User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 18

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.
Talk archives for User:Jimbo Wales (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 > 37 >>

Contents

from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing

Decision by Jimbo to make new projects

1913 advertisement for Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest and one of the largest contemporary English Encyclopedias.
1913 advertisement for Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest and one of the largest contemporary English Encyclopedias.

Wikipedia will continue to fail because Jimbo, the creator of Wikipedia, decided to make new projects. If you were to see in Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought clause three, it states, "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge." Yet, Jimbo decided to destroy what an Encyclopaedia is, by creating more projects. Fact: Wikitionary is considered part of the sum of all human knowledge. Fact: Wikinews is considered part of the sum of all human knowledge. Fact: Wikisource is considered part of the sum of all human knowledge. Fact: Wikiquote is considered part of the sum of all human knowledge. Fact: Wikibooks is considered part of the sum of all human knowledge. Fact: Wikispecies is considered part of the sum of all human knowledge. Fact: Wikiversity is considered part of the sum of all human knowledge. How is this considered that Wikipedia is failing, you might ask. Since Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge all the above mentioned projects should be somehow incorporated into En.Wikipedia.Org. If you see the other projects they have already Failed, because the editors there are so few compared to Wikipedia. --Parker007 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The "logic" of the above is peculiar, to say the least. Technically, everything is part of "the sum of all human knowledge", including my shopping lists. Does that mean that nobody should ever write anything anywhere but Wikipedia any more? No... Wikipedia is a summary of human knowledge, but there's still some use for other places to explore some narrower part of it in greater depth than would be appropriate in this site. If Wales is one of the people creating such other places, how is that contributing to the failure of Wikipedia? Can't several of these projects independently succeed, and perhaps even help one another? But the author above contradicts him/herself anyway, by asserting that the other projects have already failed... if that's the case, then I guess nobody has anything to worry about along the lines of them upstaging Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"If Wales is one of the people creating such other places, how is that contributing to the failure of Wikipedia?" The answer is simple, it is removing NOTABLE content from Wikipedia! --Parker007 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
How? The information on those sites is on Wikipedia when relevant and there are relevant links to the other Wikiprojects on the relevant pages. Its all well interlinked. Its not like the projects are completely exclusionary. Each project has more detailed information but Wikipedia is the one that decides only the most notable of the books, quotes, species, news will make it to Wikipedia. The information is there, its just that Wikipedia filters the most important of them. As the user above said the sum of human knowledge includes such mundane things as shopping lists. Is Wikipedia going to fail because our shopping lists won't be on Wikipedia? Not all information is relevant information. Not all stuff on Wikipedia belongs here and should be on its own project. As for the fact that those other projects have failed for having few editors, how do you think Wikipedia started? Wikipedia used to have as few editors as those projects did. Wikipedia was given a chance to grow, why don't you give those projects the same patience? Gdo01 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
How are shopping lists notable? And why do we need to have the other projects which consists of non-notable stuff? --Parker007 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said they are... just that they're part of "the sum of all human knowledge", which includes things both notable and non-notable. Anyway, what's notable in one specialized context might not be globally notable, which is why there is a place for specialized wikis in addition to the generalist Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 21:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case Jimbo should have made Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikitionary & Wikispecies notable for Wikipedia rather than new projects. An Encyclopedia is the sum of all human knowledge, yet Jimbo has decided to Fragment it. --Parker007 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this should help increase our collection of human knowledge, because things not appropriate for an encyclopedia would fit under these other websites. News articles are knowledge, yet they are not encyclopedia articles. What do you do? Create a place where it fits. That way, we are not restricted to encyclopedia articles, but news articles, galleries of images, collections of texts, a library of textbooks, a dictionary, a hierarchal lifeform directory, a database of quotations, and, especially inappropriate for Wikipedia, an active learning environment. This way, each respective project can set their own standards for each kind of article or whatever in their field. Improvements all around. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I guess then I am an Idiot. --Parker007 00:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am greatly relieved to discover that I have not decreased the contents of my filing cabinet by increasing the number of folders therein to organize those contents, even though each individual folder now contains a smaller proportion of the total. -- Ben 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Mr. Jimbo Wales, I'm Chaplin in Hong Kong. I'm a member of the Chinese Wikipedia, and I wanted to be a member of the English one too. But can you tell me, after I've tried a lot of computers in Hong Kong and none of them could create accounts, then what should I do? Can you help me? Thank you very much and I'm sorry that I've wasted your time. --61.239.132.111 09:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...

This is just a suggestion, but can you consider making a mobile version of Wikipedia, because many people, including myself, sometimes don't have a computer to use Wikipedia on. So I make do with a mobile phone. It is alot harder, due to the amount of information on Wikipedia. I hope that you take this into consideration. Thank you. Magistrand Sign Here! 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. A mobile version is a necessity. Answers.com which is a mirror site of Wikipedia has a mobile version. We should of course remove old versions of pages, talk pages and user pages to reduce size. --Meno25 18:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
When I point the internet on my mobile to wikipedia it takes me to something like wap.wikipedia, a mobile version. RHB Talk - Edits 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:WAP access RHB Talk - Edits 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Opera Mini lets me browse Wikipedia like a charm on my mobile - if your phone can handle it, I'd definately recommend. Editting is a different matter, though I think that is more a limitation of my phone than the software/website. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What can be done to make it easier to use the wikipedia?

What can be done to make it easier to use the wikipedia? It's disheartening to encounter so many false accusations, ad hominem attacks, presumptive users. Apparently the ideal that people are acting good faith isn't being observed. It's difficult finding an adequate venue to submit concerns, feedback, suggestions. The usual venues don't work well. Better features are needed for submitting feedback, suggestions, resolving concerns that are more readily available than having to naviagate around to locate where a concern can be expressed adequately. For example, it's puzzling whether to take a complaint up with another user on your own talk link or their talk link. The usability of the wikipedia needs to be improved. --dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Filmographies

Hey Mr Wales, I just wanted to know that if we create Filmographies for actors, do we really need to list them in chronological order because most sites including IMDB follow the reverse-chronological order which I believe is the correct format. Well there is a Request for comment on this Issue if you like to check it out because your views on this Issue would be highly appreciated..Thanx..--Cometstyles 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbobbowilly

There is a WP:RFCN regarding a user known as "Jimbobbowilly", I though I would tell you about it since one of the concerns the name is related to your name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki cartoon

Here's an idea. I'm going to select a number of famous users on Wikipedia, vandals and contributors. To make a fun little wiki cartoon. About you and some famous wiki admins and contributors, fighting against frequent vandals and their armies of sockpuppets, but rather like in a real enivroment not just the encyclopedia. Here's some users I want to select for the cartoon. Any ideas come to my talk page

Contributors (famous wiki contributors)

  • Jimbo Wales
  • Persian Poet Gal
  • Glen S
  • Alphachimp
  • Hussond
  • Can't sleep clown will eat me
  • Pascal.Tesson

Vandals (famous wiki vandals and their hundreds of socks)

  • Willy on Wheels
  • Cplot
  • Gibraltarian
  • Entmoots of trolls
  • Molag bal
  • General Tojo

Excellent isn't it? Retiono Virginian 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY. DurovaCharge! 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. I'm a legitimate editor, not a vandal. It is nothing harassing, or abusive, or even troublemaking, and I'am very angry that you made this comment. Please see your talk page Durova. Retiono Virginian 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah, what the WP:FUCK got into you? Stay WP:COOL! -- febtalk 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are serious about this there are way more internet famous wikipedia admins and vandals than the ones you listeed there. Some are Angela, Danny, MONGO, Kelly Martin, and Tony Sidaway. Some other nemeses you could have are Mr. Treason, Daniel Brandt, the Squidwerd Vandal, and Karmafist. Are you going to make it in a graphics program? — MichaelLinnear 21:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I got a very hot response to my comment here on my user talk page. WP:DENY means deny recognition to the troublemakers because any recognition inspires imitators. The editor who proposed this idea could get around that dilemma by creating fictional troublemakers and portraying them as self-defeating buffoons. Since quite a few problem users do behave like self-defeating buffoons I could help by lending some (fictionalized) anecdotes. DurovaCharge! 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please sign some more autograph pages!

Hi. Could you please sign some more of users' autograph pages? Everyone wants you to sign their autograph page. (like me) Please sign my autograph page, and a few others. Thank you. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And please sign my autograph book. I really really really really (x500) want you to. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want that? I'm perplexed. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So they can sell their WP accounts on eBay -- febtalk 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
NO! It's like collecting a celebrity's autograph. You have to ask them. It's even more valuable to you when you asked for the autograph in person. And on Wikipedia, you have to ask for it in person. You can't make a fake one, because you can see it on the history page. Right, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz? A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed from wikipedia regarding the use of wikipedia in usernames

I am writing requesting clarification of the wikipedia trademark with respect to usernames. There has been massive discussion regarding this at both Wikipedia talk:Username policy and WP:RFCN with little consensus and it is clear that we need information from the wikipedia foundation regarding this.

What we really need to know is, should all usernames with the word Wikipedia in be blocked? Meta seams to suggest that they should be. However, usernames such as 'wikipediasteve' have had many comments suggesting that this is sufficiently different from the trademark to be OK.

Everyone agrees that usernames such as wikipedia1 should be disallowed, but the others really need clarification from the top!

This would be quite a big change in policy as many usernames may need to be blocked if wikipedia can't be used in any username (although I'm not aware of an active user where this is the case).

Yours, and the foundations comments would be much appreciated RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific links: WT:U#Policy addition to disallow Wikipedia references from usernames ... and, in case the WP:RFCN entries for "Wikipediasteve" and "Wikipediawonder" get closed and removed before you get there, here's the current version with just those two entries: WP:RFCN as of 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC). The category in question is usernames containing (but not solely consisting of) project names like "Wikipedia" or "Wiktionary" or "Wikinews", as long as they clearly do not appear to claim any official role or authority. For example, "User:John Doe on Wikipedia" or "User:I Read Wikinews" or "User:Wikipediatrix". These don't imply any status or authority (unlike "WikiRegulator" or "Adminpedia", names which don't even contain the full word "Wikipedia"). Are they still to be blocked because they contain the project name, even in such clearly non-official contexts? Not "everyone agrees", far from it, we're at an impasse, and that's because we're all trying to read your and WMF's minds on the matter... but our ESP must be on the blink. We don't know what you (singular or plural) actually want. Please give us a hint out here. -- Ben 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In such a situation usernames absolutely should NOT be blocked. Users should be faciliatated in changing their names. To block a large number of innocent users would be a seroius disruption of wikipedia and violate Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, SqueakBox 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, should clarify, this was meant in that way, users with wikipedia in them would be given chance to change their usernames, but this would only be an issue with active editors, it would certainly not be WP:POINT RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here, is that the word Wikipedia is a trademark of the foundation. As such, its use already runs afoul of the Username policy in three places, which prohibits 1. "commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms 2. "names implying an official position on Wikipedia" and 3. "Non-trivial trademarked names that undoubtedly refer to the owner of the trademark." However, some users would like to allow the use of the trademark in usernames anyway. It has also been noted that this may be a violation of the meta policy "that the use of the trademarks has to be non-confusing - people should always know who they are dealing with." However as this is a draft, its authority is being questioned. In my opinion, this is much like unauthorized uses and derivations of the Wikipedia logo, whereas previously, people making those uses have been requested to refrain. (currently, names with wiki, or wikipedian or things like wikipe-tan are not disallowed, as wiki is a non-trademarked word)

Second, prohibiting the use of the word Wikipedia in usernames, has been the actual practice for some time now. It would not require a major change of any kind, since most users with this have been blocked per one of the parts of the username policy listed in the previous paragraph, or have never edited or are not actively editing. A search of the logs shows about twos active editors this would affect. (User:Wikipediaman123 and User:Wikipedia-len). Your comments are appreciated. pschemp | talk 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As to "actual practice for some time now", pschemp has put this more strongly on WP:RFCN: "It isn't allowed, and never has been." Oddly, the archive does not support this: please see WikiRegulator (disallowed), versus Wikipediatrix (allowed), on the same archive page from last year. Even though the first had just "Wiki-", and the second had a full "Wikipedia-" -- but the first seemed to claim authority, while the second did not. Nor does the current consensus seem to clearly favor such a blanket prohibition on "Wikipedia" in usernames, either on WP:RFCN or on WT:U -- where the consensus seems to run the opposite direction.
pschemp has retorted on WP:RFCN, "No, this is not something for consesnus to determine, this was a directive from Jimbo." Leaving aside your expressed deprecation of "Jimbo Says So" as an argument, the rest of us don't know whether you did say so. (From working on Wikipedia, some of us have developed a distrust of unsupported claims, and would prefer to get independent verification.) When asked for citations, pschemp told us, "jimbo discussed this off wiki, so it isn't recorded." (Place, date, and context all unprovided.)
You've taken my comment about consensus out of context. First, what I meant is that the issue of whether something is a trademark or not is *indeed* not something that consensus determines. It is a legal issue of the foundation's. No amount of discussion between editors will change that. Second, these names are already disallowed they way the policy is written and I don't beleive consensus should be used to ignore policy. It should however be used to change policy if that's what is agreed to.
Mr. Wales, you'll understand that it has become a matter of interest whether you issued any such directive against usernames ever containing "Wikipedia". Would you please either confirm or deny this claim? Thank you in advance. -- Ben 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As has been explained several times to you Ben, wikiregulator was disallowed because it implied an official role on wikipedia a completely different part of the username policy. As for wikipediatrix, most people saw this a wikipedi-atrix, (from dominatrix) not wikipedia-trix, and I agree with the decision to allow there. It is important to note that people work here, not bots, so enforcement of policies will never be 100% perfect, but that doesn't mean polices aren't valid. Last, I have a memory of a discussion related to this on IRC, however, I do not log IRC nor do I write down the date and time of every conversation that I've ever had and I doubt Jimbo does either. Additionally, I use a different nick on IRC, and many people don't even realize they were talking to me. I believe it was at the same time the use of the logo was being discussed. I sincerely hope your aren't implying that my lack of perfect recall somehow makes me untrustworthy. Regardless, my point is that most names with wikipedia in them already run afoul of the policy, as it is currently written, and as it has been written for a while. and this has been enforced by the people who regularly deal with usernames in general. pschemp | talk 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that trademarks are not allowed, and Wikipedia is a trademark. As pschemp has, I believe, acknowledged, some usernames slip through because, as this debate shows, not all patrollers are fully educated to the contents of the applicable guidelines/policies, or indeed the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation holds several such trademarks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, I'm not sure why we are bothering Jimbo about this, the policy seems pretty clear to me. pschemp | talk 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been resolved. I'd like to point out that names like this general were already blocked, and that ryan's email was vague to say the least. Anyway, its done. pschemp | talk 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hire Referencers

Category:All_articles_lacking_sources has a total of 48,458 articles. Do you really think anyone is going to bother to reference them for free? I mean referencing articles is not "fun". My suggestion is to hire a full time referencer. --Parker007 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the verification of our work here is up to all of us. If we see something requiring references, we can choose to find the reference, tag it to let others know references are needed or ignore it alltogether. My2cents, Kukini hablame aqui 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
So we can do original research and say some else to refernce it for us; and then they ignore it? --Parker007 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
All of Wikipedia's good articles and featured articles were referenced by volunteers. If someone actualy gets paid for researching references I'll line up with all of the other FA contributors and ask for my share. DurovaCharge! 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes well I think a lot of us would be in the queue for getting paid were wikipedia to start paying editors. Which is why I cant see it happening. Having a full time paid wiki[pedia editor would, IMO, create huge resentment amongst the other editors, SqueakBox 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposal that would stop the backlog getting any bigger. Hut 8.5 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your visit to Chennai, India

Hi Jimbo, I believe you will be meeting Wikipedians in Chennai on 25-Feb-2007, any scheduled plans for meeting Wikipedians in other Indian cities as well esp Delhi. --Vjdchauhan 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

No specific plans have been made yet, but I am eager to do so.--Jimbo Wales 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The Fat Man will be in town on the 25th. Am I invited?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I found the website for the event Vjdchauhan refers to: link to wikicamp website Sounds like fun! I know a few local Wikipedians who might be interested in signing up.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj

I replied at User talk:Thebainer. — coelacan talk — 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WUSF interview

I was interviewed by WUSF radio today for a story on Wikipedia which is going to air next week (it may or may not make it nationally on NPR member stations). The man who interviewed me, Brad Stager, wants to get an interview with you and I told him I would drop you a line. If you won't be in the Bay area he can do interviews by phone. Please write on my talk page and tell me what you think, because I don't have this page on my watchlist. His Wikipedia account is User:Bstager. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Paid External Links

Hi! I am not advocating this, recommending, or anything else other than just bring it to your attention (and everybody else who reads this page). I realize your opinion on accepting outside advertisement, but should circumstances change, a way to gently bring in outside advertisements might be to allow 'Paid External Links' after the normal 'External Links' section. For example, earlier today I was reading the Fedora article because, hey, I'm thinking of buying a hat.  :-) Well, for me, it would actually have been a service to have some External Links pointing to some people actually selling Fedoras.

Like I said, I'm not attempting to get this implemented in any way, but if circumstances change and the community ever decides to solicit money in a more aggressive way, this might be a very unobtrusive method of obtaining operational funds (if it ever came to that). Kind of like Yahoo's inclusion of paid links on the right side of their search results page.

Have a great day!!! 63.3.15.130 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Mr. Wales, may I request your input at a proposed policy being written. Thank you for your time. — MichaelLinnear 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Sig Is Wanted

Hello Mr. Wales, I have a request. Many wikipedians have been saying that they really want you to sign their signature books, and I thought I might ask you to. At my sig book, there is also a compilation of links to other sig books. Thanks for your time, and I hope that you get the chance to sign some books. Have a nice day -- Ryan 15:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Homecoming

Hi Jimmy:

Alright, you're a Bama guy. You went to Auburn University and the University of Alabama. I know you know how it is in Alabama. I'm wondering, are you Navy Blue and Burnt Orange? or Crimson and White? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.8.12.94 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

I believe today is the date you set for us to resume our discussions over the Brian Peppers article. Please can we continue discussions, and could you also please direct me as to where I should go to express my opinions, as I'm fairly new to wikipedia. Thanks!--Boris Allen 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly second this. The talk page should be opened up in accordance with your pledge of a year ago. The treatment of the subject was contrary to Wikipedia's principles; the article was deleted against the community's wishes, and then discussion about it was prohibited, which was even worse. Everyking 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad has written an insightful comment on this. It is lengthy (& perhaps even a bit longwinded ;), but well worth the time. El_C 07:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read his comments on the subject before, and I think he's quite wrong on this. An article about Peppers should and would be done in a neutral way (as was done with the past, deleted article); there is nothing that makes it impossible to do NPOV in his case. (To accept this argument would in fact leave Wikipedia in some dire straits: we would have to accept that there are various things we cannot write neutrally about, which could have broad implications.) In fact an article about him would surely be supervised very strictly and written as cautiously as possible; many have in the past argued, not implausibly, that this could be seen as being to Peppers' advantage, considering the rest of his coverage on the Internet is overwhelmingly negative and damaging (with the exception of a few things, like the Snopes piece, which were used as sources in the old article). However, I feel it is a distraction to get into these issues, which are better suited for open discussion on the article's still locked talk page. The key thing right now is establishing the right to once again discuss the subject with respect to the subject's worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everyking 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
And my 2 cents is that we put this on hold for another year. I've never seen so much of nothing made out of something in my entire time on Wikipedia. The world will not end without the article. Let it go people. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To me, at least, what's really critical is that we allow the community to have a voice on the issue (and ideally, that voice should be the voice), and that Jimbo keep his word. I lean slightly toward letting Peppers have an article, but I acknowledge there are arguments from the other side that have merit. It's the underlying principles that I really feel strongly about, not the article. Everyking 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. MER-C 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased to see a good discussion by the community at Deletion review, and it looks like the decision is pretty firm.--Jimbo Wales 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Rbj

I'll be to the point-I believe you made an error here. I made the initial post to WP:AN/I regarding Rbj's conduct, and I do believe that it was of concern, especially his restoration of legal threats against Physicq. Physicq was at least somewhat distressed by these threats [1], as almost anyone would be-the threat of a lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous, is something that gives anyone pause. As far as I knew, this was the entire rationale behind our policy against legal threats.

Rbj didn't need anyone to unblock him. He could've easily been unblocked just by removing the legal threat that, per WP:BAN, he chose to take ownership of by restoring. He was made well aware of this [2], but chose not to do so. He was well aware of the banning policy, he specifically commented that he "took ownership" of another of Nkras' edits when restoring it. Nkras' conduct has been very disruptive, and quite realistically, Rbj's has as well. Since being unblocked, he took to cursing at Coelacan, on AN/I and his talk page, as well as Bainer. He seems to think he can act with near-impunity now, and I'm afraid he might be right-anyone would be hesitant to block a user whose block you reversed, for any reason.

I don't believe that this case is one in which it was correct or necessary for you to unilaterally reverse another administrator. Certainly, no one doubts that you can do so, after all you do run the place in the end. But I'm interested as to why you think such drastic action was necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj is under no special protection from me. He needs to behave himself. However, I think that the facts in this particular case where nowhere near enough to justify an indefinite ban. He did not MAKE a legal threat, and construing his restoration of some discussion to his talk page as taking ownership of other people's comments in the sense of making them his own really stretches the imagination.--Jimbo Wales 10:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems contrary to WP:BAN: "Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." Perhaps you could comment at WP:ANI#My block of Rbj? What exactly can be done if a user is fighting to ensure that legal threats remain on Wikipedia? I'm not sure that blocking is the only way to handle it, but it seems like one possible reasonable measure if a user won't allow legal threats to be deleted. It's an open question, but I'm not sure what the other options are. The legal threats can't simply sit around. — coelacan talk — 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Some guy with a disfiguring condition.

make it stop, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reckless edits by one of your former Arbitration Committee members

User:Jayjg keeps making a reckless edit to Quiverfull. In the article, he keeps insisting on calling Charles D. Provan a "holocaust denier" rather than a "holocaust revisionist" and has refused to explain himself. I have repeatedly pointed User:Jayjg to Provan's book No Holes? No Holocaust? where Provan specifically affirms it happened and takes on real holocaust deniers over the fact. It is very clear User:Jayjg has not studied the matter yet he insists on recklessly pushing his edit. User:Jayjg has also made a reckless edit to Charles D. Provan, placing a "fact" tag on material that should have been immediately removed, since Provan is alive.[3] C.m.jones 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're probably best advised to try wp:resolving disputes, as this is still a content dispute, regardless of Jayjg's status. — coelacan talk — 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss 0

Hello I am Big Boss 0. I am new to wikipedia and would like to formally invite you to visit my userpage. Please feel free to leave any and all comments on my talk page. Thank you! Big Boss 0 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Conference in Brazil

Hello Mr. Jimbo,

we are planning a Web 2.0 Conference in Florianópolis, Brazil, probably next September. Among the subjects, the Wiki Way and, of course, Wikipedia will are discussed.

Do you have interest in talk to us about your projects and experience?

Thanks for your attemption.

Marcelo Herondino Cardoso [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.180.4.107 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

HOA entry vanishes without any notice

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowners_association

I added to this article, a second time, info about the origins of planned communities and their mass merchandising under, The Homes Association Handbook section. Quick, read it before it vanishes without a trace as did my first post on this past Monday."

I am quite surprised by this event. An encylclopedia is bona fide if it publishes the truth, and not if it presents a consensus of individuals who have a personal agenda. My entry provides a balanced view of HOAs and uses verifiable materials from CAI and ULI. Its secretive removal is disgraceful and can only be an extreme bias by Wikipedia editors.

Please restore integrity to Wikipedia and keeo my posting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pvtgov (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

you've got e-mail

Hey Jimbo Wales, I e-mailed you about something I need. I e-mailed it to jwales@wikia.com. I e-mailed it yesterday. Thanks -chris^_^ 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

John Doe v. Josef Silny & Associates, Inc.

Good evening, Jimbo. As you probably have learned by now (and in case you haven't: see here for the article and here for the lawsuit filings), Fuzzy Zoeller is suing Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. on counts of defamation, invasion of privacy (flase light), and intentional infliction of emotional distress over an edit made by an IP address located at the business.

I was hoping you could comment on this situation, talk about possible implications, and discuss anything else you deem noteworthy for a possibly article in the Wikipedia Signpost. Thank you very much! └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. The current draft design for the barnstar incorporates the Wikipedia Commons logo. Please let us know if there is a problem with this usage. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel brandt

Your input at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt would be very useful. This is causing a lot of emotion on all sides and has the potential to seriously damage wikipedia's reputation, SqueakBox 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandt Stuff

Is it possible that I will be able to contact you or anyone at the foundation about this? Yanksox 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to as well, SqueakBox 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, how will Arbcom examine this and will I be allowed to say anything for my own part? Yanksox 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiVERSITY - External recognition

Dear Mr. Wales

I've been actively involved in university life from undergraduate to post-graduate student, to researcher, lecturer and Prof. since 1975 (both in Europe and the Americas, in addition to industry-baseed R&D on both sides of the Atlantic). For the past couple of years I've been an active and enthusiastic contributor to Wikipedia etc (though far less than some dedicated individuals!. I had great hopes for Wikipedia, but it has, in many ways, exceeded my expectations.

I feel that the versity suffix throws us into a whole new, and very much more exigent and critical arena. (And rightly so. -I expect that the people who'll come here won't be seeking general knowledge but rather, expecting something much more advanced). I fully support the initiative, but feel duty-bound to express my concerns that contributors MUST adopt a very much more conscientious, rigorously self-critical and professional attitude than in other wiki-projects (be they formally "qualified" or not) when preparing their submissions, edits, suggestions etc. etc.

Versity-level respect and recognition can only be won by long, hard work, but can be lost in the blink of an eye ! WIKI does, potentially, deserve this level of respect, but will have to earn it.

Have no doubt, numerous representatives (probably the majority) of the traditional academic community will be very vocal in denouncing any error or misconduct, no matter how insignificant or short-lived. It would be an enormous pity to see such a noble project flounder under such criticism. (Wikityke 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

WikiVERSITY - INITIAL logo and motto

Dear Mr Wales,

If the misssion statement is still open to discussion, it's far too early to definitively decide on the motto and logo, surely !

It's more than correct to elect an INITIAL motto and logo, but please, shouldn't it be made clear that this should not be "written in stone" and should be open to change as the project evolves/matures. Wikityke 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A favor...

Could you put your signiture on this page? It sounds like this person really wants you on their signiture book. Thank you! --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And so farewell

Last July I wrote here: "Wikipedia would be much better off if it had a quarter of the number of articles, and a quarter of the number of editors, but some system in place for ensuring that both articles and editors meet some standard of quality. Sooner or later this will have to be done, or Wikipedia will die a slow death as serious editors depart for more rigorously managed projects, and the cranks and illiterates are left to take over the asylum."

Now that Larry Sanger has started a new encyclopaedia project, one at which people have to edit under their real names and at which articles can be brought to completion, that moment has arrived, and I must take my leave. I am rather sad to be doing so, because I have had a lot of fun at Wikipedia and met a lot of admirable people, but I cannot justify spending my time on a project which is doomed to failure by its own ideological fetishes (actually, your fetishes, Mr Wales).

There are some aspects of Citizendium that I don't like, and I am by no means certain that it will succeed. But at least it has the basics right - no anonymous editing, due weight given to people who actually know something about the subject they are writing about, and articles which can be put before the public as accurate and reliable. That's what an encyclopaedia is, and what Wikipedia, by its own choice, cannot become. Adam 05:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of a quote...I don't remember the whole thing, but the basic point was "Humans should be able to do anything. Specialization is for insects", which is part of the beauty of wikipedia. WE aren't experts. No one on wikipedia is an expert, and no one on wikipedia gets extra weight as an expert. We just cite the experts -- febtalk 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Most human occupations at the present are so complex they require specialization with years of training. SakotGrimshine 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
See Competent man WAS 4.250 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Once upon a time, the Archbishop of Wales set out to build a new Cathedral. It would, he declared, be the biggest, most magnificent Cathedral in the world. It would outshine the Cathedrals at Salisbury, Chartres and Cologne.
“But,” it was said, “Wales is a poor country. We cannot afford to hire a great architect, or engineers, stonemasons, sculptors and artists. We cannot build a Cathedral to compare with these.”
“Nonsense,” said the Archbishop. “A Cathedral is merely a pile of bricks. We have all seen Cathedrals, so we all know how to build one. If everyone in the country makes a brick, and we pile them one on top of another, we will soon have a Cathedral. As to architects and sculptors and painters, there are many who will donate their time and talents without payment, for the glory of God.”
“But,” it was said, “the people are ignorant. They will place their bricks in the wrong place.”
“If someone puts his brick in the wrong place, someone else will notice and put it in the right place,” the Archbishop said. “This will be the Cathedral of the people.”
And so everyone in the country made a brick. Soon there were millions of bricks. The people piled them one on top of the other. There were arguments about whether the bricks were in the right place, and frequently bricks were moved. Some were moved many times.
Great towers of bricks arose. Some were Byzantine and some were Norman and some were Romanesque. Some were demolished and rebuilt in a different style. Some fell down under their own weight.
As the Archbishop had said, architects and artists came to offer their services. They worked away at different parts of the Cathedral, frequently arguing with each other about the right way to proceed. Often they obliterated each other’s work. Eventually many became frustrated, and they left. Others gained control of parts of the project, enlisting the people in their factions, and built towers in all shapes and styles.
Eventually the people succeeded in erecting a huge building, dominated by the many huge spires built by the rival factions. It was indeed bigger than any Cathedral in the world. Parts of it resembled various well-known cathedrals, while other parts resembled secular palaces, pagan temples or the mosques of the Mohammedans.
After several years the Archbishop asked when he would be able to consecrate the Cathedral and hold services there. “It is not finished yet,” the leaders of the factions said. “We are still building new and even more magnificent spires, to overawe those built by heretics. Until the towers of the heretics are demolished and replaced by theologically correct towers, it will never be finished.”
Finally the building became so large, and suffered from so many deficiencies of design and construction, that one day it collapsed with a mighty roar of falling masonry, and was reduced to a vast pile of bricks. The Archbishop was buried beneath the ruins. The remaining builders immediately started again, blaming each other and resolving to build even more splendid towers.
Meanwhile, the leader of the Anabaptists, who had fallen out with the Archbishop many years before, decided to build a new worship house for his small but growing congregation. He hired an architect and a master builder. Using some of the many bricks left over from the Archbishop’s Cathedral, they employed a team of skilled craftsmen, and built a modest but functional worship house in four months.

Adam 10:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an astounding cathedral, while it lasted. Did someone paint a picture of it? If so, can you upload a picture to Commons?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It is there on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article page for Jimbo Wales, with both hands covering the crotch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.248 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Losing a good editor

Hi Jimbo, thought to point out the loss of another good editor, and his reasons thus. See User:Djegan for intelligent read. Taramoon 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the German Wikipedia

Dear Mr. Wales! I write this to you, because you as the founder of wikipedia are interested in truth. On the German wikipedia the history of Croatia and Croatian people during the Yugoslavian period is denied. They do not accept that in Yugoslavia lived many nations. Every scinetist, musician or anything else is declined as a yugoslav. As an example Ivan Meštrović. Everywhere he is a Croatian, only on the German Wikipedia not. Now there is a big discussion, but it is still the same. Just a few people, perhaps about 5 %, the admins allow to decline as a Croat. It is not only the Yugoslavian period, also when Croatia was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nearly everbody is declined as a citizen of that empire, but if you write down that he/she is Croatian it is deleted and you will be banned for this They do not accept other opinions and ban you. I do not think this is in spirit of wikipedia it is just a misuse of power of 4-5 users/admins. I hope you understand what I mean and you can help me. This is the discussion: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Benutzer_Theraphosis Yours sincerly Katarina K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.145.148 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


Success? or Failure?

- looking over the last couple entries, many interesting issues have come up with wikipedia, and I can say that even if it went down tomorrow it would have been a success, and that even if half the articles were of horrible quality and blatantly false it would have been a success, at least in several senses. Issues such as certain language categories of wikipedia influenced by one nation or another having particular biases is very interesting stuff when it comes to thinking about the nature of information, and even the "experts" can have their own idiosyncratic biases. The editor calling for a reduction to 1/4 the articles i cant understand, why??, the more info the better. calling for a reduction of editors too has its problems, an editor may be bad for most pages yet good on a few, and one of the advantages wikipedia has, is a very large number of people compiling information. The idea of no anonymous editors has its good points like accountability and likely fewer vandals, yet also its problems. There are of course issues with the system of wikipedia that are built into the concept, and an article compiled by one nations editors or even a particular generation of that nations editors could indeed look very different than anothers. Who is to say which is more truly accurate? NPOV & total accuracy is just not achievable, even by the smartest 100 people on this planet, or that will ever live on this planet, its not even achievable to the beings of your greatest omnipotent/omniscient imaginings, because NPOV doesnt actually truly exist, and can only be approximated. One editor might say swedish wikipedia is a liberal outlet, another might say it is hard right & english wikipedia is borderline fascist, it just depends on the reference point of the observer, and there are certainly hard right/left editors cruising wikipedia in all languages. Also 100% accuracy in a wide ranging compendium doesnt truly exist, even if we just take one subject article, its impossible on most articles to get 100% accuracy, you may even have 10 top experts, yet get certain key points incorrect or may mislead the reality, and to get 100% accuracy in the article you would just have to leave out a bunch of items that are worthwhile, and keep it as an 100% undisputed stub. It seems the best anyones encylopedia could accomplish would still need the tag "some of this is pretty accurate, the best we could do, some of it surely has problems", anything claiming more i would be suspect of, and is misleading 83.79.168.184 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)