Mr. Walles, what should you do about this... this edit. Should you call the cops or just the school , or both. This is very serious sir. Rio de oro ( talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be brought to your attention that User:WebHamster is using his userpage to host what appears to be child pornography. Despite admins removing the pictures he seems determined to edit war them back in as per here, here, and here. His original image was removed via this AN/I discussion and he has since updated his page with yet another child porn image, the one which is now currently being hosted by wikipedia. Please note that like the previous picture, the current image being hosted has no information declaring that the subject is over 18 years of age, and is found in no other part of the encyclopedia. Given that this user is immune to admin decisions or removals, and in his defense uses comments like this this this, I believe User:WebHamster must be removed from the project immediately, for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Prester John ( talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I said it "appears" to be child pornography. There is no information on the image that declares that the "nude" is over 18 years of age. I think that wikipedia should err on the side of caution here. Prester John ( talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, none of the photos at User:Markaci/Nudity (which is a pretty good listing of nudes on Wikipedia) have a notation anywhere saying that they're 18+ or whatever you think is required. Metros ( talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Prester John should get a block unless he agrees to drop the unsubstantiated and purposefully inflaming "child-porn" rhetoric. This posting makes twice (that I know of, the other was at ANI, where he inititally stirred the pot, but ultimately did not get his way
link to archive). Should this go to ANI again? Personally, I'm getting tired of PJ's Prester John's misleading characterizations and efforts to kick up a #%^& storm.
R. Baley (
talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) edited for clarity per comment below.
R. Baley (
talk)
02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Authorities take a very dim view of websites hosting child porn. Given that the buck ultimately stops with Jimbo I think it is necessary to advise him on important matters concerning his responsibilities. This goes way beyond AN/I which has proven not to work in this case. Sure I cross posted to other parties who may have a vested interest in this issue, however I am astounded at the level of resistance to what ultimately is a non-issue. Prester John ( talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above, just because you say it is not child porn does not make it so. Is there any indication on the image license that the subject is over 18 years old? Prester John ( talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
you have a nice userpage and give people to privilage to edit, and so I did by adding a ♥. Thats cool. i saw the list of places you've gone to, but why haven't you come to Asia? You always go to 'white skin countries' (no offence). Just come to Asia once and you'll see an array of different people, culture, ways of life and landscapes you can never dream of seeing in europe or australia. its fantastic. i've never seen a single american or european who has said he didn't enjoy asia (countries like india, japan, korea, ceylon, malaysia etc.). Come to see. -- 60.50.70.71 ( talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Google him and you will find he has been in India, China, South Africa, and other nonwhite countries. I'm sure he will be in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I travel all over the world. My favorite place to travel is in India.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should come to Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.67 ( talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, hope you are well, and not letting the crap in the press get you down! Quick question: PLEASE MAKE ME AN ADMIN?!!!
No seriously, What's the process for adminship? Thinking of applying myself and want to nominate someone.
Cheers
Randomjack Random Jack ( talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy, did you know in the real world, many people believe things based on evidence, not by "checking their source" for WP:V or WP:RS thestick ( talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You created Wikipedia! WOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I wanted to edit your Page:
old: "... I trust you. Yes, I really do."
new: "... I trust you. Yes, I really do. And if I can't trust you I can trust the next Wikipedian to come along and fix it. ..."
--
193.254.155.48 (
talk)
08:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (in fact
de:Benutzer:Arcudaki)
... or at least a thumb up! -- EivindJohnsen ( talk) 11:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, how should editors and admins on this project interpret a threat of violence against a school, person or oneself? Should they pass it off as a cheap hoax or take it at face value and entirely serious? Recently there was an explicit threat against Plano Senior High School which mentioned a day, time and device. The local police stated their desire to know every detail and said any such threats, no matter how vague in the future, should be reported. I am curious to know how you view- should threats be passed off as jokes/hoaxes or taken seriously? Bstone ( talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is yet again a very serious disconnect between the evidence presented and comments by arbitrators. You may recall the lengthy thread here. Since then, there was one more arbitration case on Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick). User was eventually banned indefinitely. There is evidence that this indef banned user may have returned editing wikipedia continuing his harassment campaign.
I was wondering if you would take a look at this case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jack Merridew.
Particularly Kirill Lokshin's comment stated that "I see no evidence that any prior steps in either the dispute resolution process or the sockpuppet identification process have ocurred with regard to Jack" which is in contradiction with checkuser report is of concern.
I know from experience that you stay away from such disputes as much as you can, which is fine. But perhaps you can encourage arbitrators to look into this issue more closely.
-- Cat chi? 14:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Where can I find Jimbo Wale's Signature? Nothing 444 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If this guy is the great Wikipedian you claim how come he keeps archiving my discussions about his Master 'Prem Rawat'? [ [2]]] NB. discussions which other more neutral editors than he deem quite germane to the article. Seems like he just can't stop asserting that pesky COI. PatW ( talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:AN/I#User:PatW ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked you several times to remove that personal attack, allowing for occasional slips of the tongue if you're prepared to correct afterwards. You didn't. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[...] And do not give me any BS about good intentions, because I see none, Francis. [...] (ref & context: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 31#Biographies of Living Persons)
I've left this a while now. Should I interpret the lack of response from everyone as a "No, we actually endorse Jossi's continuing to police the article on his own"? In which case how sincere was that suggestion I wonder? I see Jossi has not indicated any intention of agreeing to such an arrangement but proposes to continue, whilst my offer to take a long break seems to have been received with an almost palpable sigh of relief. PatW ( talk) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, why is Jossi still allowed to have anything to do with the Prem Rawat articles? This is past ridiculous, please tell him to stay away from them. Cla68 ( talk) 10:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Continued here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Prem Rawat -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned you in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jimbo Wales' comment. With all due respect (which I have), please don't use straw man arguments against me again. It made me appear as if siding with some murky journalism, which I don't. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite new on Wikipedia although I have created an article and a category. However I appear to have lost the ability to create articles. When I want to create one I just type it into the search engine and it says "No page with this title exists" and then provides me with the option to create it however now all it does is bring up a list of articles with similar names. I'm not entirely sure if I'm important enough to speak to you but I couldn't think of anybody else to ask and seeing as you're "the Boss" so to speak I figured you'd know how to get round this. Thank you for your time. -- Jupiter Optimus Maximus ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Im new here Wales and I like what you've done with the place. You also need a shave ;)Moosester out. -- Moosester ж 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have seen evidence to show Sanger did have an important role in Wikipedia's "founding (although I still won't call him the Founder of Wikipedia Jimbo);" however I still think you have a good point about Sanger being merely your employee; so as a compromise between the two sides of the debate why don't call Larry "The Assistant Founder of Wikipedia," it sounds like a good NPOV term right? I hope you like it :)
This way we don't take away from the fact that you were the Founder of Wikipedia and it doesn't negate from Larry's key role in "found" wikipedia.-- Trulexicon ( talk) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
At Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is known as Founder, and several others known as co-Founders. But I don't think this sort of option is available in this case.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I made a few reasonable edits and this user came and reverted them, without comment. So I searched on Google for her name. I found a whole host of information about her controversial tenure as administrator on this site... she has apparently used sock-puppets and the like. And yet she is still here, as an administrator no less. As well, none of the facts of her controverial administration are present here... in many cases, they have been expunged.
Why is this user still an administrator? Surely her aggressive POV-pushing and belligerent manner is a disservice to this site? And given the explosion of non-wikipedia commentary about her, shouldn't there be an objective page HERE about her controverial role on this site?
I apologize for posting this here, but the complicated and overwrought beurocractic system you have in place for filing motions and what not is, ahem, a little bit too daunting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregondesert ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware or even care less, but English wikipedia currently has around 991,000,000 words as of March 13 2008. I thought it would be nice if somebody takes note when we pass the 1 billion word mark as I feel this is a monumental milestone in wikipedia's history. Let me know , the many people who watch this page what you think and whether this should be brought up in the announcements ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
2.978363655×10 9 . Well of course I didn't expect anybody to know exactly what the billionth word is. I just thought people should know as I see it as a benchmark. It should be brought up in the announcements I think ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As you noted, Wikimedia doesn't currently have the resources to provide adequate data dumps, without any real excuse for this. It's possible they're working on this behind-the-scenes, but generally, they seem to spend more time making up excuses and covering up mistakes than being open and honest with the public. And then following up by saying, "Well, our lawyer told us to say these things!"
Most importantly of all: It isn't the quantity that counts. It's the quality. Let's see Wikipedia have featured articles on every subject contained within Britannica (that is, the core encyclopedic subjects) and then we have a reason to justify self-congratulatory remarks and throw big parties abroad. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Might be more interesting and feasible to find the 1000000th, 5000000th, 1000000000th and so on edits themselves. Lawrence § t/ e 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone's calling for your head over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Jimbo_Wales_should_be_admonished_and_officially_requested_to_step_down.. Not anything that would stick like diffs of you threatening to assasinate the president of guatamala, but figured you should be aware of it. MBisanz talk 05:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Jim, there is a statement at WP:CONEXCEPT "There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page. (indent) Declarations from Jimmy Wales...." Is this still a valid statement in your mind. I don't object either way, but just want to clarify. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a convention that we have so far kept around for historical reasons, and it seems (to the ArbCom, for example) to still serve some valid purposes. It is rarely used, and will be used ever more rarely in the future. I have no interest in disrupting consensus, and there are times (sysop wheel wars, for example) where a big "knock it off and chill out for a day or two" which is universally accepted, seems useful. Increasingly, I act in my formal traditional capacity only under the direct advice and consent of the ArbCom, and I have stated my willingness to submit to their decisions in specific cases.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated
Craig Crossman, an article you created, for
deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Crossman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Justin
(Gmail?)
(u)
17:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I blocked him for three days because of this edit. But I also told him, I will make the block shorter if he asks all the three users (means also you) for excusion. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Only 3 days? I think he is indef banned from de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. I have no particular recommendations for you about how to deal with him at commons, other than to say that he has been around a long time and most people have not found him to be particularly helpful with our charitable goals.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor at Commons contributed this delightful caricature of you to use in a discussion at COMMONS:Image talk:Maome.jpg. What do you think? - Nard 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
could somone help me set up my userpage with frames and stuff so i can have userboxes over to the left and an have it more organized. thanks for any help! LukeTheSpook ( talk) 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:ComputerGuy890100/Jimbo Edit
I would like to present to you the I Edited Jimbo Wales' Userpage Barnstar! — ComputerGuy89010 0 Talk to me What I've done to help Wikipedia 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
On an article I created about my father (who is a famus person), someone added information a while back that they could have had no way of knowing. Information about our family. I am worried about this and would like a block placed on this individual, the article is Mark Patterson, Racing Analyst and the contributer was named SJ something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray-Ginsay ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings friends of wikipedia.
I have poor knowledge of English and Hindi Langauge and I write with poor knowledge.
Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia have grossly misused tools of Administratators. Namely one Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. One Rajiv Mass has created dammy Account of Ravi jain to harass and misuse.
I request here to translet what I have written in Hindi and same to be informed to all what these Administrators have done. I know that Administratator Rajiv Mass was doing this type of activites for last 3-4 months.
I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics
All most all and at least three confirmed have grossly missused their Administratators Tools on Hindi Wikipedia. Their Names are Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. Not only that Administratator Rajiv Mass has opened dummy account in name of Ravi Jain and miss used to harass other members of Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English wikipedia. I have complained in poor English to English Wikipedia Administratators and one has advised me to write here. Those who know Hindi very well should visit Hindi wikipedia to solve the problem and this fact should be brought to all Administratators of world. I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
www.hi.wikipedia.org
All Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia are involved and particularly (1) Rajiv Mass (2) Purnima Varman and (3) Manish Vashistha confirmed. Other three are in line of confirmation.
Rajiv Mass has opend dummy account in name of Ravi Jain on Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English and many languages with IP 124.124.36.4 of Rajiv Mass and harassing other members on many languages.
hi.wikipedia gu.wikipedia mr.wikipedia en.wikipedia
Everything with fact is given on Hindi Wikipedia and all Admn. know.
In case all Admn. on Hindi wikipedia are involved, please, bring this fact to entire world.
I am from India and feel very ashmed that my brothers are involved in Vandals activities on wikipedia.
For this notice board fact can be seen by nacked eye on :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vkvora2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jainjain
copy of this is pasted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics
I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, founder of Wikipedia, whom I have to say, I'm excited to be discussing with! I'd just like to ask that if User:RickK is retired, then why does it say that he's still an administrator in the Special:Listusers page? Other users who were formerly administrators are not listed as admins there; so if he's no longer active, then shouldn't he have been desysopped? Thanks! Schfifty Three 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This administrator has been very bias towards me, and has wrongfully accussed my of stalking. She has also wrongfully accused me of stirring up trouble against a user known as Thegingerone. This user has continously violated the NPOV policies, and Ms. Knott. I also never wanted to post any "nasty messages" to the user, and I have never called the user any bad names. I fell like Knott's actions against me are the equivilnet of when a [refactor personal attack against another user]. I'm not making racist accusations, but I do think her treatment of me is bias and equivilent to discrimination. I'm deeply offended by her accusations, and I fell she needs to be dealt with soon. Also, OhnoIt'sJamie did the same think in a message he sent me, by saying the message I am sending is accussing Ms. Knott of racis,. Let me make it clear to anybody else who reads this and makes these bias assumptions I AM NOT ACCUSSING ANYBODY WITH ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM, but I do think that there is some prejudice going on. Hey, it's just my opinion from observation. Kevin j ( talk) 17:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox, NO, I AM NOT MAKING RACIST ALLEGATIONS OR ACCUSSING ANYBODY OF BEING A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Get it through your head. Kevin j ( talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I AM NOT CALLING ANYBODY A WHITE SUPREMACIST. I even erased the content from the talk page, though I still feel she is acting prejudice against me, by labelling me as a "stalker." I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS FILTH, and I do think she is being childish and prejudice against me. Also, I NEVER SLANDERED her to other editors. I love to edit film content, and I have been doing this long before these people knew who I even was. Sir you do think administrators should get special privileges? Because I don't. Kevin j ( talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, please review the recent history of Unholy Alliance and determined efforts by two Admins to bury historical references to Teddy Roosevelt's uses of the term. - MBHiii ( talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Sometimes I am afraid I am over-sensitive. The
Race and Intelligence article is obviously controversial and I have been highly critical of
User:Jayjg
user:Jagz who I believe has been pushing for inclusion of a fringe, racialist (if not racist) POV in the article - this is just context, not the issue. The issue is, today he made this edit, creating a new section and providing no explanation or context:
[7]. If it is directed at me, I wonder if it is anti-Semitic.
I may be overreacting - it may just be one of several disruptive edits he has made, which I should not take personally, and I have left a note at AN/I concerning disruptive edits. But the possible anti-Semitism nags at me. I know that in general you take these matters seriously and that in this particular case you have objectivity I lack and if you think I am overreacting, well, I would respect and value your judgement. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yikes! I am an idiot! It was a complete slip. I meant user Jagz (Jayjg has not edited that page or the article for a very very long time, if he even ever did ... I guess i just work on so many more articles with jayjg that it is more of a reflex writing hisname. Anyway, it was a mistake). Everything I have written here applies to Jagz; Jayjg is utterly uninvolved in this, it was just a slip on my part. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, I'd like to ask you to read this section on the BLP talk page and weigh in there, as BLP was originally one of your babies: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP applies everywhere. Lawrence § t/ e 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
<<<<<< Crum375, there are some important nuances involved that you are omitting. Please read the section of BLP that discusses non-article space. It details common sense limitations on your scorched earth approach. The non-article spaces have specific reasons for existing to help us write this encyclopedia and BLP is not to be used as a tool to prevent those spaces from being used appropriately for those purposes. Repeatedly deleting key evidence from an arbcom evidence space is not appropriate. Your judgement was flawed in that incident. Extreme behavior is usually wrong. Balanced thoughtful restrained behavior is more often the correct behavior. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A bigger problem is why we even allow search engines to index WP space, user space, and the like. Since our mission is not commercial in nature we should specifically modify WP's robots.txt to only allow indexing of "Article" space. If our own internal search tools are deficit--or frankly, they're shitty--then we can fix that. Aside from sucking at Google's teat, I can't see any valid WP mission-specific reason to allow search engines to touch anything but "actual articles". This must change. Lawrence § t/ e 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And yes: I realize the unspoken reason we don't DON'T do that is because we would screw over WP's "Page Rank" and status on Google. Well, you know what? Living people > Google. Fuck page rank. Our mission is more important than silly games that raise WP or Wikia's stature. We're not here to make money. Those who are can leave. Lawrence § t/ e 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
Hey Jim - I'm going out to a rural high school today in Calhan, Colorado to talk to the kids about Wikipedia, how they can get involved, etc. I will be re-hashing, to a degree, the talk I gave at the New York meet-up. --David Shankbone 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How many edits and how long do you think a user should have before nominating for administration?-- RyRy5 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It varies. :) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
We are about to pass the 1 billion mark. I think it is a cause for celebration even if an enormous amount needs doing to improve quality. It would just take about 500 years to read it -(that's all) ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well perhaps 10,000 FAs would be a better cause for celebration ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Wow. I rarely post to here unless truly necessary, but some of what's being said is simply jaw-droppingly stupid. An administrator tried to do a selective deletion on the Sandbox a few weeks ago and it prevented editing for about an hour, probably a little less. No servers crashed, and in fact the site was still fully functional, i.e., you could visit and read any page. And what any of this has to do with "servers analysing data dumps" is truly beyond me. Unless you have something accurate to say, or at least something that can meaningfully contribute to the conversation, please don't post. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
And I don't know what number of revisions has anything to do with word count either, unless you are counting 2 revisions to the same page, both with a total of 100 words as 200 words. To estimate the number of words, you'd either have to get the full rendered text of each page and count all the words or do a database query to add up the raw text length (in bytes) of each page. 1 byte ~ 1 letter, so dividing by the average word size, adjusted to compensate for templates, piped links and various bits of wiki-syntax would give you an estimate. The former method would probably be more accurate (and probably doable once the HTML dumps start again) but the latter method would be easier. Mr. Z-man 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I plan to become an admin when I have 5000+ edits and when I have been at wikipedia for 4 months. Do you think this is a good idea? I would also like your opinion on this. -- RyRy5 talk 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Jim, if you are interested in me explaining my work and how I see its implications for Wikipedia, here's a video presentation. --David Shankbone 06:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I've thought for a while about asking you, and I decided I should. A lot of the time, I get people, when I talk to them about Wikipedia, they say things like "It's not reliable" or "Why do you edit it, it's a waste of time". This is something I strongly disagree with. I feel Wikipedia is not a waste of time, I believe in it's cause (free information for the whole world) and I try to dedicate my time, as much of it as possible, to improving wikipedia, whether it is through reverting vandalism, or by writing articles. But, I find people who make these remarks about Wikipedia, rather discouraging. My question to you Jimbo is, what do you suggest I say to these people? I know you're a busy man, but if you could reply to me at some time, I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, we should have stable versions, and that is the only bit of Wikipedia we should allow search engines to crawl. Lawrence § t/ e 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the reliability of anything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I just find it hard to deal with people who discredit Wikipedia so much, when I see all the effort that goes into it. My personal feeling is that measures do need to be taken to protect the site from the harm it receives, recent changes have been made, such as disabling the ability to delete the main page, but more things need to be done. Well, all I can do is continue cleaning up places that need cleaning. Is there any advice you could give when asked by someone about Wikipedia, and its reliability? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This conferences that you are participating in sounds interesting. Do you know if there will be video or transcripts of it available online? Jon513 ( talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The last fund raising campaign did not give the desired result. Neither the unified login nor approved versions are in production use yet. Let alone the WYSIWYG feature or other MediaWiki improvements that could make the life of Wikipedians so much easier. It seems to me that Wikipedia is stuck in a stalemate. On the other hand, if advertisements were radically introduced, Wikipedia would lose many editors; the little advertisement in one of the earlier fund raising campaigns was not received well. But what about a less radical attempt? Perhaps Wikipedia could start with an advertisement only on the main page and gain some experience with that. Such a conservative attempt would not face the NPOV issues that have been put forward as the main argument against ads, at least not in the same way. I know that I am certainly not the first user to suggest this, but given the stagnating state of the project, I think that things need to be reconsidered. I find it strange that the Wikipedia:Advertisements article does not mention such a moderate, tentative solution but only radical attempts to introduce advertisements in all articles (be it optional or not). Also, it doesn't give crucial arguments such as the possibility to use parts of the money to buy copyrights and put the associated works into the public domain. If people see that they get something back for the advertisements, tolerance would perhaps increase even for putting them into regular articles. -- rtc ( talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Wikipedia, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals.
Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
Well, I just thought about it and found that there is not really much to discuss about user-optional advertisement, search bars or whatever. Every user can actually already add advertisements or a search bar at any place and in any context he likes at his option — via a monobook javascript. The necessary javascript code would be trivial. What is missing is a contract between the Wikimedia Foundation and google or other companies, so that it actually gets money for this. -- rtc ( talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just so there's no question about this, I ought to explain something. A few days ago Sue Gardner joined a Not the Wikipedia Weekly skypecast and among other things she denied a recent Valleywag rumor. I don't usually pay much attention to Valleywag, but afterward I decided to check out one of her comments and she was exactly right: nearly all of the Valleywag stories that mention women discuss what they suppose is that woman's sex life. Now there's a site that has issues, I thought. And for a bit, I left it at that.
Then in a bit of serendipity I segued from work on the triple crown awards to reading up on classical Greek mythology to the paintings of William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I've had my eye on his work for a while as potential restorations for featured picture candidacy. Then a really impish inspiration struck, and I've heard you're very good at taking a joke so I went ahead with it. The thing was an ironic barb at Valleywag's tabloid reporting. [9]
Much to my surprise, two days later Valleywag has actually run the silly image to accompany a story about you--completely failing to see that the actual joke is on them. I've written a comment to that effect; am waiting to see whether they have the integrity to publish it. Also made a similar comment at p2pnet news. [10] So for the record, this image is a gesture of respect to Sue Gardner and the other hardworking women of the tech industry who really deserve to get into the news for their brains. Durova Charge! 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Erik Moeller says:
Please translate this announcement into other languages and forward it to other mailing lists and village pumps. (The translators list has already been notified and will help with this process.)
The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany have collaborated, with financial support from Wikimedia France, to support development of a new extension to our software which makes it possible to flag versions of wiki articles as having reached a certain quality. This new toolset could mark the beginning of a new era for Wikipedia and its sister projects, giving readers more transparency than ever about the quality of a given article. A special note of thanks to Aaron Schulz, who has developed much of the functionality as a volunteer -- we would not be where we are today without him. The ongoing support and patience of Philipp Birken from the German chapter was also critical.
Before this functionality will be enabled on any Wikimedia project, it needs to be tested thoroughly for usability, bugs, security and performance. Test wikis have been set up in English and German (because the German Wikimedia community has been driving the development of this functionality from the beginning).
These wikis contain a copy of the Wikibooks database. This copy is completely separate from the "real" Wikibooks, so do not worry about destroying anything of value. Please follow the instructions on the Main Pages to participate. If you do not speak English or German, we encourage you right now to
- set up test wikis independently using the open source extension available from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs , or
- change the user interface preference, and create pages in the English test wiki in your language.
This is due to our limited capacity to set up additional wikis. If you feel you really, absolutely, strongly need a test wiki in your language, please file a request through:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
Wikimedia communities will also have to decide what kind of configuration to use for their project. Key questions to answer include:
- What quality attributes should there be?
- Who should be permitted to flag changes as having been reviewed for vandalism, or for other quality attributes?
- Should the default view for unregistered users change to the "stable version" on all pages, some pages, or no pages?
The German Wikimedia community has implemented a particular long-standing community proposal and will probably go live the soonest with this configuration; other communities will still have to develop consensus.
What's next?
The test will run at least until April 10, 2008 before the extension is implemented live on any wiki. This is to allow any serious problems to be surfaced by the community. If there are no critical open issues as of April 10, any language/project community will be permitted to file a request through https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ to activate the extension. This request will have to point to pages in the project indicating a consensus to move forward. Detailed instructions to do so will be posted on the test wikis.
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Yes, its one thing to believe in some sort of cabal, but that people are actively trying to keep Wikipedia's quality down just for the hell of it? That doesn't even make any sense. Why would they want to do that? Mr. Z-man 15:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain what your stance is on user's secret pages? And if you don't mind them, could you have a go at finding mine?
Yours,
Micro chip 08 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I have one that's silly: User:Michael Hardy/certain stereotypes. Will it serve the goal of improving the encyclopedia? I can't really say that it won't. If pressed, I could probably think of ways that it eventually could. Being intellectually playful and then only later discovering the prectical utility of one's playfulness sometimes actually pays off in many fields, including science and art. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course it's not actually secret. It's just that there are no actual links to it, and it's not in the article space, so people are unlikely to find it. But if copyright problems come up in regard to one of the images, then someone might decide to look at the list of all pages displaying that image, and then of course they'd find it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you've never seen it before, here it is; it's called "Deutsch - warum nicht?". It's based on the adventures of a student named Andreas and his invisible sprite friend Ex, by Deutsche Welle. It's a million times more interesting than their recent effort called Radio D, which should be avoided. Mithridates ( talk) 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the thread unrelated to Jimbo to RyRy's talk page, to those participants who are confused about where it went. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to avoid (yet another) blowup in the media concerning Wikipedia, you will move to unlock Jeremiah Wright, which one of your admins in an apparently very partisan manner has locked for four months on a version that many people have a serious problem with. I'm not giving any threat here, just stating what is very likely to otherwise occur. CyberAnth ( talk) 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I apologise, was reading too fast. On the other hand, if it had been locked from all editing for four months - my original point stands, I think most would agree. CyberAnth ( talk) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Its blocked from editing even though he said that we could do anything to it. Anyways, in the Press Inquiry section near the top, it says, "...and speak to our communications person Sandra, at +1 727 231 0101." Shouldn't there be a comma not only after Sandra, but before, as well? -- haha169 ( talk) 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That quote really does make one think. Especially those new to Wikipedia...I wonder how they think of us. And I meant locked, but blocked worked better in my context.
Anyways, since You may edit this page! Really, you can! Please feel free to do so. Make an edit! Make several! is there, and "This page is watched by many, many editors!" 'is also on the top of the page, doesn't that make vandalism completely useless, regardless of protection? -- haha169 ( talk) 05:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a couple of days late on this, but I'm a bit concerned about the latest WMF press release, on the 10 million article milestone.
First of all, fine; you made another announcement about quantity of content. I guess it's kind of a big milestone, so I'm at peace with that.
However, this press release lacked the moderation and spirit of past press releases on two counts. First and foremost, while it trumpets recent successes in accuracy, there is no more mention of the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress. This is especially poignant since this announcement is about all the languages of Wikipedia, not just the English and German languages. You and I both know that the errors in even the English version alone probably number more than 10 million.
Taking this stance leaves you prone to any attack or controversy that detractors care to fling. It also attracts more readers without encouraging them to correct things that they find wrong with what they read, and doesn't inspire regular contribution to the encyclopedia at all. Surely this not appropriate in a climate in which the WMF, whose regular donors surely have a tendency to be those more directly involved in the community, is struggling to finance the pages that it serves fast enough.
Secondly, according to this press release unlike previous ones, this milestone belongs to the Foundation, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors are now "our volunteers". It is a faint difference, since the Foundation and Wikipedians fundamentally share the same goals. However, Wikpedia's success has come from being the work of the community, practically and financially made possible by the Foundation, not the other way round. Unless this is the result of some new thinking, the emphasis should still be on Wikipedians. The notion of a faceless central organisation is not the one which inspires people to support Wikipedia. I used to laugh when people talked about "Wikipedia says" or "Wikipedia has decided/announced" when referring to decisions like policy which were simply down to common consensus. Please try to make the WMF retain that fluidity, not try to take charge over it. BigBlueFish ( talk) 08:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I would appreciate if you could find a mo to have a look at this discussion here on WP:RSN. It concerns the question whether or not it is appropriate for Wikipedia to place links to advocacy sites like rickross.com that host selected news articles in their area of interest without licensing or seeking prior permission from the publishers. The discussion has gone on for several days, and so far has been unable to establish consensus, with opinions split about 50/50. Thanks, Jayen 466 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that the pseudonym QuackGuru is an alternative account for Larry Sanger. Have a nice day! QuackGuru ( talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I am reporting you what this vandal did to your page.
At first, this sounds a good one, but reading down further, he made a personal attack against you. What should I do? Give him a 4im immediately? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Everyday I used to dedicate a few hours to vandal flaying
RC patrolling (and get my pages vandalized as a result
[11],
[12],
[13] ) but since Wikipedia's actions against reported vandals are wimpy and totally inadequate I'm stopping doing that. Vandals get away far too easily (and consequently return the next day or week). Fighting them with the "weapons" we've got now is pointless and utterly frustrating. I'm hitting a tank with a rolled up newspaper. Maybe if "Those Who Decide" will come up with a set of rules that actually gives the RC Patrollers and admins teeth, I'll continue.
It would be a shame if Wikipedia drowned in vandalism but with anti-vandal rules like the current, it would be its own fault. Even the smallest online forums know there will always be vandals, and so they require a login and will e-mail you a password. Wikipedia refuses to use similar protection. That's beyond naive in my opinion. I was trying to protect a site that plainly refuses to protect itself. That feels utterly pointless to me. I'm not looking for work. So I'm sorry, and good luck with further developments, but I quit. Take care, Channel ® 11:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My own view, based on personal experience, is that vandalism is less of a problem than it has ever been. I don't know if anyone has compiled any statistics though. It would be interesting to see if anyone had, but certainly there is no obvious vandalism problem that can't be solved by our usual methods.
Theresa Knott |
The otter sank
17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Barneca is promising a more enlightened, or at least a more entertaining, leadership than we have at present. Thought you might like to take a look. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Never fear, Jimmy! Your patronage (you got the bank routing number correct on the second try) has led to a vigorous defense: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca. Lawrence § t/ e 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits and behavior.
If you perform any of the following things, including
on Wikipedia or any wikimeida project again, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you, ;) CWii( Talk| Contribs) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
For tellin' it like it is... (in accordance with the laws of physics in the known universe)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040108_aol_bans.htm
But all is not lost! When it comes to intolerance for dissent (such as blanking out "heretical" discussions), Wikipedia wins hands down!
What a joke! Jethro Walrusditty ( talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your input would be helpful here. Perhaps you could settle this dispute over cabals. Thank you.-- Uga Man ( talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at who's asking questions about Wikipedia in the UK Parliament is quite interesting. Conservative MP Stephen O'Brien seems to be going around every government department asking about what they've edited. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo,
It's been about four weeks since you thanked those of us who honestly questioned you. [14] Can you give us an indication on when you might be responding to the questions? These things do need to be sorted out. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 06:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you email me with a specific question or set of questions, and if the questions are reasonable I can answer them either privately or publicly depending on what is most appropriate.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you like Uncyclopedia? Reply here, or there. Ugh, it's the same. -- RoryReloaded ( talk) 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
As I'm not all that well versed on Wiki etiquette, my first entry into this particular incident will be made directly to you. Unfortunately, someone has begun vandalizing the Menudo page again. Before I try to undo any of the damage, I wanted to make contact with you prior to see how best to go about it. There is a lot of small changes that I can live with however, saying that our boy Emmannuel is, and I quote "An out and proud homosexual" is a complete fabrication. This kid is 16 years old and does not need this negativity in his life as he is just starting his career and following his dream.
This new addition needs to be removed ASAP:
"Another thing separating Emmanuel from his groupmates is that he's an out and proud Homosexual. Even still, he occasionally deals with the setbacks of being both Gay and Latin. "I don't discuss my love life too often, because it is kinda shunned in the Latino community. Don't mistake, I'm very proud of whom I am in all aspects, but I'd be lying to say that I sometimes play it safe to protect what privacy I have.
It was reported that Emmanuel may have been involved with a fellow cast member of the "Making Menudo" series. No word on the same of the other man, but it's almost certain it's what lead to the other contestant being cut."
Please advise me how to best fix this situation.
Thanks Christopher_R ( talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank so much! Christopher_R ( talk) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo,
I assume you're aware, but just in case: the template you proposed be added to the Modernista! article is at MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice. You may wish to participate. -- barneca ( talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be deep confusion about the purpose and status of the template. NPOV is not the issue some people seem to think it is, and indeed, I can hardly understand what they are claiming. And this has nothing to do with the Foundation at this point. This has to do with maintaining the integrity of our work.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The notice has been deleted... Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice. Lawrence § t/ e 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, you were mentioned by Sylviecyn, Jossi and myself in this ArbCom talk page discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision#My conclusions about this Wikipedia arbitration. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(empty comment for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 10:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC))
As I'm 100% sure you are fully aware of the malbehaviour of many German Admins and some regular user that are heavily associated with these Admins.
The last issue I encountered: I looked up some German female cook on de.wikipedia and added on the discussion-page one comment to a topic with 2 many months old comments. The first comment pointed out, that unlike as mentioned in the article this cook not only has joined a campaign for animal protection and right upbringing, but at the same time in one episide of a TV-series she was responsible for visited and presented a farm where geese were breeded for later use for Foie Gras: This clearly is in stark contrast to pretend to act for animal protection.
The first commenter unsurprisingly asked that either the article should be enhanced with more information, or that the part with her said action for animal protection should be removed. The second comment was a very unfriendly answer to the first comment.
The discussion page was last changed at the start of January 2008 when I encountered that page. I basically wrote that I support the first commenter, and why I support him from point of a general view.
Not even a day later some USER removed the whole 3 comments about this topic from the discussion page, saying that the discussion page would be no forum.
After I put the comments back, he again removed it. I put the comments back. THEN my IP was blocked under false explanations: Beside others reasons the admin said that I would have started an EDIT-WAR. Edit wars per definition page on the de.wikipedia are only in regard for articles, not for discussion pages. And the admin also brought forward, that I would have used the discussion page as forum.
Some minutes later the USER removed the comments again.
There are some obvious conclusions from that. And these conclusion are for sure not new for you, Mr. Wales:
In the German wikipedia-section it's common usage from admins and user who are craving for recognition to break rules. They block other people on ground of false pretendings. They start insulting and when being answered in the same way pretend that the insulted other Wikipedia user is breaking rules. They change the contents of articles and discussion sites though it's impossible they could have read the text, as it is obvious when a formerly not involed user deletes some NEW text from another user where the text is only SECONDS old!
And beside many more bad things the occur on the German wikipedia-section, the by far worst, and for US citizens for sure most unthinkable breaking of any wikipedia-rule: THEY REGULARLY ALTER AND DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION-PAGES!
It's hard to believe, that any US citizen, you being one, could stand by and allow the world to bring into relation your name and personality with what happens over in the German wikipedia.
But maybe you only care about the buck be to made anymore.
P.S. There are many mistakes I tried to correct in articles on the German wikipedia. And always the same as described above happened. Coincidene? Surely not! For anyone with 2 gramm brain or more it's obvious that more likely the wikipedia is heavily manipulated. Do you really think that only in politics and economy there are people who manipulte to gain personal advantaged? Do you really think it's not the same in sport, the "highest ethical thing on this world"? Do you really think, that the real amount of manipulation is not much higher on wikipedia in fact, with everyone being able to act anonymously?
Or do you just don't want to think about it in general?
One of the things I tried to correct was even admitted to rely on publications from 1 (one) single source from a lobby website. (The website itself said very very clearly, that it only wants to work for it's members, and that most costefficient in regards to the members' fees.)
It's a very sad place, the German wikipedia nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Now my IP was blocked, but the one who called me "Idiot" isn't blocked. Obvious that IP is either an Admin who uses anonymity to insult other people, or at least someone who is in the same IRC-channel with some admins. The reason for the block was not given.
One Admin blocked the discussion page from changes, then changed the discussion page himself.
(I) http://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Diskussion:Sarah_Wiener&action=history
Oh Jimbo. They work in your name in the end. 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The admin who blocked my IP ignored to block the IP 80.139.112.170 that used insults. Well. It's running on your servers, isn't it? If you are responsible, I hereby ask you to remove the insult on the page(I) above.
Add: A reasonable timeframe for removing that seems to me the time until you again write on this page here plus 2 hours. Greetings 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Last Add for today: I hope you take my demand to remove the insult as serious as one with the constant need for money to fund a website could be expected to take it. 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you are at it, you might check if the above mentioned abusing IP is the same as the IP from the user Julias1990 - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Julius1990
The given times of the user contributions of the IP and that user are a prove, that they are related, if not the same person. 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
I hereby dub thee a knight of Wikipedia, with all the privileges and responsibilities given therein. -- 69.86.173.19 ( talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
I noticed on AfD that there was an article called "List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." Then I noticed that there was an article called "List of *books* portaying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." The problem with the titles of these lists is that they are calling child sexual abuse "sexual attraction to children or adolescents." (Look at the lists, they clearly list sexual abuse.) Calling sexual abuse of children "sexual attraction to children" is clearly an extreme fringe definition of child sexual abuse from the pedophile point of view. It appears that there are five of these disturbingly titled lists, and that they used to all be titled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in <fill in the blank>." When and why then titles were all changed to reflect an extreme fringe pedophile activist point of view is not clear to me. I am also disturbed that the stated purpose of the Wiki Pedophile Article Watch Project is "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues," but that no one on this project has noted the extreme POV problem in the renaming/redefining of these articles to an extreme pro-pedophile fringe stance. I also do not understand why "pro-pedophile activism" is included in "Other resources" on the Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Other_resources I thought this was not the place for activism.
former titles of lists, currently how they are titled on Pedophilia Article Watch:
Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the theatre
Active link to one of the articles from the project site, so you can see that it goes to "List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_songs
Link to Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch
- PetraSchelm ( talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- PetraSchelm ( talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is important to remember that making editorial encyclopedia choices based on either promoting or condemning a POV is against policy (NPOV). What disgusts you or turns you on should not affect your editorial choices. Be thoughtful careful and caring rather than quick and shoot-on-sight. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
... had strong and frequently expressed views on Zionism [15] [16], [17], and these are summarized at Anti-Zionism. The way I read WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK, we have a duty to summarize all major Points of View concerning Zionism that appear in Anti-Zionism when we summarize that article in Zionism, and Gandhi's would seem to be a notable voice. Not a syllable about him is being allowed into the article, however, despite days of discussion. There are other issues I've raised at Talk:Zionism, but this seems to me the most pressing. Could I ask you to comment? Many thanks. BYT ( talk) 10:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:Thatcher blocked more 500,000 IP addresses from editing wikipedia.S\he was told not to do so by Stevo Crossin twice....
Note: A WHOIS shows the IP is from a rather large range, an IP range block here may be impractical. Just my opinion here, its up to an admin here, but seems a large range to block. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: A range block here would not be permissible, CIDR suffix of 70.104.0.0/13, rangeblocking would whack out 524,288 addresses. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
...but did so anyways:
So far I've blocked 70.108.128.0/18 and 70.108.64.0/18 anon only. If he creates an account presumably he will be recognizable. There are a very few good editors on that range. Thatcher 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The block needs to be lifted and Thatcher needs to stop being overzealous. One cannot punish the masses for the actions of one.
CassieSOUBRETTE (
talk)
12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed on ANI and fully resolved. Cross-posting to Jimbo's page is not necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please add your opinion to this discussion? I would, as well as the others, greatly appreciate your view. Dusti talk to me 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping you are one user hwo wont give me back a sarcstic comment but ive added an info box to the page: buckingham palace as obivously it is better as all historuc buildings have them such as the white house etc but one certain user Giano II keeps undoing this. Once I revert this i get sarcastic comments etc and this is not on as im new to wikipedia(editinf) and not sure of the rules (although I will get to know them) and this is not helpful. I just wanted to help wikipedia expand etc but unfornatley that is hard when you have people like this.
By the way. . as one of the founders I just want to thankyou for this great invention as I use it (view) so much daily and has helped me with numerous tasks etc. well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.19.104 ( talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo,
I read something on WP so it must be true! "Through 2007, the [Wikimedia] Foundation was owed $6,000USD by Wikia. Can you explain this assuming that it is true? Why would a commercial opperation owe a non-profit org money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.112 ( talk) 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the statement is inaccurate, but I have not researched it. I believe the figure is an end-of-the-year balance, not a statement about something ongoing. There was a time when Wikia purchased bandwidth and rackspace from the Wikimedia Foundation, and there was a time when Wikia and Wikimedia were sharing the rent on office space in St. Petersburg. Most likely the year end balance had something to do with that. There are of course many reasons why commercial companies have bills and owe people money. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
At
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-February/089925.html brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) says:
Since the audit covers a period of time that's in the past, a few last vestiges of the Olden Days were still in effect during the audit period and are naturally covered.
Today,
So what is the current relationship?
And what was the past relationship? Here's a quick historical summary:
2001-2002:
2003-2005:
[audit period starts here]
2006-2007
[audit period ends here]
2007-2008
(There may be minor details off, this is from memory.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please have a look on this deletion request: Actually, if a consensus is achieved here, they can be deleted straight away, without further ado.... I have no particular recommendations for you about how to deal with that at commons, but as a non US citizen I can imagine, that these case(es) will be a big thing, when the voters for deletion will get a majority. Regards 78.48.125.87 ( talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope you'll take this in good humor. The triple crown awards already have recipients for the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great editions, and a few weeks back I created a Genghis Khan edition. The only place to go from there is mythology. So if an editor ever creates 100 Did you know entries, 100 good articles, and 100 pieces of featured content they symbolically eat you for lunch and take over Wikipedia. In case that happens, you may regain Grand Poobah status at any time by winning a thumb wrestling match against that editor (videotape footage, please). Cheers, Durova Charge! 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jimbo Wales. Could you please put a block on my user page to prevent any anons from vandalizing it? Thanks, and please leave me a message on my talk page.-- Jedi Kasra ( talk) 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon even removes my criticisms about the failings of the proceedings to address Jossi's POV pushing. [19] Why is this subject so sensitive that no-one seems able to take a sensible look at the situation? Jossi influences every single edit to the Prem Rawat article, works for a Prem Rawat related organisation and has made it quite clear he will resume editing at any time he likes (he voluntarily limited his activities to policing every proposed edit on the Talk Page instead). Yet Arbcom can't see how that amounts to POV pushing while the world looks on with dropped jaws. [20]What's up? Since the buck apparently stops with you I appeal to you to intervene. PatW ( talk) 10:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
This is about
Bangalore article. The city name has been officially renamed to Bengaluru since November 1, 2006 onwards. However, a lot of Indian chic lovers still prefer it to be Bangalore and they are editing/reverting
against consensus. Coz, Bangalore sounds more chic and Bengaluru is a local name. The consensus should be clear that it should be renamed since it is a Government order. Since WP stands for
WP:TRUTH, I feel it looks awkward seeing in the old name. The page should definitely be moved to Bengaluru. I'd moved it once, but it has been reverted by a minority. Do you have any opinion on this issue? Which name do you prefer? Please comment.
--
Tomb of the Unknown Warrior
tomb
09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Jimbo, thank you for your succinct thoughts on the issue. As an editor who's in the opposing camp as "Tomb of the Unknown Warrior" a. k. a. User:Harjk, I just wanted to rebut his childish trivialization of the stand of editors (the "chic lovers") who oppose "Bengaluru". The reasons for opposition are certainly not as frivolous as "Bangalore sounds chic" or anything of the sort. There are well thought out and well laid out reasons (with quantitative proof) that Bangalore is still indeed the name that most of the English-speaking world recognizes. Also, User:Harjk claimed consensus when there is none (and Fram was wise enough to see through the misrepresentation, thanks Fram). I do not have any axe to grind against this user, but I was compelled to clarify the counter view in light of these statements made by him.
PS: It is endearing to see him say "WP stands for the WP:TRUTH" in all seriousness, without taking a look at what that tongue-in-cheek essay contains :-) - Max - You were saying? 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales
I am the above user, and have been trying to disappear from Wikipedia, but unfortunately, I am unable to do this because I have salted my password, and right to vsnish appears to require that the request be made from the user account.
I wish disappear because it was recently brought to my attention that sock puppeting activities had been taking place from my PC. I initially thought this might be down to someone having piggybacked my wireless, but later discovered the work to have been the responsibility of two individuals who I had allowed to use my system under the pretence of other purposes - but who then seemed to have been editing Wikipedia under a selection of different usernames.
These appear to have started as good faith edits, but have later degenerated into some limited abuse of editing priveleges. I was recently reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check following an exchange between an anonymous IP and a user who I had clashed with in December 2007. This prompted me to wonder why I'd been reported, and to do some investigation. I then discovered the sock puppetry activities, so I made a note of them. I was then reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul20070 for my troubles.
In the light of this, I decided it would probably be best if I retired, and made a note of this in my userspace, and salted my password. I have since decided that I'd like to completely vanish. However, I appear anable to do this.
I reported the sock puppetry in good faith because I think that sockpuppet editing damages Wikipedia's reputation. I decided to approach you because you're the boss, and I know you will make a fair and honest decision.
I would very much appreciate your help and advice.
Thanks. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 ( talk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you assigned an email address to your account, you can request a new password.
Hey, Don't you find it weird, how a user like me edits more fequently in the mainspace then the creator? Then again your might be working on MediaWiki: or Wikipedia: or other stuff a lot. – ThatWikiGuy ( talk) 13:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I copy a few things?
Thanks. – ThatWikiGuy ( talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've recently come across the news here that google aims to launch a rival encyclopedia to wikipedia. Could you fill me more in on it Jimbo or anybody who knows of it (or email me if you don't want to talk about it in plain view here). I doubt we should be quivering in our boots just yet but the idea seems a daft one to build a different encyclopedia other than wikipedia; obviously they are after more money. Can anybody see it becoming successful and a threat to wikipedia in the future? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
How would the existence of another encyclopedia have any effect, good or bad, on Wikipedia, much less be a threat to it? 71.246.31.82 ( talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it seems a bit pointless to me to even consider building a different world encyclopedia from scratch. Unless they plan to pay their contributors it will never beat the wiki. Me thinks the googlers are wishing they had started wikipedia now to get their greedy hands on more money through advertising. As if they aren't rich enough huh? Power to the Wales for starting a free encyclopedia I say. I and the white cat salute you sir ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi and nice to meet you. I'm Barkjon. I'm really glad that you made Wikipedia, like all the other editors. I have one question: Can bureacrats demote other user's sysop status? I'm wondering that because I'm a bureacrat and webmaster of the Club Penguin Wiki. Please reply on my talk page if you have an answer.-- Barkjon 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Filll has been listing some anonymised situations admins might find themselves in, and is asking everyone how they would respond. In part this is an exercise to allow people to learn for themselves how they would respond to tough situations, and in part he also wants to use the answers in scientific research. I like the questions a lot, so I've used some of them in a recent lecture ( Wikipedia:Lectures, lecture 2)
I'm actually rather curious how you would answer the questions. They're quite fun to do!
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that this proposal is old and currently out of favor, but as I've gone through the trouble of creating two essays (
1,
2), two userboxes (
1,
2), and two user categories (
1,
2) regarding the opposing views and their rationale, I thought I'd revive discussion of this topic, so here I go "gulp": What if Wikipedia were to require account creation for all users? Even though I edited anonymously myself before creating this account, I've begun to see things differently and now I believe that Wikipedia will benefit as a whole from requiring users to register an account (read the second of the above essays for my rationale). I know that many view just the opposite, and to try to be objective, I've also created an essay, userbox, and category documenting the opposite view. And, just for the record, could you please state your view on this, regardless of what it is?--
Urban
Rose
22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there was also an edit war going on about what level of protection to use. I'm like, does anyone really care? Doesn't anyone have anything better to do? 199.125.109.64 ( talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To Mr. Wales,
I haven't been long with Wikipedia. But in the few weeks I have been here officially, I am at odds with some of the policies of Wikipedia. I am lead to believe based on my study of the laws of my home state (It's New York, horse racing central in late summer) that some policies may be contrary to free speech and civil rights laws and the constitution of New York State. Some of the reasons I've seen people blocked seem either unlawful or just unfair. I don't mean disrespect, to you or anyone else. Too bad you don't visit where I live, we'd be able to meet at the race track and watch a few races even though I don't gamble. Just in closing, don't worry about me staying, I've decided to retire. Good fortune be with you sir. ESCStudent774441 ( talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Metros, good to meet you. Hope to see you soon. ESCStudent774441 ( talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, I just wanted to write you a personal note to see what you think of the Wiki Project known as "WP:FRINGE"? I feel it is the single most dangerous aspect of Wikipedia with the greatest potential to get really out of hand. Its entire purpose seems to be to game the explicit wording of the NPOV policy. Mainly the brainchild of a sysop called DBachmann, the "Fringe noticeboard" attracts the most intolerant sort of editors who like to appoint themselves to decide what everyone else should not be hearing about or accepting - just because their have decided these are wrong ideas in their opinion. This is precisely equivalent to the Spanish inquisition deciding what beliefs held by the populace are to be proclaimed Heresy, and going after them torches in hand, proceeding to expunge every trace from the record. In fact, when an anonymous newcomer recently questioned why the "Kurgan hypothesis" should receive such a favored endorsement over all other hypotheses which are openly ridiculed, and then when he sarcastically suggested that a better name for the project might be WP:HERESY, he was reverted and immediately blocked without even a single warning. If you are not aware of the type of tactics these sysops routinely employ, that is one thing, but if you are aware, that is something else. 70.105.27.58 ( talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As I'm sure everyone has worked out, the IP making this post is the same IP that was blocked for disrupting the noticeboard with severe personal attacks. He started off OK, I commented that his logic didn't quite seem to cohere in the arguments he was making - and then he completely lost it.
As regards the Kurgan hypothesis, there are respectable alternative theories (as well as very fringy alternative theories) but the Kurgan hypothesis remains the mainstream theory regarding the location of the Indo-European homeland (assuming there ever was such a place). Wikipedia, naturally, is supposed to reflect academic consensus. Moreschi2 ( talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales,
A user has nominated you for a
Great User Award and it was passed by SimpsonsFan08. You can now place either one of the awards below in your user page.
|
{{GoodUserAward}} | ||||
|
{{GoodUserAwardBig}} |
Congratulations, SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You get so much shit, crap, and flak hurled at you by vandals, et al. that I want to give you something to balance it out. You deserve a lot more of these. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:40 8 April, 2008 (UTC) |
{{empty comment for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Hello Mr Wales could you please sign my guestbook? Thanks alot for your time, wwe socks sign 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. We briefly talked about this at the event the other night, so I thought I should give you the link to the results of Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This was a collaboration between Free Culture @ Columbia, Free Culture @ NYU, the working-to-be-recognized Wikimedia New York City and Wikipedia volunteers. It was the first event of its kind anywhere, as far as I know.
We got photos for 92 specifically requested sites (90 separate articles), nearly half of the 188 on our list.
Check out Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (which is really cool). Thanks.-- Pharos ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its time you updated the server, at least 30 times today something has prevented me from saving my work or editing a page with the lock "Wikipedia database is temporarily in read-only mode". Its not a good look for the site -it makes it look like it can't handle the strain and it is quite frustrating to keep losing work which won't save first time. Am I the only one experiencing this? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Walles, what should you do about this... this edit. Should you call the cops or just the school , or both. This is very serious sir. Rio de oro ( talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be brought to your attention that User:WebHamster is using his userpage to host what appears to be child pornography. Despite admins removing the pictures he seems determined to edit war them back in as per here, here, and here. His original image was removed via this AN/I discussion and he has since updated his page with yet another child porn image, the one which is now currently being hosted by wikipedia. Please note that like the previous picture, the current image being hosted has no information declaring that the subject is over 18 years of age, and is found in no other part of the encyclopedia. Given that this user is immune to admin decisions or removals, and in his defense uses comments like this this this, I believe User:WebHamster must be removed from the project immediately, for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Prester John ( talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I said it "appears" to be child pornography. There is no information on the image that declares that the "nude" is over 18 years of age. I think that wikipedia should err on the side of caution here. Prester John ( talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, none of the photos at User:Markaci/Nudity (which is a pretty good listing of nudes on Wikipedia) have a notation anywhere saying that they're 18+ or whatever you think is required. Metros ( talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Prester John should get a block unless he agrees to drop the unsubstantiated and purposefully inflaming "child-porn" rhetoric. This posting makes twice (that I know of, the other was at ANI, where he inititally stirred the pot, but ultimately did not get his way
link to archive). Should this go to ANI again? Personally, I'm getting tired of PJ's Prester John's misleading characterizations and efforts to kick up a #%^& storm.
R. Baley (
talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) edited for clarity per comment below.
R. Baley (
talk)
02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Authorities take a very dim view of websites hosting child porn. Given that the buck ultimately stops with Jimbo I think it is necessary to advise him on important matters concerning his responsibilities. This goes way beyond AN/I which has proven not to work in this case. Sure I cross posted to other parties who may have a vested interest in this issue, however I am astounded at the level of resistance to what ultimately is a non-issue. Prester John ( talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above, just because you say it is not child porn does not make it so. Is there any indication on the image license that the subject is over 18 years old? Prester John ( talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
you have a nice userpage and give people to privilage to edit, and so I did by adding a ♥. Thats cool. i saw the list of places you've gone to, but why haven't you come to Asia? You always go to 'white skin countries' (no offence). Just come to Asia once and you'll see an array of different people, culture, ways of life and landscapes you can never dream of seeing in europe or australia. its fantastic. i've never seen a single american or european who has said he didn't enjoy asia (countries like india, japan, korea, ceylon, malaysia etc.). Come to see. -- 60.50.70.71 ( talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Google him and you will find he has been in India, China, South Africa, and other nonwhite countries. I'm sure he will be in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I travel all over the world. My favorite place to travel is in India.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should come to Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.67 ( talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, hope you are well, and not letting the crap in the press get you down! Quick question: PLEASE MAKE ME AN ADMIN?!!!
No seriously, What's the process for adminship? Thinking of applying myself and want to nominate someone.
Cheers
Randomjack Random Jack ( talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy, did you know in the real world, many people believe things based on evidence, not by "checking their source" for WP:V or WP:RS thestick ( talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You created Wikipedia! WOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I wanted to edit your Page:
old: "... I trust you. Yes, I really do."
new: "... I trust you. Yes, I really do. And if I can't trust you I can trust the next Wikipedian to come along and fix it. ..."
--
193.254.155.48 (
talk)
08:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (in fact
de:Benutzer:Arcudaki)
... or at least a thumb up! -- EivindJohnsen ( talk) 11:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, how should editors and admins on this project interpret a threat of violence against a school, person or oneself? Should they pass it off as a cheap hoax or take it at face value and entirely serious? Recently there was an explicit threat against Plano Senior High School which mentioned a day, time and device. The local police stated their desire to know every detail and said any such threats, no matter how vague in the future, should be reported. I am curious to know how you view- should threats be passed off as jokes/hoaxes or taken seriously? Bstone ( talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is yet again a very serious disconnect between the evidence presented and comments by arbitrators. You may recall the lengthy thread here. Since then, there was one more arbitration case on Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick). User was eventually banned indefinitely. There is evidence that this indef banned user may have returned editing wikipedia continuing his harassment campaign.
I was wondering if you would take a look at this case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jack Merridew.
Particularly Kirill Lokshin's comment stated that "I see no evidence that any prior steps in either the dispute resolution process or the sockpuppet identification process have ocurred with regard to Jack" which is in contradiction with checkuser report is of concern.
I know from experience that you stay away from such disputes as much as you can, which is fine. But perhaps you can encourage arbitrators to look into this issue more closely.
-- Cat chi? 14:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Where can I find Jimbo Wale's Signature? Nothing 444 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If this guy is the great Wikipedian you claim how come he keeps archiving my discussions about his Master 'Prem Rawat'? [ [2]]] NB. discussions which other more neutral editors than he deem quite germane to the article. Seems like he just can't stop asserting that pesky COI. PatW ( talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:AN/I#User:PatW ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked you several times to remove that personal attack, allowing for occasional slips of the tongue if you're prepared to correct afterwards. You didn't. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[...] And do not give me any BS about good intentions, because I see none, Francis. [...] (ref & context: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 31#Biographies of Living Persons)
I've left this a while now. Should I interpret the lack of response from everyone as a "No, we actually endorse Jossi's continuing to police the article on his own"? In which case how sincere was that suggestion I wonder? I see Jossi has not indicated any intention of agreeing to such an arrangement but proposes to continue, whilst my offer to take a long break seems to have been received with an almost palpable sigh of relief. PatW ( talk) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, why is Jossi still allowed to have anything to do with the Prem Rawat articles? This is past ridiculous, please tell him to stay away from them. Cla68 ( talk) 10:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Continued here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Prem Rawat -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned you in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jimbo Wales' comment. With all due respect (which I have), please don't use straw man arguments against me again. It made me appear as if siding with some murky journalism, which I don't. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite new on Wikipedia although I have created an article and a category. However I appear to have lost the ability to create articles. When I want to create one I just type it into the search engine and it says "No page with this title exists" and then provides me with the option to create it however now all it does is bring up a list of articles with similar names. I'm not entirely sure if I'm important enough to speak to you but I couldn't think of anybody else to ask and seeing as you're "the Boss" so to speak I figured you'd know how to get round this. Thank you for your time. -- Jupiter Optimus Maximus ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Im new here Wales and I like what you've done with the place. You also need a shave ;)Moosester out. -- Moosester ж 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have seen evidence to show Sanger did have an important role in Wikipedia's "founding (although I still won't call him the Founder of Wikipedia Jimbo);" however I still think you have a good point about Sanger being merely your employee; so as a compromise between the two sides of the debate why don't call Larry "The Assistant Founder of Wikipedia," it sounds like a good NPOV term right? I hope you like it :)
This way we don't take away from the fact that you were the Founder of Wikipedia and it doesn't negate from Larry's key role in "found" wikipedia.-- Trulexicon ( talk) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
At Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is known as Founder, and several others known as co-Founders. But I don't think this sort of option is available in this case.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I made a few reasonable edits and this user came and reverted them, without comment. So I searched on Google for her name. I found a whole host of information about her controversial tenure as administrator on this site... she has apparently used sock-puppets and the like. And yet she is still here, as an administrator no less. As well, none of the facts of her controverial administration are present here... in many cases, they have been expunged.
Why is this user still an administrator? Surely her aggressive POV-pushing and belligerent manner is a disservice to this site? And given the explosion of non-wikipedia commentary about her, shouldn't there be an objective page HERE about her controverial role on this site?
I apologize for posting this here, but the complicated and overwrought beurocractic system you have in place for filing motions and what not is, ahem, a little bit too daunting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregondesert ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware or even care less, but English wikipedia currently has around 991,000,000 words as of March 13 2008. I thought it would be nice if somebody takes note when we pass the 1 billion word mark as I feel this is a monumental milestone in wikipedia's history. Let me know , the many people who watch this page what you think and whether this should be brought up in the announcements ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
2.978363655×10 9 . Well of course I didn't expect anybody to know exactly what the billionth word is. I just thought people should know as I see it as a benchmark. It should be brought up in the announcements I think ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As you noted, Wikimedia doesn't currently have the resources to provide adequate data dumps, without any real excuse for this. It's possible they're working on this behind-the-scenes, but generally, they seem to spend more time making up excuses and covering up mistakes than being open and honest with the public. And then following up by saying, "Well, our lawyer told us to say these things!"
Most importantly of all: It isn't the quantity that counts. It's the quality. Let's see Wikipedia have featured articles on every subject contained within Britannica (that is, the core encyclopedic subjects) and then we have a reason to justify self-congratulatory remarks and throw big parties abroad. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Might be more interesting and feasible to find the 1000000th, 5000000th, 1000000000th and so on edits themselves. Lawrence § t/ e 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone's calling for your head over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Jimbo_Wales_should_be_admonished_and_officially_requested_to_step_down.. Not anything that would stick like diffs of you threatening to assasinate the president of guatamala, but figured you should be aware of it. MBisanz talk 05:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Jim, there is a statement at WP:CONEXCEPT "There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page. (indent) Declarations from Jimmy Wales...." Is this still a valid statement in your mind. I don't object either way, but just want to clarify. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a convention that we have so far kept around for historical reasons, and it seems (to the ArbCom, for example) to still serve some valid purposes. It is rarely used, and will be used ever more rarely in the future. I have no interest in disrupting consensus, and there are times (sysop wheel wars, for example) where a big "knock it off and chill out for a day or two" which is universally accepted, seems useful. Increasingly, I act in my formal traditional capacity only under the direct advice and consent of the ArbCom, and I have stated my willingness to submit to their decisions in specific cases.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated
Craig Crossman, an article you created, for
deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Crossman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Justin
(Gmail?)
(u)
17:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I blocked him for three days because of this edit. But I also told him, I will make the block shorter if he asks all the three users (means also you) for excusion. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Only 3 days? I think he is indef banned from de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. I have no particular recommendations for you about how to deal with him at commons, other than to say that he has been around a long time and most people have not found him to be particularly helpful with our charitable goals.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor at Commons contributed this delightful caricature of you to use in a discussion at COMMONS:Image talk:Maome.jpg. What do you think? - Nard 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
could somone help me set up my userpage with frames and stuff so i can have userboxes over to the left and an have it more organized. thanks for any help! LukeTheSpook ( talk) 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:ComputerGuy890100/Jimbo Edit
I would like to present to you the I Edited Jimbo Wales' Userpage Barnstar! — ComputerGuy89010 0 Talk to me What I've done to help Wikipedia 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
On an article I created about my father (who is a famus person), someone added information a while back that they could have had no way of knowing. Information about our family. I am worried about this and would like a block placed on this individual, the article is Mark Patterson, Racing Analyst and the contributer was named SJ something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray-Ginsay ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings friends of wikipedia.
I have poor knowledge of English and Hindi Langauge and I write with poor knowledge.
Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia have grossly misused tools of Administratators. Namely one Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. One Rajiv Mass has created dammy Account of Ravi jain to harass and misuse.
I request here to translet what I have written in Hindi and same to be informed to all what these Administrators have done. I know that Administratator Rajiv Mass was doing this type of activites for last 3-4 months.
I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics
All most all and at least three confirmed have grossly missused their Administratators Tools on Hindi Wikipedia. Their Names are Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. Not only that Administratator Rajiv Mass has opened dummy account in name of Ravi Jain and miss used to harass other members of Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English wikipedia. I have complained in poor English to English Wikipedia Administratators and one has advised me to write here. Those who know Hindi very well should visit Hindi wikipedia to solve the problem and this fact should be brought to all Administratators of world. I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
www.hi.wikipedia.org
All Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia are involved and particularly (1) Rajiv Mass (2) Purnima Varman and (3) Manish Vashistha confirmed. Other three are in line of confirmation.
Rajiv Mass has opend dummy account in name of Ravi Jain on Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English and many languages with IP 124.124.36.4 of Rajiv Mass and harassing other members on many languages.
hi.wikipedia gu.wikipedia mr.wikipedia en.wikipedia
Everything with fact is given on Hindi Wikipedia and all Admn. know.
In case all Admn. on Hindi wikipedia are involved, please, bring this fact to entire world.
I am from India and feel very ashmed that my brothers are involved in Vandals activities on wikipedia.
For this notice board fact can be seen by nacked eye on :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vkvora2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jainjain
copy of this is pasted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics
I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, founder of Wikipedia, whom I have to say, I'm excited to be discussing with! I'd just like to ask that if User:RickK is retired, then why does it say that he's still an administrator in the Special:Listusers page? Other users who were formerly administrators are not listed as admins there; so if he's no longer active, then shouldn't he have been desysopped? Thanks! Schfifty Three 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This administrator has been very bias towards me, and has wrongfully accussed my of stalking. She has also wrongfully accused me of stirring up trouble against a user known as Thegingerone. This user has continously violated the NPOV policies, and Ms. Knott. I also never wanted to post any "nasty messages" to the user, and I have never called the user any bad names. I fell like Knott's actions against me are the equivilnet of when a [refactor personal attack against another user]. I'm not making racist accusations, but I do think her treatment of me is bias and equivilent to discrimination. I'm deeply offended by her accusations, and I fell she needs to be dealt with soon. Also, OhnoIt'sJamie did the same think in a message he sent me, by saying the message I am sending is accussing Ms. Knott of racis,. Let me make it clear to anybody else who reads this and makes these bias assumptions I AM NOT ACCUSSING ANYBODY WITH ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM, but I do think that there is some prejudice going on. Hey, it's just my opinion from observation. Kevin j ( talk) 17:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox, NO, I AM NOT MAKING RACIST ALLEGATIONS OR ACCUSSING ANYBODY OF BEING A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Get it through your head. Kevin j ( talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I AM NOT CALLING ANYBODY A WHITE SUPREMACIST. I even erased the content from the talk page, though I still feel she is acting prejudice against me, by labelling me as a "stalker." I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS FILTH, and I do think she is being childish and prejudice against me. Also, I NEVER SLANDERED her to other editors. I love to edit film content, and I have been doing this long before these people knew who I even was. Sir you do think administrators should get special privileges? Because I don't. Kevin j ( talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, please review the recent history of Unholy Alliance and determined efforts by two Admins to bury historical references to Teddy Roosevelt's uses of the term. - MBHiii ( talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Sometimes I am afraid I am over-sensitive. The
Race and Intelligence article is obviously controversial and I have been highly critical of
User:Jayjg
user:Jagz who I believe has been pushing for inclusion of a fringe, racialist (if not racist) POV in the article - this is just context, not the issue. The issue is, today he made this edit, creating a new section and providing no explanation or context:
[7]. If it is directed at me, I wonder if it is anti-Semitic.
I may be overreacting - it may just be one of several disruptive edits he has made, which I should not take personally, and I have left a note at AN/I concerning disruptive edits. But the possible anti-Semitism nags at me. I know that in general you take these matters seriously and that in this particular case you have objectivity I lack and if you think I am overreacting, well, I would respect and value your judgement. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yikes! I am an idiot! It was a complete slip. I meant user Jagz (Jayjg has not edited that page or the article for a very very long time, if he even ever did ... I guess i just work on so many more articles with jayjg that it is more of a reflex writing hisname. Anyway, it was a mistake). Everything I have written here applies to Jagz; Jayjg is utterly uninvolved in this, it was just a slip on my part. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, I'd like to ask you to read this section on the BLP talk page and weigh in there, as BLP was originally one of your babies: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP applies everywhere. Lawrence § t/ e 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
<<<<<< Crum375, there are some important nuances involved that you are omitting. Please read the section of BLP that discusses non-article space. It details common sense limitations on your scorched earth approach. The non-article spaces have specific reasons for existing to help us write this encyclopedia and BLP is not to be used as a tool to prevent those spaces from being used appropriately for those purposes. Repeatedly deleting key evidence from an arbcom evidence space is not appropriate. Your judgement was flawed in that incident. Extreme behavior is usually wrong. Balanced thoughtful restrained behavior is more often the correct behavior. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A bigger problem is why we even allow search engines to index WP space, user space, and the like. Since our mission is not commercial in nature we should specifically modify WP's robots.txt to only allow indexing of "Article" space. If our own internal search tools are deficit--or frankly, they're shitty--then we can fix that. Aside from sucking at Google's teat, I can't see any valid WP mission-specific reason to allow search engines to touch anything but "actual articles". This must change. Lawrence § t/ e 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And yes: I realize the unspoken reason we don't DON'T do that is because we would screw over WP's "Page Rank" and status on Google. Well, you know what? Living people > Google. Fuck page rank. Our mission is more important than silly games that raise WP or Wikia's stature. We're not here to make money. Those who are can leave. Lawrence § t/ e 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
Hey Jim - I'm going out to a rural high school today in Calhan, Colorado to talk to the kids about Wikipedia, how they can get involved, etc. I will be re-hashing, to a degree, the talk I gave at the New York meet-up. --David Shankbone 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How many edits and how long do you think a user should have before nominating for administration?-- RyRy5 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It varies. :) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
We are about to pass the 1 billion mark. I think it is a cause for celebration even if an enormous amount needs doing to improve quality. It would just take about 500 years to read it -(that's all) ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well perhaps 10,000 FAs would be a better cause for celebration ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Wow. I rarely post to here unless truly necessary, but some of what's being said is simply jaw-droppingly stupid. An administrator tried to do a selective deletion on the Sandbox a few weeks ago and it prevented editing for about an hour, probably a little less. No servers crashed, and in fact the site was still fully functional, i.e., you could visit and read any page. And what any of this has to do with "servers analysing data dumps" is truly beyond me. Unless you have something accurate to say, or at least something that can meaningfully contribute to the conversation, please don't post. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
And I don't know what number of revisions has anything to do with word count either, unless you are counting 2 revisions to the same page, both with a total of 100 words as 200 words. To estimate the number of words, you'd either have to get the full rendered text of each page and count all the words or do a database query to add up the raw text length (in bytes) of each page. 1 byte ~ 1 letter, so dividing by the average word size, adjusted to compensate for templates, piped links and various bits of wiki-syntax would give you an estimate. The former method would probably be more accurate (and probably doable once the HTML dumps start again) but the latter method would be easier. Mr. Z-man 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I plan to become an admin when I have 5000+ edits and when I have been at wikipedia for 4 months. Do you think this is a good idea? I would also like your opinion on this. -- RyRy5 talk 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Jim, if you are interested in me explaining my work and how I see its implications for Wikipedia, here's a video presentation. --David Shankbone 06:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I've thought for a while about asking you, and I decided I should. A lot of the time, I get people, when I talk to them about Wikipedia, they say things like "It's not reliable" or "Why do you edit it, it's a waste of time". This is something I strongly disagree with. I feel Wikipedia is not a waste of time, I believe in it's cause (free information for the whole world) and I try to dedicate my time, as much of it as possible, to improving wikipedia, whether it is through reverting vandalism, or by writing articles. But, I find people who make these remarks about Wikipedia, rather discouraging. My question to you Jimbo is, what do you suggest I say to these people? I know you're a busy man, but if you could reply to me at some time, I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, we should have stable versions, and that is the only bit of Wikipedia we should allow search engines to crawl. Lawrence § t/ e 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the reliability of anything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I just find it hard to deal with people who discredit Wikipedia so much, when I see all the effort that goes into it. My personal feeling is that measures do need to be taken to protect the site from the harm it receives, recent changes have been made, such as disabling the ability to delete the main page, but more things need to be done. Well, all I can do is continue cleaning up places that need cleaning. Is there any advice you could give when asked by someone about Wikipedia, and its reliability? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This conferences that you are participating in sounds interesting. Do you know if there will be video or transcripts of it available online? Jon513 ( talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The last fund raising campaign did not give the desired result. Neither the unified login nor approved versions are in production use yet. Let alone the WYSIWYG feature or other MediaWiki improvements that could make the life of Wikipedians so much easier. It seems to me that Wikipedia is stuck in a stalemate. On the other hand, if advertisements were radically introduced, Wikipedia would lose many editors; the little advertisement in one of the earlier fund raising campaigns was not received well. But what about a less radical attempt? Perhaps Wikipedia could start with an advertisement only on the main page and gain some experience with that. Such a conservative attempt would not face the NPOV issues that have been put forward as the main argument against ads, at least not in the same way. I know that I am certainly not the first user to suggest this, but given the stagnating state of the project, I think that things need to be reconsidered. I find it strange that the Wikipedia:Advertisements article does not mention such a moderate, tentative solution but only radical attempts to introduce advertisements in all articles (be it optional or not). Also, it doesn't give crucial arguments such as the possibility to use parts of the money to buy copyrights and put the associated works into the public domain. If people see that they get something back for the advertisements, tolerance would perhaps increase even for putting them into regular articles. -- rtc ( talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Wikipedia, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals.
Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
Well, I just thought about it and found that there is not really much to discuss about user-optional advertisement, search bars or whatever. Every user can actually already add advertisements or a search bar at any place and in any context he likes at his option — via a monobook javascript. The necessary javascript code would be trivial. What is missing is a contract between the Wikimedia Foundation and google or other companies, so that it actually gets money for this. -- rtc ( talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just so there's no question about this, I ought to explain something. A few days ago Sue Gardner joined a Not the Wikipedia Weekly skypecast and among other things she denied a recent Valleywag rumor. I don't usually pay much attention to Valleywag, but afterward I decided to check out one of her comments and she was exactly right: nearly all of the Valleywag stories that mention women discuss what they suppose is that woman's sex life. Now there's a site that has issues, I thought. And for a bit, I left it at that.
Then in a bit of serendipity I segued from work on the triple crown awards to reading up on classical Greek mythology to the paintings of William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I've had my eye on his work for a while as potential restorations for featured picture candidacy. Then a really impish inspiration struck, and I've heard you're very good at taking a joke so I went ahead with it. The thing was an ironic barb at Valleywag's tabloid reporting. [9]
Much to my surprise, two days later Valleywag has actually run the silly image to accompany a story about you--completely failing to see that the actual joke is on them. I've written a comment to that effect; am waiting to see whether they have the integrity to publish it. Also made a similar comment at p2pnet news. [10] So for the record, this image is a gesture of respect to Sue Gardner and the other hardworking women of the tech industry who really deserve to get into the news for their brains. Durova Charge! 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Erik Moeller says:
Please translate this announcement into other languages and forward it to other mailing lists and village pumps. (The translators list has already been notified and will help with this process.)
The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany have collaborated, with financial support from Wikimedia France, to support development of a new extension to our software which makes it possible to flag versions of wiki articles as having reached a certain quality. This new toolset could mark the beginning of a new era for Wikipedia and its sister projects, giving readers more transparency than ever about the quality of a given article. A special note of thanks to Aaron Schulz, who has developed much of the functionality as a volunteer -- we would not be where we are today without him. The ongoing support and patience of Philipp Birken from the German chapter was also critical.
Before this functionality will be enabled on any Wikimedia project, it needs to be tested thoroughly for usability, bugs, security and performance. Test wikis have been set up in English and German (because the German Wikimedia community has been driving the development of this functionality from the beginning).
These wikis contain a copy of the Wikibooks database. This copy is completely separate from the "real" Wikibooks, so do not worry about destroying anything of value. Please follow the instructions on the Main Pages to participate. If you do not speak English or German, we encourage you right now to
- set up test wikis independently using the open source extension available from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs , or
- change the user interface preference, and create pages in the English test wiki in your language.
This is due to our limited capacity to set up additional wikis. If you feel you really, absolutely, strongly need a test wiki in your language, please file a request through:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
Wikimedia communities will also have to decide what kind of configuration to use for their project. Key questions to answer include:
- What quality attributes should there be?
- Who should be permitted to flag changes as having been reviewed for vandalism, or for other quality attributes?
- Should the default view for unregistered users change to the "stable version" on all pages, some pages, or no pages?
The German Wikimedia community has implemented a particular long-standing community proposal and will probably go live the soonest with this configuration; other communities will still have to develop consensus.
What's next?
The test will run at least until April 10, 2008 before the extension is implemented live on any wiki. This is to allow any serious problems to be surfaced by the community. If there are no critical open issues as of April 10, any language/project community will be permitted to file a request through https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ to activate the extension. This request will have to point to pages in the project indicating a consensus to move forward. Detailed instructions to do so will be posted on the test wikis.
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Yes, its one thing to believe in some sort of cabal, but that people are actively trying to keep Wikipedia's quality down just for the hell of it? That doesn't even make any sense. Why would they want to do that? Mr. Z-man 15:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain what your stance is on user's secret pages? And if you don't mind them, could you have a go at finding mine?
Yours,
Micro chip 08 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I have one that's silly: User:Michael Hardy/certain stereotypes. Will it serve the goal of improving the encyclopedia? I can't really say that it won't. If pressed, I could probably think of ways that it eventually could. Being intellectually playful and then only later discovering the prectical utility of one's playfulness sometimes actually pays off in many fields, including science and art. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course it's not actually secret. It's just that there are no actual links to it, and it's not in the article space, so people are unlikely to find it. But if copyright problems come up in regard to one of the images, then someone might decide to look at the list of all pages displaying that image, and then of course they'd find it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you've never seen it before, here it is; it's called "Deutsch - warum nicht?". It's based on the adventures of a student named Andreas and his invisible sprite friend Ex, by Deutsche Welle. It's a million times more interesting than their recent effort called Radio D, which should be avoided. Mithridates ( talk) 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the thread unrelated to Jimbo to RyRy's talk page, to those participants who are confused about where it went. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to avoid (yet another) blowup in the media concerning Wikipedia, you will move to unlock Jeremiah Wright, which one of your admins in an apparently very partisan manner has locked for four months on a version that many people have a serious problem with. I'm not giving any threat here, just stating what is very likely to otherwise occur. CyberAnth ( talk) 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I apologise, was reading too fast. On the other hand, if it had been locked from all editing for four months - my original point stands, I think most would agree. CyberAnth ( talk) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Its blocked from editing even though he said that we could do anything to it. Anyways, in the Press Inquiry section near the top, it says, "...and speak to our communications person Sandra, at +1 727 231 0101." Shouldn't there be a comma not only after Sandra, but before, as well? -- haha169 ( talk) 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That quote really does make one think. Especially those new to Wikipedia...I wonder how they think of us. And I meant locked, but blocked worked better in my context.
Anyways, since You may edit this page! Really, you can! Please feel free to do so. Make an edit! Make several! is there, and "This page is watched by many, many editors!" 'is also on the top of the page, doesn't that make vandalism completely useless, regardless of protection? -- haha169 ( talk) 05:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a couple of days late on this, but I'm a bit concerned about the latest WMF press release, on the 10 million article milestone.
First of all, fine; you made another announcement about quantity of content. I guess it's kind of a big milestone, so I'm at peace with that.
However, this press release lacked the moderation and spirit of past press releases on two counts. First and foremost, while it trumpets recent successes in accuracy, there is no more mention of the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress. This is especially poignant since this announcement is about all the languages of Wikipedia, not just the English and German languages. You and I both know that the errors in even the English version alone probably number more than 10 million.
Taking this stance leaves you prone to any attack or controversy that detractors care to fling. It also attracts more readers without encouraging them to correct things that they find wrong with what they read, and doesn't inspire regular contribution to the encyclopedia at all. Surely this not appropriate in a climate in which the WMF, whose regular donors surely have a tendency to be those more directly involved in the community, is struggling to finance the pages that it serves fast enough.
Secondly, according to this press release unlike previous ones, this milestone belongs to the Foundation, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors are now "our volunteers". It is a faint difference, since the Foundation and Wikipedians fundamentally share the same goals. However, Wikpedia's success has come from being the work of the community, practically and financially made possible by the Foundation, not the other way round. Unless this is the result of some new thinking, the emphasis should still be on Wikipedians. The notion of a faceless central organisation is not the one which inspires people to support Wikipedia. I used to laugh when people talked about "Wikipedia says" or "Wikipedia has decided/announced" when referring to decisions like policy which were simply down to common consensus. Please try to make the WMF retain that fluidity, not try to take charge over it. BigBlueFish ( talk) 08:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I would appreciate if you could find a mo to have a look at this discussion here on WP:RSN. It concerns the question whether or not it is appropriate for Wikipedia to place links to advocacy sites like rickross.com that host selected news articles in their area of interest without licensing or seeking prior permission from the publishers. The discussion has gone on for several days, and so far has been unable to establish consensus, with opinions split about 50/50. Thanks, Jayen 466 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that the pseudonym QuackGuru is an alternative account for Larry Sanger. Have a nice day! QuackGuru ( talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I am reporting you what this vandal did to your page.
At first, this sounds a good one, but reading down further, he made a personal attack against you. What should I do? Give him a 4im immediately? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Everyday I used to dedicate a few hours to vandal flaying
RC patrolling (and get my pages vandalized as a result
[11],
[12],
[13] ) but since Wikipedia's actions against reported vandals are wimpy and totally inadequate I'm stopping doing that. Vandals get away far too easily (and consequently return the next day or week). Fighting them with the "weapons" we've got now is pointless and utterly frustrating. I'm hitting a tank with a rolled up newspaper. Maybe if "Those Who Decide" will come up with a set of rules that actually gives the RC Patrollers and admins teeth, I'll continue.
It would be a shame if Wikipedia drowned in vandalism but with anti-vandal rules like the current, it would be its own fault. Even the smallest online forums know there will always be vandals, and so they require a login and will e-mail you a password. Wikipedia refuses to use similar protection. That's beyond naive in my opinion. I was trying to protect a site that plainly refuses to protect itself. That feels utterly pointless to me. I'm not looking for work. So I'm sorry, and good luck with further developments, but I quit. Take care, Channel ® 11:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My own view, based on personal experience, is that vandalism is less of a problem than it has ever been. I don't know if anyone has compiled any statistics though. It would be interesting to see if anyone had, but certainly there is no obvious vandalism problem that can't be solved by our usual methods.
Theresa Knott |
The otter sank
17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Barneca is promising a more enlightened, or at least a more entertaining, leadership than we have at present. Thought you might like to take a look. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Never fear, Jimmy! Your patronage (you got the bank routing number correct on the second try) has led to a vigorous defense: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca. Lawrence § t/ e 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits and behavior.
If you perform any of the following things, including
on Wikipedia or any wikimeida project again, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you, ;) CWii( Talk| Contribs) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
For tellin' it like it is... (in accordance with the laws of physics in the known universe)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040108_aol_bans.htm
But all is not lost! When it comes to intolerance for dissent (such as blanking out "heretical" discussions), Wikipedia wins hands down!
What a joke! Jethro Walrusditty ( talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your input would be helpful here. Perhaps you could settle this dispute over cabals. Thank you.-- Uga Man ( talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at who's asking questions about Wikipedia in the UK Parliament is quite interesting. Conservative MP Stephen O'Brien seems to be going around every government department asking about what they've edited. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo,
It's been about four weeks since you thanked those of us who honestly questioned you. [14] Can you give us an indication on when you might be responding to the questions? These things do need to be sorted out. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 06:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you email me with a specific question or set of questions, and if the questions are reasonable I can answer them either privately or publicly depending on what is most appropriate.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you like Uncyclopedia? Reply here, or there. Ugh, it's the same. -- RoryReloaded ( talk) 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
As I'm not all that well versed on Wiki etiquette, my first entry into this particular incident will be made directly to you. Unfortunately, someone has begun vandalizing the Menudo page again. Before I try to undo any of the damage, I wanted to make contact with you prior to see how best to go about it. There is a lot of small changes that I can live with however, saying that our boy Emmannuel is, and I quote "An out and proud homosexual" is a complete fabrication. This kid is 16 years old and does not need this negativity in his life as he is just starting his career and following his dream.
This new addition needs to be removed ASAP:
"Another thing separating Emmanuel from his groupmates is that he's an out and proud Homosexual. Even still, he occasionally deals with the setbacks of being both Gay and Latin. "I don't discuss my love life too often, because it is kinda shunned in the Latino community. Don't mistake, I'm very proud of whom I am in all aspects, but I'd be lying to say that I sometimes play it safe to protect what privacy I have.
It was reported that Emmanuel may have been involved with a fellow cast member of the "Making Menudo" series. No word on the same of the other man, but it's almost certain it's what lead to the other contestant being cut."
Please advise me how to best fix this situation.
Thanks Christopher_R ( talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank so much! Christopher_R ( talk) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo,
I assume you're aware, but just in case: the template you proposed be added to the Modernista! article is at MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice. You may wish to participate. -- barneca ( talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be deep confusion about the purpose and status of the template. NPOV is not the issue some people seem to think it is, and indeed, I can hardly understand what they are claiming. And this has nothing to do with the Foundation at this point. This has to do with maintaining the integrity of our work.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The notice has been deleted... Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice. Lawrence § t/ e 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, you were mentioned by Sylviecyn, Jossi and myself in this ArbCom talk page discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision#My conclusions about this Wikipedia arbitration. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(empty comment for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 10:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC))
As I'm 100% sure you are fully aware of the malbehaviour of many German Admins and some regular user that are heavily associated with these Admins.
The last issue I encountered: I looked up some German female cook on de.wikipedia and added on the discussion-page one comment to a topic with 2 many months old comments. The first comment pointed out, that unlike as mentioned in the article this cook not only has joined a campaign for animal protection and right upbringing, but at the same time in one episide of a TV-series she was responsible for visited and presented a farm where geese were breeded for later use for Foie Gras: This clearly is in stark contrast to pretend to act for animal protection.
The first commenter unsurprisingly asked that either the article should be enhanced with more information, or that the part with her said action for animal protection should be removed. The second comment was a very unfriendly answer to the first comment.
The discussion page was last changed at the start of January 2008 when I encountered that page. I basically wrote that I support the first commenter, and why I support him from point of a general view.
Not even a day later some USER removed the whole 3 comments about this topic from the discussion page, saying that the discussion page would be no forum.
After I put the comments back, he again removed it. I put the comments back. THEN my IP was blocked under false explanations: Beside others reasons the admin said that I would have started an EDIT-WAR. Edit wars per definition page on the de.wikipedia are only in regard for articles, not for discussion pages. And the admin also brought forward, that I would have used the discussion page as forum.
Some minutes later the USER removed the comments again.
There are some obvious conclusions from that. And these conclusion are for sure not new for you, Mr. Wales:
In the German wikipedia-section it's common usage from admins and user who are craving for recognition to break rules. They block other people on ground of false pretendings. They start insulting and when being answered in the same way pretend that the insulted other Wikipedia user is breaking rules. They change the contents of articles and discussion sites though it's impossible they could have read the text, as it is obvious when a formerly not involed user deletes some NEW text from another user where the text is only SECONDS old!
And beside many more bad things the occur on the German wikipedia-section, the by far worst, and for US citizens for sure most unthinkable breaking of any wikipedia-rule: THEY REGULARLY ALTER AND DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION-PAGES!
It's hard to believe, that any US citizen, you being one, could stand by and allow the world to bring into relation your name and personality with what happens over in the German wikipedia.
But maybe you only care about the buck be to made anymore.
P.S. There are many mistakes I tried to correct in articles on the German wikipedia. And always the same as described above happened. Coincidene? Surely not! For anyone with 2 gramm brain or more it's obvious that more likely the wikipedia is heavily manipulated. Do you really think that only in politics and economy there are people who manipulte to gain personal advantaged? Do you really think it's not the same in sport, the "highest ethical thing on this world"? Do you really think, that the real amount of manipulation is not much higher on wikipedia in fact, with everyone being able to act anonymously?
Or do you just don't want to think about it in general?
One of the things I tried to correct was even admitted to rely on publications from 1 (one) single source from a lobby website. (The website itself said very very clearly, that it only wants to work for it's members, and that most costefficient in regards to the members' fees.)
It's a very sad place, the German wikipedia nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Now my IP was blocked, but the one who called me "Idiot" isn't blocked. Obvious that IP is either an Admin who uses anonymity to insult other people, or at least someone who is in the same IRC-channel with some admins. The reason for the block was not given.
One Admin blocked the discussion page from changes, then changed the discussion page himself.
(I) http://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Diskussion:Sarah_Wiener&action=history
Oh Jimbo. They work in your name in the end. 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The admin who blocked my IP ignored to block the IP 80.139.112.170 that used insults. Well. It's running on your servers, isn't it? If you are responsible, I hereby ask you to remove the insult on the page(I) above.
Add: A reasonable timeframe for removing that seems to me the time until you again write on this page here plus 2 hours. Greetings 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Last Add for today: I hope you take my demand to remove the insult as serious as one with the constant need for money to fund a website could be expected to take it. 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you are at it, you might check if the above mentioned abusing IP is the same as the IP from the user Julias1990 - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Julius1990
The given times of the user contributions of the IP and that user are a prove, that they are related, if not the same person. 82.113.106.16 ( talk) 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
I hereby dub thee a knight of Wikipedia, with all the privileges and responsibilities given therein. -- 69.86.173.19 ( talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
I noticed on AfD that there was an article called "List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." Then I noticed that there was an article called "List of *books* portaying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." The problem with the titles of these lists is that they are calling child sexual abuse "sexual attraction to children or adolescents." (Look at the lists, they clearly list sexual abuse.) Calling sexual abuse of children "sexual attraction to children" is clearly an extreme fringe definition of child sexual abuse from the pedophile point of view. It appears that there are five of these disturbingly titled lists, and that they used to all be titled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in <fill in the blank>." When and why then titles were all changed to reflect an extreme fringe pedophile activist point of view is not clear to me. I am also disturbed that the stated purpose of the Wiki Pedophile Article Watch Project is "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues," but that no one on this project has noted the extreme POV problem in the renaming/redefining of these articles to an extreme pro-pedophile fringe stance. I also do not understand why "pro-pedophile activism" is included in "Other resources" on the Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Other_resources I thought this was not the place for activism.
former titles of lists, currently how they are titled on Pedophilia Article Watch:
Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the theatre
Active link to one of the articles from the project site, so you can see that it goes to "List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_songs
Link to Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch
- PetraSchelm ( talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- PetraSchelm ( talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is important to remember that making editorial encyclopedia choices based on either promoting or condemning a POV is against policy (NPOV). What disgusts you or turns you on should not affect your editorial choices. Be thoughtful careful and caring rather than quick and shoot-on-sight. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
... had strong and frequently expressed views on Zionism [15] [16], [17], and these are summarized at Anti-Zionism. The way I read WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK, we have a duty to summarize all major Points of View concerning Zionism that appear in Anti-Zionism when we summarize that article in Zionism, and Gandhi's would seem to be a notable voice. Not a syllable about him is being allowed into the article, however, despite days of discussion. There are other issues I've raised at Talk:Zionism, but this seems to me the most pressing. Could I ask you to comment? Many thanks. BYT ( talk) 10:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:Thatcher blocked more 500,000 IP addresses from editing wikipedia.S\he was told not to do so by Stevo Crossin twice....
Note: A WHOIS shows the IP is from a rather large range, an IP range block here may be impractical. Just my opinion here, its up to an admin here, but seems a large range to block. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: A range block here would not be permissible, CIDR suffix of 70.104.0.0/13, rangeblocking would whack out 524,288 addresses. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
...but did so anyways:
So far I've blocked 70.108.128.0/18 and 70.108.64.0/18 anon only. If he creates an account presumably he will be recognizable. There are a very few good editors on that range. Thatcher 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The block needs to be lifted and Thatcher needs to stop being overzealous. One cannot punish the masses for the actions of one.
CassieSOUBRETTE (
talk)
12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed on ANI and fully resolved. Cross-posting to Jimbo's page is not necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please add your opinion to this discussion? I would, as well as the others, greatly appreciate your view. Dusti talk to me 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping you are one user hwo wont give me back a sarcstic comment but ive added an info box to the page: buckingham palace as obivously it is better as all historuc buildings have them such as the white house etc but one certain user Giano II keeps undoing this. Once I revert this i get sarcastic comments etc and this is not on as im new to wikipedia(editinf) and not sure of the rules (although I will get to know them) and this is not helpful. I just wanted to help wikipedia expand etc but unfornatley that is hard when you have people like this.
By the way. . as one of the founders I just want to thankyou for this great invention as I use it (view) so much daily and has helped me with numerous tasks etc. well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.19.104 ( talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo,
I read something on WP so it must be true! "Through 2007, the [Wikimedia] Foundation was owed $6,000USD by Wikia. Can you explain this assuming that it is true? Why would a commercial opperation owe a non-profit org money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.112 ( talk) 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the statement is inaccurate, but I have not researched it. I believe the figure is an end-of-the-year balance, not a statement about something ongoing. There was a time when Wikia purchased bandwidth and rackspace from the Wikimedia Foundation, and there was a time when Wikia and Wikimedia were sharing the rent on office space in St. Petersburg. Most likely the year end balance had something to do with that. There are of course many reasons why commercial companies have bills and owe people money. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
At
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-February/089925.html brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) says:
Since the audit covers a period of time that's in the past, a few last vestiges of the Olden Days were still in effect during the audit period and are naturally covered.
Today,
So what is the current relationship?
And what was the past relationship? Here's a quick historical summary:
2001-2002:
2003-2005:
[audit period starts here]
2006-2007
[audit period ends here]
2007-2008
(There may be minor details off, this is from memory.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please have a look on this deletion request: Actually, if a consensus is achieved here, they can be deleted straight away, without further ado.... I have no particular recommendations for you about how to deal with that at commons, but as a non US citizen I can imagine, that these case(es) will be a big thing, when the voters for deletion will get a majority. Regards 78.48.125.87 ( talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope you'll take this in good humor. The triple crown awards already have recipients for the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great editions, and a few weeks back I created a Genghis Khan edition. The only place to go from there is mythology. So if an editor ever creates 100 Did you know entries, 100 good articles, and 100 pieces of featured content they symbolically eat you for lunch and take over Wikipedia. In case that happens, you may regain Grand Poobah status at any time by winning a thumb wrestling match against that editor (videotape footage, please). Cheers, Durova Charge! 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jimbo Wales. Could you please put a block on my user page to prevent any anons from vandalizing it? Thanks, and please leave me a message on my talk page.-- Jedi Kasra ( talk) 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon even removes my criticisms about the failings of the proceedings to address Jossi's POV pushing. [19] Why is this subject so sensitive that no-one seems able to take a sensible look at the situation? Jossi influences every single edit to the Prem Rawat article, works for a Prem Rawat related organisation and has made it quite clear he will resume editing at any time he likes (he voluntarily limited his activities to policing every proposed edit on the Talk Page instead). Yet Arbcom can't see how that amounts to POV pushing while the world looks on with dropped jaws. [20]What's up? Since the buck apparently stops with you I appeal to you to intervene. PatW ( talk) 10:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
This is about
Bangalore article. The city name has been officially renamed to Bengaluru since November 1, 2006 onwards. However, a lot of Indian chic lovers still prefer it to be Bangalore and they are editing/reverting
against consensus. Coz, Bangalore sounds more chic and Bengaluru is a local name. The consensus should be clear that it should be renamed since it is a Government order. Since WP stands for
WP:TRUTH, I feel it looks awkward seeing in the old name. The page should definitely be moved to Bengaluru. I'd moved it once, but it has been reverted by a minority. Do you have any opinion on this issue? Which name do you prefer? Please comment.
--
Tomb of the Unknown Warrior
tomb
09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Jimbo, thank you for your succinct thoughts on the issue. As an editor who's in the opposing camp as "Tomb of the Unknown Warrior" a. k. a. User:Harjk, I just wanted to rebut his childish trivialization of the stand of editors (the "chic lovers") who oppose "Bengaluru". The reasons for opposition are certainly not as frivolous as "Bangalore sounds chic" or anything of the sort. There are well thought out and well laid out reasons (with quantitative proof) that Bangalore is still indeed the name that most of the English-speaking world recognizes. Also, User:Harjk claimed consensus when there is none (and Fram was wise enough to see through the misrepresentation, thanks Fram). I do not have any axe to grind against this user, but I was compelled to clarify the counter view in light of these statements made by him.
PS: It is endearing to see him say "WP stands for the WP:TRUTH" in all seriousness, without taking a look at what that tongue-in-cheek essay contains :-) - Max - You were saying? 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales
I am the above user, and have been trying to disappear from Wikipedia, but unfortunately, I am unable to do this because I have salted my password, and right to vsnish appears to require that the request be made from the user account.
I wish disappear because it was recently brought to my attention that sock puppeting activities had been taking place from my PC. I initially thought this might be down to someone having piggybacked my wireless, but later discovered the work to have been the responsibility of two individuals who I had allowed to use my system under the pretence of other purposes - but who then seemed to have been editing Wikipedia under a selection of different usernames.
These appear to have started as good faith edits, but have later degenerated into some limited abuse of editing priveleges. I was recently reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check following an exchange between an anonymous IP and a user who I had clashed with in December 2007. This prompted me to wonder why I'd been reported, and to do some investigation. I then discovered the sock puppetry activities, so I made a note of them. I was then reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul20070 for my troubles.
In the light of this, I decided it would probably be best if I retired, and made a note of this in my userspace, and salted my password. I have since decided that I'd like to completely vanish. However, I appear anable to do this.
I reported the sock puppetry in good faith because I think that sockpuppet editing damages Wikipedia's reputation. I decided to approach you because you're the boss, and I know you will make a fair and honest decision.
I would very much appreciate your help and advice.
Thanks. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 ( talk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you assigned an email address to your account, you can request a new password.
Hey, Don't you find it weird, how a user like me edits more fequently in the mainspace then the creator? Then again your might be working on MediaWiki: or Wikipedia: or other stuff a lot. – ThatWikiGuy ( talk) 13:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I copy a few things?
Thanks. – ThatWikiGuy ( talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've recently come across the news here that google aims to launch a rival encyclopedia to wikipedia. Could you fill me more in on it Jimbo or anybody who knows of it (or email me if you don't want to talk about it in plain view here). I doubt we should be quivering in our boots just yet but the idea seems a daft one to build a different encyclopedia other than wikipedia; obviously they are after more money. Can anybody see it becoming successful and a threat to wikipedia in the future? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
How would the existence of another encyclopedia have any effect, good or bad, on Wikipedia, much less be a threat to it? 71.246.31.82 ( talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it seems a bit pointless to me to even consider building a different world encyclopedia from scratch. Unless they plan to pay their contributors it will never beat the wiki. Me thinks the googlers are wishing they had started wikipedia now to get their greedy hands on more money through advertising. As if they aren't rich enough huh? Power to the Wales for starting a free encyclopedia I say. I and the white cat salute you sir ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi and nice to meet you. I'm Barkjon. I'm really glad that you made Wikipedia, like all the other editors. I have one question: Can bureacrats demote other user's sysop status? I'm wondering that because I'm a bureacrat and webmaster of the Club Penguin Wiki. Please reply on my talk page if you have an answer.-- Barkjon 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Filll has been listing some anonymised situations admins might find themselves in, and is asking everyone how they would respond. In part this is an exercise to allow people to learn for themselves how they would respond to tough situations, and in part he also wants to use the answers in scientific research. I like the questions a lot, so I've used some of them in a recent lecture ( Wikipedia:Lectures, lecture 2)
I'm actually rather curious how you would answer the questions. They're quite fun to do!
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that this proposal is old and currently out of favor, but as I've gone through the trouble of creating two essays (
1,
2), two userboxes (
1,
2), and two user categories (
1,
2) regarding the opposing views and their rationale, I thought I'd revive discussion of this topic, so here I go "gulp": What if Wikipedia were to require account creation for all users? Even though I edited anonymously myself before creating this account, I've begun to see things differently and now I believe that Wikipedia will benefit as a whole from requiring users to register an account (read the second of the above essays for my rationale). I know that many view just the opposite, and to try to be objective, I've also created an essay, userbox, and category documenting the opposite view. And, just for the record, could you please state your view on this, regardless of what it is?--
Urban
Rose
22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there was also an edit war going on about what level of protection to use. I'm like, does anyone really care? Doesn't anyone have anything better to do? 199.125.109.64 ( talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To Mr. Wales,
I haven't been long with Wikipedia. But in the few weeks I have been here officially, I am at odds with some of the policies of Wikipedia. I am lead to believe based on my study of the laws of my home state (It's New York, horse racing central in late summer) that some policies may be contrary to free speech and civil rights laws and the constitution of New York State. Some of the reasons I've seen people blocked seem either unlawful or just unfair. I don't mean disrespect, to you or anyone else. Too bad you don't visit where I live, we'd be able to meet at the race track and watch a few races even though I don't gamble. Just in closing, don't worry about me staying, I've decided to retire. Good fortune be with you sir. ESCStudent774441 ( talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Metros, good to meet you. Hope to see you soon. ESCStudent774441 ( talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, I just wanted to write you a personal note to see what you think of the Wiki Project known as "WP:FRINGE"? I feel it is the single most dangerous aspect of Wikipedia with the greatest potential to get really out of hand. Its entire purpose seems to be to game the explicit wording of the NPOV policy. Mainly the brainchild of a sysop called DBachmann, the "Fringe noticeboard" attracts the most intolerant sort of editors who like to appoint themselves to decide what everyone else should not be hearing about or accepting - just because their have decided these are wrong ideas in their opinion. This is precisely equivalent to the Spanish inquisition deciding what beliefs held by the populace are to be proclaimed Heresy, and going after them torches in hand, proceeding to expunge every trace from the record. In fact, when an anonymous newcomer recently questioned why the "Kurgan hypothesis" should receive such a favored endorsement over all other hypotheses which are openly ridiculed, and then when he sarcastically suggested that a better name for the project might be WP:HERESY, he was reverted and immediately blocked without even a single warning. If you are not aware of the type of tactics these sysops routinely employ, that is one thing, but if you are aware, that is something else. 70.105.27.58 ( talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As I'm sure everyone has worked out, the IP making this post is the same IP that was blocked for disrupting the noticeboard with severe personal attacks. He started off OK, I commented that his logic didn't quite seem to cohere in the arguments he was making - and then he completely lost it.
As regards the Kurgan hypothesis, there are respectable alternative theories (as well as very fringy alternative theories) but the Kurgan hypothesis remains the mainstream theory regarding the location of the Indo-European homeland (assuming there ever was such a place). Wikipedia, naturally, is supposed to reflect academic consensus. Moreschi2 ( talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales,
A user has nominated you for a
Great User Award and it was passed by SimpsonsFan08. You can now place either one of the awards below in your user page.
|
{{GoodUserAward}} | ||||
|
{{GoodUserAwardBig}} |
Congratulations, SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You get so much shit, crap, and flak hurled at you by vandals, et al. that I want to give you something to balance it out. You deserve a lot more of these. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:40 8 April, 2008 (UTC) |
{{empty comment for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Hello Mr Wales could you please sign my guestbook? Thanks alot for your time, wwe socks sign 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. We briefly talked about this at the event the other night, so I thought I should give you the link to the results of Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This was a collaboration between Free Culture @ Columbia, Free Culture @ NYU, the working-to-be-recognized Wikimedia New York City and Wikipedia volunteers. It was the first event of its kind anywhere, as far as I know.
We got photos for 92 specifically requested sites (90 separate articles), nearly half of the 188 on our list.
Check out Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (which is really cool). Thanks.-- Pharos ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its time you updated the server, at least 30 times today something has prevented me from saving my work or editing a page with the lock "Wikipedia database is temporarily in read-only mode". Its not a good look for the site -it makes it look like it can't handle the strain and it is quite frustrating to keep losing work which won't save first time. Am I the only one experiencing this? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)