User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Pseudo office action at World Wide Entertainment

You recently deleted and protected World Wide Entertainment. Is this an office action? --- RockMFR 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to start a new article? Technically, "office" refers to an action done by the office which could under our normal rules be done only by me. Nothing I do is therefore an "office" action in that sense. This is subtle, but so is most of what goes on here. :) If you are asking if it is a Jimbo decree, the answer is no. But unless there is some very good reason, for example, someone who is not a spammer or hater who wants to make a sensible article, I think we should just hang tight. This is very much NOT a notable person or company, as far as I have been able to determine. However, if you want to make an article, just let me know... I will unprotect.--Jimbo Wales 04:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo thats why you are being sued by D McGillis. Have you been served yet?--75.74.103.81 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nofollow

Thank you very much for doing this! --A. B. ^(talk) 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want you to consider one single point. I am an avid spam fighter in Wiki and I write this for my love of Wiki. English Wikipedia, in the period where it removed its external links nofollow tags last year, has won very high rankings for almost any keyword there is an article written on. One of the reasons for it is Google's love for external linking in a webpage to authority websites on related subjects. The nofollow tags automatically eliminates that advantage for Wikipedia. I will still fight spam for it will not decrease an inch but you just made Wikipedia shoot itself on the foot by making its findability in Google considerably lower in Google's next major data update. Google is the number one reason why people know Wikipedia. An unfound wikipedia is an unused wikipedia. All I say is good luck in the next donations drive because your traffic will be considerably lower. And I say these words not to attack you but for you to consider a point never mentioned before. MKS 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Real People's Champion Big Boss 0

Hello my name is Big Boss 0. I have been with wikipedia for a few months and I am here just to say hi. Take a look at my userpage and tell me what you think. At the moment my userpage is also functioning for several small articals. The reason is that I have insufficient information to create an artical of their own on wikipedia. This will serve as a temporary solution to my problem. Please tell me what you think. Big Boss 0 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has removed the images from the page so to view the page how it should be just access the history on my page and revert the edit. Big Boss 0 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Salutations Jimbo. I am the someone and did so according to the images on userpage policy. I never thought I'd meet you (or sign your talk page) this way. Cheers. :) --EarthPerson 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

professional comments concerning the using of licenses

I would like, if some of the available money could be spend for professional and understandable comments and their translations for the national Wikipedias, how to use licenses in Wikicommons and Wikipedia. This would be a great help for the users. At present the comments concerning this are made by laymans and very disputed . -- 84.132.90.226 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

After some thought, I have decided that being a Wikipedia editor is no longer for me. I first joined in 2006 and since then it's just gotten too stessfull for my tastes. It's no longer about building a knowledge base as much as it's about determining policy. Newbies get bitten while perfectly legitimate articles and pictures, representing doubtless thousands of person-hours of work, get deleted because "policy wonks" think it doesn't meet the right guidelines or its not good because they disagree on it - be them "notability" (an open-ended sham), the horrifically exclusive new fair use policy on pictures, or whatever else. Meanwhile, editors who continually add nonsense , unsourced and bunk get a blind eye turned to, while legitimate editors are scorned. This is no longer a project I want to be associated with. --Markhamman 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way -- and I'm not even an admin. I just want you to know that I can relate. Wikipedia has been an immense success but it nonetheless has some problems. The article on Anal Stretching for example was put up for Deletion Review because it had one paragraph that was like a how-to guide and some bad referencing. The stupid admins on Wikipedia, instead of putting up tags saying This article reads like a how-to guide or This article has bad referencing or especially This article is being corrected in compliance with its Deletion Review findings, instead they just deleted it, and refuse to allow me to fix it. That's a big big shame.

BOTTOM LINE - A lot of admins are trigger-happy deletionists!!

--and there is no effective recourse!
Rfwoolf 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Writing things three times in bold doesn't add any weight to an argument, it just makes a mess of the page – Qxz 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted. Rfwoolf 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from an online Science fiction short story

"By current ubik count, well over five hundred political wikis were tasked with some portion of running the UWA on nonlocal levels, each of them occupying some slice of the political/ideological/intellectual spectrum and performing one or another “governmental” function. Each political wiki was invested with a certain share of proportional power based on the number of citizens who formally subscribed to its philosophy. The jimmywhales of each wiki formed the next higher level of coordination. From their ranks, after much traditional politicking and alliance building, they elected one jimmywhale to Rule Them All. This individual came as close to being the president of our country as anyone could nowadays. Until deposed, he had the power to order certain consequential actions across his sphere of influence by fiat; to countermand bad decisions; to embark on new projects without prior approval: the traditional role of any jimmywhale. But in this case, his sphere of influence included the entire country." WikiWorld 4.250.168.152 13:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo!

There's a bunch of Users that need to be deleted. Unused accounts. Just type your name in, it has alot of accounts obviously dedicated to cause a ruccus. Special:Listusers

-Yancyfry

I thought this was odd when I came across it too. It seems that accounts can't actually be deleted... Wikipedia:Username tries to explain it away as impossible because contributions have to be assigned to a name, but there seem to be a lot of accounts that don't actually have any contributions and still haven't been deleted. Odd – Qxz 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, my understanding is that user accounts can't be deleted- all that can be done is to block them. So if you check, most of those names are probably indefinitely blocked already. Sometimes accounts with usernames that violate policy are created but never make a single edit. It hasn't been felt worthwhile to go through each and every one of those and block them when they aren't actually causing any trouble. If you notice edits by an account that violates WP:UN, you can report it at WP:RFCN. Get in touch if you have further questions or ask at the the Village Pump (Technical), but its prob not worth troubling Jimbo with. WJBscribe 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales

I would very much appreciate it if you took your most valuable and precious time to look at what's going on at Philosophy.

I also believe it might be of very important interest to you and Wikipedia.

I have done much substantial work on all aspects of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion where, I'm certain, you are aware, many crackpots come along.

I've also already contributed substantially to several hundred articles since I came on board last August.

But I never dreamed of the insurmountable difficulties I would face there, in Philosophy.

I simply wish you to observe the use of the "Bristol Stool Chart" and "Don't be a dick" and "fuckwit" as forms of discourse.

I find it absolutely impossibility to remain Civil or maintain my Rationality when I'm called by anyone of these vulgar and obscene terms. In New York City, where I hail from, it calls for fisticuffs.

Do you, personally, condone it?

Let me add, that I am very much moved by your role in creating Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I am not at all interested in remaing here, if I'm going to be so abused.

May I ask you to consider having the use of such vulgarities and obscenities against an editor as gounds for immediate and severe effective disciplinary action.

I most sincerely hope that I shall not see Wikipedia degrade by the acceptance of such extremely uncivil expressions, and consequent conduct.

I'm not asking you to intervene on my behalf. As I said, I'm no longer interested in remaining here under the vulgar and obscene use of language which is practiced at this stage of Wikipedia's development. For me, whatever happens, will be an extremely voluable experience.

And of course, I would be curious to know what observation you have to make, if any.

My sincere best wishes to you, User:Ludvikus

PS: Please excuse any typographical, and/or spelling, errors of mine which remain. CC: Philosophy Talk/Discussion Page --Ludvikus 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft editing Wikipedia part 2

In the headlines today are reports that Microsoft has been editing wikipedia. We have a similar case with Bridgestone editing its articles that someone might want to look at:

I am interested how to proceed with this case. What happens next? Travb (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Money poorly spent

Hello Jimbo - congratulations as always for the generally smooth running of the project. Please understand that the following criticism is an effort to help us do even better; it is not a complaint about the project in general.

Given that we always need more money, I think any contributions to outside projects must be held to extremely high scrutiny. I believe donating $5,000 to Freenode as described here was a bad use of Foundation money. IRC is a controversial subject within Wikipedia. Please see This ANI thread for one example. Given the contorversy, I don't think it was a good way to spend our money.

The donation was described as a "one-time" donation and I hope it will stay that way. Let's not repeat such a donation in the future, please.

Best wishes as always - Johntex\^talk 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Debated uses aside, the Freenode IRC infrastructure plays a significant role in anti-vandalism efforts across virtually all of the WMF projects. This use alone is enough to justify a modest $5k domation to support Freenode. IMHO, --Versageek 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that the $5k probably didn't even pay for the bandwidth for the insane amount of traffic we send over Freenode. Luckily some of that involves improving articles and coordinating improvement efforts. Hopefully we're even able to help out some new potential contributors. - Taxman ^Talk 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need an off-wiki IRC for vandalism. We have on-wiki tools that work just fine. If for some reason those can't be used, many e-mail systems and IRC systems exist. We can utilize any one of them without incurring any cost. Johntex\^talk 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd think vandal-patrol is nearly entirely irc based by now. I almost never manage to beat an irc based patroller to the button anymore :-P --Kim Bruning 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I catch a few and I don't use the IRC stuff. Just manual wathclist and rollback. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's what I have too. But if you've actually tried using one of the vandal patrol tools or vandal irc channels... well, that's a whole different order of magnitude. --Kim Bruning 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I catch a lot of obscene vandlism that I expect the bot to catch before me as well....even on the really big pages like Bill Gates, etc, ALbert Einstein regularly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the bots. I had about 5000 unique items on my watchlist before I finally pruned it down. At the same time, for instance, #wikipedia-en-spam routinely handles 50000 instances of spam per day. --Kim Bruning 09:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a fast connection so I routinely am able to beat even bots in reverts. The point is, the IRC channels are used by a number of editors to make crummy comments about their peers...this childishness simply needs to cease. I get told all the time that some editor, many times an admin on the admin channel, has said some garbage about me...behind my back, like cowards. That wikipedia funds and allows this sort of issue to continue is unacceptable. If anyone wants to issue me a nastigram, they can do to me me directly on my usertalk or via email and I can deal with this nonsense...at least it would be right there in plain sight.--MONGO 07:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is only really true for one single limited membership low volume channel which we can possibly even close, if worst really comes to worst. At the same time, there are very useful high volume channels for many of the wikimedia projects, and for the developers, mediawiki support, and much much more (not to mention the extreme high volume vandalism assistence channels). We're definately costing Freenode more than $5000. --Kim Bruning 09:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the vast majority of communication on the IRC channels is productive. I simply hope that the regulators of the channels will continue to do all they can to eliminate needless belittlement of anyone.--MONGO 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

India visit

Hi Jimbo, There is news going round that you are coming to India [1]. Make sure to get down at Ahmedabad. as Nearly Headless Nick says three admins hail from there, and see who awaits you there. [2]three little monkeys] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amdabadi (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

d00d. That's not even me. Its User:Jai Pratap Singh and his yucky friends from Gandhinagar. I see that you have managed to get an administrator to send you the deleted edits from my userpage. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

DOES HS ALSO STICK HIS FINGER UP LIKE YOU THE FELLOW ON THE LEFT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DO? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.66.92.227 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Unblock

Could you please unblock 202.76.162.34? (I don't want to create an account for that IP address.)

Please contact the blocking administrator. --Deskana (request backup) 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any block log for that IP. Perhaps you mistyped the number? However, Deskana's right: contact the blocking admin. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The above link links to the article 202.76.162.34 rather than the intended User:202.76.162.34. I altered this when I opened the link. --Deskana (request backup) 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right...Anyway, why did you guys answer when Jimbo is supposed to answer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.139.197 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Because we're Jimbo's slaves who do his bidding for him. ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagine peer-reviewed scientific original-research on Wikia

Imagine peer reviewed scientific original research on Wikia. I read this and thought of you. Cheers. 4.250.168.119 03:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem on Polish Wikipedia

Hi!

I would like to tell you about very unpleasant and embarrassing situation on Polish Wikipedia.

Like on every other language wikipedia users of wikipedia-pl with vulgar or "almoust vulgar" (in Levenshtein distance way) account name are blocked forever because of "unacceptable account name". Which is fine and reasonable.

Whats not fine a reasonable is that one of the wikipedia-pl sysops has account name [3] Kotasik which is "almoust vulgar" (Kutasik in Polish is vulgarism for "little penis").

I wrote to Kotasik telling him that situation, when beginner user of wikipedia is blocked because of vulgar account name by sysop with vulgar account name is unacceptable - what this begginer user would think? Probably "well, I see that wikipedia treats sysop better, they're above wikipedia law" - which is of course not true.

As I said I wrote to Kotasik about that, I tried to to convince him of changing his acc name. He said "no, but try RFC mechanism if you want to"

So I made RFC, where I wrote that for wikipedia good Kotasik should change his acc. My IP have been blocked because of "trolling", RFC was deleted and when I tried to talk about on wikipedia-pl irc channel, I was banned from them, which confirm my supposition that Polish sysops think that their above wikipedians law.

Thank You and sorry for interrupting, but I have no idea who shuld I tell that Mencio 07:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

about your visit to India

Dear Jimbo, I happened to know that you are coming to India in the near future. I think I should alert you about a possible legal tangle. One pettifogging advocate who used to edit wikipedia (merely advertising himself and his friends) got banned as a sock puppet. However, somebody published some libelous comments on him and one of his friends who is a senior government officer. They are also with a nest of petty journos who practise unethical journalism. One of them may try to contact you for an interview. Decline it outright. Then there is a rumou that the advocate fellow is trying to file a defamation case against the foundation. As you don't chair the foundation any longer, you may not be involved in the tangle. Still caution is the watchword. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Recurrrrer (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Personal attack??

Hello! I recently wrote a page Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem describing how some people treat your word as The Law and that they probably shouldn't do that. Another editor believes the page is a personal attack against you, and wants it deleted. So I thought I should ask you if you're offended by this page. >Radiant< 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Jimbo Why did you delete the Brian peppers article? Why are you contradicting your purpose by censoring a valid article. Brian peppers is Internet celebrity and should be known for the impact he had on the internet and websites like ytmnd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.211.41 (talk • contribs).

Originally this comment was left on Jimbo's user page, I moved it here. --Deskana (request backup) 10:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another iteration of the fair use debate

Could you please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Fair use? It currently hosts a debate between fair use proponents and opponents (covering the entire spectrum between ‘anything that’s legal’ and ‘no fair use at all’) and has now progressed to discussing changes to Wikipedia:Fair use which I think are neither well supported in general nor compliant with Wikipedia:Five pillars. One of the underlying issues is whether increasing the quality of Wikipedia is a blanket justification for the use of non-free material. This is particularly visible in Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Primary_and_secondary_goals, where you are quoted in the first post and I’d appreciate it if you could clarify the official position. (Disclosure: I’m one of the ‘less fair use’ people and have participated in the debate, so I’m biased.) —xyzzy_n 13:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An important clarification is needed here. No one in the debate is a "fair use proponent". Everyone agrees there are advantages to free content. However, we allow fair use images. That is a fact. So long as we allow fair use images, then there will be discussion about the proper boundaries. To use one of your phrases, you seem to think that removing fair use content is a "blanket justification" for lowering our quality. Hopefully that is not the case. Hopefully we will keep using legally permissible fair use material where it captures knowledge and serves our readers to do so. Johntex\^talk 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An aspect of the above debate seems to be the question of whether Wikipedia's "freeness" is a primary goal, or whether it's just a nice thing to have, but one we can put aside whenever it becomes inconvenient. (A quote from the debate: "The primary goal on Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia which can be used by downstream users. The use of free content is very important, but ancillary, to this goal.") As far as I understand it, this is not up for debate. It's saddening, although not surprising, that people are willing to sideline and compromise on the issue of freedom (as in speech). I understand the motivation: people want to make the best free as in beer encyclopedia possible, but I think we need to be clear on this. — Matt Crypto 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely we need to be clear. We need to be clear that our primary goal on this project is to build the best encyclopeida we can build. Our GFDL license ensures we are making a tremendous contribution to free content along the way. Importantly, though, we have not banned fair use, etiher for photos or for text. If we want to be totally free (which I think would be a mistake) then we should ban all fair use images and all fair use quotations. Since we have not done so, that specifically means that how much fair use content we allow is very much open for discussion. Johntex\^talk 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  - There are two issues: 1) When, where and how much fair-use content we use — and yes, this is certainly open for discussion, but we must be discussing it from the basis that: 2) freedom is a primary goal of the project. As I understand it, "2" is essentially axiomatic, and not up for negotiation. We're "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The problem with the current debate is that "2" is being challenged, and some people are pushing to change our fair use policy based on the idea that freedom is only a secondary concern. Creating free content is not a happy coincidence "along the way" to writing an encyclopedia; it's absolutely fundamental to what we do. — Matt Crypto 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! I certainly didn’t mean to drag the debate here. Sorry. —xyzzy_n 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home for the answer. Ask yourself whether you would rather have freedom or knowledge for the reason. WAS 4.250 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I am editing with a spoof of your username because I can't think of anything creative that the admins won't block indefinitely! I tried making usernames like User:Wikipedia Vandalizer ;-) but they don't like that! --James Donal "Jimbo" Wales 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User now (unsurprisingly) blocked for username violation. WJBscribe 18:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm"

But an administrator has begun a course of action here that could get a man removed his entire career. WWest 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Won't be the first time someone's screwed up their career by vandalizing Wikipedia. --Carnildo 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Markaci/Nudity

Yo, Jimmo, I known your cool and all, creating wiki, but I gotta ask ya something. I'm a teen, and I find nudity and erotic material gross and useless. Now, I gotta ask you about material that ain't good for chidren, please, man! Like, this user (see title)'s got ahundred sick pictures on his user page! I read that user pages don't belong to the user, they belong to Wiki1 Why would Wiki have such gross pictures?Like, c'mon! This is an ecyclopidia, not some place where there's naked people and sex and everything1 Please answer, Jimmy, please/I know your busy, but, like, no one answer for Jimmo, please!!!I gotta hear from the big man himself! Thanks, man! Librax 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored for comment on that topic. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize that you, like many people, would like to hear from Jimbo himself; I'll try to explain for now, and you can see if what I say makes sense.

On the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (a policy is a rule on Wikipedia that should only very occasionally be broken) there is a section entitled "Wikipedia is not censored." One of the goals of this encyclopedia is to create a resource which provides a good, thorough overview of one or more aspects of a certain subject. Sometimes, to accomplish this goal, we must include material that is objectionable to some people. Markaci's page is a repository of said material. It has already been proposed for deletion twice (you can see the discussions here and here) and the community didn't decide to delete it, primarily because of the What Wikipedia is not policy.

If you find the material objectionable, hit the back button, and then click special:random. Do this until you find an article that needs a significant amount of work, and edit away until you're satisifed with it. That's what I do when I want to get something out of my head (although, in the course of my editing, its more often debates than it is pictures.) Remember, no one but yourself is forcing you to look at that page. Picaroon 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that your first edit was to Erotic spanking, and that page is not in the encyclopedia itself but buried in userland, let's just say YHBT and leave it at that, okay? Nice try. Salad Days 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Message from Neptune2007

Jimbo,

Does Wikipedia understand the meaning of "selective enforcement?" I have posted an article on numerous occassions and your administrator Ryulong keeps deleting it. He keeps asserting that "it is an ad."

I have toned it down to be as plain and vanilla as possible. Trying only to point out facts of particular interest yet Ryulong, keeps deleting it.

I have looked at nearly every article on wikipedia category: magazines and every single one with a few exceptions was a major infomercial!!!!! Far more aggregious violations than whatt Ryulong asserted over my article

I am really over this guy running around like a little dicatator in Wikipedia. What's more interesting is that Ryulong has no idea who he is dealing with here in cyberspace. Not all of us are college students with nothing better to do than toil our days away deleting articles for fun.

Perhaps his time would be better spent looking at other violations?

Thank you for listening. I hope we can clear this up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptune2007 (talk • contribs) 03:13, January 27, 2007

I have blocked this user for issuing a legal threat against me. For his complaints against me, read the history of ATLANTIS Magazine "A Sea Dweller's Guide to Living". Have a good night :3—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

MySpace blogs

Greetings. This edit by Raul654 indicates that you wished for MySpace blogs to be added to the spam blacklist. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider this. Many celebrities, especially musicians, use MySpace to communicate with their fans, and confirm through links to and from their websites that the profiles are theirs. For example, I came to notice this through the article on Straight Outta Lynwood, the newest album by "Weird Al" Yankovic. Yankovic links to his MySpace profile on his website, and uses his MySpace blog to communicate with his fans. Some of his blog postings were being used as sources in the article, but now they have been removed. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. --Maxamegalon2000 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other sources to use. A release of note should be announced elsewhere than blogs, so use that. You undercut your own argument -- blogs are for communicating and getting feedback from fans, not as reputable, reliable sources for online encyclopedias. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a gap between the amount of coverage required to be notable, and the amount of coverage required to have maintstream media parrot every significant annoucement a band makes. Swami is an example of one of the bands that falls between the two, being an extremely notable bhangra band, but still bhangra at that. (With absolutely no snobbery, I would guess that many readers of this page won't know what bhangra is.) I don't see why we shouldn't cite Myspace for their annoucements, subject to the usual provisions (not unduly self-serving, etc.)

I don't know what the original reason for blacklisting Myspace blogs was, but it should be overturned. A blanket ban is not appropriate. If Swami or some other non-mainstream but equally notable band announce something important via the Myspace blog, it's still citable, and I'll still cite it, because it's still obviously a valid source. I just won't be able to link to it directly, and direct links are not required for citations. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think for Wikipedia to go on about having references and citing sources but then to not allow citing of information just because it's on a blog on MySpace even if the author has been verified and is considered a reliable source is a bit hypocritical. What about blogs on Blogger, LiveJournal or Xanga? Why are blogs on MySpace blacklisted, whereas others are not. Isn't this a bit biased against MySpace? Aren't you going against Wikipedia fundamental principals? - kollision 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing here. Your alleged decision essentially removes a massive, useful repository of primary sourcing material, and it's completely unexplained and makes no apparent sense. Some explanation would be very much appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I captured the blog.myspace.com links as of 08:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC) and pasted them into a user subpage at User:A. B./Sandbox9

Here's the breakdown:

5 links in 5 Image pages
42 links in 42 Article talk pages
19 in 17 User talk pages
42 in 40 User pages
1 in a Wikipedia talk page
49 in 45 Wikipedia pages
- 9 links in old articles for creation requests
- 32 links in AfD or VfD pages and logs
- 8 links in other Wikipedia
52 in 43 Article pages

Here's a link to the current list of articles with these links. Folks can judge the value of the links for themselves; personally, I think that, yes, a few blogs belonging to the notable subjects of articles may have been blocked but that many more inappropriate links have been blacklisted, so I don't see all the fuss. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be wrong to assume that this list is representative of the types of links used before they were blacklisted, which was over a week ago. As a result of the blacklisting, good, well-sources articles were left uneditable until these links, many of which were sources of information, were removed. It would seem to me that the links already removed would have been nearly exclusively from heavily-edited pages. --Maxamegalon2000 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So does a request by Jimbo (and the edit comment called it a request) amount to an order? If not then the suggestion to blacklist should have been discussed. If so then stop pretending we do things by consensus and label it as an order from Jimbo. I am fully aware there will be times when Jimbo must make a rapid executive decsision but I am at a loss to understand why this was one of them.82.41.98.219 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering this, too. Jimbo, can you please comment on this as it has caused a huge red-tape problem for many users and pages. --Liface 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pierce

If anybody from your end or from the University's end had ever bothered to let me know that it had "all been resolved" and Tim Pierce was given carte blanche to vandalize all he wants, and to assign vandalism to his students, then I certainly would not have pursued it. But nobody bothered to let me or anybody else know. Fine. I won't worry about vandalism again. You seem to condone it. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pierce situation

Jimbo, your input to WP:ANI#Further on the Professor Tim Pierce situation, WP:ANI#Tim Pierce is *not* a professor! WP:ANI#Tim Pierce: Over the top would be greatly appreciated. I wouldn't normally think to bother you, and have not one dog in this fight, but the notion that we might be ruining people's careers is more than I'm willing to accept without making some noise.Proabivouac 11:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I second this - please take a look, even if you feel it is inappropriate for you to comment. --Fredrick day 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, You've said the matter was resolved but not what the resolution was. [4] Is Tim Pierce going to repeat the exercise? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I talked to him, he apologized, he said he would not do it again. It was very simple. Many instructors have made the same error. Nothing to see, really.--Jimbo Wales 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, thank you very much for stepping in to state this matter has been completely resolved. CyberAnth 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe

Hi Jimbo,

I don't think this comment was the best way of resolving the situation, nor was it very diplomatic. I feel Zoe was acting in good faith, trying to defend Wikipedia in a perfectly legitimate way; how was she to know you have spoken to Tim on the telephone beforehand? Perhaps a little clarification and AGF would be in order here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's words were entirely warranted. This was not even the sort of issue that admins or editors should have been dealing with on their own. They should have immediately alerted the WP lawyer or Jimbo concerning it, and left it to them to handle. There is a time to recognize and work through authority and this was one of them. As it was handled before Jimbo stepped in, it resembled the dynamics of a lynch-mob. That is shameful. Very shameful. CyberAnth 00:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project, and as such I don't see it as out of line that any member of the community would object to someone assigning their students a project to vandalize Wikipedia. I would've at least emailed the professor myself to ask him to retract the assignment if I had known about it, as it's a wildly inappropriate assignment. As an academic who does some research in this area myself, I'm quite familiar with the ethics concerns of online research, and one simply cannot do such things; at least I know of no Institutional Review Board that would approve it. So I also feel Jimbo's public attack on Zoe is highly inappropriate, and deserving of an apology. --Delirium 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo I don't think this was handled very well. As should be evident from the thread on ANI I support the opinion that this should have been handled by the foundation. This is not something that administrators should be engaging themselves in. But... Zoe wasn't acting in bad faith. She wanted to protect Wikipedia from what was considered a real threat to Wikipedia. Organized vandalism isn't something that the community is going to accept. I respect the fact that you and the foundation are ultimately the only real authority around here. And so it should be. But Wikipedia is also community driven. The content here is written by ordinary members of the community and as such I don't see how it is wildly inappropriate for ordinary members (I count administrators as ordinary members of the commmunity as well) to be concerned when someone wants to systematically vandalize our work, even if it is only meant as a test. In the future it would be much more beneficial if you and the foundation would keep a closer eye on what happens at ANI and step in earlier. I am sure Zoe would have appreciated the support of you and/or Brad Patrick and you should have informed her when you resolved the matter. Respectfully and thanks for a really great project, MartinDK 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't concern about vandalism which was called "wildly inappropriate," but the unorthodox measures which were being taken to check it. I must agree with Martin DK that someone with a project-level perspective should be keeping an eye on WP:ANI, with the minimal goal of ensuring that PR and legal functions aren't being decided by the night shift. I appreciate you stepping in to restore perspective. As Jimbo, your criticisms are bound to sting more than they otherwise might, but they were quite measured relative to the average tone of the noticeboard.Proabivouac 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

She was presumably acting in good faith, but her response was so far over the top that it disappeared into the distance never to be seen or heard from again. I did not get a chance to read the email exchange (and it now seems to have been deleted) but, if accurately quoted, accusing a university lecturer who sets a class assignment in good-faith of committing a crime (apparently vandalising Wikipedia is a "federal offence", no less) is so wacko as to be unbelievable. This was a really shameful episode for Wikipedia- Jimbo, your rebuke was harsh, but entirely appropriate, given the bother that could have resulted from this. The lack of perspective shown by Zoe and many of the other correspondents in the discussion was mind-blowing. By the same token, everyone was I'm sure acting as they thought best, hopefully Mr. Pierce will not take any further action, and the matter is closed. Bottom line- Well done. Badgerpatrol 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comment was rather measured, given the circumstances. Using Wikimedia resources to attempt to drum up a posse to harass a man's name and avocation by threats of legal and media action is without question wildly inappropriate. Unlike Zoe, Jimbo did not make any threats about what will happen if an apology is not forthcoming. Zoe is perfectly free to render an apology or not. Zoe is also free to continue to assert that Jimbo condones vandalism (or not). Tim Shuba 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe is a longtime Wikipedian, I am sorry if my remarks sounded harsh. Zoe is good. We just have a disagreement in this case, no long term damage I am sure.--Jimbo Wales 00:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and reassurance. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I wish people on this page would understood that Jimbo can speak for himself, and that the person's question was directly intended for Jimbo, not the rest of Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Running this encyclopaedia is entirely dependent on open and unfettered discussion taking place whenever and wherever necessary. Badgerpatrol 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, Jimbo, in the interests of removing any ill feeling that may have been caused, you might consider going back here and softening or clarifying your comment somewhat, so that the page will not be archived with an unmodified public rebuke to someone who was never made aware that the matter had been resolved, who was most certainly trying to protect Wikipedia, and who was simply looking for an assurance that the assignment would not be repeated. Personally, I would not like to think that some troll that Zoe blocks in a month from now would be in a position to use your AN/I statement to taunt her with. Musical L inguist 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be very unlikely. Zoe has the confidence of the community and as far as I can tell Jimbo. This was a matter of misjudgement on Zoe's part. I don't think anyone outside of the lynch mob is disagreeing with that. Also I am pleased to see that Jimbo is getting more involved in ANI. It is that kind of leadership in difficult to judge cases that is needed. Maybe some kind of "Jimbo noticeboard" with a strict policy against trolling and general complaining over small matters would be an idea. That way Jimbo wouldn't need to scroll through the endless debating on ANI to get to the stuff that requires his direct involvement. MartinDK 07:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one small comment here, echoing Tim Shuba's point. Zoe made clear that if Mr Pierce apologised and made clear that he wouldn't do this again, she would drop the matter. Ignoring for the moment the issue of whether the matter was hers to take up or drop in the first place, couldn't the same be said about Zoe's conduct here? If she apologised on her part for the way she approached the matter (not for doing something about it, but for the manner in which she did something about it - compare her approach to that of Jimbo and Georgewilliamherbert), then similarly, the matter could be laid to rest. I'll add this comment to Zoe's talk page as well. Jimbo's comment may have upset Zoe, but Zoe quite clearly wasn't listening to the concerns people had raised at ANI about how she was handling the matter. Jimbo was good enough to later apologise to Zoe. It would be nice if Zoe could recognise that an apology from her for the way she handled this would put the matter to rest and allow everyone to move on. Carcharoth 11:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks for softening the comment you posted at WP:AN. Zoe has been in a difficult spot. She posted to the message board in order to seek feedback and guidance for an unusual situation, but most of the responses were off target: either hot reactions that mischaracterized her actions or superficial replies that suggested solutions she had already tried. The whole thing would have gone much better if people had known that you'd already resolved this by telephone. Could you make a point of communicating that more swiftly in the future? Zoe has earned a good reputation generally and a few words from you carry so much force. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally have some sympathy for her as she seems to have been acting in good faith, although her occasionally flip contributions to the AN/I discussion and subsequent over-reaction have not helped her case. I believe I'm correct in saying however that she posted to the noticeboard after she had already sent 1 or more threatening emails to Pierce and/or his employers. But it is not important whether or not the matter had already been resolved by Jimbo ex machina. What is important is that Zoe's actions were massively disproportionate to the problem and could conceivably have got the project and herself into a lot of trouble, not to mention the possible personal upset caused to this- completely innocent- lecturer. Jimbo was 100% correct in this case- it is a shame that Zoe seems not to have taken his words in the spirit in which I'm sure they were intended. Badgerpatrol 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My post to Zoe's talk page expressed that thought in softer terms. I doubt any publication other than the student newspaper would have bothered with the story, and if Jimbo hadn't acted that particular venue might have been a reasonable option...especially as a fallback possibility if the problem were to recur next semester. Terms such as massively disproportionate are out of place here: she ought to have started the thread before sending the e-mail. Calm discussion is more likely to make that point effectively than an inflammatory response. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to labour the point and I broadly agree with your assessment...but minor and contained Wikipedia vandalism as a good-faith demonstration => accusations of "committing a federal offence" = massively disproportionate. In some ways the level of the general debate on AN/I (especially the persistent and completely unwarranted character assassination of Pierce and the bizarre and repeated linking of Wikipedia vandalism to real-world criminality) were more worrying than Zoe's isolated response. Anyway, what's done is done and everyone involved has learnt a few lessons I'm sure. Badgerpatrol 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Durova is right here. This appears to be a communication problem. I don't think anyone, including Zoe, would question Jimbo's right and duty to protect the project and make executive decisions and statements. I just think that this situation shows a need for more rapid statements from Jimbo on such issues because, eventhough the reaction to Mr. Pierce's assignment was inappropriate, there does seem to be a genuine concern within the community. I think the community needs to be assured that things are being dealt with in the best interest of Wikipedia and Jimbo has shown that in his latest posts here. Apparently those posts just came a little too late. MartinDK 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that Jimbo and the rest of the big bods have other things to do and perhaps in complete innocence did not think that anyone would really get so all in a twist about this. They can't be expected to watch and report on everything, and I think it's clear that Jimbo and many others did not even envisage that the response to Pierce's class assignment would be so extreme, even if it was only a few isolated individuals. The number one lesson here is: anything that involves on-Wiki actions spilling over into the real world (e.g. legal issues, contacting an individual's employers or even frankly contacting the individual themselves) should be WP:OFFICE actions or at least run past someone in WP officialdom. If this can't be done for whatever reason then at the very least correspondents should make crystal clear that they are acting as private individuals and not as official representatives of Wikipedia. There is a real world and there is this world- the values of each are often very similar but we should not assume that they will always be exactly consonant. In the gross and scope of things, WP vandalism is just not that big of a deal to real people, who generally have much, much more important things to worry about. Badgerpatrol 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect Jimbo, it is worth remembering that Zoe did what she did out of concern for the integrity of Wikipedia, and to protect the encyclopedia. Her actions, if over-zealous, were done in good faith and it would do well for us all to remember that we are all valued contributors until it is proven we are destructive influences. I would ask you to reach out to and assure Zoe of your intentions. Right now she is determined to leave Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Better press communication?

Perhaps there's an unerlying dynamic that needs attention. The people who communicated with this instructor may know better than I whether he read this report in last October's Chronicle of Higher Education. That story calmly describes a university professor's breaching experiment without mentioning the Wikipedia policies he violated. The publication did not acknowledge the e-mail I sent them afterward and to the best of my knowledge they published no correction. When reputable sources create the impression that vandalism of Wikipedia can be ethical conduct it's understandable if some junior faculty member implements that idea in the classroom.

A similar story ran this month in Australia's Sydney Morning Herald. Afterward I traded several cordial e-mails with the author and posted a polite reply at the paper's site, yet most responses from Wikipedians there and at his IP talk page[5][6] carried a strong tone of frustration. To a reader who doesn't walk a mile in their moccasins those responses probably look inappropriate and uncivil. Wikipedia's countervandalism volunteers could use better support in correcting these stories and in making sure the journalists are better informed in the first place. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

How can non-admins have access to rollbacks, because I need to use them (people always beating me to reverts) Hank Ramsey 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Try popups. It has a quick-revert capability.--Aervanath 06:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Television episodes

Hey, when you wrote: "Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia?" did you mean that as a blanket statement that every popular television show should have an article about each one of it's episodes? Salad Days 01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that? It would be fun to look at the context, since I am not sure that I agree now. I think we have learned over time that it is hard to do content at that level of detail without getting into some very difficult territory for reliability, verifiability, and accuracy. I now think that such articles are not a very good idea. (This, like that, is not a decree, just a very mild sort of opinion, of course.) When did I say that?

Anyway, in general, I do not think that MOST shows should have an article about each episode. Maybe The Simpsons, just because it's the greatest show in history. :) --Jimbo Wales 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say that (though you agreed). See the first revision (and current version) of m:Wiki is not paper. —Cryptic 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification, guys. I was trying to figure out the consensus on this, because of some horrible Gilmore Girls articles which just consist of plot summaries and virtually nothing else. I nominated a few for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls) and was looking for another set of eyes on the issue. There is apparently a rough consensus over at WP:EPISODE, but in the AfD someone made the claim that the episode itself counts as a primary source, and together with the fact that it's a popular program, the article on the episode itself merits inclusion. Salad Days 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"NNDB is never a source"

Why is the NNDB not considered a valid source? You mentioned this in your recent edit to Maria Bartiromo. Chupper 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Hi Jimbo - I request your input and advice on the suggestion creation of a Hall of Fame to celebrate the editors who've made lasting, non-revertable contribution to the Wikipedia project and deserve some permanent form of recognition, which may serve as an inspiration to the growing community of newer editors. I believe it is also important to grow a distinctive culture and tradition, which will help us achieve our noble mission. Rama's arrow 18:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

Dear Mister Wales,

As you can see in my user page, I've been making articles for a very long time in several wikipedias, and I wanted to inform some one of meta wikipedia about the vandalism of Spanish wikipedia administrators: they invent rules, they block people without warning, they brag about their power, they help one another in their nice behaviours and there is no way to throw them out or do something to control them. You can see my last events in Spanish wikipedia, and I’m not the only one, they have even erased the article I made about Laura Esquivel in April 2006 as you can see in the history of the article in English, without votes to do it.

You can see how fiery are my conversations in Catalan and Spanish wikipedia, not in others, although they have erased some articles I created in more wikipedias and I argued some things too.

I've been thinking about writing to you for a very long time, almost from the beginning, I really thought that project was a good idea, it's a pity there are so many people disposed to spoil it.

Yours sincerly,

Gaudio 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

future(s) market for wikipedia information currency... thanks for your work!

Hi Jim!

I've been working to create tradeable digital financial instruments with information as the underlying asset.

In the future(s) market for Wikipedia-associated financial instruments, I look forward to communicating my enormously positive perception of you and the systems you've helped to create! Thanks for your work!

JPatrickBedell 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia long! :-)

Controversy Sections ... + or -

Mr Wales:
I've seen this around on a lot of the talk pages on Wikipedia, and it seems like everyone can point to a policy that clearly supports their opinion - but I was wondering what your opinion on Controversy Sections is? Are they a NPOV guardian or violator? Thanks for your input!--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thread your userpage through Gizoogle. [7] Maxiepip 12:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

My advice to deal with this whole Colbert vs. Wikipedia ordeal: go on the show. I think you and Dr. Colbert need to get together on TV and hammer this whole situation out. Show that you are taking his actions in stride and that there are Wikipedia users out there dedicated to making sure what is posted on here is as accurate and as "truthy" as possible.

Killintimeslowly 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good idea! I was just going to suggest sending him a nice e-mail or something, but going on the show would be an awesome idea. Grand master ka 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Durova^Charge! 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

MWB

Wikias???

Mr.Wales, Do you think you may be able to help me create a new wikia for the Nintendo Wii called "Wiikipedia"? Thanks for even bothering to read this!--Furon 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, this was automatically put into chat. Please, if you wish, leave a message on my user page and not a chat message.

Breach of neutrality principle in British Isles naming dispute

Jimbo, (or one of your long suffering prawns)

Could you shuffle over on your splendid mammalian limbs, (or if you're not Jimbo, then scuttle over on your crustacean legs), and have a look at the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

Please note that this article is clearly taking one side of an ongoing debate.

There is also an interesting challenge to wiki editorial principles embodied in this debate. The principles I refer to are thee one of requiring "reliable sources only" and the one of "no original research".

In this article, definitions are employed to back up one side of the argument. The problem is that the definitions used are biased by their origins. The dictionaries derive from an English or US cultural tradition that has already adopted a position on the argument, namely that the term "British Isles" includes Ireland. The definition used to justify the argument is actually part of the pro-argument, if you follow my meaning.

There are also reasons why documents and maps used in Ireland refer to the Islands as the British Isles, chiefly to do with copyright and the ownership and licensing of Ordinance Survey maps, especially in school maps and atlases.

I am not asking for the article to reflect my position only. I am asking that the article be edited to present a fair reflection of the debate, rather than edited as it currently is. The current article more or less decides that Ireland is part of the British Isles, ignoring the opinion of about 86% of the population of Ireland, including the Irish Government.

So, if there is no place for original research, then biased published sources should also be excluded from the argument.

There, I've said it!

Great site, great invention, well done.

Thanks,

Cormac. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cormac73 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Look This Is Our Viewpoint

We don't see global warming as a major problem. It is a hoax and we do think that Wikipedia is pushing the limits on government censorship especially on articles pertaining on global warming. We think in order to comply with federal standards, anything that is on global warming should be edited and reviewed. We feel that some articles on global warming should not say stuff that is quite damaging to the American population. This a friendly notice from the federal government. 72.69.213.21, February 2, 2006 1:56 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering what this is about, see this user's contribs and the history of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Misplaced humor, I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is no laughing matter. If you continue to have these topics on global warming without editing them to comply with federal standards, we will do full searches of Wikipedia servers in the United States without any warrants. This is another friendly reminder from the federal government. 72.69.213.21, February 2, 2006 2:17 (UTC)

Which part of the United States Constitution permits the government to establish "federal standards" for what an encyclopedia may write about? *Dan T.* 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

None. The anon was joking, pretending to be a representative of the U.S. Government, and riffing on the fact that the Bush Administration's standard response to scientific findings on global warming is that it "needs more study". The real Bush Administration knows what information outlets they can control and which ones they can't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fanatic Hindus writing articles and Hindu Admins cooperating

HI Jimmy, If I would make you read these articles and these lines - would you think these are from an encyclopedia or from a fanatic hate site.

" [Hindus have been historically persecuted during the Islamic rule in the Indian subcontinent and the Portuguese rule in Goa. In modern times, Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uganda and Fiji have suffered persecution. Persecution of Hindus during Islamic rule was conducted by massive "ethnic cleansing", forced religious conversion, enslavement, desecration and demolition of Hindu temples and ashrams, and mass-rapes of Hindu women and sexual abuse of Hindu children. Christian persecution of Hindus in Goa, during the Portuguese rule, included defamation of Hinduism through forced conversions, burnings, lootings and other violent means. Persecution also extend to the confiscation or destruction of private Hindu property, or incitement to violence though propaganda."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus] with all the percieved problems of hindus thrust on Muslim rulers.On these articles whenever a Muslim editor makes changes a cabal of Hindu Fanatic editors and their protector Admins deny the others make changes citing filmsy reasons.87.74.3.1 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, Will ignore this 87.74.3.1 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An admin reluctantly put this factual inaccuracy tag on it.Could he do the same for other articles this group of editors is sitting upon unless it comes to this page.By the way in the Persecution of Muslims page almost the same set of users are very cautious to change the wordings of Persecution of Muslims in India to "Communal Violence in India" as if there exists no persecution of Muslims in India (it is communal violence and that involves two parties} while it exists in the United States..Stapler1

Dissapointment

I'm not actually expecting a comment from Jimbo. This page is the most public place on Wikipedia in which I feel I can find an answer here. I feel that I am having a problem with an unreasonable Wikipedian who is making a private political stance a Wikipedia issue on Talk:Ejaculation. I have not be able to find (though I am certain it is here, somewhere) the proper procedure to bring in mediation.

I'm disappointed that Wikipedia's policies are not as easy to search for as its articles. This has lead to much running around on my part trying to find the proper citations and authorities. I am also disappointed as I feel Wikipedia is too tolerant of extremes of behavior that often hurt both the quality and the culture of Wikipedia. The problem I am having affects both. Please see Talk:Ejaculation and then feel free to delete this if necessary. -- jsa 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

image removed --cesarb 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of image Wikipedia wants displayed on its pages?

If so, just continue to ignore me. I will just go away. -- jsa 14:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am posting this under the assumption that it is acceptable and allowable by Wikipedia guidelines as have been repeadtedly stated to me on Talk:Ejaculation. Please do not undo unless you have read this page first. -- jsa 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Death threats recieved off-site by Wikipedia admin

Jimbo I think you should be made aware of this very serious situation. Apparently an admin has recieved death threats related to his activities on Wikipedia. This has occured by phone at work. Your input to if nothing else close the matter would be much appreciated. Cheers, MartinDK 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected violation of the Neutral Point of View Policy

Dear Mr Wales and Wikipedia community, I am a user from the Arabic Wikipedia (23 000 articles, 48 000 users and 14 administrators). I suspect that a certain behavior shown in the Arabic Wikipedia violates the Neutral Point of View policy but this policy is a global policy that should be followed in all editions of Wikipedia. I understand that there are some differences between different editions of Wikipedia but not the Neutral Point of View Policy because without this policy Wikipedia would be transformed into a blog website containing personal opinions. I addressed 2 of the local administrators there and left a note at the Village pump of the Arabic Wikipedia. The administrators said that this kind of behavior is optional but (in my opinion) this behavior should not be permitted. There are more details of course. I would like to do the following:

Ask whether this behavior really violates the Neutral Point of View policy or not?
Make an official complain?

Could anyone here please give me the exact links (links to pages) in Meta where I can ask and complain? Note: I am not sure yet, so, I want to ask first before making an official complain. Thank you very much. --196.202.92.134 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek article

"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales discusses encyclopedias, Microsoft and the next big thing(s) on the Internet". Newsweek. 2007-02-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Headphonos 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice piece of work there. I bet Bill won't be so happy when he sees that pic of Jimbo holding a Mac, though... =) Tony Fox (arf!) 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page help.

Dear Jimbo,

how do I make a link for leaving a new message? particularly for this:

The thing I need to work on is

{{Click|link=User talk<This Part!>|image=Crystal Clear app email.png|width=30|height=30|title=Leave me a message}}

Thanks for any response. --'•Tbon e 55•^{(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook)} 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Valentines Day!

I wish you and your family have a wonderful Valentines Day!

Kamope · talk · contributions 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

curious question

Mr. Jimbo, I saw an interview on internet that quoted you saying you were an adherent of Ayn Rand. However, what I heard is that she advocated that all people should be selfish and only be concerned with the well-being and interests of themselves. Wikipedia is a good thing that benefit all people around the world, which is not a selfish project, would u think that Ayn Rand's view contradict with Wikipedia? Wooyi 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo keeps his personal philosophical beliefs and Wikipedia separate. If you look closely enough you can spot hints of his philosophy here and there but, for the most part, he has created an internet resource that is good purely for the sake of creating something good and useful on the internet. He has a sincere desire to better humanity because he believes it's in his best interest to better humanity. 71.207.250.151 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Super Bowl Sunday!

Hope you enjoy it, personally i'm gonna be watching just for the commercials -- feb^talk 10:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo became a steward during last year's Super Bowl, unfortunately not under the best of circumstances. NoSeptember 14:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How so? Did he have a wardrobe malfunction? *Dan T.* 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An arbitration decision

The case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nathanrdotcom was decided privately due to sensitive informations, which is understandable. However, the committee did not even disclose what kind of case it is, and what incidents happened, it seems like would cause people to be curious and question its legitimacy. Wooyi 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom reviewed a community ban to see if it should be overturned. They upheld the community ban based on evidence that was kept private because it was private information. --Tbeatty 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Underage girl got scared. Adult male acted very stupid. We don't want to be in the middle. Let it go. WAS 4.250 05:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I know and sorry for bring something disturbing up again, I was not aware of this when I posted my statement, Sorry. Wooyi 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

curious question

Mr. Jimbo, I saw an interview on internet that quoted you saying you were an adherent of Ayn Rand. However, what I heard is that she advocated that all people should be selfish and only be concerned with the well-being and interests of themselves. Wikipedia is a good thing that benefit all people around the world, which is not a selfish project, would u think that Ayn Rand's view contradict with Wikipedia? Wooyi 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo keeps his personal philosophical beliefs and Wikipedia separate. If you look closely enough you can spot hints of his philosophy here and there but, for the most part, he has created an internet resource that is good purely for the sake of creating something good and useful on the internet. He has a sincere desire to better humanity because he believes it's in his best interest to better humanity. 71.207.250.151 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BLPs

I am convinced that Wikipedia's days without lawsuits are numbered unless it creates a special role, Biography of Living Persons Administrators, who are empowered to enforce binding decisions on content disputes contrary to "consensus" on BLP articles. CyberAnth 01:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you could go away permanently to Citizendium as you think it's so marvellous? You're wrecking the mostly harmless work of many hundreds of editors, and that is far worse for the project than the occasional dodgy edit which is most cases is removed within hours anyway. As you have virtually nothing positive to say about Wikipedia, why continue to edit and get on everybody's nerves? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You must be referring to "harmless" work like unsourced assertions that people's parent were crack addicts; that they take this or that potentially controversial position; that they are a child molestor; gay or bisexual; that they were arrested here or there; that their children's names and ages are such and such; tabloids used as sources; apparent original research; the subject's views expressed from the perspective of his or her critics only, and so forth. CyberAnth 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to find a back door to adminship? If you want to become an administrator just apply through RfA and let the community decide. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not doing that...I fail to see how admins really do what I described. CyberAnth 06:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent removals of information was everything without a source, including birth dates and profession! I fail to see how that is somehow defamatory. Have you ever tried adding something potentially controversial to an article without a source? Because back in my newbie days, whenever I put potentially controversial stuff in without sources, I was reverted within minutes. Hell, I put in that Jake Gyllenhaal appeared on SNL and sang a song from Dreamgirls in a dress, which actually happened, and was reverted because I didn't have an RS, even when I provided the video from Youtube which showed him at it. Since the Seigenthaler controversy, stuff like that does not happen anymore, so your attempt to gain power (and your evident ignorance of what administrators are empowered to do) is silly and unnecessary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

False. On a few I stubbed the entire article. Because they contained not one source. Also, I do not claim knowledge of what admins can do, so forgive my naiveties in the matter if they exist. However, I can claim some knowledge of what some admins do not do based upon their visiting of pages prior my evaluating them - pages that contained content that they let stand in clear violation of WP:BLP. Further, despite your attempted divination of my motives, my point here is that the Foundation might consider further protections of themselves. I deeply care about this project and its success and longevity. CyberAnth 10:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins are editors, not policemen. And it is most likely your interpretation of WP:BLP that is at fault. WP:BLP says "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." Removing allegations that someone is gay, or takes drugs, is fine. Removing utterly harmless information pisses off the editor that put it there. Attrition through low morale is far, far more damaging to Wikipedia than a celebrity complaining on CNN. If you want to go enforce rules like that and cut our base in half, go to Citizendium and become an author. But stop acting like Wikipedia's constable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making remarks to the tune of "CyberAnth is powerhungry," because he has a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia. While his actions may be controversial, there doesn't seem to be evidence that he's trying to climb up the ranks and become dictator (if anything, this episode would probably hurt his chances at adminship). —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I continue to find your divinations of my motives amusing. The problem is what is or is not "utterly harmless" is subjective. Somehow, I think Wikipedia editors' unsourced claims are not the best source for what is or is not controversial. The subject him or herself may vastly differ. Hence, WP:V. CyberAnth 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

" The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Verifiable, not verified. The information does not necessarily have to be footnoted as long as it can be verified. Are you even reading these policies that you keep quoting at me? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am. Verifiable does not mean that the WP reader, with widely variant results, must have to dig up twice or thrice the research that the WP editor did in filling in the article. If that is your (weak) standard as as an admin, you might find a better context for your content additions at Internet message boards/forums. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." It is not likely to be challenged that Bill Clinton got a blowjob in the Whitehouse, since it was widely reported internationally. But whether Mr. Joe Relatively Obscure, hopeful seeker of major fame, did such and such potentially controversial thing is another matter entirely. It does not matter if you as a WP editor are convinced of the truth of certain claims. I think if you actually read in-depth the Foundations concerns over WP's BLPs, as I have, you will find my concerns here only mesh with theirs. Also, I hope you will realize, as I have, that actually listening to WP's critics can be a very wise measure in improving WP. CyberAnth 11:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been edit conflicted by you eight times today because you keep adding bits to your reply. There is a preview button on your screen, please, for the love of god, use it. I'm not going to reply anymore because I am fed up with you doing this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the edit conflicts. I will try to remember to use preview. But I think you have well exhibited here better than any of my arguments my concerns over admins' lackluster enforcement of WP:BLP. CyberAnth 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not being an admin, I doubt it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Point still remains. CyberAnth 11:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything that Jimbo-page watchers needed edification regarding has no doubt already been stated. I'd suggest you both keep cool, and go to WT:BLP where this is more appropriate. Marskell 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Point well taken. CyberAnth 11:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Biography of living persons adminship

"Biography of Living Persons Administrators ("BLP Admins") carry out a specialized, narrowly tailored administrative role within Wikipedia." Please see WP:BLPADMIN to offer your thoughts on this proposal. CyberAnth 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Just a reminder that your Office Protection on the aforementioned page "expires" on February 21. He seems to have resurfaced again, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#They_have_not_forgotten. You may wish to extend this expiry date if you so choose. MER-C 03:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, AN/I moves fsat. I edited MER-C's link to point to the archive that the topic discussion now resides. Hbdragon88 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Super Bowl Sunday!

Hope you enjoy it, personally i'm gonna be watching just for the commercials -- feb^talk 10:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo became a steward during last year's Super Bowl, unfortunately not under the best of circumstances. NoSeptember 14:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How so? Did he have a wardrobe malfunction? *Dan T.* 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An arbitration decision

The case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nathanrdotcom was decided privately due to sensitive informations, which is understandable. However, the committee did not even disclose what kind of case it is, and what incidents happened, it seems like would cause people to be curious and question its legitimacy. Wooyi 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom reviewed a community ban to see if it should be overturned. They upheld the community ban based on evidence that was kept private because it was private information. --Tbeatty 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Underage girl got scared. Adult male acted very stupid. We don't want to be in the middle. Let it go. WAS 4.250 05:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I know and sorry for bring something disturbing up again, I was not aware of this when I posted my statement, Sorry. Wooyi 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding mistaken infomation on Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo, I would like to notify you of a very interesting discussion at Village Pump (policy), where a very interesting issue regarding WP:RS (and effectively WP:BLP) could call Wikipedia into very serious questioning. Your input would be much appreciated of course.

This is also the second time ever that I have posted anything on your talk-page so I would like to congratulate you for being inspired to come up with this whole Wikipedia project, I am more fascinated with it with each passing day. Ekantik ^talk 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy change?

Hi Mr. Wales, a German AOL customer has asked me to ask you (because he´s not able to do this by himself, of course :-( ), whether English wikipedia has changed its policy? Since approximately 2 months all 250 AOl Europe-IPs are blocked on en by an admin named User:Pilotguy. What should I tell him and all other readers? This document appears when a German AOL user wants to contribute (source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:AOL#Pilotguy_.28en-Admin.29_blockiert_AOL_Europa). Greetings 62.158.36.219 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar revisited

Hello Mr. Wales,

Recently the article Cyrus Farivar was voted for deletion, as a consensus was reached that Farivar did not meet our current notability guidelines. However, it was immediately undeleted by Phil Sandifer, due to your comment on the previous AfD from a year and a half ago: "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." To avoid muddying up the debate further by debating the context and interpretation of your words, I would like to humbly request if you could add your opinion on the current matter. Krimpet 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7#Cyrus Farivar, since it has gone AFD closed as delete, undelete, speedy deletion under G4 by a third admin, undelete. GRBerry 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Might be interesting

The Foreign Ministry of Israel’s Government has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages. [8]24.7.97.104 09:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is Zoe?

Zoe is LEAVING!!!--Crabby 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Zoe? Wooyi 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoe is a user (and, by the look of their talk page, an admin) here at Wikipedia. Apperantly Zoe and Jimbo had a little arguement over someone named Mr. Pierce (whoever that is) and she's decided to leave. // PoeticDecay 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Zoe has been one of the busier admins over the last few months. Another one bites the dust, SqueakBox 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is what apparently made her leave, SqueakBox 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After a Professor Tim Pierce apparently set his students to vandalise wikipedia as homework. Hmm, SqueakBox 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of RickK. The Sky May Be 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

His final hours here was definitely one of the sadder moments for wikipedia, and so unnecessary. Lets hope Zoe does feel she can come back, SqueakBox 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll let her take a break, all right? That will be good for her, even if she doesn't want to come back.--Crabby 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rick left because he was blocked in an alleged 3RR violation that had nothing to do with Jimbo, this case is actually very different. I am sure the community would be happy to see Zoe return and so, it appears, would Jimbo (from his comments), SqueakBox 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo in your opinion

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is this article a NPOV? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it seems extremely biased to me. It looks like a legitimate topic, but as written now, it's a bit horrible.--Jimbo Wales 06:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You owe Zoe an apology

Those harsh words were uncalled for to a tireless vandal fighter. She had no way of knowing that you had resolved the issue, so she did the best she could. >Radiant< 10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Jimbo did apologize here, very shortly before she left. That being said, with the amount of crap Zoe had to put up with on a regular basis, why would she come back? She rarely felt appreciated, people rarely thanked her, and she ran into this mess. If wikibreaking helps, good. If she feels personally hurt, and Jimbo's (somewhat terse) apology didn't fix that, we should, sadly, let it go. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elaragirl: Jimbo already softened his initial statement. There's a lesson for all of us at WP:AN in this: that thread got way too "hot" without enough responders reading through the whole thing to cool it down. I've expressed that in more detail on Zoe's talk page. We need to watch out and guard against that dynamic - it can burn out good people. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo said sorry for how his original statement might have sounded. I think Zoe probably pursued the situation a bit too aggressively (in good faith) and WP:OFFICE intervention was needed for all sides of the issue, but I think the suggestions that her behaviour was "wildly inappropriate" and represented "random hostility" (my italics) were substantially off the mark. Bwithh 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban or Block Request

Hello Mr. Wales,

I am asking that you take a look at the Stephanie Adams page to block or ban User Sean D Martin from editing the article. If you follow his talks and contributions, you will see that he has repeatedly made personal attacks to other users and even made several personal attacks to the woman the article is about (Adams).

There really isn't much written about this playmate, but the user seems to enjoy distorting facts provided on your site and even removes what little is written there to begin with. This user is committing what Wikipedia refers to as "sneaky vandalism" and has a direct "conflict of interest" with the person in the article because she (Adams) is suing someone he knows. (Please refer to the comments.)

Several others posted concerns about this user in the history page of the artcle. Please help us. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cle0patr4 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, I forgot to sign it. Cle0patr4 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please do take a look at the Stephanie Adams article. You will see that my edits have been to change a few words so that the info presented accurately reflects said in the references attached to the article. I have distorted no facts. Quite the contrary as you would see.

In the meantime, Cle0patr4, Ladysekhmet and various anonymous folks (all strongly suspected sock puppets of Ms Adams herself (for a fuller listing) continue to post various lies as if repetition would make them true. (I have done no "sneaky vandalism". Ms Adams is not suing anyone I know personally.) Taking a look at the discussion associated with her article would show I am not the first person to be so targeted. --Sean Martin 05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

Three members of the arbitration committee have supported this proposal so far. Responses have been unanimous support to this point and I'd appreciate your input.

This would be an experimental mediation format where established editors could impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves with community support. Piotrus and Ghirlandajo tried the idea tentatively about six weeks ago. So far Wikipedia hasn't had any alternative to arbitration for content disputes that have some user conduct elements. I'd like to create a more dignified and streamlined alternative.

If this succeeds it could help reduce burnout among our most productive editors. Your comments would be highly valued. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds valuable and interesting to me. What I like about it is the voluntary nature of it.--Jimbo Wales 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

stalker

He's the person who created the turboface page. Please send me an email about it educationalreplies@yahoo.com , I can provide police references. They have been activley seeking this person for the last year for multiple warrants. Send me a talk page. He's using his wikipedia account to create search engine spidered links to improve his link popularity on google. This account he create4d is for personal attacks.I can provide MORE then enough evidence. His old username on here was CUMBERBUND , search that user's history alkso,, you'll see it was also an attack account 65.184.20.38 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi jimbo i love u very much i love knowledge it is the only thing that make my whole life have meaning so when i know abou wiki and I start to fall in love with them but when i realize how to make article the people share the time talk about comment i realize that not easy to make encyclopedia and realize in the power of Homo sapiens s. i love you bye 203.170.226.253 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii article debate getting out of hand

All right, let's settle this. Mr. Wales, should urine jokes be mentioned on the Wii article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii)? Despite the seeming trivial nature of this information, there have been serious debates over it on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wii), and you have the power to end these debates once and for all. The Legend of Miyamoto 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares?

Dear Jimbo. I wonder if you missed my enquiry or decided to pass it by? I still think this issue is vital for the entire Fundation, and the future of this project - but few others care. Your support could get this moving - I honestly don't see what else can. I know your time is limited, but I'd greatly appreciate your comment on this (even 'no, it's not important, drop it').--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Five Pillars --> One more pillar, the Consensus

I've proposed one more pillar, the Consensus, here.

Since the five pillars and also the Consensus are the core of Wikipedia, I think you're the one who should comment it ;-)

Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_C on 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

biographies and notability?

gruezi voll!!! hi there...while writing a few things on the colleen shipman page as to why she would be notable...(and im not really objecting strongly yet to her page still protected...my thoughts being a valid argument stating the page could be subject to heavy vandalism, the highly unusual nature, & a just breaking story involving a criminal case of which she is the alleged victim)...yet in defending her as being notable i got to thinking...it seems as time goes on the biographies sections ultimately will expand to a vast level of all the subjects on wikipedia...and im concerned they are weighted towards politicians and actors...it seems to me anyone with a masters degree should also be automatically regarded as allowed in a wikipedia bio if someone wants to take the time to add it...isnt that notable???...(i even tend to think anyone with a bachelors or pursueing a masters is worth documenting is someone wishes...to state their field of study and interests at least)...yet then i got to thinking as to ethical questions...and thought itd be great to have some sort of sister site...where anyone the world over can log in their picture and a bio if they wished...(currently its governments that document all of us...what about the people themselves)...some great documentation of the people of the planet...i dont know...just what truly makes a person notable???...and after 1000 years of wikipedia what will???...what after a million years of wikipedia???...wikipedias audience is the current one yes...yet also that of the future...Benjiwolf 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification please

People are now deleting categories for child users "per Jimbo Wales". Did you actually say any such thing? -Amarkov moo! 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jimmy! I had a little conversation with you by email about a week ago(it was something about the reverse naming - hope you remember). Is it possible to refer to your opinion(in the way of spirit, not a decree) in case of argument? Sasha l 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Leaving:

I wished to inform you that I'm leaving Wikipedia. I have been a faithful member for over 1 year now, & have contributed a lot of my time & effort into this project. However before I go I'd like to give my thoughts about a few things. Although I probably deserved a fair bit of it, a lot of hurtful messages have been flung my way today. Funnily, all by administrators. I have the deepest respect for you & would appreciate if you could return that by at least glimpsing through my post here. The head of the situation today started when I learned that another editor ousted me for co-nominating another user. Depsite only being the starting fire, I had made abundantly clear that I was nominating & soon the whole thing went south. Pretty pathetic huh? I tried to talk it over with the admin who had done it, & I was very civil. However, this admin continued to call me irrational & emotional. Soon everyone was passing off my posts as that & yes, eventually emotion & uncivility entered into it on my behalf. But the way it was handled by the admins was uncalled for. It was just the little passive aggressive jibes that got to me. "...Spawn Man has blown this completely out of proportion and made it into a big drama. While that's not exactly a new thing for Spawn...", "...If Spawn was a true friend, instead of wallowing in his self-constructed well of misery and trying to suck everyone else involved in your RfA nomination into it with him, he would have supported your nomination and been happy for you...", "...Everything is about you, isn't it? You go on and on (without actually going) and it's all about you—who didn't do this for you or say that to you and how terrible we all must be because of what poor Spawn Man didn't get and we must all hate him so. You have your outbursts, making hurtful comments about others, yet it's all about you. Everyone is supposed to tiptoe around you and you can be irrational, spiteful, and self-centered and then we're all supposed to come by and say "Oh please don't go!" Your comment up above mocking Riana's situation with her dad makes me sick. Grow up..." are just some of the passive aggressive & completely wrong posts left here & there. Although you didn't pick them, these admins reflect on you in a way & I could never see the Jimbo Wales leaving hurtful posts like this. I never asked for any "Oh please don't go" comments & I never mocked her father's situation. I only said that why should she get everyone's sympathy when my mother was nearly dead in hospital & nobody said anything to me. That is hardly mocking her situation. The main reason is who's popular & who's not. I have contributed 3 FAs to your Project, 1 FL, 2 GA's & created many more. I've helped out with collaborations & wikiprojects, but someone who has no GA's even can get through RfA & still make WP:100 or WP:200. That is hardly fair. I'm just very upset how the whole issue was handled & I don't really want to leave. But I guess I have no choice now as I didn't act accordingly towards the end & now I guess I have to sort of fall on my sword. Despite my uncivil behaviour, not all of this was my fault & the original problem wasn't anything to do with what really is making me leave. I love what you've done with this site & everything, but I don't think it is a very nice place to be sometimes & human nature creeps in far too often without any punishment. I know you've probabbly got a family of your own & probably don't care that another emotionally unstable editor is leaving, but I just thought you should know what your beautiful idea is becoming.... Thanks Jimbo if you've read this far... Spawn Man 09:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, please help with the Stephanie Adams article.

Why does one person who only have a few sentences about her receive so much animosity from two (apparently bitter) users/haters? And why are there so many references to the page on her when other pages don't require any?

Take a look at the history of the edits on the Stephanie Adams page and you will see that User Sean D Martin and now User LexiLynn are making personal attacks against other editors and even the person the article is about.

If they feel so horribly about someone they do not even know, then perhaps they should refrain from editing her page, removing important information added to the already small article.

If they cannot write objectively and if they cannot refrain from bad etiquette on Wikipedia, then maybe you should block or ban them from editing.

Please note that User Sean D Martin is involved in a smaller lawsuit Stephanie Adams filed against his friend, making him have a direct conflict of interest and should not be editing the article on her.

71.167.230.171 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. From what I did manage to read, it sounds like you spoke to her (or someone who knows her) once before. I doubt this lady is a bad person and it's a shame others seem to be so jealous/hateful of her.

71.167.230.171 is a CONFIRMED sock puppet of stephanie adams 65.184.20.38 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do take a look at the history of edits on the Stephanie Adams article. You will see evidence of minor edits which make the article more accurate get quickly reverted by anonymous users strongly suggested to be sock puppets of Ms Adams herself for some analysis. You'll see these anonymous editors claim there are personal vendettas and prejudice when all they have done is ask that Wikipedia standards be maintained. You will see lies repeated as if doing so will make them true. (I'm not involved in any lawsuit filed by Ms Adams, she has filed no lawsuits against any friends of mine.) --Sean Martin 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sean D Martin, stop lying about Stephanie Adams. Nothing you can say will ruin her good name and no form of media or press will ever take your lies seriously. You're only proving that you have a conflict of interest with the article.

This is just plain silly. I'm sure Jim agrees that this is a big waste of time and energy. Sean D Martin, if you are really taking this that seriously, then I feel sorry for you. So much anger and so many personal attacks are just proof that the world is filled with celebrity haters. Mr. Wales, do us all a favor and just ban user Sean D Martin. And while you're at it, have another word with Hoary, Isotrope and their new friend LexiLynn, who makes personal attacks to Stephanie Adams even though she is the subject of the article. Fighting over a few small sentences and hating the person you write about (who you don't even know) should not be what Wikipedia is about. ~Cle0patr4

Stephanie Adams, stop lying about me. Name just one specific edit I have made to the article the presents false information. Just one place where I changed the text to say something that wasn't supported by the references provided. Just one place where I removed text that was appropriately supported. Just one actual example instead of the constant flow of false accusations.

I am not sure what Jim agrees to or not. I don't feel it appropriate or necessary to speak for him. I encourage him, or anyone who should he wish to look into it, to check for himself. I'm sure he doesn't need you to speak for him. --Sean Martin 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of what makes Wikipedia so valuable and successful is that thousands of people "waste" their time and energy on removing repeated vandalism, and "waste" their time and energy ensuring that data complies to Wikipedia policies. It is unfortunate that so many others truly waste significant time and energy by vandalizing, warring, and flaming. I haven't seen any comments here from someone claiming to be Stephanie Adams. If she really needs Jim's help (which IMHO would be a complete waste of his time and energy), she'll show up here and sign her name appropriately and not hide behind sock puppets. Enough, already! Find another article to edit, "Cle0patr4". -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been protected and the active editors have been referred to dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate picture

Hello Mr. Jimbo Wales. Before I begin, let me say that Wikipedia's absolutely amazing. It's a system where anyone can talk to the founder, Jimbo Wales, on his talk page! So, I have an issue that maybe you could give your opinion about. The discussion is about whether or not putting a real-life picture of a private human part would be appropriate in Wikipedia. I personally think that it should not because Wikipedia is for everyone. Yes, there can be articles about inappropriate contents, and even kids could read & learn about them, but there is no necessity for us Wikipedians to go any further than providing the objective knowledge. There are plenty of illustrations; there is no need to go any further than that. Don't you think so too?

Also I've seen users post "useful pictures" under galleries that they create & some of them were complete porn pics. When I suggested deletion (I forgot when & which pic), there was this huge backlash by several users with hopelessly & obviously stupid reasonings on how Wikipedia's this & how that's permitted.

This is the problem. Wikipedia's driven by the masses, and, although the Wikipedia policies are maintained vaguely so that it would not become too bureaucratic & limiting, people are shaping them to justify illegitimate acts. What do you think, Mr. Jimbo Wales? Happy editing! (Wikimachine 17:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Financing of Wikipedia--are we at risk?

I just saw this:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/11376

What is happening? Please let us know. - Denny 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. Wiki did a fundraiser not too long ago, and if they were seriously in trouble, I have to imagine they would just do another one. -- feb^talk 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it would be probably good for WMF to make a statement given this news story... - Denny 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your IMMEDIATE response is suggested

Recently a number of semi-news-reports were published online. According to them, the Chairwoman of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees, has leaked the news of an upcoming financial crisis of Wikimedia, which may lead to the closure of Wikipedia within 3 to 4 months:

Wikipedia Could shut within 3-4 months: Wikimedia

Wikipedia running out of cash this 2007?

Wikipedia: Next on the Auction block?

Wikipedia: On the brink? Or crying wolf?

Wikipedia's Cash Crunch

These news and reports are spreading everywhere. This is rapidly growing into a worldwide fear, despite Wikipedia repeatedly stated that it will not be commercialised, and has just raised over $1m in the recent fund drive. I have turned the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia's possible news channels upside-down but I am yet to find any official response related to this.

Being the "God-King" widely respected in the Wikipedia community, please consider making an official statement on the front page of Wikipedia / Wikimedia Foundation website, so that Wikipedians worldwide will understand what is actually happening and what is the true future of Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) in your mind.

We are left completely in the dark, despite Wikipedia is supposingly to be a community which trust and transparency are crucial. The faith of every wikipedian is at risk as the fundamentals of Wikipedia is shaking. Is this what you want to sit back and watch it happen? --Computor 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The traditional media is, as usual, completely on psychotic drugs. Florence made a perfectly sensible statement which was not interpreted by anyone in the room at that time as being alarmist at all. Wikipedia is not closing in 3 to 4 months, there is no "cash crunch". Her point was perfectly valid: if we do not continue to be creative in our fundraising efforts, and find new ways of getting the ever-larger sums of money it takes to run such a major operation, it is "not impossible" that Wikipedia could someday close. Well, of course. This is true in all cases.

There is no immediate crisis. Nothing is on the auction block. The board is not currently contemplating IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM any changes to the funding model for Wikipedia. We are all busting our asses to find the resources to keep this amazing thing going. And if I have anything to do with it, to my dying breath, we will. We will.--Jimbo Wales 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Question 2

Jimbo, as the founder of Wikipedia, you're here from the start. This means you've witnessed some important -in the pejorative sense, too- events, I suppose. So, I was doing the Wikipediholic test the other day and stumbled upon a question which decreased the score by a billion million points or so if the user was Willy on Wheels. I need to know, as I've been a user for two months or so, what did this vandal do and his page is deleted? I'd be grateful if you could answer me. --Orthologist 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

He did have a page, but it was deleted a few months ago after discussion on the administrator's noticeboard that it conflicted with WP:DENY. Essentially, he was a pagemove vandal who added 'ON WHEELS!!!' (or similar) to the end of pages. Hut 8.5 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is Wikitruth's vandalism page that has some information on Willy on Wheels if you're interested. An editor has also written a Wikipedia Newgate Calendar that you might find helpful. Click here. At this point WoW is really just an inside joke anymore. — MichaelLinnear 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say his page, I assume you mean his user page. It's not uncommon to delete banned users pages after a while there is no sensible reason to keep them. As above these days it's pretty much a generic term for any pagemove vandal. --pgk 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant his Long term abuse page (Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels) - it was actually deleted as a result of this MfD. Hut 8.5 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From Acalamari.

Dear Mr. Wales, I am Acalamari. I am posting this message here due to a "situation" that I am dealing with. I understand completely that I should contact other administrators, but I believe that I am better off telling you about my issue.

A user, Richardrushfield, says he is from the Los Angeles Times, and has provided information to prove it. He has been contacting users about a press inquiry. I believe he wishes to interview users about how what happens on Wikipedia when a celebrity dies, as he showed up when several other users and I were busy editing and removing vandalism from the Anna Nicole Smith article. He also wants to talk about how users protected (the protection, of course, was done by an administrator, but he doesn't seem to know that) and maintained the page directly after hearing the news of her death.

It's due to the fact that this situation involves the press that I decided to come to you, as you have dealt with the media. I have told this user to stop contacting other users about press inquiries for the moment, as I am unsure if his actions are legal on Wikipedia. I thought it was best to tell him that in order to avoid trouble.

I do hope I have not misused your talk page, sir. As I said, I came to you because I believed that you have the most experience at handling these situations. I respect your time, and I will be patient. Acalamari 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, at an administrator's request, I posted this issue to AN/I. Here is the link for you to follow. Acalamari 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, sir, about this. I was unsure regarding your views or any policies you had against users dealing with the press. Since you have no problem with this issue, I will apologize to Richard Rushfield. I am also sorry to you for this inconvenience. Acalamari 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Emergency!! Invitation from Business Weekly Magazine in Taiwan

Hi Jimmy:

My name is Hung-ta Lin. The senior reporter of Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan. I really have an emergency here. People in Academia Sinica told me you agree to interview with us on March 10 in Japan. But we don't know the time, place and other details of this interview.

Before we fly to Japan for this interview, we wish to discuss all details with you. So we really need to know how to contact you.

This interview is different. We let you decide which topic you want to talk. It will be a special report or cover story. The report may contain 10 pages or more. So, it takes some time for us to discuss the detailes. I sent my proposal to you jwales@wikia.com and wikispeaker@gamil.com account. The subject is "An invitation from Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales".

My email account is hung@mail2000.com.tw. My another email account is hung@bwnet.com.tw I really need to contact with you!! Please send me an email as soon as possible!

Thank you very much

Hung-ta Lin

Business Weekly magazine: the most popular magazine in Taiwan.

I am just adding a note here so werdnabot can archive this section. :) --Jimbo Wales 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

NO CABAL

2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. - ^{from Jimbo Wales User page.}

A cabal does exist! Can anything be done about this? I will not name Users, unless I am asked to. At that point I may still not name Users. Wikipedia should have something in place, so an editor can focus on Wikipedia article pages, and not fending off a cabal. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some claim that most cabal members have names that are synomnyms for Wikipedia. SakotGrimshine 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And some think that there is no cabal, but there are basic rules and new editors should accept advice on how to act and not act to kweep the overall atmosphere pleasant to work in, SqueakBox 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was making a pun on how I dislike people who make names like the OP that are so unoriginal that they come close to violating a username policy (I'm not saying they do, just close). SakotGrimshine 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I created Category:Eguor admins to counteract inadvertent cabalism (if it exists). Contact me by e-mail if you prefer to discuss the situation privately. Supply details and evidence in the form of page diffs. Connect all the dots. Expect me to investigate both sides. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure the opposition should be admins, indeed there perhaps a eugor category for users would be better. Until recently User:Adam Carr claimed to be leader of the opposition on the basis that he was a high level contributor who wasnt an admin and I think any effort to limit the wikipedia opposition only to admins is not an idea that is likely to be taken seriously, and certainly should be strongly opposed, SqueakBox 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of cabals that are welcoming to newcomers, though! :-) --Kim Bruning 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC) You know that bureaucracy is really going overboard, when the cabal is more welcoming to newcomers than the open wiki.

Possibly our best former welcomer was User:Sam Spade, definitely not a part of the cabal, SqueakBox 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

<suppresses a snicker> --Kim Bruning 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

iA Cthulhu? --Silverhand^Talk 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone thinks other than that WP is basically ruled by tribalism, I have something for sale for you. CyberAnth 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

About the motto...

Since you are the leader of the Wikimedia Foundation, I need to ask you about the motto.

“

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

”

There is a blocking policy, so this is the biggest load of crock I have ever seen (no offense). You need to change the motto. HyperSonicBoom 00:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. If the privilege is abused, it's taken away. Anyone can edit a page, as long as they aren't vandalizing it. PT O 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) PT O 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We could change it to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit at least once, and can continue to edit unless they prove themselves to be nincompoops"... but that is a little unwieldy. I think we should keep it as it is. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When compared to other resources like Britannica or Worldbook, yeah, we're very much the free encyclopedia that pretty much anybody can edit. That's the goal, the point, and pretty much always has been, as far as I can tell. This is almost like writing a letter to Folger's complaining that you do not, in fact, consider their coffee the best part of waking up, every morning. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can also interpret free as no cost to read the articles, something which is not present in many other online encyclopedias. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is indeed the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit...it precisely this that sometimes leads to blocks as people abuse the priviledge and add nonsense or vandalism...even these are just temporary, unless extreme repeat vandalism is seen...the welcome seems totally valid...Benjiwolf 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use replaceability guidelines

Could you look at WP:REFU and tell me what you think? We need "replaceability" to be defined as something other than "whatever an admin says it is". Another editor who was very much opposed to them because he thinks we should can all fair-use images just unilaterally declared it a rejected proposal; I was simply unsure how one went about getting it accepted as a guideline as I didn't think it was my place to just go and say it had achieved such status. The consensus on the talk page was generally favorable; however there hasn't been much discussion for the last month, which I assumed meant some sort of consensus had been reached. Daniel Case 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the page is that it was far too liberal about accepting fair use in cases where we clearly can do much better. It is funny that one of the examples listed where keeping a fair use photo would be ok is Britney Spears, where our lead photo is actually public domain! There are good reasons to keep fair use photos in some cases, but this proposal really missed the mark quite badly I fear. A total rewrite in light of the board letter might be quite helpful. I certainly agree with you that we need detailed guidelines.--Jimbo Wales 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a great idea.

I have a great idea. Why don't we turn this wikipedia into a online country. It could easily work as one. It has laws, (policies), it has a population of 3 million, and is already a gigantic community. Excellent idea isn't it? Retiono Virginian 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not thinking big enough. Let's turn it into a Galactic Empire, like was the goal of the Encyclopedia Foundation of Terminus in Asimov's Foundation Trilogy! *Dan T.* 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What, is it April 1st again already? (See this, this and this for reference.) --Derlay 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That's funny, but you know, if we did that, Uncylopedia's joke wouldn't be false. Know what I mean? Funny though! Ry Guy Sign Here! My Journal 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean this in a serious way... Retiono Virginian 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, of course, so let's stay the course on that. But who knows, maybe some of the principles we've worked out here could also be applied in governance. An interesting concept. --Kim Bruning 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't laughing at your idea Retiono, I was laughing at Dan's. Your idea is pretty neat. Ry Guy Sign Here! My Journal 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If this happens, I hope the taxes will not be too high :) --HappyInGeneral 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the case of James Sabow will be a test case for the wikijustice that will eventually prevail in a world that has Wikipedia.org. JPatrickBedell 17:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Will the wikipedia online country take it upon itself to conduct murders of dissenters? I certainly hope not! By properly addressing historical crimes, such as the murder of Colonel James Sabow, it will be possible to create an environment where wikitruth, wikijustice, and wikilove may prevail. Unfortunately, the article is up for deletion a second time, with numerous voices speaking for deletion. However great the Wikipedia power is, the people affilitated with real world nation-states have their own memory holes for troublesome ideas, information, and people that they seek to translate to online practice here and elsewhere. JPatrickBedell 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey.

I don't know if this has been asked before, but is this guy on Uncyclopedia actually you? The Sky May Be 09:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. It's just another random user.--Tdxiang 10:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. I am just another random user. The first edit in that users contributions is not me, and as a result of that, they gave me the account. Later, I bought the site, but I don't interfere at all.--Jimbo Wales 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, awesome. I have a friend who is going to be very angry about this -- feb^talk 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did exactly the same thing with my beat up Toyota the other day. Liked it so much, I bought the company. Just chump-change really. Badgerpatrol 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Viewing deleted contribs

Oh, hey, Mr. Wales. I was wondering, if in "my contributions" if there was any way, at all, (even if it is red), to see contributions that I made to articles but can't. Apparently, even admins can't. Is this a feature that can be unlocked in the Wikipedia software? Could you share some light on the topic? Well, if you can respond, please put it in my talk page here, please? TheListUpdater 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoofing Mediawiki user interface

There is a debate going on as to whether is acceptable to use markup code to mimic features of the mediawiki software to trick users into following links. There is a lack of consensus as to if this should be allowed. Perhaps you can offer your opinion here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Straw_poll. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The rule sounds a bit overbroad in current incarnation, but I would support something like this.--Jimbo Wales 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether you think this should apply to all links (even a link to the practical joke article), or only to cases where the link is to a possibly dangerous external site? That's one of the major sticking points in the ongoing discussion, and the person asking you did not make this clear. Also - what would your opinion be on instead changing the mediawiki UI feature in question so that it does not masquerade as wiki content in the first place? Just moving the div to be just before #content would be sufficient. See discussion at WP:VPT#New message box--Random832(t c) 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

sugestion: creating a Wiki-based family tree site under Wikimedia

such a open-source project is necessary and important. are you guys considering such a project? Acidburn24m 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know of at least two already. Genealogy Wikia is one. The other is We Relate.--Jimbo Wales 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

from Quackking

FYI, a copy of something I sent to some dude named mujinga. He seems to be a good guy, but I thought you might be vaguely interested. Post begins below.

I am fed up with this place.

I tried to create an interesting article (FYI, I am in no way associated with CHUNK 6.6.6., being a plus 50-ish bike rider with a variety of interests, among which I do NOT include practical applications of anarchy) and the insinuation that it was some sort of vanity piece says a lot more about the person who said it than it does about me. The so-called 'removal of delete tags' or whatever you refer to, was not malicious, but in fact was a natural reaction by a fairly competent software dude (me) to what I thought was unexpected and unexplained behavior by the wiki engine - as soon as I realized that it was a PERSON putting in the delete tag I stopped removing it.

The smallest search of Wayback would immediately have revealed that the 'pretentious' phraseology this Hayworth character finds so non- whatever, was actually part of the manifesto of the group, a literal quote from their organizing documents (or whatever passes for the equivalent in an anarchist bicycle strike force.) Ditto the references to 'post-apocalyptic', and it is a serious violation of any editorial code worthy of the name to avoid substituting the editor's version of what is normative for that of his subject in a story. (Not to fly my flag, but I have published tens of dozens of articles in big trade papers, general circ mags, op-eds in the Christian Science Monitor, Detroit News and the Boston Globe, etc etc. I may not be Shakespeare but I also ain't chopped liver.)

Similarly I posted what I thought was a reasonable, inoffensive and informative piece on the etymology of the word 'Hoodsie', as is used in Boston slang.

Whack! 'WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTIONARY' was the kindly comment which accompanied that particular commissar's judgment. Oh, really? I can point to dozens of similar definitional entries. But apparently there are those who have, in fact, woken up as Pope, and who enjoy swanning about waving 'delete flags', like some invisible squad of Red Queens in the increasingly unbreathable air of this through-the-looking-glass wonderland. 'Off with her head!'

These supercilious attitudes that seem to characterize many of those who appear to occupy the chairs of authority around here have chased me away. Puts me in mind of a 60's bitch slapdown between aging gays (again, I am not one of them either.) The only actual positive feedback I have seen here was relating to the first thing I posted, but I am afraid to even mention that, since it now seems highly likely that by calling attention to it I will doom it to a summary execution.

Remind me again of 'wiki standards'; is that some sort of digital version of the Academe Francais?

I thought not.

Good luck with reviving the post, but another French phrase (translated here) seems likely to be the reward - 'The more you kiss their ass, the more they shit on your head.'

Goodbye. Quackking 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

True wikilove

Love cannot get anymore beautiful than in this tale about Jimmy Wales and Wikipe'tan, as told by User:CBoyardee. See Jimmy Wales article, revision 108561785.

"I just can't stand it. When I see her I can only grit my teeth and clench my fists as hard as I can from jumping out and screaming "I love you!" at the top of my lungs. I literally have to bite down on my tongue, sometimes until it bleeds or else I'll lose control and caress her with kisses until the end of the world. She's just so beautiful. Not in that super model barbie doll way. She's legitimately beautiful. The super models put on make up and dress up and get air brushed so they can look like her. She doesn't need that shit, she's wonderful on her own."

Read the full story.

(As seen in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.) —msikma (user, talk) 07:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Myspace Blogs

A previous discussion fell off your talk page without receiving a response. Can you confirm whether you actually requested for blogs.myspace.com to be added to the spam blacklist? --Random832(t c) 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not request it, per se, but I agreed with it. There could very very rarely be exceptions, but for the most part, the links were just nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure I agree with using the spam blacklist to enforce this when it's not really spam - I guess it is your decision, though. --Random832(t c) 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is, it was being used almost exclusively as spam. There are very few cases (and none that I have actually seen, I am just saying that it is conceivable) when these are valid links. Mostly it is just people spamming for their little myspace page. That's the evidence that I looked at. But. Normally, such things do not come from me, and so while I was involved in this one, it should not be viewed as a grand decree from on high. It's perfectly valid to debate exactly which sorts of links we should blacklist... and I would argue that we should expand that question beyond "pure" spam and into all manner of things that are simply not worthy of linking. It is a rough tool to use the blacklist for that, to be sure. So perhaps other ideas are needed.

There is a huge problem of crappy links being added to wikipedia for nefarious purposes of various kinds. We need to have no fear in standing firm against that sort of thing.--Jimbo Wales 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if a DDOS wikiproject would help. Add a stupid link, and risk an encounter millions of WP zombie PCs! On a serious note, disallowing IPs from adding links could help, in the same way that they can't create articles or edit protected ones. -- feb^talk 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of more like a DNSBL that anyone can edit which bars spammy IPs from adding links. I'm interested in supporting such a project if it were started. MER-C 09:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All pictures in Wikipedia will not work

I am using Mozzila (NOT Firefox or Thunderbird). I have asked several times on the help desk. Every one keeps giving me Firefox awnsers. I need plain Mozzilla awnsers. I feel like a fish out of water. Please help restore the pictures for Mozzila. Or let Mozzila know.Please don't give me Firefox awnsers! --Darkest Hour 21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try Mozilla? -- feb^talk 13:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Wales

I am an avid reader of the Wikipedia and am a member of a team of folks at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia who have, during the past year, organized a process by which undergraduate, pre-service teachers have written their own Wikibook titled, The Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education. This Wikibook is now serving as their sole course textbook. The process has been amazingly well-received by our students and has been an eye-opening experience for everyone involved in our little project. Working with Wikibooks has empowered our students, giving them the confidence to explore technology-based curriculum reforms that would have, otherwise, seemed beyond them. That said, I'd like to thank you for your amazing contributions to our ever-changing society. We are only at the beginning of understanding the potential of community-based knowledge systems, and I look forward to seeing the ways in which future generations will continue improving upon this remarkable system. Finally, I want to invite you to have a look at our book. and tell me what you think. Our students would certainly appreciate anything you might have to say about their efforts. Thanks again for helping to change the landscape of the Information Age.

PbakerODU 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sig Books

Do you sign specific sig books for random reasons or do you usually know the person (ie User:SD31415 and a block)? Please sign mine, if the first condition applies. Thanks! --tennis man ^{sign here!} 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

i am sorry yet i have to quit wikipedia as it stands now

I think it was an excellent idea. I think you are a great guy from what i know. I have concerns though about wikipedia. One concern is that it is the only main encylclopedia of this nature and i have concern over monopoloy of information in most cases. In determining that some pages may be fraudulent it concerns me that people use this as their one main source for things. Many pages are of the highest quality however, particularly any pages not subject to any controversy of opinion. Some pages may be subject to controversy of opinion yet may still be highly accurate none-the-less as of the particular editors working on those pages for the various sides of the issue.

I am not quitting over the block for the FOX news page. While from what i understand what i added to the article was factual, on reconsideration i perhaps dont wish people to come to the conclusion that it is owned by non-americans, one even a citizen of a country stated as rival non-allied country of america. I feel even if the controlling shares go to the half chinese kids, and they ended up even being totally loyal to the chinese government, that it is perhaps useful to have a propaganda tool that greatly shapes the belief of 1/3 of americans. It is nice in some cases to have it all easily in the hands of a couple of people and one channel. So perhaps i agree on partial monopolies in some cases like for the control over the thinking of the right wing elements in america. That can come in handy, and if just 6 or so people have the controlling shares, well its easy to get things done isnt it, no matter who they are or where they are from. Some other countries i feel this is not the proper way, and it wouldnt even work. Between you and me, i feel it is appropriate that it is towards the chinese that FOX has gone, as the Chinese are of this belief that everything should be monopoly or government controlled. That is a very right wing belief, & Ruperts marriage to Wendi was cosmically appropriate.

I am however quitting as of the Glyphosate product pages, I wont work with people that blank out scientific study results. I will continue my researches into various things privately for now, for a private audience. In languages other than english here in Europe for a public audience i may wish to someday soon publish things. Someday i may wish to publish things in english also to the United States, yet not at all currently, i currently have a policy of holding back all publication of anything to certain audiences. It is strange, yet even though my mother tongue is English and i mainly write in English, i wish to publish translations first, with perhaps soon after english versions in limited sale to just the UK, NZ, etc...I could change this view, yet its my current policy on looking things over.

as to Wikipedia, i suggest some review on how controversial pages may be edited. I also suggest making it more difficult to block an editor with over 1000 valid contribs or some such policy to some such figures 100, 500, whatever, or a sliding scale. In a block, i suggest perhaps just blocking them editing the page in question for a 24 hour period. For anonymous vandal users clearly inserting profanity or gibberish, or innocent jokes... rapid blocking is of course still valuable...

and as i said i will continue to use wikipedia on occasions, it is a handy tool, and is oftentimes very accurate and well assembled, it was a very good concept, yet does have some issues and problems to solve, and that may be difficult to solve, as of the nature of the concept and format. I have created another wikipedia character, decidely right wing, this character may contribute, i wished to perhaps add a bit more scientific information to some marine mammal pages. Yet im not decided on that...Benjiwolf 14:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)