User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive B

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

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Note: If you've come here to complain about the sysops, or to tell me that I'm a tyrant, you'll likely find your purposes better served by a note to the wikien-l mailing list.

Please don't remove other people's messages from here, even if they are just being mean to me or complaining about something stupid. Yes, you're probably right that I don't need to see all that, but my concern is just that I might overlook something that ends up being important later.  :-)

I am a new user, I would like very much to help with the maintenence of WIkipedia. Please tell me how. Also, is it possible for a 'sign in user' to protect their user page? Please reply, either by my talk page or by emailing me. Thanks,--Wikipolice 06:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comrade Jimbo, I never once considered you a Tyrant, I just questioned your prerogative powers, that is all. Also somebody is bothering me on AOL Instant Messenger claiming to be you, however i know it's not you based on ISP tracing. Also with the Wikien-1 mailing list i don't understand how it works, however, if you need speak you know the address. Thank you Comrade Wales! Comrade Nick

How can you go to Europe without going to Greece, the intellectual and spiritual home of everything an encyclopaedia stands for? Adam 05:52, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, you're right, you're right. I regret very much all the things that I will not see on this trip, but time is limited. I wish that I could make it on this trip to Spain and France as well.
I'm working to try to secure a University position of some sort in Europe for the following year, either for a summer or for an academic year, because I think it would be great for me to make Europe my headquarters for an extended period of time, and then have time to really co-ordinate with a lot of people in a lot of countries. So, I have great hope for extended visits in 2005-2006. Jimbo Wales 13:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo I live and work in London. If you get a chance for much sightseeing, check out the London Eye, the queues are long but the wait is worth it, you get fantastic views. Buckingham palace is a con IMO not worth the entance fee but the tower of London is well worth a visit if you get the chance. Drop me a note if there's anything I can help you with.theresa knott 18:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is when are you coming to visit California? The Bay Area is much nicer than Europe... we have far more Krispy Kremes than they do. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:16, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
Not a killer selling point as Jimbo will be staying close to Harrods, which is helping Krispy Kremes give away their donuts by the box at the moment in preparation for their big UK (or is it Europe) expansion starting this, umm, June!
More seriously, as another liver-and-workerer-in-London, I also keen to make sure you come away with favourable impression of the city.. so again if you need a help with anything just fire away... one thing I strongly recommend is walking over Waterloo Bridge at sunset. The view still gives me a kick every time, as apparently it did The Kinks who immortalized it with the line "As long as I gaze on Waterloo sunset I am in Paradise". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Great Idea Dante!, but L.A. would be a little better town (i got people there) and i know Rick lives there (even though i know both him and Jimbo don't want to see me because they hate my guts, i want to see them!!!). Comrade Nick
You fantasize about your own importance when you imagine that I hate your guts. I actually have no particular opinion about you at all, except that you like to post lame comments on my talk page. Jimbo Wales 03:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, Mr. Wales I think of myself as the 'godking' of wikipedia, I told you im manic depressive, at times i think of myself highly, and at other times I hate myself (ask my friends if you ever met them, they all know im 'odd.' I post "lame comments," because I told you I am the 'gadfly' of wikipedia, I just question your abilties, that's all Mr.Wales. (also post any comments on my talk page, because nobody likes me :-( . Comrade Nick
Mr. Wales, I added you to My Heros List. Comrade Nick


About Japanese Wikipedia

Hello, I'm a Japanese Wikipedian K.M. In Japanese Wikipedia, many articles about Christianity are biased to major Christian Groups. When I tried to edit these, Japanese administrators protected these, and these keep major Christian groups' view. Particularly, ja:キリスト教の新宗教(mean: New religions of Christianity) and ja:新宗教(mean: New religions) insult minor Christian Groups. But I'm not a administrator, I can't edit. So, please erase these at all. K.M. 15:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not really qualified to comment on the content of Japanese articles, but of course I hope that the articles are not biased for or against anything. Can you translate for me just the bits that you find insulting in some fashion? And can you ask Japanese Wikipedians who can speak English to write to me here with opinions pro and con? There are several Japanese Wikipedians who I trust. Jimbo Wales 03:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi K.M. and Jimbo. I think both of you are content on my information. Tomos has already researched this issue in details, and some Wikipedians treat this matter and they are waiting K.M.'s reply in each points. I assume s/he is now only upset because of personally focusing on him/herself and expect things will go well, after s/he realize there is no threat in Japanese Wikipedia as if s/he is afraid. KIZU 04:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think this research is biased, because Tomos and KIZU are Catholic users. So, please reseach again by another users. K.M. 05:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
K.M., can you give me an example? Jimbo Wales 12:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Besides his testemony, and I don't know Tomos personally, but I claim here strongly I confess the Nicene Creed without filioque clause and I haven't been yet baptized, I am therefore never a Roman Cathoric faithful neither de facto nor de juri. KIZU 17:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I permit his/her untrue statement on my confession willingly even more seventy seven times, I however add I've written the above already twice in notepages of (*sigh*) KIZU 17:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kizu, I don't think that your own personal faith is an issue here. What I'm asking for is an example (translated to English) of what Kizu is complaining about. That is to say, is it really true that articles are being written in a biased manner? Each person's own personal faith need have nothing to do with that question. Jimbo Wales 20:47, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Me too. I just pointed out K.M. has ignored the facts different from his own view. In his/her world all weird guys are cathoric, I assume. Whether my articles are biased or not, I hope they are in NPOV. but I dare not say it is. Things are now solved on a BBS for administrative issues. I trust contributors and administrators of Japanese version, and believe we will be able to solve this issues. I think it were better for all of us that K.M. wrote to the BBS and explained why he violated Japanese Copyright Law and reverted both others' contribution and comment on notepages. But I have learned from experience K.M. won't be pursuaded nor cooled down. So I will say nothing on this issues further. Hoping at the next time we treat much more fertile issues, like a project WikiReader in German version. KIZU 22:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
New information. K.M. accused I had violated Japanese Copyright Law in Japanese version, but anyone didn't agreed with this claim. The conclusion of administrators are my contribute accused is totally legal. On the other hand we found about ten K.M.'s contributions violating copyright of Jehovah's Witnesses in Japanese version. That is our current situation. KIZU 06:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

KIZU, you also violated Japanese Copyright Law and reverted my contribution. Don't only say about mine. K.M. 12:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the beginning, ja:キリスト教系の新宗教(mean: New religions of Christianity-system) says this:

Christianity which started as reform in Judaism has constantly renewed their own prescription by conflict between orthodoxy and heretic. In Christianity as traditional religion, religion groups confessed Nicene Creed are called Christianity, and the groups which identify Christianity but depart from orthodoxy are called heritic, the groups out of Christianity are called pagan. Compared to this, in the science of religion, some scholars commonly admitted that Christianity in a broad sence, or the religions considered that Bible is the scripture and accepted Christ the only saviour, are Christianity. Some people sometimes say that religious communities which has the scriptures on upper position than Bible are called "Christianity-system" and "Christianity-derivation".

Particularly, this explanation is biased to major Christian Groups: In Christianity as traditional religion, religion groups confessed Nicene Creed are called Christianity, and the groups which identify Christianity but depart from orthodoxy are called heritic I think that Nicene Creed was created by Catholic Church at their discretion, and this is not based on Biblical Christianity. So, what do you think about this? K.M. 15:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo. I've nominated User:Danny for the mediation committee - please let us know if you object: Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 11:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the source of the image on Jim Bowie. Maximus Rex 21:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know you link to your website, but is it not worth a brief mention at the top of your user page of the fact that you are the founder of Wikipedia? Even if modesty deters you, it could still be helpful. Specifically, I was looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy, which refers to your special status regarding arbitration, and links to your page, but anyone not already in the know may be unaware why you have special status, and it's a shame to have to follow an external link in order to find out.

--Trainspotter 11:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A very good idea. It is done. Jimbo Wales 16:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Jimbo, I talked to Michael, he told me he would stop vandalizing wiki if he were given some sort of chance, now i'm not to sure personally weather he could be change, but than again I used to be a vandal to but than again I genuinely reformed. I'll keep you posted on my negotiations, thank you Comrade Nick

Michael, and you, are welcome to email me to discuss these and related matters. Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I try to convince him--Comrade Nick 02:26, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for intervention

User:Eloquence threatened to come to my house and "straighten me out". I am afraid for my safety and would like your intervention. He also called me "everyone's favorite crybaby" and banned me from the IRC channel. Thank you in advance, Perl 00:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The line on IRC in question was "We should have wikicops in every major world region which we can send to people's houses to straighten them out", and obviously a joke. (Alexander AKA Perl has been trolling on Meta and other places recently.)-Eloquence* 00:44, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I would imagine that Perl is going to get himself banned soon. Jimbo Wales 01:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It would be hard to take this comment for something other than a clear, if implied threat of bodily harm. It should be taken as seriously as any other threats that have been posted on Wikipedia, and should cause immediate banning of the user under all variations. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 09:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have created a page for this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eloquence. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 17:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's very hard to take someone seriously with a name like JRR Trollkien. Additionally, on the face of it, it is abundantly clear that Erik's throwaway line was just a joke. Please don't waste people's time with frivolous complaints like this, it's just embarassing to watch. Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what the actual law is like but AFAIK a threat is considered to be a threat if a reasonable person feels that they are in danger. Perl clearly felt that way. Eloquence also has blanked two attempts at discussion from his own User talk page -- JRR Trollkien (see warning) 16:11, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No reasonable person could feel in danger from a remark like that. Give me a break. And I don't blame him for refusing to discuss it, it's preposterous. Jimbo Wales 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Bowie picture source

I've added possible source information to Image:Jimbowie.jpeg, having happened upon your question about getting details for a reporter who wanted to use it. The web site for Culver Pictures has a phone number for them and the reporter could call there to determine the exact status. Jamesday 03:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia's State Of Affairs

Jimmy, your website is a veritable madhouse! There are civil wars between cliques and mavericks. There are cloning sites that take the info un-updated. Google extends great coverage of all the craziness. Lord Kenneð 17:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's delightful, isn't it.  :-) Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, people are gossipping at other sites! While that's really sad, it is still funny to see people get so overworked about it. Perhaps most people care about Pedia for their own sakes, regardless if they declare faith in the project's other contributors and visitors or not. A great reminder is to take things with a grain of salt! Although the site's programming is high tech compared to some other app.s, perhaps a disclaimer should be placed that implies: 'Everything here is not fully objective truth, but subject to interpretation. Wikipedia is not the only source of ideas, therefore, please feel free to contribute!' or something along those lines... Lord Kenneð 11:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Revert discussion

Once again you haven't replied in five days. That's not a problem per se, but you can't expect me to maintain the reversion ceasefire if you draw out the discussion indefinitely like that. Therefore, from now on, whenever you suspend the discussion for more than 24 hours, I will likewise suspend the ceasefire. --Wik 21:02, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Relax, I was on vacation. Additionally, notice that the website hasn't gone to rack and ruin just because you layed off on reverts. This is probably something that ought to influence your decision as to when reverting is appropriate, eh? Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Of course the entire website wasn't going to rack and ruin, but the POV'd articles were piling up. --Wik 16:31, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place? Is it private or public? I'd like to read it, if it's available for the public to read. anthony (see warning) 22:31, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Wik/Jimbo discussion. Martin 22:36, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Message from Gem

Sorry to annoy, but could you please look at what is going on on fr: ? Or have some french reading people, not usually working on fr:, do that ?

I think a lot of them are are doing real mad things, despite some efforts of a few reasonnable admins and others. Now, they want to exclude someone simply because he disagrees with too much people (not a vandal so far, but that may change : actually they already succeeded in turning someone into a vandal by harrassment). They have vast majority, and that is not enough for them : they impose retroactivity, change rule just before the vote, and contest the right to vote to newbies (even though that change nothing at all for the result). I and a few others tried to convince them to stop that, to no avail : they do not even care to answers to important argument. I think and wrote that they should not, and in the middle of this important vote one of them who has this power blocked me without warning, discussion nor anything because "to accuse people to have a stalinian behaviour in not tolerable"(translated from french); which prove my point, IMHO : at the first mention, they do not protest or answer, they simply ban the very possibility to express that by blocking access.

We really need some reason and help. Here are a few references (all in french, of course) of the trouble It already has gone to far and turns to pure madness, so I reacted quite abruptly but politely, telling facts as I saw them, which is by it self already vandalism worth exclusion according to those people. According to med, to contest the right of vote is intimidation and in the middle of the action I got excluded, so I saw no other solution but to call on you.

Gem fr 13:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) (simply gem on fr:)

P.S. you won't be surprised to learn that my contributions to this special subject, are being largely edited, suppressed, and even inverted (with the affect of changing the meaning of what I wrote to the very opposite). Of course the page of protestation has just has being proposed for deletion (so you should act quickly if you want to understand anything) ; I would be happy to have it deleted, but because the trouble is solved, not because the trouble must not be seen. Gem fr 14:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

anthere: I am not neutral really (since I am listed in the stalinists), but I would like to make a couple of comments which I hope will be seen as neutral.

I think a lot of them are are doing real mad things, despite some efforts of a few reasonnable admins and others. Now, they want to exclude someone simply because he disagrees with too much people (not a vandal so far, but that may change : actually they already succeeded in turning someone into a vandal by harrassment).

the reference for the one who turned vandal by harassement is a reference to w:fr:Utilisateur:papotages, banned last fall.
the one we are "trying to exclude" is w:fr:Utilisateur:Stuart Little. There is a vote going on Jimbo, you know this. Should be over in a couple of days; Currently, it appears the decision most likely to be retained is one asking Stuart to voluntarily limit his edition, for one month
  • no edition of any meta pages
  • in the user space, edition of his page and his talk page only
  • in the article space, edition on article on discussion page is allowed, but no creation and edition of discussion sub pages and no creation of secondary version of an article.
Currently 18 votes approved this choice while 3 opposed.
all true ; Anthere did not tell all the truth, but here certainly was as neutral (s)he could gem

They have vast majority, and that is not enough for them : they impose retroactivity, change rule just before the vote, and contest the right to vote to newbies (even though that change nothing at all for the result).

We oppose validity of vote by two users, who registered after the vote began, and who really look like sock puppets.
they do not look like sock puppets ; they only are newbies as registred users, which is quite different (a real sock puppet can be quite old), and vote against the majority on some points (this seems the only real cause of distrust by anthere and others), but once again without changing anything (so what would be the purpose of sock puppetting ?). I already pointed out that according to med "to contest the right to vote is intimidation". Gem fr 10:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I and a few others tried to convince them to stop that, to no avail : they do not even care to answers to important argument. I think and wrote that they should not, and in the middle of this important vote one of them who has this power blocked me without warning, discussion nor anything because "to accuse people to have a stalinian behaviour in not tolerable"(translated from french); which prove my point, IMHO at the first mention, they do not protest or answer, they simply ban the very possibility to express that by blocking access.

Med blocked Gem for one hour, for having insulted 18 people, in claiming they were having a stalinist behavior and doing a stalinist putsch (or a coup), and for setting up a sanction page against these people. These 18 people are those supporting the sanction most likely to be decided upon, against Stuart.
SweetLittleFluffyThing 23:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry if it is insult for them ; it was not devised as such, I appology. I only wanted to protest against a bad behaviour and ask for appropriate measure that I wouldn't call sanctions (such as blocking, exclusion, restriction to writing etc.): I only promote that they'll be asked to refrain from voting when it comes to decide about people (both sanctions and responsability), a thing that IMHO should be done by everyone on fr:, where disagrement about things (articles) too easily turn into personal fight. My list of people is not exactly the list of supporters to sanction against Stuart Little, and moreover I couldn't make it more accurate because of Med blocking. Gem fr 10:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Some sysops strongly disagreed the fact to block someone for a short time for an insult beyond the Godwin point. If you want to remove my sysop status, you can do. I am also blocked for 24 hours on the french wiki. Med
Relax Med. The problem is not so much what you did yesterday (because Gem was bordering vandalism anyway, so no one will criticize the blocking, except Stuart perhaps), but the fact you decided alone that from now on you would block any user using faschist, stalinist or nazi insults, first offense and no warning. That is not good, because not everyone (far from that) agree with this, and that could lead to degradation of sysop image (unilateral use of power, censorship, interpretation of what insult is...). Now, I understand that you are really upset by the current situation, so do I, but please, think it over, and let's find a solution together, okay ? I suggest we do not hurry...:-)
Incidently, who blocked you ? Is it self punishment ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it is self-blocking. I'll see if i come to IRC this evening. All this really makes me sick. Med
Growing pains, it will be a difficult time for you all. All I can really advise is caution, care, wisdom, and most of all love. Sometimes people do have to be asked to depart the community, and from what I have seen, this is the best option in the Stuart Little case. I support the idea of a vote on the matter, and I also support the establishment of formal procedures within the French community to make such decisions more easily in the future. Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think a vote about Stuart Little is mostly useless now. I have read a message a few hours ago in which he meant more or less clearly that he leaves. About the vote procedure, from now it is far from being perfect. The main problem is that some contributors (mostly the one who agreed with Stuart Little) want to have all rules written. In my humble opinion it not a good direction to explore. If everyone had some good will, it wouldn't be a problem. But i fear some people will « exploit the law » to turn everything to their advantage, because the law wouldn't be complete/precise enough. I hope i am completely wrong. I don't know how they deal with such problems on other wikis. But the last few months were clearly the worst. Even with Papotages, it was much easier :-) Med
I didn't want to involve you on a single person question (if Stuart Little must or not be "asked" to refrain or even to leave). I (and others) pulled the alarm on fr: (according to the rules we have) because it is simply impossible to speak of a valid vote when the rule for voting are changed during the vote, that pressure is exerced upon voters (by explicitly threathning "bad" voters of exclusion), etc., and I called upon you because I was blocked, meaning it was impossible to disagree without being ipso facto accused of vandalism and threatened of exclusion (I expected a backlashed, but not so strong, and I feel sorry for these people). We is difficult time on fr: already, not only for the future. I simply hope that your intervention has been heard, and now I'll discuss things with anthere, med, et alii on fr: since I'm no longer blocked. gem_fr
Gem, I am not sure putting the vote on the vote for deletion page is the best way to discuss things. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Newsweek interview

For your reference, here's an Ogg Vorbis rip of your Newsweek interview.--Eloquence* 00:34, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Comment from User:Wikipolice

You said my username is inappropriate. I don't know what a wannabe is, nor do I particularly like your attitude. However, please tell me how to change it. Also, reply to the actual content of the message please. --Wikipolice 16:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you want to change username, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hindi page

Hi, this is Hemanshu. Regarding your message on my talk page on Hindi Wikipedia, are u sure u want to fax the page to me to India? maybe u could get someone else knowing Hindi over there to read it for you?... or get it scanned and email?

On a different issue, in the last Wikimedia press release, there were some Wikimedia contacts in different countries but none in India :) How does one become a Wikimedia representative in a particular country? --Hemanshu 20:30, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that you are in India. I guess I could try to scan the pages, and send you an image of them, that might work sensibly well. I don't know why I thought to use such antiquated technology as FAX anyway!
I don't know what the formal or informal process is to get listed as a contact on a press release. Those things more or less happen by themselves, I'm afraid I have very little to do with it as a practical matter. I think that anyone who is well-known and not controversial can volunteer for it, and that's pretty much it. Jimbo Wales 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


User:Enforcer seems to be agitating for people to make legal threats against Wikipedia. Enforcer's writing style is curiously reminiscent of some other recent trolls and their sock-puppets. -- Eppd 12:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I would welcome legal action from this user, because he would have to finally reveal his true identity so that we could use legal means to ban him from the site once and for all, and additionally I would be able to avail myself of legal means to combat his libel of me and of the Wikimedia Foundation. For that reason, I think it's very unlikely that we'll see him do anything.
The thing is, I do think that we probably should try to get registered in all the states (and countries) where doing such a thing is possible and desirable, simply because I think we should pursue the highest possible standards of legal compliance, transparency, and so on. Alex (our pro bono attorney) and I had discussed a project to start doing this over time, but we have not discussed it in a long time, but I will talk to him again, and possibly we'll bring this off the back burner.
My understanding is that it isn't strictly speaking necessary, since people *come to us* on the web, we are legally and physically located in Florida so if what we are doing meets the legal definition of a 'solicitation', the solicitation is in Florida, not any other state. Even so, though, my additional understanding is that the law is vague in this area, and anything is theoretically *possible* as to what some state attorney might want to pursue, so to the extent to which is it is economically feasible, we might as well go ahead and register everywhere.
There is a service for doing this, it costs $11,000. I do not think it is a wise use of donor money to spend such a huge portion of it on such a project. We can do it ourselves for much lower, but it is time-consuming, tedious, and most likely not important anyway. Still, if it can avoid any concerns on the part of anyone, I am in favor of doing it the cheap way. Jimbo Wales 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

How do i change a username

How do I change myname from wikipolice? --Wikipolice 12:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


(moved from User:Jimmy Wales, a note from Special:Contributions/ - Fennec 03:14, May 4, 2004 (UTC))

Dear Jimmy Wales,

I must say you and others did a tremendous job in making this site interesting to read in an easy and organised fashion. I am very impressed with this sight, it helps me to learn more about the famous Canadians. My daughter even uses this site to gather information and have a better understanding of famous Canadians. Great job, Keep up the great work.


I would like to tell you that Eloquence handled the situation very well. I apologised and he apologised (although I was probably the one who most needed to apologise). Thank you for responding to my note. (I am sorry that I immaturely (and greatly) overexagerated the situation, but I appreciate your help nonetheless.) Thank you once again, Perl 14:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You know what? I'm glad to hear it. I think a good deal more highly of you now. Even so, please stay relaxed and calm.  :-) Everything is good. Jimbo Wales 21:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you quitting Wikipedia??

I read something from the IRC which said you were quitting wikipedia on June 30, because you devoted to much time to project. Is that true jimbo?? If so I will miss you!!! :'( (please respond on my talk page because im a little lazy to come here, thanks) --Plato 08:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not quitting Wikipedia. Indeed, with each passing day I discover that I'm devoting more and more time to it. I already spend more than 40 hours a week on it. Jimbo Wales 14:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I misread the IRC channel talk, I'm glad to see you're no quitting :0)--Comrade Nick 04:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Also Jimbo, you might be glad to learn, I stopped supporting Michael, becuase he made threating comments on mine and several of my friend's LJ's (Also I added you to my hero's page).--Comrade Nick 07:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but what I don't understand is why your user page still has all that 'red faction' nonsense about Wikipedia being a "brutal" oligarchy. Also on that page you align yourself with people like JRR Trollkien and -- even worse -- Enforcer. And then you name '24' an honorary member.
Issues of wikipedia governance are important, and are indeed too important to be treated in the manner that that cast of characters treat them, which is as a game of juvenile vandalism and trolling. The great irony of the "red faction" agenda is that the actions of those users directly contribute to make it extremely hard for us to remain not an oligarchy. Their disruptive and juvenile behavior is actually pushing Wikipedians to push for faster banning procedures. Of course, I don't actually believe that the stated agenda is the true agenda -- there is no true agenda other than for them to work out some asshole behavioral tendencies that have no bearing on governance issues at all.
So, if you support Wikipedia, and think of me favorably in any way, then I urge you to drop support for those kinds of tactics. Come in "from the cold", join the mailing list, and start a discussion about problems you see with governance, and ways that you think things could be improved. That's the way mature responsible activist adults should approach such things. Jimbo Wales 13:13, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, you're right maybe my behavior was a little childish, but i suffer from Manic Depression, and sometimes i forget to take my medicine. I allow anyone to be a member of Red Faction, why even you could be a member! If someone asks to join i let them: ie Trollken added himself, and the Enfourcer kept e-mailing me begging to join so i let him join. Maybe adding 24 to the list was childish of me so i will remove him from the list...ok thank you for time jimbo. (I don't understand how to work the IRC, thus i cannot join) --Comrade Nick 11:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I'll try to be better Ok?--Plato 04:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


What is Wikitech-1 and how can I join it?--Wikipolice 16:48, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

It's one of the Wikipedia:Mailing lists for discussing development issues. See [1] for information on joining it. Angela. 21:14, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Aria Giovanni

Is Image:AriaGiovanni.jpg the one which used to be at, uploaded by you and released under the GFDL by Bomis? It's been mentioned as a possible copyright infringement and the upload date makes it seem unlikely that it's really the GFDL image which used to be associated with the Aria Giovanni article. Jamesday 13:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not recognize that photo, and it is almost certainly a copyright violation which should be removed. The GFDL photo of Aria Giovanni, taken before she was famous, would show her with my yellow Ferrari 308. Jimbo Wales 20:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


This may not be the best place to discuss but why is Wikia not being updated? Most wanted is that when I list all topics starting with A for example, it should list not more than 100 at a time. --Hemanshu 20:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is being updated, but not as often as I would like. I'm trying to get it to a certain point before my Europe trip, including posting the source code and so on. As you have guessed, it isn't something that I'm pushing in the wiki world yet, although I do have some links to it up and it isn't exactly top secret.  :-)

Your wish is my command, though, and I'll move that to the top of the list.  :-) Jimbo Wales 22:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello --Jimbo The troll Slayer 05:20, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


By the way, once you mentionned you might go through France during your trip. Looking at your schedule, I see that mention nowhere. Is that cancelled then ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 14:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, we had to pare down our ambitious travel schedule a bit. We received much good advice about travelling with a small child that we should not be on the road constantly, but should try to stay in the same places for longer. However, I am trying to arrange some sort of University position in Europe next summer so that I can spend more time in all the European countries meeting people. Jimbo Wales 15:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Mailing list

I joined mailing list jimbo! --Comrade Nick 10:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Queen Picture

There is no rights on this picture, I took it myself. What do they want to use it for? Here is a higher rez version:


Yes, you can tell them it is GNU FDL. That sounds good to me. I'm just happy to know it's being used for something. user:J.J.

Media sample

Hey Jimbo if you have the time, I think it'd be cool if you could give a sound sample of the pronunciation of the word Wikipedia ala Linus to use as our Media:Example.ogg. This link is used as a sanple media link from the edit toolbar. We already have a Image:Example.jpg. Thanks Dori | Talk 15:13, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I can fake a Finnish accent, ha ha. I'll have to do this at home because I don't have a microphone here. Jimbo Wales 18:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


Bonjour, je m'apelle Waniek et je suis medecin et professeur. Je travaille et je voyage beaucoup. Je voudrais remercier tout le monde pour la gentillesse d'avoir publie et discute mes travaux sur Wikipedia. Je voudrais te remercier personnellement Jim. Aussi je serai a Londres avec mes collaborateurs, et notamment mon ami et webmai^tre Dr Daniel Jipa, pour te rencontrer, Jim, si possible, ou un de tes associes en personne. Je souhaite a tout le monde beaucoup de succes dans ce projet magnifique.

Dr Dan Waniek

Why are you writing in French on an English language wikipedia? You can speak pefectly good English. theresa knott 17:40, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, anyhow, the sentiment was very kind as well, and I am excited to meet everyone in London. (If I read this right, you are saying, Dan, that you will be in London when I am there?) Jimbo Wales 19:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Quick translation. It is not very precise and correct. But I hope it will help. "Hello. I Am Waniek and a Doctor and a proffesor. I work and travel a lot. I would like to thank everybody for kindly publishing and discussing my works on Wikipedia. I would like to personaly thank Jim. I will be in London with my fellow workers, including my friend and webmaster Dr Daniel to Jipa, to personaly meet you, Jim, if it is possible or one of your associates. I wish a lot of succes to all people for this wonderful project."--Youssef 20:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Wik is vandalizing everyone's user page! Please help.


As you can see here at the bottom of the page:

That Wik, despite being banned for a week, is STILL reverting pages and vandalizing user pages. RickK and many others are starting to get upset at this matter. Please help us out at this. Wik seems to have many IP addresses and is using them all for wrong-doing. All the best, Quagga

Regarding the matter of Wik

Regarding the matter of Wik, I support that his user pages (including talk) be dealt with in whatever manner Wik prefers of blanking, preservation, protection, or open editing. We should all comport ourselves with the utmost dignity and respect, for Wik and for each other.

As it appears right now, 172 has protected the page, and I think that's perfectly fine. There is no dignity in anyone using his edit page to gloat over what has happened -- instead we should all be doing some soul searching as to what we could have done better, so that this could had a better outcome all around.

Banning a user is never good, but at the same time, I feel that it's extremely important that we all stand for procedure, for principles, and so the decision of the arbitration committee should be enforced vigorously. RickK, please don't think no one cares -- we do.

At the same time, you can put me down on the list of people who hopes that Wik will consider a return to the project, lending his considerable talents to the mailing list discussion of policy, because I think he may have many things worth hearing on that subject. It is useless for me to ask how Wik failed us -- it is useless for any of us but Wik to ask that question -- all we can ask is how we failed him.

Wik should be remembered as a difficult user, but one with a good motive, and a good heart. We need to acknowledge that it is, in part, our failure to deal with problem users in a timely manner that caused Wik to feel the need to proceed as he did.

The only behavior that any of us can control, really, is our own. Proceed with love, find the best in everyone you can, and remember that whatever difficulties you may have had with Wik, there are many much more difficult users who are still trolling Wikipedia with relative impunity.

I counsel peace to all. Let's drop it, let it go, and move on. There's a lot of good work in the world to do, and room for all of us to do it. Jimbo Wales 01:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Both Quagga and Hephaestos are vandalizing my user space. I demand you do something serious against it, otherwise I have to raise the matter in Recent Changes and other prominent places. I just want to leave knowing my user space isn't vandalized. It is the least I can expect. Wik
I see that you're here. Please deal with this matter urgently. Email me if necessary. My patience here is seriously running out. Wik
It looks like your User page and User talk page are both protected, what more can be done? Am I overlooking something? Jimbo Wales 11:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Quagga keeps creating subpages, like User talk:Wik/Talk. It always takes me hours of raising hell until a sysop finally deletes it. But Quagga will just recreate it. He has had plenty of warning, he's a pure vandal. He needs to be banned. I do not accept having my userspace vandalized every single day. Wik
Quagga is Cantus. Danny 11:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Wik you are not in a position to accept or not accept what happens in your userspace. You are under a week long ban by the AC. My advice would be don't bother even logging in for a week, take a break, chill out, do something else for a while. A week is not a long time at all. When you come back, after having obeyed the ban, kick up a fuss then. If you really really cannot take this advice and feel you have to check to see if someone is saying something nasty on your talk page (or a subpage created to evade the protection) then email an admin (you can email me at work between ~8am - 4pm UTC)and ask for help. Do not vandalise the villiage pump or any other page. It's childish, and wins you no freinds. But like i said before staying away for a week instead of rising to the bait is by far the best option. theresa knott 12:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh shut up, accusing me of vandalism when I'm the victim of vandalism. The week is irrelevant. I want to leave permanently. But I want to be sure that my userspace is not vandalized, without me having to check every day. -wik
You don't need to check everyday. I've put your user page on my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on it. theresa knott 14:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
People are not entitled to vandalize my userspace even while I'm banned, and if no one does anything against it, of course I have to use sockpuppets.
Why should I email you? -wik
So that you don't have to use sockpuppets.theresa knott 14:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
You were aware of everything and did not ban the vandal anyway. Should I email you every day whenever Quagga recreates the page, so that you delete it, over and over? -wik
Yes, that's exactly what you should do. theresa knott 14:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly what I don't have to do, i.e. having to watch the site every day.

No Jimbo, this is not good enough. Quagga was aware of your previous words (on this page, above) and consciously ignored them. It is not likely further words will change his behaviour. Just how long exactly is this supposed to go on before you intend to do something? If you don't ban him right away, I want at the very least an ironclad assurance that he will be immediately and permanently banned if he does it just once again. I'm trying to leave now for 5 days and still have to endure this crap. Wik


Jimbo, please could you give some more details about the filming at the London meetup. It's only fair that the people attending are aware of this. I was quite shocked to hear about it via a rumour from the German Wikipedia and to find that no one on the English Wikipedia knew anything about it. Angela. 13:41, May 26, 2004 (UTC)


Jimbo, very sorry if I mischaracterized your position; I could have sworn that I remembered something like that, but shouldn't have spoken for you. Apologies. Yours, Meelar 13:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Quick update--I'm apparently not the only one who shares this misconception; see this post by Ed Poor, who wrote "> Is Sterling making a mockery of Jimbo's promise not to have ads in Wikipedia?". I'll try to track down the original post now. Meelar 14:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, there is another meaning of free, as in free from annoyances which is what ads would be. As far as NPOV what I was referring to is that with targeted ads (or even in coincidence), you might be reading an article about Linux, and then you see a big ad for Microsoft products and how bad Linux is. On the other hand, you're not likely to see an ad on a Microsoft article for Linux (or other open source products). In my opinion this would slant the article even if the ads are clearly marked. The advertisers would thus get a clear say on articles by paying for it. Dori | Talk 15:00, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wik and Quagga

Quagga has already clearly stated who he is, he is not a sock puppet but a former user who has changed his name. He is also completely justified in whatever he does, considering what Wik did to his Talk and User pages without justification. Maybe if Wik would abide by the rules and stop posting when he's banned, and maybe if he would quit vandalizing people's User and Talk pages, then they would leave him alone. He had no reason to be vandalizing Quagga's user and talk pages and, although Quagga could probably just leave it alone, it's perfectly understandable why he would be upset with Wik. My personal opinion is that, if Wik won't go away, his block should be re-started at 7 days until he stops posting AND, ESPECIALLY, stops vandalizing. I'll tell you one thing, if he does come back again after his 7-day block, don't expect me to be Mr. nice guy any more. I'll be on him from the second I know he's back. And if you want to block me, then go ahead, but after his attacks on MY Talk page with nobody telling him to knock it off, I've had enough. RickK 19:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

All right, after my last comment Quagga has kept doing it, for a total of 15 times as of this writing. Do you have any number at which you will recognize this as a bannable vandal?

I'm seriously throwing down the gauntlet now: either you effectively protect my userspace (which clearly now necessarily entails banning Quagga) or this site will not come to rest. I have an endless supply of proxies (and ISPs if necessary). You know that I have never used such things in article disputes. But this now is a matter of personal honour, and I will never relent on this in the slightest. It is one thing that, after spending ten months doing more useful edits than anyone else, I was effectively banned in a grotesque arbitration ruling, but that I should now, adding insult to injury, have to accept my own user space being vandalized with impunity, is a monstrous injustice that I simply WILL NOT ACCEPT.

I should note that what you do is also illegal. I made 20,000 contributions under the GFDL, which explicitly "preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work". By allowing my edits, via my username, to be associated with vandalism that must give the impression of being created or endorsed by me when it actually isn't, you are literally dis-crediting my edits. So if you refuse to ban Quagga, I can tell you exactly what the only alternative is: you take each of the 15,000 or so articles that I ever edited, revert it to the last revision before my first edit, and then irreversibly delete my revision and, necessarily, all subsequent ones that are based on mine. Then you can indeed expunge my entire userspace and pretend I was never there. But if you want to keep my edits, they must be properly credited. A username is just a placeholder, meaningless in itself unless it is tied to a userspace that is under the control of the respective user, where the user can establish his identity according to his wishes. Wik

By refusing to even talk about this, you prove that you don't have the last shred of decency. The war is now on, and you can't win it. But if you want to talk, I'm ready at any time, just email me. Wik
I am not refusing to talk -- I was in the colocation facility all day installing new servers. Everyone should just relax. Can you give me some urls so that I can see what the hell everyone is so upset about? Jimbo Wales 02:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
See the deletion log, just search for "Wik/". You don't see it in his contributions after it's deleted. And if you undelete the oldest of those and check the dates, you'll see that he started it and I merely reacted, contrary to RickK's upside-down account. I see you have given him a final warning now, and I expect that it is indeed the last warning and if he does it once again, he will not get away with a silly one-day ban but with a permanent one. The same of course must go for anyone who messes with my user space at any time in the future, whether it's a known user or an unknown user or IP (as those could be safely assumed to be sockpuppets of any of the usual suspects). Wik

I honsetly have NO CLUE what Wik thinks Quagga has done to him or is doing to him. RickK 03:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

None at all? I mean, do you think that whatever Quagga is doing shouldn't upset Wik, or is it more that (like me) you don't even have the least clue as to what Wik is talking about. I've tried checking User contributions, page histories, everything, but I can't find anything. Jimbo Wales 03:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't even have the least clue as to what Wik is talking about. I am at a total loss. RickK 03:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

So why is Wik trying to pounce on Quagga? Rickyrab 03:57, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo these are the pages wik is talking about • User:Wik/Talk/WikUser:Wik/tempUser_talk:User_talk:WikUser_talk:Wik/TalkUser_talk:Wik/Talk/Wik

It certainly true that some users have created these pages in order to provoke wik. (Which is why various admins have been deleting them). I believe deleting the pages in question to be the appropriate way the deal with this kind of things. Wik's argument above is silly. Anyone checking an edit by wik will end up on wiks user page. From there they can get to his talk page but since both his user page and his talk page are protected (and should remain so permenantly, or until wik is allowed back) no one will ever link a subpage to them. So no one will ever get to see the subpages in question, especially since admins keep deleteing them. Plus I do not believe that Wik "owns" all pages in the user:Wik namespace in the way he seems to be implying. And finally i for one will not allow wik to threaten, or force his will upon us. Wik has been banned by the AC for one week, he cannot make demands until that week has passed.(and the week resets everytime he tries to evade the ban, everyone agrees on this). theresa knott 08:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it may have started here - Which was a continuation of an edit dispute Wik (?) was already in over his talk page. For those who can't see that link, Quagga's first contribution to that page was:
05:55, 25 May 2004 . . Quagga (WELCOME TO WIK'S TALK PAGE. HAVE A NICE DAY!)
Reconstructing the other side is also difficult, due to many page moves and deletions. Some of the history of Quagga's user page is at left there by a page move (User talk:Quagga - fixed). There is an edit by, but it's difficult to know if this is the first communication from this side of the argument:
03:25, 26 May 2004 . . (I suggest you read user talk:Jimbo Wales and get my user space in order and keep it so, or you get no peace here)
The problem is that if a page is moved, then moved back and the redirect deleted it is very difficult to see that has happened and to reconstruct the history of the article (especially as part of the record may be left behind with the page moves.) The first deletion mentioning Quagga is on the 26th.
As I see it, Quagga has been trolling, Wik has been overreacting. I also wonder how much of the "Wik" side of this has actually be impersonations, how can we know? WHBT. WHL. HAND. -- sannse (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, Sannse, but if we're going to have a complex argument about "who started it". Quoting deletion log:
02:59, 24 May 2004 RickK deleted "User talk:RickK" (content was: '#REDIRECT User_talk:RickK_vandal')
I believe that the so-called "war" started around this time, presumably in response to this edit by RickK to user talk:Wik:
02:24, 24 May 2004 . . RickK (Reverted edits by to last version by Bcorr)
RickK was of course reverting edits by a banned user, which you've supported above, which I agree with. The vandalism has continued pretty much unabated since then. Note that this nonsense was initiated by user:(Wik), who is a known and admitted account run by Wik. (he did various page move vandalisms with that account, for example). So yes, Sannse, I would say that we do know that this isn't impersonation.
Like Theresa above, I don't believe it is appropriate to cave in to threats of vandalism. Doing so only encourages people to see threatening vandalism as a viable negotiating tactic and to copy it. Personally, I believe that Wik's user and user talk page should be unprotected, as they are for all our departed users, and the relevant subpages undeleted - offering these concessions to Wik has clearly achieved nothing. At such time as Wik stops messing us around, we can reprotect and re-delete as appropriate. Martin 09:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
[Edit: suggestion retracted - see Jimbo' points below Martin 11:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)]
I don't think it matters who started it. We need to finish it. I don't think unprotecting Wik's user page, talk page etc are a good idea at the moment. I see Martin's point but the truth is certain users are trying to bait Wik, and i don't think they should be allowed to do that. Having said that, the most important thing, is to revert and block over and over again until he gives up. He can't win, there are just too many of us. theresa knott 09:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, we don't need a complex "who started it". I just didn't like the way Quagga was being portrayed as an innocent bystander dragged in by the evil Wik. I believe Quagga was trolling. But Wik was overreacting to reasonable edits before that. Both are a problem IMO -- sannse (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't view leaving Wik's page as he likes them as caving in to threats of vandalism, because I supported doing so even before Wik started with his bluster. We haven't protected the pages of other departed users, but then, none of them has ever asked me that we should protect the page. It's really a matter of dignity -- I wanted Wik to be able to walk away with his head held high, and it seemed tasteless to me when I saw a few edits on his user pages that appeared to me to be gloating over a situation that I think we should view with sadness.
So, I certainly support at least for the short term to protect the pages and delete subpages that are created there. As to whether or not it soothes Wik, well, that's his problem. We'll do the right thing for him, and he can choose to recognize it or not. We're doing it for ourselves, for our own sense of dignity, not for him, if you see what I mean.
And I support that the people who are repeatedly creating these pages just to annoy Wik (and indirectly, the rest of us, I mean look at all the good people who have wasted time writing about this: Theresa, Martin, Sannse, me, etc.) should STOP. I zero exactly zero point to it. Wik's gone, the pages that I've seen don't say anything worth saying, it's just a nuisance.
And finally, I'm personally done with Wik. I really appreciate it when people say that Wik is still under a 1 week ban, with the clock reset every time he tries to evade it, because saying that shows great respect for our procedures and processes. And you all know I'm big on procedures and processes. But, basically, I think Wik now should be banned for a very long time, because this little feud, and his threats and bluster about it, his use of proxies and sock puppets and threat to "war"... it's beyond the pale.
In the matter of reversion wars and things of that nature, I had some sympathy for Wik. He was often just trying to do the right thing against people who really are trolls. Much of that subject could be characterized as a difference of opinion about the bounds of good manners in editing, etc. I thought Wik was wrong, and that he did in fact cross the line a few times. But I had some hope for positive change. But now, this is just OUT THERE, and as for me, I'm personally done with him.
Jimbo Wales 09:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, Everyone,

Wik at this point has said that he will continue his vandalism until Quagga is "permanently banned". See my talk page for Wik's words. Because Quagga has made several non-vandalism edits, banning Quagga would not be within policy. Also, since Quagga is a sock, banning would be a symbolic move unlikely to address the underlying problem.

I believe that there is a good chance that Wik will continue his vandalism even if we ban Quagga. Therefore, I don't recommend banning Quagga. Instead, best that we just weather the storm, and contemplate technical and policy changes to tilt the field in our favor.

UninvitedCompany 12:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Reading your talk page I should maybe say something positive. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to contribute to a project like this. Waerth 20:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet! I'm going to clear all things up right now.

First off, I am not Cantus, and I will never be Cantus. I have been a user at Wikipedia (not under this name) for a lot longer than him. The reason why I made the talk page is so people could (you guessed it) talk to Wik. How can you talk with Wik if his talk page is protected from editing? Lastly, Wik is completely overreacting. What I have done to his "user space" has no comparison with what he did with mine. He moved my page about 15 times to other pages, such as "Quagga needs to be banned", "Quagga vandal", etc. Also, did I delete everything on the Village Pump page? Did I move the Vandalism in progress to two different places? Did I put in big bold letters my complaints in the Recent Changes page? NO! I did not! You need to keep these things in mind before you think of "permanently banning me". --Quagga

Quagga, I reject that entire line of thought. It doesn't matter what Wik did to you, you must just let it go. There's just no reason to keep worrying about it. He's banned, and he's decided to leave. So, let him go. Move on with your life. Don't worry about what he did, that's his problem, not yours. Just relax.
If you keep it up, you will be banned, really. Why? What would the point of that be? Because you had to keep fighting with an already banned user? I don't understand the point of that at all. Jimbo Wales 02:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Look, All that I'm trying to say is that I don't like being accused of being a HUGE vandal. I consider having an edit war with Wik vandalism, but I do not consider making his talk page accessible to others vandalism. I am WELL AWARE that if I continue to edit Wik's "user space" I will be banned. You've only told me that one thousand times.

Another thing, why Wik, do you want me banned forever? What did I do to you? --Quagga

New Font

While I find Wikipædia to be one of the most incredible things I've discovered, there's just one problem: the new font that's been chosen. I don't know who changed it, all I'm doing is trying to contact someone who may be able to help. My problem: sans fonts like the one that's currently being employed on Wikipædia are, as a matter of scientific fact, a strain to read in large quantity. I hope you can help.-- 06:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, try the MediaWiki 1.3 Comments page. Since this is live now, I expect we'll get a lot of comments. I hvae no opinion about the font but the overall layout I think is fantastic. Jimbo Wales 08:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Why not create an account? Then you will be able to edit your own "user style sheet" to use exactly the fonts you wish. That will tide you over until more sensible default values are chosen. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Interview in Telepolis

To everybody who is interested: At you can find an interview in english with Jimmy Wales. -- StephanDoerner 14:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here in London

Wednesday evening, our plane from Florida to Tampa was delayed, and we missed our connecting flight. Instead of flying overnight arriving Thursday morning, we flew Thursday morning arriving late last night. But now we are here.

With no luggage, but we are here.

At the hotel there is this Internet terminal, but web only. I will be visiting an Internet cafe soon, but in the meantime this is a good place for people who are trying to meet up with me to contact me.

Jimbo Wales 08:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to London. I hope you and your family have a great time here. Spookily, I have to pick my new passport from the UK Passport Office, which is about one minute's walk from your hotel!, this lunchtime/afternoon - so if you need any local assistance, feel free to ask. There is easyeverything internet cafe also nearby (see [2]). Pcb21| Pete 09:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, that internet cafe is probably web only too thinking about it. Pcb21| Pete 10:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

04:31, 4 Jun 2004 Guanaco deleted "User:Wik/Talk/Wik" (content was: '.') 
04:32, 4 Jun 2004 Guanaco deleted "User talk:User talk:Wik" (content was: '.') 
04:31, 4 Jun 2004 Guanaco deleted "User talk:Wik/Talk/Wik" (content was: '.') 
04:31, 4 Jun 2004 Guanaco deleted "User:Wik/temp" (content was: '.') 

There, Quagga has done it again. I expect you to keep your word now and ban him without delay, and make clear that any sockpuppets of his are likewise to be banned by any sysop as they appear. Wik

According to the page history,these pages were created by This user's contributions seem to show that he/she is not Quagga, but a troll that intends to make both Wik and Quagga angry and upset. It seems to be working. Guanaco 05:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The contributions show precisely that this is Quagga (previously known as Dagestan). Wik

  • I have been attempting to add a brief note to the Saddam Hussein page that it may be seen as extremely inappropriate to refer to him as "Saddam".
    • As a result Guanaco has banned me unfairly, over an edit war in which he was involved. He then proceeded to remove my vote from Requests for Adminship. He must be desysopped. He did all these things without warning, attempting to talk to me, or explanation -- I have clearly not met the threshold of "pure vandalism" and should not have been treated in this manner.
    • It is questionable that I violated the three reverts rule, as he claims -- a warning would be more appropriate, prior to banning me. Certainly Guanaco should not have been the one to determine whehter I was in violation, since he was involved in the edit war.
    • I am not a sockpuppet account, and it is unreasonable that my vote be removed.

Hello from London

I've just read your yesterday message. See you today aftenoon. --Arno Lagrange  08:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


It's come to my attention that the website is an EXACT copy of Wikipedia. Is that supposed to be so? Please reply ASAP, as I'm intrigued.--Wikipolice 14:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of sites that use wikipedia content pretty much as their sole source of input. Provided that they acknowledge this, this is acceptable. Arno 10:00, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here in Berlin

We just arrived in Berlin, but we are not at our hotel yet. We are at an Internet cafe at the end of the train line (East) and we have instructions to the hotel.  :-) Jimbo Wales 14:57, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now we are checked in safely. Not sure yet about checking email properly. Jimbo Wales 19:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

German meetings

O.k., so where can I find photos of all the events? I poked around on de.wikipedia, but did not find anything. Jimbo Wales 19:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seems like the Germans are a bit slow to upload them :-) However at de:Wikipedia:Wikipedia-Wochenende in Berlin you now find two photos, both featuring you. andy 12:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You created an account in the German Wikipedia (de:Benutzer:Jimbo_Wales), isn't it? Nice to have you there. -- CdaMVvWgS 11:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

about the meeting in munic it was nice to have you there. [3]Elvis 19:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


From the village pump:

It's no rumor, Danny has explicitly said on IRC that the results won't be published. There were many many complaints, but apparently the desire for openness is being overruled by a desire not to hurt people's feelings. (this is from today, 14 June).

I guess this is a very serious matter for two main reasons:

  • Voters have a minimum expectation of seeing the results of their votes, otherwise they must trust the organizers of the elections absolutely (and this is quite untransparent).
  • Is Wikipedia not about facts? And are we going to hide the results of the first elections? This looks very much like a lot of nasty obscure dark unreliable stuff... (Notice I am saying look like not is, I do not doubt the honesty/fairness, I am complaining about a misdeed).

This is very bad news to Wikipedia as a democratic organization and to Wikipedia as a transparent organism. Also to Wikipedia as an information deliverer (we hide the basic information about ourselves...). Think in 200 years' time: web page "", "The History of Wikipedia":

The project started quite well until they started hiding info about themselves (the first instance being the very first elections to the wikimedia board of trustees, when they decided not to publish the results out of "respect for people's feelings"...

Just a scenario but a very dark one for my taste. History is full of hiding "not to hurt people's feelings" (or for any other charitable reason) and this has always proved wrong in the long run.

I think this is pretty melodramatic, isn´t it? This is such a minor issue one way or the other. In any event there has not been and will not be any decree from me on the subject, because I trust others to make the best decision here, and because I don´t think it is all that important. The slippery slope argument does not strike me as particularly compelling.
It is unfortunate that we did not say one way or the other before the election started as to what would be done about the results, but hinting at dark conspiracy is a bit overblown I think.

You see I am again angry but somehow I think I get angry at the right things... :) Pfortuny 19:53, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please, see the foundation mailing list for partial results. SweetLittleFluffyThing

OK, I'll go there, but I still think they ought to be made public asap. Thanks Anthere for answering. Pfortuny 06:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The mailing list is public. --mav 07:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it is public. I also think they ought to be published in the wikipedia namespace and linked from the main page. This is the clearest I can state it. Pfortuny 07:07, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, try not to be angry. For the next election, I would recommend that you make a big push that all of the results will be made public in the end. I would support that, and I think everyone would support that. So making a huge angry deal out of the current situation, which is not important, is likely counterproductive. Jimbo Wales 15:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I somehow assumed that is implicit in any democratic election. Of course it may not be so.
In any case I never hinted at a dark conspiracy. I just quoted a quote from the village pump.
Sometimes it is good to get too melodramatic in order to guess what the worst outcome of a decision can be. Of course I was exaggerating, but it is usually good to exaggerate bad outcomes when governing. Pfortuny 19:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

über zaza volk werden kürdische faschistische infos verbreitet.Zazas volk wird in diser infos verleugnent und zu den kurden gezählt. turken und kurden können kein zazaisch und wir sind kein kurde oder turke,

ich protestiere die die solchen faschisten unterstützen um ein volk zu vernichten. sie haben infos über zazas "Wegen wiederholtem Vandalismus ist dieser Artikel geschützt. Änderungswünsche bitte auf die Diskussionsseite stellen, einer der Administratoren kümmert sich dann um den Einbau."verschlossen .Nun steht kurdische faschistische infos über Zaza Volk.



All mails send you appear to be rebouncing. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Meeting in Genova

Hi Jimbo, despite the few people attending the presentation of wikipedia, we got an article on the web site of "La Repubblica" (linked on their home page!). "La Repubblica" is the second best selling newspaper in Italy. This caused a flood of newcomers this evening, if just 10% of them will become regulars, our forecast of 20.000 articles by the end of the year will be easily surpassed. Have a nice vacation and a good trip back home.

Snowdog 22:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

hello, there is pending mail for you. The number we need is a DUNS number. SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meeting in Paris



These are two pictures I took in the restaurant :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Hello, Jimbo. A little souvenir of Paris here (not serious). Roby 10:52, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

This an official complaint.

This an official complaint.

At first glance, the Wiki concept looked very sympathetic. However, the reality, in French Wikipedia, is far from nice, owing to the mobbing mores in power, there.

I would have preferred to have this matter treated with the administrators or fr.wikipedia; Infortunatelly, I have not found any mean to join any of them.

I wish to have my contributions quickly eradicated from, owing to the mobbing mores of this pack. Threats, insults, insinuations, campain of calumnies... They have used so with me, they will do it again against anybody who is not completely at their taste, who is not completely submissive.

I demand to have my paper fr:Produit extérieur, and its images destroyed from the site. Though they pretend a quite another story, it is a matter of morality : I regret deeply to have contributed in anything to such violent, insulting, and rogue pack.

By the way, a human audit should not be unnecessary... Otherwise the same causes will produce the same effects, again.

Very regretfully,

Jacques Lavau 19:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jacques, I know nothing of the issue, I do not know you. So, I think I should be able to look at this request fairly if necessary. Jimbo does not speak french, and usually does not interfere with local policies. So there is little chance that he solves your issue. If you agree, I will look at the problem. Just ask. SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Meeting notes

Hi Jimbo, I'm not sure if your email is back up yet, so I thought I should let you know I sent you a draft of the notes for last week's meeting. If you didn't get it, please let me know. I intend to publish them on the mailing list and the wiki this weekend if you have no objection to them. Angela. 11:39, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I will let you know before the end of tomorrow. I have a ton of old email that I need to sift through. I probably did get it. Jimbo Wales 17:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Test Wikipedia

The test wikipedia, advertised with the sandbox introductory script does not work. You try clicking here and you'll see what I mean. I haven't logged in, but I am User:Wikipolice

Khalid bin Mahfouz

I hope a lot of people will take a look at this: Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz

Sheikh Mahfouz is complaining about our article, and it does seem that it needs some updating. Apparently many major news sources were also taken in by the same errors. I would like to make a proper correction ASAP so that I can contact his lawyer to let them know that all is well. Jimbo Wales 17:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


m:Hardware provisional budget ant


Listen to me brother I think you are loser man, you ban all the fucking time, you know fuck you and fucking god damn thing.

Problems on French Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo,

I'm R from (French) Wikipédia. I have serious qualms concerning the governance of fr.wikipedia. As it stands now, there are no rules enforcing constraints on sysop actions, only guidelines, the violations of which aren't deemed worthy of any form of punishment.

The current problem revolves around Stuart Little who is deemed a problematic user though he produced numerous quality and NPoV articles on religion. Yesterday morning, he was involved in an argument with sysop Ellisllk on fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro and a revert war with the same on his talk page. Ellisllk then "warned" Stuart Little to yield lest he got blocked. Stuart Little didn't yield. Ellisllk blocked him. The block was cancelled by Anthere shortly thereafter. Second round, a few hours later : same cycle. The difference is that this time Anthere decided, on your behalf, a 10-days ban against Stuart Little, while a case for banning him is opened.

Considering that

  • a user is free to decide what goes on his user or talk page (unless overruled by the community as a whole)
  • threats of blocking issued by a sysop aren't acceptable
  • blocking a user on these grounds isn't acceptable

I decided to open a page to discuss the case. I then received a warning stating that opening such a page without grounds may be cause for a case of Limitation of editing rights.

I now get the feeling that the french Wikipédia is ruled by a small group of sysops who don't tolerate any criticism (whether Stuart Little's likening Wikipédia to a theocracy or a cult, or my milder calls to respect the basic principles stating that sysops may not use their powers to enforce a point against fellow users save in cases of vandalism). This is not what I hoped Wikipedia would be and I feel that it isn't part of your vision, the vision which brought all of us here, either.

Please find some way to review this and form your own opinion. I don't think the french community is able to sort it out by itself. _R_ 17:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

a good idea from the French Bistro

La mitraillette à blocage

Bonjour, j'ai suivi d'assez loin, je le confesse, la polémique sur Stuart Little et la demande de sanction contre Ellisllk et tout le toutim. Mes informations m'ont été principalement transmises de vive voix par R, ce qui veut peut-être dire que mon point de vue est biaisé.

Néanmoins, j'ai eu une idée de génie qui à mon humble avis permettrait de nourrir cette grandiose entreprise de partage du savoir qu'est Wikipedia : je propose que soient votées deux nouvelles règles.

La première permettrait à tout administrateur de bloquer sans préavis tout utilisateur qui lui déplairait.

La deuxième supposerait un accord préalable d'au moins deux administrateurs avant que tout utilisateur n'édite un article.

De cette manière, les utilisateurs de Wikipedia pourraient en toute tranquillité consulter un contenu réduit mais sûr et réfléchiraient à deux fois avant d'émettre un avis critique à l'égard des administrateurs (ce qui revient à leur manquer de respect après tout ce qu'ils ont fait pour Wikipedia) dans une page de discussion. Il serait de toute manière possible aux administrateurs qui le souhaitent de se faire un petit plaisir de temps à autre en lançant un sondage contre un des utilisateurs ou de prétendre qu'il injurie ses interlocuteurs parce qu'il dit qu'il n'est pas d'accord.

Bon ben, c'est pas tout ça mais j'ai un rôti sur le feu, moi, je disais juste ça en passant parce que j'aime que règnent l'ordre et le respect dû aux aînés.

Jeannine M. 11 jul 2004 à 00:17 (CEST)

That's the better idea I red to give a solution to the French wikipedia sysop's crisis.

Many people (sysop or not) think Stuart Little act frequently as a troll. In my point of view there were effectively some regrettable sysop's abuses with *this user* (i.e. non authorized blocking) but I really think it is a special case which are not representative of the whole work sysop are doing. I think the problem is conflicts with this user continue since many months and many people (especially long time users) are weary about it. It is impossible (imho) to create rules to prevent all fallacious actions so sometime we *need* to take some arbitrary decisions. I think we really need to create a trusted "Arbitration Committee" to be able to treat this kind of problem. Aoineko 03:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you Aoin, but I think R comments go further than this. Perhaps you did not realise, but R was also unilaterally blocked a few days ago. R tried to raise an issue (far too boldly), and was then blocked unilateraly. After which, he tried to open a discussion (with the only mean currently available a sanction page) about this unilateral blocking; after which he was in effect requested to remove his request for sysop abuse. When you read the demand issued to him, it honestly sounds like a threat.
You are correct that some sysops are getting very weary. Still, I do not think it should be an excuse to be tough on other users. It also seems to me that the current trend is to accuse user raising concern of being sock puppets of Stuart Little.
Action against R was indeed arbitrary, he was not issued apologies, instead, he was demanded to remove his own request for arbitrary sysop blocking. Stuart behavior might explain this, but it is certainly not an argument to go on doing so. And right now, this is what is happening. Sysops can basically do whatever they want. ant

BINGO! The Frenchie took the words right out of my mouth! How IRONIC that this was right above my posting all along. I did not even see it before I submitting my earlier (lower) posting, but it describes what I feel is now going on at the ENGLISH Wiki site to a tee. I support EVERYTHING she says: a certain clique of moderators at the English version uses their powers in an even MORE domineering, hostile, and aggressive manner than she describes of those at the French version. They employ similar tactics, but seem to be far more widespread and deeply-rooted in their corruption. It's more a GAME at the English site, too. The more "policing" people do, the more likely they are to get voted on and approved by their fellow bad cops for privileges, higher positions, etc. There's adamant proof of all of it. Whenever I attempted to point it out, I'd be instantly banned by the corrupt fascists! The French chicks terms "theocracy" and "cult" fit the bill perfectly. This site IS on the fast track to becoming authoritarianism. It's gone from the ideals of MARXIST Cmmunism to CASTRO'S Communism within a few short years. I agree with the Frenchie WHOLEHEARTEDLY! SOMETHING must be done! ANY of my efforts to tell Guanaco and his pals that ALL their "reasons" for banning me were illegitimate were ignored and subsequently removed themselves. My efforts to revert my work were similarly dubbed "vandalism", when the fact of the matter is that they did not want my honest, TRUTHFUL expose on their corrupt politics to see the light of day. To date, any of my attempts to revert ANY of my "talk" comments are automatically RE-reverted and deemed "trolling" or "attacking" or "vandalism"! Let's see RikRok and co TRY to "revert" THIS without permission! Or would they risk offending their "God"?! 02:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course the most amusing thing about this rant, for me, is the notion that this site ever had the ideals of "MARXIST Cmmunism" (sic) in the first place. Very amusing. Jimbo Wales 00:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will be talking to several people this week in order to determine how I might help out, if indeed I can make myself helpful at all. Jimbo Wales 21:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Michael request for unbanning

Dear, Jimbo Wales. I want to be unbanned ASAP, I don't wanna be banned anymore. Mike

I think maybe this should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. (Michael can request arbitration per our banning policy since he was banned over a year ago. 05:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC))If Michael wants to be unbanned, we could allow him back on the guarantee that he will not continue the behavior that originally caused him to be banned. We could require him to refrain from personal attacks, threats, and vandalism and make only factual edits. He could also be required to edit while logged in and use only one account, allowing his edits to be more easily tracked. Violating these conditions would bring about another (temporary) ban, possibly as the result of an AC vote.
LifetimeBans, including that of Michael, are a bad solution. Guanaco 03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This request was posted by [4], an address that can be associated with the anonymous problem user dubbed "Mr. Treason". It is, however, part of an AOL proxy block, so this is not conclusive. Interesting though. -- Cyrius| 04:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If Michael wants to show that he'll stop the behavior that caused him to be banned, stopping the behavior that caused him to be banned might be a good start. Snowspinner 05:26, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree I would like to see a 3 month period of micheal not vandalising Wikipedia before we consider unbanning him.theresa knott 18:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You can email me, Michael, and we will chat about it. Jimbo Wales 19:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, as a hard-banned user, policy is not to let Michael post anything to Wikipedia. Should this request have been deleted as per policy, or left here as per your request at the top of the page? RickK 23:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think that requests to me that someone be unbanned are a very special sort of exception. Even banned users have the right to appeal to be reinstated, and I want to always keep open the possibility of some line of communication. In this particular case, of course, Michael did not email me, and honestly given his track record, I don't see any reason to expect that he will. But if he does, then I will hear him out and -- as with Lir a long time ago -- I will stick my neck out and lay my credibility on the line for him if I am convinced that he's ready to join the community. Maybe Michael has finally grown up. Jimbo Wales 00:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I'm going to e-mail you as soon as I can, okay. So please unban me now, I don't want my edits to be reverted or my articles deleted by Guanaco', Hephaestos, Maximus Rex or RickK. But Guanaco, is the one who reverts my edits from now on that's who has to stop, I keep reminding him to stop and he's not doing it, you better not let all the user revert any of my edits or delete my articles. Come on you gotta help me, I want to be unbanned forever. Thank you and my e-mail address is Mike
Michael, you need to email me and we need to have a very long talk before you'll be unbanned. For now, Guanaco, Hephaestos, Maximus Rex, RickK, and everyone else actually, is supposed to revert your edits. You can leave comments for me here, we can chat here, but that's it. This ban comes directly from me, and you have to understand that I fully and completely support the sysops in this matter.
We need to address your behavior on the Wikipedia going way back in time, and I need some assurance that you're going to change your ways. When you issue threats like "you better not let..." to me, I don't think you've really decided to change. But, my email inbox is open to you, and we can discuss it there, in private, and you can express all of your frustration without worrying about others piling on you. Just tell me what the issue is, and let's see if we can find a way forward that will be helpful to you and to everyone else. Jimbo Wales 21:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand you mean. But...
  • First, I just want to be an unbanned user forever until Wikipedia is out of business to stop getting my edits from Guanaco and Hephaestos, he's the only one that is not trying to stop reverting my edits and deleting my articles lately.
  • Second, I want to be allowed to edit and create some articles again so I can help the administrators on something.
  • Last, I want to be treated like an unbanned user and be an administrators like everyone else and not create any impostor users that the users think that it's me. Goodbye. - Mike

...the anonymous problem user dubbed "Mr. Treason". This person engaged in such nasty personal attacks and vandalism that several memebers of the normally slow-moving arbitration committee said that he should be banned immediately. I have a personal interest in this because he has made numerous lawsuit threats against me, and a threat of a more personal nature: "Ban me again, and risk losing more than just money!" [5] -- Cyrius| 02:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How delightful. Where do these people get the time? Jimbo Wales 21:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hawking Wikipedia

It appears that Steven Hawking is about to pay off a bet about black holes and information...a bet of a copy of an encyclopedia (see here.) Sure would be interesting to have Hawking hand over a CD of Wikipedia to Preskill....Think you could persuade him to do it? - Nunh-huh 05:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not Hawking's choice. At the end of the article, it says that Preskill gets to choose. Noisy 07:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Then Preskill would be the one to talk to<g>. - Nunh-huh

Guanaco request not to stop reverting Michael's edits and disputing his articles

Why is Guanaco reverting my edits and now disputing my articles, is he supposed to stop or no? - Mike

Michael, you are hard banned and will remain so until you go through the appropriate channels to get this resolved. This is not going to happen overnight. And it is not going to happen at all unless you absolutely and completely stop editing Wikipedia at all until the appeals process is finished.

In the meantime, the meaning of 'hard ban' is that I fully support Guanaco and anyone else who reverts all of your edits instantly. You are banned until you can change your behavior. If it takes 2 weeks for us to get through a discussion of the issue and come to some sort of understanding, then it takes 2 weeks. If it doesn't happen, then you will remain hard banned, period, end of story.

If you're just going to complain about people who are following policy, then please don't even waste my time with it. This is about you and your behavior, not about Guanaco or anyone else. Jimbo Wales 21:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Friendly Comments In Support of Lir

I'm confused about your threat at User;172s talk page -- you accuse me of bisbehaving -- what about my recents edits there do you find questionable?

  • Why are you giving 172 a free license to revert my text? Why aren't you threatening him to behave? Why should I get banned, for attempting to improve the article; yet it be ok for him to delete my additions? Isn't his reverting my text a clear example of "misbehaving"?
    • In short, what have I done wrong at the page -- and why are you forcing me to follow rules that other users are not required to follow?
    • Why aren't you asking 172 to discuss the article; instead of essentially telling him, "Go ahead and revert lir. If he reverts the revert -- I'll ban him."
  • I haven't "threatened" a revert war -- 172 has threatened a revert war. I have merely added text to the page, and I reminded 172 that his reverting it would result in an edit war. I'm not the one starting edit wars -- why should I be the one punished for it?

You seem to have misunderstood. I did not accuse you of misbehaving, I just warned you not to get into an edit war.

There is no free license for 172 to revert your text. If he does so, and you are making valid contributions, then you will have an excellent case to take to the arbitration committee, and I will back you up. But it is absolutely imperative that you leave a clean paper trail, i.e. that you rise above that kind of behavior yourself.

What I wish you had done was leave a message there that went something like this: "Look, I'm going to start editing New Imperialism again, but I don't want there to be an edit war. I hope that you'll work with me on this. Let's try to make a new start together and put all the bad blood behind us. Please give my edits a chance. I'll be watching the talk page daily, and I would really appreciate your comments and help in improving the text that I'm writing."

If you had done that, rather than blustering at him, then if he did something mean to you, then YOU would look like a saint, because you would be a saint.

Why did I warn you and not him? I did not see any threat from him of an edit war, and also based on past behavior, I think that you've generally been difficult and provacative in situations where it was not in your best interest.

My advice is pretty simple. Keep it clean. Take the high road. Behave in a courteous and generous fashion towards him, even if he's being mean to you. If you find him abusing you, then don't go around trumpeting it to the arbitration committee right away, like a "gotcha", but approach a few people you trust quietly to ask for help in persuading him to treat you more nicely. Stress at all times that you have no intention of wrecking the page or making it POV or getting into an edit war. Stress that you want to bury the hatchet (and not in his skull, ha ha) and find a mutually pleasant way forward. Let bygones be bygones, and encourage him to do the same.

It will be for the best for you and for him, and for Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales 22:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • But it doesn't work that way Jimbo -- unless you yourself refer this case to the arbitration committee, they refuse to hear it. I've already tried to get the mediation and arbitration committees to assist in urging 172 to discuss. They will not do their job! Perhaps 172 won't revert the edits -- but he probably will; if he does, I expect you to do something (since you have barred me from doing anything about it).
    • Don't ask me to "approach a few people I trust" -- there isn't anyone here that I trust, who hasn't been singled out as a "troll" (and thus whose support would only undermine my case). I'd like to say I trust you -- but for me to trust you, you are going to have to actually look at the edits in question, and explain whether (or not) you support what I am trying to do. Otherwise, it seems as if you are just passing me off into a maze of bureaucratic redtape.
      • Let me stress right here -- I have no intention of wrecking the page, making it POV, or causing an edit war. However, I am well aware that certain users have decided that they have your permission to revert any and all edits I make -- thus, any edit I make is likely to cause an edit war. Furthermore, they know that whenever they revert me -- if I reinsert my text, I will get blamed for edit warring.

  • Really, you should look at the edits yourself and come to a decision about whether (or not) I am a vandal troll. I don't think it should be very difficult to determine whether I am trying to make valid and worthwhile additions (and being stymied by someone who can't handle his "golden prose" being edited) or whether I am adding complete garbage to the article.
    • [6] If those edits are inappropriate; then ban me, and get it over with. If you don't find them objectionable, then start asking people why they keep reverting my unobjectionable edits. I'm not asking that my edits be "finalized and protected", I'm not opposed to being edited -- but I'm being deleted constantly. It's not fair.

I have edited

I have done something rather unprecedented, and actually edited New Imperialism in the hopes of averting a brewing edit war. I encourage others to get involved as well, trying to find common ground (if possible) between Lir and 172. Jimbo Wales 16:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New proposal

I've put a new proposal for a publicity committee up on the village pump. It's designed to provide a quick response to press coverage, especially negative press coverage. I'm posting here because I'd like your opinion. Do you think this is necessary/appropriate/useful? I wanted to avoid stepping on any toes, since you're the point man when it comes to press contact. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:20, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)


We've already got almost ten times quantity over Britannica here. What we need now is quality. And we're not getting it. - Hephaestos|§ 03:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Michael

Hi, Jimbo Wales I am a new user and my name is Penny Rimbaud, a newcomer. I was a personal friend of User:Quercusrobur. I heard some banned user named Michael is trying to fire Guanaco, but I want you to know that I'm not Michael at all. In fact I don't know who he is. -- Penny Rimbaud

It's funny how obvious Michael makes his sockpuppets. He's obviously not trying to hide his identity by using them. Guanaco 17:26, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Donations and stuff at OSCON 2004

Hey Jimbo,

I am currently attending OSCON 2004, and I have been helping spread the word about our needs. I have chatted with Rackspace's chief evangalist, Dirk Elmendorf, and he might be able to help us. Also, I have chatted to Zend and I have heard through others that MySQL AB might be able to help us/is willing to help us. Anyway, do you have any commments? Burgundavia 23:05, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


Hi Jimbo. You made some negative comments about the Berlusconi article. Can you please look at it and see if they still stand, and say in what way. Can you also see if you now understand, from the article, why some people might consider that some limits on broadcast media ownership are required for freedom of speech. Azikala 06:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blocking Policy

I hope you don't mind me bringing this to your talk page from the discussion list. I would like to reply to your email:

What do you see as being a policy change in this?
Administrators have always been able to reverse a block which was made

without appropriate reference to the Blocking policy, because admins have always been able to reverse blocks for any reason at all.

If anything, Rick, I should think you would strongly support this

language, because it *hints* (but doesn't say) that if a proper reason

  • is* given, then admins *may not* reverse a block. That is a policy

that I suspect you would support, but it would be policy-making by the committee if they literally said it."

I don't disagree with the idea suggested by the arbitration committee. Only that it needs to be approved as policy instead of vigilante arbitrators (ok, playing with a little license to make it amusing but pointed) independently determining what admins do are right or wrong. I'm asking that it be done through policy and not arbitrators playing "I know better than you" when those affected are not the one at fault (or perhaps even present) being addressed by the decision. - Tεxτurε 00:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should Guanaco stop reverting Michael's edits?

Mr. Wales, I have a confession to make. That bitch, Guanaco is back and still reverting my edits, when can he stop?. I tryed stopping him several times by bashing him or shooting him and he still does it. He's fired! (reveals me shooting Guanaco with a gun and laughing) -- Mike

Guanaco is doing a great job. If you want to chat with me by email, you know where to find me. That's the only way we're ever going to make any progress here, if you're willing to talk to me at length about your behavior and how you should change it in order to rejoin the community. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but it is the only option. Jimbo Wales 18:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration - subject: User:Mike Storm

I was just wondering if you could please post your vote on the subject of User:Mike Storm on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I would like to get this matter dealt with with quickly, but you're probably busy so please take your time. Thanks!

Also, do you know if a Wikimeet will ever be held in or near Chicago? My travel options are a bit limited right now (being only 14 years old), and Chicago is probably a great place for a Wikimeet because it happens to be right in the middle of the country. But it'll be hard for European Wikipedians to get to, though :-(. [[User:Mike Storm|MikeStorm]] 17:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday

All the best wishes from Hannover in Germany. We have exactly 12 pm on the 8th of August here so I am not to early. It is just European time :-) All the best and I drink to your health. Greetings to your wife and daughter. You are responsible for me being hooked on this project ;-) And I love it! Greatings to you and your family --Paddyez 00:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(How did everyone know my birthdate? Jimbo Wales 14:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))

  • I add that Mr. Jimbo Wales supposingly made his own profile on Orkut by himself ... :p --Aphaia 23:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A greeting aus Deutschland with best wishes for you and this big project -- Shannon 17:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Happy Birthday from me, too! And do keep up the good work ;-) -- AlexR 17:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey Jimbo - looks like I picked a good day to readmit myself to the program. Happy Birthday and cheers from Oz - Manning 17:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Happy Birthday. --DaB. 17:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Happy birthday! And more great ideas as Wikipedia for the future :) TheK 17:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • a happy birthday from me, too --elian
  • happy birthday, WP was an excellent idea ...Sicherlich 17:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Many happy returns of the day. --Hemanshu from Thane, India
  • Happy birthday! --Aphaia
  • Happy birthday Jimbo! --bdesham 19:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Like everyone else, Jimbo, Happy Birthday! Samboy 20:22, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Joining in the well-wishing. I don't know which I like more, bandwagons or Jimbo. <grin> Isomorphic 22:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Cool. Sonce you're not living in the German Time-Zone I'm not even late. Happy Birthday! -- Zeitgeist 22:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Happy birthday! Thanks for the WP. Got it from the #wikipedia topic :) BACbKA 00:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

Why does wiki/Jimmy_Wales redirect to this *user* page? I find this page biased and self promoting, and I suppose a user page is allowed to be. However, is "THE founder" above having an independent bio? One part of promoting free unbiased information is to be able to take criticism yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2004 (UTC)

No it's not like that. In early versions of the Wikipedia software there was no concept of a namespace, so user pages and article pages were all mixed together. Later, namespaces were introduced and all users had "User:" prefixed in front of them. However the old pages still exist, redirecting to the new ones, for backwards compatibility (you should never break links if you can help it). This is not limited to Jimbo - it is true for all users who contributed in the first year (or thereabouts)- for other examples see Magnus Manske, The Cunctator, etc. Pcb21| Pete 08:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clearing up the origins. However I still think that there should be an article page for Jim just like Larry has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2004 (UTC)
Traditionally, I have asked that there not be an article about me, for the simple reason that especially in the early days, this could easily have been perceived as a "vanity" page. So far people have respected that as a courtesy to me, and I would like to continue it for some time. I don't relish the thought of what trolls might do and the kinds of edit wars that might ensue... what a waste of our time, huh? Jimbo Wales 18:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Mats Halldin

This user is harrassing me to no end. Whenever I contribute anything, he calls me a troll and gets me blocked on the Swedish Village Pump. He's trying to do that here, too at the English Wikipedia. I was complaining about being sabotaged by some other Wikipedia user I don't know who, but likely on the English Wikipedia. What happens is, I open the English Wikipedia and it gets moved to another website. This effectively blocks me from seeing any articles and learning the things I want to know. I have two spy/ad/malware blockers and two web browsers now to combat this garbage. I hope the problems goes away soon because this behaviour is completely unacceptable no matter who it's done to. The website isn't supposed to be tampered with. I am very sure that it is only the English site that doesn't work when I have a problem accessing Wikipedia. Lord Kenneð Alansson 00:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See User Talk:OlofE about possible implications in relevance to the Trump Family(Donald and Matthew) of NYC. Lord Kenneð Alansson 13:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried mediation? Basically, you and Mats can email each other through a mediator, and resolve your disputes in private. I don't think Jimbo needs to deal with this; we have a mediation committee to handle battles between users. Samboy 22:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is about the security of the website. It shouldn't be so exploited maliciously. Jórvíkingr 06:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like a general spyware/malware problem, but certainly we're interested if there may be a security problem. We need more specific information, such as which pages you visited, and approximately when. --Brion 02:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fan mail

Mr. Wales, I confess that I never anticipated receiving fan mail on Wikipedia. Thank you for your most generous compliments! (And might I add a belated "Happy Birthday!"?) -- Emsworth 13:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please, unban Michael

Can I please be unbanned now. Come on, i'm really tired of waiting. I want everybody to stop reverting my edits, you do not give them business like this or somebody who tell them to revert any of my edits.

Here's something else. These articles were delted from Guanaco and other users, created by IP addresses on number:

So, please unban me. NOW!!! (jumping and stomping until something cracks or breaks) I said now, or you're fired, so get moving. -- Michael

Michael, you know what you need to do. Email me and let's talk about it. Jimbo Wales 02:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does the request not to remove stupidity extend to users like Michael who have an existing order to revert on site? Snowspinner 00:34, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it really is important that as "court of final appeal" I keep open the lines of communication. Also, it sort of amuses me if you see what I mean. Jimbo Wales 02:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. -- Michael

Reply from Adam Carr

I tried to reply to your email but it bounced.

Dear Jimmy / Jimbo Thanks very much for those comments, which I greatly appreciate. I don't wish to be too critical of Fred Bauder and colleagues, who have a difficult task, but I felt they failed to get a real grip on what was going on at [[Lyndon LaRouche]]. While I agree with you that rules must be applied impartially to all, I do feel that in disputes of this kind genuine editors should get the benefit of the doubt over people who are obviously only here to propagandise.

The real problem however (as I have said to you before) is structural. Wikipedia has no enforceable quality control, and no means of effective defence against determined fanatics. You are lucky that so far the LaRouchians or similar cultists have not made a full-scale assault on Wikipedia. When they do, you will have to alter its structure or the project will collapse, which would be very sad.

For the record, I reiterate my views (based on nearly a year's experience here) that:

  • Anyonymous people (by which I mean people who do not have a traceable email

address) should not be allowed to edit articles

  • There should be a probationary period for new users before they are allowed to

edit articles

  • Editors should be required to have a reasonable standard of English
  • There should be a category of articles which are declared "complete" and can

only be further edited after reference to a review panel

  • Users found after due process to be guilty of using WP to promote political,

nationalist or religious propaganda should be permanently banned

Regards AJC

{{noncommercial}} images

Michael Snow has just made your decree to get rid of all "non-commerical use only" images known to the greater Wikipedia community by posting a note on WP:CP.

Some comments and questions on that:

  • I really, really dislike it when such far-reaching decisions are made in a secluded place like the mailing list without input from the greater community of Wikipedia editors. Most people who edit here are not subscribed to the mailing list and do not follow its discussions. I for one don't; I only check the archives of wikien-l from time to time.
The mailing lists are the primary place where fundamental policy decisions are discussed. It has always been that way. There is nothing 'secluded' about the mailing lists, they are as easily and widely accessible as any other part of the project. There are a number of technical and practical reasons why a mailing list is better for such discussions than a wiki.
This is entirely understandable, but surely in the interests of getting policy changes through smoothly and maintaining a harmonious community it would be a good idea to put proposals agreed on the mailing list forward to the wider community so that a consensus can be reached. The mailing lists can still be the primary place where policy decisions are discussed, but these decisions should only be actually taken once a consensus has been reached on the wiki. All this would have involved in this case would have been to put forward the idea months ago instead of sitting on it until deletion time. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, if you decree something, it should be communicated to the community promptly, and preferrably by you, not through some bystander. Four months later is way too late.
Absolutely nothing has been done yet about the issue of noncommercial images. What was decided in the ensuing discussion is that the absolute first thing we need to do is properly tag all the images with license information and source information; until we have done that, it is premature to get into wholesale deletions of images that don't meet our standards of freedom.
I wasn't thinking about "wholesale deletions", as you put it, but if the decree had been announced earlier and more widely, more people would have stopped uploading such images. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and maybe you could clarify Michael Snow's comment on WP:CP. I have the feeling that it risks that people may think that "wholesale deletions" were in order. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Does your decree apply only to en: or also to other Wikipedias?
There can be some policy differences with respect to legal matters in different languages, depending on the likely needs of redistributors in countries where those languages are commonly spoken; the issues surrounding this are complex. However, one constant across the entire project is that this is a GNU-free encyclopedia, so images that are licensed under non-free licenses are not going to be acceptable anywhere.
  • Where is the previous agreement to get rid of {{noncommercial}} images Erik alludes to in his e-mail? I haven't found any policy discussion on this in a scan of the archives of the wikien-l up to December 2003.
I am not sure about exactly what agreement Erik is alluding to, but most likely it was hammered out on the meta wiki. This illustrates what's wrong with using a wiki for policy discussions -- the discussions end up buried in article history and are impossible to follow or reconstruct at a later date.
  • Why do you want to get rid of {{noncommercial}} images? I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a non-commercial project... In what way are they detrimental to Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a noncommercial project, but it is also a 'free' project, free in the sense of GNU, in the sense of libre. Nonfree licenses are therefore unacceptable.
  • Why not also delete all fair use images? It seems to me that these are far more questionable from a legal point of view, and pose much greater problems for any reusers of Wikipedia content, for these would have to re-check every single "fair use" image themselves to see whether they could use it in the jurisdictions they're in. "Non-commercial only" images at least are clear: if somebody tries to sell a Wikipedia copy for profit, he cannot use the image. Period. Note that the presence of "non-commercial use only" images poses no problems for somebody trying to sell a Wikipedia copy and charging only for packaging/support/media. (IANAL, but I know that the related GPL for software allows such uses; there are whole companies whose business model relies on charging for packaging and support of GPL'ed software. I suppose the GFDL is similar in that respect.)
I disagree with you that a non-commercial use only image poses "no problems for somebody trying to sell a Wikipedia copy and charging only for packaging/support/media". Of course the GPL allows packaging and support of GPL'ed software, that's because the GPL is a free license, not a "noncommercial only" license. A noncommercial-only license would prevent people from doing something that we want them to do, which is to take our content, and sell it at a profit if they like. This is critical as a mechanism for getting our content distributed widely, particularly in poorer parts of the world. The ability for a small-scale publisher in Africa to print up some copies, sell them at a profit, to put food on the table and knowledge into people's hands is going to be essential.
But they can do that even if nc images are present in Wikipedia—they just have to omit these images. Other nc instances of Wikipedia (such as Wikipedia itself!) could continue to use them. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fair use is an entirely different matter. We need to be conservative and cautious about our fair use images, and we need to replace fair use with freely licensed images wherever possible. We ought not to have fair use images when a free alternative could be easily available to us. But in some cases of very famous works, or photos of people who are dead, the only way we can have a photo at all is to have a fair use photo.
Fair use is a part of copyright freedom, it is something that we promote as being a perfectly valid limitation on copyright.
I encourage you to join the mailing list and start a discussion. And please be assured that it is not my intention to surprise anyone with anything. There will be no wholesale or rapid changes to anything that we are doing without a significant amount of input from a variety of people.
Nor did I intend to surprise anyone, which is why I wrote a general statement instead of simply starting to list images for deletion. Admittedly, I hadn't been monitoring the extent to which noncommercial-use-only images were still being uploaded. I will try and make the announcement more broadly, since apparently the community hasn't truly absorbed the information. One of the difficulties we have is that there is basically no place where we can count on everyone seeing any given announcement. Ultimately, these images still need to be deleted unless fair use can be claimed. --Michael Snow 16:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But there are a few things which have always been true of Wikipedia, and that I don't intend to see changed. Wikipedia is a free 'encyclopedia'. Wikipedia is a 'free' encyclopedia.
Of course, and we are all agreed on that, but it seems reasonable to have a very minor part of our content, ie these non-commercial images, as an 'extra', instead of not having them at all. With the appropriate use of tagging these images can be removed from commercial reproductions of Wikipedia content very very easily. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lupo 11:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
P.S.: Maybe you could point me to the relevant discussions on Meta, I haven't found anything there either... Lupo

Lyndon LaRouche

Yes, User:Herschelkrustofsky is also subject to the no personal attacks policy. Could you please give me a link to the attack you speak of? When I have that I will see what I can do. I think the case is still open enough that a ruling could be added. Fred Bauder 11:29, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

A good place to look would be Herschelkrustofsky's own user page in which he writes about "organized groups of malicious editors" who "impose the most blatant and obvious propaganda". A quick perusal of Herschelkrustofsky's contributions gives a pretty good idea of whether or not he's likely to ever become a useful contributor. Jimbo Wales 20:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, he is quite hostile to Wikipedia and feels his favorite subject has been dumped on. The question I have for you though, is other than applying sanctions for personal attacks, and restricting his editing (idiosyntric material attributable to Lyndon LaRouche may be removed on discovery by any user) what do you think ought to be done? Fred Bauder 13:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
I offer no particular opinion, only an observation. Adam Carr was banned for a day for personal attacks. Herschelkrustofsky? Jimbo Wales 13:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A short ban has been proposed and is being voted on. I think our editing restriction (and I still advocate 86ing him from the Lyndon LaRouche article) pretty much address the question of "only reason for being here is to promote LaRouchism". If he can't do that he will probably go away.Fred Bauder 14:51, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
If I might offer an opinion, the real problem is that Wikipedia has no strategy for defending itself against people who do not share its objectives. You may consider me to be rude etc, and that is no doubt true, but my reason for being here is to contribute to building a free-access world-class encyclopaedia, which I consider a noble project. I think you will agree that I have made some contribution to that objective. Herschelkrustofsky's only reason for being here is to promote LaRouchism, as you well know. He makes no useful contribution, and is a disruptive and destructive element. I fail to see why you permit him to be here at all. Wikipedia ought to be a community of people committed to its objectives. Once it is clear that a person does not share those objectives, and is here for some other reason, they should be, after due process, asked to leave. Adam 13:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Adam, your point is well taken, but I'm sure you appreciate the procedural difficulties attendant upon making banning decisions that veer so perilously close to political direction of content. It is not impossible in some cases to do so, and perhaps we must. But I think it important that we remain as welcome as we can to as many different viewpoints as we can, so long as the people involved behave in a civilized fashion. (To note; I do not think that promoting LaRouchism amounts to behaving in a civilized fashion, but there is a blurry line sometimes between promoting and just making sure that we have balance. In this case, of course, there is not much blur, because the whitewashing of LaRouche has been so blatant.)
I'm uncomfortable moving in a direction where I (or a committee) decides that certain categories of advocates can be excluded for holding a certain viewpoint. Who is next, the Marxists? The Religious right? Greens? Republicans? It is a dangerous path.
I say all of this while at the same time sharing your viewpoint that building a free-access world-class encyclopedia is incompatible with allowing people like this to write abject nonsense to promote their peculiar political agenda. I'm just saying that no perfect solution exists, as far as I can see, so the best that we can do is grope forward carefully and with love for each other and for the "noble project." Jimbo Wales 18:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I of course acknowledge both the practical and political difficulties in deciding what are acceptable forms of conduct at Wikipedia and then policing those decisions. I don't pretend to have an easy solution to those difficulties. My point is that Wikpedia will eventually have to solve this problem one way or another if it is to achieve its objective.

I was struck by your statement that you are afraid to "veer so perilously close to political direction of content." What, I ask, is wrong with political direction of content? Every other encyclopaedia ever written has politically directed its content, and so does this one. Wikipedia has a clear political viewpoint: it is a western-liberal-democratic-rationalist-secular-humanist political viewpoint, and content which blatantly contradicts that viewpoint is routinely deleted, as it should be. All that is at issue is precisely where the boundary of acceptable political content should be drawn. You ask if Marxists would be next after LaRouchists. In fact, Wikipedia is not written from a Marxist viewpoint, and content which is too blatantly Marxist does get deleted (ask User:Hanpuk). So in fact that decision has already been made. And so on. You might find things easier if you stated this openly and didn't pretend that encyclopaedia-writing can be done without a political standpoint. Then you could clearly state that only people who share that viewpoint (liberally interpreted) are welcome to participate. Adam 02:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"western-liberal-democratic-rationalist-secular-humanist" ... is that a consequence of the NPOV ideal, or a perversion of it? Pcb21| Pete 09:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And then Wikipedia would lose all credibility among people who don't share that viewpoint. Is this meant to be read as calling for the abrogation of the principle of NPOV, which is supposed to be "absolute and non-negotiable"? Everyking 10:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
so you're going for "perversion" rather than "consequence" then? My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the two. For instance, I think NPOV inherently means the fundamental tone will have a rationalist flavour. "Western" on the other hand is different.

"NPOV" is itself an ideological-political position, a product of secular rationalism and liberalism. It is western in origin, although now of course no longer the monopoly of the west. Lose credibility? No secular-rationalist work such as an encyclopaedia has any credibility with those who reject these ideas. Creating a repository of secular knowledge such as an encyclopaedia is an inherently political act. It's much better than acknowledge up front that these are the values Wikipedia stands for. Then we have a clear basis for resisting those who want to undermine them. Adam 15:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

abusive sysop

Hello Jimbo Wales. You have a sysop Roozbeh who is abusing his powers and under no circumstances allows people to even raise complaints about his behavior. Even when I told him that next time I will post a complaint about his behavior on Jimbo's page, he still removed my writing from his page so that nobody can see this. I am an active member of the Open Source community and I know that often it takes just a few bad apples to cause a successful project immense grief. As an example I even mentioned the dalnet project to this sysop that it was just a few abusive sysops over there that eventually cost the whole project an immense blow which effectively rendered it dead for all practical purposes. I would hate to see Wikipedia become a victim of any sort because of a few bad apples. It is extremely important that the sysops do not abuse their powers. This guy here has full authority on Persian Wikipedia and over there does not allow anybody to even discuss his abuses. He considers any criticism of himself (even in most polite language) to be "abuse" and in most cases, not only reverts, but completely deletes the whole pages so that they don't even remain in the history of the pages. I am sorry to bring this up here, but over in the Persian Wikipedia there is no chance. Then I tried to discuss it here in English Wikipedia with him on his discussion page, but he does not want to even allow what I write to appear on his page. I hope that someone can help this guys see the light or at least put a leash on him. Thank you for your time. --Amir

This is what he wrote for me regarding complaint about his behavior: "For formal complaints, try your country's courts." --Amir

This characterization of Roozbeh doesn't square well with what I know of him. He advocates the creation of more sysops, which doesn't sound like someone trying to create or preserve an abusive power situation. You may want to email to the wikipedia-l mailing list, but rather than treating this as trying to battle against an "abusive sysop", why not approach it in a spirit of co-operativeness and the idea of creating better governance structures and procedures to deal with the potential for the sorts of problems you are concerned about. Jimbo Wales 23:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hope everything is OK with you after the brush with Hurricane Charley. Even though the hurricane missed Tampa I've heard (on the mailing list) that your house still got flooded? Up here away from the shore we barely even got any rain. Apparently the servers survived. anthony (see warning) 15:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no, my house didn't flood. Nothing at all happened here, after all, thank goodness. Everything is perfectly fine here, but I won't be online much because I'm going to a birthday party for one of my daughter's friends, and because we basically turned the house upside down inside preparing for the storm. Jimbo Wales 15:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Dear Jimbo, I am writing to you because of serious problems concerning the category:Islam in the German Wikipedia. Specially the main articles, which are being systematically attacked by some people who simply copy false information from the internet into the articles. As I see, the situation in the English Wikipedia is similar but not nearly such as aggressive. The Information and corrections one provides do not simply disappear over night.

I have been away for some weeks, and as I came back I found the same strenuous debates with the same people who are only interested in giving the worst possible pictures of Islam. There are complaints about a certain user [8], who claims to be an Islam scientist and misuses this claim to convince others, who are not familiar with the subject of the quality of his writings concerning Islam to win their support, even if it was simple to prove he it's not true [9]. To give you a simple example: I added peace-making to the translation of the word de:Islam, which was reverted. I provided proofs from the Quran and from a reference Arabic Dictionary (Lisan el Arab). As a compromise he wrote in the article something like “Some Muslims just in recent times claim a pop-etymological relationship between Islam and Salam”. Because I declined it as derision, de:Benutzer:Elian locked the article. For similar reasons, she locked also the article de:Allah to the wrong version of that same user. That was the reason for the compliant I made at “Articles lacking neutrality” about the unfairness being applied to the category:Islam, which de:Benutzer:Baba66 deleted while I was away, claiming “this is not an article”! [10] In another case, de:Schari’a, I wrote in the article that the term Sharia is also used in the bible, which was deleted by the same user claiming “rubbish”. As I provided evidence, Elian said “the mentioning of the bible is and remains undesirable, nobody but you would support this…” [11]. This article was locked today after an Edit war between de:Benutzer:Baba66, who stopped using the discussion pages after I provided all evidences he claimed, and others. There is a Wikipedia discussion about the matter de:Wikipedia diskussion:Umgang mit dem Islam (Dealing with Islam), in which several not involved users confirm this unfairness, and in which the mentioned user shows which discussion level he belongs [12]. This Discussion is said to be deleted over the first night, and the user who started it had to restore it again the next day.

The main thing as I see, is that evident facts, or evident claims as it comes to religions, should not be a matter of how many people would support this, or is the Wikipedia some sort of “experiment” examining internet group dynamic? There should be a solution and a policy how the Wikipedia should deal with this sensitive matter. Also the religion articles is not a place to carry out creationist-evolutionist wars. If someone have to criticize, they can start an article, “criticism of Islam”, but it is not the place for that in the article explaining “Islam” or whatever. Another Problem maybe that there is no muslims under the admins for a balance. I tried to write as briefly as possible and hope that was not too long, muhammad

Hi Jimbo, I'll tell you the story when we meet next time. greetings, --elian

National Portrait Gallery copyright claims

James, I've emailed the person who contacted you about the National Portrait Gallery paintings potentially coming from their site. There are a number of facts that you might want to know:

  • Shakespeare's painting was done by an artist who died in 1651. The painting was acquired by the gallery in 1856.
  • Anne of Denmark's painting was done by an artist who 1621. The painting was acquired by the gallery in 1861.

Both are on public display at the moment. Both are published, although it is not clear where and when. It is not clear when they were first exhibited to the public, but Mr. Horrocks seemed to believe they would have been exhibited very soon after acquisition. David Newton 14:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Visit to the Netherlands

You left a note that you would be visiting the Netherlands. A meeting would be appreciated by several wikipedians. Because of your visit, a scheduled meeting in Rotterdam on the 21th was cancelled.

To my amazement, nobody has posted on your user-page as you requested... When can we meet? What fits in your schedule ? Saturday/Sunday 28th/29th would be best (people are working..).

Thanks, GerardM 16:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ermmmm Gerard please look: User:Jimbo Wales We reacted there already Waerth 17:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Everyone's favorite Muqtada

I believe a man's true character is best shown when he's under pressure (or grumpy). You've shown your character in this article, and earned my respect. As dictators go, you're not bad! :) Quadell (talk) 15:51, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)