User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Requesting unprotection

The userpage {{protect}} notice told me to come here, so here I am. Requesting unprotection! --Cyde Weys 06:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Why so you can continue to add april fool's jokes ot the page? Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy against jokes on a user page? Polotet 06:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
In a sense, there is a policy against vandalism, a policy against disruption, a policy against a bunch of things all of which have been violated today. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that policies against vandalism and disruption exist, and that they certainly have been violated in certain parts of the encyclopedia today. However, neither has, to my knowledge, been violated on the page we're talking about. Therefore, protecting it seems rather random. Polotet 06:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The history appears to tell a different story. joturner 07:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. You see disruption or vandalism there? I don't. Unless humor==vandalism in userspace, now. Polotet 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Glad this is an encyclopedia. Some people should take a look at our humor article. – ClockworkSoul 06:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it wrong that amputee fetishism is a stub? – ClockworkSoul 06:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
At least it's not a stump. Polotet 06:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Please unprotect when tomorrow. administrator. Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 08:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I give you a goldenwiki. General Eisenhower 00:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I give you a goldenwiki. General Eisenhower 00:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think today the changes should be left, not reverted. It is a special day, after all. (I particularly liked [1]...) Tomorrow is soon enough for cleanup. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrator abuse... and??

Hey, Jimbo. Would you please take a look at this conversation I had with Tim Starling? I don't think this to be fair at all.

I cannot accept that an administrator makes a mess and I am the one who gets unfairly punished with a (wrong) "dirty" record. Regards, Lesfer (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Free the Product Identifiers

Hi Jimbo,

I was just watching your Ten Things That Will Be Free talk about free product identifiers. I wanted to make sure that you were aware of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), which match your thoughts( 2) on how such a system should be implemented. DOIs are used mainly for published articles and such, but they are general enough for product identification, complete with metadata. DOIs are managed by a not-for-profit foundation. Hope this helps, GChriss 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

helpme

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Nomination of new users in need of help, especially the entries about Jimbo Wales and Hildanknight. (I don't know who added those entries, or whether it's an April Fool's joke.) Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

help request

Welcome to Wikipedia: The Encylopedia written by aliens and terrorists. You have recently added {{helpme}} to someone elses talk page (User talk:Hildanknight). That is considered a crime and will get you a {{test-n}} warning. If you don't repend from your crime you will be revoked of your status, namely founder of Wikipedia. Please stop. April on WHEELS 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{helpme}} to Jimbo's page, to get higher viewership of my question. Jimbo did not add the tag to my userpage. Are you Willy on Wheels? I'm guessing this is an April Fool's joke, isn't it? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No I'm pretty sure April on WHEELS is a fake name. DDAY on WHEELS!!! 10:37, 1 April 2006]] (UTC)

*Bow Down*

Wanted Alive Or Dead Or Both
Wanted Alive Or Dead Or Both

I bow down to you, my wiki master. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC) O RLY? --Makiyu 22:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Other languages?

Can someone delete the other language links on Jimbo's userpage? They are not alternative versions of that user page, but alternative versions of Jimmy Wales. They should be replaced with just his de user page, and maybe meta, commons and wikimedia if it's possible in that box. BigBlueFish 21:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it's unprotected now so I did it myself. Looks like meta, commons and wikimedia don't count as other languages. Done the German one though. BigBlueFish 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

APRIL FOOLS!!!

Have a good April Fools Jimbo.

The Most Controversial Image Ever Seen Here

Mr. Wales, you decreed that the "User pedo" userbox template was not allowed, and I thank you for making that decree. You thought that was revolting, but wait 'til you see this:

This is the talk page, for anyone who has second thoughts. The main article page has a very revolting anime drawing of a child exposing her rear end. (A friendly reminder: The article itself is Not Safe For Work.)

This is the talk page of the image in question, also for those who have second thoughts. (A friendly reminder: The image itself is Not Safe For Work.)

I only linked to their talk pages because someone may develop a second thought before going further to view the image, and may want to turn back.

If such content is allowed on Wikipedia now, what will we see here in, say, 10 years?

I must also add that if the media ever finds that image here, they will have one heck of a field day! You would not want major news outlets to have a story about THIS.

(narrating) Will Jimbo take action and disallow that image? Or will he pass on this notice and allow it to stay? Tune in tomorrow for the conclusion. This is Shultz the Fourth signing off. --Shultz IV 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a child exposing her rear end, it's the drawing of a child exposing her rear end!!! The image should be kept!!!! The Psycho 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo: I'm going to be blunt. You need to step up on this one, and frankly, on the Userbox issue, too. They are related in that apparently a "vote" was held on this image to determine its legality. That's really pathetic, and calls into question the entire "consensus" Wiki model as it's being applied to policy rather than article content, where it makes sense. How absurd is it, that if Manga lovers all get together and vote "keep," then cartoon porn somehow becomes "acceptable" on Wikipedia? User:Shultz IV, above, is right, this is only the beginning - a test.
The same model of "voting" on offensive Userboxes is also absurd. If we are here to make a point then that's fine, let's all start uploading "whatever" to the site and create Homepages instead of an encyclopedia, but that's not what's written in the policies. I'm talking about this clearly pornographic image (it's labeled "Lolita girl collection" for God's sake!) and also this new userbox: Template:User_against_Iraq_war_of_aggression, which is divisive in the extreme, and takes Userbox abuse (and also size) to a new level. I'm curious: Am I within my rights now to put Leftist leaders in a Userbox and label them war criminals? If I rally enough "votes" behind such a box, will that one be able to remain in place, as this one no doubt will? If so, then that's pathetic.
I'm extremely discouraged at this point and telling people over and over again that this is not a soapbox, battleground or a homepage has no effect coming from lowly users or the few admins who "get it." It must come from you to be effective. Nhprman UserLists 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is being delt with effectively on the article's talk page. - brenneman{L} 01:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I noticed all the chit-chat back and forth for the last six months. That doesn't appear to have solved the problem and that's why the process of "voting" on whether something is legal or not is a *bit* flawed. Nhprman UserLists 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Relax, its just a drawing, besides Wikipedia is not censored and therefore it should be kept. --GorillazFanAdam 01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we have numerous conflicts here between policies. That's why it's imperative Jimbo clarify things. But frankly, the occassional naughty word used in an article - which is likely the intended meaning of the admonition you've repeated - is NOT carte blanche to post (potentially) pornographic pictures to make a point, or to break the law. Nhprman UserLists 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Schultz, I know you have the best intentions, but please don't WP:PANIC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Censorship has no place on Wikipedia The Psycho 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • See above. Read carefully. Dirty words/pics = okay in context. Kiddie porn, illegal in most nations = not okay. Nhprman UserLists 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • By U.S. Supreme Court ruling, child pornography applies only to images made of actual children, not just images designed to look like it. In this case, the image doesn't even particularly look like a real kid; it's clearly a cartoon. Cartoon nudity is not generally considered obscene; if it were, then perhaps the makers of Spongebob Squarepants would be in trouble for their movie trailer in which Bob drops his pants. *Dan T.* 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? What about here? - CorbinSimpson 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That is a case of Diagonal lemma, see Tarski's indefinability theorem The Psycho 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, a logically flawed analogy, like "It's not a child exposing her rear end, it's the drawing of a child exposing her rear end." (i.e. the same thing. A distinction without a difference.) Nhprman UserLists
      • There is a difference, particularly in the United States where the Supreme Court has ruled that simulated child pornography is protected free speech (largely because there is no victim). Besides, if a 6-year-old's bare butt is illegal, we'd better arrest Bill Watterson for drawing Calvin's rear so often. Powers 15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The girl cartoon in question is labeled "Lolita girl collection." Calvin was never labeled "Sexy little boy cartoon collection." And the intention of Waterston's cartoons were not to arouse his readers. So your analogy doesn't work. Nhprman UserLists 17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a case of Ceci n'est pas une child exposing her rear end :-) Mike1024 (t/c) 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
          • So the legality/morality of an image now depends on what you label it? Or maybe what you think about when you read / write / draw / reproduce / upload / download it? Do we have thought crimes now? *Dan T.* 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is (hopefully) not and should never be censored in any way whatsoever. Any image relevant to the article which we are not forced to remove because of legal considerations should be kept. Wikipedia does contain and should continue to contain pornographic images because they are encyclopaedic content. I don't like Jimbo interfering with WP process, let's leave the decisions to the community. Loom91 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You don't like Jimbo interfering? What are you talking about? Jimbo refuses to step in and halt the idiotic bickering over Userboxes, as they continue to get more and more divisive; and he apparently refuses to step in when a kiddie porn cartoon is posted to the site, opening it up to legal liability. Far from interfering, Jimbo, needs to tend to his responsibilities as head of a company. This company is no different than any other and I hope people are making him aware of that. Nhprman UserLists 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Jimbo was 100% right to remove that image. If the media had picked up on it it would have been curtains for Wikipedia. The media would have had a field day painting WP as a place that is tolerant of paedophiles, and that would have led to a boycott, parents blocking access to WP for their children, schools blocking WP from their computers, etc. The slightest suggestion that Wikipedia was in any way associated with paedophilia would have devastated the project and undermined its credibility completely. The mind boggles at the sheer niaive stupidity of some contributors on this issue. They are like kiddies playing with matches who throw tantrums when someone with sense takes the matches away to protect them. Fear ÉIREANN\(caint) 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • First of all, the image has not been removed (and if it is removed in the future, it will be due to copyright reasons, not censorship). Second of all, a better analogy would be adults playing with matches who complain when the government takes the matches away to "protect" them. We're not children, are we? Powers 15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • When adults act like children, laws and rules and policies are needed to control those who cannot control themselves. When laws are flaunted as part of a "game" on the Internet to see how far people can go without being caught, then self-control is obviously absent, and the real adults - the site owners, those with legal liability - should be stepping in. If men/women were angels, no government (and no such rules) would be necessary. I fear some of the site owners, and many Users, are under the delusion that people will always do the right thing. Nhprman UserLists 17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't really see much childishness here, or on the Lolicon talk page. What I do see are people who disagree on several points: the moral issue of whether Wikipedia should be showing material depicting naked children; the legal issue of whether it's legal to do so; the legal issue of whether this particular image can be fairly used or not; and the practical issue of what effect the presence of this image will have on the readers of Wikipedia. What's childish here? Powers 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, looking on some of the comments, here, children would have more cop-on. But this site is used by millions of children. It cannot risk being tainted with paedophilia. Have some cop on and live in the real world. This site is not a game. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
ha, what makes this image worse than this? or the fact that User:Zanthalon has admitted to be a pedophile? The Psycho 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I very much doubt that that is "the most controversial image ever seen here"; after all, we have some of those cartoons about Muhammad that are such a big international controversy, don't we? *Dan T.* 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
ya, that Muhammad cartoon is probably illegal in Pakistan, but Wikipedia did not delete it, so why should Wikipedia delete this one? The Psycho 18:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What the heck is a "cop-on", anyway? Powers 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the image, with my justification on the mailing list: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/043119.html. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good move. Nhprman UserLists 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In your message, you called the image "grossly inappropriate," "outrageous," and "harmful to Wikipedia's progression." With due respect, you failed to justify any one of those three opinions. It should be obvious from the debate that the issue is far from as clear-cut as you seem to think. That said, your point 2, on the fair-use issue, is a different story, and one I generally support, but not as a unilateral action such as this. Powers 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
... not to mention that you replaced it with a cover that is just as questionable from a fair-use standpoint. Powers 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Kanon is not Lolicon, the Kanon cover is fair use just like the old image, I say User:Sam Korn should be desysoped for abusing his sysop privilage. The Psycho 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
So you've thrown yourself into the dispute and unilaterally reached a consensus to delete the image, which cannot be revert, without discussion of any type.(Maybe you're good for that?) Well, at least you're being commended as a hero, so maybe it is all worth it. I do hope some action is taken. This is plain abuse of adminstrative power. --Jqiz 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If you like, start an RFC against me. I don't mean this as a challenge – if it is demonstrated that the community disagrees, I shall apologise and take whatever action is necessary to rectify the situation. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me justify why I chose to replace it with that image. It was suggested on the talk page as an alternative. I presumed therefore that it fell under the "lolicon" category, and that it was possible that the magazine could be worked into the article, justifying the fair use claim. Apparently I am mistaken. These things happen. I have just been pointed to some free alternatives, and I shall include them in the article instead. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The new image, you sure it's lolicon, and not hentai? And the image captions says "Hentai magazines being sold in Japan". The Psycho 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was really NOT the right move, Sam. Doing unreversable action while pretty much everyone disagrees with it - what the hell were you thinking? Did you read its talk? It survived IFD almost unanimously.  Grue  21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... Sam has received unanimous support for his decision both at AN/I and the mailing list. "pretty much everyone disagrees with it" is simply not true. Mikker (...) 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A discussion no one in the lolicon talk page knew about != consensus. If he wanted to argue in favor of deleting the image, he would have voted at WP:IFD. This is what his actions were:
I think this image is inappropriate.
I think it is the best interest of Wikipedia to delete the image.
I will delete it now.
This is ignoring past polls, IFD deletion process, on-going discussion, and anything other process available, because I is what matters? Single man consensus. The whole process of the removal of the image got gutted. Hmm, does the 14 or so people who voted keep on the image does not apply, because we're not on the mailing list/admins?--Jqiz 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You have very good points. There is an RfC on the matter: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Korn. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies methinks. Mikker (...) 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I read the mailing list... IN DIGEST FORM. This discussion had (correction - *HAS*)not yet reached the digest. There would have been notices on the talk page for Lolicon, the user-talk pages of people who were involved in the debate and the three wikiprojects of relevence (japan, censorship, hetrostatus' anti-porn project which I mistakenly voted to keep) about the discussion ongoing on en-l, and there would have been a message debunking the many falsehoods that were told on en-l shortly after I saw the consensus of misinformed adminstrators. But the start-to-finish on the deletion was 14 hours, 8 of which were dominated by the erronious assumption there was a good replacement GFDL image (an assumption that both parties to the initial dispute agree is a bad one) Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There is another "wikiproject of relevance": Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. I encourage editors who have an opinion about the Lolicon image to pay attention to that project. -Will Beback 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
By strongly supporting an out of process deletion, Jimbo Wales has showed his lack of respect for the wikipedia community and wikipedia policies. Plus it's not really smart of him taking side on such a controversial issue. The Psycho 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No. You show almost mindboggling niavety in not grasping the seriousness of the issue. Sam's deletion was sensitive and mature. Your reaction is insensitive, naive and immature in the extreme. If he hadn't deleted it, I would have. Anyone who knows the victims of paedophiles, and sees the damage it does, wouldn't regard the issue as some sort of free speech game. Play games on your xbox. This is an encyclopaedia, not a game. Free comes with responsibility, a fact you don't seem to grasp. Instead you act as though it is simply playing with toys. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You on the other hand show almost mindboggling incompetence and bigotry. No one cares about your opinion here. Wikipedia is NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored. Don't like it? Go away.  Grue  19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please be civil. If his opinion means nothing, yours doesn't either. It's kind of amazing to say you don't believe in censorship, then tell someone they have no right to express an opinion here. Nhprman UserLists 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First, Grue has never said Jtdirl has no right to express his opinion. Second, it's ridiculous to claim a drawing like Hikari_Hayashibara has anything to do with real child molestation. The Psycho 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Grue said (just a couple of lines up) "No one cares about your opinion here" then invited him to leave. I would say that's telling someone they have no right to express an opinion. What does it mean to you? Nhprman 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "censored" all the time. Edits are censored by fellow editors. Pictures are censored and removed from WP if they don't fit up to the legal requirements for usage. Articles are censored by deletion in the Afd page. You clearly know as little about censorship as you do about free speech, the law, or how to build an encyclopaedia. All the evidence shows overwhelming support for Sam's actions, and little for your opinion. You may like playing at free speech as it was a toy, without the slightest grasp of what it actually means. It would help if, before proclaiming your infallibility on a topic, you actually knew the facts about it. If you want to contribute to sites with paedophile content, go ahead: find them. Wikipedia is not one and won't be one and images that promote paedophilia will be deleted, whether you like it or not. Fear ÉIREANN\(caint) 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Images that "promote" something would be deleted because they are POV, regardless of what they are promoting (unless they have some other redeeming features). But from the little interaction that I had with you, I have strong suspicion that you either don't understand what "promote" means, or that Wikipedia articles are not intended to promote their subject, the latter being more likely. The articles should be impartial and NPOV. You however look like a sort of person that incorporates your own opinions as some sort of universal truth and pinpoint of encyclopedicity (see, I'm getting pretentious too). No wonder that with such attitude you got involved in a lot of conflicts. Well, I think I got a little off-topic here. I think that situation was resolved rather well for both sides, although I'm sure some people would be offended by the new image too...  Grue  20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Grue, please remember WP:CIVIL. There is no justification to tell people things like "Don't like it? Go away." We're not here to create "Wiki-for-and-by-people-who-agree-with-Grue". Johntex\talk 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You think Phil Welch should be blocked for insulting people and telling them to shut up? The Psycho 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Date for Statement of Principles?

Hi there. I've just read the "Statement of Principles", and was wondering when it was written? Was it 3 years ago, 2 years ago, 6 months ago, last week? I couldn't find anything in the history, so I was wondering if anyone knows the date when the statement was first published, and also maybe when it was last updated? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That page is quite old. Please see it's history here. — xaosflux Talk 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It still seems a bit odd to rely on people looking at the history to find out how old the document is - I'd only expect fairly experienced Wikipedians to think of doing that. It is normally standard practice with documents like this to make the date visible on the document itself. Well, I say normal, but in fact I come across documents everyday, all across the internet, where people don't date things properly! Anyway, thanks for answering my question. Carcharoth 11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

February Slashdot interview

What happened with this interview? Kotepho 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's been almost two months and no responses yet. Good catch! --Cyde Weys 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

URL Rewrite

Since Wikipedia runs off a URL rewrite to make "nice" URLs, why are they /wiki/name instead of just /name?

It would work both ways and /name seems easier. Thanks! Willshepherdson 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because there's other stuff in / that article names could collide with. --Carnildo 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


But can't you do something like this (below) that tell the server to ignore existing files and directories?

RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule (.*) index.php?page=$1

Willshepherdson 03:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with the Will fella here ... the /wiki/ does seem unnecessary. And I don't really see what other stuff it could collide with. --Cyde Weys 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki, for one. There's also w. --Carnildo 06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What do other people think? Would this be possible? Willshepherdson 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ohh it's certainly possible, I just don't know if it'll actually get done. --Cyde Weys 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Who could I talk to to see if it could be done? Willshepherdson 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is a bad idea. I have previously suggested an alternate stable implementation that would make use of that - see my comment here Raul654 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose if you are forking off articles (into a "current" version and a "stable" version) then this link refactoring thing might be bad. Although, you could still have all of the current versions at / and the stable versions at /stable/ Cyde Weys 03:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What makes the / a bad idea Raul654? I agree that a stable version might be nice but how would that affect what the URL of the page was? Willshepherdson 03:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Recurring error in Wikipedia?

At certain intervals, usually every week or so, every link on Wikipedia is automatically underlined without actually hovering over it, and this lasts for a long period. I was simply wondering if this is a glitch in Wikipedia or if there's something wrong on my end? Any comments?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, prob your browser. I have never had it happen. --Shell <e> 01:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have an opposite problem: sometimes links become non-underlined all of a sudden (I have them underlined in preferences). It happens.  Grue  15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've had this problem too. Quite annoying actually. Mikker (...) 09:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed it too. Not exactly annoying to me, just weird... Misza13 T C 12:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I get it too, both in FF 1.0.7 and 1.5, on two very different machines. I don't know much about it, presumably a CSS style sheet is getting lost or confused. Anyway it's a MediaWiki issue, not a Jimbo issue. :) Stevage 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It is the preferences stylesheet not getting loaded. When it happens, clear your cache (Shift-Reload on Firefox) and it'll start working again. --cesarb 17:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I asked Raul654 about it on #wikipedia. He reckoned that someone might have messed with the monobook.css. Any other theories? --Andy123(talk) 22:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting feedback on articles?

Mr Wales, I wrote 2 articles on Google Groups (a free groups and mailing list service from Google) and Homerun (a Singaporean adaptation of award-winning movie Children of Heaven). Could you (or any editors reading this page) give feedback on the two articles? I am looking for feedback that will help me improve articles, so don't just say "good". Something like "the article is slightly POV" or "the facts are not well presented" or "your style of writing is unique" or "the screenshots are appropriate" would be helpful.

I'm 14, and although I topped my level in English, and am one of the top writers in my school, I understand that Wikipedia is international (some of the WORLD's best writers are here), and the skills that made me a prolific essay writer may not make me a good Wikipedia writer. Hence I'm seeking feedback. I have found it difficult to find a place to ask for feedback on my articles, hence I'm going to your user page. In addition, I have created the:

Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Desk in an attempt to meet this need. However, the project page is dead. While I understand that Wikipedia is not for advertising, how do I advertise a specific Wikipedia page within Wikipedia? I hope that by posting the Article Feedback Desk link here and advertising it in Wikipedia, the page will get more traffic, and more Wikipedians will post feedback on my articles and post their articles for feedback. I hope that the Article Feedback Desk will become an integral feature of Wikipedia which I will become famous for starting.

You may choose to answer here or on my talk page, but all should follow suit so I can read all the replies in one place. This is not an April Fool's joke, by the way. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You can post these kind of requests on Wikipedia:Peer review. jacoplane 18:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

hello newbie here

Hello Im cartman4000 it is a pleasure to use wikipedia i would like it if you respond

Bots hidding vandalism

I don't know if it happens to others as well, but the recent heavy activity by robots that format articles has given me a lot of extra-work spotting vandalism in the articles I watch by getting extensive watchlists of modified articles that have only been slightly touched by a Bot.

To illustrate the problem, let me show you this edit that added some nonsense, but at the same time removed the chinnese interwiki link (zh:). Hours later to this vandal edit YurikBot restored the interwiki link, leaving the vandalism untouched. The following day I check for the last changes, and saw tha the page has been edited by YurikBot, thus thought that there's no need to check its edits, but luckily checked it anyway.

Since bots produce a huge number of changes in articles that might have not been otherwise modified in months (and therefore there's no need to check them for vandalism), it might be reasonable to give Bots a special status that would later allow us to ignore their edits when requesting your our watchlist. This way watchlists would be much more compact, and we would have less work doing our everyday check.

Another idea would be the display in the watchlists the number of edits to that page since your last log-on, or something like that. Sorry I'm leaving this here, I didn't find any better place. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In the future, you're probably better off posting such proposals on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). jacoplane 16:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
See Bug #191. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complaint with regards to User Freakofnurture, and why my account at Jonathan_7 should be unblocked

C & P ed entirely from my talk page at User: Jonathan_7 as a reason why I should be unblocked

The arrogance of Wikipedia (where I am not answered satisfactorily, and User: Freakofnurture appears to freak out and maliciously ban me constantly just because of one harmless typo in which I accidentally called him/her "Freakofnature" (from the Daniel Brandt talk page):

I reverted back to a 4th November version of the page because it is the most fair and NPOV way of presenting the article. I'll let the guy behind the page explain:

Jucifer, I *did* discuss my edits and my reasons for them on here, but there's been no further discussion of them from you.

I fail to understand why you felt it necessary to remove every single improvement I made. You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps. Evidently you prefer the spin.

I give up. As long as people like you are going to hover over this page day after day and remove any constructive changes made by others, there's no point. I can't keep hovering over this page myself, though, because I have a life. Nor do I have time to waste arguing about what constitutes coherent writing with someone who can't even spell the word "coherent".

And what gives you the audacity to not only remove every single change I made, but then request that no one else remove YOUR changes without discussion?? I begin to see now why Brandt and others are blanking the page out entirely.

While there is little to add to this, I should point out that articles such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan articles, despite the fact that the subjects have significant hate proportions, the fact remains that this doesn't stop the articles from being NPOV and not offending them. Why? Because these guys have had no conflict with Wikipedia. Therefore, Brandt gets demonised in the existing article, whereas the proposed revert to 4th November is a great deal more neutral, and if the thing is not gonna be deleted, the least that can happen is that he is painted in a fair light.

Where can you find arguments for why that version of the article should be in place? Why, I would presume that seeing as how back in November this guy was discussing his edits with Jucifer, I think its obvious where the answers are: with Jucifer.

Hi, Jonathan here. I think the difference between the revisions is that the existing article on Brandt does appear to have several negative connotations about it. Too much gets made of Brandt in the existing criticism section. The suggested version of the article is NOT biased, for as the guy originally behind it points out:

"You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."

I agree that the Brandt article can no longer be in a state of deletion, because he's a notable persona. However, the least Wikipedia could do is to enter into some sort of compromise with Brandt. Create a version of the article that pleases both camps. I do believe he said he would be satisfied with a Stub on himself at least. While the suggested version is not a stub, it's at least not as intruding onto his privacy than the current article.

AND FINALLY, THE ONE FOR WHICH FREAKOFNURTURE HAS MERCILESSLY BULLIED ME ABOUT.

Okay, so Brandt has been involved quite a lot with this article, as the archives do tell us. And he has had a tendency to point out that information published about him is either inaccurate or incompetent. In response his views are often criticised, but he does have a valid point. You see, if I was to suddenly achieve fame for being a Wikipedia user or a famous Wikipedia critic, I would make DAMN SURE that the person who was writing the article was someone I either knew or was able to trust, or hell, I would write it myself.

Let us take, for example, Jimmy Wales. The same principle applies here. I'm going to be willing to bet that the article was not written by Mr Wales for the purpose of NPOV, but was written by someone that he knew he could trust.

In Brandt's case though, I do believe his article was originally written by one SlimVirgin, who, correct me if I'm wrong, has been nothing but critical of Brandt. Isn't it rather odd that despite the fact that people such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan have significant hate directed toward them, the connotations of hate towards them are not nearly as addressed as much as in the present article. Hell, even other Wikipedia critics don't get as much negativity as Brandt. His only "crime" it appears is to have set up a website opposing Wikipedia practices.

What are the advantages of this proposed version of this article? Why, I do believe that's already been covered:

"the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."

Plus, Brandt has previously expressed the desire that if there is to be a Wikipedia article on him, it should be restricted to the status of being a stub article. Obviously deletion is impossible because Brandt is a notable persona, but what this proposed version of the article is something that can help to achieve a compromise between both camps, a more simplified version of the article that both Brandt and Wikipedia can be satisfied with. Just keep the current versions of Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch as they are, and of course the reference to Brandt in Criticisms of Wikipedia, and voila! All the basic necessary information on Brandt that you need. Everyone's happy.

Of course, you know, disputes like these could easily be resolved if Wikipedia were to be a reliable source of information. But it's not. The key distinguishing feature of Wikipedia is that it does not have any moderators. While other websites are able to provide accurate information due to the fact that they are strictly moderated, Wikipedia is crippled by the fact that it has no moderators. As a result, exchanges such as when Brandt made an edit labelling pieces of information to be "utterly incompetent". Someone then reverted this by saying "no it isn't" Excuse me? Just who is more likely to hold accurate information in this regard? The man to whom the subject is about, or someone who clearly has something against Brandt?

Finally, seeing as how my previous account was suspended because I was allegedly acting as a sockpuppet or impersonator of Brandt. There were several problems wth this theory:

One: Not once had I ever met Daniel Brandt, nor have I ever had any email correspondence or similar with the forementioned person. Sheesh, it's not so abnormal or unusual that someone can generate support for their cause - even the British National Party gain votes.

Two: Unless I am into to extreme extensive travelling, it should be noted that the IPs that Brandt and myself use are very much different, so therefore any theories that I was the same person as Brandt were invalid.

Three: There didn't appear to be any "evidence" to support the assertion that I was what was being claimed, otherwise the "evidence" part of "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Daniel Brandt. Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence." would have been filled in. Therefore, it was an unfair ban.

Four: From the very beginning, it appeared that Curps must have had some political, social, or absurdly personal agenda against myself to warrant that even now, he has never given a proper reason to revert my edits more than three times, and yet he was not banned for breaching the 3RR rule, thus showing bias on Wikipedia's part.

Five: I already tried to explain that I was not the same person who gained notoriety for randomly proclaiming "WikiFascists!" and repeatedly blanking the page, and yet Curps seemingly has no idea on the concept of "diffentiation" as he appears to enjoy lampooning both myself and the forementioned vandal as being one and the same.

Thank you for your time.

Jonathan 7 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should I be unblocked? Because Freakofnurture failed to follow a rule about the process of revert in which you should at least give your reasons as to why you have reverted the edits of the user on either the article's or the user's talk page. Also, Freakofnurture kept restricting my rights to speak and coldbloodedly calling me a sockpuppet even though the above shows I am not so. I feel this was a grossly unfair treatment upon myself.

Plus, trolls don't have any concept of spelling or grammer, and their actions are unjustified ergo - not troll. Jonathan 7 14:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


== Dear Freakofnurture ==,

Please unblock me, for I have finally had enough of the fact that you appear to have something very serious against me, as well as the fact that you appear to lack any reading comprehension. I have told you time and time again that I am not a sockpuppet, and I have explained the nature of my actions. I am pissed off, and I therefore wish to take it up with the higher authority Jimmy Wales on his user talk page. I have more than enough evidence to show that you have abused your admin powers and have had a vendetta against me ever since I made an edit you happened to disagree with on the Daniel Brandt article. You on the other hand have no evidence of any abusive conduct I have had towards you or Curps, and you simply answer only in WikiSpeak, where you use the same old "rv" and "sockpuppet used abusively" which masks the fact that you are incapable of arguing your case.

I wish to chat to Jimmy Wales, and thus request unblock. Jonathan 7 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jonathan_7"

So my point is that Freakofnurture has had some sort of agenda against me from the very beginning, and has accused myself of all sorts of hurtful stuff such as sockpuppetry for Daniel Brandt and has constantly deleted my talk page. He is abusing his admin powers and it is greatly annoying. Jonathan_7 86.128.14.86 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

my opinion

The whole debate centers on whether if an account is banned, it can use its IP address or new account to ask the admin who banned them to be unbanned. I have seen basically seen when this happens not only is the account and IPS indefinately banned, but the messages are removed from the admins talk page (often by another admin). In this instance, the accounts and IPs were indefinately banned, but the thread "Your claim is bogus" still remains. Basically, wikipedia needs to have clear policy on this.

And of course comes the question of whether it's bad to complain to Jimbo Wales about admins and not abcom. Well, Jimbo's user page says, "Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk." So that's the policy he (or someone) states. DyslexicEditor 03:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Freak has blocked me several times for "vandalism, shared IP", and ironically, the first time I discovered I was blocked was when I was trying to revert vandalism to the RuneScape article. At one time, it became so disruptive that I had to leave Wikipedia for a week.

On Freak's user page, I see F-words and various inappropriate content. While I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, this policy is mainly for articles which are likely to contain sexual content, and not for userpages.

There have recently been complaints about admins abusing their powers (the Jebus Christ episode is an example). I am not singling out Freak, neither am I against admins. However, I hope admins use their powers wisely and do not abuse them. I think there should be a crackdown on abusive admins, and complaints against admins should be taken more seriously.

Just my 2 cents. I'll not be surprised if Freak or an abusive admin blocks me, but I hope it doesn't happen, and I hope admins will not feel insulted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The IP you used first 202.156.6.54 has the proper shared IP tag on its user page that it's shared and the blocks are temporary. Freakofnurture only did three blocks and he/she unblocked it two times. The IP has close to 100 blocks from other admins. I agree that there are abusive admins, but I think Freakofnurture has been picked on because of controversial inclusions on their user page. The abusive admins I know of are ones strangely invincible enough that I would not even dare to mention--but they seem bad enough that I have seen a couple of the bad ones change their user names. DyslexicEditor 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with DyslexicEditor, freakofnurture has not actually blocked you, he has blocked the IP address from which you and probably many others edit, because some of those other editors have vandalised wikipedia the block is legitimate, i.e. he is not singling you out personally, you are what is generally termed collateral damage (an unintended "victim") --pgk(talk) 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. As explained earlier, while I am against abusive admins, I am not singling out Freak, although his userpage does contain objectional content. Therefore, Wikipedia should take a stand against both abusive admins and inappropriate content on userpages. In addition, I think that Wikipedia should change the blocking policy, because blocking shared IPs can harm many legimate editors. My suggestion is that when an IP is blocked, established, legimate editors who are logged in should be able to continue editing. Of course, this raises the issue of vandals signing up for accounts, but most vandals are lazy, and we can simply block them from signing up without affecting established, legimate editors who already have accounts. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There are actually two different 'bugs' on wikipedia's bugzilla in regards to this and they have decent support. Someone just has to get around to implementing them. Kotepho 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what, exactly, you find objectionable on User:Freakofnurture's userpage? I have looked over his page in-depth, and, with the possible exception of the "vandalism-space" section he's provided for random users' graffiti, I see nothing whatsoever objectionable, offensive, or mean-spirited on his userpage. In fact, a lot of the page is rather pleasant and uplifting, like his list of "users whom i appreciate". I can think of many much, much more borderline userpages than this, which is why I found using that page as an example bizarre, even though you claim to not be "singling out Freak". Some specifics, please, so we can understand what userspace content, exactly, you are asking to be "cracked down" on? -Silence 09:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The last time I viewed Freakofnuture's user page, it contained a pornographic image or something similar, and F-words, and a lot of disturbing catogeries like "Sockpuppets of Jesus" and "Rogue admins". I don't know if it has changed since then or if that was an act of vandalism. With his repeated banning of me clarified (I posted since someone reported the same problem), I think the issue should be abusive admins in general.
OMG my ears are bleeding. --Cyde Weys 05:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gator1 stalked in the real world

Greetings, Jimbo,

Thought I should bring this situation to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gator1 - in brief, one of our admins had his anonymity compromised by a vandal who sent a terse letter to that admin's employer. BD2412 T 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I would like to add how important it is that this be dealt with. Perhaps you could get personally involved or help something along. This is a grave invasion of privacy and should be of concern to all users of Wikipedia and the other projects. --Mboverload 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I rather not email you on this matter, but I can if that is preferable. I am not sure about all the issues raised by this situation, but it does appear to be of great potential concern to many editors. Whatever you can advise would be most welcome. Thank you.--MONGO 05:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia is banning informatinon about persecution on Falungong

This is the first time I write to you, Mr. Wales. I have the account holder of "Ilovehk1248" of Chinese Wikipedia.

I have just been banned.

I have been banned for saying the FACT that the Foreign Minsiter of Australia Alexander Downer is sued by Falungong members, which is widely published by most Australian media.

I have been banned for saying the FACT that Jiang Zemin is prosecuted in many countries for genocide.

I have been banned for mentioning the RCMP is monitoring 45 Chinese officials.

I have been banned for mentioning that most of the Hong Kong democratic legislators concern and support Falun Gong members in anti-prosecution movement.

I have been banned for saying things which are verifiable.

Administrators are doing censorship on Chinese Wikipedia!!

Is this what you want? PLEASE investigate!! PLEASE kindly TAKE ACTION to keep Wikipedia really a place "everyone can edit"!! I thank you for your attention in advance. I do wait for your answer! I thank you in advance!!Doreme1248 04:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

China's government is exercising the censorship. Blame them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
He said he was banned from chinese wikipedia by an administrator. Chinese government is not supposed to be able to censor chinese version of wikipedia because it's hosted on servers located in USA. But it's possible that the chinese government is slowly taking over Chinese Wikipedia by having chinese communist party members become high ranking admins. The Psycho 06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You are totally correct! One of such administrator I spot is "SHIZHAO" (Beijing) and "Louer" (USA, but from mainland China). SHIZHAO is a STEWARD and SYSOP. He undid my edit without giving reasons at all or giving unjustifiable reasons. He took an article about a Chinese official who was convicted of persecuting Falun gong members for voting for deletion, TWICE. The Chinese Communist Party know that they must control Chinese Wikipedia. Please kindly read my user page for details, which will be updated frequently. I thank you for your concern!Doreme1248 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Well, I wouldn't be so quick to swallow Doreme1248's summary of what has happened. It may very well be that s/he was doing POV-pushing (which one can do by inserting verifiable facts in a particular manner) or something else that would warrant a ban. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 07:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Please kindly read my user page for details, which will be updated frequently.Doreme1248 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just read Wikipedia: Banning Policy and I am BLOCKED, rather than simply banned. The admin who blocked me is Pubuhan. He did not give a reason for the block. Wikipedia: Blocking policy says: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block ediors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."

The fact is: The MAINLAND CHINESE ADMINSTRATORS are gaining an advantage in a content dispute (Dispute as to whether content involving Falungong or related issues should be put into other articles) by BLOCKING ME!!Doreme1248 08:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Doreme1248(in Chinese wikipedia known as Ilovehk1248) kept adding information based on bias of Falungong into Chinese Wikipedia, so he got blocked. In my opinion, Doreme1248 deserves what he got. I am one of the administrators and also a bureaucrat in the Chinese Wikipedia, and I am from Taiwan, no relationship with the Chinese government or Chinese Communist Party. This matter is totally not related to any censorship from the PRC government. Pubuhan took his action after discussed with several administrators in an online chatting room with no objection. Please don't get mislead by Doreme1248.--zh:User:Theodoranian 17:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I am also one of the administrator group discussing the issue. Staying in North America, I am thus not related to the Chinese government or the CCP whatsoever. In addition to what Theodoranian expressed, Doreme1248 vilified, on hir user page of the Chinese wikipedia, shizhao (steward), 3dball (ordinary user), Pubuhan (admin), Theodoranian (bureaucrat), 妙詩人 (ordinary user), Louer (admin), Panda (ordinary user) as possible "special agents" working for the CCP.
As a administrator of both communities, here and the Chinese wikipedia, my impression suggests me that User:Doreme1248 is a new contributor to the Chinese wikipedian community so I wish hir to interpret and back up the information on hir userpage in the Chinese wikipedia to the wikipedians here, who shall aid hir positively. I.H.S.V. (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for coming!! I have been waiting you for long! I have been waiting you for coming to this relatively fair forum! After all, I am not interested in your real identity whether you are a special agent or not. After all, whether you are not we are equal on the Wikipedia. Are you going to DENY THAT YOU GAINED AN ADVANTAGE IN A CONTENT DISPUTE INVOLVING WHETHER MOST ARTICLES SHOULD INVOLVE FALUN GONG MATERIALS BY BLOCKING ME? Wikipedia: Blocking policy says "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block ediors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Answer me!! You have never answered this although I asked many times!! Can't you answer this!!Doreme1248 01:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm also a user of both Chinese and English Wikipedia and I'm from Taiwan. What Theodoranian wrote here is correct. Administrators of Chinese Wikipedia are not only from China, but also from Taiwan and Hong Kong. I can tell you that there is no censorship in Chinese Wikipedia. Every banning operation on Chinese Wikipedia is been done after proper discussion amount many Wikipedians in the Skype chatting room. These admins had discussed about Ilovehk1248's case on the Skype chatting room and there is no objections on banning Ilovehk1248. I know because I'm in the Skype chatting room at that time (although I'm not one of the admins). Please do not get misleaded by Doreme1248. FYR.--H.T. Chien (Discuss) 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blanked part of Doreme1248's userpage for personal attacks against a couple of zh-wiki users. NSLE (T+C) at 01:31 UTC (2006-04-09)

I refuse admit that I intended to launch a personal attack on Shizhao, although I would be happy to rephrase it to make it more "friendly". Wikipedia:No personal attacks says (Please read): Examples that are not personal attacks: ... Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. If you still insist that the following is personal attack, state your reason. However, I am sure mentioning what a Steward has done is totally OK, other their power can never be challenged, and this is unacceptable.Doreme1248 02:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If information is biased, it should rewritten from a neutral standpoint. Though I'm not proficient in moonspeak, this revert doesn't look acceptable. 24.224.153.40 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Brian Peppers (and his Wikipedia article)

Dear Sir: I believe that your decision to remove the Brian Peppers aritcle was indeed a wise one. I happen to have a correspondence with Mr. Peppers and his sister-in-law, Susan, and I know that Brain does not deserve to be disrespected in any way. The pure existance of any article about him and his past would be an insult to his person, and Thus I must, on his behalf, thank you. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Below I give a description of Shizhao done as an administrator

The Steward and SysOp Shizhao get the article of Gloria Cheung﹙張韻琪﹚ to be voted for deletion by the reason that Gloria Cheung﹙張韻琪﹚ was of little importance to become a Wikipedia article. However, she was a university student union chairlady of Hong and is an activist promoting democracy. She is well known by most Hong Kong teenages. Eventually the result of voting is preservation of the article.

The Steward and SysOp Shizhao get the article of Zhao Zhifei﹙趙志飛﹚ to be voted for deletion by the reason that Zhao Zhifei﹙趙志飛﹚ was of little importance to become a Wikipedia article. However he is actually a person convicted of persecuting 38 Falun gong members to death. Eventually the result of voting is preservation of the article. Ignoring the result, he get the SAME article to be voted again.

SHIZHAO also seldom explaining his reason for reverting my edit (For example, Jiang Zemin in Chinese Wikipedia), breaching the Wikipedia official policy. When he did, the reasons are almost always unjustifiable.

SHIAZHAO is nominating PUBUHAN, who blocked me, to be a bureaucrat. This may match the situation a previous Wikipedian mentioned: The Chinese Communist Party pushes one personnel to the administrating level, and get him to nominate others of the same back ground, slowly taking over the administrating power of the whole Chinese Wikipedia.

I urge Mr. Wales and the Community to review about Shizhao's use of power as a Steward.Doreme1248 02:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To Deoreme1248, Pubuhan didn't dispute with you in this matter. He was executing the dicision which was made by the community. We have warned you not to keep adding POV material into Chinese Wikipedia for several times before the blocking. Since I am not interested in your real identity whether you are a special agent or not., why you said that I am a special agent from the PRC? You owe everybody you mentioned an apology.--zh:User:Theodoranian02:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(1)I deny that I keep adding POV materials. Indeed, there are probably no such things in the world called "POV materials", but only "POV description about a conflict". I have said many many times, although I am willing to say it once more, that Falun Gong background media such as Epoch Times, Renminbao, Minghui are Reliable sources, and I described such sources in a neutral way. You may think that they are unreliable sources, but these are your personal opinion, and please keep them to yourself. After all, I have not just put these sources, but also BBC and other Australian media. It gives you no excuse to censor them.Wikipedia: Neutral point of view says policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints However, what most administrators involved was doing is: deleting my description of the conflict, not letting me to describe the conflict, preclude me from the right to describe the conlict. By doing so, it is the one who deletes the neutral description of the conflict breaches the NPOV rule, NOT the editor. If it is in your opinion that my description about a conflict is not neutral enough, edit it to become more neutral, rather than delete it. Editting is what Wikipedia about, not deletion.
(2)I understand that this is a decision made by the community, as you alleged, and I am not going to dispute about it. However, I allege that such community decision is ignoring the Wikipedia rules, and wrongly decided, as I have described above. Such a majority decision violating Wikipedia rules, which are WIDELY ACCEDPTED by Wikipedians, are ILLEGITIMATE. This is just like: A piece of legislation is illegitimate if it violates universally accpeted human right rules EVEN if it is passed by majority.
(3)(revoked due to Wikipedia policy) I refuse to aplogise. If you are interested in listening to my reason of refusal of reply, I am happy to give you one. But due to Wikipedia policy, I cannot put it here.
(4)Pubuhan disputes with me and the Community disputes with me. OK, let's assume that Pubuhan is neutral as to this dispute and the Community disputes with me. So it's the Community blocked me, not Pubuhan blocked me. Well, After all, the rule is not going to be circumvented simply because it is done in the name of the Community. Last but not the least, are you going to answer this? Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. The Community is not going to be priviledged simply because it is the Community. The Community has to observe Wikipedia Rules. Now, the Community (made up of many individual administrators who are in dispute with me as to the content) is in a dispute with me and it gained advantage in this dispute by blocking me, and THIS IS PROHIBITED.

(5)I do not understand why you (on behalf of the Community again?) can give me a dozens of "reasons" HERE why Pubuhan blocked me, while I was given no reasons at all at the time I was blocked. Well, didn't the Community instruct Pubuhan to give a reason? Does he, or the Community knows that, by Wikipedia: Blocking policy he is obliged to give a reason??

I wait for you replies.Doreme1248 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Warned for personal attacks in point 3. Next infringement gets you blocked from en-wiki too. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 02:35 UTC (2006-04-09)
Revoked. Thank you for you warning and I will be careful.Doreme1248 02:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can I ask how he has been banned 7 times as he states? --Mboverload 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I am another ZH admin, I live in America, and I totally disagree with the way how CCP illegally cracked down FLG and subsequently treated the FLG members with no due respect to PRC constitution and human rights. I also declare that I am not a "special agent" of CCP (or employed by CCP or FLG in any way) and I warn that I dislike any personal attacks or libeling.
However, after examining relevant edit histories and the blocking log on ZH Wikipedia, as well as the Skype chat record, I have found that ZH administrators are doing everything in line with Wikipedia's mission and policies, I have also found that Doreme1248 (aka Ilovehk1248 in ZH) has misrepresented the case with false/wrong information and misinterpreted Wikipedia policies.
  • S/He accused here that Pubuhan (the ZH admin who blocked Ilovehk1248 for 3 days) "did not give a reason for the block". This is a blatant lie, as one can check the blocking log and find the reason (translated) as "violation of 3RR, also allow you time to find proof supporting your accusations that several users are indeed special agents (employed by CCP)".
  • S/He accused here that Pubuhan violated Wikipedia: Blocking policy by blocking him/her "to gain an advantage in a content dispute" in which the admin is currently engaged with the blocked user. This is a misinterpretation of the policy and a misleading account of the situation. As the edit histories of 羅幹 (Luo Gan), 劉京 (Liu Jing), 亞歷山大•唐納 (Alexander Downer), 孫家正 (Sun Jiazheng), 司徒華 (Szeto Wah), 張德江 (Zhang Dejiang), 夏德仁 (Xia Deren), 李卓人 (Lee Cheuk Yan), 2008年夏季奧林匹克運動會 (2008 Summer Olympics) (and many others) show, all reversions to Ilovehk1248's edits were initiated by several other editors (not Pubuhan) because they consider his/her edits as POV-pushing and unverifiable. Ilovehk1248 simply reverted back without actions to improve the NPOV or supply verifiable sources. For some of the articles, Pubuhan intervened to simply re-revert. I do not think that such re-reversions should be treated as "involvement in content editing". Ilovehk1248 was blocked temporarily (not banned) because of 3RR, not because Pubuhan wanted to gain any "advantage in a content dispute" by misusing his power.
  • The information and references provided by him/her come from The Epoch Times, which itself is deeply involved in the conflicts between FLG and CCP and related subjects, therefore many Chinese editors (Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Overseas) do not treat reports from this source (and other FLG-sponsored or -themed sources) as verifiable for the reported subject per se (other than the facts regarding FLG's POV), in the same way as they treat CCP's sources or accounts in these matters.
  • Here and in several other places on EN and ZH, s/he accused and publicly labeled Shizhao/Louer as CCP members without any sound proof, s/he also accused and publicly labeled Shizhao, 3dball, Pubuhan, Theodoranian, 妙詩人, Louer, and Panda as "special agents" from CCP on Wikipedia without any sound proof. Indeed, it seems that s/he made these loose accusations only because these users do not agree with his/her edits on Wikipedia and consider him/her a POV-pusher. Some of the affected users also consider these accusations as defamatory and libels.
--roc (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The horror and disappointment of Wikipedia

I have always used Wikipedia as a reference source and considered it to be an informative and good resource. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that adminstrators such as Jpgordon and JZG roam behind the scenes and manipulate information to their whims through abuse of admin powers. Yet this is exactly what has happened as can be seen on the history page of the gunpowder article. Jpgordon disliked the information I had added to the article and continually reverted my edits. I in turn reverted back. Frighteningly, instead of entering into discussions about differences, Jpgordon immediately banned me based on a groundless claim of the 3RR. Jpgordon reverted my edits more than 3 times himself and then proceeded to ban me to further his edit war. This experience has severely tainted the image of Wikipedia and unless justice is served I doubt I will ever use Wikipedia again. In fact, I had planned on pointing others towards Wikipedia, but after this horribly disappointing experience I think I will be instead cautioning others on using Wikipedia at all. From this experience, I and those who associate with me, have been forced to face the idead that Wikipedia is no more than a place where a select group of bigoted pseudo-intellectuals push their particular brand of misinformation through the crushing of opposition using blocking and banning functions. Please prove us wrong. 69.194.137.183 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're being unreasonable. You are trying to push your own POV in the gunpowder article, that the Chinese were the sole inventors, when in fact historians have varied viewpoints on this. You also are hurling unfair accusations against other editors who oppose you, in violation of the Assume Good Faith policy. It was particularly silly of you to write that you were justified in pursuing arbitration against Jpgordon without prior attempts to resolve the dispute, because it wasn't a "dispute among equals"; you (an anonymous IP address) was "more equal" than Jpgordon (an administrator). That's hardly a way to win sympathy for your position. *Dan T.* 23:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ya, annonymous IP cannot be an admin's equal, you have to earn at least 5000 reputation points before you can challenge an admin. The Psycho 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Further to my e-mail regarding ArbCom

I would like to just point you to some relevant pages in relation to my earlier e-mail regarding the un-blocking of the three named Users. I think that this page is important for two reasons as it shows, firstly, that there is an outside opinion that all three users should have blocks removed, and secondly that it has no response from the arbitrators, and this has been the problem facing my client, in that he has had no two-way communication, and thus the sentiments expressed in my e-mail can be understood. I await your response. --Wisden17 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Germany

Hello Mr. Wales. My name is Sebastian, my user name both in the German Wikipedia and in the Englisch section is The Rain Man. I'm writing you because I see severe things going wrong in the German community. The special problem I face belongs to a general one in the German Section. Over the last six weeks, I put all my time and energy in the study of literatur to set up a new page. The Subject is called "Disorder of Extreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified" (DENSOS). It is the hard form of PTSD, what means "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". The most common Name of this hard and chronic form is "komplex PTSD". Unfortunately, in our country there is poor knowledge about this topic. Even psychiatrists and psychologists don't know about the whole thing. So I got myself ten Books from well reputated researchers, altogether about 30 authors or more. Judith Herman who teaches at Harvard is one of them. I did my best to give a detached and good structured insight into the matter. Anyone should be able to understand it, professionals should be able to enrich their horizon. Not one thing contained by that page is doubted amomg the real experts. Some friends of mine read that page today, and I was surprised about their positive feedback. But they are no community members. As having set up some Redirects after havin finished my work, several administrators began to remove pictures, rather without being willing to talk about. They arrange with each other, obviously just to get that page deleted. The official reason for putting the page on the candidates for deletion is that the content was ambigious, and further this topic wasn't worth an own page. It took just from friday 11:17h, when administrator Nina startet to "clear out the pictures", as she wrote in her Edit summary, to Saturday 18:38 when administrator Southpark (it's interesting to see his page) put it for deletion. Obviously, there is a clique of administrators who practice clear abuse of their rights. No one came out with one reasonable argument to justify such a step. They just bood the page and insulted me by making clear in their postings that I was mentally deranged. No reasonable content-related arguments were brougth out at the discussion about deletion. Any statment containing more than insults and the vote for deletion (in German: löschen) shows clear, that these members, mostly administrators, didn't read the page at all. Now they vote down that article. Only few visitors from outside the community came along to vote for it. The expression komplex PTSD is hardly kown here and accordingly minor requested. Repeatedly, they told I had no believable souces. They couldn`t find the komplex PTSD with Google. Then a pro-voter told that he had found 147 hits with Google for that special expression. It was just ignored, like most of the pro arguments. The pictures are embeded from Wikipedia-Commons. It was brought up as a reason for deletion of the page, that these pictures were not according to the rules. Actually 10 of the pictures are free, the first picture in the page has a tag and another, a quite changeable one, is requested for speedy deletion now (but I thought it wasn't last week). The page is quite big, so it contains 12 pictures, illustraiting the content and the meanings, not glutting the article.

And there is another thing about that page. It is a very sensitive topic. Actually 80% of the concerned by komplex PTSD are women. That Disorder is often caused by rape, and at the most by sexual abuse and mistreatment of children, especially young girls. One thing in the background, I didn't write that in the article of course, is a reliable study that tells about the extremly high rates of such grievances. I wrote that in the discussion. These girls suffer their whole life in an unthinkable way from the resulting damages, including lifetime neuronal damages. Hard depressions, awful feelings, unrecognized partial splittings of their counsciousness, bad fears and various additional burdens come up later in their lifes. The shock is stored timeless in their neuronal system and is always present in their feelings, actions and thoughts. It is characteristic that these victims don't know about that, mostly they can't. Typically, they can't remember the horrors cognizantly. The combination to their bad expieriences is generally not made. These people are often threated wrong, both socially and medically. That boosts the damages in a vicious circle. Many of them die very young. Over the last fifty years, one can count the extimated deaths about several million in Germany. (Of course that is no content of the page.) And all that just because people don't know about the komplex PTSD. So I told the people willing to delete the page to think about responsibility, even Wikipedia is a non-party encyclopedia. I argumented, many concerned could be serious to get the information contained by the article. And there might few administrators to get rid of it, but many people out there to be very interested. Many administrators in Germany are very sure to be responsible to nobody and vote friends for Administrators to join their cliques. I told them, they are. They just bood me. One of them, Administrator Markus Mueller, puts a new citatation on top of his user page every day. Today ist was mine, exactly that statement about responsibility of administrators. Another administrator, Mathias Schindler, has a logo on top of his user page continuing the following statement: "We eleminate the knowledge of mankind - yours too. Relevance is relative." Intrinsically one could think that was just ironic. But unfortunately it seems to be true. These people seem to run free their destructive desire behind the mask of an administrator. I said, besides several human righs organizations and victim organizations Jimbo Wales might be against their attitude. They considered that statement rather as a funny nonsense. So all I can do now is to turn to you Mr. Wales as my first choice. And I want to add, that I am not the only community member beeing dissapointet by such things going on.

And here is the link of the German page komplex PTSD and for the discussion about deletion.

I'd be unimaginably moved, if you would bestow consideration upon that matter. Kindest regards and greets from Munich! Sebastian -- The Rain Man 03:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do administrators always assume bad faith ? Shouldn't the wikilink assume bad faith be made an article and not a redirect? Take my example

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ContiE does not have a vendetta against Arights that I have seen, and his actions have been appropriate. I've also had to undo some of Arights' "contributions". Arights has a misguided concept of furry fandom and tries to enforce it on the related articles. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


I got the message, too. I looked over arights's contributions and his/her talk page and his/her early contributions say you are a sock puppet of ContiE. Arights never told you. You also never come here. ContiE never told you. No one told you. I checked your contributions. I checked your old account, Gentaur's contributions (the account forwards to yours). I checked ContiE's contributions. I checked other things like your livejournal, google for anything by anyone. Arights does accuse you of being a sock puppet. But I am not accussing you. I am not suggesting to anyone here that yes, you are a sockpuppet ContiE. And I certainly wouldn't want everyone to strongly believe that Coyoty is a sockpuppet of ContiE. I'm sure no one would ever come to that conclusion that you are sock puppets. Now, you just act like you want people to think you are the same user. For example, you claim to no live near ContiE, but your website bestiaria.com says you live far from where you claim to. And then ContiE claims to be a furry fox and you use a fox next to your name. I'm sure no one would even consider you to be sock puppets. Admins can never do wrong. Why would an admin have more than one account? SnowConeYellow 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not an admin. I'm not sure I want to be, seeing what they have to put up with. Second, renaming an account puts too much of a load on the system, so Wikipedia prefers a new account be created and the old account redirected to it. Third, that's a coyote, not a fox. Fourth, I've been here many times, if you look more carefully. Fifth, my webpage doesn't claim I live anywhere. Sixth, you seem to be doing a very good job of accusing me of being ContiE. Are you sure you're not really Arights? Seventh, this is silly and you are being a doody head. Image:Misc-tpvgames.gif Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Faked user "Jimbo Wales" at the Faroese Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo. I assume, that this user http://fo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brúkari:Jimbo_Wales is not really you, but just another fake, isn't he? He links to your English user page. Best Regards -- Arne List 09:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (one Administrator of the Faroese Wikipedia)

Complaints about admins get user banned and talk page protected

A user contacted me about some admin issue. Hi I noticed this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArights&diff=47916155&oldid=47915977

Someone suggests "complain about admin abuse on RFC" person says, "If I complained about an admin there I would not just be banned, but my talk page would be protected."

And now the person can't even answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArights&diff=47928087&oldid=47916429


This isn't me, but I'm disgusted mostly because the person can't even answer on their talk page.


The person who did this is User:NSLE who says on they are only 17 and too immature to handle responsibilty and power and only have been an admin for 4 months. And before being an admin they claimed that that they would only turn 16 last december. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NSLE&oldid=24692717 They lied about their age after they became admin. SnowConeYellow 11:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's clear a few things up here. He was trolling. Blocked users who misuse their usertalk pages get them protected. Secondly. In October I said I'd be 16 in December. Now I'm saying I'll be 17 this year. Which bit of that is a lie? NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 00:31 UTC (2006-04-12)
Let me add that age is not an issue on Wikipedia. I myself am only 15, and a large majority of editors and administrators on Wikipedia are between fourteen and thirty. Claiming that a user is "too immature to handle responsibility and power" is considered a personal attack, and does not help your case anyway. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vote Stacking & Wikipedia:Infestation

The two proposed policies in my view supposed to be common senese. I think it might be intriguing to hear what you have to say. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Being nice

This comment strikes me like it could be misinterpreted. I think "needs improvement" is a better word choice than saying "it's horrible". Someone did put some work into making the article and it might be kind of disconcerting and offputting to have one's work being characterized as horrible by the leader of the project. You know you're sort of in the media spotlight, so it's best to choose your words carefully and not give anyone the opportunity to latch on and write some sort of negative article on "Jimbo the Slavemaster raining complaints down upon his free volunteers"  :-P Kind regards, Cyde Weys 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I've seen many of your wonderful helpful contributions to Wikipedia, but may I suggest to you that : "This article was horrible. Now, thanks to my improvements, it is merely awful. :) --Jimbo Wales should be understood as tongue in cheek, humor, ha ha, :) even, ???? Can we lighten up? Please? WAS 4.250 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We may know it's tongue-in-cheek but Jimbo is being watched by a lot of news outlets following the Seigenthaler controversy. Look at all of the silly and stupid statements various politicians have been tripped up for making. I'm just saying Jimbo should be more careful. "Famous" people can get away with a lot less than "normal" people can. --Cyde Weys 01:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. :) But I agree with WAS 4.250, I think calling it 'merely awful' after my own edits was intended to soften the remark.--Jimbo Wales 01:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I totally misread your original comment. I read up to "horrible" and stopped reading I guess, totally missing the merely awful part followed by the smiley face. My bad. As for more real concerns, what do you think about the Answers.com Wikipedia tool ToS? Nowhere in it does it even mention the GFDL, and it seems to treat all of "The Content" (aka Wikipedia's content) as if it's the exclusive property of Answers.com and can't be redistributed, edited, etc. Here's a quote from your userpage: The GNU FDL license, the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed, proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you send me a link to that? The demo I saw was very good about the GFDL compliance, and I can assure you without any qualifications that Bob Rosenschein, CEO of Answers.com, is extremely eager to get this right. --Jimbo Wales 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the download page for 1-click answers which I'm sure you're familiar with. Notice the disclaimer: "By downloading our software, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy". Clicking through to Terms of Use brings you to this page, which doesn't mention the GFDL or free licenses at all. In addition, the EULA doesn't mention the GFDL or free licenses either. I'm not a lawyer so I can't qualify on the legality of this, but you'd think that either the Terms of Service or EULA would at least mention the GFDL, as Wikipedia is the biggest source Answers.com seems to be using. --Cyde Weys 20:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This says Wikipedia - All articles are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. (see "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights" for details). I think you were looking at their intellectual property comments on their software that you are downloading (they call it "contents"). WAS 4.250 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the contents of the GFDL I really don't think it allows for a program such as 1-click, which relies heavily on GFDL contents, to be distributed without a GFDL note somewhere in it. Just like the GPL, the GFDL is a "viral license" and applies to all derivative works. Answers.com is heavily derivative on Wikipedia, and at least they admit so on their webpages. But the 1-click tool does not admit it whatsoever. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia is data for their software and that their software is in no way derivative of anything from Wikipedia. Database software is not "derivative" of the data it uses. They are legally independent of each other as far as intellectual property goes (unless someone owns a format; but I'm sure that doesn't apply here). WAS 4.250 22:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Minangkabau Wikipedia Edition

Hi Jimbo Wales, I m proposing an Minangkabau Wikipedia to be open for everyone because my father is a Minangkabau descent and it is an interesting language. Also Minangkabau is an Austronesian language and Minangkabau too is also a very great race. Can you do it for me and for everyone those who will visit Minangkabau Wikipedia? If you cannot do it, can anyone else do it? — Emrrans 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a page where proposals for new language editions of Wikipedia are discussed on Meta. See m:Requests for new languages. Thryduulf 10:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Question!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you ever going to go to Sydney.Thats where I live Ohnomad 10:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My very own "Inspiration"

Hi again Jimbo Wales, its a sample from Frank Sinatra song "My way", this is my own word of inspirations as followed:

And now, the end is near;
And so I face the final curtain.
My friend, I'll say it clear,
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.
I've lived a life that's full.
I've traveled each and ev'ry highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.
Regrets, I've had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.
I planned each charted course;
Each careful step along the byway,
But more, much more than this,
I did it my way.
Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way.
I've loved, I've laughed and cried.
I've had my fill; my share of losing.
And now, as tears subside,
I find it all so amusing.
To think I did all that;
And may I say - not in a shy way,
" Oh no, oh no not me,
I did it my way".
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way

also, my self-made word of inspiration:

"Knowledge is a source of daily human life, so let us work together to free all sum of the human knowledge for the benefits of mankind." :Self-Made Talk

— Emrrans 10:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey you're coming to Gainesville I'm going to see you. --Anaraug 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: template on WP:TOOLS

I removed the template you added to WP:TOOLS. It was incorrect. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

If you think that, editorially speaking, that link does not belong there, I would most certainly love to hear your justification.--Jimbo Wales 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo: Thank you for your message. I am sorry if my application of the template to the section was indeed incorrect; of course, I defer to your better judgement, and am willing to accept I may well be ignorant about the issues at play regarding the Answers.com search tool. It was my understanding, however, that the link was added to WP:TOOLS as part of the contract that the Wikimedia Foundation signed with Answers.com; if I have this wrong, then you were quite right to remove it. However if the link was indeed added because of a business arrangement, and not because of mere editorial decision that it should be there, it is important that such material that is added as a consequence of business arrangements are indeed marked as such. Regardless of whether or not I approve of the arrangement, if the link must be there due to such an arrangement then I would, of course, be prepared to consider it a fait accomplis but would however demand the link is clearly labelled as being added due to business reasons outside the discretion of Wikipedia editors.
In response to your question whether I think the link should not be there - I do indeed think the link should not be there, but I wouldn't remove it myself because if an arrangement was indeed reached, it is not after all my place to interfere with the Foundation's business decision making. However, I must point out to you that the Answers.com search tool is, in my opinion, in direct violation of the GFDL license that Wikipedia is distributed under, albeit perhaps in spirit versus in legal terms. I am not a lawyer, admittedly, but in the EULA that accompanies the search tool the user is required to agree to the following:
You are only permitted view and/or browse the Content, and/or make limited copies of portions of the Content as fall within the "fair use" provisions of the United States Copyright Act, provided all such uses are for noncommercial personal purposes. [...] you may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Content or documentation, including without limitation, translation, customization or localization; (ii) remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Content; [...] You are not permitted to retrieve and store in electronic or any other form any of the databases underlying the Content that is accessed through our Web Site or Software. All commercial and/or unauthorized use of the Content of any kind, including reproduction of any kind for a commercial purpose of any kind, direct or indirect, is strictly prohibited. The Content, the Web Site and the Software remain solely the property of Answers or of Answers Content providers at all times...
This is, if I am not mistaken, in complete violation of the GFDL in a number of respects, as it not only claims copyright ownership of the content used by the tool but denies the user the right to copy, modify or redistribute the content, and indeed the EULA makes no mention of the GFDL and the user's rights to use and redistribute the material under this license. Although perhaps if the Wikimedia Foundation has granted Answers.com the right to use the content in legal terms this issue may not be enforceable, I believe that, even if Answers.com are not legally forbidden from claiming such due to whatever licensing the Wikimedia Foundation granted to them, this is not only directly misleading to users operating the tool but also denies the contribution made by the myriad of Wikipedia editors who have worked hard towards the provision of free content. I thus believe Wikipedia should not be condoning the usage of a product that claims copyright ownership of its material, appears to deny the users to redistribute the content under the GFDL - and, even less so, should be directly profiting from the operation of such a service. The recent competitive patent litigation launched by Answers.com against another similar toolbar provider also strikes me as contrary to the spirit of open collaboration and free exchange of contribution that Wikipedia is built on. However, I fear such concerns of mine will of course lead to nothing since the deal has already been struck, but nevertheless in my opinion the link should not be there. As I said, however, I defer to your judgement, since you are after all the leader of our project, but hope you may perhaps give the above some thought. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The link will stay when it meets the normal editorial standards. The GFDL compliance stuff is not going to be an issue. I have forwarded comments to them, and based on ALL my interactions with them, I am confident that this oversight will be corrected promptly. They are extremely eager to do the right thing and be of service to the community. I continue to be astonished at the level of hostility people have shown towards one of the best friends that the Wikipedia community has. If there are problems, then there are problems, and Assume Good Faith is one of our cardinal rules for dealing with it.--Jimbo Wales 06:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not hostility, Jimbo, it's mistrust. We in the open source community have been getting screwed over for years on stuff like this. Whether it's Linksys including modified GPL code in their routers or just Microsoft being Microsoft, some of us constantly feel like we're under attack. Yes, we'd love to be able to trust Answers.com, but when their ToS is several pages of legalese and doesn't even mention the GFDL once, we get nervous. --Cyde Weys 08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo: I'd like to make it perfectly clear I don't harbour any specific hostility against Answers.com in a personal sense; what I am however hostile to is the all-too-common restrictive approach to intellectual property taken by many dot-com and technology-related businesses in relation to copyright, speaking as an individual who is fervently in support of software and information freedom. Personally I cannot see how Answers.com claiming ownership of Wikipedia content would be an "oversight"; I could easily assume so if, for example, no copyright attribution was mentioned and neither the GFDL nor Answers.com's ownership was mentioned within the license. Assuming good faith is one thing, but, considering that you have personally made assurances that these issues would be remedied months ago when these concerns were first aired there comes a point where one has to raise objection to such a use of Wikipedia content. Forgive me for saying so, but I cannot see that you would be accusing those who disagree with Answers.com's claim of copyright ownership relating to Wikipedia content of bad faith if prior relations, and indeed financial support, had not been forthcoming by Answers.com; regardless of whether Answers.com is indeed "one of the best friends that the Wikipedia community has" I see no reason that misattribution of copyright should be tolerated, nor indeed dismissed as mere "hostility" or assumption of bad faith. I am also yet to see any evidence that Answers.com is indeed "eager to do the right thing"; please remember that we have not had any personal dialogue with this organisation, and so we have no other means of determining the trustworthiness of their approach to using Wikipedia content other than the direct use that they apply to it. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Wales!

Hello Mr.Wales! I just want to say hello to you. Have a nice day sir. Have A Nice Day 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler templates and other censoring

Hello, I've been all over Wikipedia the last few days trying to figure this out, and have asked it in a few of the related talk, but to no response. I am confused about Spoiler warnings in literature, tv, and movie articles. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and that templates that warn readers of things like pornographic material are inappropiate. So then why do we use spoiler warnings, as they perform the same function, just warning a different group of people. Besides the fact that the template is unsightly, it is a constant debate (as it would also be about a warning of prornography) about where to put the warning, what material can go outside the warning, or if the spoiler material should even have it's own article. I think that the Spoiler warnings should be taken down from all articles (of course, just my opinion). But if they aren't, I am curious to know how they can stay up and templates such as this one will be taken down. Thank you for your time, and have a good night (or day, depending on where in the world you are). --Chuck 06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The first thing I was going to say was that it's simply uncontroversial. You are the first person I've seen who is against spoiler warnings, they are so obviously necessary. This is because whether or not something i pornography is a subjective judgement, while whether or not something is a spoiler is a purely objective and factual judgement, and therefore unlikely to be controversial. There may be other good reasons. Loom91 07:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not the only person who thinks spoiler warnings are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If people come to Wikipedia to read about a book, TV program or film, they shouldn't be surprised to find a discussion of the plot. If they're squeamish about discussion of plot detail, they probably shouldn't be reading such articles in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 10:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should say they're the most unsightliest things any fellow came near. If a person wanders to wikipedia to partake of information pertaining to a subject, there should be nothing odd about learning of in-depth summeries. On most occassion, I remove spoiler tags upon sight. -ZeroTalk 10:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think logical consistency in the area of "warnings" is a hopeless task. There are too many people with too many opinions. My take is that a wrapper around WP that censors topics/sections of a user's choice is the only way forward. There are a few possible business models that might just work, so I hope this will happen one day. Pcb21 Pete 11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Spoiler templates a very useful. They give the user a choice whether they want to read about the plot/ending or not. They may be looking for that, but they may be looking for information about the author/subject without wanting to know the ending. Wikipedia is not the only reference site on the net but it is many people's reference of choice and is (one of) the first google hits for many books/films/etc. The last debate I was involved in about warning templates was a clear consensus that spoiler templates should be used but no others should be. I can't remember off the top of my head where the debate was though, but I'll add a link when I remember/find it. Thryduulf 11:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your defence is that people may come to see the plot details, but then they also might not. I understand that. But I also understand that someone might want to view information about, say, the governments involvement in the Abu Ghraib prison controversy, without seeing all of the pictures accompanied by it. However, a warning about those pictures (which by the way there can be no controversy about that they are pictures of torture and abuse) was not allowed. When searching for "Abu Ghraib" on Google, Wikipedia's "Abu Ghraib torture and Prisoner Abuse" article is the third result listed. A seperate version of that article, without pictures, was also not allowed. You say, "...a clear consensus that spoiler templates should be used but no others should be.". Well that's not very good policy. There is no difference between warning people about pictures in order to skip over them, and warning people that plot endings follow. I have heard so many times that Wikipedia is not censored, but clearly spoilers are censorship. That's why I brought this up on Jimbo's page. I ask you, Jimbo, to put down a ruling on this (preferably to get rid of them) and not leave the matter up for debate, scattered over more than 5 talk pages, where no one can make sense of any community consensus. Thanks, Chuck 12:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd also be interested to see the debate that a clear consensus for "censor spoilers only, and not other things". Seems really odd and unlikely to me! Pcb21 Pete 12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone goes looking for a page on Ghandi, they should expect to find out everything about his life. In a similar vein, should someone go looking for Dumbledore, getting bent out of shape that someone put how he died is ridiculous. This isn't a fandom encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia. If you go looking and you find something, don't get pissy because you don't like what you find. I say that there should be a movement to have Spoiler Tags removed from the pages they mar. I hate them and it is nice to see I am not alone. Vaguely 14:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the picture!

Thank you for posting a link to the pic of my shirt! Your talk at UF was really wonderful and wholly inspiring. I'm going to tackle Wikibooks with a renewed vitality. Keep up the amazing work, Mr. Wales! -Asarkees 06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of accountability, power, and the community's role

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, Jimbo, and I'm going to put my neck on the line and say what I think about it. To be blunt, I don't think you need to be running things here on the site itself; whether you're involved technically, financially or with the media is another question. You are not responsive to concerns, requests, or appeals; whether this is due to a lack of time, apathy, or a combination of the two is ultimately inconsequential. The fact is, the guy at the top is identified as the one to go to for the resolution of a variety of matters, yet he is not actually there to resolve anything. This means nothing can actually be changed or fixed about these problems—if you choose to not respond, then that's the end of the story and there's nowhere else to go. You have no accountability; if you ignore people, or even abuse them, the community can do nothing about it. I've suggested before that you delegate your on-wiki role to other individuals who are able and willing to fulfill the role, but as usual you ignored me. Furthermore, you make decrees that have no basis in any kind of collective or democratically-oriented governance; there is no way for the community to influence these decrees if you choose not to listen to it, and there is no way to overturn these decrees no matter how unpopular they are. Everyone knows how hard it is to change policy and process here; what do you do when there isn't even a mechanism of process to affect a change in the first place? What do you do when the person with the ultimate authority cannot be made accountable and will not voluntarily make himself accountable?

What I'm getting at, Jimbo—and I am not trying to be uncivil, just completely honest, although there may be unavoidable overlap—is that for the sake of the entire project you need to change something about your leadership role. Why not let the community elect someone, or a small group of users, to fulfill your role? Failing this, you could at least appoint someone to do it. The community needs a representative at the top to be calm, neutral, and fair, to listen to people's concerns, engage in dialogue with them, to hear people's appeals regarding arbitration matters, and to give advice on questions of policy and practice. It needs someone who is active in talking and listening, but not active in doing—not active in "laying down the law", making decrees, etc. If such a representative is going to ever fulfill such a role, is ever going to issue final decisions, then there needs to be a check on that representative's authority—there should be a way to vote him or her in, or to vote him or her out. Or barring all this, we could simply do without someone serving your role altogether. Even that, I think, would be better than unresponsiveness punctuated by occasional harsh decrees and out of the blue measures. Everyking 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note about this. You are an administrator and this post seems very immature. Jimbo's userpage doesn't say anything about people being an ass if they question an admin. Principle 8 doesn't say at all what you've said it does above. There are current procedures to implement change, and Jimbo does not need to go away. Is this post a joke? --Chuck 08:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Everyking, I don't understand what you say about principles 7 and 8. I can't see your interpretation of them. I have considerable sympathy with everything else you say above.-gadfium 08:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
They have been modified, and apparently the changes are out of the history as well. That's amazing. Well, it is possible the way it was written before was vandalism, I suppose I can give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt on that. If it stayed that way for a while, maybe a mirror caught it, otherwise they've got me looking pretty stupid. Everyking 09:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It must have been vandalism. It was extremely offensive and provocative before, whereas now it sounds quite reasonable. Well, I'll accordingly remove that portion of my criticism, then. Everyking 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Will the community elect an anonymous internet user or will the elected person have to show who they are in real life like Jimbo Wales has done--pictures, media appearances, something? What if we elect someone and they die in a car crash, or were a criminal and got sent to jail--and all we see is just someone stops responding--no way to phone them, no name for obituaries? At the very least we need an emergency contact like a family member should they vanish or their account gets taken over. DyslexicEditor 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have a higher standard of real world identification for someone filling that role. I'd be content with Jimbo being elected to such a position, if he was willing to step up and start filling the role he assigned for himself. The first and most important issue is having that degree of accountability and association with the actual community. Everyking 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It actually sounds like you want someone doing what Larry did. I imagine that person would get absolutely inundated with requests. Pcb21 Pete 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think so too, but it could certainly be handled by multiple people. That might actually be better. Everyking 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This entire discussion will make a lot more sense if readers understand that Everyking was sanctioned by just such a group of multiple people, and that his appeal to me failed to gain him a reprieve. In my view, the process has worked perfectly in this case.--Jimbo Wales 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware that you had heard Everyking's appeal. From the comment immediately below this, it does not appear that Everyking believes that his appeal has been considered. I have no problem if you have considered his appeal, discussed it with him, and turned it down. If this is the case I think a clear statement of this would be helpful.-gadfium 21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What I was saying had little to do with arbitration. I did mention that I think someone in your role should actually respond to appeal requests and deal with them properly; in my case you accepted my appeal and then proceeded to ignore me completely. I think questionable cases should be reviewed seriously and some of them should be sent back to the ArbCom for reconsideration. In present practice, your availability to hear appeals is just a formality, a pretense to give people the idea that there is some means of seeking redress; I think you can acknowledge that. Everyking 10:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see Jimbo weigh in. While not privy to the sanction/appeal issue noted here, I share some of Everyking's frustration. There seems to be a feeling that this site will run on autopilot with a few loosely elucidated philosophical principles to guide it, and that's a nice concept, but it's a recipe for endless conflict and division. I think Jimbo is a visionary and probably does an awesome job running the day-to-day business of the foundation behind Wikipedia, but the president of a foundation cannot assume all will go well without setting solid boundaries and policies for important issues such as Userboxes (which have been a particular interest of mine) or other supposed policies listed at WP:NOT. For example:

  • Either this is a social networking site, or it isn't. Either we're here to argue over Userbox templates, or not. Some Userboxes are deleted and others are saved, or all Userboxes are deleted. Which is it? Without clear guidance, the bickering leads to confusion, mixed messages and anger over Admins' deletions.
  • What about the issue of "voting"? This isn't a democracy, and we don't "vote," says WP:NOT. But look at the Separation of Church and State Userbox Template deletion review. It appears that it's going to "win" because supporters are "rallying" to its defense. I may or may not agree with the box, but it's clearly a divisive issue that will give rise to OPPOSING Userboxes. That, to me, is the true test of divisiveness. So if it "wins," will it be kept? The User:UBX/Communist box has "won" challenges too, but the Template:User_Fascist box was speedy deleted. Communism isn't divisive, too? Why does the "popular" box get saved? Because this is a democracy and this is a stark illustration. I think it's time for a re-think about this site's policies - or at least its procedures - and it has to come from the top. Consensus works on the small scale when creating articles, but doesn't seem to work for Userboxes and other Template-related issues. Jimbo, please decide the proper role of the User in constructing this encyclopedia. Thanks! Nhprman 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: It looks like, for some reason, Prometheuspan's message was posted smack dab in the middle of mine. I separated the two again, to keep it readable. Nhprman 02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
(about above)Poli-Sci note; Wikipedia is a beneficient Dictatorship with extremely strong Democratic Tendencies. It has multiple different and redundant methods for conflict resolution, based primarilly upon consensus, which is a Democratic Methodology.
(about below) Consensus process has its limitations, and, this is the good part about having a lucid beneficient dictator. If you are unhappy with an aspect of the process here, it seems like the way to go about resolving such issues is to make a lucid and strong and cogent analysis of the problem in the community setting. Consensus process tends to bog down with larger numbers of people and with more complicated issues. That doesn't mean it isn't working, just that it takes time and patience. Where Wikipedia will always run into the most problems for itself is catering to non-Encyclopedic aspects of social functioning. The obvious rational answer is, if something doesn't have an encyclopedic function, but rather, a social one, and is causing the community to spend time and stress, then maybe that feature isn't as useful as much as it is problematic. Put yourself in the Beneficient Dictators Shoes for a moment. Everybody is begging for Deus ex machina to come and fix their problem; But the Wise Beneficient Dictator Knows that the closer things approximate Democracy the better. The BEST thing that Jimbo can do in most cases is NOTHING. It doesn't mean that he isn't listening, or doesn't care. It may mean that he is busy. It also means that as Beneficient Dictators go, he is doing the best thing he can for us; Trying to let the wisdom of the many work its way through the problem. Prometheuspan 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting vision, but a misguided and naive one. I disagree that Jimbo needs to 'do nothing' and let the mob continue to argue and 'vote' incessently in a freakish exercise in Direct Democracy (something that never works.) Jimbo needs to step up and speak out, not as a dictator but as the head of his foundation. Consensus-building is not working in a group of hundreds of thousands. It isn't simply "slow" at working, it just isn't capable of setting policy. I don't see consensus here, I see a model that's flawed, and it needs an update that can only come from its creator. Nhprman 02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Your message got garbled a bit below..

are his powers that some began calling him "the benevolent dictator." But Wales bristled at that tag. So his minions assigned him a different, though no less imposing, label. "Jimbo," says Wikipedia administrator Mark Pelle­grini, "is the God-King."

Sorry, I didn't know there was a...er...bristle. Prometheuspan 01:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to Nhprman, Jimbo, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy. It basically reaffirms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that templates and categories should be used only to that end. I know a fair number of users browse through Wikipedia looking for new things to find and read about using categories. The list of all categories is linked from the main page. How long are we going to wait and what percentage of those categories are going to be user categories before we say enough is enough? --Cyde Weys 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This was posted by a sysop?!? That's unbelievable! I assumed from the first line that this was someone with at most 10-20 edits. This is not to say I don't agree with the things said, but I can't see an admin actually making a post like that. In general the more experienced an editor is more he worships Jimbo (and don't take worship in necessarily a bad sense). This is just the sort of thing WikiCranks post. Anyway, as society is capitalist and Jimbo owns this, I can't see Jimbo not having a right to unilaterally change policies. The best we can hope for is that Jimbo chooses not to exercise this right. Loom91 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that surprised you. Perhaps it will get you to think about things a little more. Everyking 08:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Server

Hello Jimbo. For about the last 25 minutes it seemed that the Wikimedia sites wouldn't work, and anything that came under this branch (Wikipedia, Wikia, Wikimedia Foundation, the wikis under Wikia, you name it) just came up with "The page cannot be displayed." Was this a server failure? The server might have refused to work long before I got up (10:50 UTC, I live in Perth, WA.) Just wanted to let you know about this--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


I was unable to edit pages for about 25 minutes, when I pressed save button nothing happened. --GorillazFanAdam 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC) me 3 Prometheuspan 23:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


This is a regular occurance. The server info page says wikipedia has about 100 terabytes or so of storage space and that it has 85% data compression rate. DyslexicEditor 23:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Network_problem may explain what happened. Usually, you should look or post at WP:VP/T for problems like these rather than bringing them to Jimbo's talk page.-gadfium 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Gadfium, I don't report them. I just assume that lots of people use wikipedia so it's busy, and don't bother with it. My reply was to the thread saying that server problems are regular. M Johnson brought the topic up; I didn't. DyslexicEditor 06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just visiting.....

Just visiting to see how you're doing Boss. Martial Law 01:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Article about Wikipedia and the "Bogdanov affair"

Hi,

I have just published on my web site an article about the behavior of some administrators and of the Arbcom in the "revert war" concerning the article "Bogdanov Affair", in which all people who had tried to edit anything positive about them have been banned. Now the article has become terribly partial against the Bogdanovs, which is "normal" since it has been written only by their detractors. This article, which does not respect the NPOV, and which has been written without consensus between the editors, is the result of the choice of the Arbcom, who decided to keep only some editors who were the worse "anti-Bogdanov" ones, deciding in this way on the orientation of the article... I do not think this practice matches with Wikipedia's rules...

The title of my article is : "Wikipédia et l'affaire Bogdanov : "encyclopédie libre" ou dictature virtuelle ?", which means "Wikipedia and the Bogdanov affair : "free encyclopedia" or virtual dictatorship ?".

Unhappily it is in french, it hasn't been translated in english yet (I am looking for someone who could do it). I hope you can understand it, one way or another. I summed up the problem in english on my user page : Laurence67.

Anyways I want to congratulate you on having the idea of creating Wikipedia : it is a great idea, and I was very enthusiastic about it when I discovered it. That's why I find it's a pity that people who are supposed to enforce its rules make such an abuse of power, to the extent that it has a detrimental effect on the content of an article... It would seem that Wikipedia is not better than the "real world" !

Best regards,

Laurence67

Severe abuse of administrator rights in Germany (Bwilcke)

Involved parties:

  • User Bwilcke, that is me
  • Wikipedia Administrator Henriette Fiebig
  • Wikipedia Administrator GS
  • Wikipedia Administrator Achim Raschka
  • Wikipedia Administrator Markus Mueller

From March 10, 2006 through 24 (an unusual long period of time) I was blocked on the grounds that I allegedly, despite several warnings (no links given), repeatedly insulted other users by "Nazi insults" (two links) and were prone to conflict and disturbance from the beginning (one link). The request/reasoning for the blockage had been written by Administrator GS. I had allegedly insulted him and Henriette Fiebig.

March 5, 2005 I filed a Request for Mediation/Problem Bwilcke vs. GS to clear this allegations, which I found highly unjustified and insulting, with Administrator GS and a mediator. I numbered the sentences (1) – (4) of GS' request/reasoning, excluded (3) for another RFM (not concerning GS), and demanded deliverance of the links for the alleged "several warnings" regarding the alleged Nazi insults, to explain the alleged insult of him (GS) and to explain how the one and only link he set could account for my allegedly being "prone to conflict and disturbance from the beginning" (end of January), especially since I deleted this remark from the article discussion site exactly 1 minute later, accompanied by the explanation "error".

Furthermore, I asked for an explanation why I got no opportunity, as is required by the template for blockage requests, to defend myself/comment on the issue.

No mediator showed up and I got the advice to forget it.

Meanwhile every administrator seems to know that I added solid official documents and primary authors into the articles to which I contribute, which cannot be deleted but have the great disadvantage that they do by no means agree with the POV of the "majority", which GS likes to cite again and again, and especially Henriette Fiebig whose opinion can also be read in a "skeptical" journal, so that my suspicion is that she uses Wikipedia (in respect to the articles involved) as a platform to propagate her opinion or the journal respectively - – and her opinion alone by always trying to get me out. It seems nobody dares to help me, because she is in the managing board of Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., or nobody dares to mediate on the same reason, unless by taking her part and accusing me.

I repeated my request by saying it again in slightly altered form. A mediator showed up, talked about the content of the articles instead of the issue in this RFM (of course, accusing me of having the wrong opinion), and as I asked for someone "neutral enough" to mediate, he snapped at me and left.

I repeated my request a third time. Now GS answered, merely repeated some of the sentences criticized by me and declined to discuss the matter.

Finally I repeated my request a fourth time, and now I threatened to clear things with GS by a libel suit, as his request/reasoning was full of lies and insults. I set a time limit and advised to settle the matter in this RFM in good terms instead.

At once I was blocked out "unlimited" by Wikipedia Administrator Markus Mueller because of "threatening with legal action". As this action hindered me from participating in the discussion and thereby forced me to take legal action instead, Markus Mueller soon reverted the blockage, but limited my actions to "participate in the RFM".

Now there was a discussion at last. The discussion showed that GS' request/reasoning for blockage was founded on lies; and it showed not to be the culprit for my blockage but that Henriette Fiebig and Achim Raschka carried it out on March 10 without any procedure at all. GS gave evidence of that by hinting at the fact that Achim Raschka did not give a confirmation of action in his request/reasoning for blockage.

I filed a second RFM Bwilcke vs. Achim Raschka and Henriette Fiebig to learn why they did not follow any of the required procedures, thereby excluding my from defending myself or other comments, respectively; and second, to discuss my alleged insult.

I filed a third RFM Bwilcke vs. Markus Mueller regarding his blockage because of my "threatening with legal action" (libel suit). It is illegal to prevent someone from contributing to the open Wikipedia by denying his right to take legal action if necessary. Moreover, my threat was by no means unjustified, as without it I would not have had any success in discussing the libelous GS request/reasoning for blockage; and my threat did by no means concern trifles.

Very soon Henriette Fiebig and a "Berlin-Jurist" took action. Berlin-Jurist blocked me once and for all, Henriette Fiebig proposed "achiving" all of my RFM, and they cannot be found any more on the site of RMF, neither among the new RMFs nor among the old RMFs. They altogether have vanished completely.

I will not take that. I ask you to intervene.

-- Bwilcke 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki software

Hey, Mr. Wales, I was wondering if I could ask you something. Do you mind if I ask you a question regarding a problem I am having with wiki on my wiki site? If so, please reply here (as it is on my website and I will more likely see it there) and I'll give more details. I thought you would be a good person to ask because I've searched everywhere for the solution to my problem and, well, you started this whole Encyclopedia Project (which I think is awsome).  :)

Thanks for any reply! --Galaxy001 05:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that Jimbo is an expert in how the software works, and in any case he's a very busy person and unlikely to be the best person you can ask for help in such matters. I suggest you look at [3] and select one of the methods of asking for help listed there.-gadfium 05:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Jimbo

I took and posted this photo of Jimmy Wales. He said he did not like the old picture and I volunteered to take and post a new one. BTW, he mentioned the picture in his talk today in San Francisco, while using it as an example of how anyone can edit any page, that he liked the new picture. So please don't revert it. It is not vandalism, and it really is Jimmy Wales, and I think it looks more like him than the old picture. -- Samuel Wantman 05:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that somebody had uploaded a picture of a completely different person over that picture for a while, which probably explains some of the earlier reverts. (I can't provide a link to the other picture because it's been deleted from the image's history.) –Tifego(t) 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: If you suspect that the photo has been changed, click on this link to see the picture that should be displayed. If it is different from the image showing above, a bogus version of Jimmy's picture has been uploaded. An admin can restore the correct version, or you can re-upload the correct version to Image:Jimmy Wales.jpg. This is preferred to reverting to a different image file. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This page is now invalid - it returns a 404 error. --Quintin3265 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That's because every version but a revert to the original was deleted. --Rory096(block) 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1-Click Answers

I'm sorry to see this tank. I'm generally in support of anything that brings in cash so long as it doesn't damage the project. It's hard for me to read hostile comments from users -- some of whom pay nothing and have plenty mighty fine time here -- not only insisting that they continue to pay nothing but that nobody else should ever pay anything. Is profit evil?

I don't expect a personal response so I don't intend to watch this high-traffic page; if you do comment here, please flag on my talk. Thank you. John Reid 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be of the impression that merely because we don't pay anything means we shouldn't have a say in the project. That is entirely incorrect. A lot of us donate our time — hundreds upon hundreds of hours of our time — and that is worth a lot. The users complaining to Jimbo aren't the ones who read the encyclopedia a lot and don't really contribute — they are the users who are putting in lots of effort to make the encyclopedia better and really should have a say in things. --Cyde Weys 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Profit is neither good nor evil. It's simply a means to an end.
Wikipedia operates by the bazaar model rather than the cathedral model (see The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar for more details), which does not conform to the Roman-esque conception of hierarchies of privilege.
Revision and consensus by the many, rather than the censorship of a few. Jimbo is a peer Wikipedian - merely "first among equals" - not a King. His additional powers for the exercise of responsibility to the progression of the project, not a status symbol of superiority to oppress and suppress others for his own personal privilege.
How can Wikipedia achieve its aims - "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" - if the sum of all human knowledge is held to ransom by a privileged elite with an exclusionary mentality, as you're suggesting?
Of course people should be free to access Wikipedia without paying; Otherwise, the whole basis of the project and its aims are undermined. It is correct to note, as above, that profit is not solely measured in dollars. Wikipedia "hires" thouands of "employees" who work without wage (and have already achieved an encyclopedia of comparable - or better - accuracy to commercial rivals but far, far larger while still only in its effective "infancy").
Implicit in the bazaar model is that there is no ruling elite. There is no "tribute" to be laid at the feet of Kings or gods, in expectation of their "privilege" and "mercy".
We are peers. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. You "pay" as equally by contribution and revision. Of course people should access and use the resource freely or its whole purpose becomes meaningless and its aims unachievable.
Pragmatically, though, the sum of all human knowledge takes up a lot of server space and for every single person on the planet to access it is a lot of bandwidth. Unlike software and knowledge, hardware is material and needs to be paid for materialistically.
The project is multi-faceted and, therefore, contributions are equally multi-faceted; There is a pragmatic requirement of financial donations for the infrastructure side of things, as there is requirement of contributions of knowledge and revision to the encyclopedia.
But this still operates by the bazaar model: Donating funds is a contribution to progression of the project, as is making a contribution of an article.
Your "payback" with Wikipedia is the fact that you and everyone else gets to access "the sum of all human knowledge" without fee, without restrictions, with a say.
Because I edit an article, you can gain whatever knowledge I can contribute. When you edit an article, I gain whatever knowledge you contribute. When you or I donate, it is possible for children in Africa or South Africa to gain free high-quality textbooks. Their education may help them find their way out of poverty and you'll get your money back, so to speak, when the First World no longer needs to provide aid and charity to these nations and can actually benefit through fair trade relations with countries who will then be our equals. When they are free and when they are out of poverty, then they shall come to contribute a donation and what they know that we don't to Wikipedia too, I'm sure.
The next Einstein could be born in Eithopia. The cure for cancer discovered in Peru. A plentiful non-carbon emitting power source by Chinese scientists.
If I were ever to become a multi-millionaire personally (unfortunately, an unlikely prospect statistically), I would not hesitate to donate a whole million - or more, if I could afford that - to this project. Because, I assure you, the return on my investment would give me back every single penny and far, far more genuine profit.
What price the theory of everything? What price the cure of cancer? What price cold fusion? What price understanding the universe? What price freeing the whole world from oppression, intolerance, war and slavery by equipping them with the real weapon that will forever defeat it: Education?
Priceless, in my humble opinion. Utterly priceless. Beyond wealth. Beyond petty material concerns.
That is what this project is really about.
The sum of all human knowledge. By the people, for the people. Equally, freely, fratenally.
You want to put a price on a miracle?? PetrochemicalPete 19:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

toolbox link

Shouldn't there be some type of community consensus as to whether its linked? --Urthogie 19:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen (talk • contribs)

Regarding the behaviour of the Irpen (talk • contribs) he's been reverting all my edits of today on false accusations. Now this user is been provocking, taunting only. I request you to speak with him to calm him down. --Chisinau 20:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever is reading this (I don't think Jimbo will be one of them but if so, even better), see this and this. --Irpen 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I still haven't seen any evidences. I saw only something else. What is the connection Irpen? I also saw how a a user like Irpen is reverting my edits. --Chisinau 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Chisinau indefinitely blocked as suspected sockpuppet of permbanned troll; see user:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. `'mikka (t) 23:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Toolserver

Hello, I have started a discussion about the toolserver (Wikipedia:Toolserver), and our increasing reliance on it. I was told you might be interested in the discussion due to your interest in the categorization and maintenance/observation of Category:Living people which was facilitated by the toolserver. The discussion is just starting really, so if you want to and have time, I'm sure your thoughts would be appreciated. - cohesion 02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 18:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 18:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Suggestion

Wikipedia is probably the most profoundly impactful social experiment of the internet era we live in to date. Wikipedia, despite it's difficulties controlling bad content, is a fantastic research starting point and knowledge base. While one would be remiss to directly cite wikipedia as a source, the references in the articles are superb. My kudos go out to Jim for creating something revolutionary, useful and exciting. I have a suggestion that may be worthwile, or may not- I leave that up to you.

What if over successive unreverted edits of a page, sections of text that don't change start building 'longevity points' and users who post unreverted changes build up a similar sort of counter. While edits to pages would still remain controlled by the existing rules, warnings could be sent when a low level user makes changes to long standing text. It would also be interesting to have two colorized versions of a page available- one which shows by color the amount of time text has stood unchanged (red is new, green or black is old), and another which shows the 'longevity rating' of the text (red is low, green or black is high).

That system or something similar could help weed out bad edits without restricting user mobility.

Again, thanks for everything! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.239.43 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia isn't a social experiment, it's an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Besides that, it sounds like a good idea, but I would find it hard to believe it hasn't already been considered and discussed at length somewhere. And, this isn't really the right place for making Wikipedia proposals, try Wikipedia:Proposals. –Tifego(t) 05:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Last I heard, User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason was working on something like this, that would give author and date of each piece of text. It's extremely nontrivial to do it efficiently. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Violations of GFDL?

Has the Wikimedia Foundation ever knowingly violated the GFDL?

You think they'll admit it if they did? Logical Step 02:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian impostor?

no:Bruker:Jimbo Wales -- Curps 02:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

... and there also is a nn:Brukar:Jimbo Wales. Until now, we have been somewhat sceptic as to whether it was an impostor, but if it is you, you are welcome, of course. In any case, we wish you a nice trip to Ålesund. Trondtr 18:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

220.130.153.208 (talk • contribs) added a +zh user link for you, which I have removed. I think if these were really you, you would have added the interwiki links yourself. Note that zh:User:Jimbo Wales announces he's "here to help with the vandalbot". -- Curps 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken linkage

I'm getting a 403 error trying to access http://blog.jimmywales.com/ (and, as it turns out, www.jimmywales.com). Server troubles? --horsedreamer 04:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

it is time

mr jimbo you are doing a terrific job.BUT i came here to say it is time for wikipedia to have a own search engine like google or yahoo this wont take us away from wikipedia to sites like google or yahoo then back to wikipedia with the exactly name we are looking for. i tell this because i came for non english speak country some words in inglish i dont spell very well.with a search engine like google or yahoo it can be much more helpful.thank you.user: Felisberto 13:30 17april2006 (UTC)

Nice to know that you enjoy reading Wikipedia! Unfortunately, writing a search engine is not something that can be done on some rainy Sunday, even without a hangover... Google actually uses millions of dollars on research, just to keep their engine up to date.
If you want to limit your google searches to Wikipedia, you can search using term site:wikipedia.org, or site:en.wikipedia.org to limit your search to the English Wikipedia. For example use site:en.wikipedia.org orange to search for "orange" in English Wikipedia. -- Heptor talk 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
this is the main reason im against those people who are against supported ads in the wikipedia.we could use that money to develop

our encyclopedia .wikipedia is one of top sites in the world BUT the truth is:wikipedia is very primitive website doesnt have a own search engine we should go through many sites to get the information on wikipedia .i think is a SHAME of wikipedia like being in the age of stone when humans didnt discovered the fire yet.felisberto,18april2006(UTC)

We've gone over ads, and if we ever get them, I, for one, would expect to be paid, not to mention numerous other problems with ads. As for searching, there is a "Search" button on the sidebar, which rather sucks, but it's there. But do you want a search engine for Wikipedia? MediaWiki is open source! Write your own and submit it! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you expect to be paid a share of donations, then? I may be wrong, but I think that all the humans who work for Wikimedia (except possibly the lawyers) are volunteers, and nobody's proposing to change that. All money goes to pay for machines, and will continue to do so.

As for searching, it's not a matter of writing it, it's a matter of searching's inherent intractability. There are somewhat better search features than we have built in, but they're disabled (in particular, indexing is disabled) because of server strain. If Wikimedia had more money, they could buy more servers, and thus permit more server-intensive things such as searching. Nobody would get paid, it would just be buying more equipment. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In my most humble opinion, having a search engine on Wikipedia is redundant and inefficient. Bibliomaniac15 kowtows to Jimbo Wales.

Bibliomaniac15 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics

I read somewhere once that America's founding fathers didn't want political parties and wrote the constitution in accordance with that hope. I have always wondered what they would have done different if they could have forseen the nature of future political parties in America. A very interseting article by a bright guy says:What Wikipedia has taught us now, is that in a vacuum of politics, politics will be created. There is no vacuum of politics. People who are encountering this space where they can not lord over others for technicalities and gain power for themselves will then proceed to invoke technicalities, take power from other people. They just do this. This is what human beings do."[4] I have for a while now, thought the creation of political parties (factions) within wikipedia seemed inevitable. You are fighting factionalism, but suppose factionalism wins. Admins organized outside wikipedia space into contenting groups, each wishing the best for wikipedia, but each forced by the nature of political power realities and human nature to value loyalty to the group above and beyond any one specific choice. Creationists versus evolutionists, for example. A hundred such sincere conflicts is workable, but when favors are traded forming alliances (and how do you stop human from being humans and would you want to), the bigger alliance wins, so political parties become inevitable. I don't have an answer. Only questions. Anyway, back to finish reading the article. WAS 4.250 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any actual examples of creationists or evolutionists trading votes with people in order to accomplish something on Wikipedia? People are sometimes tactical, but not actually all that political, from what I've seen. JDoorjam Talk 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There definitely is a pro-science cabal on Wikipedia. And I think that is a good thing ... pseudoscience and religious opinions on scientific matters really don't belong in an encyclopedia of knowledge. Yeah, we do cover creationism in its own article (because it is a notable movement), but we sure as hell don't modify the evolution article to reflect some manufactured controversy that isn't really there. --Cyde Weys 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"pseudoscience and religious opinions on scientific matters really don't belong in an encyclopedia of knowledge." - I disagree. If they are noteworthy/widespread enough, all opinions on all matters belongs in an encyclopedia, regardless of their scientific validity or religiosity. What matters is noteworthiness; we even include archaic, disproven scientific theories that noone believes in anymore if they have enough historical significance, so obviously we don't forbid the inclusion of untrue beliefs. Where the vital distinction must be made, though, is that while we include beliefs that lack any evidence or support, we don't present them as being equally as valid and substantiated as scientific facts and theories: we should include erroneous or unverifiable beliefs on scientific topics in the exact same way we include popular culture references to scientific topics: as a secondary focus of discussion, and a sociological one.
"but we sure as hell don't modify the evolution article to reflect some manufactured controversy that isn't really there." - Actually, there really is a controversy, and a highly noteworthy one, regarding evolution, regardless of whether or not it's "manufactured". However, the controversy is a social and religious one, not a scientific one, and that is correctly reflected in the evolution article: rather than presenting Creationism as an "equally valid scientific theory" or some nonsense like that, it mentions such views as an after-the-fact, sociological item of interest, first describing the phenomenon itself. It's not that Wikipedia shouldn't deal with pseudoscience; it's that Wikipedia should deal with pseudoscience as pseudoscience, rather than dealing with pseudoscience as science. -Silence 08:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You and I believe exactly the same thing, I think we just have different ways of saying it. But there wasn't a sentence of this post I disagreed with. --Cyde Weys 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, there can be no vaccuam of politics. It is a proven fact that human beings engage in politics over the smallest of stakes, and in this era of information, control (even limited) over the content of the world's most popular encyclopaedia is not a very low stake. Power games and string-pullings will take place regardless of whether we like it or not. We can only hope that the current or future mechanics of Wikipedia will channel those politics in such a manner as to keep wikipedia on its current goal, produce a free repository of all verifiable encyclpaedic knowledge. Loom91 08:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann and clique

The case is at present handled by ther arbitration commitee. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dbachmann_and_clique

User:Dbachman and clique permanently vandalize pages thru redirection. Besides that, they add rassistic hate comments to pages. This is the arb com's opininon so far: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

  • Reject as very premature. Though if there is evidence that Bgully is Antifinnugor, I'd like to see it so I can consider an extension of the ban. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject ➥the Epopt 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject as per Dom. James F. (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee seems to completely ignore, that dbachmann and clique vandalizes and eclatantly misuse administrator rights.

If you are unwilling or unable to intervene, and care for stopping vandalization and misuse of administrator rights, then I must summarize:

impact of such cliques to wikipedia

  • articles are incorrect and contain dogmatic views of small (hate) cliques
  • quality of articles gets worse, important facts remain unmentioned or get permanently vandalized as here
  • donators and potentional donators hear the above practices, and stop donations

You can be sure, such cases will not remain secret of the wikipedia. Bgully 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey

I recommend you email politely one Jeff Merkey and request he remove the insane stuff he is putting about you... This is definately lawsuit material http://www.merkeylaw.com/ or if it is gone this is what it was. http://www.gaiser.org/www.merkeylaw.com/ --Kebron 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Merkey is a lunatic and a psycho. It wasn't ever worth trying to reason with him. --Cyde Weys 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Semantics of "Free"

As you surely know, having been inspired by the Free Software Movement / OpenSource principle, there is an unfortunate ambiguity to the English word "free" which can arise.

Do we mean "free, as in freedom" or "free, as in costing nothing" when we say "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"?

Arguably, in the English context, we probably mean both simultaneously (though, de-emphasising "free, as in costing nothing" might be advisable for encouraging donations, he says with tongue firmly in cheek).

The problem arises that the word "free" only has this dual meaning in English.

For other languages, there are likely separate words for "free, as in freedom" and "free, as in costing nothing".

Such as in Welsh (your namesake Wikipedia, from whence I've come), there is "rhydd" which means "free, as in freedom" and there is no actual direct word for "free, as in costing nothing" (this is usually replaced with the phrase "(yn rhad ac) am ddim", which translates to "(cheap and) for nothing" in English).

Because of this, there was a temporary problem - now sorted out - that the subheading was "Wicipedia, y gwyddionadur rhad" which was an unfortunate translation because it suggested the Wikipedia was "cheap" (which the same "poor / bad quality" semantics that the word also carries in English). This was corrected by standardising that it should be "rhydd" ("free, as in freedom") throughout.

But I imagine that Welsh isn't the sole language where the ambiguity of "free" could cause problems and mistranslations of its intended meaning.

Plus, of course, there is the basic question: What is your intended meaning?

One assumes you mean "free, as in freedom" primarily (judging by the way you describe Wikipedia in the media and in interviews). But that is just an assumption, rather than a known stated fact, as far as I'm aware.

Nevertheless, for clarifying the stated intent and easing multi-lingual translation (to properly internationalise the statement of intent here), perhaps the same work-around that the Free Software Movement evolved into using might also make sense in the Wikipedia context?

Namely, "Wikipedia, the Open Encyclopedia" would:

  1. Make clear Wikipedia's fundamental difference to its rivals.
  2. Act as a welcoming "invitation" for people to make revisions.
  3. Ease multi-lingual translations by avoiding the ambiguity that "free" carries because it has double meaning in English (which likely does not carry through to other languages)
  4. De-emphasises any semantics of "free, as in chaotic anarchy with no rules" for "open, structured but having no boundaries" instead.
  5. Spoken aloud, it has a mild poetical alliteration to it, which just sounds nice.

I know revising this at this point in time is no small undertaking but "open", to me, seems quite the superior word to "free" in this context. I bring this to you, of course, because this is as "top level" as you can get to revise the subheading of Wikipedia's very name. PetrochemicalPete 17:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should recieve some community feedback at Mediawiki:Tagline before you ask Jimbo Wales. There are hundreds of other people who can make this change, and Jimbo usually isn't involved in these decisions. r3m0t talk 15:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anne Garrels

I read with interest your comment on TreyHarris's talkpage, and I hope you will permit me briefly to insinuate myself into your discussion. Your comments apropos of verifiability and, more importantly, what our default assumption vis-à-vis inclusion ought to be, were altogether correct, of course, but I think it should be noted that there is a difference between our presenting information as sourced fact and our presenting information as averred by another to be fact, where independent verification will be inconclusive. If, for example, our Jimbo Wales article said, "Jimbo brainwashes Wikipedia's editors in order that he might someday use them as his own private army", we'd likely want to remove that information as unsourced (one might instead add a {{fact}} tag, but such tagging is probably best used only where the information referenced is not likely to prove divisive); if, though, our article said, "On his webpage, Joe Blow says that 'Jimbo brainwashes...'", we'd be left then with a different question. We certainly oughtn't to include every piece of information any writer asserts to be true--"On his Wikipedia user page, Jahiegel suggests he has proof that Jimbo Wales is actually the alter ego of Karl Rove" wouldn't be encyclopedic--but when the writer is generally credible--or, more importantly, generally notable--inclusion is likely appropriate, at least where an article makes clear that information is presented only as the conjecture/theory/argument of someone else. We are left, then, to wonder what our standards ought to be for the inclusion of a suggestion offered by some exeternal individual that stands in distinction to or contradiction of another suggestion of fact, especially one independently verifiable. Since we don't practice first-person journalism, many of our articles depend on the reports of others; while a Wikipedia article about a Supreme Court decision can rely wholly on the actual text of that decision, our article about, say, the whale in the Thames, must rely largely on accounts asserted to be factual by reporters (even those Wikipedians who saw the whale with their own eyes are discouraged from "reporting" their experience as part of our article, and rightly so); is the blog of an Al Jazeera reporter in the same category as an article written by a New York Times reporter, especially where statements in the former are contradicted by a subject or subject's representative, in this case, an NPR official? I think the two are not in the same category and so agree with your suppositions, but I write (at great length, evidently) only to note that there are situations in which the proper disposition of the question as to inclusion isn't as clear-cut as that which you illustrate on Trey's talk page. Joe 20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I understand much of this to be covered by WP:V (and to have been discussed at length on other talk pages--although to no clear consensus as to where we might draw the line as to verifiability), but that I fleshed out the questions here only in order that those who have been editing the Garrels page (largely newbies), might best appreciate your concerns with respect to sourcing, et cetera. Joe 22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Squidward name removal

Do you want to delete the edits that do contain the names, not 100% sure if you've had a request or if its just courtesy :) -- Tawker 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem

Can you please please please remove the block on Rgulerdem's account? Everyone deserves a second chance. Netpari 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have referred this matter to the arbitration committee at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeal_for_leniency_on_behalf_of_User:Rgulerdem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 21 April 2006 05:39 UTC.

Confused about Garrels comment

I apologize for my misunderstanding, but I've reread your comment on my talk page several times, and reviewed my edit history to Anne Garrels, and have talked with some other editors on IRC, and I'm still entirely confused. Per WP:OFFICE, I will not edit that article again at all until I understand. I acted in good faith, but apparently acted badly. I can't claim honest contrition or be sure I'm acting well in the future until I understand what I did wrong, so I hope you can help clarify this for me.

In your comment, you wrote, "the unfortunate fact is that you re-inserted several times false information into this article, the stuff about Anne Garrels' alleged security detail". But the only edits of mine I can find that inserted that information were this one, this one, and this one—all of which were reversions, marked 'rvv' or 'reverting unexplained removal of content', where the prior editor was an anonymous IP and removed several pieces of information, some of which were strongly sourced, with no edit summary explaining the removal. So I assumed vandalism, and thus reverted.

In this edit, I actually marked the statement you're talking about with {{fact}}, which I understood to be the polite way of asking for a reference before deleting—which I had intended to do since some time had passed with no sourcing. So I definitely was not trying to keep that misinformation in the encyclopedia.

Also, the statement you deleted had nothing to do with the security detail. It was about her husband and his occupation in the 1960's. A couple simple web searches and library database queries are turning up sources for this, so I'm confused about what the problem was with the statement.

Confusion breeds speculation, I'm afraid, and the only interpretation (assuming that we don't have some miscommunication here) that I've been able to figure is that it is not disruption, nor vandalism, to delete unsourced statements, even if they are easily sourceable, and even if the deletion includes sourced statements. Is that correct? You may or may not be aware that a lot of my edits of late have been to source articles that were previously unsourced. I have long wanted to just blank articles that had no sourcing, but I feared that this would be a violation of WP:POINT. Am I hearing you correctly, that it's not? That I have a free hand to delete unsourced facts in the future, even if they are easily sourced? But contrariwise, if I see what I interpret as blanking vandalism in the future, I must not revert it, but only restore the sourced facts?

I honestly have very little interest in the Anne Garrels article. I made an edit to it once, so it was on my watchlist, so I was policing it for vandalism in what I thought was the right way. I'm sorry that I misunderstood what the right way to police vandalism was, but I'm trying to understand!

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I just want to be sure that we don't have a miscommunication here. Thanks for your time. --TreyHarris 00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the same article, Jimbo, I'd like to ask if the information you removed in this diff was actually what you intended to remove, as the assertion that Garrels and J. Vinton Lawrence are married is clearly verified by her NPR biography, and the other statements about his assignment in Laos and as an employee of Air America seem to me to be verified in the links from his article, and have not been removed from his article by you or anyone else. Thanks!-Polotet 01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trey! Appreciate your thoughtful response. I will respond more tomorrow, I just am out of time tonight. I just wanted to say, though, I like your answer and you are not in trouble with me at all.

Polotet, if the claim about her husband can be properly sourced, then it should be. I removed it not because it was false, but because it was unsourced. It sounds like you've found the sources elsewhere, so I say great, put it back in and cite the sources.

This is really what this is all about: negative information was inserted repeatedly into the article without sources. Trey did it as a good-faith revert of what he took to be vandalism, but unfortunately, it wasn't vandalism, it was the victim of a bad article trying to fix it. So, not good in the end. I think we need to change our default assumptions on bios of living persons: if it is negative information, we need to source it.--Jimbo Wales 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the information back with and included the sources in the article.-Polotet 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC

I have never done IRC, sorry, and I didn't get an email (though another Wikipedian email came through). Did you send it to jokestress at g mail? I went to the IRC channel page here, but my Mac/Firefox setup said I needed missing software. I am kind of resistant to IMs and those kinds of communications because people tend to get my address and inundate me with questions and comments. I'm sure you know the feeling. Can you resend the email? Sorry to be a pain-- I am a bit of a cyberluddite on some things. Jokestress 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research at Heaven's Stairway

Aloha. I have repeatedly tried to remove the section "Overgrow.com ownership dispute section" in the article, Heaven's Stairway but a misguided user continues to reinsert the section. This content appears to be original research which has not been published in a reliable, published source, nor is it verifiable (TTBOMK). The source itself is an anonymous comment made here: [5]. Is this a candidate for WP:OFFICE? —Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

BLP

Jimbo, you said on this user's talk page: "Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia, and especially for the biography of a living person, it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute" and also: "Negative and dangerous information must be excluded from Wikipedia unless it can be sourced to a RELIABLE source. We are not a forum for repeating gossip and rumors". Would you please review the RfA that stems from this issue? This RfA was started because a group of editors claimed WP:CON on poorly sourced information regarding a WP:BLP that I removed, then harassed me on privacy issues during the dispute. When this was brought to RfA, it was to stop the group of editors from harassment; but instead, it was turned into my lynching. However, based on your comments (and my contention from the beginning that it was policy), it appears the removal was the correct course of action. The information they insisted on reasserting was full of weasel words and the only sourcing was for the quotes within the section, rather than the section as a whole (false verifiablity through quote mining). I would very much appreciate you taking a look at this RfA. I know it seems terribly involved and lengthy, but the main issue behind everything is the violation in regards to WP:BLP related to WP:NOR & WP:V. Thank you. agapetos_angel 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the main thing is your misrepresentation of the facts, including forging signatures to a faux straw-poll. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua's comment is based on a repeated accusation that is a misperception of events, irrelevant to the specifics of my above request regarding BLP. Thanks again. agapetos_angel 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons is relevent to one of the articles named in your Rfar. However, it is not why there is an Rfar. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

another suggestion

mrs wales please consider this:frequente outage at wikipedia server ,this week two major breaks even the photos doesnt load properly maybe from a weak server.do you think wikipedia can still be a user based donation site?a lot of people dont.let turn wikipedia on user support ads everywhere.charging even for download.wikipedia can create permanent jobs for people. wikipedia for profit. dont worry about people who are against ads at end they will come abord.google,yahoo,my space and others are comercial sites but still be used by many people.i dont see the reason why people will stop to use wikipedia because of ads. im worry about wikipedia is my favorite site.thank for your consideration. User:Felisberto14:52 ,22april2006(UTC)

Freedom is not for sale in these here parts. WAS 4.250 16:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Also, there is a good pragmatic case to state that commercial advertising threatens to seriously violate NPOV and Wikipedian neutrality.
Imagine that some "XYZ123 corporation" sponsors Wikipedia through running commercial advertising.
This company is then involved in a contraversy or legal dispute. Where, factually, the sad truth is that "XYZ123 corporation" is actually at fault / in the wrong / has done something questionable or illegal that it shouldn't have done.
Wikipedia is then faced with a serious conflict of interest and a threat to NPOV and reliability for the Wikipedia article on "XYZ123 corporation".
To write the truth in that article might annoy the sponsors, who threaten to remove their sponsorship fully if the article does not "spin" the article with a few lies, half-truths and positive propoganda to support their case.
On the one hand, Wikipedia has a duty to report the truth while, on the other hand, it also has a conflicting interest - a loyalty - to its sponsors, if it wants to receive the sponsorship money it needs.
Commercial advertising pits Wikipedia's neutrality and reliability against the common sense pragmatic reality that it's not a wise idea to "bite the hand that feeds".
By requesting donations and alternative methods of funding Wikipedia, it can avoid putting itself in such an unacceptable compromised position in the first place.
Anyway, the problem of slowness is something that can be tackle by many means before considering going near commercial advertising; For example, if you logout of your user account, you'll find that Wikipedia runs faster. The whole site is slower when you're logged in, for some reason. Many of the problems are simply technical in nature and improvements to software - which, unfortunate, never come as fast as you'd like them to - and structure could often solve these problems. Not all problems like this are necessarily only solved by throwing bigger hardware at it. PetrochemicalPete 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Various mechanisms have long been in place in conventional works that run advertising to preserve neutrality. In Wikipedia's case, the ads in question would be from a major middle party like Google, so the actual advertisers would likely have no idea what sites their ads were running on, and even if they did and could tell the middle-man not to run them here, the middle-man would run other ads instead and there would be no difference to Wikipedia's income. As for Google (or whoever) pulling something like that, all such companies allow anyone to run their ads if they don't think they'll try to cheat them.

The slowness is not a software issue. MediaWiki is optimized to the extent possible. The slowness is because things like database storage and retrieval take up an unavoidable minimum of time (see computational complexity), and the fewer servers you have, the slower you're going to be. More servers would absolutely allow Wikipedia to run much faster and more reliably, without question. (The reason Google runs its searches so quickly, for instance, is because it has roughly a thousand times the number of servers Wikipedia has.) The reason you notice that Wikipedia runs faster when you run out is no quirk of the software; it's because when you're logged in, the servers have to retrieve your preferences and possibly generate the requested page from scratch to suit them, whereas if you're logged out no preferences need to be retrieved and the page is almost certainly cached.

And to WAS: how, precisely, is advertising "selling" anything other than some space on a page? Wikipedia would be just as free, in both senses of the term, if it ran ads—it would just be faster and have better features. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to be a neutral encyclopedia. This is good for freedom. Less neutrality is not as good for freedom. Ads are specifically designed to not be neutral, but to promote something. A society that is pluralistic in having commercial and noncommercial entities, religious and nonreligious entities, and so on is far superior to one that permits the destruction of the natural varied social human experience. Life is more than money. Society is more than struggle. Capitalism is a useful tool, not the answer to all problems. WAS 4.250 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, there could be no possible issue of neutrality, since given the ad mechanism, Wikipedia would have literally zero incentive to whitewash anyone. I think users can separate ads from content, don't you? There's no problem with non-neutrality outside the encyclopedia. And yes, variety is fine, but it shouldn't be sought gratuitously when one option is inherently inferior to another. As for life being more than money, I agree that it is, but the goals of the Foundation would be greatly advanced by having more money. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt

Hey Jimbo,

I'm just telling you that you were made chief justice of Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt. Currently, a dispute other this is going on at WP:MFD - in which I am involved. I'm just telling you that this is thought to have been done without your consent, and has therefore been rolled back by User:Pureblade. I'm just telling you this, sorry if you find this as a dispute I'm trying to involve you in - I am not. Computerjoe's talk 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comic

Avidor 22:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/THINKSTARSHIP/Departments

Greetings. I would have talked to you over at wikibooks, but, the message said to come here. Recently, regarding your addition to the rules for criteria for inclusion, my project has been put on the list for http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Books_possibly_in_contravention_with_WIW

I don't think that I am in contravention, allthough i admit its a tuff call, even for me, as I am having to walk a very precarious line in terms of what I can and can't do and stay "in perview."

As a problem solving thought, I'd like to say that I am very sympathetic to what I think that you are trying to do, and, I'd like to share some observations of mine with you, to see if we are on the same page here.

The problem as I see it is in creating an "Atmosphere" of "Library" rather than an "atmosphere" of geek esoterica. This is an information engineering tactic which attempts to help Wikibooks focus on what it needs to in order to continue to be taken seriously as an information resource.

My thought on this is that actually, my project is sort of a very different cure for the same problem. Its a streamlined multi thematic Unit Approach to generating 300 or so Textbooks. The "Space" theme increases the efficiency of the fact filter and the relevancy filter (So long as we maintain that this is a fact finding and science exploring mission, and don't fall off the obvious cliff into fiction, which it is true that we are slightly hovering over.)

My point in all of this is that maybe a better way to solve the problem which you and I both see regarding Content on Wikibooks is to support efforts aimed at fullfilling the mission statement better, rather than exclude things as an information engineering tool.

It would be a grand favor (for instance) if Wikipedia could send over a few dozen of its experts to even as much as link Wikipedia into ThinkStarship. (I am using wherever I can Wikipedia as my first line of information resource, and consider wikipedia a "parent" database.) Rather than try to rig conditions in which Textbooks rather than cruft gets written, why don't we just focus on writing Textbooks?

A final thought; The project does suffer in terms of popularity from being on Wikibooks. I would probably have at least a dozen participants by now if the proposition of writing for a textbook didn't scare so many people off. I can't possibly write 300 textbooks all by myself. I can attempt to demonstrate and lead to sort of teach and learn the system how to go about writing up an entire library. In the end, either I'll get 300 participants to help, or I won't. So I really hope that my base assumption that we are doing each other a favor is a true one, and, I'm fishing for help on my project rather than stress over wether or not I'll be canned.

In any case, thanks in advance for your time and attention. Prometheuspan 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the uproar that has ensued at Wikibooks, primarily out of the vagueness and uncertainty created by your directions, an extended response with a clarification, or an interview as suggested by some, may be a good idea. enochlau (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

i have a question

my friend said u emailed him regarding the april 23 wookieepedia vandalism spree and said that u woud report him to the cops, what could the cops do to him, especially since this is a website "anybody can edit"

Send a message to my Swainstonation with answer plz

No personal attacks question

Can we go ahead and make "No personal attacks" a universal policy on all Wikimedia sites, fitting it to each specific site? Isn't this common sense? Do we really need to run long straw polls, etc. to gauge consensus for this policy on each site? Shouldn't this be one of those automatic "duh"-type things? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Debate and conversation enlightens, illustrates, and informs. surely you don't wish to deprive people of those blessings, do you? To the extent people disagree, an informing, learning, enlightening process is needed anyway. What consitutes a personal attack? "Your edit was unsourced, biased, uninformed, unlearned, misspelled, ungrammatical, in poor taste, in poor style, and just like things my ignorant 11 year old brother says." "That's illogical and ignorant." "You D*** F***!!!" Which is and which isn't and why? Short circuiting the process might hurt more than help. Sometimes the journey is the destination. WAS 4.250 03:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why you'd also need to bring the parallel policy on civility. To look at your sample statements, the first two are borderline violations of NPA, but definitely over the line of CIV. (The last one is a pretty clear personal attack.)
Neither policy is really needed, though, except as a crutch for policy wonks and a bludgeon for wikilawyers. Both are simply specific case examples of the application of WP:DICK, which does govern all behaviour on Wikimedia projects. I hope that admins on other Wikimedia projects feel comfortable blocking people who act like dicks regardless of the letter of their local policy—an environment that shelters dicks just makes productive contributors miserable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. TenOfAllTrades is right to point out a specific policy or guideline is not necessary. The rules are meant as means to a good end; they are meant to encode existing practice. So make it existing practice to suppress dickishness with minimum disruption to ongoing encyclopedic improvements. WAS 4.250 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for information.

Good day Mr. Wales:

Based on the recommendation of members of Wikipedia who interact via the 'wikimedia-bootcamp' IRC channel, I have elected to contact you with my concerns relating to Wikipedia's operation and management.

From my experience (and some users who came before me but have since departed the project), it seems that certain users with administrative sysop rights have taken to the habit of glibly destroying new content they arbitrarily deem non-notable.

Apparently, other contributors have expressed discontent with this activity in the past. Could you please tell me if there is any constructive action which can be taken by the project to control this behavior? It is rather distressing to have users whose policy is "shoot first, ask questions later" operate with such privileges.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this message; I hope to hear from you soon.

Regards, Jimi Ayodele

Please supply details. No one can help if you insist on this level of vagueness. Oe better yet, why don't you create an encyclopedic neutral verifyable article on a noteable subject yourself and see what happens. WAS 4.250 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What sort of details are you looking for? If you are talking about naming names, that seems to be a BAD idea. I have raised this issue in at different venues, and including personally identifiable information distracts from the issue at hand (i.e. trigger-happy users who have been provided with additional access to the system.) This usually means arbitrarily defending the users in question, or develop an adversarial attitude.
As for your second point, I suggest you check the stats on my contributions before rushing to judgment (or making otherwise snide remarks...) Folajimi 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was asking for examples of data deleted because it was nonnotable. Make up an example to give us some clue. "George Bush has pink underware" was deleted or "Star 3gg556 is the first neutron star that was ever discovered". was deleted. Give a real or similar example about what you think was notable and others did not. WAS 4.250 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see how we could have a constructive discussion without at least having specific examples. Depending on the users responsible, an RFC might be a good first step, although some users will respond more productively to an RFC than others. I'm not sure how this problem could be solved besides on a case by case basis; we already have WP:DRV for reversing out of process and non-policy-driven deletions, and I'm not sure what else could be done to control the problem on a large scale rather than case by case.-Polotet 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Polotet, thanks very much for your timely feedback; it is greatly appreciated.
Let it be known that I am in total agreement with you on the need for concrete examples. Unfortunately, the problem I have encountered is this rabid rush to judgment, which is characteristic of many users; sad to say, users with administrative rights are prone to this kind of behaviour as well.
You make a valid point about addressing my concerns across the board; I can see how it would be difficult to check for malcontents across the board. The reason I have chosen to raise this matter now was because of the adverse impact from deletionists or aggressive {{prod}}-taggers can have on newcomers.
When I first started contributing about six months ago, there were a handful of users who periodically would slap my contributions with the aforementioned tag. In some cases, the article was simply given the deep-six — "speedy" style, before I could defend them. It was rather disheartening and intimidating. Considering that I would spend several hours collecting the information needed for a stub, then to have someone perform a drive-by for some arbitrary reason was akin to being robbed.
This is not about "punishing" anybody; it is about making sure that reckless users are not in a position to drive away people like myself who are here to improve the quality of the project. Folajimi 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Rather than gather data and have your work destroyed, try asking if the subject matter would make a good article. You might find an article already exists or people tall you they will delete it if you create it. Try asking for opinions before you do the work. WAS 4.250 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Polotet, the above bundle of tripe is a valid case in point; notice how the subject is already assuming that no attempt was made to confirm notability prior to creating the article. This is why I refrain from providing specific cases, since such users appear to have an innate predisposition to go into the defensive-dismissive mode. Their feedback is about as useful as giblets of red herrings, laced with rotgut backwash... Folajimi 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Folajimi, please read our civility policy before posting again. Any further posts which breach this policy will be removed.-gadfium 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Just out of curiosity, what happens to those who elect to taunt without reason? Folajimi 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Usually nothing. If the user is especially persistent, someone will probably open up an RFC and then an WP:RFAr against him, which may result in banning; authorization of summary blocking by administrators for incivility; or other measures. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That depends partly on who's enforcing it, and how vile the taunts are. I would most likely just remove the comments after the first warning. In general, people get at least two warnings, with the second explicitly mentioning that they may be blocked, and if they continue they would be blocked from editing, typically for 24 hours. The intention of this is not so much to punish the editor, but to enforce a cool-down period. However, repeated offences draw longer blocks.-gadfium 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Although this was an unintended tangent, I would like to thank you for the constructive (and honest) feedback; it is greatly appreciated. Only after I asked the question did I the notice message at the top of this page.
FWIW, it is [somewhat] encouraging to know that an abusive atmosphere is not encouraged. Folajimi 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not just admins who believe in speedy-deleting content deemed "non-notable". The Wikipedia community generally appears to favor this, as codified in WP:CSD. If your article doesn't assert notability, it can be speedied. I strongly disagree with this (see my opinion here), but I wouldn't call it abuse of admin rights to enforce community consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. In fact, the aggressive actions against three separate articles (in as many months) have been reversed. Usually, this is because it is discovered (after the fact, of course) that the content did assert notability after all. When I try to find out why it happened in the first place, I am told that it was a "mistake." To have a 12-guage pointed at a newcomer's contribution is not only intimidating, it can be downright discouraging (especially when it took hours of research to create the entry.)
It would be far easier to concede the point if an honest effort was not made to assert the notability of the subject matter. However, considering the impact it has on newcomers, and the lack of understanding displayed by the desperadoes/hellcats, I just need to be reassured that their actions are unsupported by the community.
(P.S. It is nice to know that Eric Burns is still participating; I wish I could say the same for some of the "missing wikipedians" who were kidnapped by frustration...) Folajimi 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


This isn't an admin thing. It's common for people that think something is not notable to tag things with speedy or VFD. DyslexicEditor 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Concern about the extent of WP:NOR

My observation of an editing dispute lead me to the WP:RS guideline page. From discussions of that guideline, the No Original Research was cited. Going to that policy page, I found many of the same editors working on it, rather strongly defending their common POV. The NOR policy has evidently been extended to include analysis, and even by implication, evaluation. Evaluation and analysis are different bodies of data than research. I see no way to NOT analyze or evaluate data at all and produce an encyclopedia article. Devoid of these factors, one can do only rough summaries and indices. I would like your comments on this and suggestions of any direction to take with No Original Research policy and Reliable Sources guideline. --Fahrenheit451 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You have it exactly right when you say: "Devoid of these factors, one can do only rough summaries and indices." That's what an encyclopedia is. We don't create new knowledge here. We don't even come up with novel interpretations. We report verifyable noteable facts in an unbiased manner. At least we are trying to! WAS 4.250 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true, according the Oxford English Dictionary, an encyclopedia is:"a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." --Fahrenheit451 01:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only analysis and evaluation an encyclopedia does is to decide 1) what content to include and 2) how much space to devote to it. Unfortunately there are some editors and administrators that confuse Original Research which is actually creating content with editorial judgement. This is what some would call systemic bias in the system. A "flat earth" theory is completely sourcable. It's also completely dismissable. THere is no reason to have, say, the "Flat Earthers Description of How the Global Positioning System Works" in the Global Positioning System article. It is not original research to assess that they aren't a reliable source. Evaluating and analyzing the source is what the editors should be doing. The odd part is that even administrators are confusing the concept of "synthesis" with "No Original Research". Synthesizing a position from facts is a sourcing issue, not an NOR issue. The difference is subtle in that a WP:RS problem should be handled with a fact tag while Original Research should be deleted. The whole "synhtesis" addition to WP:NOR was created to justify deletion of unsourced factual material instead of having it researched and sourced properly. Factual, synthesized relationships should be sourcable. Original Research cannot be sourced. Sorry for the ramble. --Tbeatty 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Secret business?

Do you have a secret coffee shop, located in a college town? Jimbo's Java (00:54 in) in this Google-made animation looks like a hot spot to drop at, doc. -- Zanimum 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical Analysis of Controversial Material

I have made a concentrated effort, as a registered user, to edit Wikipedia pages over the last month or so. Over the last few years, I made a few changes anonymously, when I noticed something wrong in an article that I happened to run across, but I never invested much time looking at or working on Wikipedia until recently. Soon after I began involving myself in Wikipedia, someone on another forum pointed out sensational claims being made on Wikipedia regarding a certain preacher, the late Jack Hyles. Unless you have been involved in Christian fundamentalism in some way for the last decade, particularly around the Southside of Chicago, you probably could not appreciate how profound the effect of such a representation is within that segment of Christianity.

An encyclopedic biography on Jack Hyles, one that answers all the questions that people might have, is not an easy subject. When I read the Wikipedia entry, I could easily see that the statements made on the Wikipedia page were outrageous, even if true. I found on the Discussion page that editors prior to me had attempted to edit the page, but had been resisted by a determined group of individuals. I decided that it would be futile for me to edit the article page without cooperation within Wikipedia, and I will not mix my work with the sensationalism of the current page. I followed the steps for mediation provided by Wikipedia. I approached the editors on the Jack Hyles Discussion page with my concerns. I submitted a Wikiquette alert on March 31 (archived without reply) and an AMA request for advocacy on April 1 (though I see it isn't on the page any longer, despite not receiving any replies). I put in a Request for Arbitration on April 3 (voted down, on the grounds that I had made no prior attempts at mediation).

I have continued since that time to express my disapproval of the Jack Hyles page, while simultaneously collecting biographical information so I could submit my own edition. However, I must say that I am forming a distinctly unfavorable impression about the sorts of people who make up Wikipedia. Every encounter I have with a Wikipedia editor only emphasizes my impression that Wikipedia is merely a propaganda tool, intended to discredit unapproved subjects. Don't misinterpret my complaint as an argument in support of Jack Hyles. My complaint is that the research that has gone into the Jack Hyles page is no deeper than necessary to pull out some negative newspaper clippings attacking Jack Hyles, while ignoring extenuating circumstances or contradicting or positive statements, even if made within the same article from which the negative statements were quoted. I am outraged that such shoddy work is being used to form a judgement about someone. I would not treat any person this way, no matter how evil I thought he might be. Any competent editor would have no trouble seeing that the Jack Hyles page is hugely defective, but all of your editors who have not given up in disgust on this page strongly defend the page.

If you cannot come up with a better system, one capable of producing reliable, objective, insightful material, then you should stop the Wikipedia project. Otherwise, Wikipedia is just a poison to human knowledge. Pooua 06:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wondering about one of your old statements

How soon can we expect this to be enacted? I'm not sure the problem has gotten any better since then ... --Cyde Weys 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I concur, and wonder what the next step is, Jimbo. Please weigh in on this, and end the confusion once and for all. Nhprman 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, soldiers like medals, editors like userboxes - if you can't pay 'em, please 'em. Metarhyme 18:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Some editors are pleased by more userboxes in Wikipedia. Some editors are pleased by fewer userboxes in Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think these comments were a call for a general debate, but a request for a direct response from Jimbo. Thanks. Nhprman 04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First time caller...

...long time listener and admin. This morning, Georgia Public Radio reported that "the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia confirmed that edits to the Mark Taylor (politician) article inserting information on the drunk driving wreck of his son came from the office of his competitor, Cathy Cox." Did we? I posted this question on WP:AN, and no one copped to being "Wikipedia" in that regard. Did we do a checkuser? Was there something we followed? I ask because we're going to get dragged into an ongoing political campaign, and I can foresee our being open to every unhappy reader demanding to know where every displeasing edit came from. I have no interest in either Cox or Taylor, but I am a Georgia resident, and I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as "Wikipedia" to confirm identities or locations of editors, unless there was something very, very serious going on. As I understand it, the information was factual but unpleasant; there are many instances like that. Today, the Atlanta Journal is saying that you told the AP that this information came from this location.

Not to complain or anything, but could you let us know if something like that is going on so that we can provide coherent answers to the people who ask later? Geogre 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lt. Governor of Georgia, Mark Taylor. -- Zanimum 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, it would be nice if we knew it was happening so that, if nothing else, we could monitor the page more closely. As it is, Daniel Brandt has shown up to 'help' again. <sigh> I'm staying out, as I'm indifferent to the politicians, but I'd still wish we'd known via the mailing list or the Administrator's Noticeboard or some other place that is seen widely enough that there would have been no mystery. Geogre 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sysop

Can I be an editing sysop? User:Xana1 26 April 2006

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- Zanimum 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WB:WIW

I hadn't seen your comment earlier (someone else had made a comment on a separate issue later, so when I checked the diff I didn't see it). I certainly don't read what you said as a personal attack.
I understand how you feel about THINKSTARSHIP whilst its location is uncertain. About that, I can only say two things. 1) that it is not my decision, but the community's as to whether it meets WB:WIW (as amended by Jimbo). 2) that regardless of where that discussion ends up, it is no-one's intention to delete any wikibook covered by Jimbo's addition to WB:WIW from the internet. Plenty of time will be given to any book falling foul of that to find an alternative wiki which would welcome it. The conclusion from this is that any amendments and improvements you make to the book will stay.
Another point I can usefully make is that if you could provide a clear explanation of why you believe it complies with the Jimbo-amended WB:WIW (assuming that you do believe that), that may help resolve the issue quickly. Without wishing to be rude, I have so far had difficulty in following the line of your arguments, which makes it more difficult for me (and no doubt others) to come to a view on this matter. All the best, Jguk 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your answer. My argument is pretty complex. I think that Jimbos actual wording and idea are being blown out of proportion here. I'm caught in an interesting middle. I totally agree with Jimbo in theory, via the lens of my interpretation of what i think he means. I don't think that everybody elses interpretation is realistic, and seems alarmist. I agree with Jimbo, mostly because i understand the information engineering angle. It is exactly the kind of thing i could see myself saying 3 years from now when ThinkStarship gets big and has a lot of participants. I think that I have tried to make an argument that thinkstarship is within the WB:WIW, I suppose it doesn't help that this is interspersed with comments where i try to get people to see what i see in terms of the wisdom of what he is actually saying on the one hand, and the difference between what he is actually saying, and how it looks to me like everybody is misinterpreting that. To start with, the way its worded doesn't make it sound like its to be applied to anything in the past; its a foreward moving information engineering concept, nothing in the things said leads me to believe he meant it to be retroactive. Secondly, it looks like a pretty open ended Guideline, not an absolutist and certainly not a literalist rule. From my perspective, Jimbo made a sensible new suggestion, and by virtue of imagining it to be retroactive, everybody has gone into a sort of panic attack. I'm glad you asked me this, I think i'll repost it to Jimbo. ThinkStarship actually factually does sort of sit on the fuzzy line between fiction and fact, and on those grounds, I can't claim absolutely to see myself as totally totally totally within WB:WIW. In fact, to some extent, Thinkstarship is sort of one big toe over the line, and the rest very much in line. More important to me personally is that ThinkStarship actually looks to me to have essentially a paralell mission statement to the whole of Wikibooks; To generate an online library of textbooks covering every subject. In an absolutist or literalist interpretation of the rules, especially the "Must be reasonably useful to existing class", I don't think ThinkStarship would pass. "Existing Class" is a pretty strong qualifier. However, in a non absolutist and non literalist interpretation, ThinkStrships materials would be applicable to Classes in the very near future. Those classes would teach the subjects in question from a different angle than is currrently being used; Thats what a "Thematic Unit" does to a subject. Lastly, even tho i am VERY sympathetic to Jimbo, I agree with the assessment that he is out of the loop. Its hard to continue to be a BENEFICIENT dictator when your participation is only 44 edits. I think he should get his self over here and spend some time working with us before making Information engineering rules. The evolution of a place like wikibooks is somewhat organic, and won't conform to expected rules. What Jimbo can't understand is the molasses sort of way that books creep foreward as compared to articles. I think we should quit deleting things in general, and start shelving them appropriately. I keep saying over and over; get a "fiction" and "pov" bookshelf. We probably don't want to encourage those shelves to become populated, but the fact is, people are going to come here and write stuff which they think in good faith is "textbook" and which isn't. Instead of deleting it, I think we should consider it a starter book, and look for ways to improve it. Prometheuspan 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

trying to save Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo, I am a researcher who loves Wikipedia and up until recently, used it frequently in her research. Because of the following I am afraid to rely on the neutrality in many articles there now.

I joined Wiki March 22 and have had a horrendous experience dealing with a group of editors (that includes some admins). The many bizarre events that have occurred, started when I made an admittedly clumsy edit on The Democratic Party (of the United States) article. This article reads like an ad for the Democratic Party. It took a week to get changes made but some did get made, due to my perseverance. I will admit that. But I am stronger and more persevering than most. Most editors who wish to add nonbiased edits to political articles, get discouraged, repeatedly blocked or banned altogether by the group's admins. The work on verifying and neutralizing this article is far from done.

There are quite a few who have the same difficulty, amazingly with the same group of editors. The longer I stay at Wiki, the huger this group becomes. I have gathered strong evidence and can show, that a large group of editors are controlling political and controversial articles on Wikipedia. They harass, insult, ignore, maneuver and conspire to remove any editing of their articles, that attempt to improve their articles with a neutral point of view. They are often editors who use original content in their articles. It doesn't take much looking around to see that most, if not all, of this group are left-wing leaning editors. ( I am neither left or right wing.) I do believe in the neutrality of articles in an encyclopedia, and the importance of them being fact based.

All day I have been blocked by an admin (KillerChihuahua) I have admittedly taunted these people back all day but I am in jail and have no recourse to defend myself. I just found your blog. I am being blocked illegally by Wiki Blocking page rules, I believe. They are threatening me with a long block or ban- because I haven't shut up.

At the risk of asserting the existence of a conspiracy, an accusation you probably have heard before, I will say the following.

Does this group form a cabal or conspiracy? From what I gather, yes and no. I don't think many of it's members are aware that they are part of a larger conspiracy, and that they are being used by the conspirators, to do their dirty work. (Though the members tend to consist of nasty vindictive pedants who write rfc's, etc.) Is the larger conspirator group the Democratic Party, or a faction of the the Democratic Party? Possibly. I can't make this claim for sure. But in any case, due to their underhanded and mean efforts, it is nonetheless almost impossible to make improving changes to their articles, cabal or not. Furthermore, the articles that are guarded wih iron gates are the ones that have a biased point of view towards the Democrats and against everyone else. Many articles that represent any view that differs from the left-wing are similarly guarded.

I fear for Wikipedia's reputation. I'm afraid that as a direct result of this group's ironclad policies, and the articles that can be now found on Wikipedia, other groups, outside Wikipdia with an opposing view or having objections, may files law suits on Wikipedia, thereby destroying it financially. I believe this to be a legitimate concern. Again, I love Wikipedia and if this were to happen I would be personally devastated.

If you are interested in urls that show evidence of my claims I would be more than happy to provide them. I have many such urls, too many for this entry to your blog.

In respect and sincere concern for the future integrity and existence of Wikipedia,
and thanks for reading
Maggiethewolfstar 03:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 17:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) If on the other hand you are interested in seeing links to places showing where this person participates in exactly the same kind of "cabal" she is complaining about, but the Conservatives, I'd be happy to show that. In particular, this user goes looking for conservatives to beg them into secret email meetings and who knows what else. The truth here is that INTEREST determines who writes an article or who opposes it or obstructs it, and that with as many Users as we have, cliques will form as a natural outcome of sociology. Cliques are not cabals, but the better point is that somewhere along the line, Wikipedia became a battlezone for politicos on all sides. I think that guidelines regarding agenda and political full disclosure are in order and would seriously alleviate this problem. If you have any interest in discussing with a sociologist and a systems theorist ways in which to seriously help Wikipedia deal with this problem, please, I'm very available to you and very knowledgable. Prometheuspan 17:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view Jimbo, I have added a suggestion here that I hope you will look at. I believe that it is a rational solution to some problems. Prometheuspan 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the outright lies Prometheuspan. You people are unbelievable. First you get upset because I call some of you nazis. Then you call me a Conservative. Am I missing something here? I have asked you all to check this out. I knew that it would be doubted that this is my website. I took a screenshot of my user page and uploaded a page with the image so you could see that I am not Conservative. Just because I can't stand liberals doesn't mean that I can stand conservatives either. Cut the crap and don't spread lies about me again.

Here's a link to the page I just made:
http://earthhopenetwork.net/thewolfstar_user_page.htm

Here's how I feel about reactionaries and democrats

http://earthhopenetwork.net/You_Are_a_Right_Wing_Fascist_or_a_Left-Wing_Liberal_if.htm

There's not much difference. You might read my article and learn something Prometheuspan

Now about neutral articles?

Maggiethewolfstar 07:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC) I honestly can't believe i am bothering with this, but you see, i keep coming back to check on my bit, which is above yours. User talk:Merecat SOS Merecat, This is really important. I need to talk to you without the goons listening in. I do not believe in maneuvers. This is important to both, our survival here and the survival of Wikipedia. Please go here: [4] scroll down on left column, and find the contact page. Please send me an email and I'll email you back or we can use messenger or paltalk or whatever.

This is serious. I can't say this here, not in this police state.

in peace and solidarity Maggiethewolfstar 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to think about that. I am a real believer in on the record communications. Let me decide until tommorrow. Merecat 04:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I respect whatever you decide because it is and should be your decision. I'll just say that I am NOT one to do underhanded tactical maneuvering. This is an urgent matter. I want to ask your advice about it. It is huge. It concerns something that the goon squad would try to ban me for because it involves blowing their dirty cover. Prometheuspan 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick Seek Encyclopedia

Hi Jimbo! I was not sure where to post this so I will do it in your talk page. I accidentally came across with the Quick Seek Encyclopedia and noticed that they use material from Wikipedia. Although they are free to do that, it seems to me that the site has no reference to Wikipedia and also, at the bottom, there is a rather confusing copyright notice. I don't know if you are aware of this site, i just wanted to let you know. Best regards. Dada 11:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. It's kind of funny that they mirror the donation-request link, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Huge Fan

I'm a huge fan. <3

Coat of Arms?

Jimbo...have you ever considered assuming a coat of arms for yourself? There are many heraldists on the Wikipedia that I'm sure would love to help you.--Evadb 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No thoughts on this all-important issue? For shame...--Eva db 20:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

STEPHANIE ADAMS & GODDESSY

We are aware that you had a conversation with Miss Adams and we will continue our stance on her updates. We do not know why this has become such a big issue for others (who seem to be taking this all too personal), but the last edits we made for Stephanie Adams are accurate and should remain. As stated in the discussion page for Stephanie Adams:

The GODDESSY "company" is already mentioned and is therefore sufficient. The comment regarding GODDESSY becoming "the title of several metaphysical books by Adams" has also been confirmed and should remain.

Stephanie Adams does not confirm doing tarot readings and love readings online personally, so the information mentioned previously has not and cannot be verified and is therefore inaccurate.

The GODDESSY site is in the process of making updates to the web site and has confirmed that the information regarding "tarot readings" and "love readings" is not accurate and should not remain.

Refer to the source (The GODDESSY web site) [[6]] and their reciprocated link ("the latest") will confirm the revised information that is up-to-date and correct.

Again, we do not know why others have issues, but our revisions are accurate and should remain.

Thank you for your time,

GODDESSY


SOCK PUPPET ALERT User 68.161.222.151 User Goddessy Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.161.222.151 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User 68.161.222.151 signs her comments with GODDESSY I don't know if this is just user 68.161.222.151 accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule. Both 68.161.222.151 and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams ) Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules. Also this person wants you to believe that they have spoken to Jim Wales personally on the telephone, and that he has commented the above inquiry, yet no signature from Jim Wales is present, therefore looking at the history of the page it is very easy to see that this person made the comments by themselves to make it LOOK like Jim Wales had commented on her Inquiry JuliannaRoseMauriello 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


CLEARLY YOU BOTH HAVE PERSONAL ISSUES, BUT THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE AND WILL BE RESOLVED WITH A PHONE CALL TODAY. -GODDESSY


UPDATE:

-The GODDESSY Public Relations Department confirmed that "Miss Adams did in fact contact Mr. Wales over the telephone, which led to an amicable outcome". (So ignore the comments made by internet trolls.)

-To date, a harassment campaign still seems to be going on by more than one user on this site. JuliannaRoseMauriello (talk) was one of them, but she was infinitely blocked [7] from Wikipedia and further investigations are being made.

Thank you again for your time,

GODDESSY

Clarification Request

I hate to bother you because I know you’re a busy man, but I have exhausted all other possibilities. Wikipedia policy says to revert all edits that a user makes after he is banned, presumably to avoid having to having to fact-check contributions when the editor is not trusted. Occasionally, however, these edits are good and can be independently verified. As a member who has only made positive edits and who tries as hard as I can to get along, can I independently verify the edits that I know to be positive and change them to the better version? Or do we need to keep the old edits in place to punish the banned user?

I am asking because my login, User:Pole star, is currently blocked indefinitely even though all of my contributions are positive, verifiable, NPOV, and I know that they are good for Wikipedia. I have never had an argument with another Wikipedia user. I am not any other person than whom I claim to be and I have never edited here under another name. I have written many emails to User:SlimVirgin about this. She says that I appear to be Zephram Stark because Lester Darling appears to be Zephram Stark and I restored many of Lester Darling’s positive contributions. I don’t think there is anything wrong with independently verifying a positive contribution and restoring it when you know it is good, but there appears to be some disagreement about this amongst editors. Would you please take a minute and weigh in on whether you think positive edits are more important, or punishing a banned user by keeping his positive edits from ever being considered is more important?

Here are some examples. Many of these came from a page that was deleted:

  • 02:29, 28 March 2006 (diff) Battery electric factory flat truck (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 00:08, 24 March 2006 (diff) Coving (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 17:21, 24 April 2006 (diff) Starfish Galaxy (rvt edits by User:Pole star, a sockpuppet of a banned user)
  • 03:51, 14 April 2006 (diff) Hawaiian Pidgin (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 03:52, 14 April 2006 (diff) Creole language (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 03:52, 14 April 2006 (diff) Pole star (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 03:52, 14 April 2006 (diff) Doug Moe (writer) (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:53, 14 April 2006 (diff) Circumpolar (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:54, 14 April 2006 (diff) Luna 7 (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:55, 14 April 2006 (diff) Red Dwarf: Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:55, 14 April 2006 (diff) Proper motion (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:40, 17 April 2006 (diff) Lesser water boatman (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:41, 17 April 2006 (diff) Fuse TV (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:41, 17 April 2006 (diff) Max Maurenbrecher (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:42, 17 April 2006 (diff) Michael Jace (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:42, 17 April 2006 (diff) Torralba Del Río (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:43, 17 April 2006 (diff) Sigmund and the Sea Monsters (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:43, 17 April 2006 (diff) Sid and Marty Krofft (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:44, 17 April 2006 (diff) BIOS (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:44, 17 April 2006 (diff) Margaritifer Sinus (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:44, 17 April 2006 (diff) Propellor shaft (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 04:44, 17 April 2006 (diff) Karcer (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 02:22, 19 April 2006 (diff) Control card (redirect to Punch card)
  • 02:31, 25 April 2006 (diff) Oakland Invaders (rvt edit by sockpuppet of banned user)
  • 20:17, 23 April 2006 (diff) Freedom of movement (→Institutional laws by country - rvt edits by SR Bryant (sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark))
  • 05:00, 19 April 2006 (diff) Urban engineering (rvt edit by sockpuppet of Zephram Stark)
  • 04:57, 19 April 2006 (diff) Viscoelasticity (rvt edit by sockpuppet of Zephram Stark)
  • 04:56, 19 April 2006 (diff) House on the Rock (rvt edit by sockpuppet of Zephram Stark)

Thank you for your valuable time in considering this, David (alias Pole star) 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this: So long as no one objects, place the most important edit to be restored on my user page at the rate of one per week, and eventually what is worth restoring will be restored. I will personally check the first and only the first edit placed there once per week in accordance with this compromise and verify if I think it should be added somewhere in Wikipedia, and will act in accordance with my judgement and will not fight in any way to retain it if someone deletes it after I add it (if I add it). Does that work for everyone? (I give no guarantees of any kind except that the minute this compromise stops being fun for me, I won't be a part of this compromise anymore.) WAS 4.250 17:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help. The sampling above are only a few of hundreds of contributions in that same category. More of them appear almost every day. There are plenty of people willing to look beyond Wikipedia politics and choose the version of an article based solely on its merit, but they are discouraged from doing so ([8], [9]). Part of the reason there are so many good edits from people called sockpuppets is that not all of the accused editors are sockpuppets. Many of the reverted contributions in the above list are from me, and I'm not a sockpuppet. All of my edits were reverted, including the ones that had nothing to do with this issue. It looks like the same thing happens to anyone who interferes. If this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to be, that's fine. I just want to hear it from the top, because my opinion is different. I think that the best article should always come first. David (alias Pole star) 19:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'm done with week one's task: Starfish Galaxy. So, everybody, it it a good thing or a bad thing? David, maybe your problem was in only reverting, instead of making it better in a way specific to your judgements. If your judgements are always identical to a banned user, then who else could you be? On the other hand, we do want to fix mistakes. But if the biggest mistake is a typo in the number designation of a galaxy far far away, then I have to say that reducing disruption is a far more pressing and immediate and important task. None-the-less, this is fun for me, so next week, send me your next most important diff that is being prevented from being fixed for one reason or another. And if no one objects by then, maybe more than one per week. WAS 4.250 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You did a great job on that. Thank you. If you look at my contribution in the history of that article, I'm sure you'll find that I made it better in a way specific to my judgements. Your idea of letting the designation exist in the info box only was a stroke of genius. Nobody can argue with that.
Next week, it's on to the battery electric factory flat truck article. I had to write an email to the Tim Warner, the E&BASR webmaster, to verify that Wikipedia had the right to upload his picture with a GFDL. Although I'm sure many people have already verified this, Mr. Warner seemed good natured about it. I imagine that one more time won't matter much. Have fun! David (alias Pole star) 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that you've started work on the article for the Battery electric factory flat truck. I would have never thought of denying its very existence. That is truly an inventive solution. David (alias Pole star) 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Motor gasoline california two wheel vehicles exist, but I would recommend any such titled article be deleted with any contents validated by sources being moved to motorcycle. In exactly the same way small flat bed electric vehicles (or battery electric factory flat trucks) undoubtedly have some more common designation that when googled will yield plenty of sources for an article, perhaps an article already written, once one knows where to look when one gets the name right. The issue is not existance, but nomenclature and sources. WAS 4.250 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Electric platform truck for example. WAS 4.250 18:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Expanding the description of one vehicle to cover the entire category of vehicles is a brilliant idea! We could show how the truck evolved from what used to call a Battery electric factory flat truck (before Google), to the Electric platform trucks of today. We could even explain why they used to be called "Battery electric factory flat trucks," but I’ll talk more about that with you at the article.
I think I also see where you’re going in terms of this conversation. Correct me if I’m wrong. You’re saying that we should do more as editors than just vote for one reversion or the other. We should think outside the box and expand our minds to possibilities that might satisfy both sides of the issue. That is some good general advice. I don’t think it applies, however, when one side simply doesn’t want certain information to be known. The only compromise there would be to restrict useful knowledge, which seems to go against the purpose of Wikipedia. David (alias Pole star) 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


One person checking one article a week doesn't solve the problem, of course. I would still appreciate an answer as to whether the rest of us can help verify questionable contributions, or are these articles off limits to the average writer after a suspected sockpuppet edits them? David (alias Pole star) 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This "revert all edits" policy on banned users is absolutely ridiculous. Look at this edit. Someone corrected the spelling of "dilema" to dilemma, and was then reverted as an edit by a suspected sockpuppet. That's absurd. I would contend that is it vandalism to make any edit that solely changes words so that they are misspelled, which is actually what the reverter did in this instance. --Cyde Weys 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some editors might want to revert the contributions of people they don’t trust, but if those edits are positive, someone else who has never caused any problems should be able to verify them and include them. At least that is the way I think Jimbo wants Wikipedia to work. I could be wrong, and that's why I'm here asking for a clarification. I feel strongly that someone like me who only makes positive edits and tries as hard as I can to get along, should not be called a suspected sockpuppet and should be allowed to contribute. David (alias Pole star) 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cyde. I've just re-corrected a buch of spelling errors that were thoughtlessly reverted. Some people should remember that we're actually trying to build an encylopaedia. Noisy | Talk 01:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


Usually if a person uses even an IP address to say anything about their banning except on their talk page (which normally gets locked if they talk too much after being banned) then the IP gets banned and all edits reverted and the IP is called a "sockpuppet". Can there please be clear policy on this? DyslexicEditor 08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We just need to use common sense. Even banned editors can help the encyclopedia if they are doing something as mundane as correcting spelling errors, and these edits clearly shouldn't be reverted. We should judge edits on the merit of the edit, not the status of the user. --Cyde Weys 14:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Pole Star is Zephram Stark, one of Wikipedia's most notorious and inventive trolls. By all means restore whatever edits of his you think require it, but be careful not to give him a platform. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First, I am not Zephram Stark. There is no evidence to support this claim except that I restored some edits that I thought were good (from someone else who was labeled "Zephram Stark" based entirely on his positive edits as well).
  • Second, what platform are you afraid of? Are ideas for bettering Wikipedia dangerous?
  • Third, I don’t see any evidence that Zephram Stark was even a troll. He disagreed with you over the substance of an article and made an inappropriate remark about your religious group. You’ve been on a witch hunt ever since, blocking anyone who refuses to flirt with you on email. If anyone wants to see what SlimVirgin bases her blocks and unblocks on, drop me a note. pole--star@hotmail.com
David (Pole star) 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The War On WikiTruth

A war is waging on Talk:Wikitruth!!!!!! AmicasCurie 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, seriously, sue Wikitruth and be done with it. If you don't, then this will just get worse. You need to deal with these rogue admins. They are the plague that hurts Wikipedia more than anything else. The cabal must be stopped. Now that they have publicised their actions via Wikitruth, you finally have a way to get rid of them for good. So sue them. Sue wikitruth.info and take them to court. I cannot see any possible way that you could lose such a case. They do not have a leg to stand on. And on top of winning, you'd also clean up what is the biggest problem with Wikipedia, its lack of transparency. And then you'd realise that people who criticise Wikipedia are not the enemy - they are here to help Wikipedia. Its the people who control it and use it to manipulate history that are the problem. People like Wikitruth. 203.122.231.195 09:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a user category called rogue admins. DyslexicEditor 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is Category:Rouge admins that you are referring to, I believe and as you can see from the spelling, it's a bit of a joke. I doubt very much that the members of Rouge Admins are the source of the leakage, they are some of WP's finest. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Finest politicians. Dynomites 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention Seeking Disorder

Hey there, I was just thinking that seeing as how you know things about stuff, what do you think would be the least Effort-requiring path to gain a well known status in the general community without being a hinderance to others? Cheers,Jive Monk 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kiss a lot of asses, asses of administrators, then asses of bureacrats, then asses of arbitrators and the big J himself. 70.49.111.204 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But, 70.49.111.204, that requires a lot of effort.

Easiest way to do it is to attack an enemy of Wikipedia. Bashing Daniel Brandt for example seesm to be a good way to go. Pick a critic, any critic. 203.122.231.195 09:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and putting a photoshopped image of him in the article meant to embarress is going to do it. (note sarcasm). DyslexicEditor 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cuba

we are having problems with Fidel apologists at Talk:Cuba and Talk:Elections in Cuba among other articles. Is there anything you can do? PMA 22:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Responding to blanking

Sorry to bug you, but I'm still wondering what to do about possible blanking vandalism, given the issues raised in the Anne Garrels article. Obviously, if I have the time and resources to verify every statement blanked, I will do that, but sometimes I can't (for instance, if the source is a paper book and I'm not at the library). Should the article be left blanked until the statements can be verified? Should the article be restored, but possibly have some sort of tag added to it until verification is done? WP:VAND needs to be updated to address this. In the meantime, I'm personally letting all blanking I see stand unless I have time to verify—but there are plenty of other people who just revert blanking on sight. I understand how busy you are; I'll take the question to the Village Pump and the relevant policy talk pages, if you don't have time to deal with this. Thanks! --TreyHarris 10:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo in Norway

En side for foreløpig informasjon.
A page for preliminary information.
— John Erling Blad (en) 30. apr 2006 kl.15:55 (UTC)

KGB

Please inform, is Wikipedia supposed to be transparent, or is it normal to be forced to resolve disputes by email? I would like to know why I am blocked, but nobody will tell me. For two weeks, I have been asking the simple question, "How have I offended?" Nobody will give me an answer. They keep deleting my {{unblock}} request, telling me to contact the person who blocked me by email. As someone who has lived in Communist Russia, this sounds like meeting the KGB in private to ask why they have targeted me. Can't we do things out in the open? --Kaspersky Trust 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaspersky, please follow the suggestion given to you several times by now — contact the blocking admin. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 22:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If there is one thing I learned from living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it's to never accuse an official of making a mistake in private. --Kaspersky Trust 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You can still edit your own talk page while blocked. ~MDD4696 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kaspersky Trust can not edit his page and neither can anyone else because it is protected and completely locked up. Why doesn't someone help him? thewolfstar 08:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now been unblocked, but my question remains in earnest, "Is Wikipedia supposed to be transparent, or is it normal to be forced to resolve disputes by email?" It took me a week of writing letters and requesting an unblock before I was released. To this day, nobody has even attempted to tell how I offended. My user discussion page was locked and I was told to communicate privately with my accuser. Please inform, is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate? --Kaspersky Trust 14:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Political userboxes

Dear Jimbo, you have commented a few times on the matter of userboxes and especially political userboxes, I believe its time to set a stricter rule for them (especially the political ones). I'd appreciate this and I am sure I wont be alone, -- - K a s h Talk | email 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Kashk is not alone in his desire for you to speak. Please do it, Jimbo, and soon. It's time to set Wikipedia back on track towards its mission, and away from being a social networking site and political debating society. Nhprman 02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has always been and will always be a social networking site. Dynomites 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, is Dynomites right? Nhprman 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You if people learned to stop worrying about userboxes they suddenly wouldn't matter very much. Go outside and take some photos so it becomes easyer to kill the copyvios or something. So far Jimbo's invoment has failed to calm the battle. I fail to see why you should expect anything different in future.Geni 03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • When everyone jumps in and comments on questions asked here on Jimbo's talk page, it gives him cover not to answer the question or deal with the issues raised. Jimbo, please don't do that this time. Geni: Yes, Jimbo has made some nice comments, but always with the caveat that they should not be taken seriously. That's not "involvement." And "stop worrying" is not a solution. An admin like you who has deleted more than 1600 articles or images cannot say they don't "worry" about content, and you should be worried about Userbox content, too. It's entirely legitimate. Nhprman 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userboxes don't tend to contain copyvios any more. Yeah I worry. But I worry about article content for the most part. If you want a policy hard long term solution (which a pronocement from Jimbo will not give you) try and gather a consensus for some kind of policy.Geni 11:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Supposedly, WP is not an exercise in democracy. Yet, "voting" on the last policy on userboxes fell short (61%), and was declared a "failure to reach consensus" even though the vast majority wanted it. Maybe Jimbo can clear up this conundrum for me. As for Jimbo's supposedly ineffectual pronouncements, he's the site owner, and it's his RESPONSIBILITY to set boundaries for this project. Don't give him cover to evade his duties with Utopian visions of a collective solution that's NOT materializing. Nhprman 14:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can't even get 2/3rds support then yo can claim to have consensus. The site is owned by the wikimedia foundation not jimbo. The only actual responsibities the foundation has are those that keep it as a non profit. A collective solution is appearing. Both sides are largly so sick of the conflict that they are walking away and going back to editing in wikipedia. In any case if you belive the conflict can be ended by jimbo pronocement then there is no need to ask for the pronouncement to go in any particlar direction. So why don't you ask him to say that all userboxes are fine?Geni 15:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Article Is Now Being Butchered By Several People

Your input might be helpful in resolving the continuous problems with the Stephanie Adams article, so please do so if you may on the Stephanie Adams discussion board.

The article on Stephanie Adams seems to be being butchered after we made important additions to it. Users are even removing previous comments that have been on there for a long time.

Thank You,

-GODDESSY
Note: This comment was originally left at talk:Jimmy Wales

Funny Blog

http://wikisucks.blogspot.com/ 65.95.52.114 08:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That blog's just total nonsense. It talks about policies like WP:NPOV applying to people's comments on talk pages, and it takes a bit of a peculiar spin on WP:POINT. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 08:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kaspersky Trust

Kaspersky Trust can not edit his talk page and neither can anyone else because it is protected and completely locked up. Why doesn't someone help him?thewolfstar 08:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is getting to be common practice to lock a talk page after a banning. I'm sure it's nothing personal against you. DyslexicEditor 10:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now been unblocked, but my question remains in earnest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#KGB --Kaspersky Trust 14:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Is Wikipedia supposed to be transparent, or is it normal to be forced to resolve disputes by email?"Wikipedia is part transparent and part not transparent. We are evolving. The encyclopedia part is under the GFDL and thus as transparent humanly possible. Top management has special legal responsibilities which limit transparency. Concerns for the privacy of contributors and biography subjects alike motivate nontransparency of a different type. And finally every editor is subject to legal liability for their behavior - from libel charges which can uncover your identity to civil lawsuits that can ruin you financially even if you win.
"To this day, nobody has even attempted to tell how I offended."Your user talk page says you have been informed you appeared to be a sock puppet of a banned user.
"Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate?" Wikipedia adopts whatever policies seem to work in making progress towards a free encyclopedia for all mankind. We are evolving. WAS 4.250 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Allowing people anonymity when they want it makes sense to me, but I was being forced to communicate with my accuser in private. I was told repeatedly that emailing my accuser would be my only hope of getting unblocked. My user discussion page was locked, my {{unblock}} request was repeatedly deleted without resolution, and I find out now that my block was apparently based on nothing more than my inadvertently offending one user by gamma correcting pictures that he had previously released into the public domain. I did not mean to offend this user. I only wanted to help improve Wikipedia.
Some of the pictures that I gamma corrected had been released into the public domain by J. Williams (User:JW1805). Many of these pictures have now been reverted to the version without my gamma correction. In some cases, JW1805 overwrote the version I corrected with one that is remarkably similar to the correction I did, and nothing at all like the gamma of the original. In all cases but one, JW1805 took off my note saying "Gamma correction by Kaspersky Trust." (See also: Image:Tarpon Springs Mural.jpg, Image:James Oglethorpe.jpg, Image:Sam Houston at San Jacinto.jpg, Image:Cranmer Window Christ Church.jpg) I did not take credit for gamma correcting some of JW1805's public domain pictures. He did not revert those: Image:Apalachicola River.jpg, Image:Apalachicolabay.jpg. I did not mean to impose on another person's territory. I thought that improvement to pictures in the public domain would be appreciated.
My intentions are honorable and I believe that my contributions are good. What happened to me appears to be closer to the norm than a fluke. My question remains in earnest, "Should we be forced to resolve disputes by email?" --Kaspersky Trust 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: Kaspersky Trust is a sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As is Pole star, above and below. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm really curious. What do you base your accusation upon? I am not Zephram Stark. --Kaspersky Trust 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/m/User_talk%7EJimbo_Wales_Archive_7_6858.html"