User talk:Jimbo Wales

[Something fun from Jimbo for the politically-inclined]

If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute

Please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 May24 - July 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 8. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Hello Jimbo, I have a suggestion

While on Wikipedia, I have noticed, due to technical resctrictions, that articles starting with lowercase letters must be changed to start with capitals. Now, I am sure someone else has suggested this, can't you simply have that word not the beggining of the title? For example, you may IPod to Apple iPod, and Imac to Apple iMac. You can have EBay as WWW.eBay.COM, or something even. -Ravi 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

hello jimbo i need help

kevin1243 is not leting me put a criticims part on the tommorow book series page it is his favourite series and he will not let me put the criticisms on everytime i do he deletes them vandalises my user page or makes up stories to try get me blocked please help jim

The truth about the tomorrow series must be heard

please reply to user talk: carbine (post made by User:Smugface the untrustworthy dwarf)

Carbine, see WP:AIV and Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. It's unlikely that Jimbo will become personally involved in your dispute. (Note that userpage is protected so this comment not added there). Antonrojo 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement on elimination of anon voting?

Hi Jimbo, I have a question for you. On Talk:George Washington, someone recently suggested the article should be permanently protected from unregistered users due to persistent vandalism. Terence Ong mentioned that people have suggested protecting the entire Wiki from anonymous editing, but that you had "said no" to previous attempts.

The only reason I raise the issue is because Kaiwen1 has a poll going on whether to ban anon editing, the results of which he's planning to forward to the Board of Trustees. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know exactly how much authority you, personally, wield over issues like this. Is Kaiwen1's vote a waste of time? I'm curious as to what you have said in the past that Terence Ong remembers so clearly. I asked Terence , but he never replied.

(Full disclosure: I'm against blocking anon editing, and voted so on Kaiwen1's page.)

Kasreyn 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, if the poll is on his userpage rather than listed as a formal proposal, it would not affect policy. The issue of concern with anon editing is often related to 'open proxies' which are shared by many users and attempts to block them also block legitimate editors, some of whom are registered. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal for some info on an alternative. Antonrojo 12:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

I do apologize for calling you on your cell phone while you were eating dinner with your parents. I promise not to call you again. I didn't know you had a talk page. I didn't know I had a talk page. I would just like to make five suggestions.

1. There should be a Wikipedia FAQ that new Wikipedia users can't miss. In other words there should be a flashing hypertext link to it in a very large font all in a box on Wikipedia's home page. This FAQ should explain everything about Wikipedia. It should explain the Wikipedia process. It should tell users about advocates, mediators, and arbitrators. This would save everyone a lot of grief.

2. Some editors revert anything a new contributor adds to an entry. They do this unceremoniously without comment. They do this even if the contributor substantiates their claims on the article talk page. This appears to be against stated Wikipedia policy. New editors are often patronized, berated, insulted and sanctioned simply because they do not understand the Wikipedia process. New editors should have some simple recourse to hostile treatment, and this information should be included in the FAQ.

3. No one should be allowed to edit an article unless they have registered with Wikipedia and sign in with a password. Their email address should be confirmed. This would lessen vandalism and free up administrators to do more constructive things.

4. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from a web site map. Wikipedia is a labyrinth.

5. I am sure there is a fifth suggestion I would like to make, but I just can't think of one now.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

PS. If you ever find yourself in Miami and need any kind assistance please feel free to call on me.

croatia again?

• u have in plans 2 visit croatia or other near countries in the near future?
• btw, r u the only person who created wikipedia or there were some other people included 2?
• Respond soon, m8.
• West Brom 4ever

Static version: a solution to many problems

Hi - I wondered if you might be interested in commenting on an idea that's been under discussion recently, in which a separation is made between works in progress and finished articles. I've written a piece which argues that a pure wiki model is perfect for creating articles but causes problems when trying to keep articles high quality. Wikipedia:Static version has the details. Thanks - Worldtraveller 11:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense/offence but that ruins the point of a Wiki does it not?Cameron Nedland 02:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - wikis are absolutely perfect for collaboratively writing articles, but not at all suited to being used as a repository for finished articles. The wiki- is the means, the -pedia is the end, and unless we have a static version, I fear that Ward Cunningham will be proved absolutely right when he said that you could write an encyclopaedia using a wiki, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopaedia - it would just be a wiki. Worldtraveller 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My article

Why did you delete all Bobby's articles? Sorry, if I made funny articles. I made those up because I made a story about Math Genius who lived in Math (state). I created Math (state) article. Did I put that Math Genius lived in Math (state)? If you can, could you recreate it?

Banning Sussexman

It is wrong to permit a very biased small group to ban Sussexman (who is not Lauder-Frost - Preposterous). Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. User:Sussexman took an auful lot of flak with regards to the GLF article, and did a great deal of work on it, even proving himself to be very willing to comprimise. I am not necessarily suggesting that he was right in everything he said or did, but his banning is based on entirely circumstantial evidence, with the admins who banned him not 'showing their work' so to speak in as far as justification for the ban. This may be an example of the larger, growing problem of overzealous admins, who are bringing wiki to a somewhat elitist level. Sussexman's ban is absolutely unfair, and I strongly suggest that it be reviewed by un-biased admins or Jimbo himself. Easter rising 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• This business is a scandal. User tells smearers that they are breaking the law and may suffer the obvious consquences and it banned for a "legal threat"! What next. Is Wikipedia entirley anarchic? This is an unfair ban. I hope Jimbo will act. 213.122.50.183 09:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  No, if a person feels that he has been wronged in some way then (assuming that he actually has a case) there is nothing to stop him from seeking redress in the courts. However, where such action is in prospect a public website is not the appopriate place to discuss it - it is not helpful to Wikipedia, nor is it helpful to the proposed legal action (as any lawyer will tell you, having a public slanging match with the person you are intending to sue does not help your cause any). Cynical 13:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case but as far as I can determine no "legal action" of any description had been initiated by Sussexman. He merely warned and argued that the law was being abused. Meanwhile the little cabal of demonisers are waiting like wolves to attack again. 213.122.71.45 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

smile dude

RainbowSprinkles has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for all u do

Sockpuppets and their Masters

Hello, this is Armando341. I have placed some blocks on users who I know are definitely vandals, including sockpuppets of user:1028 and user:guns'nroseslover. These two, however, are not in any way related. Hope you don't mind.-Armando341

Maybe it's a good idea

^{25 June 2006 21:11} Ste4k wrote: Hi Jimbo! I had an idea that is useless to me but might be something for you, let's see. I've only been around here for about a week, so if it sounds silly, please just ignore it. I think that television shows should not be considered factually worth an article until they have actually completed the season written about. This would reduce the edit warring caused by particular people whom are actually only acting as newscasters and producing O.R. It would end the bickering between them, end the sensationalism they add, end the problems with writing one day in future tense and the next day in past. And when it's all said and done for that season, they ignore those articles leaving a big mess for everyone else to clean up. If only completed programs were considered facts, then the only people writing about them would be the people interested. :) BTW, this is not a request. It's just an idea that's useless to me. :(

nice touch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#User:Prometheuspan

he even used an ad hominem AS THE JUSTIFICATION for the block.

Searchbastard.com

Is "Search Bastard, the best motherfucking search engine on the net" really yours? What the hell are you thinking? Please ditch it before you get asked about it on CNN. Kthxbye Stunned06 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to have a lot of ideas before you hit on a really good one, I guess. Ashibaka tock 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Business 2.0 names Jimbo one of the "50 Who Matter NOW"

I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere, Jimbo, but congratulations on being named one of the "50 Who Matter NOW" in the July, 2006 issue of Business 2.0 magazine [1]. For those who missed it, Jimbo and Digg founder Kevin Rose are cited at #23 as "The New New Media." Wikipedia, "is user-researched and user-edited, combining timeliness, breadth, and accuracy in a way that traditional encyclopedias can't match." He (and Rose) were chosen, the article states, because they "symbolize the revolution that's taking place in the way that news and information will be compliled in the years ahead." Again, congrats on the mention, Jimbo! - Nhprman ^List 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Matter most to who, exactly? 69.67.235.127 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving?

I could do it for you. This page is over 361kb :P. Orane ^(talk) 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Should have Werdnabot (talk · contribs) take care of it. — Jul. 2, '06 [18:06] <freak|talk>

An award for you

The Original Barnstar For creating such a great community Minun (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A brief answer to your Michael Hedges question

A version of Prelude to Cello Suite #1 by Michael Hedges can be found on an album called Essential Winter SolsticeAmazon link. More information about harp guitars can be found at Harpguitars.net including a brief tribute to Michael in the "Players" section. He was a brilliant musician. Hope this little tidbit of info helps you. Cheers and take care! Anger22 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance of Criticism Continued

discussion found here

Is there ever a case when serious criticism is not met with a ban?

SORRY, NO. Doesn't happen. And how about this:

Is there ever a case when an anarchist or classical libertarian isn't harassed until they quit? Or is there ever a case when an editor shows contempt for communism or socialism or the U.S. Democratic Party or the U.S. Republican Party (the Republicraps) or Russia or Communist China or any of the big boys, without being similarly harassed or given the long term block? 69.67.235.127 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be posing the question in the classic "Are you still beating your wife?" form. One can flip it over and ask whether anybody has been banned, or harrassed until they quit, solely for holding political opinions (pro | anti) (libertarian | anarchist | communist | socialist | Republican | Democrat), or for having substantial criticism of Wikipedia, as opposed to being banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior (which is independent of their political views or substantive criticism). *Dan T.* 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You just said "banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior". If that's the case then we need to start banning admins for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior. And while we're at it, I suppose they should be banned for their harassing, lying, condesending, mean, and breaking all policy behavior. (Or conveniently picking and choosing policy behavior and making up policy that doesn't exist behavior. 203.234.156.4 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I read that NSLE (an admin) who did lots the sort of things you're complaining about was de-sysoped. It was not for what you're complaining about, but for using a sock puppet account in conjunction with his admin account to edit war. That's what I heard from him in the IRC chat at least (I apologize if this is innacurate but that's what I heard). So sometimes they do get de-admined. Mostly, I see admins they do something like cuss or have a vandalbox on their user page get attention just for that and so everyone's real critical of them. DyslexicEditor 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I've seen or noticed. What I've seen is a little criticism here or there with no real change. Maybe even an rfc or they pretend to disappear for a while, but they live on, and their abusive behavior lives on. And if this NSLE was de-sysopsed odds are great that he is an admin who goes against the powers that be. Call those powers whatever you like..I betcha that's the case. MulderandScully 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Page Archival

Hi there, just wondering if you were interested in having this page automatically archived by my bot, which currently maintains archives for 53 discussion pages. Let me know if you're interested. Werdna (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that this has been completed. Please note that you *will* have to increase the archive number in the target, as I haven't got around to having this auto-increase -- although this is on the cards since the bot took over archiving ANI. Enjoy! Werdna (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Search engine

Hi, I was hoping to try to convert Wikipedia's search engine to a Google based one because of Google's higher performance. Is there a reason this has not already been done and where do I go to propose/debate the idea with community? I'm a relatively new user -- thanks for your help! --Jarfingle 08:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't been and won't be done because Google doesn't search in the current version but in its cache, which is up to four weeks old. Only if the servers are too busy, you are redirected to Google etc. --MarianSigler 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

template

There's been a LITTLE contreversy, but is the following template alright with you? {{User:Ikiroid/User Jimbo v. Willy}} Gang staEB• ice slides) 13:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is in user space, so I don't really care. It hurts my eyes. --Jimbo Wales 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The fiction in the Wikipedia?

Sorry for my very bad english. I see some articles as fictive Star-Wars-companies with the sales - things, they are in no one of the Star-Wars-films to see. They are found in some Fanzine-magazines. If i'd find something like this myself and write it into the Wikipedia, it would be called vandalism. If i public it on some website first, it can be a "source" of an WP-"article" without great problems. Do you think, it's serious enough?

You write: "Therefore, these all really MUST be deleted. They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation! / Take your time, find a new home, but this stuff really has to go. --Jimbo Wales 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)". What about such things as Incom Corporation, Techno Union, List of Star Wars companies, List of minor Star Wars organizations and so one? Not one letter in these "articles" is real. --AN 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to help out, I'm not sure if this is what AN meant, but this is a version you might find easier to understand. Sorry for any inconvenience if these lines should be unwanted -- Hey Teacher 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my very bad english. I see some articles such as fictive Star-Wars-companies that can't even be found in the Star-Wars-films, but only in some Fanzine-magazines. If I found anything similar and wrote an article on such a topic in the German Wikipedia, it would be called vandalism. If I publish it on some website first, it can be a "source" of an WP-"article" without great problems. Do you think this is serious (reputable) enough for an encyclopedia?

Dear Mr. Wales, in the german Wikipedia there are some Users who want to turn the Wiki into a fanzine. Since now we (the admins and all) try to keep this stuff out of our encyclopedia. But now the kiddies and Star-Whatsoever-Fans united to form a front angainst the rule, that things that don´t exist (eg software in developement, Imperial Starships, StarWars technology breakthroughs) are not subject of an encyclopedia. The problems is, that they seem to be in the majority. I would really appreciate if you could throw your weight (do you say it this way in english?!? YES -Gerard Foley 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)) into the discussion. You can find it here. I would really appreciate it if you could reat your point mentioned by my good fellow AN above. Thanks!!! Dickbauch 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry for my english, I´m german. (This ecuse helped me in Canada every time I did something stupid. If you happe to do something stupid just pretend to be german. People will forgive you everything! =;o)

• Thank you for addressing your concerns in Jimbo's page, but I'd like to include my own comments before he responds. Unfortunately, what was said is incorrect; that information is not from "fanzine" mags, it is from published novels, comics, games, and so on. The Star Wars universe goes far beyond the six movies — is spans 200+ published books that are universally considered part of the star wars universe, over 50 games (many of which published by Lucas' own company). Therefore, all of the information in those articles you cited has more than enough sources to back it up — it's a matter of sifting through the cruft, which takes time. Patience is a key necessity when writing an encyclopedia, for we editors can only work on a few things at a time. Thanks! — Deckiller 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem for those two is that the content is not real and should not be written about as such. According to them sentence like "Alderaan Biotics was a hydroponics company based on Borleias which supplied foodstuffs for Alderaan until that planet was destroyed by the first Death Star." are unencyclopedic. A sentence like that should read something like "Aleraan is a fictional company in the books of the fictional series Star Wars created by George Lucas", after which would need to prove to them, that this fictional company had a major impact on the real world, best with psychological studies and various doctor thesises, otherwise it is completely irrelevant and should not appear in Wikipedia. You just can't write about it as if it were real. --84.184.123.188 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is precicely what the plan is — write from an out-of-universe perspective on all items except for plot synopsis for notable topics. However, like I said, the process takes time without interruption by inclusionists and exclusionists. — Deckiller 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is completely understandable, except, that we are expected to write the plot synopsis, etc for notable topics from the out-of-universe perspective, too. And the fact, the things usually get deleted before one can bring them to any kind of standard. But, well, what can one do, it is apparently more important to have over 100 disambiguations for more than 200 non-existing submarine boat articles, than one list on all characters from the Dune series. --84.184.93.5 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out, that anything you will say on this topic, will have a major impact on the German Wikipedia. There currently is a process in motion to determine how the German Wikipedia should deal with articles about fictious works and fictious worlds in general. Both AN and Dickbauch are adherents to a very strict and exclusionist point of view, leading part of the editorbase to feel that especially Science Fiction and Fantasy are considered irrelevant by default. Currently the hurdles for any article dealing with Science Fiction and Fantasy are much, much higher than for any other article in the German Wikipedia. A policy that is currently challenged by the part of the editorbase, partly against the wishes of the two adminstrators AN and Dickbauch, forces every topic of Science Fiction and Fantasy into as few articles as possible without eradicating it completely from Wikipedia, leading to articles like the one about Final Fantasy were more than fifteen totally diverse games (many of them blockbuster games) are forced into one article. The list of characters of Final Fantasy (about one hundred characters) was deleted. While the list was not the best written article and did contain fancruft next to proper entries, it was impossible to change such a complex list into something less crufty in the seven days it got before deletion, especially since there was no previous warning to the concerned portal, which at the time had to channel its energies into fighting similar AfDs. Your current stand against Game Walkthroughs on Wikibooks (as cited by AN above), has been brought up by AN in an AfD as a sign that you are against fictional content in Wikipedia in general.

Nobody wants to turn Wikipedia into a fanzine, the standards expected from articles in question (which aren't given any time or chance before listed as AfD usually several at once so the userbase has to decide which of the large and unwieldy article it will try to save, the outcome is generally delete if Dickbauch or AN are involved) are about impossible to achieve. The staff maintaining such articles are few and far between, since many felt, that it wouldn't matter how much they try to create excellent articles (without even proper guidelines how those should look like), they wouldn't be good enough (the general AfD listing is "Relevance") to survive in any state fitting the topic and thereforestopped fighting a usless battle.

This may have come across somewhat as a rant against the current situation in the German Wikipedia. I would just like to make you aware that your answer won't be only about Star Wars Companies (about which I can't say anything because Star Wars does not interest me), it will be used as a general policy concerning all Science Ficton and Fantasy articles on the German Wikipedia. The question on how to deal with such topics is a long standing and very loaded topics. --84.184.85.201 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC) AN and Dickbauch have given you one side on the matter, I meekly decided to present you another. For a real discurs with all sides concerned you should go to the German Wikipedia, the will talk to you and present how they see Wikipedia and this controversial affair.

• Unfortunately my english isn't quite good, but an IP gave me notice that Dickbauch and AN, quite a kind of self-elected keepers of the Holy Grail (= the german wikipedia as it is at the moment), are disturbing you with this little problem we have in the german wikipedia. As one of the responsibles for the mentionned Meinungsbild ("survey") I'd like to point out a few things:
  • Nobody, especially not me - wants to turn the wikipedia into a fanzine. And the english wikipedia has become to a example how it shouldn't be: Things that never have been mentionned in a fiction opus have no right to be entered here.
  • But at the moment, in german wikipedia it's (almost) not allowed to give a short bio about fictional characters. And I think it should be one mission of the wikipedia, that an interested reader could read e.g. about Jean-Luc Picard or Luke Skywalker more than the fact, that this is a fictional character from Star Trek / Star Wars. Fictional life, development during the opus, effects on the real world, critical opinions about the character etc. need to have a right of existence in the wikipedia.
  • Furthermore, own articles aren't allowed, too. All characters, races, places etc. of e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the rings etc. have to be combined in one huge article per opera only. Example: [2]. I am fighting against such monsters of articles. How nice would it be to have articles like Harry Potter (character) (with a shorter bio...)

If you would like to have more information, please contact me. --Umschattiger 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Jimbo, please ignore this topic. First, The User Dickbauch is not the speaker of all admins in the german Wikipedia, it's pure shit to tell you that. Second there is no reason to discuss that stuff here in the english WP and third there is no reason at all, to cry to you like a helpless baby -- Greeting from Berlin 'til next meeting, Achim Raschka
  • Falls das so rüberkam liegts an meinem miesen Englisch. Dickbauch 10:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Ich mag Deine eloquente Art und Weise Dich mitzuteilen...

It seems to me Dickbauch wants to press his opinion no matter how. Its not like an Admin should behave. The Meinungsbild is there to find a consens in the comunity. Now that it seems the result will be against Dickbauchs wishes, off he goes to you. If every admin who has something against the likely outcome of a Meinungsbild would do this, it would be total chaos. FreddyE 06:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in here (and using German): Solltet Ihr alle die ganzen hier vorgebrachten Argumente nicht schlicht ins Deutsche übersetzen und auf die Diskussionsseite eueres Meinungsbildes einstellen? Das grundlegende Problem scheint mir zu sein, dass die Frage, was nun wirklich in eine Enzyklopädie gehört, nicht geklärt ist (z. Bsp. wurde auf der entsprechenden Diskussionsseite darauf verwiesen, dass Pokemon erst seit ca. 10 Jahren (sic!) existieren, und somit nicht relevant seien). Man könnte natürlich die Meinung vertreten, dass etwas, was seit 10 Jahren existiert und Millionen Kinder gefesselt hat durchaus kulturellen Einfluss hat...aber nun gut. Lectonar 07:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(rough translation as folllows: Shouldn't all these arguments be brought forth on the talk-page of your Meinungsbild? The underlying problem in the German-Wiki seems to be the question as to what constitutes encyclopedic content (e.g., it was mentioned that Pokemon couldn't possibly be relevant, as there around only for about 10 years, and only known by children anyway). One could think (on the other hand), that sometihng which is around for 10 years, and captivates literally millions of children, ought to have a certain cultural impact (and thus be encyclopedic)..let me cite Wikipedia is not paper. Lectonar 07:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia strives to be neutral. If we exclude information based on its audience (children or not), or its fictional or non fictional perspective (as long as the fictional pages cover the entire work, not just the plot and/or gameplay, which should only make up half the article). This is a difference that is best not overargued, because there are some very well-written and encyclopedic fictional articles. That is one of the major reasons why people actually come to Wikipedia; our coverage of fictional topics (especially those areas where it is covered with encyclopedic style) is almost second to none in some cases. So, it's a matter of cutting out the excess, not cutting out the works themselves. That's how I see it. — Deckiller 11:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"many of which published by Lucas' own company" => many - not all. I have co-published a SF-fanzine as a student. I don't think, the things from that fanzine can be described in the Wikipedia. --AN 14:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Not published by Lucas' own company" doesn't mean "fanzine", it can be just as official and that's what this is about, articles based on officially produced fiction. Although if the impact of a fan-created work is major enough, say officially bringing a change to the official canon, that fan creation may be relevant and notable.

If your fanzine is notable enough, it does qualify for an entry in Wikipedia. Just like fanzine articles can have a higher writing standard than a Wikipedia article does. A fanzine may contain scientific discurs of the same relevance and quality as a professional scientific magazine. --84.184.106.214 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ich schreibe es mal auf Deutsch: Da in solchen "Artikeln" so gut wie keine Quellen (weder insgesamt noch bei den Ergänzungen) angegeben werden, weiß man eigentlich gar nicht, woher das Zeugs kommt. Aus solchen Blättchen wie unseres? (50 Exemplare Auflage; um anzugeben haben wir im Impressum gelogen, es wären 99). Gehört das in einem Blättchen mit 500 Exemplaren erfundene Zeug in eine Enzyklopädie? --AN 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Und ich antworte mal auf Deutsch: wie bereits oben implizit angegeben meine ich, dass diese Diskussion nicht hierher, sondern auf die Diskussionsseite eures Meinungsbildes oder meinetwegen auch in die jeweiligen Löschanträge gehört; generalisieren lässt sich das sowieso nicht. Die en-wiki und die de- wiki haben zumindest meiner Auffassung nach unterschiedliche Grundeinstellungen in Hinblick darauf, was "enzyklopädisc"h eigentlich ist; damit muss jeder selbst klarkommen. Nur noch soviel: wenn sich en-user mit solchen "Hilfeschreien" an Jimbo wenden bedeutet dies regelmäßig das irgend etwas nicht nach ihren Wünschen läuft. Lectonar 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Das Problem ist in en: noch stärker sichtbar, ohne ein Meinungsbild. Die Ansprache gilt auch hierfür. --AN 12:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Welches Problem? Das ist genau das was ich meinte: möglicherweise wird ein Problem gesehen, wo eigentlich keines ist... and may I remind you that this is the en-wiki; please conduct future discussions via my en-talkpage if you wish to comment on my contributions. Regards. Lectonar 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ach was! Wo kommen solche Sachen wie z.B. die Tochtergesellschaften von Techno Union her? Ich kenne die Star-Wars-Filme, fiktive Branchenbücher wurden dort nicht veröffentlicht. Darf ich ein paar Top-Manager hinzu-erfinden? --AN 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars besteht nicht nur aus den Filmen, auch wenn du dich hartnäckig weigerst, diese Realität zu akzeptieren. Trag deinen Händel mit George Lucas aus, nicht mit Leuten, die lediglich berichten. Dass du derartige Berichte als selbst erfundenes diffamierst zeigt nur, dass du an den Fakten überhaupt nicht interessiert bist, sondern hier einen Privatkrieg führst, der mit den Aufgaben von Wikipedia nicht das mindeste zu tun hat. --OliverH 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you insist in arguing in German on the English Wikipedia, at least have to courtesy to post a translation as Lectonar did. Otherwise, take it back to de-Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From the user page: "de-1 Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse." --AN 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

JumpTV spammer, again!

Hi Jimbo, if you can recall the incident, about on June 21-23, I forwarded you a corporate email from JumpTV's Internet MArketing department, which was responsible for continuous spamming in various articles. You replied to that and specifically asked JumpTV employees to refrain from editing the page. The Director of Marketing apparently agreed to it and mailed both of us that "I already asked every one in the company to refrain from posting any articles / links related to our company or our partners on wikipedia."

Now, they are claiming that you "decided" to allow them post "information" (such as huge cut-pasted content from their business prospectus) into the article talk pages. One of them has opened a mediation case on me, see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-03_JumpTV. I just wanted to get some clarification from you whether you really meant what they claim you did, and whehter pasting such content in the talk pages is allowed.

Thank you.

--Ragib 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Brians Peppers

Why did you delete all the pages on Brian Peppers? -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepdog tx (talk • contribs) 15:06, July 4, 2006

His family requested it. They were upset by the satyrical fame their son had achieved on the internet.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that the page was properly deleted by a proper AfD, and then brought back multiple times, resulting in what looked to me like a brewing war over it. I decided that it was really quite unimportant as a topic, and that the principle that AfD should be respected was more important. --Jimbo Wales 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy, that makes sence in itself, but the sentiment of respecting Brian Peppers family is a much more important one as far as humanitarianism is concerned. Old friend 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you make it into a links page to Brian Peppers articles on other wikis. DyslexicEditor 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you leave it the way it is: {{deletedpage}}. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, WP:NOT, and Real time strategy games

Hello Jimbo. I feel funny barging in here like this, but I have a question about WP:NOT and its implications to some pages I wrote as they pertain to gaming. On Wikipedia it is not uncommon to find article dealing with games, and most games have extra pages covering characters and equipment and such. Overall, the pages do not seem to bump up against policy here, so I decided to be bold and overhauled a bunch of paes relating to the real-time strategy game Command & Conquer and one of its off shoots, Command & Conquer: Generals. Among other things I created a listing of all the units that appeared in the games, but I was careful to omit the cost, prerequists, and specific uses of the units so that anyone reading up on the material would have to go elsewhere to find that information (its usually presented in a game guide, which we are not allowed to have here). Since then however admins have listed the material on AFD, claiming that the info presented is a violation of WP:NOT by presenting a game manual and a how to guide. I take offense to that for two reasons: first, I have not told anybody how to do anything. There are no strategy guides, no walkthroughs, nothing of that nature on the pages. Secondly, the information is encyclopedic, as it cover the evolution of the units and strucutres throughout the series. In the case of the units other contributers have even added real to life inspirations for such vehicals.

Ordinarly I would not bother you about this, but I do feel that the pages have encyclopedic value here. I am also concerned about the presedent that this raises, as the admins have vowed to begin a mass deletion campaign against article in the Warcraft and StarCraft universe when these article are finished. I am not asking you to vote on the AFD (although if you want to that would be awesome), but I would like your two cents on the matter. Since you founded the site, I figure that you understand better than anyone what should and should not be allowed here. TomStar81 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: paradox or inconsistency?

In many cases, Wikipedia categorizes information on a consensus basis that is not supported by any reputable source and reference; this big issue is often overlooked, becouse most of editors are busy with filling articles that have been "pigeonholed" in some templates, but none really check if that template is supported by academic and/or reputable sources.

One remarkable example, that is imho even somewhat dangerous, can be found in the whole set of articles/templates regarding non-academic and popular music: 99 % of those articles should be deleted, and/or merged, they are just original research based upon music fanzines, word of mouth, and temporary fads. Yours sincerely --skysurfer 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Delete unused username after 90 days

Hi just a note to say that it has reached 200 in favour (with just 14 opposing) which seems to be a good time to implement for most people. Just wondering if you could find out how as you have a position on the board (and if it is allowed) Lcarsdata 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found out

that you and I share birthdays! Not Earth-shattering news, but a fun coincidence. At least to me, that is. Alan 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales et al

In all due respect... this is a joke.

If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute

Please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

66.218.22.23 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And as an added thought, where did all the criticims go? 66.218.22.23 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

IP Revision of this page

It seems that an IP deleted a few comments on this page. --84.184.98.41 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Xed

Since you've twice unblocked this user ("he asked nicely") I was wondering whether you had any objection to an indefinite block in light of his (recently removed) trolling on this very page. Thanks. — Jul. 7, '06 [14:09] <freak|talk>

I would prefer that if this were to be done, it be done through the ArbCom rather than unilaterally. I don't need protection from him. In my opinion, his rhetoric is transparently trolling and therefore it is best to let him speak as much as he likes... he proves a better point left free to harass me than if blocked. If he is abusing other people, then that is a different matter of course. But I am not concerned about Xed.

I am also a hopeless romantic. I imagine that someday he will realize that there is a better way to address some of his legitimate concerns (systemic bias, etc.) than to go around making preposterous and transparently silly arguments about my alleged corruption. --Jimbo Wales 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it looked like this Xed chap just gets too carried away with what he describes as legitimate critisim and comments. It's a wiki and there's no tolerance for trollish behavior such as that. I recommend forebearance and, if the block log gets too cluttered with such offenses, just quietly block them indefinitely with an summary such as "Exhausted the communities patience through idiotic trolling and is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia." -Randall Brackett 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has already exhausted the patience of everyone except for me, I am afraid. This has been going on for years. I do not think it really makes sense to call his behavior "just getting too carried away". He posts things which are really outrageous and based on falsehood, things that he knows (or has had every opportunity to know) are falsehoods, with the express purpose, as far as I can tell, of getting himself banned so that he can cry about the injustive of it all. Of late, he has been repeating the same tired story over and over, a story which is not true. Here is my summary of the situation: [3]--Jimbo Wales 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the blocking policy, "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process." I'm sure you're aware of this. The growing support for this community block is located here. Just thought you should know, if you already didn't. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this block. This editor states blatent lies, defamation of character and consistently violates his arbcom ruling. We should not have to tolerate this nonsense. He's an obvious indefinite block canidate. This is a good block.-Randall Brackett 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Corruption

There were a number of criticisms on your page that have disappeared. May I ask where they went? Almost every criticism is gone. What's up with this? This is a serious question for Jimbo. I certainly don't mind if other editors respond here, (as if it were up to me), but this question is specifically for Jimbo. Please answer this, Jimbo. 69.67.230.13 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all there in the page history. --Cyde↔Weys 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyde. But why is it in page history? Why was it deleted in the first place? 69.67.230.13 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde. Where in the history are the criticisms? I can't find them. Can you help me find them by pointing me to them? Thanks. 69.67.230.13 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Tolerance_of_Criticism_Continued. That's probably what you're looking for. If that isn't what you're looking for, then those criticisms have probably been archived. Jimbo gets a lot of criticism (and other requests that he doesn't personally have to deal with), and if it didn't get archived once in a while, it would overflow entirely. That would make the signature debate look like small potatoes. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically-inclined

[Something fun from Jimbo for the politically-inclined]

Is that a joke? Jimbo is a man who hangs around with someone who views arabs as, and I quote, "ragheads, camel jockeys, and jihad monkeys". After hanging out, he then goes out of his way to make their articles more sympathetic, after they have complained about the article. He then starts a website which proclaims that it's starting a glorious new era of politics - a meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum ... and more intelligent.. It's profoundly absurd. No one should take this seriously. - Xed 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Xed is a liar. I do not hang around with anyone like that. --Jimbo Wales 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(The above was reinserted by 69.67.230.13 at 15:07, 7 July 2006, after Jimbo removed his statement under the edit summary (rm personal attack, i decided it is better for me to just not respond to his nonsense).)

You really shouldn't say "Xed is a liar." It may constitute a personal attack. Comment on what he says, not on him as a person. Perhaps: "What Xed is saying is a complete falsehood." Boy do I feel silly telling you this. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Jimbo made a statement and then decided against it. User:69.67.230.13's attempt to stir up controversy and defame Jimbo is either patently dishonest, a smear campaign, or a way of lashing out at Wikipedia in protest of a community ban. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaahhh... now I see. Still shouldn't have said it. ;-) Well, guess that's what I get for not following every edit here. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about unblocking him til I found that. Foolish thought.... Fred Bauder 23:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. A good heart is a good thing. And I have a strong feeling that Jimbo doesn't like brown nosers anyhow. Unblock him. This comment is sincere, no sarcasm. I mean that. Old friend 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not too happy

Jimbo, what's the deal with "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person" (courtesy delete as part of negotiation with individual admins, you know where to find this if you need it)"

What individual admins? I have been tracking this person since day one, and its been a headache. I'm not very happy to be out of the loop. I also don't have a place to post new articles attacked, which is important. My email is enabled if you want to tell me what the heck is going on.

He's made fools of admins in the past. I don't know if this guy is mesmerizing or what, but I would assume that nothing he says is necessarily true. Whatever kind of deal you've go going down, I am sure that it will only work if backed by meatspace force.

Remember, this guy has vowed to track me down and destroy me. This guy has posted on his web site a method of exploiting a flaw in Wikipedia's software to do serious damage to Wikipedia. This guy has made legal threats. This guy has caused a lot of headaches generally. How much "courtesy" does this guy deserve? There is no personal information on this person contained on the page you deleted. Herostratus 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo: I wish you luck in negotiating with this difficult person. Ultimately it would help us if he would just stop the vandalism, malicious personal attacks, and threats. He reserves his most violent personal attacks for those who have tried to reason with him gently, which is ... interesting. Yet: do what is right for Wikipedia. I paraphrase Sun Tzu, "the highest form of victory is to accomplish your aim without fighting." Good luck to you, and let me know if I can help. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Robert Steele

User:Robert Steele says :

"I am going to tell you this just once. If you ever again publish anything on OSINT without a reference to my web site, I am going to black ball you where it will really hurt. I consider you to be a world-class dip-shit for failing to credit my work. Robert Steele 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)" [4] WAS 4.250 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment that was originally placed '

There is a cabal, the blocks issued by admins are often punitive, not preventive, and are not issued for disruptions of the main article space, but merely for offensive behavior in talkpages, which is only subjectively perceived and could easily be ignored. The blocks are usually not reverted because the admins stick together. Either the ArbCom shloud work better, or the community should be given the rights to desysop the admin and the policy for desysopping should be more strict. This concept of community where all are equal doesn't work, because you have the cops here (admins), who are more equal, they have their own "admin" community, but you have no functioning "internal investigation department" i.e. cophunters, who would pursue the admins for misuse of their powers, and the editors are not able to deal with the admin cabal. 85.70.5.66 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Please don't consider this vandalism. I have placed an argument here, I know it will be deleted, but the owner of the page already stated that we may edit his page.

Dear 85.70.5.66, Here Here! You are 100% right on, totally correct. Excellent observation. If only Wikipedia had a transparent government with no bullshit going on. If only this really was the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'. The internet might be a better place for it. Then it would be something that does make the internet not suck. But as it is, it only adds to the suckiness of the internet. It only adds to the tons of propagandistic, demeaning, mind controlling advertisement-oriented crap that the world wide web has become.

And if we don't fight against it..

It will only get worse. And worse. And worse. 66.218.22.10 06:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ps This is also a constructive criticism made by a person who once loved Wikipedia and would like to be able to love it again. 66.218.22.10 06:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance of Criticism Continued

discussion found here

Is there ever a case when serious criticism is not met with a ban?

SORRY, NO. Doesn't happen. And how about this:

Is there ever a case when an anarchist or classical libertarian isn't harassed until they quit? Or is there ever a case when an editor shows contempt for communism or socialism or the U.S. Democratic Party or the U.S. Republican Party (the Republicraps) or Russia or Communist China or any of the big boys, without being similarly harassed or given the long term block? 69.67.235.127 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be posing the question in the classic "Are you still beating your wife?" form. One can flip it over and ask whether anybody has been banned, or harrassed until they quit, solely for holding political opinions (pro | anti) (libertarian | anarchist | communist | socialist | Republican | Democrat), or for having substantial criticism of Wikipedia, as opposed to being banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior (which is independent of their political views or substantive criticism). *Dan T.* 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You just said "banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior". If that's the case then we need to start banning admins for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior. And while we're at it, I suppose they should be banned for their harassing, lying, condesending, mean, and breaking all policy behavior. (Or conveniently picking and choosing policy behavior and making up policy that doesn't exist behavior. 203.234.156.4 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I read that NSLE (an admin) who did lots the sort of things you're complaining about was de-sysoped. It was not for what you're complaining about, but for using a sock puppet account in conjunction with his admin account to edit war. That's what I heard from him in the IRC chat at least (I apologize if this is innacurate but that's what I heard). So sometimes they do get de-admined. Mostly, I see admins they do something like cuss or have a vandalbox on their user page get attention just for that and so everyone's real critical of them. DyslexicEditor 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I've seen or noticed. What I've seen is a little criticism here or there with no real change. Maybe even an rfc or they pretend to disappear for a while, but they live on, and their abusive behavior lives on. And if this NSLE was de-sysopsed odds are great that he is an admin who goes against the powers that be. Call those powers whatever you like..I betcha that's the case. MulderandScully 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-governing community based on consensus

.. doesn't work Jimbo. In my comment above, I noted that there are no effective measures that would prevent the admins from misusing their powers, no "internal investigation". Moreover, you cannot expect the community to stick toghether, if there is a sub-group that has more power. This sub-group will stick together, it would in any environment. This doesn't get to its extremes here, because it is a virtual community and most people don't see the sense of their lifes in wikipedia, and the effects of "fighting for power" are therefore mitigated. In a real community based on this model, disputes would lead to estabilishment of parties, which would fight for power and the leaders of the winning party would eventually become dictators of this previously consensus-driven community. My point is, consensus might be a good way to resolve content disputes of the articles, it is, however, not a good way to govern a community. 85.70.5.66 08:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm thinking of Lord of the Flies. Or as Yeats said

Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

--Eggman64 09:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Or as Leonard Cohen said,

There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in...

— Jul. 8, '06 [14:05] <freak|talk>

Spoiler warnings

At the moment there is a debate on whether spoiler warnings in articles about works of fiction should be deleted, on basis that they are not present in Britannica and other general encyclopedias, or kept, on basis they extend selection of readers to include ones intending to read, watch or play the work.

As arguments regularly involve interpretations of your ideas, I'd like to know what your actual opinion on this subject is, at least in a yes/no way. --CP/M 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I have never commented on this specific issue, but as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think.--Jimbo Wales 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)