User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive E

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


An issue in a other-language Wikipedia

Hi. Another user suggested that I brought this issue regarding the Image Use Policy in the Portuguese Language Wikipedia to your attention. I had posted a comment on the Village Pump in order to get some advice on whether I actually had a point and, if so, about how to proceed. Would you mind reading my post on the issue and giving me your opinion? Thanks, Redux 18:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3RR policy problems

Jimbo, I sent this to you by email to your bomis address, but I don't know that you ever received this. I understand the problems that revert wars were causing, but I feel the remeedy has gotten out of hand, breaking long standing principles of the way we deal with potential problems users and the enthusiasm with which Wikipolice are blocking long-term editors. I posted the following on the 3RR policy page (and was almost instantly reverted by Tony Sidaway), which I believe is good guidance in approaching the policy, rather than a redefinition of the policy. I would be grateful if you would consider this and hopefully render an opinion.

My firm belief is that every admin must be ready to explain a policy action, and not block and walk away.

Admin responsibility
Admins applying the policy should be mindful of the origin of the three-revert rule. It was created not to punish editors or choose sides in an article dispute, but to discourage edit warring where a handful of editors reverted continuously until an outside admin stopped them.
Since the use of a block in the 3RR is at admin's discretion, before an admin blocks a user, always consider:
  1. Did you make any attempt to engage the edit warriors?
  2. If the revert war is moving too quickly to engage the editors, did you protect the article long enough to attempt to engage the warriors?
  3. If one side in the edit war is defiant or nonresponsive, have you placed an appropriate warning on his/her talk page against resuming the edit war and then left sufficient time (say 15-30 minutes) for him/her to read your warning before unprotecting the article?
  4. Before considering a block, did you look at the content of the disputed edits to try to determine whether this is potential vandalism or simply a content dispute?
  5. If it is a content dispute, ask each side to justify its position to help determine lack of good faith, which is otherwise assumed.
  6. Do you stand ready to mediate the dispute if asked to do so by any of the parties?
  7. Remember: it takes at least two editors to edit war. Make certain you understand the consequences to Wikipedia and community cohesion and Wikilove before blocking one side in an ungoing dispute.'

Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thank you, Mr. Wales. That's all I've got to say. :) IKato 23:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Amen. --Cassius987 05:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Mr. Wales, open all adminship. Mr. Wales, tear down this wiki!

- 23:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"File names must be at least three letters."


I tried four times to upload a photo for an article ("D. A. Pennebaker CU.jpg" for, you guessed it, D.A. Pennebaker), but I kept getting the error "File names must be at least three letters." Well. The file name contains enough letters; I tried removing the underscores in favor of spaces; I tried moving the file off my H:/ drive (which has been a bit flaky), and it's only now--in writing this--that I realized the problem.

The software mistook the first period in the filename as the end of the filename, so it thought that the filename was simply "D".

Huh. That error message was more frustrating than helpful. But, by the same token, I don't know how often people try to upload photos named after someone who goes by initials.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 14:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You might want to visit MediaZilla and file this bug. Unless Jimbo has taken up developing, this is a bit outside the range of his normal functions. :-) Bugs may also be reported to the developers live on the #mediawiki IRC channel, but they're seriously overworked, so this should be reserved for BUGS. JRM 18:08, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Done, thanks.... I had no idea we had our own bug report system now. Koyaanis Qatsi


Hello Jimbo,

this is to inform you that after the rejection of the proposal to rename the italian Wikipedia to "Vicipedia" because the letters "W" and "K" don't exist in the italian alphabet, it was decided by a large majority to rename it to "Uichipedìa" (as a transliteration of the english pronunciation, but with an accent on the last "I", in analogy to the pronunciation of the italian word "enciclopedia") and, for consistency, to rename its founder to "Gimbo Uèils".

OK, just kidding, we aren't renaming anything. --it:Utente:Leonard Vertighel 14:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Symbols of Wikipedia

Dear Benevolent Dictator,

Wikipedia, as a nation, would need the following symbols.

  • Flag
  • Coat of Arms

Hamburg in June

Hi Jimbo,

is there any chance you could be a guest at the 6th Hamburg-Meetup on June 1? or June 2? Normal attendance is between 15 and 20 people, but I do assume, it could be more people if you come.

greetings from the north sea Zeitgeist 12:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OII Talk Progress

Lucy Martin from the OII e-mailed you today. I hope you got it. The subject was "Wikimedia talk at the OII, Oxford". I sent a copy of the e-mail to you with the subject changed to "wikipedia talk at the OII, Oxford" just to increase the chances of you getting it.

Hope one of them got through. --cfp 13:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ferrari images

Jimbo: Fabio Castellano of the Ferrari Press Office left a note on my talk page regarding our use of their images and logos in the articles on Ferrari and Scuderia Ferrari. I scaled down the logos and several of the photos to ensure that they comply with fair use guidlines; however, he said he'd communicated with you about placing copyright notices in the caption text each time the image is used. Therefore, I'd like to request clarification before I reply to him: may we make an exception for this case and allow copyright notices in articles, or should the image description pages (which all contain adequate copyright information) be sufficient? Regards User:Rdsmith4/Sig 21:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please help identify User:KingOfAllPaperboys

Jimbo, I am reposting here, because I didn't get a response from yesterday's posting on the Developer's talk page. A page that I hoped would serve in lieu of a developers notice board. Please assist because the data is perishable. Although, I speculate on possible identities below, I have no conclusive evidence. Your directing this for assistance before the data is lost will be appreciated. Here is the site for the original request [1] -- thanx --Silverback 22:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Developers, I don't see a notice board so I am trying this page. Please help us identify User:KingOfAllPaperboys. He got blocked the evening of the 25th for harassing User:Netoholic, but a review of his history leads me to believe that he is the sockpuppet of an administrator. The user was created in december 2004, and after about 4 edits over two months on Feb. 10th there was a burst of activity helping to fight a vandal attack, on pages he'd never visited before, and he fought it like a professional. Therefore it looks like he is the alter ego of an admin. After very little activity for another month or so, suddenly he shows up harassing User:Netoholic who has made himself unpopular recently, especially among the admins with revert wars over templates and policies. However, that is no excuse for an admin to have a sockpuppet and misbehavior. I think there should be zero tolerance for such behavior and immediate revocation of admin status. But identifying the culprit requires developer assistance. I have tried to track it down via contribution histories and have three candidates User:172, User:Snowspinner and User:Itai, who each had the motive and some significant but not conclusive gaps that coincide with KingOfAllPaperboys activity.

Please assist in identifying this abuser of the community before the IP trail grows cold. He may be sophisticated so make sure he didn't come in under a separate IP, during the 24 hours KingOfAllPaperboys was blocked.

Please let me know ASAP if I have managed to reach anybody in this manner. Otherwise, I think my best hope to would be to try Jimbo's talk page, but I don't want to bother him unnecessarily.

                         -- thanx,

Bad news from wikipedia Germany

Hi Jimmy ,

if you should have a little spare time and a translation-tool u might try this link :

or this

or this :

( especially : )

you might also google "Opa Skriptor" (which will provide all this links and a lot more)

All these disgusting happenings seem to be a possible foreplay for a coming fork.

They will take you directly into the heart of

( and what these people have made out of your great idea )

Currently they have gathered to kick out a guy ,

who has dared to opposite the "Politbüro" of old sad times.

Look here :

Verschoben in das Archiv:

Be happy , that you speak no german.

Hoping you are more pleased of the other wikipedias


Mutter Erde 23:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales
Hi, please don´t waste your time with this special operative bullshit created by an user, who is banned (infinite) in the german wikipedia in cause of his troll behavior and spam-messages like this.
yep, mutter erde is in fact a troll. He became a troll after having been punished by sysops because of a bagatelle. We anticipate a lot of more trolls soon to come :-(
--Herrick 09:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Admin de:WP)

  • Ooops , Mr.Herrick is here.

Let´s have a look what he´s doing with his Admin-tool.

( = Contributions to a virtual memorial of shame , part 4 )

or : ( Sorry ,probably hacked in the meantime !MutterErde 11:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) )

( Only two new examples. Many more if you are interested )



11:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note: most of the stuff MutterErde wrote is - in fact - nagging and grouchiness. But on the other hand there are some really quite unpleasant occurrences like - please really have a look:

Hope I didn't give offence

@ 217 ....

Thank you for improving my bad english.


  • you´ll find my german user-site here: ( How many fakers do you count  ? ;-) )

  • you´ll find my french user-site here:

@ Jimmy Wales:

Sorry , but the wikipedia-thread on the VRS-Board was hacked and is probably gone.

But we have started a new collection of - scandals here:

Or google "Opa Skriptor"


MutterErde 11:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bad news? - Sad news!

Sad to say: a new form of wikistapo-terror occured: mixing up users with banned users and claiming, newbies to be sockpuppets of banned users. O my god, I really could vomit. Come and see: which should be 172.Amaryllis

Post scriptum: havent got the faintest idea how to proof I'm not not that Qellmymphe mentioned by sysop unscheinbar? Do you? Please note also: I really do use a AOL-Account - maybee that's the reason for Unscheinbars misbehavior ...

  • Ooops , a guy named "Unscheinbar" was on Jimbos german site

What he has done there ? Strange ..............

MutterErde 20:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your photo : FPC


Just to inform you that a current Featured picture candidate on Commons is a photo of Jimbo Wales!

Pabix ܀. 19:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A formal, official response to pro-elitism-blah?

Jimbo, would you please issue a formal, official response to the negative discussion about Wikipedia's process. For example, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism. Thank you. Adraeus 05:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

he did. --Alterego 06:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
That's more of an informal RTFM response which doesn't counter Larry Sanger's criticism — Jimbo's response merely says Larry is wrong. Adraeus 16:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
there is no reason to be formal....and honestly how often have you seen Jimbo be formal, or anything around here be formal lol? everything is impromptu and many feel it is best to let Sanger discredit himself as an epistemologist who has a lot to learn. he hasn't made a single friend by doing what he's done and it has tarnished his reputation. that's a big deal for an academic in the job market. just keep editing and the encyclo will prove itself IMHO --Alterego 20:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Larry Sanger's rep at K5 seems to be doing just dandy. Adraeus 20:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He explained that he made that post in the first place because he was in fear for his reputation and he was in the academic job market - a bad combination. Well, as Wikipedia becomes more successful his reputation will become worse and worse as his criticisms are drowned out by the encyclopedia's success. That's what I meant. --Alterego 23:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Who's "he"? By the way, read this thread. It turns into a pseudo-discussion with a staff-troll about Wikipedia. Adraeus 06:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed hardware order

Quick overview of items at m:Hardware ordered March 2005. Expect we'll refine it further over the next day or two. The PDUs and 400GB hard drives for the current database servers can be ordered safely enough - didn't seem controversy around them. I won't be around as much as usual for the next 4 weeks or so - changing country. Expect will want more things once we know the results of some of the tests dsicussed there. Jamesday 11:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Perk for Wikipedia Administrators and Bureaucrats

Word has been received that, as of tomorrow, all Wikipedia administrators and bureaucrats have been added to the Line of Succession to the throne of The Duchy of Grand Fenwick, which also results (through treaty) with a role as the titular monarch for the democratic island nation of San Serriffe. I wanted to be among the first to thank you for the new perk. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 22:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The case against you has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jimbo Wales/Evidence. Thank you. JarlaxleArtemis 01:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Aw, poor Jimmy. I hope he doesn't get banned. (Actually, I hope you don't get banned for proposing that case.) Adraeus 06:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't propose that case. I just created the two pages. (It was April Fool's Day.) JarlaxleArtemis 03:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Versión Española

On another note, why is the user page Spanish? --Ghost Freeman 11:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because it's Jimbo's native language. JRM 12:45, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

I don't believe it is. This is English wikipedia, and for the sake of inclusiveness I have reverted it to English. Vaya pues, --SqueakBox 14:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo speaks Spanish whever he becomes Supercow! "¡Supercow al rescate!" -- Toytoy 14:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ya te entiendo, pero bueno nadie mas lo comprende, o casi nadie, y así es mejor quedarse con la versión en ingles. Another April Fools joke? Pardon my bad Spanish, --SqueakBox 15:21, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, don't do that!


Thanks for your dedication to Wikipædia. This website is not just an encyclopedia; it is about the love to knowledge and truth. I am sorry that Wikipedia does not make you rich. You earned my thanks. I just want to tell you this: Don't do that! You really don't want to become a Bomis Babe.

I don't know what you're thinking about. But you can never make any money by using yourself to replace Katja Kassin or Brandi Lyons. I hate to see you being so desperate. But when I was told that you're going to be in the hardcore section of the BabeEngine, I found myself weeping.

Don't do that, Jimbo. You don't have that body. If you need money, send your résumé to Britannica. -- Toytoy 14:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy is already "independently wealthy". See Jimmy Wales. Adraeus 21:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thank you very much for the IRC chat, it made a big difference to me. --Bishonen|Talk 19:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

Hi Jimbo! I know you're busy, but this is an emergency of sorts. User:Angela is trying to get her own biographical article nuked from Wikipedia - she considers herself too "non-notable" and has listed the article on RFD. I don't agree, and I'm sure you won't either, so would you perhaps consider having a quiet talk to tell her how notable, important, and exceptional she is. I know she'll listen to you:-)David Cannon 00:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert war over sisterproject termplates

netoholic has been repeatedly reverting the sisterproject templates using Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates (which he mainly wrote) as justification. I understand the issues that meta-templates can cause but i can't see that a revert war over such a popular template is a good thing either. imo this is an issue that needs to be decided by the board and the developers/database admins and then the descision they make needs to be communicated to all wikis. Plugwash 13:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've put together the page, and used it as justification, based on User:Jamesday's very good description of the technical reasons behind inefficient template use. See Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates for his comments. To be honest, I can't see how reverting someone in order to dramatically save on server resources is a bad thing, when that other user hasn't given an even minimally compelling reason for his view. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Your past vote supporting Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

--> moved to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules by The Uninvited Co., Inc.


Hello Jimmy. I understand that Wikipedia is guided by discussions, and many of it are done by polling. Quite a lot of titles and contents were decided by such polls. I am interested to know your opinion towards such headcounts. Very often the people who cast the votes do not really understand the issue, but they cast their votes, and the votes count and are counted. IMHO this contradicts to the true meaning of Wikipedia, and it exists, and carries on. If this can't be stopped and reversed Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia that is respectable and trustful. — Instantnood 20:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What Instantnood means is, can he ignore the majority view that we should refer to Taiwan in article names, or should all the references be changed to "ROC". He has been trying to do this, annoying a lot of people by his continued persistence, for a number of weeks now, jguk 21:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not specificly talking about the Taiwan vs. ROC issue, but my general opinion for the discussions and polls across Wikipedia. — Instantnood 06:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Mobocracy, meritocracy, blahocracy... Bleh! Simply put: Wikipedia is a Wikiocracy. Get over it! ;p Adraeus 21:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A personal message on developing issues

I have not directly addressed you before, though I admire the projects you have initiated and to which you have provided your support immensely. You deserve great accolades for your efforts and investments.

I have a few people claiming that my behavior is "deplorable" and should be censured, because I went to the personal trouble of notifying people that a decision that had been made upon an issue that they had voted on, in an overwhelming 88 to 21 vote had almost immediately been nullified by the action of a few others. I subsequently posted the issue to the Village Pump, where my actions were already being complained about, though curiously, my user-identity, and the issue I was involved in notifying people about was in a "discrete" act of "self-censorship" not actually mentioned, though I was absurdly being accused of simply "packing" the votes, by notifying more people of it, rather than letting the attention to the issue remain limited the narrow clique that had already been voting to totally ignore the previous decision on a very similar image. I of course find this somewhat hypocritical, but I am aware there are many shallow minded ideologies of both right and left extremes of the political spectrum where people embrace such blatant hypocrisy as being "on the level".

I have made no disguise of the fact that I consider existing laws against "pornography" to be improper governmental intrusions into individual's private lives. I also am making no disguise of the fact that I consider the posting of explicit photographs of sexual acts and quasi-sexual acts to this project to be an improper imposition of a few individuals of their tastes (or tastelessness) that is a potentially extreme burden to the entire project, and many of those who would like to be involved with it. To use a colloquial term that is well covered by its own article, I consider that any insistence that such photos are in any way "needed" in this project to be pure bullshit and a profoundly asinine obliviousness and indifference to the sensibilities and legal liabilities of most people. You might disagree that the image currently in question merits the same overt denunciation "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline", which you gave the previous one, or feel that the issue of such photos should remain entirely open to further debate, but I am asking for your input on the matter being considered at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2.which I have also made mentioned of in a larger context at the Village Pump. ~ Achilles 22:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: something you wrote

... (speechless)

Kim Bruning 13:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Got my tongue (and fingers) back. Thank you very much for your message! :-)

I see you've talked with Jirate? He's managed to get several people rather angry it looks like, but hopefully there's still something that can be done.

*cross fingers*

Kim Bruning 19:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A chat I had today

I raised some concerns with David Gerard today, and he recommended that I put them to you. He says he shares them and he asked me to bring them directly to you.

A user, Achilles, observing the failure to gain consensus for deletion of an autofellatio image, clearly diagnosed the problem (correctly, in my opinion) as bias due to the fact that most wikipedians don't watch WP:IFD or Autofellatio. His solution: spend approximately seven hours between 9pm April 6 and 4am April 7 (UTC) contacting some fifty-five editors on the English Wikipedia and some half dozen or so editors on the French Wikipedia who he thought would vote for deletion, because they voted for deletion for the old Autofellatio picture.

Well you know, he could have gone to Village pump. I've done that in the past [2]. Instead he did a targeted mailshot. He did a targeted mailshot of over sixty people, and it took him seven hours to do it. And it had a remarkable effect. Suddenly from being a no-hoper deletion the image seems to be close to deletion.

I don't care if that image is deleted.

But I do think that kind of campaigning is inimical to trust. Firstly he spammed a rather large number of Wikipedia user talk pages. People have been blocked for doing that. Why? Because it's a dumb and wasteful thing to do on a Wiki with watchlists. Secondly he did so in a selective manner, apparently aiming to subvert rather than aid the process of obtaining a view of the consensus of Wikipedians, but contacting only those who seemed likely to express a point of view he agreed with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how is this any different than any other institution which sets policies and makes decisions by voting? you can never stop someone from doing this. it's a flaw in the system, as others have recently pointed out (and was definitely seen on the failed attempt to modify the arbitration policies..again) --Alterego
Just a note that I agree with and second the above concerns of Tony's. An arguably good cause (though I don't agree with the cause in question and voted 'keep' on the new image, because its copyright status is clear), but a stunningly bad precedent to allow someone to get away with pushing it in this manner. I ask you to consider at the very least asking Achilles not to do this (what could reasonably be considered spamming for votes, and targeted spam at that), and that others not do this - David Gerard 23:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me asking for others' votes is a reasonable thing to do; people need to be informed one way or another. I don't see why it matters if they are contacted. The underlying message seems to be one of opposition to open participation in the vote. Everyking 00:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you should know that there is another way to look at this. Over 80 people voted to delete the Autofellatio image, more than 80% of the votes, and the image was deleted. While copyright was an issue for many of the voters, the majority felt as you did that the image was "completely unacceptable" for Wikipedia. Within a day of two of the completion of that vote, and the deletion of that image, autofellatio_2, a similar image, perhaps even more graphic than the first, was posted, and linked to Autofellatio. Supposedly it does not have the copyright issues of the first one, but it is no less objectionable in every other respect. User:Achilles, in his responses to the accusation of "spamming", made it clear that he thought that posting this image was disrespectful of the consensus decision and wanted to let the people involved in that consensus know that there intention was already being set aside, and that there was a new IFD vote in progress. Many of the people whom he supposedly "spammed", including me, have expressed appreciation for being alerted about this, since they do not have WP:IFD or Autofellatio on their watch lists. By the way, I would appreciate your expressing your views on these type of images again, or even voting on IFD, because there seems to be a group determined to have them on Wikipedia, including the good editors Gerard and Sidaway, and they don't seem to appreciate the reasons why they are unacceptable. --BM 01:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This isn't about a picture, it's about a form of activism, the use of targeted mailshots to round up activist voters to subvert the consensus-based decision-making process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo, just an update. The IFD vote on Image:autofellatio_2.jpg has finished, and although there was a majority to delete it, there was no consensus. This is an image similar to the one that you described as "completely unacceptable" for Wikipedia, and "not even borderline". Apparently, it was the copyright issue that put the previous image over the top for the required 80% consensus to delete it. Enter a pornography web site delighted to provide an image in return for an attribution (i.e. a little free publicity on a Top 100 web site), and the copyright issue evaporates. And so does the 80% consensus to delete a completely unacceptable image. --BM 12:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It might also be interesting to note that a good number of those who voted (in both votes) Delete came from the french wikipedia and have made few to no contributions on, in a previous discussion on the wikipedia-l it was pointed out that many of these people came to vote because the image was being interwiki linked into user talkpages by a vandal, and they wanted to remove the image to stop the vandalism. Seems like this is a pretty effective way for someone pushing image-deletion related POV to get their wish... I think that the issue of voters coming from outside our direct community (in this case the French wikipedia) is a complex superset of the issue of calling on specific people to come and vote.--Gmaxwell 21:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An interesting asymmetry

The 80% to delete creates an interesting asymmetry in wikipedia, because many other things such as selecting a version are often decided by a majority. Selecting a version of the article without the picture might be easier to do than deleting the picture, voting to have this unenclclopedic article moved to the dictionary. Often articles become featured articles with only 4 or 5 votes. Perhaps the 80% should be reconsidered as distorting a community that decides most things by consensus.--Silverback 12:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

A message to selected people is not spam

Achilles is getting some undeserved heat for his actions.

Calling his messages "spamming" is not accurate. Tony Sidaway stated on Achilles’ talk page "Spamming is sending the same message to lots of people." That is not a full or correct definition. For example, defines spamming as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." While it is true that his message could be considered "unsolicited", it was not sent "indiscriminately". He sent the message only to people whom you had reason to believe would be interested in the message. What could be wrong with reaching out to people who are likely to have an interest in a topic?

Ironically, Tony refutes his own word choice by claiming that Achilles’ so-called spam was directed "...*only* those who you thought would support you..." So, he is criticizing Achilles for making his message too targeted, too selective. He is actually being accused of carefully targeted spamming, which is an oxymoron.

Tony even takes pains to point out that Achilles had to take time and effort to send his messages over many hours. Spammers hit one “send” key and effortless direct their message to thousands of people.

Tony also suggests that Achilles should have posted to the Village Pump, thereby reaching a very non-selective audience. I want to hasten to point out that the village pump does not qualify as spam either. People have "opted-in" by the fact that they go read the Village Pump. But surely there is merit to targeting messages to people who would seem to be interested in them rather than to the entire community? Why would messaging a small set of people be more like spam than posting to the whole community?

Another interesting contradiction in Tony’s argument is the statement that “[he] spammed a rather large number of Wikipedia user talk pages. People have been blocked for doing that. Why? Because it's a dumb and wasteful thing to do on a Wiki with watchlists.” If watchlists were a complete solution to getting involvement in these types of situations, then why would Tony encourage Achilles to post at the Village Pump? The problem with watchlists is that there are changes in an article that can affect the whole of Wikipedia.

I don't claim to know the motives of the person who posted a notice to the autofellatio page (TIMBO) for a vote on an image so similar to one that was just deleted. However, the autofellatio page is obviously visited by people who have an interest in the topic, and in the manner of its representation in Wikipedia. It is reasonable to believe that a posting on that page will not reach a representative sampling of Wikipedians and that the set of people who would see it would tend to be enriched (compared to Wikipedia as a whole) towards those who would be inclined to support the image. It was logical of Achilles to believe that the message on that page would be seen mostly by people who would support the image. Whether or not that was considered by TIMBO I have no idea. I want to be clear that I am not accusing TIMBO of doing anything wrong. I think both TIMBO and Achilles were justified in their actions.

So, what did Achilles do differently than TIMBO? TIMBO's message was selectively sent to people who follow the discussion on the autofellatio article. Achilles’ message was sent selectively to people who had voted a certain way on an issue pertaining to the autofellatio article. So, he reached a more selective group. He directly argued for his vision of how Wikipedia should evolve. So what? Why would that be wrong? Surely discussing viewpoints and wikiwork in progress is a valid use of Talk pages.

Tony has accused Achilles of being "caught red-handed trying to cook a vote". This is an unfair characterization. If campaigning for your viewpoint is "cooking the vote", then anyone who posts an opinion on any page during any vote would be guilty. There is no harm in campaigning for your viewpoint.

For the record, I feel that the current situation, with the picture behind a link, is a pretty good compromise. I agree that having any pornographic image in any Wikipedia article poses all sorts of problems to us. We do Wikipedia a disservice if we allow a pornographic image to cause us legal problems, or if it causes Wikipedia not to be accessible to large groups of people because their school forbids it, or because their national government restricts access. If I saw strong evidence that the link itself was causing these sorts of problems, then I would be inclined to vote against retaining even the link. Johntex 20:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A message to selected people is not spam

I'm sorry but that is just silly. Spam is the same message repeated lots of times. Putting the same message on lots of user talk pages is spam. But that isn't the issue, is it?

He didn't just spam, he intentionally spammed *only* those people who agreed with him. He tried to cook the vote, to campaign, to go against the consensual decision making that has served Wikipedia so well and turn it into a scramble for votes, and was caught red-handed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the proper etiquette is to continue this talk here or at Tony's page. I'll continue here for now but I'm happy to move this if that is better.
Let's set aside for now whether it was spam or not so that we may focus on what you say is the issue. You are equating a "get out the vote" campaign to "cook[ing] the vote. They are not the same. Cooking the vote would be using sock puppets to stuff the ballot box. What he did was analogous to the Democratic party encouraging Pro-choice or gay marriage proponents to go to the polls in a United States presidential election; or the Republican party doing the same with senior citizens and members of the Bel Air country club. Why is there anything wrong with appealing to people who are likely to be receptive to your arguments?
How does this go against the "consensual decision making" process? Were people intimidated to vote a certain way? Did he tamper with the counting of the votes received? No. People were encouraged to speak up about an issue he felt they would be interested in. In my relatively short time here, I've seen hundreds of examples of people doing the exact same thing without receiving criticism, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Johntex 19:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(personal attack removed)

I don't usually run to teacher when I don't get my own way, but I feel strongly about several aspects of the dispute at North American Man-Boy Love Association. The article is pure pedophile propaganda, but a person called Corax has systematically reverted all attempts to render it otherwise. I followed the so-called "dispute resolution process" but no-one showed any sign of response. I have already been banned once under your stupid 3R rule for reverting Corax and I don't bish to be banned gain. So I am taking the article off my watchlist and leaving him in change of the kindergarten. The article as it stands is a disgrace to Wikipedia. I suggest you do something about it. Adam 01:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This, of course, is nonsense. A number of months ago I wrote what I considered to be a relatively balanced article about NAMBLA that included criticisms and objections to those criticisms, in addition to a brief history of the group's founding. The article remained largely intact until last week, when Adam stumbled upon it and decided to edit the article to his liking. After several reverts, I insisted that he discuss his reasoning for edits on the discussion page as an attempt to help mediate the dispute. He refused, saying he wasn't prepared to engage in "polemical arguments" on the topic, and insisted on reinstating his recent revisions without any discussion or their merits.
I have been more than forthcoming with integrating much of the new material that Adam has proposed, including a lot of information regarding the strong condemnation the group has received from modern day gay rights groups. However, Adam still isn't happy. Rather than to channel that unhappiness into constructive discussion into how to move forward, he has used extremely offensive rhetoric, labeling me a "NAMBLA advocate" and implying that I myself am a pedophile (which verges on libel), and trying to frame the debate in a way that makes it seem as though "pedophiles" are the topic -- though the topic is really a fair portrayal of a political organization.
The fact is that all of us are indebted to you for your dedication and foresight in creating and maintaining Wikipedia. One of the reasons we owe so much to you is that, for the first time in history, the content and provision of information is not left up to the court historians. Any educated person with specialized knowledge can now convey his knowledge through Wikipedia. What is more, he can rest assured that mechanisms are in place to ensure that his knowledge can not be edited and reversed by the masses just because it is unpopular or makes some people uncomfortable. Thus it is with the highest respect and admiration for your ingenuity and wisdom that I advise you to take Adam's message with a grain of salt and move onto more pressing issues. Corax 09:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Corax states "The article remained largely intact until last week, when Adam stumbled upon it and decided to edit the article to his liking". I feel this is a mis-representation of the facts. Coarax has a pattern of engaging in edit and revert wars with this article against several editors; a look at the history of this page should be enlightening. Samboy 10:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An examination of the article's history only proves that my introduction of new information did, indeed, remain largely intact. One or two disagreements sprang up, but those were quickly resolved in an equitable way agreeable to all sides because, unlike in our present situation, all participants behaved in a civil manner and were open to discussion on the issues instead of engaging on a crusade of blind editing. Corax 10:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reverts done on this page by Corax: Against User:Get-back-world-respect [3] [4]

[5]; Against User:Davenbelle [6] [7]. He also has reverted non-vandalism contributed by IPs, not to mention Adam and myself. Samboy 10:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spare me the crocodile tears. You've been just as tenacious in your reverts as I have, the m ain difference being that I've defended my reverts on the discussion page, while you have tried to control the content of the article by fiat. Corax 18:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dropping a Line

Mr. Wales. I just came over to say hello. Ive been on this site now for almost one year exactly. I've had a great time and have written some good articles. Feel free to visit my User page. Most of what I've worked on is there. Thanks for sponsering such a great site. I hope it stays up a long long time. -Husnock 05:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Message moved from User Page

Hi Jimmy I wanted to contact you about a possible internship during this summer in wikimedia. I live in Tampa and attend college at UF. Please contact me at poningru at ufl dot edu I also hang out in #wikipedia at freenode. For good measure I am also emailing you. - Eldo (Note: this message is not from User:BM, who only moved it from the main User page. The message was originally posted by User:

Problem with

Hello, I have a problem with the German Wikipedia. There are pictures made by me. I don't agree with publishing them. The users don't want to delete them. Could you please delete them?

I think, it would be better if you set the images to be deleted on de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Bilder (after reading the topic) or contact an admin on the German Wikipedia. --Filzstift 09:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Nonsense Book

Hi Jimbo,

(This probably isn't a new idea, but...) Have you ever thought of producting a little comedy book like this with Wikipedia Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? Some of this stuff is comic genius - for example Seabhcán 08:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually plan on printing out the Encyclopaedia BJAODNica and selling it on eBay. MessedRocker 21:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Feature Request: Userpage protection

Please allow users to protect their userpages from other non-administrative users. (This probably isn't the proper place for feature requests. I know.) Adraeus 10:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? I let people edit my userpages, what's the problem with it?--Jimbo Wales 21:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not you. Adraeus 00:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Jimbo. I'm going to interview you. I only have one question. - 04:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Are you a quitter?


Can you edit this page? - 06:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • My apologizes on that one. I saw his question on the main Barnstar Userpage, so I went to that talk page and answered his question there. I thank for moving my question here. Zscout370 18:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


There is no official rules per se about Barnstars and deleting them. However, most people remove them from their talk page, but put them on your user page. If the barnstars get to great, a page like this will be very good. Will people get upset if you delete or keep them? No, since time has gone since the award. Zscout370 11:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible Solution: Uncle Jimbo (I hope you do not mind me calling you that, I watch too much South Park), here is an idea that I have created that you can see at here. What I did is put the awards I got into tables, broken up into four sections (you can get easily away with three). First, put the award, second, put the text that comes with the award (I call it the citation) and the third spot is for the user that stuck it there. The last section was just something I wanted to do. I would love to hear your thoughts about it. Zscout370 00:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello Sir,

I'd like to ask a few questions, namely:

  1. Why did you start Wikipedia?
  2. What are your intentions re the development of this free online encyclopedia?
  3. What makes Wikipedia so popular?
  4. Is it on the same level as other "normal" encyclopedias? And other online encyclopedias? If so, why?

That's all. Please don't be surprised if my questions sound a bit dumb. I'm somewhat known for being able to answer all the difficult questions, yet asking the stupid ones (ex. Why is a BEC governed by quantum physics). It reminds me a bit of Riemann - or was it Russell? I forget - who was able to do spectacular things with calculus, but couldn't do simple arithmetic.

Anyway, that's all. JMBell 17:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir, and all,
I would much appreciate at least a decent response from any of you. You could very well e-mail me; however, I use the computer in the library (and sometimes the downtown café) and don't have an e-mail address, thinking it to be a big waste of time and money. I prefer snail mail. Please reply here, or on my talk page, as this is the only way to contact me thru internet. JMBell° 14:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain Jimbo has been interviewed several times and asked these same questions several times. Research. Research. Research. Google. Adraeus 17:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Mr. Wales. This may seem like a stupid question, but I just want to know if it is okay to use contractions on articles, such as "ain't" or "isn't"? It's just that I do this all the time.- B-101 19:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Wales doesn't seem to be answering, but I don't think there's a specific policy on this; however, you're supposed to use an "encyclopedic" style, which is generally somewhat more formal than the casual writing that more commonly uses contractions. "Ain't" is generally regarded as substandard, and thus shouldn't be used here (other than in an article specifically discussing colloquial language, or in a direct quote). Other contractions are part of standard English, but of an informal variety that mostly doesn't belong here. It would depend on context in a specific instance, though. *Dan* 17:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spell Checker at Edit Pages

Hi Jimbo,
I believe that adding a spell checker to the Edit Pages can reduce the number of spelling mistakes in an article. I am not sure whether this is the right place for suggesting such changes. If not, I am sorry and please let me know abt the forum where I can raise such issues.Gaurav1146 19:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doing spell-checking is something that should be done from the user's computer, rather than done as a server-side task as yet another process running on the overstretched Wikipedia servers. I've found that using the Mozilla Firefox browser with the SpellBound spell-check extension to work very well for editing Wikipedia articles. You can even have multiple dictionaries so you can spell-check articles written in British English, American English, or even other dialects of English. BlankVerse 00:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello. Recently I got an email saying someone had sent me an email from a host that the local Powers That Be had ordered blocked. I had to manually unblock it. If things were as I were told they would, you should be able to re-send it and it should get through this time. 02:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another hello!

Can you edit this page? - 21:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Articles on explosives - potential legal issues?

Hi Jimbo. I just wanted to bring this to your attention:

DPPP (listed on Votes for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DPPP) is just a recipe for an explosive. I'm worried that this probably creates various legal issues for Wikipedia, especially with anti-terrorism legislation (I'm not a lawyer, so I wanted to make sure "someone important" knew about it).

SteveW | Talk 00:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ban question


I am wondering if there is any way that exceptions can be made for accounts that aren't blocked on IPs that are. Where I have the fastest connection (at school), there seem to be some people that like to cause trouble anonymously, which in turn keeps me from editing anything. The school's internet runs on a single server, leading to only one IP for the entire network. Would it be possible to code a feature that allows unblocked accounts to have access on blocked IPs if the accounts were made before the block? Many thanks for whatever help you can offer.

Fant 22:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Alexa statistics

Hello Jimbo Wales,
While browsing the web I have found a web statistics of that could be included into Special:Statistics; see [8] for and [9] for The Rank(1), Review(1) and the Graph(2) is the one of the whole site. When creating an account on it is even possible for Wikimedia to earn a little bit of money with this stats (and maybe with a web search (?), see [10]. Additionally there could be a link directly to [11] for example to see where people go to on To be able to use these stats it has to be created "MediaWiki:Alexastats" for example in where normal HTML tags and scripts have to be used (see externel links above). The stats could appear under the sitestats and userstats on Special:Statistics. What do you think of this idea? --- Best wishes --Melancholie 17:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet another hello!

Could you please edit this page? - 03:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)



You Can Be A Witness Vol 2

Tomorrow: Banning Mutter Erde on wikipedia:de


Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Problem zwischen AN, Dickbauch, Skriptor, Markus Schweiß und anderen mit Mutter Erde [12]

Some are wondering and laughing:[13]

= Prehistory:( You are leaving the old (but current!) sector behind the coloured plate) )

Banning Mutter Erde : ( Coming soon )

Have fun MutterErde 10:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

And now: Fasten your seat-belts , here we go :

MutterErde presents: Banning Mutter Erde from / Second Try : LIVE-SHOW

Some additional informations: [14], [15] , [16]

Have fun MutterErde 10:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooooooohhhh , that hurts. The first fouls by Skriptor !

[17] , [18]

Shame on you , Skriptor 14:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)MutterErde 16:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (Signature added )

fyi: that wasnt Skriptor, who wrote that! ME is already known for misusing the signature-feature! 15:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Who are you , honey ? MutterErde 16:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What else has happened today?

What some Germans wanted to delete .Unbelievable.

Aria Giovanni , Jenna Jameson are among the candidates and a dozen more - even bomis .com – but they didn´t dare.

Deleted on the german site today by Herrick : Anita Blond , Kaylani Lei , Bobbi Eden , Rebecca Lord ,Bridgette Kerkove ,

Bunny Lord , Bunny Love , Olivia del Rio - all not relevant MutterErde 20:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,hi Mutter Erde

Was macht unser gemeinsamer Freund, der Tor der Sk ripte ?


  • Unter welchem Sockenpuppenalias tobt er sich jetzt aus?
  • Wenn hat er jetzt aufs Korn genommen?
  • Wenn hat er jetzt ausgesperrt?

Kannst du bitte so freundlich sein und unserem Tor der Sk ripte folgende Links ans Herz legen die sich mit Zensur und Internetbenimmregeln befaßen?

Um zu sehen was er, der Tor der Sk ripte, gerade macht:

Kannst du bitte auf deiner Benutzerseite folgenden Text veröffentlichen?

Ich lösche ab sofort keine fremden Benutzerseiten mehr, dafür erwarte ich, das fremde Autoren nicht meine eigene Benutzerseite löschen oder teilzensieren! Diskussionen werden nur um Text erweitert, nicht gelöscht.

Bitte empfehle diese Box weiter!

Er zeigte dass er sehr wohl Freude daran hat, die konstruktive Arbeit in der Wikipedia zu behindern. Dieses Archiv zeigt die Freunde die sich Skriptor gemacht hat:

"Be happy, that you speak no german. Hoping you are more pleased of the other wikipedias." (Mutter Erde) „The users do not strive for maintaining peace in Wikipedia, they only want to kick a dog when it's down and further humiliate a person who has already made himself into an outsider. I find this unbearable, degrading and disgusting. I regret having left my proposal for banning in the hands of such hyenas“. . --Henriette 12:48, 2. Apr 2005 (CEST)

--Manfred Riebe 08:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Es muß halt mal ein Zeichen gesetzt werden, damit dieser Trolladmin begreift, daß er mit seinem feigen Benehmen ein schlechtes Vorbild für andere Autoren auf Wikipedia abgibt, und daß er der Anlaß für Vandalismus ist.

A new idea!

Jimbo, I've got this idea: Wikiscript!

Instead of having random quotes on the page, we should organize it into a chronological script, whether it be a movie or a television series. - 03:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

TV and movie scripts are copyrighted, and so that's immediately out of the question for Wikipedia. As for small quotes, that's what Wikiquote is for. MessedRocker 22:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I propose a Wikipedia Research League

Hey Jimmy,

I was just thinking that we should have a Wikipedia Research League. It would be just like our current Clean-Up Taskforce, only this league's goal is to turn stubs into fuller articles. I'd be happy to be in charge of the league, if it happens.

I would just like to know if you're OK with this idea.


MessedRocker 22:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


Looking forward to your visit to Belgrade. I'm one of the Serbian Wiki team and I'll probably be there when the other guys show you the city around (Milos has made arrangements with you). Just to let you know... Cheers! --Dungodung 10:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

There has been a great deal of discussion and disagreement regarding the use of prefixed-styles originating with the new Pope Benedict XVI article which currently begins with the formal style of address, "His Holiness." The question was broadened because it was claimed by Jguk to be an established style policy to begin biographical entries with formal styles, and discussion was moved/continued on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page. Prolonged discussion resulted in no apparent consensus, and a survey was proposed and discussed for another week before being submitted. The current survey is posted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles.

The survey is still ongoing, and not scheduled to be closed until after April 14. However, there does not seem as yet to be any consensus forming, rather, there seem to be divided camps which will probably block ultimate consensus for any outcome. By no means is this absolutely certain, and I would not foreclose the survey and discussion prematurely, but I thought you might want to take a look and in particular to provide any suggestions or guidance on what the Wikimedia Foundation would consider a proper NPOV rule. Whig 06:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Welcome. First- sorry for my English. I have a question. When is planned a start of Sorbian/Wendish Wikipedia? I promised it Sorbians. Great greetings for "The Great" :), Antares (pl) my discussion PS> Thank You For Wikipedia!


Mr Wales, I would like to bring your attention to the case that User:Mel Etitis, User:Moumine and User:JMbell have been complaining that I have done edits that does things which make things good to bad, and even stating that my English is bad (I don't see where's bad, and they have been using a lot of brackets in their sentences). Thus, Mel Etitis opened an RfC for me on May 1.

Today, if you realise, the gang of three users have been stalking me, ambushing my edits wherever I go. While accusing me that my edits make things good to bad, it is sometimes the reverse. For example, while GohChok Tong needs a new template as the old syntax template should be replaced with the new one, Mel has delibrately reverting my edits, doing things as he pleased. In fact, everyone, or mostm has been against me. I don't see where my guiltiness lies, nor do I see where my English is atrocious. I admit that I may have some errors, but they have been accusing me of having bad english since when I stated that I have stated that their english is bad. Both parties, three to one(Me) been pointing out mistakes to each other, and I initially wanted to state their mistakes in their RfC, but I'm baffled, stating that I'm a vilian in other words and they as heroes in other words. The freedom to edit, the right to edit, especially Zanskar, have been robbed by them whenever I want to do even the slightest edit, they will mercilessly revert before I could complete the entire process.

If this goes on, I will have no choice but to leave wikipedia.

Tan 21:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,
I, on behalf of User:Mel Etitis and User:Moumine, would like to give our side of the argument in response to Mr. Tan's statement.
We, User:Mel Etitis, User:Moumine, and I, are having a small problem with User:Mr Tan. You see, this Tan character has been diligently editing many articles over the past few weeks. Now this isn't a problem in itself, but Tan does not have adequate knowledge of English grammar. This, too, shouldn't have been a problem, but (here's the catch) although Mr. Tan accepts that his English is substandard, he does not let others fix it. That is the cause of this whole dispute.
Over the past few weeks, Mr. Tan has repeatedly disrupted the project; for example, he persistently kept changing the grammar of some articles to match his own standards, and in doing so lowered the overall quality of the article; he added unnecessary {{gcheck}} templates to articles which needed no copyediting (e.g. Zanskar); verbally attacked the three aforementioned users.
Aside from this, he would do large-scale edits on articles, repeatedly replacing perfectly good phrases with his fractured English, adding questionable facts and the like. It has come to the point where reasoning has no effect on this user. With no other option (Mel had already blocked him once), we opened an RfC, hoping to enlighten him.
However, it didn't stop there. Mr. Tan gladly seized the opportunity to accuse us of doing various things, including vandalism, personal attacks, poor grammar, bad faith, and the like.
More information under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mr_Tan and in our talk pages.
Most sincerely, JMBell° 14:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales,

On my point of view, I would like to give my defence upon the statements given by JMbell:

As a responsible editor of the wikipedia community, I always try to make out the best that I could give for wikipedia. I do not, understand why they have repeatedly accusing me and my fellow Singaporean/Malaysian users having a substandard of English. Although I do not admit that my English is 100% flawless, the problem started with the debate over Zanskar (if you would kindly approach and view over the history and see our edits). As I was a newbie at that time, I had, to my then-not-so-good knowledge of wikipedia and having a haste to spin-off articles, blanked out the page and suggested a vote. Mel, then stated that it was vandalism, in which I subsequently apologised to him in the user page.

After the incident, I had persistently wanted to change the outlook of wikipedia, having the thought that my action would benefit wikipedia. Disagreements led to an edit war, alongside I was blocked for exceeding the three revert rule.

For a time I decided to give up on Zanskar, editing on other articles in the meantime. However, to my surprise, even up to today, Mel has been persistently tracking down on my edits, and induging in my editing affairs. I do not vandalise, in fact, I never had the intention to do that.

For some unknown reasons the group have been accused me of vandalism. Because of our vast differences in our ideas, we have attempted to sort out our differences, resulting in an edit war at times. I also do not understand why Mel has been placing up signs of copy-editing on articles that I have contributed, which I think is better, and Zanskar, which I think is worse, he removed it unanimously. This, however, is discrimination of my POV, dignity and my right to edit. Although at times I do agree that my english may have contained flaws, I do not see the point where they have been even reverting changes unanimously on articles that I have been working on and reverting the changes. It really shocks me a great deal. To me, their english have certain strange points which made me disagree on them.

Although I may be a little bit harsh at times, to be honest, User:Huaiwei and User:Mailer diablo have also condemned of the group's actions. If you notice, Mel has also reverted the old syntax template in Goh Chok Tong and their children's facts twice, after I replaced with the new template, seeing that all other articles uses the new template.

With due respect, Mr Wales, I would appreciate if you could spend a little bit of your precious time and look into the matter in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan and Zanskar. I would be also very grateful if you would briefly look through my works in Wee Kim Wee, Kinnaur, Nakhi, Korean Buddhism and Cheng Hoon Teng.

Yours, sincerely,

Tan 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Also, look at all the mistakes that he insisted were right. JMBell° 11:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I must say that (from my perspective), we are innocent of the terrible crimes that Tan has been accusing us of doing. We would very much appreciate any opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan, as we are obviously getting nowhere. Thank you. JMBell° 12:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi Jimbo,

the people from Hamburg finally decided to meet on Juni 1 and on June 2. It would be nice if you'd drop a note when you want to visit us. -- Greeting from the North Sea southgeist 00:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You Can Be A Witness Vol 3

MutterErde presents: Banning user wikibär from

additional informations : [19] , [20] , [21]

By the way: You remember the "Geistesheld from PISA" - that admin who is deleting articles just to satisfy his weird humor ?[22]

( Sure you do :-)) (or, as we in Germany say: "Wozu muss ich von irgendwas eine Ahnung haben - ich habe doch einen Löschknopf ! ")

Look at his comeback:

Have fun

MutterErde 19:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: We are still waiting for some Hamburgers. But I´m sure they will vote in time.

  • Hahaha , the "Geistesheld" has written some lines on the discussionsite ...

: Noch einmal die Frage zum Erziehungswert einer infiniten Sperrung: Ich sehe da keinen, ausser das eindeutige Signal für den Accountinhaber zu verschwinden. Wiedergänger mit gleichen Intentionen wurden und werden auch jetzt schon ohne großes Aufheben herausgeworfen, siehe de:Benutzer:Oma Erde, dessen Mutter uns allen noch in ganz schlechter Erinnerung ist. Also: Bitte in diese Aktion nicht mehr hinein interpretieren als unbedingt notwendig. --Markus Schweiß, @ 06:56, 18. Mai 2005 (CEST) [23]

Funny guy - but he can´t cheat them all, especially not wikibär.

To all Hamburgers - even then they are not living in Hamburg - here his answer : [24]

MutterErde 17:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Alexander MacGregor

Dear Jimbo, I understand why you have chosen to remove the image from the Alexander MacGregor article.. I presume that the TIPT people have been in touch and are putting on the heat (although I suspect that the actual copyright holder may be the Toronto Sun). As the edit history demonstrates, the irony here is that the article was started as an apparent vanity page. In any case, the facts about MacGregor that I have added to the page are a matter of undisputed public record with supporting links to newspaper articles and human rights board documents. I cannot, however, personally vouch for the veracity of any of the claims made by the original creator of the article which are still extant in the text. Fawcett5 20:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the phone call was from the Toronto Sun. MacGregor's representatives are quite unhappy with the article as it currently stands, and so I hope that you (and others) will take some time (if possible) to carefully review the exact wording of every single claim in the article which might in any way be controversial.--Jimbo Wales 20:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo

Hi Jimbo, I am quite new to Wikipedia I became a member around January, and recently came across your user page. I would just like to say how much I enjoy Wikipedia and how much I enjoy using the site, I often use the information for my school work and find it infinitely better than most other informative websites. Thanks Electricmoose- Electrifying 20:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert explanation

Hello, Mr. Wales. We've never talked; I'm a relatively recent administrator. I reverted the edit User:Who is it? made to your talk page, as it seems to be a massive number of copies of your talk page. If you would like to see it, it's here, but it is so large it most likely will not load for you. Incidentally, thank you for founding this revolutionary project that has already captured the interest of so many. — Knowledge Seeker 22:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Like a lot of Wikipedians, I'm an in-out, when I have time, sort of editor, and a much more regular looker upper. Just a wee note of thanks for all the fun - and occasional professional usefulness - you've given me over the past 18 months or so. I'd give you a barnstar, but I'm too lazy! Gerry Lynch 23:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

(misplaced comment moved from your userpage User:Rdsmith4/Sig)

Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted

Why are "non-commercial only" and "by permission only" images going to be deleted? If one has the copyright owner's permission to use the images, then one would think that using the images is okay. JarlaxleArtemis 23:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Our goal is to create a _free_ (in the sense of GNU) encyclopedia. Non-free images are contrary to that purpose. When we accept non-free images, we make our work proprietary, that is to say, we change our work so that only Wikipedia may use it, no one else can use it. This is contrary to our fundamental principles.
The Four Freedoms of free software apply to Wikipedia. People should have the right to copy our work. They should have the right to distribute our work. They should have the right to modify our work. And they should have the right to distribute modified versions of our work.
There are a great many complexities and borderline cases associated with this. "Fair use" presents a challenging example, and I think that we rely far too heavily on fair use and that virtually all (yes, virtually all!) of the images which are currently tagged as 'fair use' should be deleted. But this is a grey area and so at this time, I only urge people to be cautious about those.
But "by permission only" and "non-commercial only" are not grey areas. They are clearly non-free images which hurt our work. The examples I gave on the mailing list show why -- we are in some cases using non-free images when it would be trivial to get a free image. This means that people who want to use our work get a broken work. This is bad.
--Jimbo Wales 13:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
imho its hypocritical to allow fair use images which are of virtually no use to commercial reusers due to variations in copyright law and which can only be used in context whilst not allowing images with permission that is simarlarlly restrictive. I do agree about the non commercial and wiki(m|p)edia only cases though as theese prevent commercial reuse completely. Plugwash 20:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Let's rebel against the system! Screw copyright, lawyers, and all that other beaurocratic crap! We can move the servers to China, where they don't have copyright. JarlaxleArtemis 00:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Amsterdam meetup 29th may

hi jimbo, could you please confirm date and time (14:00 CET) at nl:Wikipedia:Ontmoeten#Amsterdam:_29_mei_-_1_juni_Holland_open? thanks, oscar 09:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Serbocroatian Wikipedia

Hi, Jimbo! My name is Marko Pokrajac, and I am admin on Serbian Wikipedia. I know that you have been in Belgrade, and unfortunately I was not able to see you.
These days I was wondering, who closed sh Wikipedia? I asked to reopen sh Wikipedia on meta:Requests for new languages, and I told that to Angela, and she said that she will ask you for your opinion about that closed Wikipedia. I am active on Serbian Wikipedia and I am talking Serbocroatian! I believe that somebody will join me in future if sh Wikipedia starts, because Serbo-croatian language is language who talk everybody in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia, and there is still people who is not nationalist and believe in one language. This is just like whit German, Spanish or English. There is no Australian, American, Austrian or Brasilian language. So, this Wikipedia (if you open it) will be absolutelly NPOV, liberal and antinationalist Wikipedia. Many liberal and antinationalist people said that they are talking Serbo-croatian despite Balkan war(s). Best regards, --M. Pokrajac 13:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


Jimbo, I just received a phonecall from Oscar that they are looking for you, but they are unable to find you. FYI: They are in the First Class Restauration on Central Station (1e klas restauratie - Centraal Station). -- Jeroenvrp 14:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Simple English Wiktionary

Excuse me? Why create a project with no administrators on it? ( -- • Thorpe • 11:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting you want to become an admin? It's best to not pose such open-ended questions to busy people. -- user:zanimum

Flash objects in Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo! I was wondering if you could consider allowing users to upload files in the powerful and versitle .swf (flash) format. It would be a great replacement for animated gifs. I tried making this suggestion to MediaZilla, but its been 3 months now without a reply. I think it'd be great addition to Wikipedia.

Sincerly --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for eavesdropping. Hmm...I'm a Flash man myself, and I'd love to throw .swf together for wikipedia. I think, however, that there would be some extraordinary security problems with doing so. Flash would be at least as dangerous as allowing the posting of active JavaScripts, (because Flash can send js commands to the browser), plus it would add its own security wringles. I'm afraid Flash would simply be to big a tempation for the goatse, etc. vandals. func(talk) 22:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Damn, isn't it always that a few people will ruin it for everyone. I love flash, (and it'd be totally awesome to have a userpage that is completely a flash object. But nearly all the new websites are created as a flash object. --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I think adding Flash to Wikipedia is a really bad idea. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, and, as such is built upon open formats. This is why we use Ogg instead of mp3 for audio files, and why we still mainly use png instead of gif for non-photographic images. Wikipedia is built on open formats, and open standards; Flash is a closed proprietary format controlled by a single company, and hence has no place on the Wiki. Samboy 00:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well I notice animated gifs are being used quite a lot. And jpegs. And I'd be willing to bet that the program this website was made with isn't open source either. --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the MediaWiki software is, assuming that's to what you are referring. — Knowledge Seeker 23:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Animated SVG is likely to be the open alternative to simple Flash animations; however, you'll have to wait a couple of years before it's widely deployed, with the Firefox browser likely driving the process. SVG+Javascript has the potential to completely replace Flash for most purposes, but because it uses a general-purpose scripting language, safety will still be an issue. -- The Anome 09:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Also, flash is slow to load, breaks compatibility for some people, and generally annoys me.--Fangz 11:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ha, ha. :) It doesn't have to be slow to load...but a lot of bad/non-optimized flash is. func(talk) 19:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, Fangz, you have gotta be joking. A flash object will load up way faster than a standard animated gif. --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I hate those too.--Fangz 23:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior name vote

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum


  • I just wanna congragulate Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia for there was an article written on them in the June 6 issue of TIME magazine. --Megabyte73 01:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah I just came here to say the same thing, gratz Jimbo Jtkiefer 23:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo. Could you please ban/block ASAP? Because, he/she kept vandalizing Hephaestos' user talk page 3 times. If you would like to discuss this, I reported him/her at AMA Requests for Assistance about last week (or something) before he/she vandalized Hephaestos' user talk page one more time. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:Image:Wikifuhrer.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Image:Wikifuhrer.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. User:Graham87 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC) The image has been listed there because of it's offense and the uppercase file extention. I will take care of the later, but I wish to see what your feelings of this image is. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia 3D Sitemap

Hey Jimbo, met you in Dresden on June 3rd and you seemed to be interested in Kolossuss' project of a 3D sitemap of Wikipedia. Here is a link to check out: 3D Sitemap

Wikimédia France

Hi Mr Wales,

I'm sorry to disturb you but there is an issue on the french-speaking wikipédia that I think need your attention as the president of wikimedia foundation.

Here is the story : there was a page about a castle in France on the fr wikipédia. This castle is private, and people living there have issues with visitor comming in their garden all the time. So they made thread of legal actions against wikipédia if wikipédia doesn't remove the article.

The article has been deleted by the president of wikimedia France, in the name of the association.

I don't question that the article has to be deleted or not, for human reasons (legaly, there is no basis for an action), but to what I've understood of the role of the association, it isn't it's purpose at all.

I'm a wikipedian for a few months now, I think I arrived just after the association has been created. I don't doubt that wikimedia France did some actions regarding what they're supposed to do, promote the wikimedia projects in France, but so far, that's the first action taken by the association that is really visible to the wikipedians.

For me, this behavior send a clear message to the french-speaking wikipedian : "A small group now decide what can and what cannot be in the encyclopedia regardless of what the community thing, so please, do a fork". And I really don't think that's the role of the association to send such message.

I have to say that I have a bad reputation among the french wikipedians as being a troll, so don't take what I say as words from the bible, but apparently I'm not the only one to see a problem here so I though it was important to bring that matter to your attention.

Concidering what this association has offered to wikipédia so far, I personnally question the existence of this association. I'm all for local associations all other the world, but if it's only to do stuff like that, they're only additional problems and don't help the projet at all imho.

Regards, Nicnac25 14:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia (in any language or country) ought to be bullied into removing an article by threats such as this. Somebody who objects to how an article presents a given subject is free, of course, to edit it; in this case, it would make sense for them to add a paragraph noting that the castle is private property and does not welcome visitors to its grounds without prior permission. However, they shouldn't have the right to demand the article be removed altogether, and the management of Wikipedia shouldn't cave in to such demands. Of course, if the place is insufficiently notable, it should be brought up for a vote for deletion in the standard manner. *Dan* 15:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
You don't get it. My problem isn't the deletion or not of the article, that's subject to discussion, my problem is the president of wikimedia France taking alone that decision when he doesn't have the autority to do so.
By doing this, he places himself and the association in the role of editorialist, meaning that only the association will be responsible for the content of wikipédia. Short version : if someone sue a wikipedia contributor for diffamation for exemple, the contributor can send the ball back to the association, as it takes, alone, responsibilities of the content of wikipedia. Not good for wikipedia, not good for the association, not good for anybody. Nicnac25 17:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although often in dissension with Nicnac25 (for other questions), I completely support his interrogations and disputes about this problem of the French association which assumes competences which are not in the statutes (a coup d'État in my opinion). I just think that the president of association underwent pressures, and then acted as he did. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To make it more clear, if the only purpose of this association is to receive legal threat by regular mail, band over each time, and make actions they don't have power to do, wich appear to be the case right now, I suggest to simply ask the dissolution of this association. Better nothing than that. Nicnac25 18:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need help

Jimbo, this is Linuxbeak. I need your help again.

I got nominated to RfA, but this jerk is using the entire Civil Air Patrol incident against me, and he's making it sound like I'm the one at fault for the entire mess. Seeing you personally tried to help me out, would you be so kind as to reply to his concerns? My RFA is located here. Thanks, Jimbo! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that you really need help there, as you've got 36 supporters and only 3 opponents as of the present time, though the opponents are much more longwinded in their commentary, and have drawn longwinded replies as well, making the "oppose" section take up more screen space than its numbers would normally cause. It looks likely your nomination will be approved, and it looks like you deserve it, but those who have problems with things you've done or are alleged to have done have the right to speak as well; somebody isn't automatically a "jerk" if they're concerned about your actions. I don't blame you for the CAP thing, if you were directly ordered by your supervisor to do what you did, but the CAP supervisor was clearly way out of line; no organization has any inherent right to demand approval before an outside source publishes an article on them. *Dan* 18:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Holland Open

Hi Jimbo, I just looked and listened to your talk at Holland Open . It was great! I laughed loud about " my good old law" as you will understand. Regarding your comments on voting on Dutch wikipedia, thank you very much. I think we should be more critical when we vote, and when we shouldn't indeed. The interesting thing is, though, that on the Dutch version of "Votes for deletion" we almost never vote. And more importantly, now our community is growing, articles on this list are often improved so that they can be kept. Most articles which are deleted now are very short definitions, copyright violations, and advertisements. Ellywa 08:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks. I hope still to be able to attend. Morwen - Talk 13:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

uwe kils

hallo Jimmy - I have written you an email a couple of days ago. Did you get it? If not please give me a better one - best greetings Uwe Kils 15:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) I just donated two of my finest images of one of the most amazing critters roaming the oceans in full resolution to your projects (I retired and give away my things slowly) Krilleyekils.jpg 250px


Hello, 申忠容承和. - 02:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Don't you ever archive your talk page? - 02:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hello Jim! I've granted permission from UN Photo Department to use their photos here. With which image copyright tag should I tag these photos? I am not sure, cause of upcoming deleting campaign on "noncommercial" and "permission" photos. -- Darwinek 10:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have granted permission? Obtained permission? What kind of permission.

Unless you convinced them to release under a free license, you should not upload the photos at all. They will be candidates for speedy deletion and should be deleted on sight.

--Jimbo Wales 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Jimbo. Nice to meet you. - 00:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Consider these:

  1. Birth. Suppose I uploaded a rather complete picture of the process, with just the head sticking out. OK, or a problem?
  2. Once the baby is born, would a picture be considered child porn? How about if the baby is one year old, perhaps demonstrating a diaper change or bath? If a newborn isn't child porn, but a 13-year-old is, then where is the line drawn?
  3. What about breastfeeding? I know that Florida has amended the public nudity law to explicitly allow breast exposure during breastfeeding, but maybe that doesn't extend to photos of the act?
  4. Various body parts in various conditions.

Does it matter if an image is greyscale or a bit blurred? Does the pose matter?

Do you need 18 U.S.C. 2257 documentation, a custodian of records, and/or something to satisfy 28 C.F.R 75? If so, what would that mean for Wikimedia and the image submitter?

Please get this all reviewed by a real lawyer, licensed to practice where your servers are located.

Please post an answer at commons:Commons:Criteria_for_inclusion.

AlbertCahalan 01:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. I think you don't know anything about Florida law. None of what you are talking about would come even remotely close to being legal trouble in Florida or in the United States, period.--Jimbo Wales 13:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking, although I know that such images should be legal as far as I can tell. I'd just like to have some really clear guidelines to be safe. Most of us can't afford to fight a groundless prosecution, except perhaps if the facts are obvious enough to merit a speedy dismissal of the case. I'm sure you and wikimedia could fight very well, but the servers could come back a week later as a bag of loose components. Remember that Florida is the site of this famous case. AlbertCahalan 02:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

hallo Jimbo! If your time allows, can you please take a look at maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Danish meeting in Dragør

Hi Jimmy - thanks for a very nice afternoon in Dragør. I hope you had a good time and got back to Reboot on time to meet the journalist :-) I'll upload some photos from the meeting tomorrow. Regards Malene 22:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment left on your user page


picture of the day

glad to contribute to a great international project Wikipedia:Picture of the day/June 20, 2005 Uwe Kils 14:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I only have one question. I tried to load the report about the murder of Sitting Bull on and it isn't available although it was a few days ago. Now the German T-com has blocked or something else. Where do I get the report? Is this censorship, re-writing history?

virtual university

Dear Jimbo! if your time allows can you take a look at Virtual university we would like to hear about your thoughts about such a motion - I hope you had a great time in Danmark, thats where my roots are - take care Uwe Kils 02:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I award you this award...

File:Order Orla Bialego2.jpg
Order of the White Eagle (badge)

For your massive contribution to society in the form of Wikipedia.


This computer is a little screwed up...


Jimbo, I don't think this guy is real. - 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board

I have now reopened the notice board, if you are interested in contributing new topics, or in nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Week, which also received a revamp. Please post on the project's talk page if you show interest. Mike H 02:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

response from London on Antarctic krill

Uwe wants to share this with you (from his talk page):

Hello Kils

Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me. Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good. I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good.

Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).

Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that feels good

did you see who gave the picture of the day? take care Uwe Kils Heringmini.jpg 23:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

IRC chat 23 June 2005 22:00 CEST Wikimedia Nederland chapter

Jimbo, you are kindly invited to join an IRC chat 23 June 2005 22:00 CEST about the Wikimedia Nederland chapter on #nl.wikimedia. The chat will be to prepare the first meeting of on 3 July 2005 in Utrecht. Topics will include draft bylaws and specifically the statement of purpose. Gebruiker:Dedalus 07:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Heaven, and back.

Hi Jimbo; I´ve observed that most articles grow to a mature version and then become almost "finished" versions, with very few edits afterwards. But articles that inspire emotional reactions keep being edited with no care. Try Hinduism, for instance. It is way below its past glory. It wouldn´t deserve a Featured nomination today. Is it a problem that has caught your (and the rest of the community's) attention? Subramanian talk 17:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LATWiki/Wikitorial experiment

Jimbo's been in the news/blogosphere a lot for his activities on the LA Times' Wikitorial op-ed expirement. I wanted to say a big thank you to Jimbo for the effort he made trying to prevent the abuse and his consultation with the LAT editors. While wikipedia is amazing with it's NPOV, I think there is also space in our culture for a normative wiki. ktheory 18:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Jimbo Wales, President and King of Wikipedia! I just have a question about User:SORBS DNSBL. Is Sorbs a real user? If so, why did he or she make all those vandalisms? How can we trust a person who vandalized to block the correct IP addresses? - 23:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The end of wikilove

While browsing the english wikipedia (I should be on Dutch I know!) I found this page: Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book it is to list all wikipedians who show anti-Polish behaviour and to blacklist them. I personally find it appaling and an insult to the whole project. It also kinda goes directly against your concept of wikilove! Waerth 02:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Inc.: trademark infringment?

Want to work for "Wikipedia Inc."? User:Lotsofissues pointed this out on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). It's a Japanese company, apparently established in February of this year. It looks to me to be blatant trademark infringement; I'm not sure whom to mention this to so I'm crossposting it here and on WP:AN. Just wanted to let you know! — Knowledge Seeker 05:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Wales.I am user:tdxiang.Recently,i found out that some other Wikipedian has used my IP Adress to edit articles without my knowledge.How can I prevent such incident? Thank you,Mr Wales.

Very obnoxious SYSOP conduct!

Dear Jimbo Wales, please do see into the matter of me being blocked as a "sockpuppet of ROVOAM":

20:17, 25 Jun 2005, CryptoDerk blocked #26123 (expires 20:17, 26 Jun 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Bagration-Mukhransky". The reason given for Bagration-Mukhransky's block is: "rovoam vandal sockpuppet".)

It should be a very simple exercise to arrive at the conclusion that I have not the slightest connotation with any other editor on this platform. It is unheard of that some ignorant kids should be given sysop rights and allowed to prematurely jump to all sorts of conclusions and interrupt serious people's editing efforts.--Pr. Bagration-Mukhransky 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you please ban as soon as possible, he/she kept vandalizing Mezmerize: [25] -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about creating a wiki project for writing Novels?

Hello, Jimmy:

I have an idea:Maybe you can create a wiki project for writing novels, and call it wikinovel. Maybe you can create a rough framework for the novel, but leave most of the writing to the thousands of users. I know it is a challenge, but knowing how successful Wikipedia is...

--Exir 08:31, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

A Question?

What is the main adress of the Wikimedia Foundation? Any response is greatly appreciated! Pacific Coast Highway 18:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC) (2:47PM EST)

to answer instead of Jimbo; check this ...Sicherlich talk 29 June 2005 13:43 (UTC)


Hey, Jimmy - I'd just like to say that I miss the "Random Page" feature, which appears to have been deleted from the side panel as of the most recent software upgrade. It still exists in the "Special Pages" list, yes, but that makes it less instantly convenient, if you follow me? DS June 28, 2005 13:23 (UTC)

Establishing a bank of squid proxies in Australia

I have a friend who might be interested. From the way I understand it, there are a bank of squid servers in front of the Apache servers, and these squid proxies bare most of the brunt of page accesses. I also understand that there are a bunch of proxies in France and the rest are somewhere in the U.S. - leading my friend to understand that it would be helpful to place a bank of servers in Australia. Is both my friend and my own understanding of the situation correct, and if so would you be interested? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Your mediator is doing a good job; Thank you

After I finished litigation in the high-profile Schiavo case (and lost a heartbreaking 4-3 decision in the Fla. Supreme Court), I stumbled across Wikimedia and decided to edit a little bit. As you might imagine, there was as much "debate" and disagreement on the Wiki page as there was in court and in the community. However, a fellow editor asked for mediation, and -- Uncle Ed was assigned. Although we're having "ups and downs," as you might expect, I think Ed is doing about as well as anybody in his circumstance. (And I'm trying to contribute 'my part'.) I wanted to thank you for your past support of Uncle Ed, as it was a worthwile investment. I don't know if I will really have much more time to invest in Wikimedia, but the least I could do is thank the higherups for a job well done.--GordonWattsDotCom 30 June 2005 08:52 (UTC)


Look at this guy's user contribution. - 1 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

Given that HMSO has stated that they do not consider material under Crown Copyright reproducable under a GFDL licence,

what is Wikipedia's legal position with reproducing the entire King James Bible, which is Crown Copyright (rather than just small scattered portions of it) ?

This is with respect to the full text sections of the articles

(Co-incidentally, these are currently up on VfD on other grounds, but it is a reasonable possibility that the VfD will fail)

~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

Hi Jimbo,

I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. It's at Wikipedia:Naming conflict - comments welcome. ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

problems on polish wiki

I don't speak english very well, but I want infrom, that on polish wiki is o big problem with sam sysops. They think, that polish wiki is not for all people and revert a lot times, blocks people who says, that they haven't right to do it, etc.

They destroy for example Site of some users: pl:Wikipedysta:Kwiecien and some fany things you can see in this site:

Because any word about that, what they do is reverting, so some poeple made site: and ther are kritik what they look.

I think its not positive to ban some people on 1000 h only because sombody want have "silent" - so say pl:Wikipedysta:Taw and ban on 14 days, than 14 days, end...

Now, on polish wiki evrything can be Wandalizm - so say TAW. We have problems with election sysops too.. 29 people say YES, but 2-3 people says NO, and TAW says, that we don't elect - he elect sysops... Please, look:

And the last thing - some pople try to organize and say NO: ... but now, nobody say no. At start was 12 persons, but they worry, that can't write. Evrething is "ok", because all are baned, off, revert or something else, but not nice. Can you doing something with this? Or we must love our super-sysop... we can not elect or change sysops, because we have on polish wiki "1984 year" Orwell. Its not nice.


Second time: once again from proxy, because I can say it to You from normal IP, you can see it on Block log pages: 7 lip 2005 15:25 Taw zablokowano "Wikipedysta:Kwiecien", czas blokady: 2 weeks (2 tygodnie od ostatniej pacynki) compare: and on this page: 11 cze 2005 03:54 Taw zablokowano "Wikipedysta:Kwiecien", czas blokady: 336 hours (Blokada na 14 dni, prosze nie zdejmowac) and: 11 cze 2005 17:57 Taw zablokowano "Wikipedysta:Kwiecien", czas blokady: 672 hours (Podwajam czas blokady ze wzgledu na dalszy wandalizm)

You can look in this case on page: [26]

I dont see any way... on polish list a lot of people talk about it, too: and problems with election next sysops...

now nobody can do anything with this.


Please allow me to respond to those accusations. Kwiecien, a long time contributor and troublemaker on pl Wiki has been banned for 2 weeks for disruptive behaviour, using a number of sock puppets as well as breaking a number of Wikipedia policies.
During his ban he has created even more sock puppets (over 30 at the last count), a number of those sock puppets were imaginatively named like "TAWmósiodejsc" (TAW must go) "TAW-cenzor" (TAW censor) etc. (TAW was the admin who originally blocked Kwiecien). During his ban he has also sent a number of very insulting letters full of false accusations and personal attacks to the Polish Wikipedia mailing list. From time to time he would seek, in his own words, "a ceasefire", saying that he promises not to edit any contentious articles as long as "we" (the admins) promise not to edit any of his edits...
I am not entirely happy to see someone with Kwiecien's obvious knowledge and will to help banned from the project but unfortunately his behaviour is extremely disruptive and so far he has not displayed any "community spirit" or willingness to work out any of the issues. All previous mediation efforts have been torpedoed by him in a very efficient manner despite best efforts of a lot of people.
I do apologise that this matter has been even bought to your attention by Kwiecien and for taking up so your valuable time. This is simply a sad case of persistent trolling and abuse by Kwiecien who seems to think that he is above the rest of us and the usual rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him.
Regards, Roo72

The case is more complicated than that what was said by pl:Wikipedysta:Kwiecien and Roo72. When I find some free time I will tell you about the situation. Both have right in some cases. Best regards -PioM EN DE PL 8 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)

And my answer

  1. I did not vote on Roo72, and I affirmed, that is not suitable on sysopa, because was in conflict not only with me.
  2. My bad behaviour relied familiar, that I criticized breaking of all rules on wikipedii and I called with churlishness vulgar behaviour some sysops.
  3. One call ined me on RFC: unfortunately I proved, that all, whiches called in me oneself me first insulted, did serious essential errors, etc. Gave up this, because could not to prove, that this after my side lies guilt.
  4. I was tens onces baned - every reason was good. Even when proved, that I have univocally right.
  5. Wikipedysta: TAW decided breaking all rules and ban me on 2 weeks.
  6. Because I do not accept of decision undertaken with disturbing of all rules and obrazliwie introduced, I began to write under following nickami: Kwiecien1, Kwiecien2, Kwiecien3... K1, K2, etc. always straight one can was them to identify.
  7. Several onces I asked for some solution of conflict.
  8. Two weeks after fact TAW on IRC ascertained, that does not know, what met me on wiki. But how I will imitate, that me does not have this me however after following 2 weeks make free.
  9. When after following 2 weeks (in sum about 4 of weeks) I demanded - under the mask law and orders I became again bann.

This is ill!

And :

  1. " Tawmósiodejsc" is not my user - I do not make errors (spelling mistakes (in Polish it should be Tawmusiodejsc)) on name user.
  2. I have more than 30 banned nicks.
  3. Part of persons, which promoted protest in matter of breaking of rules on wiki became banned, hunted down, insult, etc.
  4. People, which took participation in protest (have no chance to be elected on sysops, even if they have many contribution into project) not become never already surely select on sysopów... because so!
  5. This lie, that I required of prohibition my edition - simply, to introduce one edition I had to eg 15 biassed sysopom to prove, that this what exists as entry in wiki is essential error according to a dozen or so of manuals... this boring. They know "truth" o much, that no arguments did not reach (ran in). On example several onces I asked, so that in abrasive entries about correctness of edition decided outsider, no sysop oneself on this did not agree and when czesciow began this to act behind matter 2 mediation-sysops I became banned on some quantity weeks.
  6. A dozen or so onces I tasted in different manner to stave off conflict - resentful muses and certainty one's own infalllbilities several of persons did not permit on this. Besides some sysops permited on vulgar addressing a strangers in the face me and unethical maintenances {behaviour}.
  7. This is not trolling, only collusion of small group of persons, which up to here did on wiki what wanted and now somebody consistently puts out to them vulgarisms, breaking of rules wiki, serious essential errors.
  8. Thanks me one canceled on wikipedia almost unanimously insutting drawing troll, to which were of marking all not humble...

'For punishment several onces one insulted me, one ravaged me my page of user, one withdrew informations about errors in article, etc. pl:Wikipedysta:Kwiecien

After information on letter discussion, that does not accept been afraid on 14 days, because became settled by pl:Wikipedysta:Taw and lasts already several of weeks - I received following "nice" letter from one from sysop Polish wikipedia:

How you do not have what to do, then in ass scratch oneself (there You more or less have all on this leaves, behind this, that her yes you litter)...

Earlier I surrounded, that you are idiot squit from ADHD, but You are however heavily ill, dangerous psychopath... Such, how You, should kill oneself at childbirth and to sterilize of parents, so that nor commited following once such error. -- Chepry (pl:Wikipedysta:Chepry polish sysop)

"---- Original Message -----
From: "Andrzej B." <chepry w>
To: <wikipedysta w>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipl-l] I dlatego olewajmy TAWa tak jak on olewa wszelkie zasady na wikipedii
Jak nie masz co robic, to sie w dupe podrap (tam Cie mniej wiecej maja wszyscy na tej liscie, za to, ze ja tak zasmiecasz)...
Wczesniej obstawialem, ze jestes skretynialym gówniarzem z ADHD, ale Ty jestes jednak ciezko chorym, niebezpiecznym psychopata... Takich, jak Ty, powinno sie zabijac przy porodzie i sterylizowac rodziców, by ni popelnili kolejny raz takiego bledu.

It is normal? I do't think so... You can also see activities of bureaucrat pl:Wikipedysta:Taw: [27].


Jimbo, I'm still waiting for Your anserw... please, what in this case? Problems is so big, that... ech... pl:Wikipedysta:Kwiecien

Regardless of the basis for the current dispute, that's precisely why I left the Polish wiki some time ago. Many people were willing to commit their time and effort to that project, but were (just like me) discouraged by the atmosphere and the behaviour of the admins. Many of them treat the Polish wiki as if it was their own project. I could accept that as far as as administration is concerned, but their monopoly for the truth is stretched to article content disputes as well. In other words, many a time the only sensible argument in content disputes in the Polish wiki has been "Because I'm an admin and you're not". Often it's much easier to offend people or call names than to find a compromise. Too bad the admins are often the ones to support that behaviour.
BTW, the rough translation of the email posted above: If you have nothing better to do, then perhaps you should scratch your ass instead (for that's where most of members of the mailing list have you [it refers to the Polish idiom "to have someone in the ass" meaning "to ignore someone - Halibutt])... I initially thought that you are simply an idiotic child from the ADHD, but now I see that you're a sick, dangerous psychopath... Ones like you should be killed immediately after being born and their parents should be sterilised, not to allow them to commit the same mistake again.. Nice vocabulary, isn't it. Halibutt 10:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for my english, really I think non-grammatical and scored on plWiki by someone very low. So, I now don't want say about the whole matter, nothing pro nothing contra, especially after notice of Halibutt - it is highly difficult for us. The only thing I must write is Chepry's letter. I absolutely don't support this kind of wording, personnally I - public or private never use 4-letters words, and any other offends, any language have a plenty of other words that can express any emotions. So I mean that Chepry's acting was very wrong. But ... It was personal, private message, not public, and - no matter how wrong, offensive was the words - if it was private letter it can't be open published without permisssion from sender. And, if receiver however do it, the letter can't be considered. Ency response? 08:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion it's Kwiecien's fault. Although some admins are to sharp with him, we must remeber, he was using vulgar and agressive expressions to many users, who disagreed with him. He was a bit rude, no need to disccus about that. He was quite helpful with some articles but he was sure, he is always right. He seemed to think he's an expert in those matters and he didn't let anyone to edit his articles. He couldn't understand, he also makes mistakes. He didn't want to listen anybody, he also refused to finish a conflict. His intolerance, impatience and insolence on talk pages provoked some admins to block (ban) him. However he was not expelled forever and he could join us again! But he didn't want to wait and he hides behind other nicknames, so a punishment become longer, two weeks since last forbidden edit. Pawel ze Szczecina

1. Yes, yes, but "admins was sharp" 3 times more than I. I don't say anyone that he ist stiupid,dangerous psychopath, etc...
2. So, I will be not waiting 14 days, becaus pl:Wikipedysta:Taw have no right to ban me... end its problems: I say, that he lie... and not only I.
And 3. I don't let anyone to edit my articles? So way I was banned a 10 times pro one articel, when I want edit it? So? And this articels I have changes are now no changing, because are good! I know very well what I'm doing when I'm doing changes... but I'am bad "Kwiecien" so I'am bad pl:Wikipedysta:Kwiecien

Hm, it's not optimistic, what You say... Maybe You are also right, but give us a proof and not edit Polish Wiki before a ban will finish. Now I don't call you with vulgarisms (deleted them), so please, do what I asked You for. I know, that it may be difficult for You, but You shouldn't edit now. Be cleverer than Your enemies and wait until punishment finishes. Don't use other nicknames or IP adresses, because it will make Taw angry. Be patient, after 25th of July You will be able to edit legally. pl:Wikipedysta:Pawel ze Szczecina P.S. I wonder, how Taw knows, that somebody is pacynka. He may also block users, who didn't do anything wrong.


Here you will see some summary of the problem that we have made, with Alx. It is English version of text that was written at Polish Wiki, when I and Alx have tried to solve the problem, some users (also sysops) are not patient and have decided, themselves, to ban Kwiecien. We (I and Alx) started mediation between Kwiecien and some others, but they thought that there is no time to discuse patiently any controversary articles. It was more simple to ban Kwiecien. Generaly there are some problems with rules at Polish Wiki, there are no written rules on some situation also and than there were simillar problems. This situation, and atmosphere produce that many valuable user gone from project (Hallibut, Dixi, Alx, and some others who I don't remember or don't know personaly. They announced on mailing list or other places, that they resigned to participate project). So the problem and situation is more complicated. And Kwiecien's case is only more significant one. -PioM EN DE PL 07:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I see, that You don't want to do anything... its not nice, but I still waiting, that You do. Problems on are very big, but sysops don't want say it...

Re:Roanoke Times

Yes it is me. Thanks for the unexpected praise.

lots of issues | leave me a message 2 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

Vandals on Don't Tread on Me

Could you ban those users who kept vandalizing the page ASAP, feel free to ban one of them: [28]. -- Mike Garcia | talk June 28, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

All Hail Jimbo Wales!!!!

Do I need to say more? Howabout1 Talk to me! July 5, 2005 03:55 (UTC)

Question on anti-Polish bias

At User_talk:Halibutt/Black_Book#I'm with Waerth you suggested that we should try a instead a friendly outreach/education page. What do you mean? Could you be a tad more specific? Thanks in advance. Halibutt July 5, 2005 10:32 (UTC)

I just meant that a "black book" or "blacklist" is an inherently negative way to go about calling attention to what is no doubt an important issue. Instead of taking that approach, how about writing up a nice summary of the issue in some uncontroversial place (like a subpage of your user page to start, with an eye toward moving it somewhere sensible after you've gotten some feedback). Such a page would not be a page to accuse other (very respected, valuable) editors of bad faith and bias, but rather to call our attention as a community to some common pitfalls and things to look out for in this area.

In this way you are much more able to convince the rest of us, who simply don't know all there is to know about this issue, that you are more interested in building something positive than in getting into a fight. Getting into fights is so... Usenet. Building something helpful is the Wikipedia way.

I hope you find these thoughts somehow useful. --Jimbo Wales 5 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

Well done, and request for help

Dear Mr. Wales:

This is quite an idea that's taken off marvelously. Ever since becoming dependent on this site for information, I've decided to try and contribute any knowledge I can to help others as well and have enjoyed doing do. However, I am somewhat dismayed by the fact that some users, who appear to be minors or around that age tend to ruin the experience for everyone. I have already experienced my first "edit war" when I tried to write a centrist article but was under "revert" attack by an extremist. Maddening, isn't it? Now, I find myself being accused of being a "sock puppet." After researching what that was, I looked into it and found that a user (named Carr) thought I was the same person as another user, who has an extensive profile under his IP address ( We are indeed very different people and I would not put such information about myself online. However, Carr felt it necessary to mark my page and's page as sock-puppets. I removed the notices, wrote a note to informing him of the situation, and told Carr that I was not that user. He then proceeded not to respond, but write on his user page the following text (which I deleted):

User: and User:RJSampson are one and the same. Don't be fooled by his using a different IP after he was busted and User: was tagged as a sock. This Sampson is a sly customer and likes to make out to be someone he isn't. Now that he's been busted he'll try to be more careful but it's too late! And of course he used User: to show that User: was not his!

So you know, is my work IP address. A co-worker looked at an article I wrote (The Truth About Hillary) and removed a word he thought redundant because he wanted to try his hand at editing. Another user reverted the change. I do not know what IP comes from.

Regardless, I do not like to be slandered. I came to enjoy (y)our site and share knowledge, and frankly, the malevolence and immaturity I've encountered has been disheartening. My co-worker now wants no part of this site, and as he's a brilliant engineer.. what a loss. Is there anything that can be done to deal with people like this? Can this user be dealth with? He clearly won't talk to me. I dealt effectively with the "reverter" by building consensus and citing sources, but this is different and I don't want my username trashed by someone with too much time on their hands. Let me know when you can.

Thanks so much, again, for building this bank of information, and let's protect its integrity!

Warmest regards, Richard Sampson RJSampson 6 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Personal Abuse

I appear to be getting personal abuse from User:John Kenney on my talk page and on the 8th Dukes discussion page IE:

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

I assume that this user is a sysop and as such should not be allowed to act this way. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

As this is the message placed on my talk page by [user: John Kenny]] I can only assume that he is being personally offensive and immature.

Additional comments from User:John Kenney on the page like this:-

I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it, you asshole. You are a completely absurd person, fuck you. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

BTW, the caption is not part of the image, and you don't get to decide the caption for an image just because you upload the image. Your version of the image is not going to be in the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Also from the page history list:-

(cur) (last) 15:07, 7 July 2005 John Kenney (Wow, that Richard Harvey sure is a prick, huh?)

This sort of personal attack from a Sysop is very damaging to the Wikipedia name. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)

I also now note that he is working his way through, and deleting, images I have uploaded to other pages, such as those of the 6th and 7th Duke of Wellington Pages. User:Richard Harvey (sig added by ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 22:48 (UTC))

Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington#Back to basics may be useful for interested parties. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)
C'mon, don't go down there with the trolls, you know the're pullin' you down, you're an ADMIN for gosh sakes. hydnjo talk 8 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)


I've read the information has been put out on the website but I as just wondering what you're planning on presenting on at Wikimania since I assume you will have something to talk about. Since I don't check this page that often please drop a note on my userpage if you get a chance to reply to this. Thanks. Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 07:10 (UTC)

dude, you are type of a real wiki freak - gratz :) -- 8 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

  • Please Jtkiefer, explain in more detail what you're talking about. Some of us (well, me) are confused. hydnjo talk 9 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
Sorry didn't mean to confuse anyone, I was asking about Wikimania starting August 4th in Frankfurt and since I don't know whether I am going to be able to attend or not I was just wondering what aspects of Wiki Jimbo will be talking about at Wikimania. Jtkiefer July 9, 2005 06:19 (UTC)

==A concern==

The following was originally posted to user:Jimbo Wales for some reason [29] Dunc| 9 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

"I am concerned that the wikipedia arbitration committee is not operating in an acceptable manner, which has the propensity to bring wikipedia into disrepute. There is an absurd arbitration carrying on in the case of users Paul Beadsell and Tkorrovi in which the behaviour of the arbcom has been dilatory, to put it mildly. I fear that if something effective isn't done soon, then there is the possibility that members of the committee and/or others could be arraigned for libel. I don't know to what extent you are involved in ensuring that the process for resolving disputes is effective (and I think, incidentally, this case does raise some interesting issues due to the natures of the protagonists and how the excellence of wikipedia material can be affected in such cirucumstances) but I draw your attention to this matter in the hope that you can assist in moving things on and because I gather you are involved in the selection of members of the ArbCom. Matt Stan 9 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

The members of the ArbCom are fighting against personal attacks, which is good they do, as if they didn't, Wikipedia would not be a place where anyone would want to be.Tkorrovi 00:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And the rest of us are fighting for an intelligible encyclopedia written in good English. Matt Stan 17:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I would like to make two points, which exemplify our PROBLEMS:
  • 1 - The first speaker above, Tkorrovi, is probably not a native speaker of American, but I admire his good efforts, dedication, and attempt to write in a different language; and I think he's trying to say that ArbCom is fighting against those who are creating arguments and chaos, and that without ArbCom, Wikipedia would not be a place that anyone would want to be;
  • 2 - I will not only agree with him, but also, I agree with the second speaker, Matt Stan, who wants Wiki to be top quality. --but it is constantly beleaguered by edit wars, which waste time and financial & computing resources --and TIME!! Why is this, we ask? (Because solutions below aren't implimented currently.)
My proposed SOLUTIONS:
A) There is less oversight than should be. (This is fixed by my 1st solution here: Requiring users of certain "sensitive" pages to register a user name --AND post their real name, address, phone number, email address, like I do -that would make it easier to hold them accountable.)
B) Pay us, for God's sake. In my earlier post herein, I commended "Uncle Ed" Poor for his noble efforts to help Wiki improve. However, even Uncle Ed is having a problem, and he's not the only one having this problem. What is it?? WE ALL do this for free, meaning the quality goes down. If you want quality help, you'll have to pay for it. (I'm not applying for a job, per se, but if I were, I'd want to be paid.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Something else connected to the ArbCom, but in a more procedural way

Some of the arbitrators (Delirium, Grunt, Ambi) have indicated that they wish to resign (according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee), but they are unsure how they would be replaced, or what the mechanism was.

Having thought about this, wouldn't it be the case that the next person (in this case Fennec, Mirv, Cecropia) on the list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 becomes their replacement? ~~~~ 14:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Hello, ?????. - 04:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As per correspondence the page(s):[[30]], [[31]] Jimbo Wales,(found more on another article), part of the attack pages seem to be taken care of, for now. I hope, he does not revert again, will continue keeping an eye on him and his vandal [32]-pages.

advice on implementing change in wiki software

There is a strong request for implementation of a "semi-protection" to certain highly vandalized pages such as the George W. Bush page, which is vandalized quite often by anonymous editors. This option would only be enabled at the discretion of an admin. The suggestion seems to have solid backing behind it, but I'm not sure how to get it to the next level, and Cyrius's suggestion that I try Bugzilla seems to me to be the wrong place. Do you have any advice on how to get this implemented in the Wiki software? --kizzle 06:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


There is a growing problem of [ Wiki stalking]. Many of the admins who voted here are sockpuppets. I suspect one of them will delete or alter this message before you read it. 16:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

link has moved. HERE:


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Someone must have been lazy, as you have not been welcomed yet. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don\'t get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren\'t one:

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won\'t get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (

The return of Peacethruvandalism

Could you please ban Allroy (a Peacethruvandalism pseudonym) ASAP? -- Mike Garcia | talk 16 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Ignore, they've made up it seems. -- user:zanimum

Expansion of Wikipedia's scope

VFD voting has expanded Wikipedia's scope to include grammar schools among other things; while I have been concerned about expanding the scope while newpages and recent changes patrol are increasingly over-taxed, and hundreds, if not thousands of redlinks still exist in the 'list of encyclopedia topics' lists, I have not contacted you as I know you get a lot of incoming messages and have many other fish to fry. However, there is currently a Vfd vote that appears to set a precedent for creating articles for the hundreds of thousands of regular-season sports matches around the world. Are daily sports reports really part of the vision you had for Wikipedia? Are they what was intended by "Wikipedia is not paper."? The current discussion is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005. The previous split discussion is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005. A fairly eloquent essay on the broader problem is User_talk:Niteowlneils#Block_votes, which was a response to my short comment User_talk:Geogre#Argh_.28Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion.2FEssex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005.29. Since the vote is several days old, I don't know if your comments can change the way its going, but I think your thoughts would be useful, at least for future discussions. Thanks, Niteowlneils 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Another way to look at the issue: Would regular-season sports match recaps be included in Wikipedia 1.0? Niteowlneils 14:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to include a link to a Pump discussion that pre-dates either Vfd discussion[33]. Niteowlneils 15:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi et al: Premature decision to close

This matter has been brought to your attention recently. Now the ArbCom is about to sweep it under the carpet by closing the case prematurely. I ask you to intercede to ensure that justice is *seen* to be done. I have not approached you lightly. I am deeply frustrated and see nowhere else to turn within Wikipedia. I am, of course, prepared to submit to any *fair* process here. I refer you to this and the following sections. Paul Beardsell 20:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criteria

I'm not sure why no one contacted you, seeing as with the previous round of speedy deletion criteria changes, you were given final "Go/No-Go" authority.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal#Passed proposals. Proposal #1 in particular passed with only 74% approval. It is an important concept though, because it deals with the "notability" of the article subject. There are concerns we could lose some good stub articles, especially those that are about people from non-Western cultures. Anyway, it would be good to have your assent on the changes. -- Netoholic @ 00:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Not enough small - busted beauties

  • Hi Mr. Whales

I´ve started a List of small-bust models and performers and i have a problem ( no , not the votes for deletion :-)).

My problem is , that i don´t know enough small-busted beauties which are famous in the USA too.

And so i want to ask the experts - even then bomis is possibly not featuring them - whether you or anybody else is willing and able to add names to that list.

Greetings from Berlin.MutterErde 10:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Old Media - New Media

I ask you to please confirm :

Whether or not it is a fact that the old media (such as Tv and radio) reported the conclusion of the vatican special 2005 spring conference prior to the passing of Pope John Paul II , held to study the impact etc of the new media ?

Whether if the wikipedia was or was not named as a part of this new media ,that it is other than true that the searchable nature and mirroring of the wikipedia contributed to the Roman Catholic Church's concluding decision : that all possible efforts should be made to counter their recognition of this danger to it ?

That there was or was not an instruction to the members of the church to involve themselves as much as necessary to try and reverse the new media's downside effects on it ? I feel affected , anyway , enough to retire from WP. Famekeeper 19:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh? If you can't make up your mind without official word from a "Church", then you are probably not Wikipedia material anyway. Anyway, wouldn't you say that the best way to affect ("reverse", disrupt, whatever you choose) Wikipedia and other new media is to participate? — David Remahl 00:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Fair point ,but the instrction wouldn't have been to me . And , my revolt at error keeps me from leaving ( see Holocaust talk if you want to know why ) :creepy .... My question remains .Famekeeper 20:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I ask the questions again ,do you ken ? Famekeeper 13:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

I don't know if a picture with "Willie on Wheels" should be on this site or not, but it links to the Wikimedia homepage. All I know is that was a notorious vandal on this site and I sense foul play, please help. Dbraceyrules 23:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I am here and I like giving barnstars, I decided to give you this one for establishing Wikipedia:

Original Barnstar.png

Never mind

The problem has since been cleared. I was just trying to help.Dbraceyrules 00:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez

Hi. I happened to notice from the mailing list that you're coming around to my point of view on "Ruy Lopez" (or whatever name he's using now). Perhaps now that you've seen his "work" and gotten a tiny taste of the abuse I received continually over the course of a year, you might reconsider your out-of-line attacks on my character and work last December (due to your anger with Wik?), and perhaps even be gentlemanly enough to apologize for your misjudgement? VeryVerily 15:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you remind me what I said and where I said it? --Jimbo Wales 15:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The most disturbing comment was this one (a confusing diff, I know), where you seemed to be calling me dishonest (and that I'm only here to make trouble, etc.). The charge of "POV editing" and unproductiveness stung too (I take pride in the fairness and neutrality of my work here), and not even the AC accused me of that. You also repeatedly stated the AC had provided an "incredible detailed analysis", which is simply not true; the main analysis was provided by Michael Snow in bringing the case, and even he said the AC had been "sloppy with the evidence". But perhaps next to the charge of dishonesty the most disconcerting aspect was that I approached you with courtesy and friendliness, and was treated dismissively and (I felt) rather rudely. VeryVerily 16:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)