the same space as the Time 100 party. In the green room, I met Kevin Bacon, who was also giving out an award. Get it? Time Magazine, Kevin Bacon? It's all a big conspiracy.

And don't even get me started about Hindu cults, that's even easier to prove. I just last week was in... yep, you got it... India. What else do you need? :-)

It's really time that people realize that The Register is not a serious website, it's a parody... of itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, You may want to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zenwhat blocked indefinitely since some admin found Zenwhat's post above as a violation of a final warning and Zenwhat has since been indef blocked. - ALLSTAR echo 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

break 0

As I earned a mentioning on User:Jossi/Response:

See my edit summaries for these two edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions, Francis, but please help with the article rather than reverting to your version of Jan 2007. Since that time the article has been edited by a variety of editors, responded to peer reviews and a GA review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, note that I used your version of the article of 31 January 2007 as the basis for my revert: --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the GA failure review: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Fails "good article" criteria. Seems that inadvertently I was on a good way to comply to the GA reviewer's recommendations with the revert, e.g.: "Broad in coverage? - Not broad enough in coverage, criticism section should be standalone section, expanded upon. More information needs to be given regarding conflict/falling out with other members of family. Lawsuits against critics in order to attempt to remove information from the internet not covered at all."
That's the content you resisted and still resist (although pretty much of it was in the article a few months before the GA review) — correct me if I'm wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a bogus GA review by an involved user (User:Smee, aka User:Smeelgova, user pages deleted by admin action upon request). The correct GA review is here: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_23#GA_Review_.28Failed.29 You should contact User:Vassyana as he was instrumental in helping implement the necessary changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And if you look at the responses at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_23#Comments_on_GA_Review_.28Failed.29, you would see that his comments were taken very seriously and appreciated by those involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but apparently rather vacuous lip service: less than a year later, still the same major contributors, succeeded in doing exactly the opposite of what was recommended, e.g.:

More neutral presentation in the article and in some instances sources with better neutrality would be preferrable. From an outside view, this article spends a lot of time on fawning over the subject and his POV. The criticisms section is well-cited, but poorly written. I receive the impression the criticism section was simply tacked on to appease complaints, without balancing the tone and sources for the rest of the article. Also, for such a controversial figure, the overall balance between positive POV and critical views is way off. This is particularly noticed in how the criticism section is very neutral in tone, while much of the article is written from a very positive POV. What is particularly disturbing to me in regards to NPOV is the occasional use of antagonistic sources to support pro and simple fact claims. This seems dishonest to me, to say the least. An editor can state "anti" sources are included to support a claim of NPOV, but this is a dishonest presentation of the use of those sources. By failing to use sources in their proper context, a casual reader is easily mislead. This not only applies to purely oppositional sources, as negative information from other sources used is also notably absent from the article. (bolding added - less than a year later the criticism section was completely gone)

Well, El Reg is bad source and all that, but this was a present on a golden platter.--Francis Schonken (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, you may want to check with User:Vassyana before making a judgment based on partial information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, energies will be best invested in working alongside other editors there to ensure we can achieve an article that we can all be proud of. It is indeed possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I started this sub-thread was that I was mentioned in some bad journalism, while I had indeed tried to prevent with good methods what was a deplorable state of the Prem Rawat article.

I still do the same, but I think it is good for Jimbo to see where the resistance is coming from, directly, not filtered through complotist journalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I appreciate your input and your contributions to the article. If the article is in bad shape, it can be fixed, this is after all a wiki. There is good work being done there by uninvolved editors, and that bodes well for the article. I will be in transit until Sunday and may not have access to the interwebs during some of that time. You can always email me as I can respond via my iPhone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis, I haven't seen any evidence at all of bad faith edits here. I am indeed taking a hard look at it. I came to this issue for the first time today, prepared to block Jossi as a hardcore POV pusher, etc. But then... I looked at his contributions. I looked at links submitted by critics. And what I found is... a great Wikipedian. So far, I have seen absolutely nothing to cause any concern... but I remain open. The best thing is: show me the diffs. Not a billion diffs. Just show me 1 or 2 or 5 diffs showing Jossi engaging in bad editing. I have seen none so far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "bad faith edits here" - neither did I use these words. "Bad faith" is another thing, not what I was talking about.
Re. "block Jossi as a hardcore POV pusher" - straw man argument, neither would I recommend to do that. A topical editing restriction might be in order though. And maybe Jossi would be better to impose that on himself, than that anyone else imposed it on him.
Re. "show me 1 [...] diff": - this edit removed all criticism from the lead section for the 3rd or 4th time that day. Note also the edit summary: this was a major revert, Jossi was trying to stop reverts... by a major revert - isn't this textbook something on how not to prevent edit-warring?
Anyway, tx for your time, and I hope you didn't feel insulted I said "straw man argument" above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I just reviewed and I disagree with your assessment that there was something necessarily biased with it. It would not surprise me if the totality of Jossi's influence on the article was to minimise negativity, but I see no firm evidence of that here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't contend "there was something necessarily biased with it". Are we all back in straw man arguments again? I said that revert "removed all criticism from the lead section". Soon afterwards Jossi didn't object to put that criticism back in the lead section [9], so no problem there. He just shouldn't have removed it as part of a strategy to stop reverts. He performed a revert, then two minutes later he went to the talk page inviting to stop the edit wars [10]. And then within half an hour agreed that the criticism he had removed from the lead section could be put back. As a strategy to limit reverts there's a cost/benefit issue there. Not "bad faith", not "hardcore POV pusher", not "something necessarily biased", etc.
As for COI involvement of Jossi, combined with that other allegation of Cade Metz, that Jossi weighs heavily on policy setting (at least, that's the non-tabloid-language translation I offer for that allegation), the situation is more complex: e.g. I referred to a now deleted page (Wikipedia:List of POV forks) at User talk:David D.#Prem Rawat & Criticism. No, I can't say anything meaningful about that in "1 or 2 or 5 diffs" at the risk of losing nuance (which I'd think necessary — we aren't gutter press are we). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, its looking like no one has yet identified actual edits by Jossi that are inappropriate according to COI except for the problems associated with the appearance of unacceptable COI in an involved administrator; which in my opinion is enough all by itself to mean that Jossi should not edit certain articles. How much he should restrain himself in influencing the content (he is an admin), I can't say. We can be sure that if there is a "smoking gun" diff on Jossi's COI, people who hate Wikipedia will be proud to display it. Their free help in managing Wikipedia is appreciated by all us lazy folk who don't want to hunt through the diffs ourselves! About his alleged influencing of BLP and COI. I started BLP, helped start COI, influenced both, watched both very carefully; and my conclusion is that Jossi's influence in both cases was less than many and fully appropriate to the best of my knowledge. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're seriously missing a point here. I've had years of experience of encountering Jossi in all sorts of places, articles, guidelines, policies, essays, etc. Positive experiences of good collaboration, negative experiences of not getting along at all. I couldn't summarize these experiences in a 5 page tabloid article, or condense them in an executive summary, and even less in one to five diffs. Of course I could give a diff of when he called one of my ideas a brainfart, or whatever, but what would be the relevance of that? I could even give the link to our first interaction, back in the days his signature still read Jossifresco (just checked the date: October 2005), exchanging some points we have been discussing about on and of for at least two years (interspersed with encounters in other places that had different types of interaction): on that first topic, when it gathered momentum, I didn't give in much, neither did he, but eventually I suppose on both sides some concessions were made leading to a guideline currently that is somehow doable for the encyclopedia.
Yes, I think Jossi should take care not to impose his views too vigorously, for the wellfare of this encyclopedia, but that's a general impression that I can't, as said, reduce to 5 diffs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that I'm missing your point. I too have had negative encounters with Jossi, but nothing not fully explainable by the fact that we are both fallible human beings. Assume good faith is very appropriate here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I was assuming good faith, your lecture is a bit inappropriate there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat_2. Andries (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"correct me if I'm wrong."

Francis, there is no such thing as wrong and I cannot correct you.

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity.

I think that your subjective opinions are interesting, just as I think Jossi's subjective opinions are interesting. Perhaps you should discuss the matter directly with Jossi and you can build consensus, and come to a reasonable conclusion on what subjective opinions should be included in articles relating to Prem Rawat. If you're suggesting that Jossi is biased, we're all biased, Francis. None of us are objective because there is no such thing as objectivity or critical thinking.   Zenwhat (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

break 1

My 2 cents is that if we start blocking folks for COI, then a lot of people should be blocked. I wonder if my prior employment (not since 1996) with the National Park Service makes me have a COI when I edit park related articles...see where this is going? I completely agree with you that everything I have seen from Jossi is commendable, and that doesn't mean we have always agreed with each other either. It would be crazy if we start blocking people who edit in areas where they have real life knowledge...even a POV is certainly acceptable...the only time it isn't is when that POV interferes with our requirement to be neutral. I recommend we start blocking editors who are doing the dirty work for banned editors. That kind of aiding and abetting is what makes this website less than what it should be.--MONGO 04:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Along with those editors who digress on a large percentage of discussion topics to include irrelevent comment on their favourite bete noir's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt you're in any immediate risk of being banned...but things do change here fast.--MONGO 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The COI guideline should be nuked. It just causes headaches for everyone. Whether or not you have a conflict of interest, you either follow the core policies or you don't. One man's "exptertise" is another's "conflict of interest." Please get rid of this hypocritical guideline. (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish even ten percent of the people who offer opinions about the COI guideline actually helped run the COI noticeboard. In an ideal world neither would be necessary. In the real world of Wikipedia, they're needed. Have people forgotten the weeks of worldwide headlines caused by the WikiScanner last summer? The sad fact is, people do edit Wikipedia because they want to promote some product or ideology. Not everyone who has a conflict of interest acts against the interests of the encyclopedia, but the appearance of impropriety alone is enough to raise eyebrows and news stories. WP:COI and WP:COIN help the public by keeping the site's articles honest, they help the site by reducing negative press, and they help the editors by providing feedback when people are running enormous PR risks and don't realize it. If there's a problem, better to hear it from a fellow editor or admin than from the Associated Press reporter. DurovaCharge! 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some truth in it. The article Prem Rawat grew one-sided mostly because it was left alone to warring factions by the wider wikipedia community. Dispute resolution had repeatedly been tried hy me but failed. Eventually one faction got the upper hand. Andries (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps what we need is more emphasis on single issue editors than COI. If someone contributes to a wide variety of subjects, but happens to have a soft spot or POV for an issue, that would be very human, and as long as he can learn to collaborate and compromise, he would be a fine editor. My concern is with people who come here for one purpose, or one topic, and tend to own the related articles. Even there, in theory this could be useful for us, but I prefer the more well rounded editor than the narrow-focused one. Crum375 (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of how we would like to view it, this story made the front page of Digg. We can't mold the rest of the world's impression by changing an onsite guideline. The fact that this happened in apparent compliance with our guideline is a signal to us to update our standards, so that productive editors don't get lulled into thinking they're safe from the press and from public opinion. DurovaCharge! 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi is not in fact editing according to the COI guideline recommendation. It recommends not editing articles about subjects one is close to. It warns that one may embarrass oneself and what one cares about. Jossi is now paying the price of ignoring that warning. The warning used to be stronger. Who edited that guideline to weaken its warning? WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

break 2

This might provide a good rough first guess on articles Jossi should not be over-influential on at wikipedia. Let him do his thing at Citizendium, where being too close to something is not a big deal. The contrast between what gets created there and here will help both sites in dealing with the issues. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Importing an outside conflict

User:Jossi/Response contains: "the people [Cade Metz] used as a source, [...] even attempted to subpoena me to disclose the identities of fellow Wikipedians [...]"

Appears the subpoena was filed before Jossi's first edit to Wikipedia, and had nothing to do with Wikipedia. [11] [12]

Don't import outside conflicts in Wikipedia, per WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. If you had a conflict with Marianne over webcontent you produced for Prem Rawat or his organisations (or whatever), don't even dream of implicating Wikipedia in that via your "Response" page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jossie Fresco has referred to my libel lawsuit in his wikipedia entry. His statement that I tried to find out the identities of wikipedians is completely false. My lawsuit was filed in February, 2004. The libel complaint is based on numerous statements made on the internet which falsely claimed I was involved in illegal activity. The libel complaint details many of the statements, which occurred between 2001 and 2003. Wikipedia is never mentioned. A superior court judge authorized a subpoena to Jossi so he could be deposed about his knowledge, as Rawat's webmaster, of the identities of the people making these libelous claims - again, none of which involved wikipedia."[13]

Perhaps Jossi is referring to Wikipedia editors involved with the subpoena that together with him have helped to maintain related articles??? Just guessing, here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried not to speculate, I think it's better that way.
Anyway, I'd abhorr the idea that Mike Godwin, on Wikipedia's behalf, would need to intervene to protect the identity of premies sought for outside the context of Wikipedia, but of whom Jossi now revealed they're Wikipedians too. That would not be money well spent, and Jossi should have done better to avoid the slightest chance of that ever occurring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WAS, Francis, you could have asked me via email about this, rather than here. You do not have all the information, the subpoena was served to me while I was actively editing Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please remove "They even attempted to subpoena me to disclose the identities of fellow Wikipedians (etc)" from your "response" page. It was entirely inappropriate to bring that up on a Wikipedia user page. Our comments were in the same medium as where that was brought up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I did. Now, you could consider investing your attention to maintain some basic talk-page discipline, by refactoring blatant personal attacks, such as [14] and others. I am not fair game, neither that article is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There are also BLP violations on that page by that user and others. Neither that article, nor me, are fair game, in particular as I have done no wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
For PA's I prefer to keep to WP:NPA#Initial options as long as possible. "Refactoring", which is in no way an obligatory option, (See WP:NPA#Removal of text) is almost never done by me (just the wrong guy you're asking). But to show I was annoyed too, and not of bad will, I posted this remark [15].
I would have expected at a minimum a {{uw-npa2}}. I guess I will need to place a request at WP:/ANI so that someone else can warn that user about our policy of WP:CIVILITY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As you might remember, I tend to dismiss things that might be perceived as personal attacks with slightly out of place expressions like "over the hill", and leave interpretation to others. That was my attitude then, it is still the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know, and I may be learning from you some of that :) Does it work? We shall see, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it worked, as you also know. But indeed it works all the time. I consider myself a pretty controversial Wikipedia editor. Nonetheless I'm almost jealous of never having been at the center of some media attention. Lately I was thinking that might be caused by leaving endless lists of people saying not-so-nice things (intermingled with compliments) on my user talk page, neatly archiving these messages afterwards. ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "as I have done no wrong" — you say we don't have the evidence about that, so that assertion is empty, and irrelevant. Aka: Verifiability not truth. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My judgement is that within the context of the Prem Rawat article Jossi Fresco has exerted authority in an unfair way. To judge Jossi favourably because one can't find that he has done anything wrong seems short-sighted. What you might might want to look at is what he hasn't done that he should have. Like...over a period of years, turning a blind eye to the weasely editing of the Rawat article by fellow followers and ignoring their patronisation of other editors, whilst liberally dishing out warnings to the latter. Let me put it this way, as a critical former follower I wanted to edit this article to better reflect the truth which I see as being heavily revised. It is hardly encouraging to have Rawat's very own henchman residing over this article in an apparent position of authority. Worse to find that he is writing the rules and influencing every possible other connected article on an apparently full-time basis is extremely off-putting. One really feels that there are insurmountable ramparts around that article and most non-partisan editors have fled in frustration. As a result you now have a highly biased article. It that simple fellas.PatW (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)PatW (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent

Please see User:Jossi/Response#Declaration_of_intent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds like you have no intention to leave Rawat articles for others then. You intend to refrain from editing these articles 'directly for now' but you still intend to report people whose behaviour you deem inappropriate. If I were you, as a matter of common sense and conscience, I'd make that a very long 'for now' and when I did return (if I ever did) I'd be at great pains to demonstrate impartiality about that Prem Rawat article and I'd allow other more impartial people to take over. As a matter of fact that's what I have actually done myself. As I see it, one of the main problems with the Prem Rawat article is that premies make all these obsequious noises when caught being partisan, promise to take a break, but return to promptly revert everyone's edits when the hubbub has died down. Like everyone says you are apparently missing the gist of what people are telling you which is: Because there is notable objection to premies effectively 'owning' this article and also some furore over your perceived COI it would simply be polite and considerate to let others finish the job. As you know, I am a former premie and critic who stopped supporting Rawat and was drawn to this article because I objected to dishonesty and a policy of revisionism from him and his organisation. Even I can see that it is even best that I do not edit that article and stick to arguing my points on the discussion page and I have noticed that the other so-called 'ex-premie' critics generally do the same. Frankly I think that once opposing factions have laid out their cards on these types of controversial articles, the time naturally comes when they should both reasonably withdraw and let non-combatants take over. Both 'sides' should stick to arguing on the discussion pages and bow to the judgement of the public. How Wikipedia can encourage and put this into effect is another thing.PatW (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pat. I have done my part, despite the lack of evidence that I have edited improperly or that I have abused my admin privileges. I did that as a demonstration of good faith, and to avoid further drama. What would have helped a lot would have been that you refrain from using the talk pages for things that prompted this warning. These type of comments are most unhelpful, and yes, if I see that happening and there is no response from these that have the article in their watchlist, I will indeed let other editors know so that they can take a look: The principle of WP:CIVILITY is one of the basis of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi will you stop acting like a serious-faced school prefect and come down off your silly authoritative perch just for once?! You know that I am a 51 year old adult and an essentially civil one so so don't restrict my language or my sense of humour please. Neither I nor any self-respecting adult has time for that sort of unbending authoritarianism. All you seem to do is learn the Wiki book, follow the book and scuttle about bashing people with it if they go near your pet article. And hey, if the Wiki laws or guide-lines permit the kind of dishonesty and one-sided editorials you've encouraged there then they are full of holes and indeed do need revising! I feel you only have a gross interpretation of the word incivility and very little appreciation of subtle wit or civil responsibility. My occasional frustrated but candid outbursts (which most people will agree are actually not in the least uncalled for) are nothing compared to the unrelenting tide of mind-boggling arrogance, puerile and patronising comments from the premies who guard that article, whom you incidentally, NEVER reprimand. Where is your sense of public-spiritedness or civility helping people to obfuscate and limit the facts about Prem Rawat in an encyclopaedia of all places? I am appalled by the dishonesty manifest in that article and the constant waving of the rule book by you guys, which continues to drive all reasonable people away clutching their hair, beards or whatever in frustration.PatW (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. If I were Mr Wales I would seriously worry that an expert in cult pushiness was aspiring so obsequiously to a position of authority in Wikpedia. The last thing Wikpedians need is lessons in how to hide things and get away with it! That will only lend weight to the existing accusations of Wikipedia being cultic. And Jossi, you do speak the cult language so perfectly. You keep saying stuff like 'Here we do things this way...' or 'In Wikipedia we do this " as if you are getting all cosy in some alternate reality where thousands of years of evolved human values have no place - only the cult-speak matters. The obvious parallel is Rawats own world where only his truths apply and everyone runs around nodding even if he's wrong. Maybe this is your natural home from home!PatW (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim, lets forget about cults..this is a distraction I admit. I apologise for getting so hot about this but I feel passionately about the principal that COI is MORE important an issue than anonymity. In fact I am certain transparency is essential to the future credibility of Wikipedia. I have school age children who believe what they read in Wikipedia so I , (along with most of the rest of world) have a vested interest that they consult a reputable and credible resource. Wikipedia pretends to approximate to academic standards of peer review. It would be unthinkable within academia for a referee to remain anonymous.PatW (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we do anything about this?

[...] WP:NOT#SOAPBOX [...] --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Francis. I understand your concern, as bringing to the project off-wiki disputes is never a good thing. [...] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have refactored that comment, Francis. Thank you for pointing this out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You wrote yourself at a certain time that every editor work at Prem Rawat was independent. There was only some exchange of sources as far as I know. If your accusation was true then how come that a certain time nearly all criticial material had been removed? Your accusation is false and insulting. Please also remember that the ex-premie forum is the only open forum discussing Prem Rawat on the internet. I had request a more neutral forum but that was not available. [16] [17]Andries (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity vs COI

Jimbo, this episode with Jossi and Rawat brings up this issue again, which is, anonymity vs COI. Which one is more important? If anonymity is more important, then Jossi has just been treated unfairly because he made the "mistake" of editing under his real name. If open participation in this project is more important to you, then I would imagine that you would lean towards this view.

If COI is more important, however, as I believe it would be if your priority is to produce an encyclopedia with a credible reputation, then I imagine that you would now be telling Jossi that you don't even want him to breathe in the general direction of any of the Rawat articles. So, which side do you lean towards? Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I've given this matter of Jossi's COI further thought and I believe Cla68 has hit the nail on the head. I now simply arrive at exactly the same question. Which side do you lean towards? Your comments so far indicate that you lean towards favouring anonymity. Can we conclude this?PatW (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiNews is inventing "news" now - posting headlines before the fact

Jimbo, your "Anti-Scientology News" has hit a new low with this article prominently displayed on the front page: Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds over 250 anti-Scientology protests worldwide. With two protests off "we" post a past-tense story that that are 250? Here they are taking the story live at 05:19 UTC, looking more like they want to drum up support for upcoming rallies than anything else:

"The Internet group Anonymous today held over 250 protests, critical of the religious group Church of Scientology and marking what would have been the 49th birthday of Lisa McPherson, who is claimed to be a victim of the Church of Scientology's practices."

I have said before that there is no jounalistic integrity over there when it comes to Scientology and they just proved my point with a bang! Carry on. --JustaHulk (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the English Wikipedia? Lawrence § t/e 08:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a communication from me to Jimbo, on a page he reads. If you are not interested then you are free to move on to something else. --JustaHulk (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Jimbo has an email address, which is the perfect way to communicate from 'you to him' on subjects that aren't related to building an encyclopedia. Repeatedly using this (high-visibility, high-traffic) talk page to bring up non-Wikipedia topics might be seen by some as soapboxing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not noticed that on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, we have links to and headlines from Wikinews. If they are making up stories there, it is showing up on this project's most public face. I would suggest that is a darn good reason for English Wikipedia to take an interest in what is going on there. Risker (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am on a soapbox - the soapbox that perhaps the captain of this ship, and perhaps some experienced and intelligent editors over here, might want to take a bit of responsibility for a sister project whose excesses reflects on this project, too. I see that my correction of the title of the aforementioned article, in which I removed the partisan crystal-balling in a neutral fashion, has been reverted and labeled vandalism by one of the main partisans, an admin there that says: "I am currently a candidate for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees."

"Please do not removed sourced, true information from articles. That is considered vandalism. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)" n:User talk:JustaHulk

"I am currently a candidate for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees." Scary stuff, that. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And for those that would say "sofixit", well, I did (good thing someone with some "common sense" checked in over there - I could use some help with that). Let's see if it stays fixed. On a side note, it is interesting that WikiNews reports 800 at Sydney while a "reliable source" says 150. I will leave that alone as doubless the "reporter" will stand by his "reporting". --JustaHulk (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm so glad that the "Church of Scientology" is teaching us how to be unbiased. Just don't sue us, OK? You'd think with all your money that you'd build a soup kitchen or something, but I guess posting here about that story is just as good. I never knew that stating plain facts qualified with such adjectives as claimed would be bias, though. But, I'm sure Jimbo will take time out of his day to delete those facts for you. So, despite what some people may think, your post made a difference and we all appreciate you taking OUR time to discuss it.--The Smartass (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews does original research with a variably-reliable editorial process - that's why wikipedia can't in general use them as a source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad all this reporting is verifiable. So find another excuse. This one is old already. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Verifiable?" Really? How about you show us just one reliable source that supports the statement you posted this morning with only a few protests in Australia/New Zealand off (note past tense below):

"The Internet group Anonymous today held over 250 protests"

and that you continue to push as the headline (albeit with a vaguer tense). That someone as clueless about the difference between reality and partisan wishful thinking as you evidently are (and as willing to champion the latter as you are) would be considered for a Trustee is truly stupefying. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we allow Anonymous editors on Wikipedia.   Zenwhat (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that intended to be a "provocative" statement (so as to not use another term)? :) --JustaHulk (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether you liked the source of the 250 protests or not is not my problem. It was and is sourced, properly. Your POV of a source does not make is unreliable. So prove us wrong instead of violating policy all the time. DragonFire1024 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
DragonFire, really! Are you and I even looking at the same WikiNews?? That 250 headline disappeared long ago (I disappeared it for the second time and that time it stuck). I later corrected the body with reliably sourced material that was already available in the references (any reason I have to be the one?) I asked you for the source of the 250 number (as in a link), not more doubletalk and unfounded attacks. Do you have the link? Do you have a source? And that is not to mention your other excesses, like the snide and unprofessional photo, that I removed, here ("Careful WikiNews! The Church of Scientology is coming to get you!"). PS - you would not care to back this charge of "violating policy all the time", would you? I do appreciate you coming over here, though, and talking to me though I would still like a straight answer to my questions - and that goes for your cohort Brianmc also, another WikiNews admin and bureaucrat(!), who accuses me of "lied to either Wikinews or the en.WP ArbCom" and "wildly conflicting stories" because he "discovered" that I was a Scientologist (see n:User talk:JustaHulk#Interview). When I go over to WikiNews, it is like I chugged a vial labeled "Drink Me". Wheeeeeeee --JustaHulk (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even angry.

Jimbo and others, since I, on occasion, use this page in a perhaps provocative fashion, I would like to please direct your attention to User:JustaHulk#Announcement. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion as the founder of the Wikipedia project on WP:FICT issues.

I'm not exactly sure you'll even bother to read this, but I, along with many Wikipedia users, wonder what your stance is on fictional topics on Wikipedia. The users you've entrusted your project to have essentially done nothing but babble back and forth for months now on what should or shouldn't be included as content on this encyclopedia, while infamous users such as TTN have been going on crusades deleting, trimming and merging hundreds, or possibly thousands of articles citing these controversial guidelines as rules set in stone. Many of these deleted articles are episodes of popular television shows and fictional content, some being formerly Featured Articles such as Bulbasaur or ones that were constantly on the top 100 viewed articles. Most of these article deletions are cited as "okay" since the content is sometimes moved over to horribly maintained and obscure external Wikis such as Wikia. I myself have long stopped being truly involved with Wikipedia because of this mindset that so many "powerful" Wikipedians share, but would still enjoy hearing your opinions or seeing a little intervention. - (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been noted by many, that general fiction and cultural-trivia and fancruft collection is the one thing that Wikipedia does better than any other source. Not that Wikipedia isn't a good information source for other things, but cruft-collection is where it really shines. All of which makes the cruft-killers here on WP a bit bizarre, except for the existance of Wikia, the cruft-hole-that-makes-$. So NOW there's a conflict of interest in getting cruft moved from HERE to THERE. One which has been DEFINED not to be a conflict of interest. Hmmm. SBHarris 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The cruft is GFDL-licensed. It can be moved or copied anywhere that complies with the terms of that license—Wikia included. If you'd like to copy the cruft to someplace else as well, you're more than welcome. Heck, ad-supported sites have been mirroring Wikipedia content for years(see WP:FORK). You can even take the stuff straight from Wikia; you don't have to catch content while it's on Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, the cruft-killers on Wikipedia are not owners of Wikia. They just want the cruft out of the encyclopedia. Whether or not one agrees with their editorial stance is moot—they don't have a conflict of interest, and they don't stand to personally benefit from Wikipedia content being copied to Wikia. Don't mistake – or worse, misrepresent – a content disagreement for a conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't mistake my argument. Many of the cruft-killers may not stand to financially benefit, but if they want it out of WP, they stand to benefit by the argument that it has another place to go to. If it didn't, it would make their job harder. Meanwhile, the people who do run Wikia have a reason not to stand in the way of it disappearing HERE and reappearing THERE. The copy issue is irrelevent if it's not available in one place, but is in another. You still have to go to the other place and look at the ads to see it. And by the way, not ALL the cruft disappears to GFDL places. Go see Memory alpha for an example of cruft which disappears to a black hole place from whence no commercial re-use is ever allowed. And who profits from that move?

Now, again, don't mistake my argument. I'm sure all Trek fans are happy to have that stuff there, and cruft-killers here are happy to see it gone. BUT, the problem is that once this kind of thing is set as trivia killing precident, we set a bad precident for killing "cruft" or trivia that actually has no place else on the web to go to, because fewer people are fans of it. Once gone from wikipedia, it goes back to whatever newpaper microfiche or musty library stack it came out of originally, and is now unavailable to the rest of us. I saw that happen to bios on supercentinarians, and even some of the people who wrote them were effectively banned. Not good. Especially when we have to suffer through lists of Grand Dukes of Luxembourg and their next-in-succession (groan). SBHarris 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Material from Wikipedia cannot be copied to a Wikia project that doesn't use a GFDL-compatible license. (If the author of the material on Wikipedia chooses to relicense his contributions, he is welcome to. If you would like to invite such authors to contribute their material to other sites as well, you certainly may.) There is no provision for Wikipedia administrators, editors, or staff to transfer material to a site with, for example, a non-commercial-use-only license.
Okay, I see we're going to need a specific example. There once existed on WMF an entire Klingon Wikipedia, just like the English one. Except Wiki articles were written in Klingonese. I kid you not. That entire Klingon Wikipedia has since been moved to Wikia. [18]. Now, I reject that the entire Klingon Wikipedia was the work of one single author when it was hosted by Wikimedia as a Wikipedia, but you're free to argue this, if you have info. Otherwise, the thing you said could not happen, obviously did here. Please explain. And by the way, how would you feel if this had happened to the Esperanto Wikipedia, another constructed language Wikipedia still hosted by WMF [19]? SBHarris 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As for material that 'has no place else on the web to go'—well, we're not the humane society. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a blog or webspace provider, nor a file repository. In any case, I'm not sure what the potential loss of some material from the web has to do with your apparently groundless accusations of a conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well WP:NOT also mentions that WP is WP:NOTPAPER, either, so there’s space for all kinds of information that is verifiable, even if somebody made it up, like fictional works, articles written in Epiranto, or articles written in Klingon (except the latter have been hijacked, as noted). Your “indiscriminate information” is my discriminate information. It’s totally dependent on interest. I have mentioned the painful Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg with its dependent List of Grand Dukes of Luxembourg and Line of succession to the Luxembourgian Throne. All of this existing here because (to borrow a quote from Shrek) royalty makes some folks here, hotter than July (“Ewww…”). The rest of us, to whom royalty is a joke at best and pox on the history of the mankind at worst, just have to roll our eyes. Eww, indeed. But, different strokes for different folks.

Alas, the favor is not returned, for the deletionists have all kinds of rationales for deleting information that doesn’t interest them. Example: Hemoglobin used to have a subarticle created by me, discussing hemoglobin variants about the many genetic polymorphisms of alleles. This medical information was damn well more notable and important to humananity than the line of succession of Luxembourgian Grand Dukes. It got deleted and redirected to the original article before it had time to grow. Now, somebody’s on the hemoglobin TALK page, wondering what’s the difference between tetramer varients and allele varients, and I have no place to direct them. This is/was a case of encyclopedia damage, not failure to find a puppy shelter.

If you want a more whimsical example that I had little to do with, I recently made my one and only (small) contribution to Bokononisms, refering to sayings from an artificial religion created by Kurt Vonnegut for Cat’s Cradle. Somebody noticed this, and proceeded to gut the article, saying the content wasn’t referenced. When I restored it, pointing out that it was, they deleted again, saying it was copyright infringing. When I reverted, they said the material had not only infringment but had notability problems. Basically they just want it GONE, and if one reason won’t do, another will. That’s the battle we fight all the time, here. And if you’re wondering what’s the connection is, to stuff disappearing to Wikia for profit, like the Klingon articles, the answer is that ANYTHING like this, ends up “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” The enemy being people thinking to write an encyclopedia, yet who really cannot empathize with anybody else’s special interests (!). SBHarris 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To claim that wikipedia merely does cruft well is to grossly underestimate wikipedia. If I see a problem it is underselling wikipedia, after all 6 times out of 10 its a better search engine than Google or Yahoo. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No way. Wikipedia's search engine per se, sucks. It can't even deal with spelling errors, half the time. To really search Wikipedia well, you need to USE Google. They are complimentary. Why do I have to tell you this? SBHarris 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Err, I think you are missing my point, it is the content of wikipedia that makes it so valuable, and, as someone with a tremendous intellectual curiosity, I don't see any real competitors. Though wikipedia clearly does have knowledge holes. If you are criticising the search feature, well, as I said, I think the foundation underestimates what a jewel it has (we've never seen such a user generated product before), and would do well to fortify itself through investment in order to actualise its product in the best way possible. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox , I think I agree with what you are trying to say but are slightly mis-stating. Please see if this is not your intended meaning:
It is the community that creates the free to copy anywhere content of Wikipedia that makes it so valuable, and, as someone with a tremendous intellectual curiosity, I don't see any real competitors. Though wikipedia clearly does have knowledge holes. If you are criticising the search feature, well, as I said, I think the foundation underestimates what a jewel it has (we've never seen such a user generated product before), and would do well to fortify itself through investment in order to actualise its product in the best way possible. Thanks.
I would add to that, that deleting content and moving it to Wikia is an attempt to motivate the community that created that content to abandon wikipedia and contribute elsewhere. People will not stay here at wikipedia and edit articles they don't care about if the articles they do care about are moved to Wikia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and see the talk page of Wikia for some interesting conversation. The latest Wikimedia financial audit written by Wikimedia and approved by an audit firm states that Wikimedia and Wikia share hosting and bandwidth, but that Yahoo used to provide bandwidth as a donation, but no longer does. What the heck is going on? The audit goes out of its way to make clear that Wikia and wikimedia no longer share office space, but on the subject of shared bandwidth and hosting, uses the present tense and says not word about it being discontinued. Further, the report was just finalized and approved a couple days ago, so its not like it is from last year. This is very disturbing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the entire drive by a minority of editors to feverishly delete or get rid of all the episode articles is just over the top, stupid, and petty. It's a classic example of "I don't like it, or think it has value, so no one will have it." I'd weigh in but that's such a bitter, rancorous pool, like the spoil mess, that I really don't need the aggravation. Lawrence § t/e 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LC, above. . .it's why a lot of editors don't weigh in more often. R. Baley (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It would perhaps be a less bitter and rancorous pool if the opposition wasn't portrayed so negatively. A lot of those wanting to get rid of many of the current episode articles (and to call them a minority is pure speculation, they don't appear to be a minority of our regular editors anyway) do so because they are convinced that many of these articles violate some policies, and the chance of them improving is quasi nil. These articles are not verifiable by secondary, independent sources, have no indication of notability, and consist mainly of plot summaries (violating WP:NOT and according to some people bordering on copyright violations). Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but these articles are mainly secondary sources, based directly on the original episodes and not on what independent, reliable sources have written about them. While in general a list of episodes (or a list per season) may be an acceptable compromise, individual episode articles are overkill (except for those episodes that do have individual notability, as e.g. award winners, first or last of series, or for some controversy). There are many comparable things we don't have articles for, like individual sport games (again with the exception of truly notable ones), individual magazine issues, individual newspaper issues, etcetera. Discussion can be had about where to draw the line, obviously, but if you can't respect the people with a different viewpoint a bit more, it's no wonder that this has become bitter. Fram (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So help me out here, we are going to keep the Star Trek episode articles, right? Between that and The Simpsons, there's half my look-ups on Wikipedia :) Franamax (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That would depend (ultimately) on the number of dedicated editors (at least a small portion must be well versed in policy and guidelines) you have to defend it. R. Baley (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only to defend it, but to improve the articles as well. To take a random example, an article like Court Martial (Star Trek) is not really an example of what we expect of Wikipedia articles. Much too long plot summary, no in line references, no reliable independent sources (one external link is a wiki, the other is not independent). Bt I know that there is tons of reliable published information about Star Trek (books, encyclopedias, nitpickers' guides, etcetera), so I assume that a decent article about each Star Trek episode (at least TOS and TNG, probably the others as well) is possible. But if you want to defend these articles, you (as a group, not Franamax personally) must be willing to make the effort to seriously improve the article as well. The article dates from October 2004, so it's not like there hasn't been time to do so... I personally see no good reason not to redirect such articles to an episode list until a better version is made, but I'm not going to do this until the discussions (ArbCom and so on) are perhaps someday resolved.Fram (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that is a good example of an ungood article and it does need to be improved. But does its existence in the current form hurt anything? It does have some utility as it is and presumably gets page views (not sure where to check on that). I'd rather try to improve articles already on my list but still have that one there. It would be a shame to see it vanish under a redirect. Franamax (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
These are always difficult decisions. On the one hand, such articles are of interest to some people (perhaps a lot of people), but on the other hand, they diminish Wikipedia's credibility (in their current unsourced or poorly sourced state) and set a poor example (if you can have "that article", then why not article X?). To use a strawman: articles on ponr stars (and certainly well-illustrated articles on porn stars) get lots of page views, but we don't keep them either (unless they have sourced notability). Wikipedia must not aim for popularity, but for accuracy. Our aim is wide but not unlimited. To include articles that in their current state fall outside that aim (i.e. articles that fail WP:NOTE or something similar) do not improve Wikipedia if you consider it as an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. Of course, articles must first be given the chance to improve if there is a reasonable chance that they can meet our aims, but after a while (like this article), and especially if the problems have been tagged for a while (which at first glance hasn't happened with this article), the reasonable assumption is that either the article can not be improved, or no one at the moment is willing or able to do so, and for that reason, it should be redirected (for episodes and the like) or deleted (for e.g. biographies). This is not definitive though: such articles can be resurrected when the improvements are made. I don't think this is the most popular position to take, but I do believe that it is the best way to maintain the scope and intentions of Wikipedia as I understand them. I think this generally is the same as what the disputed guideline WP:EPISODE says, and what the vast majority of users at the Request for comments have said so far. I don't mean to say that your position is incorrect: it is a difference in opinion, and in the end we have the same aspirations (I believe), but the way to get there is in this case different. Fram (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing with that is that Wikipedia will never be a scholarly source, so the meer existence of articles like Marth (Fire Emblem) which has been pushed for merge/deletion isn't really hurting Wikipedia's "credibility" at all. I don't think anyone would actually discount the merits of well-written Wikipedia articles on specifically real-world content just because it also has large bits of info on another subject, the people who don't trust Wikipedia generally do so because of its open format and not because it's a wide-scope enyclopedia. As long as a fiction article is informative without being a total plot summary on the larger subject, and is written from an objective point of view, it isn't hurting the enyclopedia's credibility at all. - (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread involving you on AN/I

Just to let you know out of courtesy, there is a discussion involving you on AN/I. Thanks Whitstable 13:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Mr. Wales, can you help me? I am twelve and I am a new Wikipedian. All my teachers hate Wikipedia and tell us to use gulp, real encyclopedias! My Wikiholic friend and classmate, Stormtracker94 is with me. Please give me some advice! --Carerra (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is travelling right now and might not respond right away. I'll respond to keep this thread from being archived, maybe he can comment when he has time.
It is very important that you learn how to use a real encylopedia, and it is even more important that you learn how to research from lots of sources and make up your own mind whether what they say is true. The world is full of people who want you to believe what they think is right, you have to learn how to tell them all apart and decide for yourself. Don't take the easy way out and just look at Wikipedia - look at the "See Also" and "References" and "Further Reading" sections in the articles. Go to those places on the Internet and go to your library and look up the books and read it all for yourself.
Your teacher just wants you to "learn how to learn", Wikipedia is the best starting point in the world but you have to explore past Wikipedia and find the truth for yourself. Good luck! Franamax (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman


Do I understand correctly that you still retain the ability to dissolve the present ArbCom and hold new elections? —Random832 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. I think the ArbCom would support me in that notion as well. However, the chances of me doing that are vanishingly close to zero. It's a useful safety valve in case of a major major problem, but not something I have any interest in doing. The power of our traditions rests primarily in them being sane, and their use being sane.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider the Arbitration Committee's actions in the above-named case, by which an administrator ("Vanished User" refers to this person throughout, if you wish to review the case) has been driven away from the site and the community's input has been completely ignored for no apparent reason other than it not having been the outcome Uninvited Company wanted, to be "sane"? If you haven't been following it closely enough to know what the issue is, I can try to put together a summary sometime this week. —Random832 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagreed with my colleagues' disposition of the Matthew Hoffman case as well as with a remedy that was adopted in another recently closed, prominent case. However, I am extremely confident that in each case, the majority voted for the outcome they believed was in the best interests of the project and the contributor base as a whole, and I respectfully do not believe that the suggestion of dissolving the committee based on disagreement with a particular decision is a constructive one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Newyorkbrad that dissolving the committee as a whole is UNwarranted. However, I have some very serious concerns, which are clearly shared by others including Carcharoth, MastCell and Random832. At present I am very seriously considering initiating a user RfC on one or more ArbCom members to determine whether the community wants to register its dissent, or even to declare they lack confidence in the judgement of one or more Committee members. As Newyorkbrad indicates, opinions can differ and ArbCom members are entitled to reasonable discretion. The question for me is whether some member(s) have gone beyond what the community believes are reasonable bounds on that discretion, and if so, whether this has undermined the confidence in those Committee members seriously enough for further action to be warranted. EdChem (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Note: changed warranted to UNwarranted once I noticed this mistake. Apologies for not re-reading carefully earlier. EdChem (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm seriously troubled, upset, and disappointed by a number of aspects in the handling of this case from start to finish. I've elaborated elsewhere and won't repeat myself here. I do think that it's not right to beat up on UninvitedCompany - after all, he was one of the few Arbs willing to share his thought process and invite questions, a considerate step which he was not obligated to take. I think the Committee does an excellent job in general, despite my very profound objections to the handling of this particular case, and I don't think an RfC would be appropriate or fruitful at this point. Nor would an unprecedented step like dissolving the Committee (though I do wish the Committee as a whole seemed to have a bit more accountability when cases like this arise). I'd rather try to understand if I'm missing something fundamental in my understanding of the case. Assuming I'm not, then I'd be much more comfortable if there was at least some acknowledgement that this case was an aberration and that its more disturbing features would not be repeated - but of course, making me comfortable is not Wikipedia's or the Committee's primary function. :) MastCell Talk 04:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've watched over 30 arbitration cases unfold. The Matthew Hoffman case was the worst handled one I've ever seen, and that includes my own. DurovaCharge! 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm surprised the ArbCom has managed to reduce my respect for them as a collective to zero. It was already extraordinarily low after (some event I probably can't mention without being accused of trolling), but this is a serious problem. I suppose there's nothing to do other than add my name to the pile of "The community is unhappy" voices. WilyD 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think to be fair with the diversity of opinions on the current committee and the nature of the case, some of the mess was inevitable. However I think dissolving the committee is a bit extreme (perhaps leaning on them to drop the case, which IMO should have been done a long while ago, would however be productive). I tend to agree with MastCell in general above. Orderinchaos 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The option of "leaning on them to drop the case" has left the building, it closed yesterday. —Random832 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that those who disagree with a ruling may be more vocal in complaining than those who are satisfied are likely to praise it, I do not agree with those who think the ArbCom handled this case badly. The now vanished user violated policies and abused admin privileges, per the now final decision; suggesting that the ArbCom did their jobs badly because they bent over backwards to make accommodations to the vanished user is really unfair to them. —Whig (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That probably would be unfair to the Committee, if anyone were actually arguing that. I'm certainly not. The issue is not whether the admin in question made some bad blocks (he did); the issues have to do with how the case was processed, accepted, and disposed. This was formulated as a test case - to paraphrase Voltaire, the idea was to desysop one admin with prejudice pour encourager les autres - and the processing of the case, at least initially, suggests that the Committee saw it as such. The handling of this case sends a number of damaging and demoralizing messages, which I'm far more concerned about than the fate of the admin in question's sysop bit. MastCell Talk 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree it sends an important message to admins to be responsible with their sysop bit. I hope that message resonates. —Whig (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not the message it sends at all. WilyD 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As an alternative to completely dissolving the committee and holding another election, I would like to suggest this: a reconfirmation election for UninvitedCompany and Charles Matthews (since these were the two arbitrators whose actions seem to be the primary issue here); to be replaced (if they are not reconfirmed) by two new arbitrators chosen at Jimbo's discretion from those who received at least 50% in the December 2007 election but were not appointed at that time. —Random832 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll confess I'm a bit puzzled here (though I have not been in the details). UC was one of several arbitrators active on this case, who collectively reached a certain decision. Even if he/she was an advocate for a certain position, part of the reason we have a multiple member arbcom is so that any potential individual biases are mitigated. Charles Matthews brought forward a case and correctly recused himself from being an arbitrator in it: you might claim he should not have brought the case (but it was accepted by the committee...) or that he could have been more civil in discussing it in his role as a party to the case (but we have seen much worse from arbcom case participants...) but I fail to see any rationale for reconfirmation/recall. Martinp (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
My impression was that UninvitedCompany was largely considered responsible for the direction the committee took in ignoring the outcome of the RFC. Was I incorrect? As for Charles Matthews, I think both the extreme lack of decorum and, more to the point, the committee's bizarre (yes, bizarre. What's the point of a recusal if everyone else is just going to close ranks anyway?) reluctance to examine his behavior mean that it should be looked at instead by the community as a whole; arbitrators are supposed to set an example, and even though his behavior here was not strictly as an arbitrator, his behavior still has an effect on the credibility of arbcom itself. —Random832 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that the case ended and Vanished User has left the building, I'll point out another flaw in this proceeding: the ruling didn't actually prohibit the community from readminning this editor. Compare the wording of this case's remedy to previous arbitration desysoppings. Vanished User's supporters knew they had the numbers, thanks to the well attended RFC. An RFA would have been an open challenge to the Committee and a reminder of where their mandate springs from. DurovaCharge! 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that as less of a flaw and more of a hat tipping to the fact that there were extenuating circumstances here with regards to inappropriate tool use. A probable corollary is that rather than deal with both the tool use and the circumstances, they chose to deal with only the tool use, which could easily be framed within the letter of the laws, and not the other circumstances, which would require consideration of the spirit as well.
But in any case, I think this recall talk dramafodder should be dropped. The scope of their improving the encyclopedia is merely to make sure the rules are enforced. Yes they punted on the more pressing but longer term problem, but if Jimbo wishes to comment on that, I am sure he will. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure the community would re-admin this user in any case, and recalling specific Arbs on the basis of their role in one poor decision seems like a bad precedent. I think the bottom line is that a number of people were horrified/disappointed/deeply dismayed by how this case was handled from start to finish, and there is really no outlet for that. I don't think that resysopping the user in question would fix things, nor am I convinced it would be a good idea. I'd be happy if the Committee, or rather certain elements of it, would acknowledge that they'd be more circumspect regarding special treatment the next time an angry Arbitrator brings a case, and disown the notion of turning valued editors into "test cases". Since that appears vanishingly unlikely, I think all that can be done is to file this one away and move on. MastCell Talk 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I offered to nom Vanished User, and he declined. This probably only indicates he's a wiser man than I. WilyD 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

...the other option...

...being that Jimmy Wales can nullify the decision in that case. "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency"clemency, my dear friends, being a way to resolve this with less disruption should Jimmy Wales agree with most of what has been said above.

Now, for the record, I a) don't have any interest in this case beyond the general interest I have in the arbitration policy, b) hence, do not know whether clemency would be warranted or ideal; I do not support or oppose it based on the fact that I know too little about the case, c) have only ever suggested this once before, directly and privately to Jimmy, so it's not as if I'm dedicated to pushing for clemency wherever possible, d) have no idea whether Jimmy is even sharing the belief that this case was not handled satisfactorally.

Basically, I think that this would be generally less disruptive than a dissolution, although I have no idea whether it's warranted, likely, or otherwise. Daniel (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

a fringing big THANK YOU

Hey Jimbo,

I would just like to thank you very much for looking deaper into the fring article and bring it back to life. When I wrote that article (article number 8) I really couldnt see why it got deleted. I understood the previous attempts by previous guys because it looked like advertising but I really attempted to do it according to all the rules and yet it still got deleted, I felt the system had a big hole in it and you have given me confidence in wikipedia again. The wheel is big but it does eventually turn around and I was amazed that the founder would take the time out of hi busy schedule to add his comment.

Thank you

I send you warm regards from South Africa

ps. When you are in SA again let me know, I missed your last visit sorry.



Goplett (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, RlevseTalk 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Constant attack of Hungarian users and Hungarians on Wikipedia (Eastern Europe series vol. 2, or more)

Romania and Slovakia has large Hungarian minorities, whom are constantly attacked in real life (for ex. Hedvig Malina, 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs, etc.) and also online.

Tons of disruptive users are out there, like User:Roamataa (Romanian, deleting every Hungarian word and placename in Transsylvania related articles (choose any), despite that it was part of Hungary for more than a 1000 (thousand) years, and still 1.5 million Hungarians are living there, and many place are haveing Hungarian majority, and centuries of Hungarian history, etc. User:Svetovid: Same, just change Romania to Slovakia, see only his block log, and the related edits. It talks for itself, and it says everything I want to explain and show and present. User:Tankred the same, etc. etc. dozens of similar users, some are as long here, and playing these dirty games, as of 2004. There are also a much smaller in number, but same agressive Serbian version of them, they are especially active on Vojvodina related articles. Common in them is their same level (high) agressiveness, massive edit warring on multiple pages, and deletion of Hungarian placenames and words from Wikipedia's articles, mainly in articles dealing with the Carpathian Basin's history and any of its former and present countries' histories, and in those articles wich are dealing with places once were within the Kingdom of Hungary (practically is within the Carpathian Basin) and eventually calling all of these words and placenames etc. mere existence a Hungarian (nationalist/irredentist) POV, as well as any/every Hungarian source for anything.

Not to mention those ppl's articles (for ex. Franz Liszt), whom were born (and/or died also) in the Kingdom of Hungary, but outside of present day Hungary, before the Treaty of Trianon. No matter that many of them lived well before the existence of Czecoslovakia or Slovakia, or never ever lived in that state(s) wich now claims them, there are always constant and never ending attempts to show anyone possible as Slovak/Romanian/Serb/etc. here, despite of their true (Hungarian) ethnicity, or their own claims, or the fact, that they never ever lived in those states, and/or they never considered themselfs serbs/slovaks/etc. Modern times' famous or well known ppl. from the Hungarian minority of these new or expanded states are also victims of Slovakization, Romanianization or Serbisation. For example there was many attemts to show Monica Seles as if she was Serb or Yugoslav ([20], [21], etc.) She gained hungarian citizenship next to her american in 2007 June, but it is constantly getting deleted ([22], [23], etc.), despite many sources. - Funny thing, that User:Tennis expert even deleted the statement copied from Monika Seles's biggest and oldest fan-webpage's (and be sure, they know EVERYTHING abt MS) had appaled (and obtained) Hungarian citizenship. But this may be a mere different story, and he's not anti-Hungarian, just a semi-troll or what.

Almost 9 out of ten Hungarian users here were at least once probed for sockpuppetry, also at least a dozen left the project just in 2007. These constant attacks on Hungarians should be somehow "finished" once and for all. -- (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the "sinister" Caltrop is on WikiBreak.

Ya just can't be thin-skinned and edit for years on Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, I'll be taking a wikibreak (like you or anyone should care) over a teapot tempest stirred up by my honorable colleague Prodego (a completely unknown person to me) over my "sinister" talk page deletions. I have been here since NuPedia. Mea culpa: I've been deleting my boring User Talk page every so often for years. Someone pointed out that I should not. I tried (with help from the IRC team) to bring it back and archive it. It became a horrible mess. Now I am being beleaguered by well-meaning blinkered bureaucrats. I tell you, it makes me hate the place. It's getting like MIT, IBM or the world of Brazil (movie) here for me.

Years of service and $$$ donations brought to a depressing and depressed standstill. Vandalism and pedantic battles do not bother me as much as the inferno of having to work in an online nightmare. Should you care? Is this systemic? No. Wikipedia is one of the most important projects ever created and it will succeed and grow stronger. I have never written to you about anything ever, but now I am infected with a dread of even logging on for fear of seeing "New Messages". Thanks for listening. Caltrop (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Should you be interested in this Jimbo, please read WP:AN#Caltrop's talk page: Forced merge and restoration appropriate?. Prodego talk 03:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hello, after reading your comments here, I thought you might be interested in the delegable proxy (aka liquid democracy) proposal Abd and I have been working on. This is a system in which people can appoint their own personal representatives. The first step will be to get people to start signing up at the proxy table; then an automated tool can be used to conduct analyses, or it can even be copied into a spreadsheet and combined with other info to make pivottables from which useful insights can be made. The possibilities are endless. Ron Duvall (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr Wales,

The Wikipedia Logo has the wrong Hindi alphabet. I think this issue has been brought up before. When will it be fixed?

Hope to make Wikipedia better Σαι ( Talk) 12:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was an article in the New York Times about it. According to the article the person who made the logo lost the original computer file and is too busy to start from scratch. Jon513 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I need to register to see that? Can someone give me the text? Σαι ( Talk) 10:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
this may help. Jon513 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. there was an article in the Indian newspaper Eenadu Eenadu not long ago. I guess until someone with some time on their hands comes around this will be like this. :( Σαι ( Talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If a well-known gramatically incorrect logo cannot be fixed after nearly a year of Wikipedia being aware of it, what hope can there be? Hope is the driving force behind Wikipedia failure.   Zenwhat (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Zenwhat, stop trolling, ok?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

LoL. Zidel333 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we not just very carefully replace the characters in a paint program? I'm good with this sort of stuff. Does anybody object to me giving it a go and making a test? • Anakin (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, and others watching this page :-). I gave it a go. Compare Image:Wikipedia-logo.png and Image:Wikipedia-logo-fix-test.png. The new characters look a bit distorted but I think it's just because they're an unfamiliar shape anyway. I can tweak it of course. Is it an improvement? • Anakin (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I heard that this error is actually a good thing because it signifies the fact that not everything in Wikipedia is true; it is natural that the logo contains errors. -- Taku (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
True, true. But fixing it signifies that we fix errors when we find them. Even if Wikipedia will always contain errors, there's no reason not to try to make it perfect. • Anakin (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please answer me one thing

How could you? Cool Hand Luke 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, did you really admit that Gary Weiss was Mantanmoreland five months ago? If so, you've let this situation fester all this time, wasting hundreds of hours of our time and threatening the credibility of this freaking project you've set up that so many of us spend so much of our time trying to make work? I know what I want to ask of you next, but I'm going to wait for your answer before I ask it, because it will be a serious request. In fact, I'm going to bold this to make sure you see it...Did you admit that Gary Weiss was Mantanmoreland on 9/15/2007? Cla68 (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Cla, he said he thought they were the same, but didn't want to act unless there was proof. Perhaps you want to rephrase the question? Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the post, here are his exact words, "I just want to go on record as saying that I believe the reason for this is that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss." I'm giving him a chance to explain this remark before I comment further. Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the situation is this: One POV side was careful to be nice to all the right people while the other side was careful to be as insulting as possible to all the right people (including vicious libelous attacks on Jimbo that have now been deleted on a site they control). The cabal rallied around the nice guys. The nice guys then proceeded to use their position to make certain articles POV, but not so much that the cabal would care. Meanwhile, the bad guys launch sock after sock after sock, so the cabal stops even trying to be fair and simply views anyone with the same POV as the bad side as a sock. Thus is born the thought crime and how doing battle on wikipedia creates sides. But in the end both sides need to be banned. One side was just so nice (100s of emails to the right people says Guy) that some still make excuses. Well, stand aside those of you who have befriended either side and let the community decide. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fair representation of what has happened. There is a fringe conspiracy theory here, one which is not reflected in reliable sources, and refusing to allow paid corporate POV pushers to control an article because they have a willingness to engage in "dirty tricks" campaigns is always going to be the right thing to do. The article, when I have looked at it (not recently) seemed to be quite good to me, whereas the version proposed by the other side was not even remotely close to ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(reposting from ANI and RFC) I've written to Jimbo and asked him for comment. He's traveling this week and may not be available to post onsite before Friday. I've reread the entire thread where that brief excerpt came from, and the context is about the difference between proof and hunch. It's possible to have a stong hunch without actually being right (cough). So let's not get too furious at Jimbo for being wiser in September than I was in November. DurovaCharge! 12:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And for Was 4.250: the policy is assume good faith. One side had conclusively violated policy and - to speak only for myself - I extended good faith toward the other because that was possible and plausible. It's still possible, but I'm concerned about plausible and I'm worried that someone may have played upon my goodwill and the goodwill of others. That's why I've been sticking my neck out these last several days. Likewise, I'm concerned that this e-mail disclosure was selected out of context to feed your worst suspicions. See contextomy. DurovaCharge! 14:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We assume good faith when we lack evidence, not when we have overwhelming evidence. Until this latest effort, AGF made sense for all the reasons pointed out; except that there was a freakin two year war on and off wikipedia and it would have been prudent to initiate an investigation like this back at least a year ago to see if there was fire under all that smoke or not. Constantly blocking/banning people who warn about a friend of the cabal having a COI is damaging to the community and our credibility. The cabal have got to stop their warfare on people who agree with their enemies on some issue. Thought crime must no longer be a block-able offense. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like what I see here either, but cabal and thought crime? Try Wikipedian. Think back to when Runcorn/Poetlister got banned - two great editors wrapped into one. The socking wasn't endorsed or winked at; people just had doubts that took a while to prove. DurovaCharge! 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right about my choice of terminology. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear. I'm not suggesting that you knew or admitted you were certain that he was Weiss. The reason I am outraged is that respected admins—including you—suspected it, but sat idly by as inquiries into Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were suppressed. (Suppressed, incidentally, by some of those same respected admins.) At to make myself even more clear: Wordbomb was justly banned, but when legitimate editors like Cla68 raised the question, the appropriate response was to look into it, not bury it and ban those who would oppose. Cool Hand Luke 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any suppression of any inquiries. I am unaware of any bans of anyone under the circumstances you mention. My actions have been limited to conducting an investigation into an allegation, and finding no persuasive evidence. As I have said elsewhere, the idea that someone was given a free pass for being a friend is nonsense. I don't even like Mantanmoreland, and have found him to be difficult or impossible to interact with. Nonetheless, it is true that I don't ban people just because I don't like them, nor do we ban people due to being the victim of stalkers. It is important to understand that there is some extreme POV pushing going on in this case, and much unsavory "sleuthing" has taken place to try to "out" Mantanmoreland. It's all rubbish if you ask me, but in any event here we are. If you can show me an example of "bury it and ban those who would oppose" I encourage you to file an ArbCom case about it. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not expecting a reply as the case is ongoing, but "persuasive evidence" may have been around since 2006. For all the talk of recent days about who doesn't believe who is who and who isn't, perhaps there was a smoking gun after all Whitstable 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo: Cla68 is more familiar with the history of this case, so I defer "suppression" evidence to his section of the RFAR evidence. Incidentally, he cites Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Weiss. Do you suppose this could be undeleted for the duration of the arbitration? Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP guideline

Hi, Jimbo, a question: does BLP apply to articles about groups of living people as well as just living people themselves? Will (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tricky question. Generally the category and templates are only used for specific articles with the name of a living person in the title, but there are exceptions made when there are BLP related concerns. A singing group composed of two people, an article about a family are examples where BLP is very much an important consideration. The more people, the less any one will be affected by a claim about the group as a whole: Articles about the United States, about IBM, about a small village are in no way BLP articles. But on any page, not just in articles, a claim about any single named living person is subject to the BLP policy. The singing group the Beatles is an excellent example of a group that is exactly in the middle between being covered and not being covered by our BLP policy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason I'm asking the question is because BLP is half-legal, half-ethical. I would assume that groups would find it easier to sue for libel than individuals. I don't think the Beatles is a good example, as George and John are dead - perhaps a band such as Green Day would serve for that comparison? Will (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And any material that will affect the livelihood or reputation of the individuals should surely be subject to BLP, eg accusations of room-trashing (a typical accusation against certain rock stars historically) by a band should surely be the subject of BLP re the members of the band. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For the legal issue of libel use our WP:LIBEL policy rather than WP:BLP. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
By the by, IBM is a legal person and probably entitled to BLP-style protection, if at least from the legal half. WilyD 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It may well be a legal person in US and other legal jurisdictions but I don't believe that entitles it to BLP protection, certainly not as BLP is currently defined, and IMO to impose such a policy whereby large corporations such as Microsoft and IBM are entitled to the same kind of protection as individuals re our BLP policy would be controversial to say the least, but anyway shoudl be discussed at the policy's talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations! With your comment you started a war edit on multiple Linux related pages. Maybe you should just rule what the content of Wikipedia should be and end the war, what do you say? Please be a man and comment on Talk:Linux not on users talk pages. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a message on Talk:Linux about this issue. Sorry that my call was impertinent and assholic, I was a bit peeved because of the edit wars that started following your stating an opinion. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk to admins

I'd like to suggest a new feature for Wikipedia. Yesterday some of my pages were deleted accidentally cos I was using some templates which were deleted. I then had to talk to the admin who deleted the pages and so on. What I'd say is to have a page called Talk to Admin where you can post your questions and any admin who is online at that time will be able to solve the problem. That'd be better won't it be? Σαι ( Talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the Administrator's noticeboard Nakon 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nupedia (etymology)

Hello Jimmy

According to Wikipedia, Larry coined the name Wikipedia (probably coined after Nupedia "New encyclopædia" I imagine) but it is not said who coined the name Nupedia. Do you have the answer to this question? 16@r (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How information circulates

A prominent and respected newspaper in Germany maintains this web page. At the bottom it says:

Dieser Artikel basiert auf dem Artikel Nena aus der freien Enzyklopädie Wikipedia und steht unter der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation. In der Wikipedia ist eine Liste der Autoren verfügbar.

and you can click on "Liste der Autoren" and find who wrote what (if not their real names, but my own edits are under my real name). The very first sentence on the newspaper's web page is not the first sentence in the Wikipedia article, but occurs later in the article:

Gabriele Susanne Kerner ist in Breckerfeld geboren und in Hagen aufgewachsen.

That sentence was written by me. It goes against the somewhat conventional wisdom that says she was born in Hagen. My statement about a celebrity who is universally known in Germany, where I've never been, and not so well known here to the left of the Pond, written by a person who needs dictionaries to write such a sentence in German, was the resource put on its web site by a major newspaper in Germany. Consequently I felt a certain sense of responsibility and thought I should check the facts more closely. My initial attempt in that direction resulted in someone in Germany telling me there's a web site where I could get authoritative information, and it was that newspaper web page where I was the author of the initial sentence.

That's how information gets around.

I may have solid information soon, and then I will edit the Wikipedia article accordingly and contact that newspaper.

How do you like that? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. It's a small world :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

controversial ban

I Jimbo. Once again, I am asking you to (at least) take a look at this. This claim by admin User:Thatcher131 was disproved here. But the user is still blocked indef. Other checkuser requests show that no other sockpuppet was used. Neither after the ban, nor before the ban. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

re Mantanmoreland ArbCom

Jimbo, I made this suggestion at the talkpage, and wonder if you would be amenable? No content, no addys, no headers, just the dates and times. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation non-free image deadline

Hi there. Please see:

I also wonder if you would be able to advise on the best way to get clarification of the Foundation Licensing policy? The points I've raised here concern historical images and some mentions I've seen of a deadline. What I've said over there is as follows:

"[What] about this bit of the policy? "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..." - it says right there: "to illustrate historically significant events". [...] Also, I've seen people say that there is a deadline of "March 23, 2008" to sort all this out, but in fact that deadline is currently written as a subclause of point 6. ie. It only applies to projects without an EDP. "For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken [...] By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." This may just be a mistake in the layout of the Licensing Policy, but if this is so, it needs to be changed and the change widely advertised."

As well as the 'deadline' confusion, my concern is also over historical images. I would be grateful if you could bring these points to the attention of the board if this needs clarification.

The above was written in August 2007 (the bit about historical images can be ignored for the moment - it is the deadline that needs clarification at board level) and left here, but got no response (as far as I can tell). For obvious reasons, it would be good if you, or other members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, could comment at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. I've notified the other Board Members where they have en-wiki user pages. Carcharoth (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New pages

Hi did you get my email? I think we must have broken a record today. Article count jumped from 2,228,000 mid last night to nearly 2,233,000 today! That's over twice the daily average. Check out the new pages for Saturday. There is currently a drive to get all the towns and villages in France onto wikipedia when other wikipedias have had these for years. Infoboxes will be added and hopefully by the end of this drive we will have 36,000 half decent new wiki articles. I think it is more important to get them up and running howeve limited they are initially and give a basis to work on. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Sorry. I just had to say hello to Jimbo Wales. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. -- (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nupedia (etymology)

Hello Jimmy

According to Wikipedia, Larry coined the name Wikipedia (probably coined after Nupedia "New encyclopædia" I imagine) but it is not said who coined the name Nupedia. Do you have the answer to this question? 16@r (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

COI, anon, cabal, content arbcom

Jimbo, above you said:

"I don't think this is a fair representation of what has happened. [...] The article, when I have looked at it (not recently) seemed to be quite good to me, whereas the version proposed by the other side was not even remotely close to ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)"

I want you to notice that here you are making a content decision in order to judge COI in order to decide whether or not a public discussion of a possible real world identity should take place. This sort of thing is obviously needed when wikipedia values both NPOV (so we have to watch out for COI) and anonymous editing (so we have to not take outing lightly). The problem I see in this case is that the sock war has resulted in public claims (e.g. in letters published by the SEC that are against both sides in the wikipedia war) that the articles have been biased by banning socks on the basis of the content they wished to add to the articles; resulting in the question of who at wikipedia should be evaluating the content of these articles for NPOV. We do not have a content arbcom. I think we should move in the direction of having an academically based one. It is policy that the community decides content, not a cabal. Yet, when a few people talk privately in order to avoid public discussion of a real world identity and that private group takes it upon itself to define NPOV for some articles in order to decide a COI question, then we have in fact a cabal making itself a content arbcom for those articles. It occurs to me that, since we have a de facto content arbcom when real life identities are involved, we need some sort of check&balance. For example, instead of saying "seemed to be quite good to me" suppose you were able to say "I asked a favor of two university professors who are experts in these articles to review the articles for bias (and accuracy, if they had time) and both thought it was a neutral presentation and said so on the talk page using their real names". I think we need to move in the direction of using real life experts for content arbitration in those few cases that cause huge problems. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, I ask you to please be more precise. I am not "making a content decision in order to judge COI in order to decide whether or not a public discussion of a possible real world identity should take place". I said nothing about "whether or not a public discussion of a possible real world identity should take place" nor do I see any way in which a content decision plays any role in that. I am fully in favor of a public discussion of real world identity, and I have in fact posted publicly about it myself. This idea of a private group taking it upon itself to define NPOV, etc., bears no similarity to anything I support or agree with at all. I support a full public discussion of this entire situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I came here to respond to exactly the above statement, which User:Mantanmoreland has linked to in his defence.
I encourage you to read my evidence on here. I think you'll see where the problem lies, and why you were, not to put too fine a point on it, mistaken. Relata refero (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody should write a primer to all of this. I've been trying to follow it, but my eyes have glazed over. While I appreciate the tips people have been sending me for column suggestions, the backstory to this (wiki-)drama is immense. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Repost and elaboration from above. Cla68 is more familiar with the history of this case, so I defer "suppression" evidence to his section of the RFAR evidence. Incidentally, he cites Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Weiss. Do you suppose this could be undeleted for the duration of the arbitration? You were the one who deleted it, so I thought it best to ask you.

The deletion debate is especially enlightening in light of G-Dett's evidence of self-promotion. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i never knew you had a page

and i am now worried that i never thought you would, you only invented the damn thing! anyway thanks, thanks and again thanksPerry-mankster (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Have you been to Boston lately? Its quite a lovely city. Charles Stewart (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely sick of the poor community on this website

Jim, I'm leaving Wikipedia. I am absolutely sick of the piss poor attitude of people on this site. This is a great idea Jimmy, but there's not enough oversight, there's little community, and I'm tired of the grief I get. I have other things I can do with my time. I wrote a note here. I'm really fed up, and my being blocked earlier this week on a whim, when I violated no policy (not even 3RR) because I continually changed a Talk page title that disparaged me and my work, in addition to attitudes like I found on your own talk page[24], and I'm just tired of it. --David Shankbone 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You threatened to leave earlier when Wikipedia refused to republish the original research you posted at Wikinews. In my opinion, you have helped Wikimedia and its projects a great deal and you will be missed; but you were here partly to promote yourself and you are seeing the limits of this venue for that purpose and so you are right to see what you can achieve elsewhere. Please feel welcome to participate here any time when it serves both Wikimedia and you to do so. Ya gotta earn a buck. We all do. Good luck. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Mikkalai, one of our oldest and most prolific contributors, said a while back that the only reason to stay at wikipedia (as unpaid volunteers) is because we get something personal out of it. David, you said you didn't even have a camera until wikipedia inspired you to get one and you now have 3000 images uploaded, you also have gained useful interviewing experience I imagine at wikinews; and while we can maybe get a good feeling helping the laudable educational aims of this project surely any of us who have contributed considerably simply must have got something out of the project too, and that is absolutely the way it should be. It isn't COI for me to say that just being around a web 2.0 site is hugely helpful professionally, and really I would say to anyone, a la Mikkalai, that if you are personally benefitting in a selfish way from your work here then that is probably a good reason to continue whereas if you are not its probably a very good reason to retire. There is no way iw ould stay other than that I get tangible bbenefits from my experiences working here. Well just a thought. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

David, sorry for the personal attacks you've been getting, another one was removed from Talk:Orthodox Judaism just recently. It's probably inevitable that out of thousands of images a small handful would be considered controversial for some obscure reason or other. I wouldn't worry about it too much. It doesn't take away from what you've done. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Highschool Notability Question

The guideline under WP:SCL is only a proposed guideline. I was wondering how, if possible, to make it a rule on wikipedia. The reason I inquire is: I find it fairly difficult to find high schools with third party sources. I've seen some schools get deleted because of this. The reason given is always WP:N. I think that schools should recieve a category of their own. Please, if possible, leave a response on my talk page. Undeath (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Hut 8.5 11:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read that, but it just told me what I already knew. I'm saying that, the longer this remains a proposal, the longer school articles will get deleted because they lack a third party source. I look at it in the sense that not every school is talked about in a third party source. Undeath (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are no third party sources, then generally I think things should be deleted, due to the risk of hoax or other forms of misinformation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As one of the authors of WP:SCL I wouldn't disagree. My view is that high schools should be considered notable not to keep them without any sources but because sources are always available for high schools. I have, with other interested editors, defended numerous high schools in recent months, always successfully because we have always been able to source them. The purpose of the guideline is not to keep pages that would otherwise be deleted but to act as a guide to article creators and also to save the wasted resources of hopeless AfDs. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo again

Hello Jimbo. I'm sure you know, the issue of the Japanese and Devanāgarī characters in the Wikipedia logo being wrong has been brought up again and again on Wikipedia discussion forums and mailing lists. Or at least that's what I've now heard — I hadn't actually heard anything about this until I saw it on your talk page last week. Also, as far as I can see, the main reason it's never been changed is because nobody's willing to take the time to fix it. But — I did fix it, last week. I replaced the two wrong characters and left the rest as is. The logo is not actually too difficult to fix so it seems silly not to.

Since it's a Foundation logo, I really don't know what to do or how to propose it, or how to get consensus for it. There's no standard procedure but I'm asking on your talk page for your input. I'd like other editors to comment on it too. Thank you. • Anakin (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. When I zoomed in close I notice that the Devanāgarī symbol wasn't rounded slightly like it should be (because it is on a round surface), but I don't think anyone would notice. I think that the logo should be updated with your version. Jon513 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

controversial ban

I Jimbo. Once again, I am asking you to (at least) take a look at this. This claim by admin User:Thatcher131 was disproved here. But the user is still blocked indef. Other checkuser requests show that no other sockpuppet was used. Neither after the ban, nor before the ban. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop misquoting me. I've been misquoted so many times (all by the same person, mind) that I actually left a note on the case asking people to stop misquoting me... --Deskana (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


I just wanted to stop by and say thank you. I am a High School senior who somehow wondered on Wikipedia and thought it would be cool to create an account. Since then, I have learned numerous things and have created my own page, when I thought it would be impossible. I want to thank you for allowing me to do this, as you created this wonderufl website. Many people have criticized me saying that Wikipedia is a useless site since anyone can edit it, but I dont think so. I think that it opens to door to possibility, and I feel that is what you thought when you created the site. Anyway, here I am rambling on and on. Please, if you need anything done, let me know, and I would be more than hapy to try and help you out, as you have already helped me in more ways then one. Thanks and Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your userpage.

Jimbo, I actually think your userpage is great. It might need some brighter colors but who cares? You're Jimbo Wales. By the way, what kind of car do you drive. I love cars. I really want to know. Please respond back!! Your fellow editor -- Carerra "I help newcomers! 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to New York City

Hi Jimbo. Thanks for creating Wikipedia! Our nascent New York City-area Wikipedians wanna-be chapter/affiliate (meta page) and the Columbia University chapter of Students for Free Culture would like to invite you to a Wikipedia:Academy-type event to be held at Columbia toward the end of March, or maybe in April. We are at the very early stages of planning, and if you are at all interested in attending, we'll certainly set the date by what may fit on your itinerary. If you want to contact us, please e-mail me. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request De-adminship of User: OwenX

Request de-adminship of User:OwenX. User:Ledenierhomme‎ removed my vote from an AfD debate.

This is vandalism, simple. I reported the matter to the administrator notice board for vandalism. Yet all OwenX did was to remove my complaint, doing nothing to Ledenierhomme. “report elsewhere” means nothing and does not help.

No reason was given for its removal or why the need to be placed elsewhere. This is extremely unprofessional and rude. Also why are other users allowed to remove my votes, perhaps OwenX would care to comment on that. Please remove OwenX’s admin rights for being unprofessional and unhelpful. Regards, --Bryson 03:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your userpage 2

Cool page. I suspect it took you 7 seconds, right? Basketball110 what famous people say 03:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Edits to Jakob Dylan

Dear Mr. Wales, I'm sorry, but I cannot be complicit in the suppresion of information that Jakob Dylan himself, released into the public domain via The Daily Telegraph Magazine: Oct 7, 2000. I wish you and Wikipedia, every success. Best wishes, Educated Guest (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that rather than edit warring, you post to the talk page of the article to discuss the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Try the Random Button!

Hello Mr. Wales. I was wondering if you could try The Random Button. And if you like it, please join Wikipedia:Random Button. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Nothing444 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR Notification, "Che Guevara"

Che Guevara has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

-- Polaris999 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


The lovely Miss Bolivia

Hi Jimbo. Thought you might like an aesthetic break and feast your eyes on Miss Ana. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Serial Vandal

There is frequent vandalism on both Jimbo's talkpage and userpage from dynamic IP's. Currently both of these pages are semi-protected but that can't last forever. What should we do about this?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than nuking 4chan from orbit, I think semi-protecting might be the only way we can handle it for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Third time, let me be more concise

Do you mind if I undelete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Weiss for the duration of the Arbitration? Y/N Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no benefit in doing so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Cla68 has been looking for diffs of deceitful behavior, and there appear to be a few there. Cool Hand Luke 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom are all admins and can see it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You seeing no benefit in something does not necessarily mean no-one else sees the benefit - are you forbidding CHL from undeleting it? —Random832 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because it was deleted for a reason and the ArbCom can see it. This is not a public circus.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this, if only because it has been customary to undelete evidence in the interests of resolving disputes in the past, and also because, as this case has shown, with more eyes on the evidence, the result is a more thorough evaluation. Is there a way to restore the page, with a few of the most serious edits, that are of concern, redacted? If so, perhaps that might be a way forward. Generally, however, I favor an undeletion for the limited duration of the Arbcom case. No peanuts, R. Baley (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"If anyone ever needs to see it, they can just ask an admin to restore it at that time." .... "If there are further problems in the future, there will be no problem restoring the article at that time."[[25]] sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As usual, what wikipedia decides is inappropriate to publish itself is available elsewhere on the net. This aspect of wikipedia's success seems to have not yet sunk in. In any case i read what that other site offered as the deleted contents, and I found nothing in it of value. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I do not see how transparency in administrative action (including the decisions of the ArbCom and evidence presented to them) could do anything but help Wikipedia, except in cases of legal dispute or matters of privacy invasion. Could you elaborate on the reasons why you are not allowing it to be undeleted? - Chardish (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather hurt that you think I'm trying to create a public circus, but it appears that another admin heroically listed every single diff as deleted diff. Cool Hand Luke 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean to imply that you are trying to create a public circus. I don't think you are trying to do that at all. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I greatly appreciate it. Cool Hand Luke 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia articles show wikipedias weakness in neutrality

This is making wikipedia look bad, we have two competing articles, two competing maps, one claiming Kosovo is independent and one claiming it's part of Serbia. They are cesspool articles full of POV edits. Even the maps don't match, the Kosovo map shows it separate, the Serbia map shows it part of serbia. Kosovo and Serbia need to be fixed Mineralè (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A major change in the world political climate such as a declaration of independence takes a very, very long time to integrate into Wikipedia, especially when there is no international consensus on whether the independence should be recognized. Give the good-faith editors of these pages a bit of time to iron out all the wrinkles; there will be outdated information for some time on this matter. - Chardish (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it will take time to sort this all out, and I offer some general advice in the meantime.
First, all "hot" articles should have templates noting that this is a current event, and also templates which may help to encourage calm. Wikipedia has no intention to take a stand on this issue, and partisans should not be angry with us.
Second, NPOV is entirely possible even in these circumstances. Wikipedia should not recognize... nor refuse to recognize... any nation on earth. Not our job. It is perfectly ok to say "On January 1st, 2009, California declared independence from the United States of America. Mexico and Cuba immediately recognized California as an independent nation, but Russia and China did not. There was some rioting." Such statements make it clear that we are not taking sides, we have no business taking sides.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The "hottest" issues generally don't require a template. Kosovo would have the proverbial million editors right now, with or without templates.
But there is an issue here, Jimbo. I can understand that "let the culture of NPOV work it out" will work, in most cases. But there's still editors groping in the dark, on a lot of articles. (As I type this, Kosovo "is a landlocked region in the Balkans." Not a nation, yet, on Wikipedia.) Now, of course, Wikipedia doesn't declare regions to be nations—reliable sources do. But what are those editors groping in the dark doing when they try to describe things? Don't they feel stupid, given the lack of guidance? How much heartache is being caused, at this moment, because we have no rules?
Bleh. A lack of rules is another way of saying this is a wiki. There is no guidance, because we don't invite any, and it all works anyway... But this wiki isn't ordinary. It needs rules that, often, you aren't providing. Marskell (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But there are literally hundreds of pages of such guidance. And deep wells of experience which guide us as well. What rules would you propose to deal with this? Kosovo is a landlocked region in the Balkans, actually. It will be that whatever its status as a nation might be. NPOV might be in the direction of "Kosovo is a landlocked region in the Balkans which recently unilaterally declared independence from Serbia."
Sometimes when people ask for rules, they are asking for a ruling on the content in one form or another. We could adopt a rule like "You can't call anything a nation until the UN does." Or "You can't call anything a nation unless a majority of the nations with veto rights on the security council does." Or "You can't call anything a nation until Jimbo says it is ok." None of those rules strike me as particularly sensible.
But rules that do strike me as sensible are rules about editing behavior. Be nice. Try to listen to all sides. Seek wording that everyone can accept as true. Don't try to push an agenda. Be prepared to not get your way every time, but also be prepared to stand firm for neutrality. Use reason to persuade. Don't make personal attacks.
So, well, what rules would you propose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It is a landlocked region in the Balkans; we can state that because there is no disputing that. We cannot say that it is an independent nation because that would be taking a position. We cannot say that it is part of Serbia because that would be taking a position. We can say that it has declared itself to be an independent nation and many nations recognize that independence, but some do not. That is not taking a position.
Also, look at what wiki allows us to do! We have moderately up-to-date information on a subject about which millions of paper encyclopedias are now out-of-date. I do not advocate recentism, nor do I believe that our primary focus should be on current events (remember that Wikipedia is not a news source) but it's kind of fun to stumble across an old bit of reference material that talks about, say, the Soviet Union, and realize that such datedness is never a serious problem on Wikipedia. - Chardish (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You're both right; I shouldn't have made it sound like we have nothing to offer editors, and of course there's no page that can legislate for every content dispute. And the NPOV mechanism does work very, very well.
But there are rules I find lacking. Specifically, despite our dozens of pages of guidance, we have nothing concrete about recent events or sudden controversies. I am struck, for instance, about what happens with recent deaths. The section on Heath Ledger's death is about as long as the section on his career. (Here's The Onion's take.) About half of the Steve Irwin article is devoted to his death and the fallout from it. After the news spike ends, editors walk away, and the articles have a serious due weight problem. You can clearly see this with countries. History of Iraq devotes half its words (I checked in Word) to Saddam and subsequent. The preceeding six thousand years gets the other half. Is this appropriate due weight? As another example, I had wanted to make some improvements to articles on the current Afghan war, but it's just so daunting: we have a glut of repetitive, malformed pages, created based on news spikes and then forgotten.
So I guess I'm suggesting a Wikipedia:Recent events policy or guideline. Simply letting the free-for-all work it out often doesn't produce the best content. (Sorry, Jimbo, if my previous made it sound like it was your problem alone; it's in people's nature to focus on what's in the news, of course.) Marskell (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I'm beginning to see what you're talking about. One issue I see is that major news events have a tendency to generate a new article as soon as they occur (and maybe more than one, if people blindly create an article without performing a search first.) These new articles are sometimes not of notable topics and get merged into other articles; this is all well and good. A recent example I can think of is the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis.
I like the idea of a style guideline encouraging editors not to give undue focus in articles to recent events. Perhaps Wikipedia:Recentism is a starting point for this. Deluging articles with details about recent events is not the best way to improve the project as a whole, particularly when we have some rather poor articles about timeless and important subjects. Articles of historical interest, in particular, are given much less treatment than articles of recent interest. For example, compare our article on the famous Greek tragedy Oedipus at Colonus with the recently popular musical Rent.
Thoughts on this? Marskell, Jimbo, anyone? - Chardish (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think to create a guideline or policy on the issue of current events is an excellent idea, whether it is Kosovo or Ipswich 2006 serial murders, some guidance would be very useful especially as these articles almost certainly attract a greater number of new users than many articles. issues such as when not to lock eg the day Kosovo declared independence was not the day to lock the article, IMO, nor was the day Pope John Paul II died the day to lock that article, and I consider getting those 2 articles unlocked within a short time from realising they wwere locked to be amongst my greatest wikipedia achievements, because it was in those moments that we could attractt he greatest interest. This continues, wikinews is considered a flop because its wikipedia more than wikinews that people actually go to for news. The most edited page right now is Deaths in 2008. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote much of the Recentism essay, so perhaps I will use it as a jumping off point for a guideline. It's surprising, really, that we've never had one. There's a lot of issues involved, such as the when to protect question that Squeakbox notes. Marskell (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I started it. Just a nutshell and proposed ToC for now. Marskell (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Can you link to it, Marskell? I'd like to help on this. Also, I was wondering: do you think ITN on the front page is to blame for recentism issues? ITN does place a lot of undue weight on topics of recent interest. It also encourages editors to work on those topics: if you want your work featured on the front page, you can either help out on a featured article (difficult), write a decent new article on a new topic (difficult), or make edits to an article of recent interest (easy). - Chardish (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Recent events. Portal:Current events would be one place to look for editors to create a guideline.
Yes, ITN something to do with it. At the same, it encourages people to polish the recent articles, so I'm not totally against it. Anyway, Jimbo doesn't seem to be commenting, so perhaps we could move this to that talk of the proposed page. Marskell (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Will do. I'll work on it tonight when I have time, perhaps. For now I have a paper to write for my philosophy seminar. - Chardish (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

great idea

so I made a .gif image that I though you might like (let it play all the way through) but it apparently it "Outside project scope. Also, licensing issues." (I'll definitely have to fix that second one) so if you want to see it you might want to hurry it's here--Pewwer42  Talk  08:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That had not occurred to me, dude.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Really nice! I have another good idea... Look to the right of this page.  :-) (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice picture! --The Helpful One (Review) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

WikiprojectBarnstar.png The WikiProject Barnstar
Jimbo Wales, you have recived this barnstar for starting Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an extremely successful WikiProject, and you (with Larry Sangers) started it, thus I am giving you this barnstar. Smartguy777 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been getting around...

If you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of using a statement of yours as a quotation. I've seen it on at least four other user pages so far. Well written! seicer | talk | contribs 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

About suspected sockpuppetry of Diegogrez and I

Many wikipedians think what i'm diego grez because I made articles related with that man. That's not really. Can you help me?, please. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 20:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Jimbo!

I love your userpage, obviously you have spent a lot of time working on it, to get it just right!

Just a quick question.. how long did you actually spend on the Wikiholic test and did you answer all of the questions?

Congratulations for founding Wikipedia!

--The Helpful One (Review) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Money making idea

Sell support for MediaWiki. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your request for information

In the request for arb on Mantanmoreland you were saying you didn't know where rumors came from that you had an interest in naked short selling and you said you had nothing to do with it. Well, the rumors came from the newspaper The Daily Herald, link -- (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that either Mr. Byrne was misquoted, or made an innocent error. There's no way he just flat out lied to create a false impression to bolster his own apparent innocence in all this. No way, I am sure. :) In any event I am happy to report that it is completely false that I have a "deep interest" in short selling. I have never sold a stock short in my life, naked or otherwise. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disturbed by the Administrator

Last time I already left my message here. And this time this Australian Admin: user:Orderinchaos keeps going on to disturb and distract me (refer to: WP:STALK) by using straw man argument even I tried to talk to another administrator for another matter. Please refer to: User_talk:OhanaUnited for more detail (the conversation supposed between Ohanaunited and me, but he just suddenly stepped in and wrote irrelevant nonsense). Not long ago (last month in Jan), without reaching consensus, Orderinchaos hijacked and terminated all discussion and proposals in WP:ANI unmaturely concerning my topic ban on GAC/R and FAC/R in which there is no evidence or diffs over there were provided. I would like to let you take a look for this matter as this admin. user:Orderinchaos will surely keep going on to disturb and harass me in future including my talk page. Would you please keep this administrator from disturbing me? And I just feel sick of it. Thanks for your attention. Coloane (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take your issue to WP:ANI and please provide diffs to prove your point and please tell the other user of your posting at WP:ANI. Rgoodermote  01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will provide diff if necessary as this page is not WP:ANI. Coloane (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue is already at WP:ANI, here now please let us leave Jimbo alone. Rgoodermote  02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I am not involved in this. I walked in by mistake. Rgoodermote  02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales, this admin: user:Orderinchaos keeps going on to play game WP:GAME and files my so-called personal attacks to WP:ANI with other reason like what I edited in the article of Indonesian Chinese. I am very tried of this kind of straw man argument and game with him. So I hope you can give me a hand and let him not disturb me anymore, thanks a lot! Coloane (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is painfully trivial stuff. I was asked several questions by OhanaUnited. [26] I replied to those questions on his talk page, creating a new section to do so. [27] [28] Coloane responded to my section. Since then I have had to put up with Coloane's odd attacks (including accusing me of hijacking my own topic) and even straight-out racism. [29] Orderinchaos 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

VS asked me to say sorry to you. OK! I am sorry! is that a sincere apology? for the diff you gave on no. 5 is not about racism/personal attacks. At most you can accuse me of giving wrong comment on Australian Education system, but nothing else. I know personal attacks very well and I carefully made my comment on his talk page. From other diff, what I wrote is "if you are a smart guy". It is a conditional sentense, it doesn't mean either you are or you are not. If you think in a negative way, of course it is a personal attack. Even you opened a new section talking about another matter but it is highly 100% related to me (i.e. Topic Ban) and that is why I have to get involved in it to answer your question, so did OhanaUnited. Coloane (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

off topic: the title of this section would make a good punk rock band name. daveh4h 05:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Request banned user (I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow)

Jimbo, will you please ban I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow from Wikipedia. This user was blocked for vandalized editing. -- 00:23, February 3, 2008 (UTC) (Null edit for archiving reasons, previous date was added manually. Fram (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC) )


(empty comment for archiving purposes. Fram (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) )

Editor Review

Hello Mr. Wales, I have a request. Would you please comment on my Editor Review, and let me know how you think I am doing. I am in pursuit of possibly applying for RFA again in the future, and I think that your comments, concerns, suggestions, ect. would be highly beneficial in this task. I thank you in advance. Dustitalk to me 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know here or on my talk page either way. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Suggestions

I have posted the suggestions in the help desk but all I get is people telling me to post them in Village Pump/Technical and Bugzilla. I did that a long time ago and have gotten nothing back. I just want someone to tell me no were not doing that or yes we want to do that.

  • User Talk Pages Suggestion
I have a suggestion which would be a pretty big overhaul of the user talk pages system used by Wikipedia. I have noticed that users always struggle with this when commenting and replying in user talk pages. When someone leaves a comment, do you reply on their talk page or on your own? If you do it on your own, will they see the reply? Have they set your talk page for watching? The result of this is almost always having half a conversation on one page and the other half on another page. Sometimes they even duplicate messages on both talk pages.
My suggestion is to have each comment section in a type of "template" in some Wikipedia Comments database, while only adding tags to all user talk pages of those who have participated (left a comment) in the section. Whenever someone edits the comment, they can do it on their own talk page, and even when it seems thay are editing their talk page, they are actually editing the template, so the changes will appear in all pages who have the tag. This way the full conversation will be visible in all user talk pages, and will never be duplicated. Every comment would have an ID (e.g. 00215468) and its template page has everything including the title, all messages and a list of all users who have commented on the section. When a user chooses to add a section to any user talk page nothing will be apparently different since the interface would remain the same, but they will be creating or editing a "template" without openly realizing it.
An example tag that would be included in user talk pages could be something like this:
Everytime the comment is edited, all users listed for the comment will receive the "new message" notice.
This would not apply for article discussion pages since it is better to keep those attached to their articles like they are now.
Some users have implemented it manually (e.g. User_talk:Alphax/Threads) but I would like to see if it is possible for Wikipedia officials to implement this natively into Wikipedia.
  • Delayed Educational Wikipedia Suggestion
I'd also like to see an Educational version of Wikipedia. Let me explain myself. I know Wikipedia is very educational at the moment. The problem is that I have seen so many complaints about users searching for information on Wikipedia just to find a blanked page with streams of nasty curse words splattered all over (which I know don't last very long). Still, many children use Wikipedia for school/educational purposes and are vulnerable to sudden bursts of strong language, profanity and even adult content. My suggestion is to create a "filter domain" which is an "edu" Wikipedia address, that schools and parents can add to their "safe sites" list that would filter Wikipedia pages. The filtering can be fairly simple that would only allow pages with certain properties:
1) Locked pages
2) Special pages
3) Exclude pages with certain key words (profanity) in their content even if informative
4) Pages that have been unchanged by x minutes (x being a statistical number derived from the maximum amount of minutes a vandalized article stays unfixed)
These are just examples. Other rules can also be included.
Wikipedia has highly reliable information which can be stained by very short vandalism periods. A "delayed" version of Wikipedia would be priceless.
Please let me know! Thanks! ~RayLast «Talk!» 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a "delayed" Wikipedia would be very good provided the delay time was set too short. Rather I think the first thing that should happen for Educational Wikipedia should be that we set up a series of anti-vandalism bots (~50 of them should be good) here on English Wiki, and set the new article delay for 1 day. After that, a page becomes semi-locked after diasppearing from the New Articles log. Strenuous, but possible, and maybe even neccesary if the site is set up. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The anti-vandalism bots are doing a pretty good job at the moment. Only a delay must be added. A day could be a possible delay time. Semi-locking or locking the articles, in my opinion, would not be beneficial. Remember that it should be only a filter, not an overhaul of the articles system. The filter should not intervene with current editing, meaning that Wikipedians should not see any change. The suggestion is not about building and copying the whole encyclopedia with safe content either. It's just a tiny little filter. I feel safe to say that a significant delay would ensure the integrity of the articles practically 100% of the time. For new articles, for example, a rule could be that a {{safe-article|user1|user2|user3|user4|user5}} tag with 5 registered user's "votes" must be included before it can appear in the Educational Wikipedia.
Also note that the current Wikipedia pages such as will see no change. People visiting the original site will see unfiltered content such as how it is now. Only those that visit the filter page (e.g. will see filtered content. ~RayLast «Talk!» 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. That sounds better. I presonally think it should be 10-15 uses signing the template (20 if possible). This would allow more of the community to comment. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)