User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10


Rachel Marsden Wikipedia Entry Destroying Wikipedia Credibility

Jimbo, you need to get over to the Rachel Marsden entry, pronto. Read the discussion page for that entry. Not good.

Hi there Given your history, especially your own vandalism on that page, I think Jimbo might question your credibility on the subject! Wiederaufbau 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE--CONRAD- 14 YEAR OLD SOCIALIST!!! 23:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Several people have asked me for my opinion so rather than respond separately to everyone I will just express my opinion here in a summary.

First, this issue is not up to me to decide. I see no reason for me to intervene in the normal dialogue, except to say that Wikipedia isn't really the place for abstract philosophical debates about religious tolerance and the freedom of speech, and to ask people to please enter the discussion with a very strong assumption of good faith about everyone else in the discussion. Voting is evil, though, and likely to give a false impression of what the best route forward is. (Especially unless very very carefully constructed.)

Second, and speaking here only as an ordinary editor, I would myself argue for keeping the image in this article (but not in other articles, where it would be irrelevant I think). I see no particular editorial reason for keeping it at the top, when in other (but not all) similar cases, we have moved such images to the middle or bottom. Putting it behind a link would not be my first choice, but neither would I strongly object to it. I think getting too tied up in questions about "appeasement" may lead some of us (myself included) who are very strong free speech advocates to tend to go a bit overboard with a feeling of "fighting back against censorship". If we relax for a moment, we may realize that the main thing is just to make sure the image is accessible for those who are interested enough to want to inspect it before making up their own minds, rather than insisting that everyone who reads the article see the image. But I have no strong opinion about that.

Finally, speaking not as an editor but as an advocate, I think... well, I think Wikipedia is not the right place for any of us to be advocates. But if you know my general philosophical views, you can probably rightly guess what I think of it.----Jimbo Wales 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The vote was only held because even though it was overwhelmingly obvious that the consensus among the editors was that the image should be kept, there were a number of editors that would simply not accept this. I expect, following this comment the edit wars will recommence. Jacoplane 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, well I hope people will not edit war. A nice bit of relaxation is very much in order here. :)--Jimbo Wales 03:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo, you are being very ... optimistic ... about this. You say that the issue is not for you to decide, but I firmly suspect you will need to, especially if you come under fire or are approached about it by some Muslim or Islamic group. To them, that picture is more offensive that a certain pornographic photo was. Arno 04:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the people on "your" side prefer to be dicks WP:DBAD - just like you mentioned above, there really is no reason why the offensive pictures (yes, they are objectively & strongly offensive to a minority of viewers!) couldn't be moved from the top to the middle, with a warning placed at the top about what one has to expect. 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that is a profound statement! Anonymous, ignorant, rude and irrelevant all in one. Arguing whether THAT photo should be in the top or middle is like deciding whether a back robbery should be carried out wearing a red shirt or a green one.
Note that the publishing the cartoons has now been condemned by many world organisations and governments like the United Nations. Further, Wikipdia has made a mockery of the 2001 War on terrorism speech in which he said " I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. " Right now, it is not being respected at all, and its being offensive to all of the above-named people. Actualy, the wikipedia itself says in its islam article that "Islam is now the faith of well over a billion people all over the globe, and is the second largest religion of the present day." That's hardly a minority. This stupidity can only have negative connatations for the US. Arno 02:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the cnn-article, the last sentence said this:

CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.

AzaToth 16:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and that considerably undermines their status as a respectable source of information. Jdcooper 17:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary! Arno 02:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Further to all this, chck out this story about Iran's economic boycott. If the USA gets included in this, or is subject to some other international incident/sacntion because of the cartoons, then the Wikipedia will have contributed to it on the grounds that it is an US-based website. After all, that's what Denmark's going through. Arno 03:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that a threat?Geni 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Geni, I think there's no sensible way to interpret anything Arno is saying as a threat. I think you should apologize for that. I do not agree with his position here, but he is making his points in a thoughtful and respectful manner. --Jimbo Wales 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No it was not a threat. I was stating what external areas may react to that cartoon's presence here. Arno 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you give a reason why we should take this into consideration?Geni 04:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think that I'm a liar, or then there is no point in continuing this conversation. I repeat that just as the publiactions of that cartoon in the Jyllands-Posten caused violence against Danish missions, the publication of that cartoon on a US website may spark off strikes against US areas. That was my point, and if you (and the rest of your "we" ) refuse to see it that way, then you are being quite intimidatingly (or deliberately) wrong and I have nothing more to say to you. Arno 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying if we don't remove the image there is a risk that a country a fair number of wikipedians care about will be caused either economic or phyical harm. Do X or you risk Y. Y being a negative effect brought about human actions.Geni 07:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That went over my head. The only other thing that I have to say to you is for you to note Jimbo's comments to you above. Arno 05:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo , Apart from my belonging to Islam , I'm worried from beginning of some good muslim editors to leave wikipedia , this thing is more dangerous than Editwars , additionally it is clear that any Poll special about these Cartoons issue in English wikipedia will be so sensetive and accompanied by campaigns of voting . My suggesstion is to make new proposed policy about the offensive pics : Position or puting them behind a link , that includes these cartoons , Bahullah , Anti-semistic article , Piss Christ picture , Black face pic ... then we make poll about this proposed policy , what do think --Chaos 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing stopping you from proposing policy. You have zero chance of getting it passed but you are free to propose it.Geni 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Now is that a jibe or a personal attack? Arno 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No. It was a restating of how the wikipedia policy process works backed combiened with advice based on the results of a conflict that has been going on for about a year. It is safe to say that there is no way you are going to get a consensus for any universal policy dealing with potentialy offencive images.Geni 04:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have raised the point that, logically, if ever there is a time to censor articles (by which I mean merely putting it behind a link), this is such a case. I think there are two ways you can measure it: degree of offense and the number of those offended. By my judgement, this image is about as high as they come on both scales. There are a few other things that might surpass it, by those measures, but it's clearly way into the deep red danger zone. Now, my view is that relevance alone is not sufficient to justify an image's placement in these controversial cases; there also needs to be a concern with A) not deliberately exposing the reader to imagery they would not want to see, for a moral reason; and B) not repelling people from our site by doing the above, for a practical reason. In the end I think the relevance alone perspective is narrow, insensitive and probably counter-productive. I simply don't believe that direct placement of the images substantially contributes to informing the reader, because anyone interested can click on a link to see it; and I believe that the benefits of taking into account cultural sensitivities here would much outweigh that, in a way that would ultimately be better for the cause of spreading information. Everyking 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia should not be used for the sort of action that has occurred with publishing that photograph. See this page to see what I mean. Arno 06:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Curiously, as the affair commences, it's less and less about these 12 cartoons, and more and more about lobbying and power politics. As witnessed by the El-Fagr publication, it's those that saw the dossier of the Imams (or nothing at all, that is, the 10,000s of demonstrators), rather than those who saw the pictures, that were really inflamed about them. Azate 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Stuff and nonsense. 10:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO it's never been about the cartoons. A little newspaper in a tiny mostly Atheist/Christian country on an entirely different continent publishes some cartoons - and the Middle East burns? The cartoons are just en excuse - it could have been the Islamic version of "Life of Brian", a new Rushdie or Piss Mohammad... they needed a unifying cause and the cartoons just happened to come by. Celcius (Talk) Flag of Denmark.svg Wiki be With us! 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh you know this for sure, do you?? As with other users, I do not think you have an adequate understanding of the situation at all. The "and the Middle East burns???" indicates that!Arno 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No, Arno - I DON'T know this for sure - which is why I write "In my honest opinion" (IHMO) expressing that this is a statement related only to my own personal beliefs. However, if this upsets so many muslims why didn't the reaction come after 1-2 days - instead of 4 months? Why didn't they protest against the Egyptian newspaper which published the cartoons in October? Just saying... it dosn't seem very spontanious which would be consistent with an emotional reaction. Celcius (Talk) Flag of Denmark.svg Wiki be With us! 10:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Personally, I feel that rational people can take offence without violence. I take great offense at Fred Phelps, but I have yet to burn random buildings of the Kansas government as protest. And honestly, I don't think this rises to the level of Phelps. -- Pakaran 07:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Arno, I think we all know how you feel. Look, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias are by nature Enlightenment institutions and have been since Denis Diderot made the first one as a revolutionary act against the age of faith. Knowledge and faith will proably fight forever and often faith will win. But we're not going to surrender. Herostratus 08:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is an encyclopedia and not a vehicle to challenge faiths (or to confirm them) or to stir up international incidents. That's why the main reason as to why the cartoon should not have been published. Note that I do not oppose an article on the topic itself ( a very hot current affairs one at present). Celcius'es comments about his original posting being his opinion are noted (it was not before), but it was one that involved something that was at best a half-truth. Sorry, mate, but that's what it is. Arno 07:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Referral to dates prior to 1st century

Mr. Wales, there has been alot of discussion and edit wars going on across Wikipedia over the past few years as to whether the AD/BC or CE/BCE dating systems should be used when referring to years of the Gregorian calendar. Since there is no Wikipedian rule that governs which one is used, alot of people tend to create edit wars over which era is to be references. An example of this is at the Jesus page, whereas all dates refer to both systems (i.e. 180 BC/BCE or 200 AD/CE) which can be very confusing to the average reader who just wants unbiased and easy to read information. Personally, I would prefer the usage of the anno Domini system, both because it was the original usage and because common era still refers to the birth of Jesus as the originating point, but simply ignores the fact. Also because it's basically just silly to be offended by "BC" and "AD", if you're not offended by "Wednesday" (which is named after a god). So please, Mr. Wales, I ask that you please either create a new rule that allows for only one system to be used; or refer to my recent era proposal, which details how balancing both systems would eliminate controversy (i.e. 281 BC and 400 CE). Thank you very much for your time. Darwiner111 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the dating system doesn't refer to the actual birth of Jesus, since that date is unknown but believed to be around 5 BC/BCE. Thus, it's a dating system based on an arbitrary epoch. *Dan T.* 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose we start using BW and AW with the year 2001 being the lynch pin. So today would be the 4th of February 6AW. Man landed on the Moon in 32BW. Any takers? --LV (Dark Mark) 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea, but it's not ready for prime time. Ask me again in 7 AW. --James S. 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Just when I thought I could put the whole "Was there a Year Zero" and "When is the Millennium" thing behind me, this brings it up all over again.
If we do go for it, we should update the list of months as well. What's with this outdated honoring of Roman Emperors (July, August)? How about we name the months Wiki, NPOV, Verifiable, GFDL, NOR, Wales, Sanger, Bomis, Featured, BJAODN, Cruft and Stub? Anville 15:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but what about days of the week? AfDay, MfDay, RfDay, CfDay, IfDay, TfDay, and Speeday? --LV (Dark Mark) 04:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazi telex: copyrighted?

Jimbo, I usually try not to pester you, but I was hoping you might weigh in on a copyright matter, since you seem to be main person who set in motion the current extreme caution about possibly unfree images. While I generally agree with you, I believe that this is being carried too far.

At the top of the section Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#January_31 is a list of images from the Nazi era, objected to on the basis that they were presumably copyrighted (by defunct Nazi entities, I guess). The extreme of this is Image:Gestapo anti-gay telex.jpg, used in our featured article Paragraph 175 article. As far as I can tell, the (implicit) claim is that we cannot reproduce this telex demonstrating part of the process by which the Nazis persecuted gays because, in principle, it is copyrighted by the Gestapo and we don't have their permission to use it. This seems absurd. I'm a published author, my late father was a publisher, and I have a good layman's understanding of copyright law. I cannot imagine any normal commercial publisher objecting to the use of such an image on a copyright basis. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like people have been able to agree that this telex is simply uncopyrightable, and legitimate for us to use. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid rude commentary?

I noticed your comment on User talk:Lao Wai; you've misunderstood, I'm afraid. The phrases "loony left", "loony right", etc., are fairly standard ways in English of talking about extreme political positions, and are perfectly acceptable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(You responded to an anon, but that was an accident. It was really me posting that.) I absolutely do not agree that it is acceptable to go into a discussion on an article where we already know that the subject of the article is engaged in the debate about the article, and proceed to use hostile terminology against him. That's just deeply deeply inappropriate behavior. Even if the subject of the article is not known to be around, we should consider that calling people 'looney' is still wrong for us.--Jimbo Wales 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I only looked at the diff that you provided, so missed some of the background — but I'd still say that a reference to someone's adherence to the loony left isn't to call that person loony (I was going to say: any more than saying that they're a member of the hard left is to call them hard, but that's not a brilliant analogy). Isn't this similar to the difference between criticising what a person says and criticising the person? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Leaving a note about incivility on another editor's Talk page, it hit me that there might be a U.S./British English problem here (User:Lao Wai's Australian in fact, but the same thing applies); do North Americans use terms like "loony left", "loony right", etc.? Here, they're a pretty standard way of talking about extreme political positions, and not at all like calling someone loony (though admittedly I don't think that anyone would use them in self-descriptions); see also the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. In fact, even the term "loony" might differ in strength between the two forms of English, as in most contexts it's pretty mild, even affectionate here, though context and tone of voice can affect that.
(Sorry if I've gone on too long; this was my first direct contact with the god-king of Wikipedia, and it seems to have set off a bout of verbal diarrhoea.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that (in the UK at least), the "loony left" is a standard, not-particularly-offensive term referring to hard left-wing political groupings. Almost all connotations of the word "loony" have been wiped out by common usage. Bluap 14:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. As an American who has spent what adds up to about 2 years in the UK, this one surprised me, but it is not offensive usage there. One of the many ways in which we are separated by a common language. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


I just wanted to let you know how much us editors still appreciate all you have done, do, and will do for Wikipedia. For example, creating the project, and trying to bring common sense to building an encyclopedia. I have faith in you, the Board, and the ArbCom that sanity and truth will rule in whatever mess we find here. Regards, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that, Jimbo, and would like to say that I appreciate the courteous, non-bullying tone with which you made your request about userboxes, and also your unblocking of a teenager who got caught up in something that he couldn't have foreseen.
I removed the Catholic userbox and the Pro-life userbox from my page after you made your request, but couldn't quite bring myself to remove the one I like best, which I created myself, and which I later "subst"ed into my userpage. I am not sure if you would still find that one objectionable, since it's not in template space, and doesn't put me into a "category" with other Wikipedians; but I do not want to be part of the rebels protesting against your polite requests and am prepared to remove it as well if you so wish, though I presume I would still be free to incorporate that information into my page without using a userbox? AnnH (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We're not worthy! We're not worthy! etc. - The Great Gavini te salutem19:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Well then I have a question. How are you going to celebrate the 1,000,000th article? What do you think it will be? WikieZach 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I recomend golden 1,000,000 below the wikipedia logo for a while. Other wikis do something like than for less notable 50,000 articles etc. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How close are we to one million? I have a great idea for an article if my Im done with learning things from Jimbo by thenpickelbarrel 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There are currently 5,304,232 articles here. --StuffOfInterest 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Here I made a 1,000,000 "logo": 1000000.png AzaToth 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Cannot wait until the big 106th article. But as a stipulation, its creator could be blocked forever! <joke> - The Great Gavini waiting for the big 1,000,000 since, like, always! 19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion goes live today, bypassing AfD to auto-delete articles

Hi Jimbo.

I don't know if you care about these sorts of matters, but Wikipedia:Proposed deletion has gone live today, although it is still in the proposal stage and has faced strong objections. Basically, it's a way to have articles deleted automatically 5 days after they're tagged, unless someone objects. It has nothing to do with AfD; it's parallel to it (according to its proposers) or bypasses it (according to its detractors). It's been running, logging onto a non-Wikipedia server, for 5 days and they're going to start deleting articles in a few hours.

A long discussion of it (including my strong objections -:) are found at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Ikkyu2 00:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

newspaper interview


I work and write for an Irish newspaper called the Evening Herald, and every week we ask someone of high notability to choose their ten favourite songs and give a brief description of each one... i.e. ten songs, with about 2 lines/20 words on each one. Would you be interested in doing one? it would be a pleasant break from the stream of singer-songwriters and musicians we've had lately, and also interesting to see the human side of one of the biggest internet breakthroughs since Google.

You might give me a shout here or on my talk page when you get the chance; if you can't do it that's no worry.

Cheers! Aidan - NaLaochra 12:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, just saw that I'm supposed to contact your assistant for press enquries... my apologies! 12:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection and the Jew article

I posted the following on Talk:Jew following the lastest vandalism on that article and my semi-protection of it. You have given us a valuable tool with sprotection and in rare cases, I believe that requiring someone to have an account for a few days to edit enhances Wikipedia for irs readers far more than a commitment to open access to anonymous vandalism.

It took about 12 hours from last unprotect for vandals to discover it, followed by a half dozen vandals in the following hours. Before uprotecting, consider that the nature of "Jew" will always attract vandals and ask what purpose is served by requiring someone to have an account for a few days (which can be blocked effectively--an IP may not be) in order to edit it. There are a handful of articles on Wikipedia which will always be vandal magnets and we should ask what shining principle is being served when we allow anons to edit them, in view of the reality that the overwhelming number of anon edits are vandalism to this article.
There is history to this and we should be open but not naive. Futile unproection is rather like requiring the KKK to take off their hoods for a few days after a lynching, then allowing them to put them back on again after to see if they've learned their lesson. Or perhaps more to the point, banning the Nazi Party for a week after Kristalnacht. -- Cecropia 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I remeber when my mother didnt allow us to have our over-night party after we had behaved very disruptively at the mall. I was very upset at the time but it taught me a valuable lesson. Without sounding to critical, I have to say that the nazis wee behaving very very badly in this point in time, and I cant see that barring them from having a party would have been a bad idea at all. It may have helped them to behave a little more repsectfully. pickelbarrel 18:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

is it true that you are obstinate ?

My good friend Sam Korn stated that you were, but I think he may have been mixed up. Also I was curious to know if you have decided to to bring back karmafist, and if so when? I have not written anymore articles since speeking with you, so I have kept my end of the agreement. I will hep you with any articles that you need me too as well. I really really hope he comes back soon. Also Do you know what infinity minus infinity is?...I know its not zero(which was my guess) but I am not sure what it is. Anyway I figure if we work topgether you can thow out a good idea for an I can "polish it up" for you. Alot of great sculpters would do this same thing with their understudies... so it should work pretty well. Just let me know which articles need "polishing". Thanks pickelbarrel 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only meant it in as much as we all are! What a slander! ;-) I love you really, Jimbo. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Deletion Request - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star lighter

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star lighter to offer your input on the issue of adding information about counterfeit and pirated goods to your website. The protection of intellectual property is an important issue and should be addressed here as such. CelebritySecurity 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on his editing patterns, interests, and writing style, I suspect the above is a sockpuppet/puppeteer of indefinitely banned user PeterZed (you know, the one with the template that said "This Article is Possibly a Threat to National Security" and who thought providing the street address of an embassy in an article was too dangerous). Just a heads-up. --Calton | Talk 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia essay on the userbox issue

One of the most common criticisms of userboxes, seen often on WP:TFD debates, is that they "don't help build the encyclopedia". While this is superficially convincing to many, I find it to be misguided, and I have written an essay, Wikipedia:How userboxes help build the encyclopedia, distilling a number of my thoughts on the matter. I would be interested in hearing your views on the points raised here. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Extensive Problems at La Salle College High School

Mr. Wales, there is a large debate going on about several topics at the school website for La Salle College High School. After long discussions, we appear to have gotten virually nowhere, except in severe trouble with the administration. I would like to ask you several things: 1. Is it appropriate to use eyewitness testimonies within a wikipedia article, or must they be cited from an outside source? and 2. Could you please attempt to intervene in this case? As the creator of the Wikimedia foundation, you have a great deal of influence on a large group of arguing people. In light of recent threats by the school administration, I ask that you not mention my name. However, you can contact me on my Wikipedia User page, or e-mail me at the address provided there. Thank you. Matt White 21:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

German userbox idea

You're probably sick of userboxen by now, but some editors have been working that German idea about userboxes (putting them all into userspace) that you mentioned on IRC the other day into a policy proposal. If you have time, it would be nice if you could leave a comment about it: Wikipedia:Use of userboxes. --bainer (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jay Rockefeller (again)

Hi Jimbo, I just want to let you know that another allegation has been added to this page. You might want to have a looksee in case his office calls again. I feel too personally biased to fairly judge whether the wording of the section is appropriate, but I've verified that the Fox News Sunday quote is accurate. I might try to expand the article so that one doesn't get the impression that all he does is leak. --Dragon695 07:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing about any edits there which suggest, infer, imply, etc. that Rocky does nothing but leak. However, there does seem to be a drive on at that page to eliminate any facts which tend to indicate he may have leaked. 03:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Save it for Oprah. Why can't you find sources other then partisan magazines? Why is it not being published in the Washington Times, which I'm sure would do so in a heartbeat if there was any truth to what you claim? Why is it not in the Wall Street Journal? I've mentioned a number of news (not opinion) sources which are considiered conservative, so why aren't they publishing this information? Perhaps it's because what you state is of a questionable nature and they don't want to be embarressed if it proves incorrect. I'm sorry, but using political journals and propaganda websites is not going to cut it. Facts require credible sources, inuendo and speculation are not facts. Hatchet jobs written by partisan pundits in political journals like The Weekly Standard or The Nation are not credible sources of fact. Articles on websites of questionable veracity such as NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, and are not facts. I don't need to present evidence that he doesn't leak, as the burden of proof is on you. Wikipedia is not a repository of political gossip. --Dragon695 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious Problems on German Wikipedia

Hey Jimbo I think we have a serious problem on de.wikipedia! It appears to me that the whole administration team is saturated with some kind of COINTELPRO. I have noticed this, when I was trying to remove prejudicial judgments from the WTC page. Unlike the corresponding English version, this page states as if it was an unquestionable and proven fact, that Arabian Islamists did the deeds... My simple changes such as: 'Arabian Islamists are being accused', or removal of the questionable finger pointing, has so far always been reverted. Administrators have taken it upon themselves to defend this prejudice as a fact, and have shown to me, that Wikipedia is not invulnerable against infiltration by potentially paid agents, that see it as the function to maintain a greater public manipulation. I have been blocked for my insitance on the NPOV, my complaints against these administrators [1] is being removed, people are telling me to ignore that potentially innocent people are being accused! I can't! I have suggested a long time ago that we should have a type of concurrent version Wiki. And that administrators should be replaced by an automated (user based) public process. I cannot trust those German administrators anymore! Can you suggest any solution? Togo 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to the English Wikipedia I've seen the same thing myself. Which is why I am leaving after only two months. In that time, I've been attacked, falsely accused, brought up for what is called "request for comments" and now, in arbitration. There is a serious problem on the English version as well, and it seems new blood is needed to halt the flight of newcomers, of which I now seem to be a part. Hope you find a solution that works best. Take care.Theo 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "corresponding English version" states that "The nineteen conspiring hijackers who carried out the attack were affiliated with al-Qaeda, a well-organized Islamic terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden". Whether you like it or not, this is universally accepted as fact. We are not going to give heavy coverage to suggestions that there was a 9/11 conspiracy any more than we're going to say in Earth that "It is widely accepted that the Earth is roughly spherical, but there are some who argue that the Earth is in fact flat".

If you aren't willing to accept the consensus of your fellow editors, maybe you should consider forking to an encyclopedia where you make the rules. Good luck. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Simetrical, what you said that "we're going to say in Earth that "It is widely accepted that the Earth is roughly spherical, but there are some who argue that the Earth is in fact flat"." That's just the feeling that I've had about the Grand Duchess Anastasia article (or whatever that article's name is this week) and whether "anna Anderson" was an imposter or not. DNA testing proved that she was an imposter, but there's a tendency there to hose this down. Arno 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Google Earth

Hello, if you want to see "your" Wikipedia in Google Earth, you can take a look at . I hope for you, your german is now better than my english. Bye. de:Benutzer:kolossos 10:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OMG. That is so cool. The Land 10:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Unrelated question, are we allowed to use google earth on articles? A lot of articles can have great benefir from such a thing. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
For more information, look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates. de:Benutzer:kolossos14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I think you made the right desicion by campaigning against religion/political userboxes. Last thing we need is userboxes that "support Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" as it would perhaps cause a ruckus. So basicaly thank you for your intuation against such userboxes. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Introduction & Wikipedia Reflections as a New User

After two months as a New Wikipedian, I have had the worst experience being "welcomed" into the Wikipedia "community" and been subject to attacks, lies, profanity, and censorship. I have chosen to leave Wikipedia.Theo 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe he may be referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theodore7. Or possibly Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it is individuals like you, KillerChihuahua, who are ruining Wikipedia - especially for newcomers. Theo 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In order not to upset the newcomers, we should allow them to add as much bias as they can during the first three months, without making any RfCs or RfAs against them. </sarcasm> bogdan 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The interesting bit is, I didn't start the Rfc or the Rfar. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

hey J1|\/||}0

hey! What's up?

I just added "J1|\/||}0 \X/@|3$" to your list of your name in different languages. If you don't like it, that's okay; go ahead and d3l3t3 it.

I just thought that your name in L33tsp34k would be cu73!

What do you think?

don't b3 afraid to send me a message! Chef Clover 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins deleting POV Templates (Userboxes)

As per what happened here and here and then here and finally here

I commented: I can't help but chuckle. Those Admins who want all these "nasty POV Templates" deleted to keep the wikicommunity together couldn't have created more bitterness and division with their actions if they tried. Pray tell gentlemen...will the beatings continue until morale improves? Lawyer2b 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"ArbCom" is not the solution

I suggest you review this ArbCom case before it closes: [2] Zeq 15:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred bauder, who was the main figure in this "arbCom" case refused to recuse himself after admiting that he think "Wikipedia is full of Zionist Propeganda". And that "israel does not have a right to exist".

Correction. I think partisans on both sides attempt to insert propaganda into articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From time to time one side or the other temporarily succeeds. I did not say Israel did not have a right to exist, although I do question the wisdom of the Zionist project. Fred Bauder 13:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The result:

Palestinian propeganda dominate article Nakba The person who tried to balance it, that have participted (in vain) in talk, in mediation - is banned from this article Another person (who had nothing to do with that article, excpet for commeting on the ArbCase talk page, saying he thinks there is merit to the arguments against the article current POV) - is also banned "for life" from this article.

Nakba was not looked at in detail, it being added as an issue by Zeq on Feb 10 without supporting evidence. No one is banned from that article by the proposed decision. Fred Bauder 13:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Fred is simply not telling the truth above. Just click on Nakba and see where you get too. This is the crux of the issue: Tons of supporting evidence about this article and why for years it is not NPOV . Fred refuse to look at this (excpet making vage promises that mediation will start on this article which is the core issue in the ArbCom case against me). Instead he does what he did in the case: Writes short reply which look relaible in an effort to railroad a verdict that would remove one more Pro-Israeli editor from Wikipedia Zeq 18:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Also clear from Fred answer abov that he never bothered to look at the evidence, even one click on nakba was too much for him. This is not an "ArbCom" this is a joke and will be come clearer and clear as we go. Zeq 18:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is making a joke out of "due -process". This is making a joke out of NPOV policy and it will come back to haunt you.

I again suggest that this "Verdict" (which only prooves that ArbCom memebrs don't bother to read even the evidence in the case) will be set aside and that honest mediators will attempt to resolve the issues in this articles.

Will you take on mediating this dispute.

Zeq 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

PS This is the 3rd ArbCom case where the "pro-Palestinian" editors are "warrned" but the other side is bannd. We start seeinga trend here.

But more important than banning this or that user is the bias in the articles. Bias that now got the "blessing" of Wikipedia own "ArbCom".

Zeq 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The decision is based on the quality of the sources the two "sides" were using. Fred Bauder 13:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is what Fred wantes you to think. In reality this is the 3rd ArbCom decision that just ban the "pro-Israel" editor while "warn" those who are pushing the Palestinian POV. By not replying or doing anything about it I guess you aprove of it. Zeq 09:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Seigenthaler afair will be nothing compare to what will be when the decision in my Arb Com case will made public.
It will come as this type of headline "Wikipedia ban Einstein from writing about Relativity"
This will become clear when I revel who am I. (hint: My initials are the same as my Wikipedia Nemesis but unlike him I am not a math professor who iswriting 1000s of Wikipedia article trying to make israel look worse. I am actaully an expert on the area on which Wikipedia is about to ban me (using the poor excuse of "not using verryfiable sources")
Fred Bauder admited to be biased about the subject of this case yet he was ,aking all the decisions.
I make this suggestion again. Set the "ArbCom" case aside and let's talk.
Throughout this "affair" I followed all Wikipedia policies. I made any effort to mediate these issues and I am still willing to work with the system before talking this issue outside. It is up to you.
One thing is already clear: The so-called "ArbCom" is just a rubber stamp to Fred Bauder (who admited to be against Israel right to exist) Together with me they ban from the article a erson that was not active in this article. They blamed him for edit war and using "unveryfiable sources" although on one article he quoted froma book and in the other article he was not active. His only real crime : He wrote something that could be understood as "pro-Israel"

The (strike that adjuctive, we don't want to personally attack anyone, even if he is only a rubber stamp) who sit in the ArbCom should resign just for making this mistake. They clearly never bother to look into the case infront of them.

I will proove everything (on Wikipedia or outside if needed), all in due time. For now what I suggest is to talk , understand and resolve the issues (the way things should work in Wikipedia.

Zeq 17:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One ArbCom memebr made the statment that "Wikipdia is full of Zionist Propeganda" before refusing to recuse himself from an ArbCom case about he Zionist-Palestinian conflict. Another member has made negative personal comments about me [3] - Maybe it is time you help ArbCom members implement NPOV policies in the articles in question without injecting their personal bias into the issue ? Zeq 08:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Participating in the editing of your own article

Hi I originally posted this in the talk section of your wiki article, and then decided that wasn't the appropriate forum. So I'm moving it here-- if it's wrong for here too I'm sure someone will delete it. I have to say, just starting here yesterday, that I'm finding all of the "unwritten rules", as well as the difficulty in knowing precisely where to post a given article, to be prohibitively discouraging. I find I'm spending so much time trying to learn the social aspects of the project (so as not to piss anyone off) that I'm not contributing to articles. Anyway, here's what I wrote originally.

I'm brand new here and I don't mean to stick my nose in without a full understanding of how this all works. But reading this talk page and seeing the ways in which Jimbo Wales-- the subject of the article-- is disturbing to me. I'd be worried enough about any person modifying their own entry; those concerns are magnified when the person is someone who wields a tremendous amount of influence in the Wikipedia community.

The fundamental question is, how can anyone have neutral point of view on themselves? As much as anyone tries hard to simply list the factual information about their life when making suggestions (and I don't doubt Mr. Wales sincerity on this point at all), you're going to keep running up against your own viewpoint, the reality of your own subjective perspective on what you're talking about. I know one of the fundamental principals of Wikipedia is that anyone can join in, but I worry that editing an article about oneself is always going to end up violating other principals/policies.

In addition, I think people seem to assume that the information that can be gathered from an individual about himself is invaluable to the creation of an article about that person. But shouldn't any person's article be created in a similar manner to everyone elses? It seems to me that if a fundamental aspect of encyclopedia is publicly known, independently verifiable information, getting inside information from individuals about themself is against the spirit of the project.

Finally, I think that despite his good intentions, anything Mr. Wales says is going to be in some respects coercive. He is simply too influential to be able to make suggestions that won't have influence outside the scope of whether they are correct or rational. This is particularly troubling when it comes to his perception of violations of Wiki policies; when Mr. Wales says that certain information is not neutral point of view, that is his opinion. If that opinion is taken at face value, he could use policies to remove information that portrays him in an unflattering light. Freddie deBoer 18:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Freddie, some of these points are actually covered in the Jimbo Wales article; others, well, aren't. Discussion continued on Freddie's talk page. JDoorjam Talk 04:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference; you're right, some of what I've talked about here is redundant/misclassified. Freddie deBoer 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bounty on your life (the good kind)

I have posted a small bounty at WP:Bounty as an incentive to get your biography up to FA status. Believing strongly in WP:AUTO, I would feel uncomfortable awarding the bounty if you edited before the claim is made, hence my note on the offer. I imagine that you do the right thing and stay away from it normally anyway, but I thought I would give you notice of the bounty anyway, so that you wouldn't invalidate it unintentionally. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


There has been a request to ask you to review the case. I will outline it here:

This is a significant case in the history of Wikipedia, not only because of the case itself, but because of all that it links to. It reeks of corruption of the worst kind, and its depths show Wikipedia in the worst possible light. I urge you to assess the case and take appropriate actions. Zordrac 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Side note, Mistress Kyle (and apparently, Londoneye) have/has been unblocked/unbanned. I originally reverted this, but have chosen to obey WP:1RR, and so will leave this message here, however I feel that most of the people Zordrac has listed in the list were/are trolls, and some of those he wants implicated did close to no wrong. As another side note, I unfortunately have to block the IP that posted this as ban evasion (both Zordrac and his original account Internodeuser are blocked). NSLE (T+C) 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All I ask is for you to look at the case. NSLE is adding in comments that are irrelevant to the discussion, as NONE of the users who were banned that are listed above at any stage were trolls or at any stage acted inappropriately. Sadly, the same cannot be said for some of the administrators involved. Zordrac 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

infamous ferrari doorstop

as we say in Australia: please explain. "ferrari doorstop" gets 3 google hits and I'm still in the dark Mccready 15:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that this is in reference to the wedged shape of the car. If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll be <s>'d by an editor "in the know" and corrected. JDoorjam Talk 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I also meant why "infamous" Mccready 09:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard Barrett and the Crosstar Image

Back in August of last year, there was an editing/legal conflict surrounding an image I uploaded, Image:Crosstar3.gif. The image in question is the logo of the White supremacist organization, the Nationalist Movement. Another editor, who was almost certainly Richard Barrett or someone acting on his behalf, insisted Wikipedia did not have the legal right to use their trademarked logo in the articles about the Nationalist Movement or the article about the logo itself. The image survived copyvio check, and its use (under fair use doctrine) was supported by numerous editors including Sam Korn, Willmcw, and others. Sometime in September or October, Wikipedia's co-lo provider received a DMCA complaint demanding the image be removed. In response to this you deleted the image in question with the following explantion:

"I temporarily deleted the crosstar image as a courtesy to our hosting facility, who received an apparently properly formatted DMCA complaint. I am working with our legal team to formulate a proper response, so that the colo has no legal liability, and then we'll put it back up. Please spread the word to anyone who you think would like to know about this. :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

Around the end of last year I tried to get an update on the situation, but didn't get a response. I decided to wait a couple more months just to be safe and then reuploaded the image here. I also added the image back into the articles in question. As expected, the same user (User:Crosstar or 209.215.*.*, who is almost certainly Richard Barrett) removed the images again citing copyright/trademark violation.

Although Will Beback has now reverted the removal, I would like to hear from you before we follow this edit conflict to its logical conclusion. Is the co-lo facility legally cleared now? Kaldari 19:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like the edit war has started without me (with the obligatory legal threats). Kaldari 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would think (though IANAL) that such a simple design would have little or no copyright protection, especially since it's apparently derived from an ancient symbol. There's just no original work of authorship involved, which is what leads to copyright protection. Trademark law would provide a greater degree of protection, if it's used exclusively as the logo of a particular organization, but the DMCA only applies to copyrights, not trademarks; there's a whole different set of laws and remedies for trademarks. Anyway, when it's being used in the course of discussion of the organization involved, fair use applies. *Dan T.* 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User boxes again

I left this comment at the userpages discussion page but i am resubmitting it at your page.
I want to comment on several points. First, the issue is not the userbox itself. The issue is " Should users be allowed to express political or religious opinions on their userpages?" You may remove all userboxes but users can still express their political or religious attitudes through images or merely by writing them. Then what? shall we remove user pages entirely? I think users are entitled to express their views in user pages. It is part of identifying the user. If not, user pages are useless. Second, i don't think the info in a userpage may reflect a bad image of wikipedia. It is a userpage not a wikipedia article. A userpage should not be neutral. We humans are not neutral. I suggest adding a note in user pages " This is a userpage.The information or views in this page represent only this user and not wikipedia. If you want detailed unbiased information about a subject, please refer to a wikipedia article" or something of that kind. Third, Deciding what is inflammatory and what is not is almost impossible. Everything can be regarded as inflammatory from one point of view . For example, the userbox user against iraq war was considered inflammatory by some admins. However, i can only think of it as a call for peace. Forth, i noticed that deleting a userbox can be more divisive than the userbox itself especially those speedy deletes by some admins without considering the votes. It is thought of as administrative abuse whatever the userbox was. Finally, I myself -and i think most wikipedia users- will accept any userbox expressing an opinion of the user e.g. This user supports xxx or this user hates xxx or even this user thinks xxx is a bullshit. I can't find any of this inflammatory. it is simply an opinion. However, i wont accept a userbox saying xxx is bullshit. This is the kind of userboxes that should be deleted. Therefore, my opinion is not to delete any userbox expressing an opinion. Keeping all opinions can be also regarded as neutrality.--Wedian 09:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

Happy Valentine's Day Jimbo! --Rory096 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day, Jimbo! --Rory096 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Same from me :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tsk, violations of WP:TOE are rampant today... Herostratus 08:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Do You like that people tell you lies ?

I am not going to get to details (not now, maybe I'll do it later preferably by e-mail) but partically everything that a specific person wrote to you on this page is not accurate. Zeq 04:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, ok. Pretty nonspecific, huh? :)--Jimbo Wales 17:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't review this statement:

"Nakba was not looked at in detail, it being added as an issue by Zeq on Feb 10 without supporting evidence. No one is banned from that article by the proposed decision. Fred Bauder 13:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) "

You will find out that the whole Arbitration case is around Nakba being totaly POV and that I am banned (by ArbCom) from THIS EXACT ARTICLE because my attempts to make slightly more NPOV. Fred himslef proposed to ban me from this article.

Next why don't review this:

"The decision is based on the quality of the sources the two "sides" were using. Fred Bauder 13:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) " and you will see that the issue is not "the quality of sources both sides have used" The issue is that one side cherrypick quotes (of Zionist leaders) from a book by Benny Morris insert those "cherrypicked" quotes to the nakba article to so-called "proove" a POV that even the author of the book himself (Benny Morris) sais it ain't so.

When Morris's own words (contradicting the thesis build in his name in the nakba article) is added into he article it is quickly removed by a group of editors who for years "owned" that article.

Other POV (by major scholars who see the issue differently) are also quickly removed from the article. There is just no way to make this article NPOV. Sorry it does not work this way in English Wikipedia. (BTW, in Hebrew wikipedia this article is NPOV but nonwe of the Hebrew editors is willing to come and edit here, they say English Wikiopedia have become aplave for "influance by cinflicting intersts" and there is no way to combat the anti-Israel group.

back to Nakba:

When an editor (yours truely) suggest that there is a completly different articles those quotes should be in (the quotes are about "transfer") there is an article Population_transfer#Middle_East which they would fit in - you know what happend ?

You guessed it :

ArbCom, led by Fred Bauder (the anti-zionist) decide to ban me, although he tell you he did not and all that voting by ArbCom members (Fred was the first all the other followd him) takes place before ArbCom had rulled on what the issues are and what should the new policy (yes they ARE inventing policies in this case ) should be (see the discussion that still goes on in this but also on many arbCom members talk pages: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Workshop

Total joke. But as long as Fred writes short replies to you that looks like a good "executive summary" I guess all is well. Zeq 18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


  • PS As I told anyone who would listen: I will gladly ban my self from Wikipdia if a mechaism to enforce the NPOV policy on the nakba article will be found. But I guess ArbCom is about banning not about implemneting policy.

Zeq 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW (2)

The other party to the edit war is a user that this is his 2nd time in ArbCom. He continue the edit war in other articles while the case goes on.

ArbCom has Ample evidence that he edit war as much as I did if not more

This is a user that you yourself (in previous ArbCom case involving him) said "he should be sysoped".

What did ArbCom decided about him ( Note he is a Pro-Palestinian POV pusher ) You guessed it:

He, and all the other Pro-Palestinian editors are "warned" each time they get to ArbCom. Only the Pro-Israeli editors get banned.

Zeq 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Almog Left English Wikipedia

Almog, a contributor to Hebrew Wikipedia has made one attempt to edit English Wikipedia. (This after being one of Hebrew Wikipedia top contributors and highly effective administrators)

During that attempt he off course ran into the famous ZERO , breifly edit wared with him (Zero kept reverting his edit)

All the story is in the various edits in this diff:

[4] (look at the edit war between these two snap shots cycle via newer or older edit)

So.... Asaf left English wikipedia deciding it is impossible to make it NPOV.

But ArbCom would never ban Zero, although it is clear long ago that he should have been banned from all articles dealing with the Israeli palestinian conflict. In fact they should have done it long ago in this case:

[5] but now they have a second chance.

There is currently another case before ArbCom with ample evidence that Zero disrupts almost every article in the Israeli-palestinian conflict he is involved in.

Zeq 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. I am an expert in Psychonautics, Psychology, Sociology, Comparative World Religions, Shamanism, World Religious History, and Conversational Logic. I seem to be having a problem, the short version goes something like this;

There are Two main types of Psychonaut. Wannabe drug users who haven't taken the time to get the education that does validate their use, and Non-Denominational Shamans, or, the Generic Term of "Shaman" as it might apply to Non-Shamanic Religions, such as, Shamanic Christianity, Or Shamanic Atheism for instance.

While I admittedly am very new to wikipedia, and Thoric apparently an old hand around here, The fact is, I am an expert on these subjects, and While Thoric has some good argument and I think even some good heart on the subject, he is simply missing the point. I don't want to argue with him (or anybody) on Wikipedia. If I knew how to install my "Wikistress" box, It would be in the red. This is all a very interesting place to me, and I'd like to think I could serve the information workers guild here well. On the other hand, if its just going to be arguing, I may find some thing better to do.

I have been very careful not to take our argument to any sort of actual editing stage. I have kept the entire thing in the discussion stage. I have freely admitted my Biases, (Which do exist, as does anybodies.) All I am asking for here is a fair shake and an honest discussion, rather than a blow off from an accidental POV victim.

Thanks sincerely, Prometheuspan 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comic Relief?

Hey Jimbo, can I borrow your Ferrari tonight? I promise to fill up the gas and return it by tomorrow! — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (who doesn't even have his driver's liscense yet *cough* *cough*)

And now for something completely different:
You are Danny Bonaduce and I claim my five pounds.
Andux 15:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well ummmm....

Wow what a huge site Jimbo, Oh and if you own a ferrari Jimbo, I want to see some good/more pics of it. Well ummmm....

Happy Valentines Day!

Diagram of the human heart (cropped).svg
Happy Valentines Day!

May your days be filled with Wikilove!

- Quadell


You appear to strongly believe that discussion is important for Wikipedia. For instance, at Category talk:Living people/Archive01#More questions and ideas you stated that absence of "a serious discussion about the right way to do something" is "dysfunction" and we should be "displeased" with it. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. There is far too much thoughtless action on Wikipedia, in the form of the various votes for deletion and other processes, and not enough informed discussion.

On these grounds, I believe that you were mistaken to unilaterally instate deletion criterion T1. If this is to be a dictatorship, very well; I have no objections to rule by (as Plato suggested, I believe) a wise and benevolent dictator. But no one's judgment is flawless. Discussion is just as critical for an individual decision-maker as for a group decision-making process. I firmly believe that before taking any action outside the bounds of community consensus (barring those that are time-critical), you should discuss the matter fully with the community for at least a week.

I think this would have prevented certain unfortunate incidents that occurred in the recent past. Pretty much everyone deemed your block of Joeyramoney to be excessive, and after a day or two you were persuaded; wouldn't it have been better if you discussed for a day or two before issuing your edict, so he could have been dealt with according to WP:AGF and WP:BITE? Wouldn't it have been better for you to ponder and discuss before saying something to (in my view) an excellent admin that you later regretted?

There's usually no need for haste. If you wish to exercise your authority as delegate of the Board, please, discuss before acting. Don't force us to deal with things like an extremely vague, subjective, and easily-abusable CSD when with some deliberation, we could address whatever issues you have in a more precise and effective manner. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


I hereby lay one request for me to archibe your userpage. AzaToth 06:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


He keeps vandalizing articles and saying stuff about me. Please block him! Thanks. --Adam7davies 09:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for action against vandals. Jacoplane 10:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bernd Sebastian Kamps

Someone added a link to this excellent on line book which lead me to a whole family of free health data sites by doctors for doctors championed by Bernd Sebastian Kamps whose dreams for a better world remind me of yours. I bet you two would get along great. I bet there could be some synergy between the various projects you two promote. WAS 4.250 17:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

About to get banned from Nakba

Hi Jimbo! Actually I am the editor who is about to get banned indefinitly from Palestinian Exodus. Nakba is just a redirect page leading to Palestinian Exodus.

Evidently, I disrupted the article: Proposed_decision#Heptor_banned_from_articles_he_has_disrupted [...]. Not that it matters much to me, I made a total of five edits ([6] [7][8] [9] [10]) on that article, two of them during the last two months. Just wonder which one of them was the disruptive one. How the heck it is possible that such proposal is already supported by five arbitrators, is beyond me.

I didn't want to bother you with this at least until this case actually closes, but Zeq seems to go his own ways, as usually.

With best regards, Heptor talk 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Don't worry about it.

First if five 5 Arbitors say you were disruptive in your editing to this article you sure have been disruptive. Don't confuse them with facts.

Second, even if you are banned from Nakba by the ArbCom, don't worry about that as well cause the most senior arbitor (the one who wrote the decision and the first to vote on it) sais to Jimbo that "No one is banned from this article"

So why do you worry ? You see it is all a trick to take our attention from the fact that for several years all attempts in implementing Wikipedia own NPOV policy over this article has totaly failed. Wikipedia has become the host of pro-palestinian propeganda so banning you for adding a comment that may look "pro-Israel" makes prefect sense to people (like Fred) who admited to be against Israel right to exist and that said that "wikipedia is full of Zionist propeganda".

So don't worry, it is all "newspeak" wikipedia style.

Zeq 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You two should know that this is not the first time there has been serious disagreement on this wikipedia over Israel and Palestine-related matters. I don't know enough on the topic to say who is right and who is wrong. I do wonder, though, if the same is not true of some of these arbitrators, and whether this in turn impedes them in making a correct or fair ruling. This is an explanation, other than ones involving deliberate "pro-palestinian propaganda" conspiracies, that you should consider. Arno 07:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that was more what I was thinking. Wikipedia attracts mostly technical people. I think that the arbitrators care much more about keeping it quiet, rather then to examine the issue. That is probably how they almost managed to ban me from an article I almost didn't edit: nobody except Bauder even looked at it.
I read what Jimbo Wales wants Wikipedia to be, and frankly, I think cares more about parity of his socks than about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Not like this particular knowledge is about to save the World any time soon.
And, if it wasn't bad enough as it was, Zeq is constantly hitting something with his hammer that definitively isn't a nail. -- Heptor talk 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Child modeling

Hello, Jimbo. It's a pleasure to address you for the first time. I first visited Wikipedia ~10 days ago and really enjoy editing it.

I am also writing you about the comments you made at the Child Modeling (erotic) talk page on 2/14/06. Your points are all valid, and I think the problems with the article can be fixed. One side note, however. You commented that "it is a standard rhetorical trick of pro-pedophiles to attempt to redefine normal terms to be about their thing" (emphasis added). But it seems that both sides frequently see pedophilia where none exists. In fact, I only recently realized how fine a line exists between having a strongly "anti-" POV and having a strongly "pro-" POV, and how much closer the two are to each other than to neutrality.

Thanks for the opportunity to contact you here. Hope all is well. Joey Q. McCartney 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I guess some of the problems with that article were fixed right away after your comments, with the rename. Joey Q. McCartney 03:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


The guy who created the place that gave me 3 A+'s and made it easy. I just wanna thank you for making this place. I try to help it alot. --Gators222 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

So Jimbo, I asked you a question: Do you like that people lie to you ?

And use your creation as a tool for false propeganda ?

Is your solution to the false information on this site to just ban any Pro-israeli editor who try to fix it ?

As far as Nakba (The article I am banned from by ArbCom, but since Fred Bauder (the arbitor) told you "no one is banned from that article) - so I must be 'no one':

  • I opted for mediation (which is the proper way for Dispute resolution) but the other side refuse and no one is even willing to mediatite. They all know it is much simpler to take it to

1. Take it ArbCom that will rule on their favor and 2. that you will do absolutly nothing

So I guess you have no problem with people telling you lies in order to further their goal of using your site for lies about the Israeli-palestinian conflict. If I am wrong, do something to get the parties to mediation - this will prevent Wikipedia from becomeing another trashy propeganda site.

Zeq 06:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Reconsider CSD T1

Jimbo, I know how you feel about political and polemic userboxes, but I beg you to please revoke your CSD T1 policy. It is rapidly becoming very disruptive. I will not name names at this point, but I feel that CSD T1 is being used as a blank check by certain antiuserbox administrators to ignore WP:POINT, WP:SNOW, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. Apparently, they do not care for the TfD process and are deleting userboxes based on their own personal beliefs of what is and what is not divisive. Even more disturbing, based on comments in the log, is the apparent joy they get from doing so. That seems very irrational and improper. Furthermore, I believe that CSD T1 has become a tool to bypass TfD when it appears that the TfD is going to fail. There are many of us who feel this is a blatant case of gaming the system. The result of this abuse has upset quite a few users and is causing some very uncivil discourse on DRV. Along with accusations of vote stacking, userbox supporters are unfairly being told that our opinion doesn't count since it doesn't conform to what antiuserbox activists think should be the criterion for comments. Yet the antiuserbox opinions are not criticized, even though they are just as bad if not worse in terms of being fluff arguments.

There are many persons, including myself, who were very upset when CSD T1 was added without consensus. I understand the circumstances around which you added it, but I hardly think one case of wheel warring is justification (especially since it could lead to more cases of wheel warring). Besides, there are multiple policy proposals regarding userboxes that are actively under discussion. A serious effort is underway on trying to reach a compromise and consensus on these policies. I think CSD T1 should be discussed as a policy candidate, as well, but not just made the law of the land because you say so. I fear that if action is not taken to return this to civil discussion and consensus building, we are in for Wikipedia Userbox War II (please don’t take this is as a threat, I’m merely trying to read the tea leaves, so to speak). The TfD process works relatively well and I see no reason why there must be a rush to delete something contained out of article space which isn't a copyvio or libel. Why be in such a hurry? It should also be noted, given that a significan amount of the speedies are done by the same three admins, given their statements in the past, that this appears to be some sort of retribution for Kelly Martin's failure to retain her position on ArbCom. I would not be surprised to see a number of new RfCs and RfAs, similar to Kelly Martin's, should the abuse continue (again, this is not my intention, but it is what I'm hearing).

The bottom line is that, although I'm relatively new, I like my userboxes. There are many others who feel the same. However, I just want to dig in and work on articles rather then constantly having to go to TfD and DRV to defend userboxes from unfair deletion. By the way, I have compromised on your suggestion and added a CSS Hide button so that viewers can hide my userboxes if they want to. Can't we just stop it already with the unnecessary deletion? --Dragon695 07:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:Dragon695. CSD T1 has been far more divisive than the “divisive” userboxes that it seeks to remove. At this point, we need firm guidance and policy clarification. As Tony Sidaway has pointed out, the heated conversation and debate about userboxes has also increased community interest in userboxes. There are now 80% more userboxes than there were two months ago (over 6,000 as opposed to 3,500 in the beginning of January), and more than 300% as many political userboxes (more than 150, up from fewer than 50). I imagine these userboxes aren’t being launched to be contrary, but only because the profile of userboxes has been raised much higher, and, as it’s central to the debate, it’s frequently discussed just how easy it is to create userboxes. This is classic WP:BEANS.
User:Quadell, I, and others, have been discussing a detailed, top-down policy implementation that we feel would provide guidance toward the best way forward for the project on this issue. I would greatly appreciate your feedback on what has been developed there. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of spending time advocating for userboxes, Dragon695, just go spend time working on the encyclopedia, and ignore the userbox issue altogether. That's what we're here for, not expressing points of view, etc. To borrow from Physchim62's post on the Village pump, please consider the following long-standing policies

  • WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  • I don't see a soapbox anywhere. There is a big difference between having a couple of small userboxes, intermingled with others, which are passive AND actively going around the wikipedia and inserting your activism everywhere. Userboxes != Soapboxes. --Dragon695 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog or webspace provider
  • Irrelevant, other userpages have similar miscellany. This is not blogging, if you mean keeping a weblog. --Dragon695 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:USER: [What can I not have on my user page] Opinion or other pieces not related to Wikipedia
  • Doesn't seem to be the shared consensus on Wikipedia. Please see TDC's userpage as one of numerous examples. --Dragon695 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:USER: [What can I not have on my user page] Things that fall into "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project
  • Irrelevant, doesn't apply here. People put that silly wikistress-meter withfunny level-names on their page, which is also pure entertainment. --Dragon695 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On your own personally hosted webpage, you can have anything you want, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Please focus on Wikipedia's mission and leave the other stuff elsewhere. - Taxman Talk 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, I will advocate if I feel like it, just like Doc, Mark, and Tony feel it is necessary to advocate for the elimination of all opinionated userboxes. As for getting to work, the same could be said right back you and the rest. It takes two to tango. Jimbo's approach has more or less gotten most people to take their userboxes off their main page and put them on a subpage (hell I'm even thinking of doing that), if not remove them completely. If the antiuserbox activists didn't speedy the userboxes, then there wouldn't be a fuss, now would there? Then we could all get back to doing what we are supposed to do, mmm kay? All we are asking for is a fair TfD process, not some willy-nilly policy which only serves those who take the opposite point of view. Like I said before, there isn't the urgency necessary (like copyvio or libel) for this policy to exist. It only serves those who are mad because they don't get their way on TfD or are too lazy to got through the TfD process like the rest of us plebs. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a problem with listing them on TfD, now would they? --Dragon695 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


You wrote "give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wiki" . Actually it gives a very accurate idea of what Wikipedia has become - a battle field of conflicting interests - like in the old days each side now raise flags and symbols. It is only a visiable mark for a system that is becoming quickly a victom of it's own success.

To restore Wkipedia to it's initial goal I have suggested yo long ago to change the system and move for a two version system for each page:

  • One stable, that is available for the outside world
  • One "in-progress" (or under development) - in which editors reach consenus.

No version will move to the stable public version until it is clean from those vandalism and propeganda. This will remove the incentive for vandalism and for injecting political and other propeganda for the benefit of immidiate publication.

Hope my suggestion is clear. If not I'll be glad to explain and expend. Zeq 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That can be very difficult to accomplish with fast-moving current events. NSLE (T+C) 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There could be excpetions for unfolding events. although for encyclopedia it is a good idea not to write th events as they occur. Zeq 08:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
For most editors, Wikipedia is not a battlefield. We aim for a neutral point of view, and if someone adds bias to an article, we fix it and explain to them how an encyclopedia works.-gadfium 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
For most - maybe. But there is now a critical mass of different type of Editors. Look at the article Hamas for example.It was a stable, sleepy article until they won elections. Since that time every 5 minutes Hamas is chaging from terror organization to a welfare providing organization and wise versa. Since ArbCom will soon ban me ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision ) my guess is that hamas will soon become 100% welfare providing organization (curtesy of Wikipedia "neutral" editors) Zeq 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User page award


Congratulations, Jimbo Wales/Archive 4! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

  • Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
  • Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
  • Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
  • General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

Banez 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's cheating, I don't think he made it himself. :) Stevage 20:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, that doesn't matter. :) Banez 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Shia or Suni muslim ?

what takes place on the Hamas article is another indication what Wkipedia insatbity has become.

Is it a suni organization or Shia. Off course that is the question about hamas - a question two rivals can fight over for ever and call each other works )see diff: [11] "pile of shit" Zeq 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikihalo Nominees

Hi Jimbo. As not only the founder of The Wikimedia Foundation and the first ever user to receive a Wikihalo (although I do not think that you noticed), I was wondering whether you knew of any possible candidates. Angela has received one, but apart from that there has been no progress.

I hope you approve of the project and that you will come up with some useful suggestions (you do normally) both for nominees and for improvement of the project in any way. Thank you for your time. The Neokid - Wikihalo Guiding Director talk 20:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Task forces" proposal

Hey Jimbo, could you take a look at User:Talrias/Task forces proposal? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Canada Free Press article about Wikipedia: Freemasonry link to Kofi Annan's father disappears from Wikipedia

Judi McLeod whom you are familiar with, has published another article about Wikipedia. Freemasonry link to Kofi Annan's father disappears from Wikipedia

Do you know more about this? McLeod's article doesn't tell us what date the claim was first posted. I can't find any recent changes on Kofi Annan. A discussion has begun on the relevant talk page. TheKMan went through 542 revisions to this article, from the first on 03:06, 23 September 2001 to the last at 01:43, 8 February 2006. None of those revisions have any mention of the word "freemason". Were there any covert article deletions?

It is possible McLeod may have confused Wikipedia with this website

Thanks! --Cyberboomer 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed, we sent an inquiry/letter to the editor on the 12th, no reply as of yet (the 16th). -- user:zanimum

  • Do you expect an aswer ? Do you want them to make their article accurate ? Whoo ! what a novel concept.
  • I sent Jimbo a question. I expect Wikipedia to implemnet it's own policies regarding NPOV on such articles as Nakba and guess what: I don't see this taking place. Why do you expect people to treat you in a civil way when Wikipedia itself is full of inaccuracies and the list is growing by the day ? see above my apeal to Jimbo to fix the sisution about Wikipedia turning into a tool for political propeganda.

Signed: Zeq 06:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I know you don't want to hold yourself responsible for the actions of those you call "The unpaid volunteers" but make no mistake: You do know that they allow Wikipedia to be used for false propeganda while just banning those who point it out. (this is a repeated pattern to ban the pro_israeli editors. All admins from Hebrew Wikipedia no longer post at English Wikipedia)

See this User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Inability_to_explain_a_simple_finding_of_.22fact.22_in_an_ArbCom_case to see that Fred can not explain the basic claim he did when he wrote the "ArbCom" decision. . . . .

  • PS You never bothered to answer if you enjoy him telling you lies ?
I think you do. This gives you more "deniability"

When this comes back to haunt you just sack poor Fred (The arbitors who said he is "a communist", "Agaianst israel right to exist" and that "Wikipedia is full of Zionist propeganda" (when asked to give an example about this last claim he gave one that when checked was proven false, since that time he refuse to answer questions on this issue.)

Zeq 06:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

the community

Don't you think there's a sense in which Wikipedia demonstrates the failure of the objectivist worldview, at least in terms of community? Or, if not it's failure, the difficulty of applying it to real world situations?

I mean I look around here and I see so many people who believe that there's are correctively objective facts about an article, and believe in neutral point of view-- and these people are often involved in incredibly contentious debates about what is and isn't the case. They both think that the other is factually, objectively wrong. I know the stock response: Just because there's a dispute about the facts doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. But how do you know? If you impose certain criteria to find out, isn't the way you select those criteria just another example of your own subjectivity? Doesn't the fact that so many people who believe in objective truth can't get along suggest flaws in the notion of an objectively correct viewpoint?

I read some of the talk pages and I'm baffled by some of the reactions seemingly innocuous comments get. People who quote Wiki policies on ettiquette tend to be given the benefit of the doubt-- I mean, some people will pull out references to WP:Civil and WP:NPOV and WP:NPA all day long. And it seems those people usually get the support of the community. But usually I find that the people who do so are the ones who are out of line. Someone will disagree with them, and they'll respond by saying "Hey, no personal attacks!" But I'm often left scratching my head as to what exactly the personal attack was.

It's frightening, the admin process, sometimes. I mean, what exactly is neutral or objective about saying, "Clearly, this person is a troll"? How is that objective? I find people blocked out of hand for things the admins say is self evident, and I often don't have the slightest idea why what they did is grounds for being blocked. When people question the admin's decisions, they get hit up with "Wikipedia is not a democracy." But admins are human and make mistakes, and I find that the system for addressing grievances puts power right into the hands of the same core of admins.

I guess I just worry that the supremacy of the idea of objective reality overwhelms an honest accounting of the nature of human subjectivity.

Now please prove some of your detractors wrong and don't drop a lightening bolt on me. I'm not a vandal I swear.

  • Admins don't hate me either.
    • And don't block/ban me.
      • Or delete my userpage.
        • I don't even have one userbox. Honest. Freddie deBoer 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark Sweep

I'm sure you've had your fill of the userbox debates, but this desparately needs to be brought to your attention. Mark Sweep has apparantly been trying to silence opinions that oppose his on the userbox debates. He has recently declared that all George W. Bush templates will not be recreated, [12] even though no consenus has been reached on that particular decision to my knowledge, he also has deleted responses to his declarations on the Userbox deletions debate page, despite the name of that page. [13] He also left a note on God of War's (a very respected user) talk page, calling him to "Please stop disrupting DRV by restoring debates that are moot. This is your only warning." [14] His contributions are not what should be expected of an admin. I kindly request you look into this manner. Thanks for your time! --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Desperately"? I don't think there's a need to hurry. There's no wheel war, the deleted revisions will not disappear in a puff of smoke, and so this can be calmly discussed. --cesarb 19:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
FYI, MarkSweep left a similar comment at Ryanjunk's talk page (i.e. "This is your only warning."). He seems intent on silencing others' opinions. I asked him why he blanked the DRV discussion, but he has not yet responded. --Fang Aili 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Folks, this is not about "silencing opinions". You're welcome to voice your opinions, but there's a place and a time for everything. You chose the wrong place and the wrong time. Those particular debates no longer have any purpose, they have been archived, they have expired, they have ceased to be, they have joined the choir eternal, etc. Trying to prolong debates past the point where they serve a useful purpose is quickly getting us nowhere. As for referring to God of War as "a very respected user", all I have to say is this: User:God of War/Was REVENGE worth it President Bush?. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you get to unilaterally decide when the time and place for this is. Why do you unliaterally decide if a discussion has purpose. Archiving is not blanking comments and then reverting when they are re-added. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved an essay to a sub-page, so what. Ad-Hominem arguments are weak, don't use them.(unsigned comment by God of War)
  • I don't know what the essay has to do with is related to the some template's topics...but not the issue of process, which is the main concern. Digging up that essay seems below the belt IMO.Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


"Nakba was not looked at in detail, it being added as an issue by Zeq on Feb 10 without supporting evidence. No one is banned from that article by the proposed decision. Fred Bauder 13:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) "

Do you like that people lie to you or you send them a message that this OK ? Zeq 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry Reid page is protected as WP:OFFICE

why? There is no explanation. There is no dispute in the talk page. Tbeatty 20:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just visiting

Just visiting boss. Martial Law 03:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Comming by to see how you're doing. Martial Law 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Not just liying

It is now clear (based on his own addmision) that Fred issued it's rulling in the ArbCom case without reading the evidence presented:

He never bothered to click on the most basic link (one click) to the Wikipedia article in question.

See this where he admit not clicking it: User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Zeq_and_Nakba

Time to summarize

  • Fred was the leading Arbtor. He wrote the rulling, all other followed.
  • He made several mistakes, only one is fixed and up for revoting
  • Edit war takes two parties. Yet despite ample evidence that Zero has edit war more than I did - Fred did not ban him. He only bannd the pro-Israel editors. (despite that fact that Zero has been warnd before by ArbCom)
  • Fred, on several occuastion admited to be "Agianst israel right to exist", he stated that "Wikipedia is full of Zionist Propeganda"
  • when Fred asked to give an example of such propeganda he gave a short answer about East Jerusalem not described in Wikipedia as . When asked to give a link prooving his claim he could not find any
  • This is a very typical and alarming behaviou by the Lead ArbCom member: Short answers that when looked at in detail proove to be a lie.
  • Back to big issue: Wikipedia failed for years to implement it's own NPOV policy on many articles about the Palestinian-israeli conflict. This is the main issue, that you have yet to addressed
  • This clear bias in English Wikipedia has caused many Hebrew Wikiopeia editors to stay away from a plavce they define as a "battle groud for conflicting interests" and "a hotbed for Pro-Palestinian Propeganda"
  • ArbCom has never bothered to understand why I made edits which were for one purpose only: To move the Nakba article (the core of the case) to be NPOV. Instead they just ban me from this article. (Which I truly don't care).
  • ArbCom rrefused to follow due process. Even simple mediation about this article was refused although proper dispute resolution require that. Question put to it by third party to support Fred findings (that I removed "good sources" and added "bad ones") were never answered by any Arbitor.
  • I urge you to take a good look at this case for the sake of improving the Wikipedia articles on which the case is. Zeq 05:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - its pretty cold in the UK.We could do with some summer-ization William M. Connolley 11:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Now someone has ruined my witty spelling flame by correcting Zeq's spelling :-( William M. Connolley 13:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Inquaring minds want to know

3rd party are seeing ArbCom bias and asking - Aiden asked on the case:

"Any edit warring by the parties involved should be dealt with proportionally and with equality. If Zeq and Heptor are banned for deletion of sourced material and edit warring, why do Ian and Zero0000 receive a slap on the wrist when they have no doubt abused Wikipedia policy to the same or greater degree? " [15]

==== ArbCom answer ====
They revert the page to ignore the 3rd party question:
=====ArbCom member engaged in edit war over this question =====
Uh, dude, the problem is that only Arbitrators can edit Proposed decision pages—it says so right at the top. If you have a question, you should ask an arbitrator on his/her talk page, use the proposed decision talk page, or the workshop page. Editing the proposed decision page will result in an instant revert, which is what happened here. -- SCZenz 09:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
They should listen to what editors have to say, not just delete them. Zeq 12:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Zeq is the worst disaster to hit the Middle-East section of Wikipedia since I have been here"

see this diff: [19]

Is it clear to you why they want to ban me ?

I was the only one who tried to stop the antisemitism by some Wikipedia editors .

So now they ban me.

But the antsemitism is here and it is your job not mine to deal with it. I tried to help you from within Wikipedia and I guess it will have to be taken outside. Zeq 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I beleive that we have a copyright issue that may come to bite us on the bum fairly soon if we don't act now. See Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. I have started to delete the covers that aren't being discussed/described on article pages, and which have no fair use criteria. I am keeping significant covers, or ones that are genuinely fair use (there's one I added ages ago on, of all things, goatce), or the ones that show the Time Person of the Year. Sorry if my action seems wrong, normally I wouldn't delete images unilaterally and would take though IFD. This is a specially case because I suspect someone is going to go to Time over the issue: which would be embarassing all around and not good for the project. - 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There's related discussion on Template talk:TIME as well as WP:AN#TIME magazine covers. I guess proactively deleting the borderline cases is the safe choice here, since the covers are still available online and may be reuploaded if needed. In any case, we should probably run this by the legal team. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects


How do you fix double redirects?

Evan Robidoux 19:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Evan Robidoux 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

disclaimer comment

See my comment here about a more prominent disclaimer, please. Thanks very much. Just so you know, my comment is a little strongly worded. Joey Q. McCartney 02:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearing the Place out

Regarding the message about clearing the Talk Page out: I was wondering if you were going to consider creating another archive. This happens to be item 176 on the table of contents. Duinemerwen 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, what the hell. Decided to be bold. My cutoff line was February 8. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox wars and your status

Jimbo, I'm sure you are aware of the mass deletions of userboxes going on over the last two days. I implore you to get involved and settle the issue of userboxes once and for all. If you look at the traffic on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates you will see that a large number are being deleted under the new "T1" criteria. The greatest problem with this is determining what is divisive. One's statement of opinion is another's division.

Unfortunatley, I fear a big problem out there is that many consider you a sort of demigod on Wikipedia. They take your comments such as this one and try to interpret them into law. Worse, many admins consider themselves sort of your high-priests and thus are above rebuke when carrying our your perceived will. This can not be good for the community.

If you will simply come out on the appropriate project spaces, not the mailing lists, and state once and for all that any userbox that expresses an opinion or grouping is banned then much of this debate will go away. Until then I fear the wars will rage on because it is easy to fight over what you think a deity desires.

Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It wont go away. The problem is not so much that people view Jimbo as a demigod on Wikipedia. It is that a limited subset of wikipedians view Jimbo as a demigod on Wikipedia. This tends to result in problems when Jimbo says something that a subgroup of reasonable size dissagrees with.Geni 15:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

just thought you'd like to know

someone just impersonated YOU in the impersonation discussion! Plugwash 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Category:Wikipedians includes dividing up wikipedians by

  • Wikipedians by astrological sign
  • Wikipedians by diet
  • Wikipedians by ethnicity
  • Wikipedians by generation
  • Wikipedians by marital status
  • Wikipedians by mental condition
  • Wikipedians by parenthood
  • Wikipedians by pet
  • Wikipedians by philosophy
  • Wikipedians by physiological condition
  • Wikipedians by politics
  • Wikipedians by religion
  • Wikipedians by sexuality
  • Wikipedians by subculture WAS 4.250 16:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Jimbo, you have opposed “inflammatory” user boxes, due to the fact they divide the Wikipedian Community. However, what is absent here is a definition of “inflammatory”. “Inflammatory” is a rather individual and subjective term, unless you can define it.

For instance, some may find photographs of reproductive organs as “inflammatory”, while others may find censoring this information as “provocative”.

Some may find homosexuality “inflammatory”, while others will find homophobia “provocative”.

This is the same for userboxes. Some may find socio-political-religious related items “inflammatory”, while others will find not including such information and possible biases as dishonest and “inflammatory”.

This hole in the term is an issue. And, until you find a universal definition of “inflammatory”, will keep my inflammatory “” user boxes on my talk page.

My sense of the way to solve this loop hole is to simply ignore user pages. Quite frankly, what’s on a Wikipedian’s user page is of no concern to the encyclopedia. Wikipedians know how to separate their encyclopedic work from their Wikimedian opinions.

I won’t eliminate my userboxes, as there isn’t a universal definition of “inflammatory”.

Sincerely Dylon Martin

Canadianism 23:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom bans without asking for evidence on rajput case

FYI: Arbcom decided to ban me from rajput page without ever asking me to provide evidence! In fact no one from the rajput side presented any evidence for this case as most of the members were new and unfamiliar with internals of how WP operates. Sysop Dbachmann used racial slurs against all Indians ([20]) and he was the only evidence giver which naturally showed him in good light. Based on his evidence arbcom banned all "Hindu" editors from the rajput page. Article I created was from 60 odd books, quite a few which are written by Phd's and you can browse them here: Note Bachman and his friends are pushing references without reading a single one of them and engaged in revert wars without citing a single source and laughed off my references. Is this really scholarship? Shivraj Singh 03:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know the case but am not surprized. They have "too much load" so why bother looking at evidence ? Zeq 18:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I find it outrageous that someone could make the quote you presented and then receive a favorable hearing fail to receive a censure from arbcom. I did not follow have read the arbcom case, but I just perused it and found and I do not defend User:Shivraj Singh's position. However, quotes by User:Dbachmann such as "I don't expect you get many Hindu trolls on ur:, but they really seem to flock to en:." deserve censure. I would imagine that the expression Jewish troll would be immediately recognized as inappropriate. The expression Hindu troll ought to be rejected no less forcefully. --BostonMA 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Shivraj's behaviour at times was quite irksome, but i'm outraged that DBachmann got away with all the things he said to Hindus and Indians in general. I'm afraid its quite easy to diss Hindus as "uneducated Hindutva trolls", needless to say somebody such as Muslim or a Jew wouldnt have been slurred that way. Flag of England.svg अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey Flag of India.svg 08:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Userboxes

AdminPhyschim62 wrote: "I cannot see how mediation would help in this matter—what is really needed is a clarification on policy from Jimbo—but I will not oppose if you place a request." Otherwise, I wouldn't be bothering you...

I got into a discussion with the aforesaid admin because he has been deleting userboxes that express opinions without first running them through Tfd, or running them through Tfd and then deleting them despite a consensus for keep. At first, I thought he was a lone ranger, so I posted the usual Vandal messages on his pages -- I am a WP:RCP, and I consider my greatest service to Wiki to help control the vandals. But Physchim62 responded to me with quotations directly from you, where you say that opinionated userboxes are bad. I thought that was the whole point of userboxes! How else are we supposed to police for NPOV if people do not state their POVs and thus allow other editors to check their work? As someone who regularly interacts with anon IPs, I can answer that question -- slowly, poorly, and with a lot of misunderstandings along the way. I have made over 1000 edits, and the users who do not have userboxes create 99% of the POV that I encounter. Therefore, I ask you to clarify that you are in favor of WP:NPOV and therefore in favor of userboxes.--M@rēino 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I love apple pie, so that must mean I'm in favor of userboxes, right? --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
How else are we supposed to police for NPOV if people do not state their POVs? You are, in effect, saying that editors are unable to recognize POV or NPOV without a cheat sheet? You have to, in effect, Assume Bad Faith by assuming the bias and searching for hints of it in peoples' edits? As far as I'm concerned, you should and should be able to recognize POV material when you see it, not because your preconception of the material creator's motive frames your view and interpretation of it. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to see some clarification on how Template: space should be restricted to article templates only. Userboxes should be strictly in userspace, not mucking about with the templates, which are encyclopedic content. The best solution I've seen is to change the Wikipedia:Userboxes page into a codebase of a variety of userboxes that the user can copy onto their own user page. This solves most of the issue us userbox deletionists have: it prevents the use of Whatlinkshere to stack votes and it keeps the Template: namespace free of non-encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mareino, were 99% of those people using Red-linked usernames too? Kim Bruning 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(By the way, you might try writing your nick a bit more conservatively. Grepping the page for your name couldn't find your post. :-/) Kim Bruning 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • To the above editors: I'm trying to write a letter to Jimbo b/c an admin whose policies I disagree with asked me to. When you reply to my comments, they show up in Jimbo's user talk page. Please, please remove your edits from my letter. If you want to write Jimbo a letter disagreeing with my request, that would be the proper forum for your comments; please create a separate section and do so.--M@rēino 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq and Hamas


Soon, due to the restrictions that are placed on me by ArbCom I will be gone.

see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Zeq_is_the_worst_disaster_to_hit_the_Middle-East_section_of_Wikipedia_since_I_have_been_here.22

For sometime I noticed that there are elemnts who change the nature of Hamas article in Wikipedia.

Now the question is how would you take care of the fact that depends on which moment one is looking Hamas is either


  • "Hamas masterminded nearly 60 military operations against Israeli occupires"

doesn't it bother you that Wikipedia has become a place used by terrorist supporters ?

So far, you and ArbCom have done nothing to address the issues I raised excpet to ban people like me, who albeit being pro-Israel strive for NPOV articles. On the other hand the POV-pushers from the other side (pleanty of evidence before ArbCom) are only getting out with a warnning and a clear message from ArbCom:

  • Continue to push your "Anti-Zionist" agenda, ArbCom will remove the obstecles you face. (example see: [21] )

Zeq 08:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


The userbox User:UBX/Atheist was recently deleted, recreated and redeleted with the speedy deletion criterion for templates which you endorsed cited as a reason. Could you clarify whether the text "This user is an atheist" qualifies as "divisive and inflammatory" userbox content? Haukur 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add that created on 21 October 2005, this is one of our oldest userboxes. It is used on more than 200 userpages, all of which now have the "This page has been deleted and should not be recreated etc." template on them. Haukur 10:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Jimbo isn't the best choice of person to go to about this kind of thing. Should Jimbo, who is just one individual and also highly partisan on the issue, be the one deciding what is and is not "divisive and inflammatory"? Everyking 10:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly suitible. Jimbo is the boss, and he wants them gone. Jimbo is the leader of the project, and its perfectly clear he knows what is and is not harmful to the goal of constructing an encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 10:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that, if you follow that logic, then any argument of Jimbo's is automatically right and any argument against him is automatically wrong. The way I see it, interested parties should resolve this issue as a group, or barring that, at least a neutral person should be found whose judgment has currency among both sides in the dispute. I reject the appeal to authority approach. Everyking 10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
What part of "Jimbo is the boss" did you overlook? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm an atheist and the deletion of this template highly offends me. Users should be able to freely express their religion on their user pages. If anything is divisive and inflammatory, it is the deletion of the template without prior discussion. I can't believe you support anything like that.  Grue  13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As a theist, I support the idea that the deletion of the atheist template without prior discussion is wrong. Sophy's Duckling 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're an atheist you have no religion to express. There's nothing stopping you from placing the text "I am an atheist" on your userpage. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is Template:User secular humanist... BD2412 T 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's "secular" it's not a religion either. And I suppose they haven't gotten to the S templates yet. ;-) -- malber 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is God. Everything he does is right. You are wrong. User boxes are evil. Conformity protects us from Osama. Prepare to be assimilated. Coolgamer 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Belief userboxes

Thank you for your statement on belief userboxes. I just think "very soon" is a little ambiguous. Maybe you should set a deadline? How about one week? That should give people time to subst: out all occurrences of those userboxes into userbox and then have them deleted. --Cyde Weys 18:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, let me now play a prophet for a while. Suppose you do eradicate all the templates (and you're unfortunately well within your powers to do so, despite the contrary consensus). This is what I see next:
  1. The many affected users start a massive subst: effort.
  2. The Wiki databases bog down because of the megabytes of content suddenly being inlined.
  3. Some of the users, annoyed with clutter in their pages' source start moving the content to /Userboxes subpages causing in further transfer of massive amounts of data throughout the databases (and all the diffs are kept, so it effectively doubles the consumed space).
  4. Wikimedia officials, worried that donations from the next Fund Drive will have to be spent entirely to remedy this, beg the users to stop, but can't really figure out a solution.
  5. Most of the admins who were so ruthlessly deleting userbox templates seem to be also zealous supporters of NPOV user space. Thus, they join the fray and more massive out-of-the-process deletions follow, a new war rages on, wheel/flame wars, unjustified blocks...
  6. Many disgusted users, once dedicated contributors, are leaving the Project...
I'll end my vision here because it frightens me. Hopefully it won't happen. Howgh! The seer has spoken!
Misza13 (Talk) 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You do realize how little a megabyte actually is, right? And I highly doubt anyone single user is going to reach a megabyte page length on their userpage from userboxes. I understand your fears, but they are simply unfounded. Subst'ing all templates is actually better for the servers because templates require more database accesses and more computational power, both of which are in much more limited supply than hard drive space. --Cyde Weys 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Response re manifesto

Can you tell me what I've done that makes you think I'm not listening to the community? A number of the other votes on that page seemed to suggest that I've done something awful, but the simple fact of the matter is that in this entire userbox conflict, I have actually done absolutely nothing. There have been no decrees from me, no mass deletions, nothing but a serious attempt to engage a wide variety of people in serious discussion. What other content does the phrase "listening to the community" have?

Will you reconsider?--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else who signed the manifestos, but I have two main issues:
  1. Your insertion of CSD T1. Incidentally, I agree that userboxes should be deleted (the idea of having them as subpages of userspace and then subst'ing them seems sound, as it disassociates them from any notion of being part of Wikipedia itself) but I do not agree that, unless the existence of wikipedia itself is threatened (which I find hard to believe in this case), you should arbitrary introduce a major policy change, without any substantial discussion never mind consensus (and in fact from what can be seen on DRV, in direct opposition to most of the community [not quite consensus]).
  2. Following the introduction of CSD T1 (which, as noted above, I am uncomfortable with), your subsequent failure to do anything to the numerous admins who are abusing it - I'm not talking about simple judgement calls like the cannibal userbox or the hypothetical 'abortionists are scum' userbox that's been mentioned on the mailing list (that is down to the admin's discretion, and it is entirely arguable that they are 'inflammatory' or 'polemical'), but circumstances where the admin is making no attempt to claim legitimacy for their actions (e.g. claiming that the userbox possesses certain qualities e.g. 'divisive' which are not actually prohibited by CSD T1, or ). You were (quite rightly) quick to desysop pro-userbox admins who abused their capabilities (undeletion and blocking mainly) with relation to the pedophile userbox, all I ask is that you show the same balance in dealing with anti-userbox admins who abuse their powers (deletion and blocking mainly)
In short, I did not sign the manifesto because I have any great ideological attachment to userboxes, but because of the worrying disregard for Wikipedia process. I would be willing to reconsider if the broad sentiment behind the manifesto (preventing arbitrary insertion of policy without discussion, and abuse of power by admins) could be achieved in the current structure Cynical 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cynical. I never objected to any Wiki policy, or felt that I was being treated unfairly, until CSD T1 was handed down. There are many policies that I disagree with (such as allowing IP edits to take effect immediately), but I feel like my opinion would be heard if I wanted to engage in a debate about it. The march against userboxes is against the consensual spirit of Wikipedia -- it's admins enforcing their beliefs about which userboxes are "bad" and which are "good" on the rest of us.--M@rēino 20:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The essential difficulty here is that it's not always clear when you're making decrees or not, and that several editors are in this case acting as if they've received such, regardless of your intent. (e.g., Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#The_policy_is_now_in_action) Discussion on the pedobox case revealed signficant confusion on this, with some parties inferring that a) they can be subject to sanctions if they act against the "ultimate authority" (as per meta:Foundation_issues) of the project leader, and b) that it was prudent to assume you were always acting in that capacity, unless stated otherwise. I think it would be extremely helpful if you were to make clear when you were expressing a personal opinion or acting as an ordinary editor on the one hand, or acting in your capacity as CEO and representative of the MW board on the other. Perhaps most usefully of all, what the presumption ought to be when it's not explicit either way. Alai 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What is more important to you?

  • Jimbo, as a result of your approval of the CSD T1 policy there have been massive deletions of userboxes. Just take a look through Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates and you can see what has been going on. T1 is incredibly ambiguous in that it doesn't say what constitutes offensive and to whom. This has resulted in epidemic wheel warring.
I know you hate userboxes because you think they are damaging to the community. Even if that is a little bit true, the War on userboxes is tearing us wikipedians apart. This has been going on for over two months now with no end in sight. Instead of making edicts calling for the end to userboxes, have you ever considered just letting them be? Even if you don't like userboxes there is a clear consensus to keep them. Just look at this debate over political boxes. I think you are going to ask yourself -
what is more important? The irradication of userboxes or stopping the wheel wars the asault on userboxes has created and letting consensus dictate policy from now on.--God of War 20:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The only factor tearing the community apart is the outspoken few attemptting to subvert wikipedia's true goal and personify group thinking and personal belief. The only factor tearing apart the community is that people have an incorrect view on this site's goals. The only factor tearing the community apart is the overzealousness of people crying out in regards to the userbox onslaught. -ZeroTalk 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen has resigned from ArbCom

Mackensen (talk · contribs) has just resigned from the Arbitration Committee. Will you appoint a replacement in the near future? --TML1988 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Congress edits

Hi Jimbo. I've been reading a lot about the edits to wikipedia made by Congress staff (I've been reading the RfC from top to bottom and back). There are a few things I haven't been able to find an answer to though. Hopefully you can help me with this. 1. When did the ball start rolling? When were the investigations into Congress edits started, and why then? When did people first start to get the feeling that something might be going on, and when did it become clear that there was this pattern of behaviour? I vaguely recall a notice on the admin's noticeboard about two months ago about an interesting IP check result (I'm searching for the notice). Is it chronologically possible that this was related to the Congress edits? 2. How many Congress-related IP's are established to have been editing wikipedia? 3. How many articles have been "affected" by their edits? TIA, Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow the links you find here. WAS 4.250 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your fear of cultural damage

I'd like to shortly reply to your comments from the mailing list (which are cited on the divisive {{polemical userboxes}} template):

The current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture. They are attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

You (and other sharing the above concern) might be interested in {{User userboxes not harmful}} (please see also the template's talk page for extended rationale).

That's why they need to go. Not to censor people's self-expression, but to make it clear that _as a whole_ the community considers these things to be divisive and inappropriate.

But what if a large part of the community actually thinks the other way? What is it? Crimethink?

Oh, and sorry for not replying through the mailing list - I'm not used to them and prefer the Wiki way. Misza13 (Talk) 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Quiz: How many fakers you can name ?

You need only 10 minutes and a computer. You should speak a little German. And you can win a banana.

Have fun 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

1 [ ]
2 [ ]
many [ ]
  • btw.: One mentioned article ("Kekswichsen" aka "Soggy biscuit") with many facts from European culture is now copied on the Soggy biscuit talk site and waits for a translator. c.u. 09:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)