User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 46

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

Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47


Apology needed

Seeing you are the owner of Wikimedia/Wikipedia, I demand you give me a sincere apology for letting this "project" be overrun by people who care nothing for the good name of a private individual. Rod Dreher (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he's referring to this, and, perhaps, this. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
A serious BLP vio. was left unchecked on his article (which had no part of creating) for several days that was removed multiple times, but only to be reinstated by an administrator and two editors (Versus22, Until It Sleeps). seicer | talk | contribs 11:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
He has been asked by several users (myself included) to email the Foundation to confirm his identity as the real Rod Dreher. Right now there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support or refute his claim. As of yet, I have seen no indication that he has or has not done so, and I would like to know how that information is passed from the Foundation to the WP community. such information contained in emails to the Foundation gets flowed down to the WP community in a timely manner. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC); edited KuyaBriBriTalk 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The user has been indef'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
An investigation by Wikipedia Review has revealed that this was a hoax. The BLP violation to the article, however, was real. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions trial update?

Hi Jimmy, what is the update of this? The situation for BLP victims with our current inappropriately lax system is not improving, as evidenced by this very thread of a notable BLP victim asking you for an apology for drive-by defamation left on his article page by an IP (now deleted) that stood for quite some time.

We need you to frankly tell any opposition to fuck off, and just do it. If you have to burn all your capital, ramming it through, isn't that BLP protection more important than anything else? rootology (C)(T) 14:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's the proof this is the actual subject? The timeline and his edits are very strange, and don't fit the scenario of someone unfamiliar with Wikpipedia who just stumbled on their bio and tried to fix it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly... because if it's not the actual article's subject (and just someone pretending), the libellous claims and information in the article mean nothing and can be ignored. --Ali'i 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Er...really? If any article contains potentially defamatory comments about a living person, they should be speedily removed per WP:BLP no matter who reports them. – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Dang you got me, I missed your edit summary! – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
According to this at the AFD in question, the subject of the article didn't know about it until contacted by someone trying to verify that the editor using his name was really him. Essentially, a drama generator took advantage of some comments on a low-traffic page to get the FR proponents fired up. Not to take away from the need for aggressive work on BLPs, but perhaps next time when someone shows up claiming to be someone, we should confirm that first before lighting the torches? Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly... because if it's not the actual article's subject (and just someone pretending), the libellous claims and information in the article mean nothing and can be ignored. --Ali'i 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Except it wasn't ignored, the libellous claims was removed and indeed deleted from the article history once it came to people's attention. It is upsetting to see the thoughtless tool-assisted reverting that happened before that though, vandal fighters really need to take more care. the wub "?!" 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Missed the bit about "not to take away from the need blah blah," there, did we? I knew I should've bolded that bit. What I'm saying here is not "it's his fault that his article was smeared, so too bad" it's more, "Congratulations on being successfully trolled; next time, let's do our due diligence before jumping up and down on people for doing what they thought was right." The FR discussions are turning into a bloody disgusting swamp around here; if anyone seems slightly against the concept, they might as well have kicked a puppy in the middle of a kindergarten class. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No, didn't miss it. Just in my opinion, it doesn't matter who reports a violation or tries to clean up libel. The situations (the libel and the impersonation) can be treated separately. They don't need to be connected, in my opinion. Yes, the imposter was wrong for impersonation, but with regards to the libel, he or she was dead on. Libel is libel, no matter who reports it. The impersonation is a non-issue (in regards to what happened). The wub is correct, though that the "thoughtless tool-assisted reverting" needs help, especially in this area. Other people will care about the impersonation, I care about the biographies. I think we're likely on similar pages. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Someone should do a checkuser. The trolling was indeed enabled by an actual BLP violation--someone testing the system? (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I was not saying that libel should not be removed if it is the subject objecting. With my reply in here, I was pointing out the very real concern this whole episode was a total set up, and the people jumping up and down about FR and BLP and Death of the Project etc etc were being played like chumps. And I very much doubt this troll just stumbled on the libel by accident either. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it...

α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elementswhat am I? 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

my parents wont allow me!

I cant get an email! cant you use my talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentSpy101 (talkcontribs) 19:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Flagged Revisions proposal

Hi Jimbo - you mentioned last week (and before, here and in a few places) that you were working on a proposal to implement flagged revisions, and you mentioned that it was coming soon.... any updates? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

(timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC))


(timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

Notability guidelines aren't determined by the people, just a small number of entrenched deletionists

The notability guidelines are determined by a small number of people who remain active there. They have a clearly set agenda to delete things they don't like. Can you check the number of page views that episodes which don't meet notability guidelines receive, and use that to determine what the silent majority want? No one is just going to stumble into one of these articles, they have to seek them out. Those who don't like them, won't ever see them anyway. Thus far, if the article has enough fans to defend it, it is usually left alone, while those with fewer editors about, get deleted. There is no set standard on what is allowed, and what isn't, it just depending on whoever is around at the time to argue in the AFD, and who the closing administrator is. And even if you say to ignore all rules and use common sense, many people in the AFD still vote according to the guidelines, which were written and enacted by a very small number of people, that weren't elected by anyone, and do not represent the majority of the community(determined by page views, since if they didn't want the articles there, they wouldn't go there to read them). Can we have a wikipedia wide poll to see how the rules should be, and have a set standard of enforcement?

  • If a book was on the New York Times bestseller's list, should it automatically be notable, and thus able to have its own article? Many bestsellers do not get any third party media review. If beyond a reasonable doubt, you can determine something sold above whatever a set number of copies is determined reasonable for that type of book, should it be allowed to have an article?
  • Should television programs that get above a certain number of viewers(a million was what I suggested at an ongoing vote) have all of their episodes count as notable? If millions of people watch something, or read something, or buy something, shouldn't they make it more notable than just having a couple of guys who work for a newspaper review it?
  • Should weapons and equipment pages for fictional series be allowed? The more popular series have them, while the less popular have theirs deleted. There is no standard set.

Dream Focus 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for WP:FICT to me... Fritzpoll (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Tried that in the past, as have others. People just argue in circles, and nothing gets changed. What we need is to see what the majority of the community wants, not just the very small percentage which actively discuss things there. Dream Focus 16:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps nothing gets changed because there's no consensus to do so? Anyway, to get back to your original point, the problem with talking about "the silent majority" is that it's very easy to put words into the mouths of people who aren't going to answer back. Whilst you claim to speak for them, it could be that it's a very small number of people who stumble onto those non-notable pages, and the "silent majority" would be a lot happier with a Wikipedia which was actually an encyclopedia, rather than a collection of non-notable trivia, fancruft and unsourced original research? So it's not a great idea to presume to speak for anyone else but yourself. Black Kite 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If they didn't like the fancruft, then why are the majority of views wikipedia gets for things like that, and not the encyclopedic articles? They publish a pie chart somewhere on this site, showing year by year, what percentage of viewers go to which category of articles. And if that isn't enough, then an actual vote will settle this once in for all. Consensus isn't possible, since there is no way to get everyone to agree on this. Dream Focus 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia articles are abnormally high on Google rankings, so when they search Google, it's the first thing they find? Doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopaedia though. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
They could probably keep track of how many people Google into an episode article, and how many search for it from the wikipedia, or click a link from the main article or a list of episodes. And shouldn't everyone get a say on what should belong in an encyclopedia? Something that sold a million copies, and has many loyal fans always waiting for more, would be more notable than something only a very small number of people ever even heard of, but got a review in an article in a newspaper. Otherwise, its just elitism. Someone likes something, and considers something else to be inferior garbage, not worthy of their status, deciding they could help the encyclopedia look better, by deleting all the stuff they don't like. Dream Focus 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that in nearly 3,000,000 articles there is bound to be a lot of garbage, from unsourced BLPs to spam to vanity pages to copyright violations, original research and stuff that violates WP:NOT. That doesn't necessarily mean it all needsto be deleted; some of it can be improved. But the notability guidelines, whilst not perfect, are there to ensure that the encyclopedia at least has some sort of quality control. You only have to look at Special:Newpages to see what percentage of new pages aren't encycopedic; however a lot of those still slip under the radar, which is why we have those guidelines. Without it, anarchy would ensue. Black Kite 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Notability cuts both ways. For an inclusionist philosophy, it is detrimental because it restricts the addition of content. But for a deletionist philosophy, it is also detrimental because it protects articles from being deleted provided they have multiple RS (barring a few other conditions like BLP, NOT#NEWS which have nothing to do with N). The fact that both extremes are unhappy with these limitations suggests to me that the balance is correct. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all. A set standard of rules, which the majority of people believe is fair and reasonable, confirmed by voting, should be done to eliminate problems. Otherwise every AFD is a battlefield, and people normally default to the guidelines written and maintained by a very small number of people. Dream Focus 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense to me. If two opposing philosophical groups say that something is unfair, it's a happy medium. It only doesn't make sense if you compartmentalise people into only two groups. You'll never find a set of rules to cover all eventualities. We need AfD discussions in order to interpret what the community thinks of articles. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Many people dont' discuss anything, just mindlessly cite the guidelines, refusing to consider anything else. Thus we need to either eliminate any guidelines that cause conflict, or make them specifically support what the majority of people believe. Saying guidelines are not absolute laws, doesn't work, since no matter what you tell people, many will vote in accordance to them, no matter what. Also, whatever random group of people are around at the time to decide an AFD can go either way, depending on who they are, and what they personally like or don't like. Its like flipping a coin. How many times has the exact same article been voted Keep by one group, then deleted later on by another? Dream Focus 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that people cite guidelines because they agree with them? The problem is, you're making the mistake of ascribing qualities to people based on your own perception of the concept of notability. You don't agree so you ascribe the quality of "mindlessness" to people who might just agree with the guidelines and therefore quote them - you assume that the number of page hits to articles means that people are looking for them because it supports your argument. Is there really a problem here? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a place where the users determine what is acceptable and what isn't, which naturally leads to disagreements in opinion. Now, if you feel certain things that should be included are not allowed to stay up, I think it may be more beneficial to consider other ways to make the article more eligible rather than to attack the guidelines directly. This isn't to say the guidelines are the be all and end all...I would actually like more articles that currently don't meet notability requirements to be included, but I think they will eventually make permanence once I have a chance to figure out how to make this possible. I'm tempted to consider guidelines as a necessary other users have pointed out, you need some to keep things orderly. There's always an alternative! Realitychecksme (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Even when people disagree with them, some people still follow the guidelines. The guidelines are not determined by any reasonable percentage of wikipedia users. A clear vote is necessary, to make them fair. And Realitychecksme, you did something to my name in your last post. Not sure what you were trying to do, but please be more careful in the future. Dream Focus 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Although you seem experienced, you should 1. Read WP:Democracy and 2. Stop holding discussions on Jimbo's talk page. Please go to the appropriate talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"Some people still follow the guidelines"? Er, yes, that's what they're there for. Black Kite 00:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A clear vote is necessary, to make them fair? All the "votes" you and the handful of other editors constantly attacking the guidelines have started, have shown that these guidelines like WP:N and policies like WP:NOT#PLOT have a clear consensus, and that arbitrary additions like "all TV episodes with one million viewers may have an article) don't have a snowball's chance in hell to get adopted. You have had clear answers, and your position has been shown to not be the actual comunity position. Continuing to attack these guidelines starts to look like disruptive forumshopping to me. Fram (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I was asking Jimbo's opinion on the situation, not trying to start a discussion here. And when out of millions of wikipedia users, less than a few dozen ever contribute to the guidelines, it isn't really an accurate assessment of what the community wants. And it doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting adopted, if the only people that go there and vote are those few who have it on their watchlist to notice. You can't say, "look! Twenty more editors voted Oppose than Support, while millions more didn't even know about this, so surely its accurate gauge of community consensus!" We won't know what people want, until we get a significant number of them to state their opinion somewhere. Thus we need a wikipedia wide vote. Dream Focus 11:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: User has decided to compromise. -- (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I read in a lot of articles that Larry Sanger did most of the work while you took the fame. I'm doing a project on him AgentSpy101 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't do anything rash like taking Larry to the junior prom. Skomorokh 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

wtf? AgentSpy101 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales had a paid employee named Larry Sanger which he put in charge of something. Larry then decided that being the editor in chief at the time, was what made everything happen, and that he alone is responsible for its success. Do you think he is the only editor in chief who could've made this happen? I think a lot of people contributed, and it was the input of the community that shaped how things developed, not just one guy. Dream Focus 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there does seem to be some animosity between Jimmy and Larry. I find it best to ignore it - what matters is that Wikipedia exists and is a fantastic resource. Who founded it really doesn't matter, but if you want the details our article on Larry would be a good place to start: Larry Sanger#Origins of Wikipedia. Both Jimmy and Larry were clearly involved and we should be grateful to both of them - is gratitude such a limited commodity that we need to worry about how to apportion it? --Tango (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

why don't you do a project on both of them? MusicMan4444 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

fine, I will. AgentSpy101 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Verifiability percentages?

How important is 100% sourcing in articles? I'm involved in a slow-motion edit war with Edokter (talk · contribs) at the article 33 (Battlestar Galactica) over the sourcing of three characters of information. I contend that the Verifiability policy requires it be reliably sourced, whereas he and another editor argue that the information is "trivial" and doesn't need any sourcing. Edokter has expressed his intent to continue to edit war over this point, and I see nothing to gain by doing so except to exacerbate the situation, however I also don't want to allow the explicit inclusion of unsourced information in an article, regardless of it's "triviality".

What do you suggest? This doesn't seem to warrant the immediacy or urgency of the administrator's noticeboard, and though an argument between editors as to whether or not we should apply a core policy would seem cut-and-dried, I don't know where to take the issue next. Thanks for your attention to my minutiae. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a job for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring! -- (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Why aren't you interested in developing our own WikiMapia system? Wouldn't a WikiAtlas sister project be useful to wiki media? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested, but it is not up to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did mention it at the Meta Wiki before but any discussion seems to get overidden with other discussions underneath and in the end it ends up being only two or three people commenting on it! I think that a WikiAtlas sister project would be a great idea and whereas with WikiMapia it is just a map with names, our own Atlas project could have the articles on wikipedia wiki linked on the atlas or at least a summary comes up when you hover over a place name etc so we take the maps a step further by actually providing information about these places by linking to wikipedia. Like WikiMini Atlas but obviously more professional looking maps and details, showing highways, towns and villages, evne landmarks like notable govenrment buildings and churches, airports etc with labels like wikimapia when you zoom in on them. It would also fit in with standard encyclopedias which always have a proper atlas for reference usually in the center. I just thinking that the information provided on maps should be part of our overall project goal to provide knowledge and the goal which WikiMapia is trying to achieve, "with the aim of describing the whole world" is pretty much our own philosophy within reason. I think the wiki project is large enough in scope to make it successful eventually. I know a great deal of people look for maps on the web of places for a reference but where we could differ from google and wikimapia in this respect we would have info summarised about these places too rather than just location. If given time to develop it might even help generate more traffic towards the site and project in the long term if more and more people use it for a reference when looking for maps too. I would very much like to help make something happen in this area, could you mention it to anybody on the board or suggest how we might start a fuller discussion on it? Thanks. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are genuinely interested could you please mention it or suggest a way we can work towards making it happen? I've proposed this so many times now and I'm pretty tired of its being brushed aside and forgotten. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I also support that suggestion we should have our own.yousaf465'

Ask Free Software Foundation to explicitly amend GFDL 1.2 to allow upgrade to 1.3?

Dear Jimbo,

Please see Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#Should we update this to 1.3? and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Ask Free Software Foundation to explicitly amend GFDL 1.2 to allow upgrade to 1.3?. Thank you! NCC-8765 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

From Dowsiewuwu

Hello, I am User:Dowsiewuwu, and please return to me a letter of response whenever you can. I understand you are a busy man with WIKIPEDIA as one of the most popular sites in the United States and maybe even other countries. Well, please respond to my letter of appreciation to your work. It must have cost much greenbacks to build a website like WIKIPEDIA. --Dowsiewuwu (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

how to talk friends out of vandalism

hi all,

some friends of mine have consistentlyvandalising wikipedia in articles that are about my intrests how do i talk them out of them also my school ip adress is used for vandalisim alot how do i try getting a longer ip block mattman (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are vandalising from school you might want to try talking to your teachers/administrators and get them to deal with it. While it is something of a taboo to tell on your friends, it can be rather effective (you may wish to offer your friends an ultimatum first - give them a chance to stop voluntarily before you tell on that). --Tango (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

but the problem is it is some of my friends and some other people who i dont know and if i tell the it guys the whole edditing from school would be blocked mattman (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem - school IT people do tend to take unnecessarily general action rather than fixing just the problem that exists.. --Tango (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If the offenders are vandalizing an article using an IP address rather than with a Wikipedia account, then you can request that that specific article be semi-protected (so IPs cannot edit it) at WP:RFPP -- of course it must meet the requirements listed on that page before the article can be protected. If that does not address your problem, as soon as they vandalize an article, be sure to warn the user appropriately; if they continue to vandalize after warning them 3 or 4 times, report them to WP:AIV so an administrator can block them accordingly. If that still is not addressing your problem, you can always remind them that Wikipedia is willing and able to contact specific schools and alert the staff of the persistent vandalism; school officials can then monitor the computers accordingly and identify the specific individuals committing the vandalism and punish said student in whatever manner they see fit. Hope that helps! -- (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but none of this advice seems particularly effective in stopping vandalism or making constructive editors. At best this will just make the people vandalising angry, and more likely to be motivated to work around the limited effective of any IP blocks and vandalise further, at worst it will label kids who are messing around as troublemakers in "real life". Far better to look at how people can be encouraged to change with positive rather than negative reinforcement. For example, perhaps it might work to point out to these people, that far more people, maybe millions, will read their constructive contributions rather than a couple of people who might see their quickly reverted vandalism. Supreme Gene (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether it's actually effective in curbing the committed vandal, we do have an escalating system of warning messages, the first of which assumes good faith and that the editor is merely experimenting; they are specifically directed to the sandbox if they want to try edits out. But, if they are bent on vandalism, the escalation has to be for the benefit of the encyclopedia in general, and if they just don't (or won't) get it, that benefit has to take priority. Committed vandals are unlikely, in my experience, to be swayed by arguments that someone halfway around the world will see their edits; they are, put simply, being selfish in an essentially unselfish and giving volunteer project. While we do try to educate, some editors are beyond education, and the only practical remedy left to us is physical prevention. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If I new a way to change vandals into constructive editors, I would do so, but unfortunately I have never come across a method that works a significant portion of the time... --Tango (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for both of you comments. Obviously you both have a lot of experience in this area but I wonder, because it is very difficult to know which individual is behind an IP or an account, and because IP/accounts get blocked very quickly, do we really have any reliable data on the effectiveness of trying to convince people not to vandalise or the effectiveness of preventing them via blocks? It would seem that anybody we do try to convince would likely be blocked before they made a change (given that they would likely not change immediately) and once they are blocked it would seem very difficult to judge whether they ever came back under a different IP/account. Supreme Gene (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Being blocked is the hard lesson, but it generally takes about four unconstructive edits to reach that stage, and each is accompanied by appropriate links to our policies. But being blocked isn't final. IPs, unless they are ASSIGNED PAs, generally get recycled quite quickly. Even a person behind a blocked registered account may start a fresh account and start over, without vandalising; I'm sure many have. Some, however, never learn, and are blocked again and again and again; that's all we can do- and overall, the interests of the encyclopedia must come first. Committed editors here have enough to do without nannying those who don't get it, so it's easier to just kick them into touch. Having said that, if a blocked editor comes back and asked for help by way of adoption by an experienced editor, we have a scheme for that. But all in all, although some of our rules may seem complicated to some editors, they are not beyond learning and explanation; it's most usually those who don't accept our rules who tend to get blocked, and we do give them reasonable opportunity to adapt. Specifically for those who use shared IP addresses, particularly schools, the balance of convenience must sometimes come down to our own interests, but in those cases, we do not prevent creation of accounts, and those only people who may be hurt are those who wish to edit anonymously- however, to have reach that stage, it is obviously those editors who have caused the problem. --Rodhullandemu 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree that IPs/accounts should be blocked pretty quickly if they are vandalising, but I think that there is more that can be done beyond that to convince people that they could enjoy creating even more than vandalising. This happens with "real world" vandals who are given the ability to create constructively. In fact those people rapidly come to despise vandals when they vandalise a project they have started to take a stake in. In this case, we may have an individual who can debate this with his friends, and generally it could be that more could be done to encourage people to change their ways through dialogue (but, again, not as a replacement for blocks). The messages that are left on a vandal's talk page are obviously a key pat of the message here. I just think that, "creating articles has these benefits for you" is better than "you are blocked, we will keep blocking you until you behave, and we will report you to your teachers". Those same real world vandals who changed their ways were not discouraged by having their vandalism repaired or the risk of getting caught, it only changed when they were convinced to take a stake. Supreme Gene (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

also this is theUser talk: ip of the school and the it departments contact is telephone +61 7 3010 1168 and it helpdesk email saint laurences college it department email —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt037291 (talkcontribs) 07:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting discussion took place here, when a blocked editor whom Jimmy Wales thought should be reincorporated into the community was denied the opportunity to be unblocked for 168 hours, even with the promise of not antagonizing anyone, on or off Wikipedia. Speaks volumes about Wikipedian culture. -- Morrell Maddie (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I found User:Dendodge/School warning to be very useful in dealing with my school - maybe leave it on the school IP's talk page. Dendodge TalkContribs 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


tell me these questions on my talk page!

my report is due this thursday!!

1. What things have you done that involve leadership.

2. What struggles did you fight to acolmplish a goal.

Thanks! AgentSpy101 (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a note with some suggestions on AgentSpy101's talk page. // BL \\ (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What kind of school sets an assignement specifically about Jimbo Wales? MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I had to choose someone so I picked Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. Its to late to change around! AgentSpy101 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's looking more and more like the best thing you can do is bite the bullet and pick someone else to interview; this one appears to be going nowhere. One of life's little lessons is that it is never too late to change around, especially when a deadline is approaching. -- (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Go on Jimbo, help AgentSpy101 with his/her assignment. It would be a good deed for the day. Jack forbes (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame Jimbo for not being receptive to a request from a user that has "Larry Sanger created wikipedia and jimmy wales took the fame" on their talk. — neuro(talk)(review) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I only noticed that after I'd posted here. Jack forbes (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


After a long period of reflection, I choose to retire from editing Wikipedia. I enjoyed my time sir, but too much has been happening to allow me to edit much. So I would like to have you delete this account. Thank you Mr. Wales, it's been a pleasure. AdirondackMan (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. Please see WP:RTV. — neuro(talk)(review) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Rand Enthusiasts Again

Arbcom is clearly an imperfect mechanism for mopping up, but I respect their efforts. I'm less optimistic that they can reign in the POV pushers on Barack Obama, but I will hope for the best! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither pro or anti-Rand. I have to ask though, what has your heading got to do with your comment? Jack forbes (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Carol Yager article

Now that I've figured out who 'Jimbo" is <SEG>, I'd like to call your attention to the Carol Yager article if you can find the time. I've excerpted the following section from that talk page:

Bizarre Magazine seems highly inappropriate

Citing "Bizarre Magazine" for a biographical article in an encyclopedia seems highly inappropriate to me, its worse than a tabloid. We don't use TMZ as a source either, for crying out loud. If there are no objections, I will be removing links to said site and bringing this up to Jimbo if need be. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed already on this talk page, starting with the Dispute Continued section. --Geniac (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

coccyx bloccyx: While the matter has been discussed here, it hasn't really been settled. The recent editing war is currently at a state of cease-fire, the article having been pared of nearly all of the outlandish claims that were attributed to Bizarre Magazine. The only claim I have been unable to refute with citations from other sources is that a human being can, and did, measure five feet wide, but I feel less uncomfortable with that assertion, because it is so patently ridiculous that no reasonably intelligent person would believe it anyway. I, for one, would still like to see a ruling from someone in authority as to whether a self-described sensationalist fetish magazine can be cited as a resource for scholarly research, since actual researchers seeing the claim that someone lived who was as wide as they were tall might disbelieve the rest of the facts presented, based on their incredulity of that one. If 'Jimbo' is such an authority, please do bring it to his attention. Terry Yager (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, while you're at it, I would also like to see a ruling as to whether "Karl Niedershuh's" (personal?) webpage can be cited as a reliable source, even if it is a sub-page off from the "Dimensions Magazine" page. The page is clearly identified as his, and the opinions, etc expressed are presumably his own. Terry Yager (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Terry Yager (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey jimmy you have a squatter. Thought you should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

help with alternative account creation

plz can u teach me how to make an alternative account and not get accused of sockpuppetry. Thanx! Imthegreatest (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Dear Jimbo and Jimbo's user talk page readers:

Please express your opinion on relicensing to GFDL 1.3 allowing for Creative Commons licensing at m:Talk:Licensing update#Poll of editing community. Thank you! NCC-8765 (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Atlas and google

Hi. Looks like the desire to bring more traffic to wikipedia has been answered. There is the option on google maps for wikipedia which comes up with thousands upon thousands of tiny letter W's all around the world to link to the article on the map. This is the sort of thing I had envisaged but I guess we have to leave maps and atlases to google. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that looks promising. We certainly have the potential to create an atlas of a high quality, lets hope it turns into something productive. Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Street View I was referring to. Pretty advanced stuff. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wiki Page

Hi Jimmy,

I was wondering if you could delete a history page for the article titled " the little string theory". The artcile has nothing to do with the actual scientific theroy and it is a act of cyberbullying. Considering my name is used and displayed to the public i would greatly appriciate it if you could permenantly delete it becuase people from my school continue to access it through the articles history. It is the sixth article from the top it looks like this...

(cur) (prev) 00:50, 3 June 2007 (talk) (1,374 bytes) (undo)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have deleted the 3 revisions that had the abusive language. Sorry about that! —bbatsell ¿? 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on BLP / Flagged Protection / Flagged Revs

A discussion of the BLP problem is on the agenda for the board meeting in Berlin next weekend. I'm going to run my proposal for en.wikipedia by the board at that time, to get their feedback and hopefully support, and then post something after that. For those who haven't been following this, recall that I've promised to try to find a middle ground proposal which will be widely and enthusiastically adopted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions ? This is polled and currently at 164/30. As we'll likely have consensus for a trial, the implementation is worked out here. What do you think of this, do you wish to propose alternatives or modifications ? Cenarium (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Noted. That's very close to what I'm thinking to propose formally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The trial should be ready for implementation in late April. We seem to have a large support of the community for it, and of course, a support of the board would be great. As it's only meant to be a two-month trial, a major community discussion should happen in June/July on the continuation of the implementation, and if approved, its reevaluation and adoption of specific policies. Cenarium (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I would rather see input from you than an alternative, as it is likley that the current poll will have consensus, I'd rather not go through another debate on FlaggedRevs. No disrespect to your idea, but we have a potentially successful trial on the table, and I think that's enough for now.--Res2216firestar 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You may. But most people concerned with helping BLP subjects know that the current proposal offers nothing at all. It may get through, but it will not help address the real issue that Jimbo has pledged to look at.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I said that I didn't want to abandon the current proposal, and hopefully avoid another debate, if others believe another debate is unavoidable, fine, I just would prefer not to see a third drama-filled debate on FlaggedRevs. The critical point I would like to stress is that the current proposal should probably not be left behind when this new one is announced.--Res2216firestar 03:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I second Res2216firestar's concern. There are a significant number of people out there who are tired of Flagged Revisions proposals and polls, and if the current, largely-supported trial can be passed through without further drama, that would be better than having you (Jimbo Wales) propose something new and upset the support already there. Once the trial's implemented, discussions on what to implement in the longer term become more appropriate—and will lack at least much of the uncertainty and doubt that otherwise plagues Flagged Revisions discussions. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


There's a little controversey me and my comrades at Uncyclopedia would like you to clearup. I'm not sure if you've answered it already, but apparently, some guy created an account with your name. Is this you, or just some wannabe impersonator? Sincerily, Saberwolf116 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really me. I would answer over there, uncyc discussions belong there, not here, but I suppose answering over there wouldn't prove anything. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

AHA! I knew it! Just like I knew there was no cabal. =PSaberwolf116 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't tell you whether there is or is not a cabal, except there is no cabal. However, it gets a little more sinister. Uncyclopedia is created through Wikia. Wikia was founded by Jimbo. I'll let you do the math. Valley2city 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And sadly, I have an account of Uncyclopedia too. Trust me, the controversy should not get in the way of expanding our knowledge. Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact Assembly of Jimbo Wales 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of Fritzl's name on dewiki

Hey Jimbo - I have been looking through the mailing lists, and done some searching, but I can't seem to see if you've expressed an opinion on dewiki's censorship of Fritzl's name, both in it's articles and in interwiki links. Am I missing something, or have you simply not spoken about it? Thanks, — neuro(talk)(review) 22:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the first I've heard of it, and I'm on the mailing lists I would expect it to be discussed on. What makes you think Jimbo even knows about it? --Tango (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It just seems pretty pressing, I figured he would have. Is he still in India? — neuro(talk)(review) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I consider this a decision for the German community, and not my business to meddle in. I think I would oppose the decision, but there are many complicated factors in play.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It is in line with the German press's treatment of the matter. Their version of BLP.Agathoclea (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is in itself worth an article. Kittybrewster 09:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The German Wikipedia community has its own way of dealing with issues, more in line with German (and/or Austrian) legal requirements. Thus, they have a different approach to "fair use" (apparently they don't allow any, as no such concept exists in German law). Similarly, it appears to be a legal requirement not to name defendants in public cases by full name. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    Is German Wikipedia hosted in America? If so, surely is it not too just accountable to American law? Censoring it for legal reasons in Germanic countries therefore seems silly. Naturally, IANAL. Could someone explain their policies in English? Computerjoe's talk 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    I must say that I understand, partly, the German Wikipedia concerns. Sure, the German Wikipedia itself is hosted here in the US. So, if a German Wikipedian -- somebody who lives in Germany and uses a German ISP -- does something that is perfectly legal according to US laws, but questionable according to his/her local laws -- well, who's in trouble? The Wikimedia Foundation isn't. It's not accountable to German laws. But the poor hapless user in Germany may well be!!! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Why? We also adhere to local laws in Commons. If such laws are within reason, then why try to circumvent them by stating "hosted in the US". If the person is convicted, then the information can be included (if i remember it correctly). In that case, I don't see the Encyclopedic damage. Including a defendants name has little benefit to 3rd parties and can REALLY hurt a person that is found not-guilty or doesn't even make it to court. As such I find this to be a reasonable BLP like protection system. There apparently is a consensus among the German speaking wikipedians that they want to adhere to this rule out of BLP concerns, and such should be their choice in my opinion. The question is: Is there consensus to do this for BLP reasons, or are they doing it "just" because its a german law? --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, I see no legal reason why German Wikipedia as such (hosted here [Florida or wherever it is]) should follow German laws; the only connection is that it uses German language -- and most contributors come from Germany, at least that's what is commonly supposed. But that's not for us to decide, it's for the German Wikipedia community to decide. I am not a lawyer myself -- certainly not a German lawyer -- so I cannot predict possible ramifications or complications for a user from Germany who was found to publish, from a German location to a US site, information that was actionable and/or criminal from German law point of view. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    I realise it is their community's decision, but I think not censoring projects should be policy at Wikimedia Foundation level. Computerjoe's talk 21:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sure, I agree with you, I hate censorship in all its forms as much as anybody else. It's just that I think that the German Wikipedian community's decision was based more on the idea of protecting its members from German law -- even if you and I think the law is unreasonable. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    (EC)If you spin the above thought a bit further. An American put in the offending edit. A German then changes the article including the offending reference. .... A subject for lawyers to earn their keep. It is perfectly ok to have the community whose language decide on the rules. At a minimum Florida law has to be observed. Agathoclea (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ease of re-use is a relevant concern, even if there is no risk to German contributors nor to the Foundation in the US, there can still be some reasons a community might want to take reasonable note of local conditions for potential reusers. This is not a definitive factor, of course, and in some cases, I would strongly push a community to publish something even if it would make reuse problematic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jimbo Wales

User:Jimbo Wales, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jimbo Wales during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. rootology :  Chat  02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is April 1st for you. Expect more of this. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


If we're gonna have a drink, I suppose it actually oughta be Guinness. Enjoy : ) - jc37 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Let's keep our priorities straight, people.

The MfD nomination is harmless fun, but can we please not edit-war over the insertion of the corresponding tag on Jimbo's user page? A good rule of thumb is that if someone removes a prank, it probably is best to let it go; it simply isn't important enough to justify the disruption caused by reverting.
In addition to the above notice, the MfD page is linked from Template:Cent. Is that not sufficient? —David Levy 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Awww, but isn't this the perfect day to be lame? : )
(As an aside, please see their talk page, I left a note there explaining (hopefully.)) - jc37 03:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, this was moving quicker than I thought. My comment above was solely about a single instance. My apologies for the confusion. - jc37 03:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance requested as Wikipedia winds down

Dear Jimbo, with the creation of this article it logically follows that Wikipedia must have covered all subjects worth encyclopedia articles, and the encyclopedia can now slowly wind down its operations as editors polish off the existing set with improvements and then find themselves with nothing more to do. (The historic moment took place at 00:03, April 1, 2009, GMT.) It occurs to me that you stay at hotels, so could you please do the honors of providing a suitable picture to go along with the article? And if you're the last one out of Wikipedia, could you please turn off the lights? I appreciate all your help, past, present and future! -- Noroton (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My literal reaction to that article: O_O.
Second: go to WT:DYK and try to sneak that into a DYK queue.
Last: please copy Pedro's sig and join the cabal. the_ed17 :  Chat  00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha! An excellent article! I've worked in plenty of hotels, and this sort of thing does occur, with competition between local hotels for the best folded TP. I'll try to get some of my former co-workers to take some photos, too. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy April Fool's Day

125px Port-a-Potty!!!
Fastily (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!!

Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

Happy April Fool's!!! :D - Fastily (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a TARDIS with its chameleon circuit working, is it? — Rickyrab | Talk 05:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(helpme garbage removed) Chzz :  Chat  04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the helpme template that I placed here; it was just part of some April Fool shenanigans, so that your name would pop up on the IRC help channel. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to announce...

...that I love you all. Super srs. Heartie.gif GlassCobra 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Puppeter template.svg

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

C.U.T.K.D T | C 11:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jack Merridew

Cheers, Jack Merridew :  Chat  15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I realized, somewhat tardily, that your newest CheckUser had informed me that 'User:Jimbo Wales is not [my] sock puppet'. In light of this, I have stricken my unsubstantiated evidence above and offer my sincere apologies for the grievous insult and assure you that it will not happen again ( for at least a year or so ;).
Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Please stop the vandals!. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Rick roll. Jehochman Talk 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have recognized that YouTube video code in the bottom-left of my screen...--Unionhawk (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools?

Um... I was reading in the DEFCON info (which is currently at DEFCON 1) and I heard that all IP users were sysop-ified... Is this true? And if it is, is it an April Fools Joke?--Unionhawk (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Jimbo Wales

User talk:Jimbo Wales, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jimbo Wales and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Jimbo Wales during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Techman224Talk 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Would make my life easier, but since I have a COI, I'd best not vote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Commons Observer, Vol. 5: Today: Commons admin AFBorchert

Hi Jimbo, that's interesting. "commons-admin-within-5-weeks"-Kanonkas, now a candidate for a bureaucrat on commons, has not many buddies among the bureaucrats - or even none? - but he has AFBorchert, an engaged German fan. Is that enough? X.

Meet up in Berlin

Hi Jimmy. I wondered if you are attending the meet up in Berlin in a few days time? Its just the open street map project is due to be discussed there and it looks quite promising. Will you be attending? Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's

Message for Jimbo: This is my first April Fool's Day here at Wikipedia, and I was wondering, what happens on April 2nd? How does Wikipedia revert every single warning, MfD notice, redirect, etc. that was made today? Respond here or at my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They usually just die off slowly until they're archived. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In like a lion out like a lamb eh? — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The lion and lamb thing is only in the U.S. I know a country where March comes in like an emu and goes out like a tapir. And they don’t even know what it means! (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's in the United Kingdom as well. In like a lamb and out like a lion or the other way round. It's meant to mean how the weather starts March, will be the opposite at the end of the month.--BSTemple (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Universal Server for Online Classes

Thank you for this access. I teach online classes at university level.

These are some of the problems that thoughtful people might solve for students. 1) Internet service is too slow or narrow depending on service, broadband, satellite, phone line. 2) Individual computers have variable capabilities some do not accommodate the big files that need to be downloaded. 3) Individuals don’t have same applications so files must be created as PDF, which are accessed by BIG applications. 4) University course servers vary from one college to another with learning curves for each. And apparently most are suffering from complexity as the publishers keep adding functions, creating greater complexity rather than streamlining the systems. This is noted in other applications like Auto CAD where old functions are not deleted as new ones are added. I teach at three different colleges with three different online servers each. It is a tremendous amount of work to put the same class into different servers. 5) Important videos used in face-to-face classes are not possible online because they are too big. 6) Text material changes too often so online classes need to be rebuilt for each new edition of a text and most of the information is the same.

Some possible solutions. Put online servers on a Wiki-TYPE location. 1) Universities don’t have to keep paying for upgrades, security, and running out of bandwidth and capacity as new online courses are offered. 2) Allows teachers like myself to build the online class at a global server where students in the different universities can access the material and I don’t have to give away my intellectual capital rights to one college and not to others, which I avoid by changing the material. 3) Publishers can put the text material online and use a universal system where student pay a fee instead of buying a book. The online classes can be tailored to the text and upgraded as texts are changed. 4) Put academic videos online and let online students have access to the videos by a course fee paid to the universal server. 5) Videos and texts online can be vetted by departments before student use. 6) Put important applications online, embedded in the universal online server, so students don’t have to load them into their computers, where the applications become outdated as new versions appear. Software publishers will not lose market because the market will be constantly renewed through online fees. Example of problem is word processing applications are different, “Write” vs. “Word.” PDF can presently be read free by Acrobat Reader. 7) Computers are too complicated and each individual must buy security when it is better to have the security at a universal server. 8) Maybe more ideas will come from people responding to this topic.

Best regards, Mary Ann Kniseley Adj. Fac., Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI, USA Adj. Fac., Charles Stewart Mott Community College, Flint, MI, USA Adj. Fac., Lansing Community College, Lansing, MI, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen wikibooks? -- M2Ys4U (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Given that your name is Jimbo... I thought you might want to comment on the attempts to merge or delete the Bacon mania article. You also might be interested to read this news story about the phenomenon (which just so happens to mention Wikipedia) [1]. Thank you for your prompt attention to this very important matter.

Also, I'm looking forward to seeing you in Buenos Aires for Wikimania 2009, but have yet to receive my airline ticket and hotel vouchers. I guess all that foundation paperwork takes some time, so no worries. I'll try to be patient and I thank you kindly for your thoughtful and kind consideration of the need to have me in attendance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about airline tickets or hotel vouchers for Wikimania. I also have no idea why I should care about the Bacon article, but thanks for pointing it out to me, I had a smile reading it. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for responding. I must have had you confused with another Jimbo. Peace. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I realize I must have sounded rude. I didn't mean to be. I just didn't understand. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my bad sorry Jimbo. I was just teasing about sending me to Wikimania and about the other Jimbos, and I was saying cool, like, okay cool. You didn't come across as rude at all. I'm sorry my comments didn't come across as I intended them. I think I should have added a smiley. :) Party on my man. Sorry about the misunderstanding and thanks for taking time to investigate and respond to my comments. Keep an eye out for turbaconducken... and you might want to check out the bacon puchero and locro (which my research indicates has bacon as a key ingredient despite what our article says) while you're partying down south. Unless of course you're kosher in which case you can order up some turkey bacon and fakon. Bacon now, bacon forever!!!??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello Jimbo Wales! I just wanted to say I think you are brilliant, and how you can come up with such amazing ideas as Wikipedia is beyond my imagination. It will be of great pleasure if you were to look at my userpage and possibly sign my guestbook if you don't mind. If you like poems, feel free to look up the Literary works section on my About me page, where I have typed a couple. Ross Rhodes (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No sock puppetry

Jimmy Wales, please turn down any suspected sockpuppetry on your account. It might just be vandalism. Ms dos mode (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just an April fools' joke posted by someone. Nothing to worry about. Chamal talk 02:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No April Fools' joke

No, it isn't an April Fools' joke. -->Why would she wink at my section of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms dos mode (talkcontribs) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You did see all the wikipedia jokes on april fools day. so just give it a rest as we all need to have some fun on wikipedia after all does it realy mater if we have fun mattman (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick hello and thanks

Given that I've been here some three and a half years, I figure it's time to at least say hello to the leader behind such an amazing project! I usually don't like to become such a significant part of anything, but what a beauty it is that anyone can do as little or as much as they want. For a period of time, I left the project, having convinced myself that my academic and artistic pursuits required more of my time. As if slapped in the face by fate, I realized I needed this outlet, and so here I am to stay. I know you probably get stories like this very often, but I have to thank and congratulate you for the site. May each year be as successful as the last! --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently found out that the Chinese character on the logo of wiki was wrong. As a native Chinese, I know perfectly well that that character should be written as 祖. An additional dot on the globe could be seen. Please correct it right away. Sammy312 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

personally i believe that on the english wikipdia nobody will notice mattman (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several mistakes on the logo, we know all about them and hopefully they will be fixed sooner or later. It's easier said than done, though, unfortunately. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In particular, see meta:Talk:Wikipedia/Logo#The proposed Chinese character in particular and that page in general for recent discussion. - BanyanTree 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy

How often do you check your Wikia email & how long does it take to reply normally?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottydotdot (talkcontribs) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I check it daily and I'm on it more or less all the time. Response times can vary widely. At the moment, I have it more or less under control with only 94 pending items, the oldest being December 21st.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey Jimbo, or would you rather me call you Jimmy? Anyway, I have a quick question if you have time. What are your thoughts on this proposal? Thanks. Timmeh! 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about that, too as it (the debate, not the opinion) has become quite disruptive to a few RfA's. And just FYI, your WP:DEAL statement has been "clarified" as of this diff. Could you update it in your words because as it reads now, it could construed that the conglomeration of opinions written are your intentions of what you currently think of being an administrator and the job description thereof. Thanks so much for your assistance on these matters!--It's me...Sallicio!\color{Red} \oplus 21:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More on censorship of Fritzl's name on dewiki

I just noticed this discussion on the censorship of Josef Fritzl's name on dewiki, and would like to point out that the entire discussion is based on a false premise. It's NOT a "legal requirement" not to mention Fritzl's name on dewiki. Then all large German language media would be criminals, because Fritzl is named just as extensively in the German language press as in the English. And not only by the Bild-Zeitung, even the (state) Austrian Broadcasting (ORF) mentions his name on thousands (literally) of webpages and claim that "all of Austria and the entire world are asking themselves: Who is Josef Fritzl?". It's also worth to mention that the name of Josef Fritzl returns more Google results than that of the incumbent German Chancellor (and close to a million in German only). Censoring his name, as an extremely well-known person, even after he is convicted (his victims have changed their name anyway), is extremely anti-wiki and comparable to censoring the name of Adolf Hitler. Even other projects (most interwiki links) are censored by the German project (is it permitted to remove valid interwiki links? I consider this to be obstruction of the interwiki system). I have followed the discussion there, and there is actually a consensus to include his name in the article. The censorshop is not a decision by the German community, it is enforced by a few (two or three?) administrators. The German Wikipedia doesn't follow the consensus principle. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, de-wiki works in mysterious ways sometimes. Somehow I doubt they would stop acting like that "just" because Jimbo told them to stop censoring. Yeah, there is no legal reason for censorship (none I know of and I followed both the case and the legal reactions to it) but they can still censor it. Their WP:NOT does not include "not censored", unlike en-wiki's. Although I do think some consistency should be tried and removing valid interwiki links for such reasons should be avoided. Maybe Jimbo and/or the Board should consider the situation and try to clarify de-wiki's handling in this case. After all, censorship can be picked up negatively by the media... SoWhy 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
To my mind the admins involved should be de-sysoped and topic banned. Kittybrewster 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia must agree not to allow any of its projects to be censored. That is just as an important pillar to any project as its free licensing it. I notice dewikinews refers to him as 'Josef F.'[2]. Should this discussion be moved to meta? Computerjoe's talk 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have left a message on the German Wikipedia's embassy inviting them to comment here. Computerjoe's talk 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec; I am not very active on de) Some people are being ridiculous. The last name of the criminal in question is not being named on de because it happens to be also the last name (at least birth name) of his daughter, his five surviving children with her, and his six other children with his wife. These are all victims. I don't even want to think about what life must be like now for his children. The principle that the privacy of the victims of crime must be respected is recognised to a certain extent even here, see WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy:

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. [...]
This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Here is the corresponding passage from de:WP:BLP#Straftaten, in translation:

"Victims of crimes and criminals also have personality rights. Therefore the names of victims and criminals in contemporary criminal cases, which became known through the concrete criminal case, should only be completed in Wikipedia if these persons have become known under their name to the general public with lasting effect, e.g. through book publications, or (other than through the course of events of the crime and the criminal proceedings) have appeared in public voluntarily, e.g. in talk shows. This prevents, for example, that in case of the abduction of a girl the victim types in her name in Google after a number of years and finds a Wikipedia article 'Abduction of XY ... The perpetrator was convicted for repeated sexual abuse'."

AFAIK none of the victims in this case is seeking the public, and IMO de is handling this correctly even though in this particular case it's unlikely to make a difference. Using the word "censorship" in this context, as some people do, is ridiculous because knowing the last name of the family, while interesting to the public, is not in the public interest. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the point in having the page in the first place if the one key phrase isnt included in the article once? Wikipedia is an encylopedia after all. Seddσn talk 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
They have a redirect from de:Josef F.. This is a standard way of referring to such criminal cases in German-language media. Currently there are 10x more Google hits in German for "Josef Fritzl" than for "Josef F.", which isn't a dramatic difference. Several major German and Austrian magazines and newspapers such as Der Standard, Spiegel, Focus use "Josef F." consistently, while others such as Die Zeit and the national TV chains ORF and ZDF alternate between the two uses. I would say among the most reputable sources in German there is no clear preference for either of the two versions.
I am not saying the decision at de is right; I am saying that it is sufficiently reasonable that it makes no sense to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man in order to fight against it. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, perhaps we should! If his name is available in many reliable sources, as are the names of his victim, I personally see no reason it isn't included. I suppose this is a matter for them, not us, though. Computerjoe's talk 09:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
What is a matter for us, though, is how they remove valid interwiki links and even create useless redirects at other projects (including fr and it) in order to circumvent the correct interwikis and effectively censor other Wikimedia projects. Such behaviour should not be tolerated, the interwikis should not be tampered with or censored. This could create a dangerous precedent if the German Wikipedia is allowed to do so (other projects likely to have issues with freedom of speech could be the Chinese one, what if they wanted to behave in the same way, should other projects assist their censorship?) Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. If ease to reuse is a concern under Austrian/German law, goodness knows the remafications it could have on the Chinese Wikipedia. What makes me uncomfortable is that we're discussing the actions of another wiki on this one, when in my opinion the appropiate place would be meta as that appears to be a more neutral forum. Should we move this discussion to meta:Wikimedia Forum? Computerjoe's talk 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Made a discussion at meta. [3] Computerjoe's talk 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikia message!

Hi. You have a new message on Wikia! Carabera (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Defending against literalism misuse of WP:V

I request an opinion about WP:V from Jimbo, reinforcing both common sense and the professional historical practice of not propagating simple, uncontroversial errors.

The Annie Oakley article appears to be consulted hundreds of times every year by elementary and high school students after they learn about her in their history teaching units. Many simply vandalize, but many others sincerely write papers partly based on facts found (or that they would like to find) in this article [4].

Diligent but inexperienced students also find mythical Annie Oakley names and dates in many books, articles, and internet sources, which they transfer in good faith to the Wikipedia article. These have included damage by entire-file find-and-replace operations. Patiently reverting these vandalisms and myths is a constant article maintenance task. Prominent among these technically "reliable" but flawed sources is the PBS American Experience Annie Oakley biography film of 2006, and its contradicting associated web page. It is periodically rerun and widely viewed, as it was this week and will be next.

A longtime editor since 2004, who does make useful contributions, but is also well-known for being uncooperative [5], tendentious [6], and edit warring just under the radar [7], is currently using color of authority under WP:V to add one of dozens of technically "reliable source" but discredited mythological name-spelling references to Annie Oakley [8]. This editor gave up a logically lost debate at talk [9], but is persisting with trying to keep his doubly misleading reference in the article. [10]. I find it further disturbing and unprofessional by an experienced editor, that he attempted to casually dismiss the research conclusions of the Annie Oakley Foundation operated by Annie's living family – a loose cannon incaution if not a BLP concern.

I'm posting here because I want to preempt a secondary ANI behavior case, and solve the underlying problem of literalminded WP:V interpretation.

In my opinion this editor is engaged in system gaming for reasons of personal gratification, possibly extreme edit ownership, but sadly a game which discredits the trustworthiness of simple facts stated in this encyclopedia. Based on his recent history, I believe he will borderline edit war if I attempt to remove the reference, then I think he will attempt at ANI to smokescreen from his disruptive work-to-rule editing behavior, by making 'he-did-it-too' moral equivalence counter charges against me. Again based on his history, even if taken to ANI, I think he will persist under the radar. I conclude that if he will take "no", he will only take "no" from the top.

The issue as I stated at talk is whether simple, obvious, copycat name spelling and date mistakes – especially when having a secondary research source stating they are mistakes – have some perverse work-to-rule status under WP:V such that Wikipedia MUST propagate simple mistakes, merely because other reliable sources have made them, and even ignore when they have been specifically refuted. Agreed that controversies must be described, in part because there is a constituency for each position. But no one benefits from blindly repeating discredited name-spelling mistakes and wrong dates that have no constituency. To not do something about this trash-accumulating interpretation of WP:V reinforces Wikipedia's poor academic image. [11]

If such a Jimbo opinion is favorable, I request help from other editors to consense that the problem editor should allow the discredited and misleading reference to be removed from Annie Oakley, as well as to not make such future edits anywhere in the project.
Milo 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read portions of the talk page, but I have not followed all the links you have given while expressing concern about the behavior of another editor. I do not have enough knowledge of the specific details of the content issue to opine about it productively, but I can state some general principles that participants may find useful.

If generally reliable sources are in genuine conflict (as can often be the case around a historical controversy) then depending on the circumstances, it is often the right thing to do to report on the conflict, so that the reader has quickly gained an understanding of the problem. But it is worth noting that not all conflict between generally reliable sources is really evidence of genuine conflict. An example might be that a television program of a generally high quality might have repeated a popular error uncritically, even though it had been debunked already. Unless the program made a specific point of noting that the producers disagree with the debunking, it is likely safe to assume a simple error, and not consider this to be new, independent evidence. I agree completely with this statement: "But no one benefits from blindly repeating discredited ... mistakes ... that have no constituency."

In all cases, thoughtful judgment should be used. Simply saying "It's in a WP:RS" is often the end of a debate, and properly say. But note well that I say 'often'. In other cases, there is a more subtle situation. At the risk of repeating myself, let me give another example. Imagine that we have a universally lauded biography written in 1914. It is widely considered to be the definitive work about a person. Later historians writing in peer reviewed academic journals might take note for some reason of an important error in the work, while at the same time continuing to praise it as a model of excellent biography. Well, the original book is still a WP:RS of course, but the particular error is now "in play". The exact resolution will depend on the details of the situation. Perhaps we footnote the error with a note that some later historians have objected. Perhaps we will simply report only on the new understanding. Perhaps we will report on the controversy. It depends on the details, and thoughtful people will have to discuss it calmly and with generosity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful general principles. I consense with your statements. I think many other thoughtful editors will agree with you.
Perhaps a next appropriate step is to discuss this in another venue. One practical objective would be to determine a good term of art for describing and delimiting an error of the type that you have described as "in play". Milo 02:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

After the argument/discussion-type thing over Mr. Sanger, you need this. --MikemoralSock (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your User page

Editors are trying to ban me from editing your User page. Since this is your User page I would like to know exactly what you think about this. Your view on this is important to me. A few editors want to ban me from editing anything related to Jimmy Wales, that would include the Larry Sanger page. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:QuackGuru. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I invite anyone to review your history of tendentious editing, almost entirely single-purpose most of the time, that single purpose being to push a particular agenda against me, including harassment on my user page and user talk page. To be clear, I ask you - as one user to another, not in any official role - to please leave me alone and not edit my user page. And I ask you, as a human being, to reconsider your behavior and perhaps find something more useful to do with your life than attacking me. I leave the disposition of your case to others, but to my mind, you're exactly the kind of person who should have been banned from the project a long time ago as a persistent BLP troublemaker. If it were anybody but me (because I am tolerant and kind), I imagine the victim would have complained to OTRS a long time ago. I have a clear and obvious conflict of interest in this case, but I think anyone reviewing your history will be inclined to agree that your behavior has been unacceptable, and that you are clearly here for motives that are not consistent with our values of neutrality and goodwill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Wouldn't it make sense to protect this userpage? Look at the amount of reverts in the page history - Nz26 | Talk | Contribs | Email 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly for a short time. Normally I'd say no way, people need to be able to contact jimbo but the edit warring needs to stop. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't people use the talk page, or email him to contact him?. I think maybe a couple of weeks of protection would do... - Nz26 | Talk | Contribs | Email 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is his talk page! And email isn't a good forum for group discussion. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If it were to be semi-protected, a sub page for IP editors to contact him would have to be set up. Totally unacceptable without it. DuncanHill (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
So you can't protect the userpage without protecting the talk page as well. I was meaning protecting just the userpage, not the talk page - Nz26 | Talk | Contribs | Email 11:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone understand what im trying to say? - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Does Jimbo have a opinion on this? Its his userpage - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
To my understanding, you actually can protect a page without protecting its corresponding talk page. However, I'd recommend not protecting either. After all, Jimbo's userpage is meant to set an example to other users and vandals, hence the statement "You may edit this page! Really, you can! Please feel free to do so. Just do it! Make an edit! Make several edits! Make thousands of edits! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about!" In the end, it is all up to Jimbo. Best, -download | sign! 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Innv / Afinogenoff

Hello, Jimbo !

I writing to you, because you need to know about the current situation. User:Innv is a virtual of vandal User:Afinogenoff (user mass vandalized Wikia Pages (e.g. or ru.history) on 2007, create a many accounts to destabilization the situation). This user indefblocked in Russian Wikipedia by checkuser Wulfson. Need remove all rights on Wikimedia projects of this user to prevent vandalism or abuses. For example, in one of provocative sites, Traditio (blocked via Spamblacklist), this user has sysop, oversight and checkuser rights. This user constantly abusing their rights, e.g. more than once unblock vandalism-only account - virtual of a serial vandal of Russian Wikipedia. This user with sysop rights in a Wikimedia wikis is a real danger to them.

--Ykmol (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanger's Open Letter

Lots of people seem to want me to talk about it, but I'm not interested. I am being portrayed by some as believing things that I do not, and holding positions that I do not. As I have said many times, I think the entire "controversy" is silly and that Mr. Sanger is too often given too little credit for his work. (Note well that it is well known, though, that Tim Shell was the person who invented the notion of talk pages. Anyone else claiming credit for that now should be pushed hard.) There are a thousand other inventions by a hundred other lesser known early contributors, and a debate about semantics seems a bit absurd to me. Larry didn't make Wikipedia, and neither did I. It was made by the community, and lots of people played interesting roles.

If other people feel a burning need to discuss this, please do so elsewhere other than my talk page; I'm not interested in discussing it at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy, have the decency to let me say one thing in response to the above. In the open letter itself, I quote a Hot Press answer from you, in which you said, "I feel that Larry's work is often under-appreciated. He really did a lot in the first year to think through editorial policy. ... I would actually love to have it on the record that I said: I think Larry's work should be more appreciated. He’s a really brilliant guy." Here is my answer to that: "This sounds like a fine sentiment. But how could it be sincere? What better way to ensure that I am 'under-appreciated' than to contradict your own first three press releases and tell the Boston Globe, just two years later, that it's 'preposterous' that I am called co-founder?"

Please, everyone--I'd like to ask you please to leave this between me and Jimmy. He'll just delete the discussion, along with my response, if you pile on. If you want to continue the discussion you're welcome to come to the blog. --Larry Sanger (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Something you might want to look at...

I just came across this and thought you might want to do something. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read it very closely, but it seems good natured and I don't mind it. I have no idea what current policy is about such things in user space, after all, Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider, but in terms of me personally being offended, I'm not. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Current Wikipedia policy about such things appears to be Snowball keep. see here. Regards from (Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))


Hi. I just thought maybe you should get a guestbook! Its just I think you'd get a lot of signatures out of it. Just an idea though. (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that idea. That would be neat. --Thenachoman (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Hey Jimbo, visit my talk-page and please leave me a message just for the heck of it. Thanks.

its me, zobango

just saying hi. i havent really started editing in this account, but have heavily edited anonymously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zobango (talkcontribs) 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for the response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zobango (talkcontribs) 11:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia holidays

I noticed there's not been any new ones for a while. How about some more generic ones, like Featured content day, to celebrate all of our most outstanding content, or New editors day to annually welcome and thank those who've registered accounts in the last year? --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I vote for a Sue Gardner holiday, she definitely earned it the past 2 years. But i don't mind a Featured content day either. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I also like the idea of a Featured content day. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to do

Has anyone got something for me to do that's not that hard? I'm like a jobless deadbeat! Help me find something to do, somebody! Vandals, copyediting, expanding, ARBCOM, ANI, I don't care, as long as it is not challenging! Please, help - I'm so bored! *wipes tear* Rory (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Three letter acronnym dab page cleanup is your friend. MickMacNee (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Rory (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Almost anything here can be challenging, but you might want to take a look here for something of interest to you. If you want to improve existing articles, there's also plenty of scope for that here. Pitch in, and if you have any questions, please ask on my talk page (I'm here about 12 - 14 hours daily), or any other editor. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
New Page Patrol always seems to have plenty of work and is rather varied. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Impersonator on Yahoo! Answers

On the Yahoo! Answers section for Wikipedia, there's a user calling him-or-herself "Jimmy Wales" and asking troll-ish questions like this. It's an obvious imposter, so I thought you might appreciate knowing. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know Nihiltres, I clicked the link to the question and it came up with a page saying that the question was deleted. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No surprise there; looks like some Yahoo! staff did some moderation for once; Kohs is complaining that some of his questions and answers were deleted, too. I'll find a new link when back on my computer (on iPod now). {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia for journalists and bloggers

Hi Jimbo. Myself, Pete Forsyth and some other Wikimedians from Oregon are working on a presentation for the upcoming Portland WikiWednesday. The subject will be something along the lines of "Wikipedia for Journalists and Bloggers", or perhaps just "Wikipedia for Research". We'll likely be taking the tack of "it should be the first place you look, but never the last" etc. My question is if I might get a quote from you on the subject. If you could say one thing to journalists and bloggers using Wikipedia, what would it be? Thanks for your time, Steven Walling (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For journalists, Wikipedia can be a great place to go for background and context - to know what questions to ask. I agree completely with the sentiment that "it should be the first place you look, but never the last". I think it's important to be realistic about the quality of Wikipedia - it's really pretty good in parts, really pretty bad in parts, and always evolving. If you're looking for a nice soundbite: "Wikipedia will give you the questions you should ask, not the answers."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a nice soundbite. -->David Shankbone 01:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's awesome Jimbo! Thank you so much, Steven Walling (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki of userpages

Now that single login seems to be working well, do you know if there are any plans for the creation of a single wiki (per language) to hold all userpages for all wikimedia projects? (Thus deprecating the userspace and user talk spaces on each wiki.) - jc37 02:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there are no plans to do that. While I would like it, I suspect many would not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you.
As an aside, now you have me wondering what others wouldn't like. It would be simple enough to set up the existing userspace to automatically redirect to the "user wiki" (or whatever its called).
Or is this just the classic opposition to change of any kind? : ) - jc37 02:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Dunno. Try asking around and see what people think. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

hey jimbo

this is a joke edits in template to be reverted in 2 days mattman (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Back atchya, my man... :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

i decided not to edit the templates just in case it stuffed it up for the real articels mattman (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Purge the page for moar name-related russian roulette. — neuro(talk) 22:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Being harrassed on my IP talk page

Could someone please block the IP, he's been harrassing me on my IP talk page, and I think he has some nasty intentions for my glasses. =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism -- IRP 23:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Hi there Jimbo! I was looking at the Assume Good Faith article, and thought it needed a good pic. It was reverted, but what do you think of this? I think this pic would fit great in the article :P

This lolcat may be tearing its prey into little bits and consuming it ravenously, but one should assume that its intentions are good. (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User page rights versus maintaining a professional atmosphere- any opinions?

Hi.. this may seem like a small concern, but an issue came up which turned out to be surprisingly controversial. User:WebHamster has an image on his user page featuring nudity. People have asked him to remove it, and he's refused, saying there is no specific rule against it. People have also pointed out that his custom signature includes a link to his user page but not his user talk page, thus causing more people to visit the questionable page. He's refused to change this, again citing "this is not specifically against the rules". I don't think such a user page helps Wikipedia maintain a reasonably professional atmosphere, and I don't think users should simply brush off the idea that we should avoid bringing the project into disrepute.

The community has shown themselves unable to deal with this issue, mainly due to people not grasping the idea that an action can be within the letter of the rules, but still be a bad idea. I wondered if you had enough of an opinion on such things to weigh in. This may be a case where your intervention could solve an otherwise difficult problem. This is a situation where the community is, in my opinion, showing too much tolerance for juvenile antics. Friday (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The signature is compliant with WP:SIG, unlike that of at least one active admin. DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a guideline that says you may link to your talk page instead of your userpage. But when the user page is one that has demonstrated ability to annoy other users, having a sig that links only to it does actually violate "Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors." Regards, Ben Aveling 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I find signatures that do not link to userpages annoying, but so long as they are permitted I do not feel the need to try to compel (or even to ask) any individual to change theirs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
For further background, please read the live thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#nudie pics on user pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing particularly difficult about this problem and the community has handled the issue just fine. It may not have resolved in the way you would prefer, but that's not quite the same thing, is it? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Friday, why should you believe that Jimbo is going to act against consensus over such a matter? Avert your eyes, pray (or not, according to practice and inclination) for the other person, and get on with editing the encyclopedia. Please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Possibly because Jimbo has in the past intervened in similar situations. Currently I don't see a consensus that what WebHamster is doing is OK - most people think that it isn't. But also, most people don't think that he should be forced to change. I don't know if he doesn't see that, or if he just doesn't know how to get out of this situation without losing more face than he already has. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So he should be made to change because most people don't think he should be made to change? You've lost me. DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
He should change it, but if he won't change it, he shouldn't be forced to change it. I hope that's a clearer explanation. Continue on my talk page if you like. Time this was allowed to die a death of neglect. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That makes much more sense :) DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Which "most people"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The sensible ones. ;-) Ben Aveling 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought that the community should be able to deal with this; it's hardly a major issue in objective terms, and although Jimbo's opinion may be valuable, it is not a deus ex machina to be invoked to attempt to swing the balance. If everything runs its normal course, this little spat should be over by Monday at the latest. Rodhullandemu 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Other than Friday forum shopping, I'd say it's over now. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday, agreeing with the claim "The community has shown themselves unable to deal with this issue" is entirely contingent on agreeing that the image is a serious problem that must be fixed. If we don't agree that the image is a big deal, then the community has actually dealt with the issue pretty well, with only a little gratuitous drama. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's the crux. Jimbo has on previous occasions, said that Wikipedia's reputation is something we should not gratuitously damage. Whether this is a matter he cares about or not, I don't know. That's why I asked. Friday (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough. Let's see what happens! -GTBacchus(talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. And, I suppose to clarify, I wouldn't call this a serious problem- it's just a bit of juvenile nonsense. But I think it should be fixed. I was hoping this wouldn't lead to (yet more) pointless discussion.. So I'll just say to those above, call it forum shopping if you like, but there's a reason I brought this here. Jimbo can sometimes get away with doing what's right, where us mere editors are restricted to doing what's popular. We'll see. Friday (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a reason for sure you brought it here - you couldn't see any other way of getting your own way. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, I can only assume you posted this because you're being helpful, right? I can see arguments for or against the idea that an image such as this, placed as it is, would "gratuitously damage" Wikipedia's reputation. If it did, it would be in a very small way, compared with plenty of other issues. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

< I kicked off this conversation by asking on the admin.s noticeboard if there is any policy or practice in regard to userpage images - apparently there's not - but I think the issues are far wider, and I believe the WMF has slipped to become a rather irresponsible host of media, loosely described as sexual content. This won't be news to many, but I've written an essay about this, and there's some useful discussion beginning on the talk page. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Privatemusings, do you think there's any content that we host irresponsibly that isn't related to sex? This follows the conversation we've been having at your essay, of course. Is it really best to frame this issue as being about "sexual" content, as opposed to problematic content in general? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)My take on this, compared with our reputation generally, is that it's a non-issue externally, compared with some others. Internally, it may be a conflict of values, but there is precisely nothing new in that. IIRC, Jorge Luis Borges described the Falklands War as being comparable to "a dispute by two bald men over a comb", and this, to me seems firkin close to that attitude. If we having nothing better to do, obviously our encyclopedia is complete and we are wasting our time on irrelevancies; please excuse me right now, but there are vandals in them that hills. I'll get back to you. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Webhamster image in question is tame compared to others, such as the one at Autofellatio (which is, incidentally, under an RfC on the article's talk page regarding whether or not to hide the image). As Jimbo has said time and time again, we give a much wider berth of leeway on userspace. I don't see any problem here, especially the way it was used.. No more Bush/bushless poonanny. Clever. -ALLST☆R echo 00:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it isn't even close to borderline. The user page is unacceptable and should be speedy deleted, and the user blocked if he insists on recreating it. Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider, and a professional environment is extremely important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Borderline"? Based on what boundary? "Unnacceptable"? Based on what criteria? Your own personal aesthetics? I've broken no rules so what would the grounds for blocking be, that I refused to stay within the rules, vandalism, spamming? BTW, if you want "professionalism", well that starts at about 30k per year. If you want a "volunteer" with no rights then you work with what you've got. Why doesn't your decision surprise me? The page in question has been there for more than a year yet still the project has gone on and is still untarnished (at least not as a result of my page anyway) and you wouldn't have known about it except for someone else advertising its existence purely so he could get his own way. Perhaps you should have thought of this when creating userpages in the first place eh? --WebHamster 08:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
So much for trusting the community. Whatever will we do when our god-king leaves us? Or is he truly immortal? DuncanHill (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I find this new attitude very strange. Some time ago I found a user whose user page featured a photograph of a pubescent adolescent (who appeared to be in his mid teens) full frontaly naked seated upon a domestic appliance (I'll try and find the links later). It took some time of me complaining and campaigning (alone) before I found a admin (User:Alison) prepared to delete and rectify the situation. I was even told I was narrow minded. When suddenlly, did this new age of zero tolerance dawn. The photograph on User:WebHamster's page was certainly not ilegal in any country, grossly offensive, pornographic or even particularly revealing. This whole matter seems to smack of hypocrisy and Victorian prudery. Giano (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Good to know Jimbo's opinion. But unless he decides to act as the god-king of Wikipedia, it doesn't change consensus. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO the image is harmless, it is not a hardcore or something, just a slightly provocative political statement. Deletion would make more disruption than keeping it as it it is. On the other hand, I agree that wiki is an encylopedia not a blog host, so everything in the userspace that creates problems for encyclopedia, including cooperation with educational institutions, sponsors, etc. should be deleted. Jimbo is the much better position to judge those aspects. It is already 7 hours since his reply, so he might change his mind. If he confirms that it is not the case the page should be deleted Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is meant to be a serious Encyclopaedia that is global, allowing anyone from around the world (providing they have internet access) to edit it. Editors can sign into the Wikipedia and they then have a User Page and Talk Page, these are generally meant for working on the Wikipedia and communicating with other Editors. I don’t think it was meant as a home page, but it is the area for which the Editor can express themselves and tell other Editors about themselves and what they are here for (as long as it’s not illegal i.e. encouraging violence etc).--BSTemple (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Our standards have always been, and will continue to be, much narrower than just "as long as it's not illegal". Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. While we do allow significant latitude, we also ask that editors conduct themselves in a manner consistent with a humanitarian and constructive effort to do something important for the world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ask? Or just demand? You make it sound like 'you're' here for our benefit, not the other way round.
I haven't stated that what I've done isn't "illegal". What I've said is that what I've done is within the rules of Wikipedia. There's a vast difference.
BTW, why did you delete a sequence of pertinent questions under the summary that they were a personal attack when they quite obviously weren't? Unless of course one considers questions that one finds difficult to be a form of attack. --WebHamster 16:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ask. And I was responding to BSTemple's position with a clarification, not saying that you made that claim. And finally, yes that was a vicious personal attack and I saw no legitimate questions in it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that the stricken remarks were highly inappropriate and inflammatory. This can, in theory, be a useful, productive discussion. IronDuke 16:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, have you actually looked at this image? Your current opinion does seem to be very out of tune with the more thinking members of the community. Giano (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have looked at it. It is inappropriate for a serious working environment. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd rather look at her than all the damm silly fluffy wuffy kittens that some people want to plaster all over their pages. C'mon user pages are a bit of fun and for giving an impression of oneself. That image is totally harmless. Giano (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with you in re kittens. However, do you know of any normal office environment in which an image like that would be tolerated? IronDuke 16:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How many normal offices do you know where you never get to meet a colleague of get a salary cheque? Giano (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, volunteer orgs in general might meet that criterion, I suppose, of which I think there are many. Why? IronDuke 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't know of any charity org where one might volunteer and claim that it is ok to have sexually provocative imagery on one's desk, since one is a volunteer. Try it at the Red Cross, see what happens.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, perhaps you should opine on the MFD if that's how you feel about it? Majorly talk 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD time. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How many normal officves do you know where they refuse to tell you where head office is? DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question, if it was directed at me. IronDuke 16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a reference to the fact that the WMF goes out of it's way to obfuscate it's physical street address from public records, and has invoked WP:OFFICE actions to keep photographs of the exterior of it's office building off of Wikipedia and Commons. rootology (C)(T) 16:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, how does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you are unaware of the security concerns in the office, and unaware that professional advice was sought. That's fine. But what on earth does it have to do with the question at hand?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is right to pretend that "normal office rules" apply to an organization with such an abnormal attitude to those who work for it. And yes, thank you, I am aware of (and did participate in) previous discussions of the "security" matter. I suggested buying a lock to stop people wandering in off the street, which as far as I could see was the only concern stated. I also find your continual blanking and refactoring of debates disruptive and not indicative of a willingness on your part to engage in debate honestly and openly. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not that easy, DuncanHill. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What isn't? DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The office. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe not - but I don't think claiming that Wikipedia is a comparable work-environment to any other is terribly helpful (or accurate), and to blandly suggest that what is considered the norm in American work-spaces is automatically the norm which should be applied here is likewise unhelpful. I manage volunteers - and I would never dream of behaving towards them in the way which certain co-founders of this place do so very often. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a website, which indeed isn't the same thing. Moreover, lots of folks bring their sundry notions as to how things should be here, likewise Jimbo (and this is his talk page, after all). To put it in a mild way, allowing so much to be talked about has something to do with why this is one of the highest traffic websites in the world. Lastly, editors here volunteer their time to building an encyclopedia (not to Jimbo) on servers kept up and paid for by a private foundation. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't own his talk page (no editor owns their talk page), and just as with any other editor if his blanking and refactoring lead to a misleading account of a debate, then that is disruption. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, we might have a more productive conversation if you would drop the anger and listen to what I'm saying. Tell you what, let's make an appointment for a week from now. We'll have a conversation here about user page standards and what it means to work in a professional environment. And that conversation will continue as long as you can remain friendly towards me. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but I and a lot of other people have better ways to spend out time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I note you make no commitment to remain friendly towards me. You aren't, in fact, my friend Mr. Wales - you are a colleague and that is a very different thing. Friendship is something much too precious to be devalued by applying the name to transient internet relationships. A friendly conversation is also not always the same as a professional one, and neither is ever necessarily civil. You appear sometimes to want to be a boss as well as a colleague - and it is in your boss-like actions that I find fault. I agree that you have a lot of better ways to spend your time (and so do I) - and a simple statement from you when Friday brought this matter here that you trusted the community to work out a solution in the fullness of time would have saved you, me, and a lot of other people much time and energy. DuncanHill (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Like any other user, he can more or less refactor and blank almost anything he pleases on this page. Dealing with what some editors may think about that is wholly up to him. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure he will let me know if he has a problem with my conclusions, based on his on-wiki behaviour, about his attitude to debate. DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with your conclusions about my attitude to debate, Duncan. I am happy to discuss or debate the issue of userpages and the like. I am not willing to put up with hostility and absurd accusations as a part of it. (And my removal of the WP:LAME stuff was just about trying to keep this conversation on track, rather than having any problem with it per se.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem or you have a problem? The two are not necessarily the same. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem. You are mistaken and have drawn the wrong conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Ahem. Please excuse my interruption for a moment. I do not believe the image being discussed in this thread should be deleted, although it should probably be on the restricted images list and should be permitted only on relevant articles. I don't think much of the idea of it being on a userpage, although I suppose if one adheres to the theory that a picture paints a thousand words, then this one is saying quite a bit about the person who chooses to have it on his userpage. I very strongly object to the Easter egg in WebHamster's signature that leads me to a page containing a NSFW image that I'd really rather not be viewing, particularly when I'm editing at the public library, or the lobby of my hotel, or the local internet cafe, or Starbucks down the street. If I go to an article like pubic hair, I can expect images like this; the same is not the case when clicking a user's signature. Risker (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We had an all too recent discussion about faking messages to link to Rickrolling, and this, to my mind is not far off that. I think any user should have a legitimate expectation not to be taken to "surprise" places, and doing so is to me arguably disrespectful to fellow-editors, and hence, the community at large. Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm getting the impression sometimes that there are those who are pushing the boundaries of acceptability, for whatever purpose, rather than just getting on with it. On the other side, there are those while react automatically to these "provocations", again for whatever purpose. As I've discovered, life's too short; I will not live long enough to achieve what I wish to here. They say silence is a virtue, and on this point, since it's of little moment to me, is one that I intend to pursue from now on, and at least they can put on my gravestone "He knew when to shut up". Would that others could strive for as much. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
@Duncan--1) At your work, could you put up a pic like that in your cubicle or office with no repercussions? 2) Jimmy can factor his talk page just as he likes. I mean... that's not even really debated anymore, is it? 3) I think JW is being pretty accomodating in agreeing to an extended discussion about this. I can think of a number of individuals with just a little wiki-power who would never deign to do such a thing. JW could easily play the Godking people constantly accuse him of being. 4) Is the pic in question serving WP in any remotely significant way? IronDuke 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1) It's not about my off-wiki place of work, or yours, or anybody elses. 2)No it isn't debated, and that is not healthy. I do not believe that any editor should be able to refactor debates in a way which may be misleading. Wales's talk page is also sometimes closer to a policy announcement board than any other editor's talk page. 3)Oh gosh, he is so gracious, allowing debate. We shouldn't need his permission to debate Wikipedia issues. 4)Yes, it enables readers of the encyclopædia to use their own critical judgement about an editor's biases in assessing his contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1) You haven't addresed my point at all, other than to say, in effect, "Wikipedia and my place of work are two different things, therefore no useful comparisons can be made or lessons drawn." 2) Not debated anymore. But if you want to reopen it, there are plenty of good places to do that, but here isn't one of them. 3) He is being gracious. There have been some very nasty insults hurled his way, and he's been pretty calm under fire. That's as it should be, but it doesn't mean it's wrong to note it. 4) That's not really what we're supposed to be doing, e.g., "Hmmm... IronDuke's userpage sucks, therefore he sucks. I shall revert all his edits!" We should all be judged by our contribs, nothing more or less. IronDuke 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
IronDuke, thank you for your reply. 1)I am not saying that no useful comparisons can be drawn, but the unthinking assumption that what applies in the American (or British, or any other) workplace should be applied here is not useful, in hte light of the unique nature of the way work is carried out on Wikipedia. 2) I thought this talkpage was the right place to discuss the behaviour of the editor. 3)It is not up to him to agree to an extended discussion about WebHamster's userpage, regardless of what insults he has been subjected to or which he has subjected other editors to. Wikipedia is not his personal website. WMF does not exist to provide a website for him to exercise editorial control over. 4) I disagree profoundly - when I read a text I like to question both the text and the motivation of the writer of that text. This is not saying "his userpage sucks, so I shall revert him" it is saying "Could there be a reason in the political, social or religious beliefs or backgrounds of an editor for him choosing this particular way of presentation of his facts? Would an editor of a different background have made different decisions?" I do not accept that "there is nothing beyond the text", and find it to have been one of the least helpful, and even most damaging, ideas to have infected discourse in the last 100 years. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It's always a pleasure to have a discussion with a sensible person... (even if I don't agree.) 1) My assumption was not unthinking. I actually put a lot of thought into it. I cannot imagine any remotely normal workplace where this image would be okay. And even if you could point me to one, we do need, inasmuch as is practical, to respect each other's sensibilties. 2) I don't know if this talk page is the best place, actually, since Jimmy has the right to unilaterally delete this all (a right we each have on our own talk pages). 3) See 2. 4) Well, I guess we agree to disagree and all that. I don't care what motivates someone, I care if the work they do is good. Anything else would be kinda odd, IMO. IronDuke 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I apologize if my previous posting appeared flippant: it wasn't intended that way. And all: I have no objection to his decision to refactor. Anybody can do that with their own user talk. On the whole, this discussion is hardly bringing out the best in any of us. Let's slow down please, set aside that ol' fight-or-flight instinct, and remember that angry mastodons have never trampled a Wikipedia editor to death. Best wishes all, DurovaCharge! 04:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I know of at least one time that an angry mastodon trampled a Wikipedia editor to death. And could we get a definition on "refactor" here? If he's removing the content in its entirety, then rightly so. If he's changing around another user's comments, that's fail. -ALLST☆R echo 05:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that Jimbo says here that "Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider" ie: Wikipedia isn't for hosting personal web space. Yet his own use page seems to contradict that. Does this mean there is one law for Jimbo and one for the rest of us. I do the odd speaking engagement etc for a fee too, can I advertise myself on Wiki as well? Giano (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The last time I looked, and I haven't this morning, my user page is perfectly fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it is far from fine! You have no business advertising yourself there, as you are more than aware. 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Question, Jimmy. If a published author or professional that also did speaking engagements for pay, as you do, also edited Wikipedia under their own name as their username, e.g. User:John Jones Authorsurname, you would have no problem with him putting up matching language of "If you want to invite me to speak at a conference, please send an e-mail to or call +1 646-227-4900," or something similar for their literary agent or press agent? rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I think it is perfectly appropriate for people to put detailed contact information on their userpages, including anticipating or responding to actual requests they are likely to get. If that wording bothers you, would you like to suggest an alternative?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Me personally? It's never really bothered me on that; I think some of our "non-promotional" attitudes collectively are taken to absurd lengths. People often gripe specifically about your own user page (even though that griping is under the radar often), and the fact you have "promotional content" on there, in that you get paid for these appearances. With this endorsement of the language for others--in the inevitable situation it comes up, and it will sooner or later, for a notable person to put various forms of contacting them on their user pages--I think it will be good to short circuit any zealotry in hounding users that put such things up on their pages. If you can do it in this way, others can too, good for the goose, etc., and then people will have nothing to complain about on this note. rootology (C)(T) 05:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, old sweetheart, how can I put this?.... You are advertising yourself and your services on your user page. That is <personal att, it's also a big "no no" on a project like this. Giano (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    Are you referring to the mention of Wikia? That is more of a CV than an advertisement. --Tango (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, he's talking about the mention of how to contact me to speak at a conference. I have removed it, so it is a moot point. I note for the record that I object to Giano's personal attack.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Saying that an advertisement for yourself is unprofessional and unethical is not a personal attack. If you want an example of a personal attack, you only have to ask. Giano (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call

I know I don't say this very often, but Jimbo, I think you did the right thing here. – iridescent 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It is unimportant and I prefer not to let it be used by those who prefer to distract from real issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to lower the temperature

I think it isn't even close to borderline. The user page is unacceptable and should be speedy deleted, and the user blocked if he insists on recreating it. Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider, and a professional environment is extremely important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I agree with most of the above - the page is beyond borderline and his signature linking there makes it a lot worse. But I don't quite think that it's worth blocking anyone over it, and given that you didn't speedy delete it, etc, I guess that on reflection, maybe you don't think so any more either? If so, could I please ask that you strike the bit about "and the user blocked if he insists on recreating it"? I'm still hopeful that WebHamster will be open to discussion once he's had some time to think, and a lower-the-temperature gesture from yourself could go a long way. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm offering an opinion about where policy should be. The tolerance of this kind of behavior and the juvenile mentality behind it is something that needs to shift over time. So, I do think this is the sort of thing that should be speedy deleted, and I do think that it is the sort of thing that a user should be blocked for if they insist on recreating it against policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In an ideal world, yes. But in wikipedia as it currently is? Given the current set of policies, and current cultural norms? Would it be fair to say that we'd both like to see policy and attitudes changed so that behaviour like his is blockable, but that until it is changed, his behaviour is repugnant but not blockable? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"user should be blocked for if they insist on recreating it against policy" - exactly which policy would they be violating? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid your mentality is like that of an ex-king, permitted to reside in his palace by a benign community, who every time he looks out of the window and sees something that he does not like shrieks off with his head. That is not how things work, nor should it be. The long and the short is that the picture is not grossly offensive, a user page is not one office in a great office block and no one is compelled to look at it. Often a use page is the only clue we have as to the person behind the editor and his interests. I have a wacking great building, some people have pets, you have an image of yourself - people draw conclusions from that. It gives us a clue and it is to be encouraged not prohibited as though we are curates in a seminary - who have to bend a knee to a higher authority. Giano (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Giano, but this is a totally unproductive comment. Please take your beef elsewhere. I am not shrieking "off with his head" at anyone. I was asked my opinion, I gave it. I'm sorry you don't agree with it. But it has nothing to do with shrieking.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You know Giano - this talk page (as it's history shews) is for the discussion of editors other than Jimbo Wales, hence the frequent removals of anything about his behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, I'd like to ask you to stick to the topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWebHamster. I believe the editor has meant to disrupt. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

He's done a good job of it, too. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh no he has not. The disruption has come from a narrow minded minority who want to impose their will over the majority. Gwen fails to mention above that the vast majority voted "keep". Giano (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, making it one of the cleverest disruptions I've ever seen here. WebHamster is very talented. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt the intent was originally to annoy. I'll take WH at face value when he says that he doesn't like interacting with other users, and that he doesn't want people leaving messages on his talk page. I suspect the intent was to discourage visitors, maybe even to punish people for visiting, but I don't know and WH isn't explaining. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter why it was originally done. Intentional or not, it turns out that the combination of the image and the signature is annoying. This has been pointed out to WH and his response has not been, oh sorry, didn't mean that. It has been, if I may paraphrase: "I don't care, I have the right to have whatever I want on my userpage, I'm allowed to point my sig where I want, and if other people have a problem, that's their problem and what I'm doing is in within the letter of the law, I don't care about the spirit of the law, and I'm not wiki-lawyering". I agree that there is no hard and fast rule against having soft porn on one's userpage - perhaps there should be. But when we look at the letter of the law: Your signature should not ... inconvenience or annoy other editors. And if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption. On each count, WH is out of line. Regardless of the original intent, the user page is causing trouble and WH should do the right thing and remove the image, or replace it with something less explicit. And yet, I don't see consensus to force that outcome. Maybe we need to change policy here, to be even clearer. Or maybe it's time to go to arbcomm? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I think the points have been lost as to the nature of this and other discussions. This is Jim Wales Talk Page, if you don’t want his opinion on things why come on here? If you don’t like the way the Wikipedia is run you can submit ideas and have other editors debate it in the appropriate place or you can leave. Remember, no one is forcing anyone to come on the Wikipedia. As to content, I feel there must be some set of rules and guidance, common sense tells you that. If you want to put up images of a certain nature, then go on a chat room or get a blog. If rules are not set and the boundaries are allowed to be pushed, we will soon see other objectionable content, and who says what is and what is not acceptable? Would the Editors who want the picture and statements like a picture on another editor's page with a monkey and the name Obama, or president? Or how about some ? Acceptable? The answer is No and nor can it ever be. The Wikipedia is not a play area or a political battlefield. It’s an Encyclopaedia! --BSTemple (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely, thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, you would wouldn't you, Jimbo? Now as to you BSTemple, whoa! Just a moment, what has an editor exhibiting on his page the carefully and discretely photographed lower torso of a female obviously in her prime got to do with anti-gay material? One is as you know rightly offensive (and probably illegal), the other is not. Regarding your other point, if someone wants to call their monkey Obama let them, my kids have have two hamsters called Silvio and Berlusconi - so what? I am quite sure it won't bother Silvio Berlusconi (linked for those who have not travelled far) or any of his supporters. The only person who will be bothered by any of this is "Bertha from the Bible Belt." I say, thank God we are all better educated and more cosmopolitan than her. Giano (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What is so professional about a picture of a penguin, anyway? What does it convey about the editor on whose page it adorns? They like some cute animals (sentiments I find immature, but then I have always championed a modicum of free expression...) but not some? That the editor prefers flightless birds over those that utilise that medium? That they are southern hemisphere orientated? It just makes the page look nice? Where do you draw the line at a) what is justified under "professional appearing", and b) how to deal with the person who decides that they don't like what they perceive to be the message behind the image? As for "office space", it has long been a tradition to personalise sterile appearing work stations so that the inhabitant feels more relaxed, secure, invested, connected and therefore a more productive member of an enterprise - and this little snippet comes from 30 plus years working in office/retail environments, often as a supervisor or team leader. If you want faceless drudges, then you must accept a product that is banal and careless. If you want a premium commodity, then you need to allow creativity and freedom of expression from the contributors. This is part of the skill of personnel management, from which I have derived part of my living these many decades, in allowing individuals to organise themselves to the maximum benefit of the larger concern. That, young man, is the professional method toward yielding the maximum benefit from the mass of disparate individuals that form a workforce. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Would any of the office spaces you worked in have permitted this picture? If not, what would have happened to the person who had posted it on the wall of their office space? IronDuke 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have worked in several companies where much more explicit images were tolerated on the walls. I also live in a country where millions of breakfast tables and workplaces are graced by the likes of the super soaraway Scum and the Daily Tart, and perhaps that has enabled me to have a less intolerant outlook than some on the æsthetic choices of others. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You must have worked in some mighty interesting places! But I was addressing someone else, and would be interested to know his answer. IronDuke 23:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not stopping him. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but everyone likes penguins! Ben Aveling 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I couldn't eat a whole one. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes; that is, where I had authority or the authority that were otherwise in charge agreed. I have not worked in an environment where it would not have been permitted - except in one place, where staff were expected to remain silent unless specifically discussing work - and where I was admonished for pointing out the legal liability being incurred by the management team, because my interruption embarrassed the Managing Director. This is the only company I have ever been dismissed from, and it went bankrupt within 2 years of my leaving. I was permitted, while adhering to a general dress code of suit and tie, to wear my hair in various shades of red with blonde highlights in various Bowie related styles, for instance. Among City of London accountancy practices it may well have been considered odd - but it was allowed; I was judged on my work, which was found satisfactory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Political statements?

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about the appropriateness of the "No more Bush" photo on a user page, as a photo. As a joke, it's funny and is similar to a joke that was circulating on the internet years ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on a user page - but not for the nudity issue. To me it's more a question of the appropriateness of overt, specific political statements on a user page. The now-(rightly)-banned User:Axmann8 was forced to remove a fully serious "NObama" thing from his page. It's one thing to say "This user is a [fill in political affiliation here]" which is a relatively passive and general statement. It's another to make blatant political statements, be they funny or serious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with you that the political sentiment is inappropriate for a wikipedia user page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it a political statement? the link goes to personal grooming: Hair removal -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll just assume you're joking.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Only partially a joke. The image of a naked woman and a link to personal grooming does not appear to be Baseball_Bugs' "overt, specific political statements on a user page" and your application of "the political sentiment" appears to be a really nebulous definition to attempt to apply with any sort of consistency. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a stretch of the imagination beyond the reasonable for us to imagine this as anything other than a political statement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So being able to identify "political sentiments" is not a nebulous definition that harbors huge impracticalities in applying consistantly? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't strike me as any more difficult than the sort of line-drawing that we do all the time, no. If you agree that we are not a free homepage provider, and that therefore it is appropriate to have some standards which will, unfortunately, at time require some thoughtful discussion, then it is really just a question of which standards and how to draw the line.
As I see it, it would be better if we had a blanket prohibition against all political userboxes, etc. As it stands today, tht isn't policy - nor is it likely to become policy anytime soon. But certainly it would make it a lot easier to draw the line. Currently, we use language like "inflammatory or divisive"... I support that, but I note that it requires a much more difficult task of "line drawing" than a simple blanket prohibition on political statements would.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised and gratified to read you saying that. I, too, have long felt that political userboxen were a tremendous waste of time, and by their very nature divisive. Wish others felt the same. IronDuke 23:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Admins' Noticeboards are the appropriate venues for getting admin action. The talk pages of policy pages are the appropriate venues for discussing changes to policies such as WP:SIG or WP:USER. MfD is the appropriate venue for discussing the deletion of a userpage. Forum shopping simply stirs up drama and should be strongly discouraged. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is welcomed here. I don't see any forum shopping going on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion at the Admins' board did not get Friday the result he wanted - so he brought it over here, in the apparent hope that an ex cathedra pronouncement from you would get him his way. He then used your pronouncement to edit and then protect in his own preferred version the page in question in defiance of an MfD. He forum shopped, and caused disruption by doing it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
With what? That the noticeboard discussion didn't get Friday the result he was arguing for? Or that he came here to get something out of you? Or that he invoked your pronouncement in ignoring an MfD and using his admin tools to protect a page in his own preferred version? DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Above Jimbo states that "the political sentiment is inappropriate for a wikipedia user page". If that reasoning is ever used to delete this image or remove it from his talk page, better realize you are opening a can of worms, because all of this: Userboxes/Political Parties will have to go as well and will probably meet a lot of opposition as some of those userboxes are widely used. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
He didn't say all political sentiments, just that particular one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, true. But in general I do think that (nearly) all political sentiments on user pages should (usually) be discouraged. I'm not a hardliner about it, but I think that current policy is too lenient.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of I know it when I see it going on here, which just isn't a practical way to create a useful guideline on what is allowed and what is not. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think where the line should be drawn is neutral vs. positive vs. negative. If I say "I'm a Republican", that's a mere statement of fact, and I don't see why that wouldn't be acceptable in a userbox. If I say, "I support Sarah Palin in 2012", that's a positive. It's always good to be in a support group. If I say "I hate the Republican party", that's a negative. And if I say, "I don't mind the Democratic Party - in fact, I worship the quicksand they walk on", that might be considered funny, but it's still a negative and should be discouraging. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see where you're going, but I don't think it works. I mean, could a person say that they're against animal experimentation? There's really no "pro" side to some things. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favour of certain forms of animal experimentation. DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant that there's no positive way to express certain kinds of political opinions. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but at least you get a better picture of where an editor is "coming from". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just felt like saying "bushless poonanny" again. Carry on. -ALLST☆R echo 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For a relevant precedent, editors may be interested in the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a case about proselytizing for Nazism is really entirely relevant to a pun involving an ex-president and a shaven mons veneris. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
mons veneris - rolls off the tongue. Definitely better sounding than "bushless poonanny". I'll use it instead from now on! -ALLST☆R echo 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Related proposal

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Require link to usertalk page in signatures?. Any relevant feedback there would be appreciated. LadyofShalott 04:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding anti-American image on userpage

Hi Jimmy:

I was wondering if you had an opinion on a related issue. Christopher Mann McKay has this violently anti-American image on his userpage. I asked him to remove it, he did not reply, I then removed it, he replaced it (referring to it in his edit summary, incorrectly, as vandalism), but did not otherwise reply. I removed it once again, but as it has since been replaced, I’m leaving it up for now. As we are currently using this image to illustrate Anti-Americanism, and as the user in question indicates he has strong anti-American feelings “This user strongly dislikes U.S. foreign and domestic policy,” it seemed to me that it was grossly inappropriate to have on a user page. I understand if you don’t want to be the new go-to guy for userpage policy, but as there is a discussion here on this very topic, it seemed appropriate. Your thoughts appreciated. IronDuke 16:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, and PS, this user has something of a history with this: for example, "This user hates the USA with a passion! This user believes the world would be a better place if most Americans were murdered :)" (Bold added). Christopher Mann McKay's userpage. IronDuke 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping? This discussion is here. rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's stop right now with the implication that this is a forum at which one might 'shop'; it is not. I'm beginning to tire of this club being used to hammer people who simply ask me for an opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is the discussion on AN that is forum-shopping, as we are already deep in discussion of this issue here. And, respectfully, I value JW's opinion on this more than your own. IronDuke 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Why what? IronDuke 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you value JW's opinion more than Malleus's? DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
When did I say that? IronDuke 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, I made a mistake. Why do you value JW's opinion more than mine, or indeed everyone else's at AN, which is where I invited JW to contribute? DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, discussion of WebHamster's userpage started at AN, not here. The discussion of the allegedly anti-American userpage was at AN before you brought it here. I think forum-shopping is an acceptable description. DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not forum shopping to have a conversation with me. I'm not doing anything, not making rulings, not making policy, but rather simply facilitating and participating in a discussion. I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the question at hand (user page policy, broadly considered) and stop with the meta-debate about whether it is ok to have it here: it is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are simply participating in a discussion and not making rulings or policy then of course I have no objection at all to anyone asking you anything here, and trust that other editors will have regard to your statement. Still, I do think it would be nice to have the discussion in one place (it makes it easier to follow) - you are of course always welcome at AN, and I am sure that you would appreciate at least some of the contributions there. DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Then I suggest Jimbo that you make at least an effort to discourage these childish appeals to "authority". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You are not aware of the "Jimbo says" factor? Not when IronDuke, a few paragraphs above, baldly states he values your opinion over that of another editor, without needing to explain why? Not when you retain a right (no matter your vowing never to use it) to veto any ArbCom decision, to have final right of appeal and ban? I would urge you to more carefully consider your responses to requests for your opinion at this page, because no matter how you may view your participation in forming consensus you have to realise that you have a far greater influence than any one person (or group of people). You cannot be both "another senior contributor" and also founder/final arbiter of resolution - at least, certainly not in the same space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did explain why. I took it to the user's talk page, so as to avoid yet more clutter here. But I'll reproduce it here, to dispel any confusion.

I'm answering here, just so I don't clutter JW's page with stuff he doesn't need to read: You seem like a decent sort, and I hope you don't feel disrespected by my privileging JW's opinion over yours, but he's been here a long time, obviously, and has a long view of the project, and, I think, a better idea of things that will and will not bring it into disrepute and/or disrupt it. There are a lot of good faith editors who have a radical notion of what should be allowed here. I respect their opinions, yet disagree wholeheartedly. Cheers. IronDuke 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope that clarifies things. IronDuke 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to Jimbo: Well, we now see that IronDuke is unwilling to even say, "Yes," that removal of political images should apply irregardless of who they offend, so this is plainly a partisan effort. Note: this is not a personal attack, as it's simple truth. Jimmy, you can disregard this inquiry from IronDuke as some pretty bold-faced forum shopping for a political agenda. rootology (C)(T) 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. As I said on this page above, I think, I would love to see all political statements vanish from userpages, divisive or no. I just don't see the point. IronDuke 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dogs taking it for America, because they love the US of A

It would seem that, as used, the word "anti-American" is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it seems that way to most people. IronDuke 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I object, Will. Strongly. Dogs are always rabidly pro-American. rootology (C)(T) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Rabid dogs are pro-American? I think that's an anti-American thing to say! DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Mostly because those concepts are more British than American. But seriously. Everything is anti-American. Liberalism, conservatism, communism, capitalism, Hollywood, the Grand Canyon, the Midwest, et cetera. Even though this is syntactically anti-American, we should avoid it because it's such a cliché. Sceptre (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing "anti-American" with "un-American." Two very different things. IronDuke 17:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Inflammable means flammable? What a country! Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What then is "Anti-Americanism"? Please don't refer me to the article before, because it doesn't seem to know. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There can be multiple definitions like, say, racism. IronDuke 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What definition are you using here? DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather give a f'rinstance: "This user hates the USA with a passion! This user believes the world would be a better place if most Americans were murdered :)" (Bold added). Know where I found it? Christopher Mann McKay's userpage. IronDuke 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it the editor has removed that and replaced it with a non-inflammatory text, for which he is to be commended. DuncanHill (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Commended? You and I, I think, are coming from very different places. I expect we'll agree on that. IronDuke 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
He responded to concerns about the text by replacing it with one which was not inflammatory. Yes, he should be commended for that - responding positively to concerns and removing an extreme statement. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, after he was indef blocked for it! See here. I am not impressed by that, are you? IronDuke 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Still, he changed it, and that's better than not changing it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that saying Americans should be murdered is grossly polemic and unacceptable for user pages. But since that is not currently on a user-page, that I'm aware of, why are you bringing it up? -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
People seemed to wonder how it was that I could divine that CMM was anti-American. It really wasn't difficult, but the old caption really captured it well. IronDuke 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm just not sure it's relevant to the discussion. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If people wish to ignore this editor's previous call for the murder of the better part of 300 million people, they are free to do so. IronDuke 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if we had an anti-Chinese editor, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Just sayin'... Sceptre (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
True, that. Probably would have been insta-banned. IronDuke 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking bets on when Jimbo actually gets a chance to get a word in edgewise on his own talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't ignored. He was blocked for those comments. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Thoughts?

Hi Jimbo, you seem to be a very approachable gentleman, so I thought I'd drop in and ask a question. I haven't found much, in policy or guideline, on how we deal with deceased Wikipedians, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to share any thoughts you may have on the matter? As one of the original members, do you have any particular inclinations on how the subject should be handled? Thanks for your time, and use of your talk page. — Ched :  ?  17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dignity, respect, honor. The specifics would depend on the context, such as if they expressed any wishes, manner of death, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

—Preceding unsigned trout added by User:GandalftheWise(talkcontribs)

ummm ... not sure why? ... but ok. — Ched :  ?  19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
ummm ... thanks? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
ahhh .. hadn't thought that the trout may have been aimed at you instead of me ... lol ... oh well. Anyway, thanks for the reply, the only reason I asked is because we're trying to establish some procedures as far as protecting the user page, removing any extended user rights such as sysop, 'crat, etc. I didn't know if you had any preferences one way or the other. Appreciate your time. ;) — Ched :  ?  22:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on my essays

Hi, Jimbo! I want to ask you a question. I want to know exactly what your opinion is on my essays listed here. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please fix

Please help... the Rabbit page has been severely vandalized. It's reproduction, location and habitat, and behavior sections have been all but DELETED! I don't have the power to revert. Please, when you have time, revert this page to it's unvandalized form. Thanks so much, --Airplaneman (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The information was deleted because it was a copy violation of Encyclopedia Brittanica (according to the edit summary). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

i have been trying to improve Template:TL Route Operator but i have stuffed it up can jimbo or a admin/rollbacker .rollback to the last revesion by Cydebot thank you mattman (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC) or also give me temporary rollback privlages :) mattman (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done (reversion, not +rollback). Next time make a request like this at WP:AN. Thanks. -ALLST☆R echo 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You don't need +rollback to revert to an earlier version. Just see the diff, click edit above the older version's text and save the page. - (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ok thank you did not know that only realy geting in to template —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt037291 (talkcontribs) 09:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Userpage issues

Hi Jimbo. I realise you probably don't want to discuss this dispute any further, given that it's just taken up several days' worth of heated discussion on your user page - but I just read it, and wanted to add a comment. It seems to me that the root issue here is the freedom we give editors about what they can have on their user pages. There is a general attitude that except for blatantly offensive content (e.g. promotion of terrorism, Nazism, paedophilia, or shock site images), anything should be allowed on user pages: effectively, they are user's own 'back yards' to do with as they wish. I think this approach has not been helpful, as it focuses on what is forbidden to have on one's user page, rather than on what should be there. There are plenty of user pages around at the moment that don't break any explicit rules, but are not conducive to the spirit of building a collaborative encyclopaedia.

The problem goes back at least to the 'userbox wars', where the adopted solution was to allow basically any userbox, as long as it was in userspace (and, at the time, as long as it was not 'divisive and inflammatory' - even this has now been removed). The result is a large number of userboxes which needlessly provocative at best, and potentially offensive at worst, and continue to cause disputes to this day.

Personally, I think the solution is drastic but necessary: openly POV statements, about politics, religion or other divisive topics, should be strongly discouraged on user pages. That would be highly unpopular, but it would put an end to the otherwise endless arguments over 'offensive' user pages: no partisan statements would be allowed, of any kind. We need a major change in community expectations about user pages - so that people see each other as co-workers on an encyclopaedia, not POV warriors - and a firm rule like that would be the only way to achieve it.

(I realise, by the way, that you can't actually just make this happen: it would require community consensus, which at the moment is very much in favour of 'free speech' on user pages - that's the problem. But I just wanted to make my feelings known. Thanks for reading.) Robofish (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe such a change would damage the encyclopædia and devalue it in the eyes of its readers. Readers are entitled to examine possible biases of the authors of the text they read, and userpages which set out editors' political, social, educational etc backgrounds and beliefs are helpful to the reader in doing this. An editor who sets out his beliefs invites constructive criticism of the possible effects of those beliefs on his contributions - and this enables other editors to work with him more productively. I also believe that an over-restrictive userpage regime would demoralize and demotivate a significant number of effective and constructive editors, thus further damaging the encyclopædia. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Robofish, but I think that we should move this conversation somewhere else. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Griffinofwales that we should move this conversation somewhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with either of you about moving this conversation. Duncan, why do you continue to discourage people from coming here to talk to me? I'm not trying to be pointed, I'm seriously wondering. I don't understand it.
Robofish, I essentially agree with you, but I also think that Duncan has a point. In my view, a really great Wikipedian is one whose political and social beliefs are impossible to even guess at from the editing history. Anytime a person is about to click on 'save' a useful question to ask is 'is this edit neutral, or is it POV editing'. And if it is POV editing, stop and do something about it. I love the idea of an editor with strong sympathies for Israel or Palestine, editing articles in that area, but with such clarity, neutrality, and quality, that other editors cannot tell the direction of those sympathies. Such an editor would be toning down over-reaching claims of both sides, adding information that might reflect well or poorly on either side, etc. Such an editor cares more about the truth than about a particular political fight. That's glorious to see.
At the same time, some people are simply difficult polemicists who are here with an agenda. The best thing would be for them to leave the agenda at the door. But the next best thing, I suppose, is for them to at least be open about it and still make some effort at neutrality. I do think that my ideal type of editor should be strongly encouraged, and to that end, I think people really should avoid making political statements on their user pages. But I don't think an outright ban on these kinds of statements would be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
People coming here to talk to you is fine, people coming here instead of using the proper venues for discussing policies is quite another - and rarely does anything to reduce drama. Actually, I'll be blunt - your involvement in the trickier questions of editor behaviour or editorial policy usually increases drama and distracts many editors from more productive discussion. I am also concerned that some editors do seem to use "Jimbo says" as a way of trying to get their own way in disputes - which is hardly conducive to a community-based, collaborative mode of working.
As to the other point - we all have biases, and however hard we may strive to avoid introducing them into our contributions here they will intrude. We are all, I am glad to say, human, and as such subject to all the weaknesses and irrationalities that accompany that condition. Your "ideal editor" does not, cannot, exist. DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think a great many of these editors do exist and do a fine job. Look around. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind someone coming here to bring an issue to your attention. I just think that this isn't the best place to discuss policies. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, editors come here, ask him what he thinks, then ask how helpful it is for him to say what he thinks? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Who was that directed to? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Y'all, only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

←I don't see the problem with asking a user their opinion, as long as the asker realises that policy is not decided here, and WP:JIMBOSAYS is a poor argument in a policy discussion at the appropriate venue. pablohablo. 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Like anyone else, he may have helpful things to say on his own talk page from time to time. Y'all, please don't come here, ask him to speak up and then rag on him for doing it. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


I have sent you an e-mail via the "E-mail this user" option in the toolbox a few days ago. It doesn't look like you saw it so I am notifying you here. -- IRP 23:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What was the subject line? I can look for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is "Wikipedia e-mail (regarding User:JarlaxleArtemis)". -- IRP 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems that you missed my reply. -- IRP 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you send it again, because I am unable to find it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to, but I receive the error message "Mail object returned error: mailer error". -- IRP 04:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have unarchived this section because no help was given. -- IRP 20:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I'm not sure what to tell you. My email seems to be working fine, perhaps try again now? Otherwise, you could contact me on facebook?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to work for me. Please tell me your e-mail address using the {{NoSpam}} template so I can e-mail you directly. -- IRP 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wales (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Resent. -- IRP 22:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New project idea

Since you are after all a major part of the Wikimedia Foundation, I'd like to suggest a new project that you may wish to think about. I think there should be a project that gives people of the public information on diseases and medical-related things like drugs. I don't know if theres anything like this already in existance, though from what I know, there isn't. I'm terrible with names. The best I can think of is WikiMed. If such project was to be created, I think articles would include information on what the disease is, how it can be cured (if it can), and also how to find help if needed about it. Please let me know what you think of the idea. Even if you think its entirly pointless, I just wanted to point the idea out. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 13:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Such a proposal has been discussed in the past, and there was a mailing list for a while devoted to discussing the idea, but it died out. I can see a lot of value in something like this but there are complex legal questions, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks anyway. Feel free to sign my guestbook. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 17:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of another one. You do probably get suggestions to things all the time, so I hope I'm not annoying you in any way. Has anyone ever suggested a program with maps and links to the articles on Wikipedia? e.g. If I was to search Edinburgh Castle, the wiki would show me a map of the area, with related links to other wikis like the article of Edinburgh Castle on Wikipedia, and maybe a link to Wikimedia Commons with images of the place. It could be called WikiMap. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You could try MedpediaExternal link for the former idea. prashanthns (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And you could try WikiMapia for the latter… Or Google Earth, which already includes links to Wikipedia articles, come to that. – iridescent 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Google Maps actually has a feature with links to Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I still think the Wikimedia Foundation should have its own versions as all its other projects seem to be better than the other, like how Wikipedia beats all the other wikis including Lostpedia. If your reading Jimbo, I'd like your opinion about "Wikimaps". Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If WikiMaps is a no as well, what about a project that reviews books, T.V. shows and movies? Not such a good idea, though it still is one. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to improve the existing projects before creating new ones. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There's not really much more to do to most of them. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, we do have about 30,000 unreferenced BLPs right here at enwiki; imagine how much there is to do elsewhere! –Juliancolton | Talk 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
On English Wikipedia alone, 30360 articles (0.61%) are featured or good – the remaining 99.39% still need improvement, just to put things in perspective. – iridescent 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps meta:Proposals for new projects would be a better place to channel these thoughts? -- M2Ys4U (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda in Wiki

Naturally, interested parties seek to dominate topics; so many cabals exist in Wiki. Pharmaceutical companies edit drug topics to their interests, the beef industry (evidently) suppresses information about consumption of animal protein, doctors suppress information about the (lack of) benefits to stents and bypass, and religious (primary motivation) editors suppress information about potential harm from circumcision. I gave up trying to fix the above, but feel it's important you know ... Wiki is often propaganda. Donations suffer as a result! As a specific example, please review Circumcision:

Facts actively denied the reader include: 1. Circumcision frequently includes frenectomy (a range of 20% to 33% from three published surveys). 2. Sexual effects of frenectomy, and of different methods of circumcision; 3. Original religious circumcision procedure; 4. Complications from circumcision. Please see a partial list of relevant referenced facts actively removed and or denied the reader.[12] Discussion is a sham because pro-circ editors (usually admins) completely dominate the topic; they seem to discuss content, but it's cabal sham. Try to imagine sex without your frenulum ... then try to find information about frenectomy in the circumcision topic (don't bother, it's been removed or blocked).

FYI TipPt refers to a tipping point I think we'll see in diet … starting with education about diet ... to avoid white foods and animal protein, while eating LOTS of colorful fruits and veggies (the skins are usually the most nutritious part). We could solve the Medicare crisis!TipPt (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to baffled readers: see this discussion for the background to this. – iridescent 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The initial statement is so true though. Articles are protected and given biased slants by relevant cabals , naturally. I can only suggest moving to a more independant voting system . People from other locations should vote on topics unrelated to themselves.
There could be a randomly selected rolling voting panel . (Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
Your opinion might hold weight if you weren't directly involved in a tussle over you inserting your bias in some protected pages; a tussle which just led to a 72-hour block. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note the lack of discussion of content or reason in the block. I consider the block to be evidence of cabal, given the cast of characters and the ?? reasons for block. I'm guilty of wasting time and effort. Please judge for yourselves the associated text relevance and sources. Isn't that what Wiki is all about ... scholarly writing?

Again, what relevance do you find to frenectomy of the penis during circumcision? Think about it guys ... life without a frenulum ... 20%+ chance, but no mention in Circumcision. Circumcision may cause frenular chordee and require frenectomy, but that fact has been removed from the Topic. Frenectomy is not discussed at all!

Isn't propaganda in Wiki's Circumcision harmful to the reader? If it's harmful, shouldn't action be taken? Unfortunately, Wiki lacks the moral guidance of a neutral body that decides and freezes factual relevant content, and bans dishonest editors and admins from specific topics.

Does Mr. Wales have an opinion?

I neglected to identify a cabal member without apparent religious motivations. He blocks all mention of frenulum or frenectomy in Circumcision, but you might find it interesting that he co-authors [13] a very short (two pages with pictures) purportedly neutral pamphlet on circumcision that states "* The frenulum may or may not be removed by a circumcision." Jakew has a long history in Wiki: [14] [15]. His withdrawal from nomination was coincident with his support collapsing when his Web (trolling parenting and boys forums) activities were revealed. Finally, for evidence of his bias, please see Jakew's own pro-circ web site [16].

This guy is the primary editor in Circumcision!TipPt (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

TipPt, you have 2,038 edits and 556 are on circumcision or 27% of all your edits. Jakew has 9,930 edits with only 970 on circumcision, or 9.7%. I suggest that you move on to whatever occupies your 73% of your attention when not transfixed on the frenulum. Pulling up 4 year old med case proves nothing. I have no doubt Jimbo will be blanking this section out soon. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a horrible habit of hitting the save key before I've found all the errors ... I'm sure most of those are 5x the final text ... especially in Circ, where I tend to get frustrated. More significantly, I very rarely login, and use a different PC when I write in different subjects ... fearing retribution from the circumcision cabal. After the first case (of vandalism), I generally stopped being tracked away from circ. I very rarely find any disagreement to my writing away from Circ, and my content almost always sticks. Jakew rarely writes nowadays, haven written most of the original text (see his own statements). Mostly he reverts to his or Avi's content. What 4 year old med case?TipPt (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

this one, begun 10 November 2005 Darrenhusted (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Jakew is consistent, 4 years ago is irrelevant. Read the discussion and the results (or lack of) for evidence of bias in the topic. Gliding action information has been removed from Circumcision.TipPt (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's the correct link to Jakews nomination discussion and votes: [17].TipPt (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Streisand effect

It seems you guys have gone all lawyer happy [18]. For this reason, I will no longer contribute to your fundraisers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, for different reasons. I wish Google would hurry up with their encyclopedia.TipPt (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
They already have, it's here. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Work in progress beta, but thank you.TipPt (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

EFF's explanation is unfair and unhelpful: for Mike Godwin's explanation--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know he's reading the pages. I hope he sleeps on ... harm to the reader.TipPt (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Visit to Bergen

Hi, I just saw a photo of you when you had visited Bergen, Norway in 2006 [19] (I can't remember that you was here because I hadn't started to use Wikipedia yet..). Well, I just wondered if you think it was a nice city (or not) to visit :). -GabaG (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gorgeous. We went up on the mountain and saw the view. Sadly, I just missed Buekorps!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the buekorps are a proud tradition for us natives of Bergen (new residents in Bergen like students and such from other parts of Norway, mostly from the capital Oslo and so on tend to complain about the noise they make though. But don't listen to them :) ). Well, you are of course welcome to come and visit Bergen again and see it anytime! -GabaG (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You didn't miss the buekorps entirely. There were two boys form the buekorps who drummed us into that pizza restaurant in the evening. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I remember. One of them was Nina's son, I believe!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail resent

I have resent the e-mail. -- IRP 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you saw this post. -- IRP 20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I haven't gotten a reply yet. -- IRP 16:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that he's busy? Give up... Seraphim 17:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's something relating directly to Wikipedia, it's almost always the case that Jimbo isn't the right person to e-mail anyway. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw it come in; it's in the queue and should get a response in a day or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

All right -- IRP 18:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Famous people who edit around here

Apart from you, is there anyone famous who's a regular editor around here? Like editing in the present tense, not someone hasn't made an edit in the past few months or so. I know it seems like another pointless question to you, but I'm just curious. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Graham87 05:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No British peers listed here. Kittybrewster 09:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No Italian ones either! Giano (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I happen to know there are lots of famous people who edit here, who aren't on that list. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a use to this list. It reminds me of a skit on a beauty contest, I once saw. The grinning, bikini clad entrants are being interviewed: "I wanna help little children", I wanna help little animals", "I wanna save the planet" and then " I wanna get laid by someone famous" I suppose on that premise, I have answered my own question. Are you on the list Kittybrewster? It obviously has advantages. Giano (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not a British (or Italian) peer. Kittybrewster 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this your way of saying you want to get laid by someone on that list? Please tell me it's not Larry. – iridescent 13:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Perusing that short, No! I am just saying I can see the advantages of being on the list - the only adavantage (IMO). Giano (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If more Wikipedia editors looked like this or this we might have less trouble attracting people to Wikipedia Meetups. – iridescent 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If the WP Foundation pays my plane ticket I'll be happy to come to the next Meet ;-) Yintaɳ  15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the use is that it helps make people aware of possible COI issues. When you see an anon or new user editing a BLP adding lots of positive stuff you know to consider that the person adding them might be the subject, when you see an experienced user doing so you might not consider that possibility. That page itself says:
All editors should be careful of these users' edits for two reasons: One, they may edit their own articles, which raises the possibility of a conflict of interest and POV. Two, sweeping edits they make to their articles may be attempts to remove libel against them (something that missed WP:BLP). In any case, such edits should be gone over carefully and discussed with them before taking any action.
--Tango (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh that's good, I thought my theory could not be correct, but what about all the people with articles who do not declare themselves? Giano (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I've always thought they were the smarter ones. For all you know I'm this person and Giano is this person. But really--any of the unknown people here could well be a BLP subject happily editing their own BLP. If I was a BLP, depending on it's scale, I'd be mighty tempted to vanish and drop this account and start up later with one that could openly keep an eye on it. Who wouldn't? rootology (C)(T) 13:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are those people, as a taxpayer I say step away from the keyboard and get back to work! – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow. This must be a big worry at Napoleon. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking of the Ka of Catherine de Burgh (Lady)? Kittybrewster 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Monsieur Bonaparte's name has long been linked with this topic, both to be funny and otherwise.. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't be impertinent Kittybrewster, I'm old enough to be your great aunt, and probably am. As a matter of fact Ms Gale, I know Napoleon very well indeed, and you should know that it is not "Monsieur", but "Imperial Majesty." I think addressing majestic beings is more important on this page than any other. So please ensure these matters are correct in future. I'm sure Mr Wales, agrees with me, that editing from the "other side" is to be encouraged. Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I'd hardly lump Mr Wales into the same cat as mass murdering scammers like Monsieur Bonaparte :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It would indeed be most unfortunate for the poor cat... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Really? I thought Cat stuffed with Wales sounded pretty neat, my serving suggestion would be on a bed of roasted vine leaves...--Alf melmac 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I should have an article about me. But, modesty prevents me from allowing it. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there is no "Green Crayon" font available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
He he he. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I was famous in many of my past lives; therefore can I use my regressions while under hypnosis as a valid source for the relevent articles?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, that is original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What a pity. Think of all the future edit wars my hypnotic past-life regressions could prevent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey! No worries! Get them published by a reliable source, get that peer reviewed in a scholarly journal as a primary source accepted by a flock of noted historians and you're all set! What could be easier? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Faaaaaaaar out, that's what I'll do then. Thanks. PS, is Fate magazine stil around?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See Fate (magazine), dunno if I'd take it as a very steadfast source on general history, maybe it's at least as reliable as Harry V. Jaffa on Abraham Lincoln but then, that's not saying much. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
When I was growing up, Fate magazine was my Bible. I believed in everything it said; hmmm I guess that accounts for a lot of things..........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Harrassment/ Deleting User From Malaspina User Account

It has been brought to our attention at Vancouver Island University, formerly Malaspina University-College, Student Services Department that one of our students used our computer to edit list of terrorist incidents 2009 after a week of decay, and He then created an account and used it on his home computer and you have blocked him. You have violated Wikipedia rules as it states that editors cannot block an account if they are created at a different address as in this case. Not only that you have blocked the use of Vancouver Island University library staff and customers from using nearly one hundred computers. If you do not immediately unblock these accounts, and Toronto2010 that was created on our system, or we will take legal and criminal action against you and Wikipedia staff. <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaspina Ad (talkcontribs) 15:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This account has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NLT. Rodhullandemu 15:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For you review

Dear Mr. Wales, User:Mbisanz has suggested I bring the following to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pattern_of_problematic_adminship.3F. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's strength

Everyone has a reason of their own why everything under the sun here either is amazing or sucks, but 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak sums up for me the strength of what a Web 2.0 creature can be. 15,000+ news sources last time I looked on Google News, and 99% of the key bits in one place updated almost real time. rootology (C)(T) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And even a sub-article for the US. In the 21st century we expect our encyclopedias and information in real time but as long as wikipedia creates quality like this it will remain the best encyclopedia, which makes it worth volunteering for. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree! I already read it this morning and made a bookmark so that I can refer to it daily (or perhaps more often) to keep up with this breaking story.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
As I have said before, we do this for our children, and our children's children. Let the naysayers and decent crtics have their place, but let us also reflect that our positive work should not be deflected by unproductive criticism and hatred, and that we should feel proud of what has been acomplished so far - even if there is still much to do. Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming we're still here soon. >.> rootology (C)(T) 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah. It all depends... –Juliancolton | Talk 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Tsk, amateur. You left you off the obvious solution to global overpopulation. rootology (C)(T) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But what is Wikipedia's weakness? Stairs? --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Our various and numerous weaknesses are our opportunity to build strengths. Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is a strange similarity between wikipedia, some editors, and Daleks. For a real answer, sometimes overly fawning coverage of quackery and pseudoscience is my own bugbear. Verbal chat 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Daleks eh? -- M2Ys4U (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If only the Daleks article was the worst article in the project, then this might be funny :) Verbal chat 20:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't know about "our children, and our children's children", I edit to build a strong encyclopedia now. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Stair climbers. rootology (C)(T) 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Search for "Professor X had one weakness!" on YTMND if you want to see what my post was about. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeda's weakness: Damn good articles! Verbal chat 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell. Shit happens in the best of toilets. :)prashanthns (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely our weakness is in our factual errors, everyone says wikipedia contains fantastic information but treat any particular fact with a pinch of salt. Improving our mistake ratio is surely the best way to further strengthen the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Wikipedia is as reliable, or as unreliable, as Britannica, or any other print encyclopedia, because it's written by human beings. Indeed, I wouldn't trust anything I read without verification. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've changed my opinion above slightly. Verbal chat 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find this essay I found on the net of relevance[20]Shadowmorph (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the link. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to list Wikipedia's strengths, they are obvious. And it's pretty plain to see that generally its weaknesses are derivative of its strengths. One weakness that I might bring to attention that is not often discussed is one of the editor (or administrator) taking on the task of "protecting" Wikipedia from various people, forces or ideas he percieves to be unsuitable or undesirable. The moment an editor strays from contributor to self-styled sentinel and guardian, it's my opinion he begins to do the project nearly as much harm as he does good. JBarta (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia's principal strength is the contribution from editors of varying nationalities, ethnicities, occupations, political and cultural persuasions. As soon as an administrator decides to clamp down on an idea or person which he/she feels is not part of the Wikipedia status quo, Wikipedia's original concept of open editing fails.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About the Macedonia case and ethnic profiling of (possibly) Greek editors


Firstly congratulations on this great project, Wikipedia.

I would like to know if you have any opinion on the Macedonia articles situation, one of the longest standing Wikipedia debates. The relevant discussion I'm talking about is this arbitration. Of course I will wait for you to express that opinion without influencing the arbitration if that is not your wish.

The really important thing, I wanted to inform you that came up, is the danger of having or maintaining any kind of lists of Wikipedia editors (lists of Greek editors, list of editors that support nationalists, or whatever else) inside the wiki. I won't link to any specific list here of the ones that have emerged, there are detailed arguments on the above arbitration. I just wanted to say that such McCarthyist list-making practices should not be tolerated even if they are temporary or only for displaying obvious ad hominem arguments about specific subjects. Ethnic profiling should not be treated with indifference and all complaints that it has occurred by an administrator of Wikipedia should be listened to. Note that the previously good reputation of Wikipedia is being right now damaged inside Greece, one Greek blog going as far as to call it "the fascism of popularity".

In my opinion it is of outmost importance to keep the ethics and the principles in your user page. Cabal administrators that can move one move-protected article while still keeping it move-protected [21] should not be endorsed. Especially when they go against a 5-year old consensus. As a new editor I have been accused of many things, called stupid, intimidated, or even been included as part of a group, with speculations of my ethnicity, by established administrators of Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say that I didn't expect this welcome. Wikipedia is practically showing me the door, that's why I wrote to you personally.

Thank you very much

Shadowmorph (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: "I am a Macedonian (Greek)" just like "we are all Greeks"

Is it needed that Jimbo gets involved here? I truly don't see the point, what can 1 person say that has not been said before ? To quote Ixfd64: "This isn't just a Wikipedia dispute; it's an international one. Since this conflict has been around for over a century, I doubt the Wikipedia counterpart will be resolved very soon." —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

your userpage

hi jimbo do you have a problem if i use your userpage templates User talk:Matt037291 02:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just copy the code (this is valid for all templates). :) -- (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to sign my user page?

My Lord. Please sign my book of names with your glorious scribble. Yours ever, Marshall Williams2. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you wish Jimbo, feel free to sign mine two. :) Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine Influenza

Just want to ask, shouldn't we mention something about the swine influenza on the main page? And have an image of the countries affected by it too? I've got the image on my userpage, but since its a serious world-wide issue, I think it should be on the main page; just until its over. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Put your suggestion at Talk:Main page. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Or WT:ITN. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Jimbo, Since you are the last word as regards all disputes on wikipedia, I would be grateful if you could monitor the centrifugal force pages. There has been a dispute on those pages for over two years. The reason for the dispute has been that I have been trying to insert a perfectly legitimate perspective on that topic. That perspective is fully sourced, but unfortunately I didn't find the sources until recently. When I started trying to fix up that page in early 2008 I was doing so from memory of my old applied maths notes of 1979. There is a perspective on centrifugal force in which the centrifugal force is an outward inverse cube law force that is totally independent of the inward centripetal force. An equation which includes both the inward inverse square law force of gravity and the outward inverse cube law centrifugal force is used in modern textbooks (such as Goldstein's Classical mechanics) to solve the planetary orbital problem. It is a second order differential equation which solves to either a hyperbola, a parabola, or an ellipse. This perspective can be traced back to Leibniz in the 17th century. (the interesting thing about this perspective is that planetary orbital stability can be accounted for by the two different power laws. Hence the planets don't collapse into the Sun if they are disturbed from their orbits)----I have been trying to get this perspective recognized on the article but to no avail. At first, they tried to tell me that it was my own original research. Eventually I got blocked, and at one time I got blocked permanently. Administrator Antandrus realized that I was genuinely trying to help the article and he unblocked me after repeated requests by myself. But I made a pledge to Antandrus that I wouldn't engage in any more edit wars. I intend to keep to that pledge. However, I have recently uncovered some sources. Some of these sources are sterling quality. I made some edits yesterday using one such source but they were immediately erased by user dicklyon. Dicklyon insinuated that Leibniz didn't understand classical mecahnics and dicklyon also totally ignored Goldstein when making that statement. I would be most grateful if you could check the whole matter out. I do not intend to have an edit war. If you genuinely want to have a single and concise unified article on centrifugal force with a balanced treatment of all perspectives, then you need to do something about a certain group of editors who are continually deleting anything which I put on the centrifugal force pages.-------I look forward to hearing from you. David Tombe (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not qualified to say anything about the underlying content issue, and since I've not monitored the dispute, I'm not really in a position to say anything specific about it. However, from your description, what I would recommend is that you raise the issue on the talk page and that you asked for more eyes on the situation. Probably asking the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics will be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, Thanks for the reply and thanks for the suggestions. But my experience in the last two years has been that there is absolutely nobody who edits on that page who wants to openly acknowledge the existence of the Leibniz approach to centrifugal force. I'll walk away from the topic for a while, and I'll return again only if I see the involvement of somebody else who knows what they are talking about. It's hard to exactly pin down the reason why there is so much resistance to acknowledging the Leibniz approach. When I did physics at university, they taught us that centrifugal force doesn't exist. The lecturer drew a circle on the board and indicated how the centripetal force caused the circular path and how it is the only force acting. However, over in the applied maths department the next year, I was introduced to the Leibniz approach which showed how centrifugal force and gravity work together in tandem to yield elliptical, hyperbolic, and parabolic orbits, according to their relative magnitudes at a given radial distance. The next year, I did the course on rotating frames of reference in which the centrifugal force is a fictitious force that is only observed from rotating frames of reference.----When I saw the wiki article two years ago, I tried to introduce the Leibniz approach (I didn't know then that it actually was the Leibniz approach) to clear up all the confusion, as the existing article was totally confused. I encountered strenuous resistance from editors whose knowledge of the topic was generally limited to simple circular motion scenarios. This year, I finally reached the stage where the existence of the Leibniz approach has finally been acknowledged, but editor dicklyon is trying to mask it out by claiming that it is just the same as the rotating frames of reference approach. See how he removed it today from the disambiguation page. And it most certainly isn't the same as the rotating frames/fictitious approach. It would seem that when students learn the topic of centrifugal force from the rotating frames of reference perspective, that they dig into it, and they will forever refuse to acknowledge that any other approach exists. Once they've been taught that centrifugal force is fictitious, that's it. Neither sources nor rational argument will ever persuade them otherwise.David Tombe (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)