![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
...or morning, depending on when (or if) you read this. Just wanted to say hello to you (and every other editor who has this page watchlisted.) - Hello *waves*. Thank god for wikipedia, or I would have nothing to do when work gets slow... ← κεηηε∂γ ( talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiHaggis | |
I hereby award you the
WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig
intestines.
Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someone's talk page! |
FYI: That stupid old quote of yours is now being translated to Aramaic (Assyrian), currently the 174th biggest language of Wikipedia, see User talk:Chaldean#Re: Translation. -- LA2 ( talk) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
To All: Please note that this discussion page is meant for suggestion and discussion of improvements that can be made to Jimbo and not to crazy people (or at least crazy people not named Jimbo). -- Lemmey talk 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am the host of the new Radio Wikipedia, a community news radio broadcast. I was wondering whether I could use your voice saying "Imagine a world in which...", in a broadcast. Could I take it from one of your videos. I would like to have an appeal for donations at the end. StewieGriffin! • Talk 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
You are the creator of Wikipedia a.k.a. my life. Thank You.RE TIRED 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
If you don't mind, please look at the following content dispute (all related):
Thank you. Finell (Talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted in the AN/I thread. While I have no particular opinion on this specific case, I did want to back you up on the general form of argument: it is valid to take into account things like public safety when working on editorial judgments about what goes into Wikipedia, and simply saying "Wikipedia is not censored" really misses the point. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I hope my comments are helpful.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody! Hope y'all are having a good day : - ) 24.184.46.196 ( talk) 22:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo.
I just wanted ask for your input on
this thread. Considering that it is your userpage, your opinion would greatly appreciated.
Cheers!
J.delanoy
gabs
analyze
23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am enjoying myself immensely. I think I should clue you in to what it has done for me, and let you know why I should write to you. I am not ostentatious; in a crowded room I'm the person who sticks to the back in near-darkness. I prefer to watch people. It sounds creepy, but it's what I like to do. You can call it shy or socially inept, but it is the same. Every once in a while, though, I approach someone to thank him or her for doing something I admire.
Wikipedia gives me an opportunity to express my intense interests though I am no authority on them. I have so far written six Featured Articles and few Good Articles on topics that move me. I'm on my way to writing more. Most of the subjects of articles I have written are ones for which I have also stepped out of the dark corner to say thank you, if possible. These are not mere fleeting interests, these topics. The subject of my first edit and my first Featured Article, Ann Bannon, is now a personal friend of mine (I'm stupefied). Barbara Gittings' surviving partner and I have a correspondence. I wrote to Harper Lee when I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, though I knew she would not write me back. If I could find an address to write to David Lynch for making Mulholland Dr., I would. It's something I believe in: telling someone you appreciate what they have done, even if if comes from a complete stranger. It's good energy that should be shared.
Today I visited your user page for the first time. I don't know why I hadn't before. I also don't know why I haven't written to you. But what you have created is more than code. I'm sometimes overwhelmed that someone who is completely plain and unremarkable such as I am, shapes knowledge that is read by millions. So—thank you for making this outlet for my personal passions, and for giving me the opportunity to be a better writer.
Sincerely,
Moni3 ( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm the so-called troll who beens vandalising your page. Firstly I would like to apologise for calling you a hypocrite, that was uncalled for, secondly I wanted to let you know that I love Wikipedia I believe in Wikipedia and I believe in you, as the de facto leader of wikipedia do the right thing aknowledge larry sanger or make A compromise. :) Wannabe Wiki ( talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wannabe Wiki (
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.
To Mr. Wales,
I grow tired as I write this, so I'll be brief. I am stepping away from Wikipedia, at least for a time. I have a logjam of final work to do for college before the term ends in July. And I notice I have been less and less well, more eaisily tired as of late. Perhaps it's stress. But in short, I have resigned from editing, at least for now. I'll return in time, likely when summer break is finally come. Until then, God Bless you brother. ForeverSearching ( talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Retitling of positions-- Serviam ( talk) 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi my name is wikieditor222 and I am a big fan of you. do you think i could make you a custom sig.Sexy SeaClownfish 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
here is the sig. tell me if you like it. Jimbo Wales
Here's the link:[[User:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:gold;color:silver">Jimbo</b>]][[User talk:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:silver;color:gold">Wales</b>]] .Sexy SeaClownfish 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Of course. Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The answer to your question, Ling.nut, is don't share the information in the first place. Period. I've been here for a long time, I communicate with many Wikipedians, and only two know my first name. None know my surname or the name of the place where I live. Real world 101 says the only way to keep a secret between two people is if one of them is dead, to quote an old aphorism. Don't use an email address that contains your name. Don't use your business email address. Don't put userboxen on your page that point people to your personal information. Don't upload your photograph. Really...the answer to how to protect one's privacy is exactly the same on Wikipedia as it is in the rest of the world. Risker ( talk) 04:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." ( Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment, see that policy page for context). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To make things easier and out of respect for the user's talk page, can the discussions be held at WP:AN? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent). Ummm, my last comment meant, "I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. permission was not given for the editor's personal info to be broadcasted by the second party" Ling.Nut ( talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I understand, but this is a User's Talk Page. There is already a thread at WP:AN, I think any subsequent comments should be made there, that is all. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To answer the original question, I don't think this is that complicated. Violating someone's trust, such as disclosing the private information, is the matter primarily of ethics, not policies. It is not, and has not become, a matter of policy for the same reason as the rules of ethics do not make it into laws, such as criminal or administrative codes, at least not directly.
Someone guilty of unethical conduct usually faces the ostracizing in the society and loss of trust of his peers but usually not direct legal consequences.
In some cases, the trust violation can bring real life consequences and the victim can pursue the grievances in RL courts of law. I can imagine that this may be possible if the person suffers a demonstrable damage by having his/her info whose privacy s/he could reasonably expect under circumstances violated.
If this is done by a Wikipedia editor (or even an admin) the Wikipedia or the WMF do not fit into all this. By far more important is taking the precaution that such info is not disseminated by the person acting on the foundation's behalf, that is by arbitrators, checkusers and whoever has access to the info protected by the legally binding privacy policy.
The (possibly deliberate) opacity of who has the checkuser access and the rules of handling such info is a ticking bomb. To this day there is no (that I am aware) document that Checkusers have to sign where their responsibilities as well as consequences of violating them are outlined. To this day, the process of giving the checkuser access remains murky. To this day, there is no even clarity on whether the checkuser is the policy issue, ArbCom issue or a foundation issue. It is made look like it is a little bit of all three and there is no way that I am alone in recognizing the grave dangers of this situation.
As for the original question and the incident that prompted it, violation of trust by the RfAdm candidate was an ethical issue, not a policy one. -- Irpen 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
After participating in an Afd I was curious if this deletion follows some notability guideline. While it is an older edit; and being a non-admin I can't see the original article, I can't find anything that says "high school athletic conferences are not notable". I know many editors watch this page, so if anyone knows where the guideline is at please jump right in! Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No clue. In general, though, I would guess that such information can not be verified or confirmed by other editors and should therefore be omitted.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
IRC, w00t!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that for starting wikipedia, you deserve a cookie. It's the least I can do.
Candleguy1994 ( talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm, coookie! Me like cookie!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! Is it a cookie!? Oh my goodness... Raymond "Giggs" K o 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales,
I have noticed that your word has rather a lot of influence on wikipedia (which makes sense to me, since you founded the project). Looking at this remark, I would like to ask you to clear something up :
In the NPOV policy we (the wiki community) agreed to give significant minority viewpoints fair coverage (but no undue weight). Do you feel this should be done even when we "know" that the SigMinView is "wrong"? Or should wikipedia then take the majority scientific viewpoint?
Example 1: Terror attacks of September 11: What if several former Ministers of major countries, as well as members of Congress, and several retired US Generals, appear to be holding such a "false" Minority-view ?
Example 2: Homeopathy: what if millions of people use these treatments; what if countless studies have shown effects beyond the placebo effect (and countless studies have found no effect)? Should wikipedia take the majority scientific (industry) view, that homeopathy is silly? Or should it remain neutral, and risk being laughed at, as for instance Haemo is said to fear
I would appreciate to learn your thoughts on this matter !
(just for your information, I am topic-banned from 9/11 articles)
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, and others, would you please reply: does knowing which view is right overrule
WP:NPOV, yes or no? —
Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪
(speech has the power to bind the absolute)
02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The playmate statistics (measurements, age, place of birth, etc.) listed on the article entitled " Stephanie Adams" have been repeatedly removed by a group of rather "unusual" users as an attempt to inadvertently and indirectly harass the person being written in the biography. If you can review the article and place the statistics back again, it would be consistent with every other playmate's article on Wikipedia. Best Regards, 66.108.144.201 ( talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed that someone already added it back a few times, including today, and each time, it gets removed again. Perhaps if you make a note somewhere in the discussion or add it back yourself, they might realize that it is a form of vandalism and leave the article alone. Have a good night. 66.108.144.201 ( talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but unless they are removed on EVERY playmate's article, they should not be discriminately removed from just one. 69.22.240.169 ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As a former blind wikipedian, I'm reposting the following part of a conversation from my talk page, in hopes that it will raise more awareness of wikipedia's major accessibility problem. Requiring an admin to create accounts for a user who can't see the captcha is not an okay solution. It says that blind people are third-class users who are not welcomed to the website at the same level as "regular" users. It also says that wikipedia does not believe we have the same rights as other users, IE the rights to indipendantly create accounts and edit pages. As well, on a blocked IP (like a school, small country, or workplace) it might not be possible to ask an admin for help creating an account. So: are audio or text captchas ever coming to wikipedia? If not, why not? For that matter, why don't we have them already?
begin conversation snip.
end conversation snip. 206.126.88.124 ( talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Having audio captcha's sounds like a good idea and the fact we don't have them is far more likely to be an oversight than a lack of care about the disabled. I would point out in response to the suggestion that this community is unwelcoming to the blind and does not accord them the status of "regular users" that to my knowledge at least 2 administrators on the English Wikipedia are blind. WjB scribe 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the information from this section is now on my user page. I am 206.126.88.124 and have recovered my account for this spacific purpose. I will update it if/when anything changes or I find out anything more. Fastfinge ( talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you'd care to weigh in here? David in DC ( talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the cases in question, the claim that the names are "well-sourced" appears to me to be wrong. The sources do not look very good at all to me, one of them is a random blog as far as I can tell.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you have not noticed this discussion. We would like to hear you opinion about this -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 08:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I support continued discussion, and it seems like the discussion is mostly going well. This is a Big Deal and proceeding slowly and thoughtfully sounds to me like a very good idea. I am not the best person to decide, so other than offering my usual advice to seek compromise and a middle path which addresses the concerns of everyone as best we can, I have no particular thoughts. I would be opposed to randomly unleashing a bot which generates 2 million articles overnight without a HUGE amount of community oversight. I would also be opposed to simply saying "no" to the whole project. So, other than those two extreme positions which I think no one is advocating, I think there are many valid options in the middle and trust that the community will work to figure out a decent compromise.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Zebra Stripe Padlock | |
To Jimbo Wales, I present to you a super snazzy, totally razzy, zebra fur padlock! I've awarded this to you because you have a cool userpage and because you are literally Mr. Wikipedia ...and because it's furry! Who can resist soft plush fur? Don't worry, it's not made from real animals, of course! --
.:
Alex
:.
17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (The manufacturer does not guarantee that no fat striped zebras were harmed in the production of this padlock) |
I noticed you (or another user claiming to be you) have recently requested an account for the ACC tool on the toolserver. Please can you verify that you did make this request, by replying here, or on my talk page. Thanks. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
Sockpuppets of Gsnguy, who received an indefinite block in October 2006 for initiating a spree of incorrect slogans for American television stations or slipping profanities into user talk discussions between users who acted on his vandalism, and has resumed the same behavior in February 2008. He was unnoticed before that month with a new behavior before connections between these socks were made, which was adding irrelevant articles about network imaging slogans that have almost universally been taken to AfD and subsequently deleted. The vandalism of the sockfarm created by TheInvisibleMachine is likely also from the same editor.
It was believed that Gsnguy may have been neutralized, as he used an IP belonging to Indiana University of Pennsylvania to vandalize and attempt to use the password forget option to unsuccessfully 'hack' accounts of other editors. The IP was reported to IUP's abuse department as a violation of the school's Internet Use Policy on March 21, 2008, along with the backstory of Gsnguy's vandalism. The abuse director with IUP responded on March 24 that appropriate action against the IP (likely Gsnguy) would be taken. However with the end of the school year, Gsnguy has resumed activity in the first week of June 2008 through either home IPs or other means.
Please ban Gsnguy from editing wikipedia, lock his sockpuppets, protect his talk pages. Please ban Gsnguy. CrazyKid2000 ( talk) 00:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting that the user coolio98 be banned for copying my name and tarnishing wikipedia articles and my pages and calling me a f*g. Coolio 01 ( talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I emailed you about May 29 concerning a news story I am writing. Just wondering if you received it? ~ Viennan U T @ 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't remember that. Try again?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello!I don't think you know me.(There's too many Wikipedians for that to be possible) But I'm here with a little proposal. Original proposal [4] here
The Basic Outlines of the Proposal are:
Thanks for your time!!!
Xp54321 (
Hello!,
Contribs)
01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Several IPs (92.2.101.94, 92.3.33.48, 92.4.223.217) have vandalised my user-page. Can you do something about these attacks? Dagoth Ur, Mad God ( talk) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I hve question. I work for a market research company that conducts screenings of films prior to their release, and naturally, I have the opportunity to see films in this manner now and again. Yesterday, I attended a press screening of The Incredible Hulk, and added the plot synopsis to the article, feeling that the movie was the source I was citing. I'm an editor and administrator in good standing, and I think that should go to Good Faith reliability that the source is valid, since it's coming out in a week. I had a feeling someone might revert it, and sure enough, someone did, saying that the movie isn't out yet. Do I really have to wait until the 13th to add the information from the source I indeed viewed? Are press screenings not valid? What about midnight showings of films that occur prior to the day of release? While I wouldn't cite a research screening, since those are held months or years before release, and the film is still considered a work in progress at that point, and subject to change, press screenings are presentations of the final product to the press, and are common in big cities (I live near Manhattan). At what point is it considered believable that I saw the film in question? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There were no press kits that I was aware of at the screening. If there were, I didn't not see or receive any, since I'm not a member of the press. I was a guest of the market research company that the studios (in this case, Universal) hires to arrange the screening, and to recruit citizens to fill seats. Moreover, the synopsis I wrote has a bit more detail in it than would be found in a press kit. So should I restore the material, or not? Nightscream ( talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, the screening wasn't conducted by the company I work for; it was arranged by one of our competitors. Because I'm friendly with the recruiters from that other company, I managed to get them to allow me to attend. While there is probably some type of nondisclosure understanding, implicit or explicit, no one can prevent a civilian respondent attending a screening from revealing anything in the film, and I was attending the film in that capacity. They even stopped having the respondents sign such cards stating as much years ago. Second, nondisclosure is more important when a film is in the research stage. Research screenings are held months or years before a film comes out, the film is still a work-in-progress, the respondents are given questionnaires regarding their reaction, and the final cut is determined in part by this. This was a press screening, in which the final cut has been determined, there are no questionnaires, and the film is screened for the press just prior to release so they can write their reviews. So my describing the plot in Wikipedia, with only minimal details, a week before release, would hardly trouble anyone at Universal or the m.r. company in question. Nightscream ( talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
1. The material in question was not a review, WAS. It was a plot synopsis, as I made clear above, and as can be seen by clicking on the relevant version. While I have posted my personal reviews on my MySpace page and Nitcentral.com, I don't know how to go about doing so on Wikinews, as a search for "Incredible Hulk (film)" turned up no results, and I'm not that familiar with contributing to that sister project.
2. The company in question does not handle promotion or public relations, and I never indicated that it did. It simply recruits civilian respondents to fill seats at research and press screenings. At research screenings, they're recruited in order to give the studio/producers/director pre-release feedback that can affect the final cut or some aspect of their approach to marketing it. This is market research, not public relations or promotion, because market research is conducted privately and quietly, before a final product is decided, and is therefore the opposite of "public". At press screenings, they're recruited because the press likes to see the film in a "natural movie setting" in order to see how the public sitting around them reacts to the film, as this is something that critics like to factor into or mention in their reviews. While I would not add a plot synopsis when a film is still in the research stage, I see nothing unprofessional about describing the plot within a week of release if I was one of the guests viewing it at a press screening. The only considerations would be spoilers (now a moot point, since Wikipedia itself did away with spoiler warnings some time ago on the grounds that readers can gauge for themselves the danger of reading a spoiler), and verifiability, for which I acquiesced to Jimbo and WAS's admonitions above. As for critics, I know of no practice of "embargoes", but keep in mind that critics write reviews, not plot descriptions in encyclopedias. I very much doubt that studios want them to hold off publishing their reviews, especially if they're positive, since the studios want such publicity. Nightscream ( talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Fawn Lake is banned user User:MyWikiBiz. DNFTT. PouponOnToast ( talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1. Okay, thanks, but I'm not interested in expanding my Wiki activities at this time. I just recently began uploading files to the Commons, and I think that's enough for now. I already posted my review on my MySpace page and at nitcentral.com. If you want to read it, it's here. Spoiler warning bookends are placed around any spoilers, and are formatted to be hidden unless you highlight them.
2. The people who fill the press screening with non-press (what I understand you meant by "promoting the film") are not "giving me money", and have never "paid" me for anything. I do not work for them, and never have, as was made clear in two different posts above. Nightscream ( talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you remember your "Sysop is no big deal" remark. It's often quoted on User pages (usually admin's) and it's a nice, refreshing idea. That's what the Wiki community should be like. I came across that quote a while ago, after reading some requests for adminship. The gap between theory and Real Life could hardly be bigger.
As far as I can see RfA requests have turned into an exam where candidates have to answer numerous questions and where their edit histories are scrutinized as if we're nominating a Supreme Court justice [5]. In my opinion the general atmosphere there is elitist and slightly arrogant, and some of the stuff the candidates are asked to go through borders on the ridiculous [6]. And then candidates still fail because 67 "yes" votes against 28 "no" is not enough [7]. That's "no big deal" in action?
In the same quote you say you sometimes consider giving out admin rights semi-random, just to make the point. As far as I know you haven't done that yet. If that's the case, may I suggest that you do it? Just to balance things a bit?
No, I haven't had an RfA fail and no, this isn't some sort of revenge against admins (some of my best Wiki-friends... etc). I honestly believe the RfA proces is turning into a monster and I'd like to know what you think about it. Kind regards, Channel ® 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
LiteralKa (
talk)
00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that The Economist knows you exist. But they think you made your money from Bomis. Are they confused or am I? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if (on that wiki) my comments seem bad, however are you a member of this wiki. Is a vandal pretending to be you? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo,
So for whatever reason I just got it in my head to take a trip back in time and look at your earliest contributions and, well... is there something you want to tell us? =) -- jonny- m t 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Man, I cant believe you founded this joint. So you would know some pointers. What should I get involved with so that I am ready for a RFA. Gears Of War 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I created this little dab page today. I remember on this page you said a while back that you saw your role on wikipedia as somewhat like that of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in the UK. What I only yesterday realised is that you actually share your surname with the 2 illustrious Princes, William Wales and Harry Wales, both of whom use the Wales surname in their current roles as UK military officers, eg Cadet Wales. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, How are you? Whatever, can i request? My request is that Fair use of Korean Wikipedia. They doesn't agree fair use.(because i heard that Korean Law doesn't agree the fair use) But I heard that EDP passed all Wikipedia. How do you think that? And can you agree fair use in Korean Wikepedia?-- Abigail alderate ( talk) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
A bit of a long shot as americans say but would you like to sign my Autograph page? I am well known in the transport areas of Wikipedia partically for starting up WikiProject London Transport which has grown to include nearly 650 articles. I have also started up many articles and have contributed to hundreds, mainly to do with transport, and I have uploaded many photos and diagrams. With thanks, UNI| SOUTH 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Una de las peores cosas de la wikipedia es la élite de bibliotecarios (sysops) que se ha formado, mientras aquellos que intentan dialogar y negociar terminan abandonando, el número de bibliotecarios "radicales" y "autoritarios" aumenta. Un ejemplo claro del daño que pueden hacer es el siguiente:
Manuel de Lekuona (o Juan Antonio Moguel y otros muchos) era un escritor vasco y que dedicó su vida el estudio de la literatura vasca, pero llega su biografía a la wikipedia y de protno una información que era importante para entender su labor y tarea (es decir que era un escritor, poeta, etnógrafo vasco) desaparece, deja de ser vasco, para ser simplemente español. Entendiend que su nacionalidad legal es la española se rogó al CRC que sentará jurisprudencia y permitiera incluir su pertenencia a la cultura y el pueblo vasco, pero esté se desentendió. De manera que ahora, a hurtadillas y esperando que nadie lo revise, debemos añadir la coletillas "de origen vasco", para clarificar, pues no se entendería a un catalán escribiendo sobre literatura en euskera, un gallego haciendo lo mismo con la catalana o un andaluz sentando las bases de las gramática del euskera.
Y a pesar de ello no nos dejan ni siquiera añadir esa coletilla de "español de origen vasco", no hay manera, quieren que esa información (importante y útil, sobretodo en el caso de escritores en euskera) desaparezca. Es por eso que recurro a ti, pues en la wikipedia en inglés se permite escribir scottish cuando un escritor ha nacido en Escocia, porque no se puede hacer lo mismo con los escritores vascos? por favor, haga algo, una recomendación (no hablamos de eliminar su nacionalidad legal, pero incluir la cultural, recordemos que el Estatuto de Gernika reconoce la nacionalidad vasca), una sugerencia al debate, no lo sé.
Muchas gracias / eskerrik asko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.202.27 ( talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey sorry about my editing of the quotations, bit.
Was my mistake, i didn't mean to do it, and didn't even realise! - oops!
I have not undone the edit, so it should be back to normal!
Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred.bradley ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, me again from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_37#Email. I sent another email a few days ago. Thanks. ~ Viennan U T @ 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No clue, can you send it again with Viennan in the subject line?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 07:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My name is Ben, i've had some trouble on wikipedia, i've seen the video on how wikipedia came about, the admins who i have recently encountered are young 16, 17 year olds that pretty much take over wikipedia like on that video on youtube. It is pretty amazing how wikipedia came about. At the end of the year in december, my friend will post you a message. Thanks for your time. ;)
Cheers... BJinsect ( talk) 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
PS.Here is my EMail so you can give me a note.....G_unitBenny |AT| hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJinsect ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
From my friend(because anonymous users can't edit this page and we can't register on the school network): Wikipedia is really helpful. Thank you so much for this amazing website. From Sami and Yupei-- Faizaguo ( talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to spam your talk page but I would be grateful if you could make a few articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, the project which tackles systemic bias. Your articles have a greater chance of surviving AFD than a normal editor and dont get speedy tags and prods like everyone else. I don't want to embroil you in another Mzoli's incident but the deletionists are attacking the noble endeavor to improving wikipedia coverage. Cabal111 ( talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading Wikipedia (I tend to do more reading than editing unfortunately) and I noticed something which perhaps demonstrates some of the problems of Wikipedia. I thought I'd bring it to your attention, so that maybe it could get fixed. At the very least, perhaps it's interesting.
Compare the article on Cannabis with any other article on any other plant. As an example, we'll use Hibiscus. This is an especially good comparison, because hibiscus is often mistaken for cannabis by police. These shouldn't be obscure articles, because both are pretty broad subjects.
The article on cannabis has a peculiar redirect mentioned at the top:
"Sticky Icky" redirects here. For the song by the same name from Pitbull see the album The Boatlift.
Is "Sticky Icky" actually a sensible redirect to make and is this band's song notable? Their own article mentions that their most popular song made it to #50 on the music charts and it wasn't "Sticky Icky."
The cannabis article has 78 references cited, largely internet sources, while the hibiscus article does not have a single reference. This isn't due to a lack of available internet sources, though. On Google, hibiscus has 12.2 million hits [8], while cannabis has 19.8 million hits [9]. Cannabis wins the Googlefight, but not by too much.
The taxonomy section in the cannabis article is several sub-sections long, containing a large amount of information unrelated to taxonomy. In fact, there's an entire section -- containing images -- on how the Founding Fathers used cannabis. Some of the information doesn't seem to be sourced at all, while some of it (such as the info on the Founding Fathers) seems to be poorly sourced. It also contradicts itself, saying in the "popular usage" section that Sativa, Indica, etc, isn't an official scientific classification, but then uses these same terms elsewhere in the article, in a very scientific sense, identifying them as actual sub-species rather than customary terms without necessarily any root in reality.
Worst of all, some parts of the taxonomy section are so technical that they were likely plagiarized or at least horribly paraphrased. An example:
In his doctoral dissertation published the same year, Hillig stated that principal components analysis of phenotypic (morphological) traits failed to differentiate the putative species, but that canonical variates analysis resulted in a high degree of discrimination of the putative species and infraspecific taxa.
Is this doctoral dissertation notable? There are quite a few new thesis papers every year, but they do not make it onto Wikipedia because of the WP:SYNTH rule. Encyclopedias themselves generally don't reference them either, since an encyclopedia is a compendium of general knowledge, not merely collections of facts, regardless of how truthy they might be.
The sub-section, "Various strains of cannabis," contains a number of slang terms for alleged strains of cannabis which is both inaccurate and redundant. The factual information about alleged sub-species is already in the previous section. Almost every slang term mentioned has its own article devoted to it. Then the section mentions an obscure jazz performer. Finally, the last sentence in the section (about drug-dealers engaged in branding) is likely true, but it is original research.
A long time ago, Portal:Cannabis looked like something which had been thrown together by stoner vandals. Thankfully it was fixed, but now there is a lack of content there.
The problem, in case it isn't apparent, is simple: There is a lack of good editors where they are needed (i.e. the article on hibiscus), while on certain articles, usually the more popular ones, there are clusters of bad editors. It's because of articles like this that I don't think we should really call Wikipedia an "encyclopedia." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at the dicision on this case? The admin who decided he was innocent admitted to not looking at the original evidence or reading the whole discussion. If you look at the diffs, which he did not do as they are part of the original evidence, you will see why I am pretty upset about this. The admin seems to think because he owned up to using an IP when the case was brought against him he is innocent. Does this mean I could get away with using a sockpuppet as long as I confessed when I knew I was going to be found out? I would be grateful if one admin at least could look at all of the evidence. Thanks! Jack forbes ( talk) 08:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please review Talk:Wilmington_Insurrection_of_1898 for totally unnecessary, racist language. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 ( talk) 16:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
Kudos for your revolutionary advancement of public information. You may or may not have heard of me, but I am one of the most prolific editors on all of WP. I would like to call your attention to something that is quite alarming. I believe I am being blackballed for some unknown reason. I understand that I am suppose to exhaust all avenues, but if the effort is as concerted as I believe, I am sure there will be a lot of chain jerking at Help. I think you should be aware of this issue. Sorry to make my introduction under such circumstances.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment ca va? ( i saw that you like foreign languages, so theres French) (in case you dont know what it says, its "Hello! How are you?") Reply on my talk page if you will. >|< Tratos the Great >|<' —Preceding comment was added at 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
At least we all know what you do in your free time now ;-) [10] Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Poss, that makes me wonder if Jimmy was the model for pirate admin! The artist refuses to identify her source but after looking at your picture I feel quite convinced that it was Jimmy and that this image was really sekrit communique to mobilise ze cabal. Hehe. :) Sarah 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think John Hospers once attributed this aphorism to Ayn Rand. Do you think it could serve as Wikipedia's motto? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course. And Ayn Rand would not have endorsed that second part. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall Hospers said Rand used the expression to mean one should not expect a person to appreciate a written work that exceeds his ability to understand it. But nonetheless, "From each according to his ability" seems to be what we find on Wikipedia more than anywhere else. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Randians among us will be having a right laugh at the unquestioning credulousness of the above conversants; the quoted Rand in the original comment omits Rand's reworking of the altruistic, life-destructive slogan linked above to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution". You will appreciate the subtle change in emphasis. Yours with tongue in cheek, Skomorokh 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hooray for your generic mini barnstar!!! Wheeeee!
Wyatt 915 ✍ 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that the WMF Board election voting is closed, do you have a public wish for whom you would like to see elected and seated, from among the 15 candidates? Of course, multiple choices are acceptable! - TwinkMonitor ( talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sir,
My ISP was blocked as was my accounts. I believe my accounts still are but if it was you who unblocked my IP address, I thank you for your kind act of mercy. May I ask your authorization to create a new account to start over again with? 68.236.153.166 ( talk) 06:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You would have known me as ForeverSearching before. May I have your blessing to create a new account and start again on your authority? If so, could you notify User:Metros and User:Scientizzle I have your okay? It'd help me avoid problems. 68.236.153.166 ( talk) 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Your the BEST website creator hit me on my talk page User: SPBLU (added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008!
Mifter (
talk)
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!
Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.
(Added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
Hallo Jimmy,
Erwidern Sie wenn möglich
Am besten, Mww113 (talk) (Added timestamp for archicing purposes Fram ( talk) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
You might want to be aware of this discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work on wikipedia and thanks for making wikipedia..........
![]() |
The Rosetta Barnstar | |
for your work in trying new languages on wikipedia......danke! BJinsect ( talk) 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
The history barnstar | |
for TIRELESS work on wikipedia |
Lately, a 12 year old editor was denied Adminship because of his age. One editor commented: "how can I trust an editor who has a bedtime to be an admin". I find that horrible and so now there is a active discussion going on and I want you to join in. The discussion is taking place here. Gears Of War 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading your nice user page when I've tried to click on this link: edit summary usage. But... it seems broken :-) Maybe it's just temporary problem, so there's no need to delete it, but I thought that it should be better to let you know that ;-) -- Fil nik dimmi! 11:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the end of the situation of the kids vrs adults, a cabal was formed to hopfully rebel against the discrimination. Eventualy it was deleted and a user retired because of the stress. I nearly retired and so did aother memeber. A WP:RFA, we closed the discussion deciding that it was getting way out of hand. I have lost many friends because of this refute but it is finnally over. Gears Of War 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I just happened across your userpage while looking at userboxes. So I just thought I'd say "Hi" and tell you how much I enjoy Wikipedia and being an editor here. I know you're busy, so I'll be off. ;) -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah man. Again. You've done humanity a great service by starting this project! We love you. Und ja, we do.xD Germans a pretty good language. I know a little, but... i've allways hard a hard time pronouncing words right. I'll THINK i'm saying it right, and then find a person to speak german too, and they'll tell me its all wrong. Anyways. Just dropping by... I wonder if you check this page... Cindy Flynn ( talk) 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Ting Chen has wrapped up the victory. Congratulations! Thank heavens that idiot Thekohser did not do well. LAST PLACE, in fact. HA HA HAAAAHHH!!! -- Cool as a Cuke ( talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar | |
Here's to the most well known vandal fighter on Wikipedia! GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
Sir, I'd be honored to receive your quick comment, if poss...here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community? :^) — Justmeherenow ( ) 02:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely incredible. I realize you get requested for comment on a lot of things here, but this is pretty important to a large portion of the project and involves the core fundamentals of Wikipedia. There've been discussions going on about the subject of what should or shouldn;t be included int he encyclopedia for months, possibly years now and they haven't really gone anywhere. As the owner and creator of this site I think it's your duty to do something here. - Norse Am Legend ( talk) 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
But what is YOUR view on minors becoming admins here on Wikipedia? I'm just curious as to what your opinion is. Other editors, please allow Jimbo answer himself. Thanks and happy editing!! Dusti SPEAK!! 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm.....not too sure what you mean by that... Dusti SPEAK!! 00:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
<-- That, I believe, is part of the greatness of Wikipedia in that it's not what or who you are, it's how you behave. Jimbo is largely correct and I might argue with a preference for college students or graduates; that's not necessarily an indicator of wisdom, in my experience. Actually, my experience is that college graduates can easily cause massive amounts of disruption here, to the detriment of the mission; the reason being that they "know" how things should be and don't fully understand the parameters in which we work here. Yet I have been pleasantly surprised, and heartened on several occasions, to discover that some respected admins are in their teens. I repeat, it's not age; it's attitude. I would be wary of supporting a pre-teen as an admin because it can be a rough ride; OTOH, if they can get through the roller-coaster of an RfA, I would guess that they're pretty much clued up. Fair play to them, I say. -- Rodhull andemu 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:JIMBO. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was chatting (via email) with an old friend from Bell Labs, Rich Latimer, and he said he knew you from NIF out in Illinois. Rich and I have chatted a lot over the years re: Ayn Rand and epistemology. I have ended up inventing a new language, mKR, based on Rand's work. Even closer to home, I am currently working on putting it up on Wikipedia:mKR (programming language).
I used to see Rich occasionally when I visited my kids in Glen Ellyn area. But Rich & Lynn finally took the plunge and moved to Wisconsin.
Rich tells me you're still an Ayn Rand fan. Maybe we could chat about it sometime. Rhmccullough ( talk) 03:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, I would like to direct your attention to the above case and the following WP:AN threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Orangemarlin and other matters. This has the makings of getting out of hand very quickly, and it seems that there is a lot of confusion on how the Arbitration Committee acted, and whether the above linked case is actually sanctioned by the Committee. If you have any details on this matter I am sure your opinion would go a long way in finding a remedy to this situation. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking with my journalist hat on (sorry, Jimbo), can I suggest as this unfolds that someone provide an ongoing attempted-NPOV summary of the players and the issues? As in, pretend you were writing a Wikipedia article on "The ArbCom Controversy of June 2008". That would be beneficial for everyone. As it is, I find myself having to go read A Site Which Shall Not Be Named in order to find out what it's all about, and I suspect I'm not the only observer in that position. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your post Jimbo. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in. Guettarda ( talk) 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, you encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully, but already they've announced a rushed RfAR with a novel and unrealistic timetable offering no hope of a proper detailed analysis of the evidence, or time for analysis of FT2's argument which has not yet been fully revealed. The arb making the announcement has already decided to accept this tainted case without reviewing community input. This is not helping the reputation or credibility of Arbcom, or any hopes of a legitimate outcome. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee. Please allow me to be a messenger from said discussion who invites you, per the community, to voluntarily announce a relinquishment of all your right to personally intercede in community workings and policy creation. JeanLatore ( talk) 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, thanks for commenting on one of my proposals on the above Request for Comment, even if it was to oppose it! :) Are there any of them you would support? I would be particular interested in your views on expanding the Arbitration Committee to four tranches of seven arbitrators, not three of five, and reducing the term to two years. I think the current base of arbitrators is getting overworked and underappreciated - this is probably due to all the additional responsibilities they are getting, and the fact Wikipedia's scale has increased hugely since you appointed the first Arbitration Committee back in. Increasing their numbers would reduce the pressure and probably help open arbitration cases move a little smoother, making it a nicer place for everyone. Best, Neıl 龱 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo. The things that are going on in Azeri wikipedia, are just ridiculous - and sad that no one in Meta is giving a damn about it. Please check http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Azeri_wikipedia
A Turkish editor was complaining to me that he was banned from azeri wiki because he demanded the speedy deletion of about a 8000 (!!!) EMPTY pages opened by User Vüsal, who is now being promoted to be checkuser! [12] The admins in azeri wiki are not willing to delete these completely empty pages that are only opened to boost article count, and reverted useful edits by this Turkish editor without reason. I would't have believed these if I haven't seen those empty pages with my own eyes. And the admins are now voting for this empty-page creator user to be checkuser.... I mean, shouldn't someone keep an eye on what is going on in azeri wiki and at least give them a warning that is really an outrageous way of behaviour. I wouldn't mind of the admin bit was taken back from some of the admins over there. Or at least - someone should take a deeper look into this matter at Meta. These guys in azwiki are breaching everything that Wikkipedia is about. Could you please take some time to check this situation as no one in meta cares??
Thank you in advance. -- Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I found, at
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/free_software_heroes_stallman_google_list_inspiring_individuals_who_made_everything_
a place where it is giving a tribute to various heroes such as Richard Stallman,
Bram Cohen, and several others... including Jimmy Wales.
But wait!: in the section about
Jimmy Wales,
I think it has an error. Where it says:
Wikipedia’s software is available under a free license (GPL).
shouldn't it say under the "
GFDL" instead?
My first impulse was to click on "[edit]" and fix it; but then,
(Doh!) it is not a wiki.
So maybe someone (you?) should send a suggestion to fix it.
I think the appropriate e-mail address would be [input@freesoftwaremagazine.com].
for all you do,
(and -- feel free to just forward this) (save on typing?) --
Mike Schwartz (
talk)
20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the software is GPL. The content is (mostly) GFDL.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How would I go about requesting or proposing a new project for Wikimedia... a WikiAtlas. This is a divison of Wikipedia (or not), where the WikiAtlasians (work in progress), would contribution with geographical places. I would be willing to create and admin this wiki. How could I do this?
I am not sure if this subject has been brought up before, but it isn't Wikipedia supossed to be controlled and governed by the editors and the editors only? If so, I think it is a little bit wierd that Jimbo Wales, who's the founder of Wikipedia and its sister projects is also allowed to mannage the the way wikipedia is supossed to run. This kind of controll much more resembles a dictatorship with its allready chosen ruler and king, than a free democracy where the people chooses its own leader.
I know that governing of this wiki isn't of as much importance as the goverment in a real country, still, I think it is a neutrality issue which should be dealt with, in one way or another. -- Nabo0o ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, Please take a look at this thread arabic wiki
Arabic wiki is run by a majority of Sunni fanatics, which turned the administration to their objectives. I understand that wiki should be free, but any respected democracy has RULES, nd the admins over there, do interfere with them. I've an answer, by putting 3 0r 4 tough bureaucrats (Christians or Atheists over there, to balance to judgment). I'm blocked now, for 14days again. Imagine that i translated the article of the Caliph Othman form the English wiki, and it got locked, they want to hear what they like, so to put Wikipedia weight on the blink. Regards, Jimbo. Stayfi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayfi ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never fully understood whether ArbCom is supposed to be a simple dispute resolution commitee, or something more general, could you please clarify this?-- Serviam (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If one should merge articles without at least a discussion and not putting up a merge tag, it is considered disruptive and malicious, correct? ZeroGiga ( talk) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, wie geht's dir? :) Mallerd ( talk) 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you hear it all the time, but I'd like to thank you for your time and involvement in Wikipedia. Even with all the vandalism and internal strife, Wikipedia continues on and (seems to) get a little better each day. Also, if it weren't for you, I would have nothing to do all day, and probably just sit around surfing eBay... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you have seen this, but there is a website called Metapedia, which is a quite nasty white supremacist site masquerading as an encyclopedia. Since the Wikimedia Foundation already runs Meta-wiki, would it be possible to sue the operators of Metapedia for trademark infringement or some similar cause of action?
Thank you for your time. -- Eastlaw ( talk) 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to be sure you were aware of this unwritten administrative policy which is being followed my many administrators. see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Simply put, Admins do not need to respond to Template:hangon or Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed, they only need to review the reason stated and act accordingly. - This is a very poor policy from my point of view. When a user posts a dispute tag, such as the above, they expect some type of response or acknowledgement. But administrators do not feel that users deserve any response and that it is fine to effectively ignore the tag (as long as they have read the reason posted). If you agree with this "policy", then I will see to it that the actually policies and templates are updated to reflect this POV. I simply find it impossible to believe that this would actually be Wikipedia policy, but then I am only one simple user. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel ( Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
What does "apologize where beneficial to do so" mean? If someone has made a mistake - they should apologize. Apologies aren't about making judgements on their usefulness or otherwise, they are about being honest and letting others know that one has recognized one's failings. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"I am sorry if my words were unclear." This is an example of an apology one could make even if not completely convinced of having made an error. Obviously, you are correct: if someone has made a mistake (with negative consequences for someone), then they should apologize. And if you are absolutely convinced that you are right and have done nothing wrong at all, then a pseudo-apology can often just make things worse. But there is a very broad middle ground in human interactions, in which you are not sure. You did your best, but something went wrong somewhere. Fighting to prove that you were right is often just annoying and pointless, and the source of further friction. An apology in such circumstances, even a conditional apology like my example, one which acknowledges the complexity of judging various situations, can be quite beneficial.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an
edit summary. Thank you. Quite frankly - you're supposed to be a role model to the community, and this is disgraceful. I would have thought better of someone whose job it is to set a good example.
I won't be liked for this,
but you shouldn't be treated any differently......
Dendodge ..
Talk
Contribs
21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is useful and every year is more useful; and the Foundation has improved in assets, professionalism, and accountability every year. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The use of Promotional Photos of current musical groups has been an long on going debate that seems to have died off, but the core issue remains. It is still your belief that the use of Promotional Photos to represent musical groups in Wikipedia articles about those groups should not be use simply because the group is still in existance and because of that fact it just might be possible for someone to aquire a free use photo of the group? Is Wikipedia actually better for having articles like DAT Politics with no photo of the group? Would it not be better to allow the use of promotional photos (as was the case in the linked article until the image was deleted due to "current policy"? Promotional photos are issued for the purpose of presenting the group in the best possible light and in a why that the group would approve of. On the other hand, any free photo would in many cases be of a nature that the group would rather not have used in an encyclopedic article about the group. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel ( Talk) 04:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Expanded statement: Basicly what current policy seems to be saying is that unathourized free use photos of current musical groups are a better representation of the group that authourized promotional photos. This makes no sense to me and make Wikipedia a very poor source for photographic information on current musical groups. Dbiel ( Talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, re your note: thanks, glad you like it! — An gr 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
He should receive that for being a serial spammer. Take a look with his activity: starting off with this spam edit, he created his now-deleted talk page with the same. After being blocked here in the English Wikipedia, he created his userpage in the Portugese Wikipedia with this. So far, all of his edits were in Portugese. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you an administrator, or perhaps some secret high class above all others that allows complete control?
Don't be afraid to admit it. I created an MSWLogo-based program called infsrv.lgo (the InfoBase Server) and created level rhinoboot (for the name of the high-level loopback on Netzero) as level 6: the highest level that anyone can take. Alas, any requests to set to this level are only temporary, as after the commands following the SYS ACCESS clause are executed, the level is reset to its previous state.
I feel so uninformed, like I'm asking a stupid question...
Graham ( talk, contrib) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
BARTLET: Well the President of Turkmenistan just officially extended the date of adolescence to twenty-five. So, things like that.
LEO: I think he also renamed the month of January after himself.
BARTLET: That's just greedy. Real power is knowing when to leave a little something on the table
<--- For the record, Jimbo has no ability to strike votes during board elections. While Special:Boardvote still exists, it's just a forward to a third party site hosted by Software in the Public Interest. While there are a VERY few people who have the ability to strike votes on that site (I'm one of them, for the record) in order to prevent fraud during the elections, Jimbo is not one of them. Also for the record, we report on the number of votes struck, and the reason why (in general) to the community on foundation-l. Speaking informally, but as a member of the election committee, - Philippe 00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I would like to know if you are going to come to India again?. If so when and do you have plans to come to Bangalore any time?. I would like to meet you. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will be in India in December. In Kerala. I am not sure exactly when yet, but something like 4-12 December.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Kerala is a very nice place. I was born there. Currently iam not in Kerala iam studying in Bangalore. Any plans of visiting Bangalore?. Also if i can ask what are the places you will be visiting in Kerala?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 07:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to be sure you were aware of this unwritten administrative policy which is being followed my many administrators. see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Simply put, Admins do not need to respond to Template:hangon or Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed, they only need to review the reason stated and act accordingly. - This is a very poor policy from my point of view. When a user posts a dispute tag, such as the above, they expect some type of response or acknowledgement. But administrators do not feel that users deserve any response and that it is fine to effectively ignore the tag (as long as they have read the reason posted). If you agree with this "policy", then I will see to it that the actually policies and templates are updated to reflect this POV. I simply find it impossible to believe that this would actually be Wikipedia policy, but then I am only one simple user. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel ( Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Copied back from the archive looking for a reply, I hope. Dbiel ( Talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on the history requirements of the GFDL. I'll admit that the history requirements of the license is one of the most confusing aspects of it. You were right that I'm hardly alone in this regard, even to point that everything in WP:VERBATIM having to do with the history requirements on verbatim copies is stamped "(legally questionable)". There are many parts of the GFDL I sincerely wish were more clear. At any rate, I appreciate the time you spent in making the clarification. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A while back [13], I asked you concerning the terms of Arbcomm members. You were pleasantly codial in your response that you'd take it under consideration [14].
I've noted in the recent RfC (which is already starting to be a "mess" to try to read, much less, edit) that legth of term has repeatedly come up.
Have you discussed this with anyone since the last time we discussed it here?
And is this something you still would consider?
I think that this alone might help quite a bit, since I think most of the concerns (besides the ones concerning secrecy/transparency; precedence/"binding" resolutions; and perceptions of "power") are about the activity/communicativeness of arbitrators. And I think shorter terms might be key in helping promote at least the "appearance" of activity. (And probably assuage some of the other concerns as well.)
Personally, as I said then [15], I also agree with what you noted previously [16], and in particular, considering the current "climate" , think that there should be a protection of the arbitrators from reprisal from the community, similar to the situation of sysops/admins. So in this case, the terms should be "long enough", without being "overlong".
(As an aside, I also personally think that they should have any and all tools necessary to "do the job", and going along with that, meet the requirements of using those tools, and, if they wish, be able to help with tasks associated with those tools.)
And I'm concerned that this may turn into a " witch-hunt" of some type, where others' privacy may end up being "violated" in order for someone to defend ones' self. Or where we make the system impotent, and "shoot ourselves in the foot" [17].
Thank you in advance for your thoughts/responses. - jc37 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
hello. i am friends of BJinsect, someone who has been unfairly blocked by a user named J Milburn. Bjinsect claimes he was stereotyped and cyber bullied. he thinks he has been unfairly treated. he would like his account back and possibly the cyber bully j milburn blocked. i am not him on a differnet account, i promise you. thanks for your time. -Sector311 ( talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks. i also look forward to Jimbo's advice on this. -Sector311 ( talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I would not want to waste Jimbo's time on this one. User:BJinsect was created on June 9,2008 with the first post bing a request to create a new Bot - InsectBot. This was followed by a request to change the user name from BJinsect to InsectBot diff and no indication of any previous account(s) which one would assume would exist for someone interested in creating a bot account. Not the normal actions of a first time editor. There also remain unanswered questions at User talk:BJinsect regarding additional accounts. The bot request was denied, as expected, since that was no acknowledgment of any previous primary account. Dbiel ( Talk) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I told you already I'm not BJinsect. Check my talk page. And also, we edit VERY different articles. We have very different interests. BJinsect told me on msn messenger who I could contact to try to get him unblocked after being cyber bullied by J Milburn. -Sector311 ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I know he is(was) also Bjaco, and believe he was blocked unjustly and was bullied and discriminated. -Sector311 ( talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess the only evidence I have is what he told me, and he isn't the kind of person that will lie. Don't unblock him if you don't want to, but I know who you are and what you do, J Milburn, so let that stay in your mind as BJinsect remains blocked. Thanks and have a great day cyber bullying. -Sector311 ( talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys I wanna say two things: One: I did not mean that to be a threat, I used the wrong wording. I don't want to hrut anyone and I didn't mean to sound like that. Two: I guess I overreacted now that I've looked into things I see maybe he was justly blocked. I am stupid. Sorry. I'm not even being sarcastic. I wasted everyone's time. I never knew until now that it could be read so yeah I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector311 ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia WAS 4.250 ( talk) 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy, I asked some questions about the Genetic project in English Wikipedia
here.
I am curious for the anwsers and they might be interesting for you as well.
Regards, Simplicius —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Simplicius (
talk •
contribs)
11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You are trully amazing. God bless you.-- I Am The Great Editor in Chief ( talk) 03:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo - there's a discussion over at WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone_wording that you might be interested in looking at (and I don't mean to imply anything by that; I really just think you might find it an interesting read). it's getting at some very core aspects of Wikipedia policy, and may have some broader impact across the wikis regardless of how it pans out. -- Ludwigs2 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (I don't know why, but this didn't get archived: added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC))
Mr. Wales, please see this. If you want to lead Wikipedia, then lead. Otherwise, please step out of the way. Kelly hi! 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales you are a gentleman and a scholar. I look up to you so much that I added your name to my list of role models at school. Thank you for all that you have done. --
Vhoscythe
chatter-
sign
18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You are close to all the hardware that drives Wikipedia, right? If not, can you refer me to a place where someone is?
Anyway, my question is:
How much total space (in the whole Wikipedia project, all name spaces, etc.) is taken up by Wikipedia:Requested articles and all subpages (as two raw values, maybe with a percentage)? Also, how many links are present in Wikipedia:Requested articles (et. al.), and, assuming the size of the "average page", how much space would it take up if someone (some completely godlike person) created all articles at the same time?
Thanks! Graham ( talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've been watching both John McCain and Barack Obama for a week or two and it's pretty obvious both of these articles are being edited for partisan purposes. To the credit of many of the people involved, most of the partisanship is being confined to the respective talk pages, but there's a tremendous amount of clearly politically motivated bickering going on. I'm curious what you would think about replacing these pages until the November elections with very simple soft redirect pages (fully protected) along the lines of:
Wikipedia was not as well known in 2004. I certainly don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of the parties are paying people to try to slant these articles in their direction (with negative and positive spin). Paid or not, there are certainly plenty of folks apparently trying to do this. I'm not sure if this is the best solution, but there is definitely a problem. Another admin, user:Clubjuggle, was trying to moderate the Obama talk page and has given up (in exasperation). The Obama page has been protected off and on, but leaving both of these pages openly editable seems to make them irresistible targets for political POV-pushers. Perhaps there are enough reasonable people around to keep these pages NPOV, but the amount of effort involved seems to me to be quite herculean.
As I say, I'm not sure what the best solution is but I suggest you watch these pages for a while and ponder.
Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that one of the last two sections of my talk page, as of July 2008 (preserved on this Google cache) were BLP compliant? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
You actually answer my emails and provide great points. Danke Herr Wales. Undeath ( talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, Jimbo. Do you think there should be a category "Propaganda films", at least for any film other than those whose identity as such is undisputed by any sizable group? Categories is not an area I'm very well-versed in, and I can understand categorizing work by Joseph Goebbels or Nazi filmmakers as such, because there is no mainstream group that would disagree, but the addition of such categories to the articles on the films The God Who Wasn't There, Sicko and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has been a source of conflict. Me, I've usually removed them, but some seem to feel that they belong, and that my removal of them is an indication of my own POV. It is not. I think that Michael Moore's films, for example, are obviously propaganda. But I don't think that such a category should be added, since it clearly smacks of POV. The best compromise I can think of is renaming the category "Films accused of being propaganda", or something similar. I know it's more clunky, but it would satisfy NPOV. What do you think? Nightscream ( talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Less, I didn't say that films told from a particular viewpoint are propaganda, and indeed, that wasn't even the point of my post. If anything, you seem to be arguing my point for me (at least in part). The point of my post was to ask what should we do about that category? Doesn't the inclusion of the category raise POV concerns? One person's documentary is another person's propaganda, and vice versa. Personally, I don't think any film should be categorized as such, unless it's a film on which that label is completely undisputed by anyone in the mainstream. Nightscream ( talk) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As I stated before, the only type of film that should be excluded would be films who have supporters/fans/advocates in the mainstream who dispute the label. Whether the film is a government-made one or a commercial one seems beside the point. Moreoever, is it true that some of Moore's films, like Bowling for Columbine received partial funding from the Canadian government? If so, that would complicate the line that you suggest. Nightscream ( talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am certainly interested in discussing with you via email the reasons for the office action removing the photograph I uploaded, but I will have to look into getting an anonymous email account established on Gmail first. Several friends and relatives have been encouraging me to set up a Gmail account for over a year. But I am very busy with work and with personal matters at the moment, so it will take several days before I put aside a few hours to sign up for Gmail and figure out how it works. Anyway, I suppose you and the Board are presently busy with Wikimania in Alexandria. I will let you know when the account is established.-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you simply use your normal email account, the one you used to vote in the board election?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, could you please sign my guestbook. It would so be great for the founder of wikipedia to sign my guestbook. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please! Cheers have a great day! Thankyou so much for your time. wwe socks sign 06:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy. I seem to be having some problems with a user from Pakistan called User:Minhaaj who I believe labelled us bigots, xenophobics and the whole works. He has accused us of being corrupt and unwilling to give the thrid world a chance. I told him he is wrong. Despite this and trying to reason with him, I keep getting uncivil messages like this. It is not pleasant to log in and receive such a message. What would you suggest we do about him? Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Blofeld, when you say he as called "us" bigots and called "us" corrupt, whom are you referring to? Yourself and who else? Everyone who edits Wikipedia except the person who used that language? Or some specific users? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You've made 3905 edits as of 15:18, 20 July 2008! How I envy you!-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 14:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
PS
Evidence here.
This discussion was just plain out of hand. Glad it's archived, but I'm never forgiving Daniel for that comment.-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I award you this barnstar for co-founding this amazing project. Thank you for providing free knowledge to the world. EoinMahon ( talk) 11:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
I am Dylan Borg from the Maltese Wikipedia. I edit on both the Maltese and the English Wikipedias. I am proud to be a Wikipedian and I also want to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am currently doing chemistry realted work on the Maltese Wikipedia.
From the Maltese Wikipedian: Dylan Borg ( talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. My existing User Pages: en · mt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgdylan ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We have a special admin-viewable page for unwatched article. Such a report would be incredibly valuable for finding subtle vandalism, or vandalism that slips past RC patrol. It would be especially useful if we could filter for pages that need extra scrutiny, like articles with the BLP category.
Unfortunately, this special page only lists the first 1000 articles in alphabetical order, and is only updated perhaps once a week. It's therefore been nearly useless. Since it debuted over two years ago, we've actually moved backwards in the alphabet. We can only see a small tip of the iceberg.
Some admins have proposed various ways to make the page more useful, but it's apparently not a priority. I think that's unfortunate, and I hope you could use some of your influence to help make this special pages as valuable as it ought to be. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages#Suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time the English Wikipedia got on the Twitter bandwagon. Thus, I've created an account called @ArticleoftheDay (it wouldn't let me create @Wikipedia, even though there seems to be no one actually using such an acccount) to broadcast the featured article from the main page every day. I've emailed the general info address of the Foundation about this from the email account created to register it (wikipediatwitter [at] gmail [dot] com), but I thought I'd drop you a line as well. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo...can you take a look at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buster7/Wikiknights and tell me what you think. And, if you think it has potential, how and where should I develope the idea? In the short time I've been editing, it just seems that I run across many, many editors that have called it quits. Also, I see the knights as a way to implement support for the overwhelming majority of good faith editors that wind up "going down the rabbit hole".-- Buster7 ( talk) 06:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added a "disputed" tag to Wikipedia's article titled error. How many points do I win for unintentional humor? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's no great problem in principle to have accredited/trustworthy editors to certify and freeze articles as to meet policy and guidelines and only permit major edits when they are justified by WP:RS and WP:V. In a sense, we have this with page protection, but Admins are not supposed to protect on the basis of content. However, in an accountable and volunteer community, the authority to freeze an article in an acceptable form is, although attractive in pragmatic terms, likely to be politically unattractive. I've committed my last few remaining years to transferring my expertise on to this website, because I suppose, for what it's worth, I choose it to be my epitaph. Not much, perhaps, but it matters to me. If it had been around thiry years ago, however.... -- Rodhull andemu 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hallo Jimbo, ich find's richtig gut, dass du Deutsch lernst! Eine interessante Seite gibt es hier: [19]. Sorry, der Beitrag ist etwas länger geworden. Ich hoffe, du verstehst trotzdem, worum es geht. Grüße aus Dresden (no, it's not near Frankfurt, it is near Berlin ;-)) -- Brutus Brummfuß ( talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Jimmy. Which was the MySpace blog post of death for Bedford's administrative privileges? -- harej 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
We need a better process for de-admining admins. Also, a required one month per year vacation from admin tools might be useful. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
I appreciate very much your creation "Wikipedia". I have contributed to your creation in 3 languages (english, italian and spanish) in the last years but now I believe it is changing to something where little groups (well connected to admins who are their friends) can decide everything....even create the ban of wikipedians who disagree with them. Specifically, I refer to what is doing a group of nationalists from former Yugoslavia: they have obtained the ban of all the Italians dealing with dalmatian issues. I wrote you last year about how they were manipulating the sockpuppetry issue creating multiple IP from webservers like "earthlink" and then accusing we italians. Indeed they have used last year the hacker method of stealing my IP and create, for example, a user:Dalmata sockpuppet of me (I am user:Brunodam). You probably know that an "emerging gang of wrongdoers called “bot-herders” hijack other people's computers, stitch them together in a “botnet” and use them to send spam, steal data or disrupt the internet" Please, see article on [20]". That is why I wrote you [21] and we got successively the dalmatia arbitration [22], where I was not found guity of anything. But then I found myself accused to be a confirmed sockpuppeteer of the same user:Dalmata by a checkup that did not consider the hacker method I explained before. And that was the beginning! After that the group of nationalistic croats went irritating and consequently obtaining the ban of user:Giovanni Giove, user:PIO, user: Luigi 28, user:Marygiove, user:ItaliaIrredenta and many other italians who defended the "italianity" of Istria/Dalmatia. I was accused of being all of them, of course, even if chekups later demonstrated the contrary. Then in november 2007 appeared a slovenian user:AlasdairGreen27, who suddenly from nowhere (he started saying he is a "british boy" living in Lubiana [23]) showed very good knowledge of croatian topics and a few months later now dominates wikipedia rules, creating continuously cases against we Italians (e.g.[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (4th)],[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents], [24], etc...). How a boy can master all this in a few months? May be he is a banned fanatic croatian, like user:Pio writes in Simple english wikipedia. Pio writes here [25] that this "boy" is a sockpuppet of banned croatian user:No.13 ( [26] and banned croatian user:AfrikaPaprika ( [27]; [28]). This is the only logical explanation of how a kid can write so many articles on croatian issues with perfect knowledge of the topics, in just a few months! If you check his history page you will agree that his knowledge is astonishing: a man need many years to accumulate such a knowledge. Now this "boy" is harrassing me because I am the only italian left in the english wikipedia defending italian dalmatia issues. If you check how the articles on Dalmatia were last year (even with italian points or view), and how they are now totally written by croats, you will understand why they want to ban all we italians. Now the croatian group is accusing me of being a lot of other users, who are totally unrelated to me. Some inappropriate admins banned Italian accounts of users Luigi 29, Jxy, Ciolone for simple suspects and no evidence, like they want to do with me now here [29]. They use the same trick of inserting my name as "proven" sockpuppet, like here: Cherso = 4.231.202.49 = Brunodam seems clear were the "seems" means proven! And the usual "boy" (AladairsGreen27) writes that I am user:ItaliaIrredenta even if the checkup has proven that I am "unrelated" to him! Furthermore, an anonimous user:210.19.71.60 (probably another croat) accuses me to be user:MagdelenaDiArco without any evidence and the "boy" quickly uses this accusation to ask my ban! Admin Sam Korn writes about my checkups that "Obviously there is a limit to the evidence CheckUser can provide", and this means to me that the croats are pushing my ban with incredible imagination. They argue that I post from Colorado (while I live in southern Florida), then from New York and then from Italy and then from Broomfield ....in their fanatical minds I should travel half the world across the Atlantic only to post something on Wikipedia!! Unbelievable. Why should I write so many posts from so many places? Why should I have so many sockpuppets? The usual croatian trick has banned user:Luigi 28 for being user:PIO, while they are not related and communicate in the italian wikipedia (see [30]): why admins don't see this mistake and reinstate user Luigi 28, who is an experienced writer on dalmatian issues at scholar level? May be they too are afraid of the growing power of this group inside the english wikipedia? Listen, dear Jimbo, I don't write on the english wikipedia since the beginning of may 2008 and for nearly 3 months my discussion page has been harrassed by the croats (see [31]) without any admin intervention to forbide this offensive abuse [32] at the level of teenager students. Two weeks ago the "kid" (AlasdairGreen28/AfrikaPaprika) accused me of multiple socks [33], but was forced to accept the evidences by a serious admin. Yesterday was the last false accusation against me (see [34]): How do you call all this harrassment and invasion of my privacy? And now the croats got me out, irritating me as they did with Giovanni Giove, Pio, etc..: now who is going to balance the dalmatian and istrian articles? Thanks to some admins who ban even ladies who want a peaceful wikipedia (like user:Marygiove, see [35]) all is in the croatian hands now....... Well, this post is too long now. Sorry for this, but it is my farewell to you and your wonderful creation. I hope you can prevent Wikipedia from falling in the hands of fanatical groups, supported by admin who are onesided and not based on clear and precise proofs. Sincerely,-- Brunodam ( talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mr Wales,
Would you please give your point of view on users who whine about issues on your user page with complete disregard to the processes set in place to deal with those issues? Thanks «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither desysopping him, nor "dictating" the terms under which he can be resysopped again, is your decision to make. All authority properly rests with the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jimbo is a trustee of a kind, as are all admins, in a lesser way. Trustees are empowered to use their tools as they see fit in the interest of the community. They not only may ignore rules, indeed they must, they are not mere robots. We see this every day with an efficient chair of a meeting. They bypass rules of procedure routinely. However, any member may appeal at any time, after the fact. If I had an employee who insisted on asking my permission to do something obviously necessary, before doing it, and delaying it when delay was harmful, I'd probably fire him. Depends. Kurt has a private fantasy of "legitimacy." Jimbo has the authority to use his tools as he did because (1) He began with it. (2) Nobody took it away. (3) He has not relinquished it. It's a fact that the community, awakened, would have the power to take it away if it were to so choose. But (1) the community is not awake to the necessary degree and (2) it is far from obvious that, were it awake, it would take the power away. Why take away the power of a servant? It's only shooting yourself in the foot. Speaking, now, for that community that isn't awake yet, and thus unable to confirm or deny what I'm saying, we would not take away anyone's power unless it became blatantly necessary to do so. Surely a libertarian would understand that, in theory. -- Abd ( talk) 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales,
In Uzbekistan there is no access to uz.wiki. People believe it is banned by the Government. I'd like to know your opinion about this problem and also would like to know does the Wikimedia Foundation have a power to overcome such problems. Thank you. Gülməmməd Talk 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gulmammad,
I was unaware of this problem. Can you please email me with details. In general, of course, we do not have the power to reverse the blocking decision of governments, but I spend a fair amount of my time working on negotiating or campaigning publicly against censorship. I am certainly willing to try.
If you could write to me and explain to me in some more detail, I would be happy to learn about it and try to help if I can.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
...or morning, depending on when (or if) you read this. Just wanted to say hello to you (and every other editor who has this page watchlisted.) - Hello *waves*. Thank god for wikipedia, or I would have nothing to do when work gets slow... ← κεηηε∂γ ( talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiHaggis | |
I hereby award you the
WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig
intestines.
Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someone's talk page! |
FYI: That stupid old quote of yours is now being translated to Aramaic (Assyrian), currently the 174th biggest language of Wikipedia, see User talk:Chaldean#Re: Translation. -- LA2 ( talk) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
To All: Please note that this discussion page is meant for suggestion and discussion of improvements that can be made to Jimbo and not to crazy people (or at least crazy people not named Jimbo). -- Lemmey talk 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am the host of the new Radio Wikipedia, a community news radio broadcast. I was wondering whether I could use your voice saying "Imagine a world in which...", in a broadcast. Could I take it from one of your videos. I would like to have an appeal for donations at the end. StewieGriffin! • Talk 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
You are the creator of Wikipedia a.k.a. my life. Thank You.RE TIRED 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
If you don't mind, please look at the following content dispute (all related):
Thank you. Finell (Talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted in the AN/I thread. While I have no particular opinion on this specific case, I did want to back you up on the general form of argument: it is valid to take into account things like public safety when working on editorial judgments about what goes into Wikipedia, and simply saying "Wikipedia is not censored" really misses the point. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I hope my comments are helpful.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody! Hope y'all are having a good day : - ) 24.184.46.196 ( talk) 22:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo.
I just wanted ask for your input on
this thread. Considering that it is your userpage, your opinion would greatly appreciated.
Cheers!
J.delanoy
gabs
analyze
23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am enjoying myself immensely. I think I should clue you in to what it has done for me, and let you know why I should write to you. I am not ostentatious; in a crowded room I'm the person who sticks to the back in near-darkness. I prefer to watch people. It sounds creepy, but it's what I like to do. You can call it shy or socially inept, but it is the same. Every once in a while, though, I approach someone to thank him or her for doing something I admire.
Wikipedia gives me an opportunity to express my intense interests though I am no authority on them. I have so far written six Featured Articles and few Good Articles on topics that move me. I'm on my way to writing more. Most of the subjects of articles I have written are ones for which I have also stepped out of the dark corner to say thank you, if possible. These are not mere fleeting interests, these topics. The subject of my first edit and my first Featured Article, Ann Bannon, is now a personal friend of mine (I'm stupefied). Barbara Gittings' surviving partner and I have a correspondence. I wrote to Harper Lee when I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, though I knew she would not write me back. If I could find an address to write to David Lynch for making Mulholland Dr., I would. It's something I believe in: telling someone you appreciate what they have done, even if if comes from a complete stranger. It's good energy that should be shared.
Today I visited your user page for the first time. I don't know why I hadn't before. I also don't know why I haven't written to you. But what you have created is more than code. I'm sometimes overwhelmed that someone who is completely plain and unremarkable such as I am, shapes knowledge that is read by millions. So—thank you for making this outlet for my personal passions, and for giving me the opportunity to be a better writer.
Sincerely,
Moni3 ( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm the so-called troll who beens vandalising your page. Firstly I would like to apologise for calling you a hypocrite, that was uncalled for, secondly I wanted to let you know that I love Wikipedia I believe in Wikipedia and I believe in you, as the de facto leader of wikipedia do the right thing aknowledge larry sanger or make A compromise. :) Wannabe Wiki ( talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wannabe Wiki (
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.
To Mr. Wales,
I grow tired as I write this, so I'll be brief. I am stepping away from Wikipedia, at least for a time. I have a logjam of final work to do for college before the term ends in July. And I notice I have been less and less well, more eaisily tired as of late. Perhaps it's stress. But in short, I have resigned from editing, at least for now. I'll return in time, likely when summer break is finally come. Until then, God Bless you brother. ForeverSearching ( talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Retitling of positions-- Serviam ( talk) 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi my name is wikieditor222 and I am a big fan of you. do you think i could make you a custom sig.Sexy SeaClownfish 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
here is the sig. tell me if you like it. Jimbo Wales
Here's the link:[[User:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:gold;color:silver">Jimbo</b>]][[User talk:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:silver;color:gold">Wales</b>]] .Sexy SeaClownfish 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Of course. Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The answer to your question, Ling.nut, is don't share the information in the first place. Period. I've been here for a long time, I communicate with many Wikipedians, and only two know my first name. None know my surname or the name of the place where I live. Real world 101 says the only way to keep a secret between two people is if one of them is dead, to quote an old aphorism. Don't use an email address that contains your name. Don't use your business email address. Don't put userboxen on your page that point people to your personal information. Don't upload your photograph. Really...the answer to how to protect one's privacy is exactly the same on Wikipedia as it is in the rest of the world. Risker ( talk) 04:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." ( Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment, see that policy page for context). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To make things easier and out of respect for the user's talk page, can the discussions be held at WP:AN? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent). Ummm, my last comment meant, "I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. permission was not given for the editor's personal info to be broadcasted by the second party" Ling.Nut ( talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I understand, but this is a User's Talk Page. There is already a thread at WP:AN, I think any subsequent comments should be made there, that is all. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To answer the original question, I don't think this is that complicated. Violating someone's trust, such as disclosing the private information, is the matter primarily of ethics, not policies. It is not, and has not become, a matter of policy for the same reason as the rules of ethics do not make it into laws, such as criminal or administrative codes, at least not directly.
Someone guilty of unethical conduct usually faces the ostracizing in the society and loss of trust of his peers but usually not direct legal consequences.
In some cases, the trust violation can bring real life consequences and the victim can pursue the grievances in RL courts of law. I can imagine that this may be possible if the person suffers a demonstrable damage by having his/her info whose privacy s/he could reasonably expect under circumstances violated.
If this is done by a Wikipedia editor (or even an admin) the Wikipedia or the WMF do not fit into all this. By far more important is taking the precaution that such info is not disseminated by the person acting on the foundation's behalf, that is by arbitrators, checkusers and whoever has access to the info protected by the legally binding privacy policy.
The (possibly deliberate) opacity of who has the checkuser access and the rules of handling such info is a ticking bomb. To this day there is no (that I am aware) document that Checkusers have to sign where their responsibilities as well as consequences of violating them are outlined. To this day, the process of giving the checkuser access remains murky. To this day, there is no even clarity on whether the checkuser is the policy issue, ArbCom issue or a foundation issue. It is made look like it is a little bit of all three and there is no way that I am alone in recognizing the grave dangers of this situation.
As for the original question and the incident that prompted it, violation of trust by the RfAdm candidate was an ethical issue, not a policy one. -- Irpen 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
After participating in an Afd I was curious if this deletion follows some notability guideline. While it is an older edit; and being a non-admin I can't see the original article, I can't find anything that says "high school athletic conferences are not notable". I know many editors watch this page, so if anyone knows where the guideline is at please jump right in! Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No clue. In general, though, I would guess that such information can not be verified or confirmed by other editors and should therefore be omitted.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
IRC, w00t!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that for starting wikipedia, you deserve a cookie. It's the least I can do.
Candleguy1994 ( talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm, coookie! Me like cookie!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! Is it a cookie!? Oh my goodness... Raymond "Giggs" K o 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales,
I have noticed that your word has rather a lot of influence on wikipedia (which makes sense to me, since you founded the project). Looking at this remark, I would like to ask you to clear something up :
In the NPOV policy we (the wiki community) agreed to give significant minority viewpoints fair coverage (but no undue weight). Do you feel this should be done even when we "know" that the SigMinView is "wrong"? Or should wikipedia then take the majority scientific viewpoint?
Example 1: Terror attacks of September 11: What if several former Ministers of major countries, as well as members of Congress, and several retired US Generals, appear to be holding such a "false" Minority-view ?
Example 2: Homeopathy: what if millions of people use these treatments; what if countless studies have shown effects beyond the placebo effect (and countless studies have found no effect)? Should wikipedia take the majority scientific (industry) view, that homeopathy is silly? Or should it remain neutral, and risk being laughed at, as for instance Haemo is said to fear
I would appreciate to learn your thoughts on this matter !
(just for your information, I am topic-banned from 9/11 articles)
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, and others, would you please reply: does knowing which view is right overrule
WP:NPOV, yes or no? —
Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪
(speech has the power to bind the absolute)
02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The playmate statistics (measurements, age, place of birth, etc.) listed on the article entitled " Stephanie Adams" have been repeatedly removed by a group of rather "unusual" users as an attempt to inadvertently and indirectly harass the person being written in the biography. If you can review the article and place the statistics back again, it would be consistent with every other playmate's article on Wikipedia. Best Regards, 66.108.144.201 ( talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed that someone already added it back a few times, including today, and each time, it gets removed again. Perhaps if you make a note somewhere in the discussion or add it back yourself, they might realize that it is a form of vandalism and leave the article alone. Have a good night. 66.108.144.201 ( talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but unless they are removed on EVERY playmate's article, they should not be discriminately removed from just one. 69.22.240.169 ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As a former blind wikipedian, I'm reposting the following part of a conversation from my talk page, in hopes that it will raise more awareness of wikipedia's major accessibility problem. Requiring an admin to create accounts for a user who can't see the captcha is not an okay solution. It says that blind people are third-class users who are not welcomed to the website at the same level as "regular" users. It also says that wikipedia does not believe we have the same rights as other users, IE the rights to indipendantly create accounts and edit pages. As well, on a blocked IP (like a school, small country, or workplace) it might not be possible to ask an admin for help creating an account. So: are audio or text captchas ever coming to wikipedia? If not, why not? For that matter, why don't we have them already?
begin conversation snip.
end conversation snip. 206.126.88.124 ( talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Having audio captcha's sounds like a good idea and the fact we don't have them is far more likely to be an oversight than a lack of care about the disabled. I would point out in response to the suggestion that this community is unwelcoming to the blind and does not accord them the status of "regular users" that to my knowledge at least 2 administrators on the English Wikipedia are blind. WjB scribe 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the information from this section is now on my user page. I am 206.126.88.124 and have recovered my account for this spacific purpose. I will update it if/when anything changes or I find out anything more. Fastfinge ( talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you'd care to weigh in here? David in DC ( talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the cases in question, the claim that the names are "well-sourced" appears to me to be wrong. The sources do not look very good at all to me, one of them is a random blog as far as I can tell.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you have not noticed this discussion. We would like to hear you opinion about this -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 08:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I support continued discussion, and it seems like the discussion is mostly going well. This is a Big Deal and proceeding slowly and thoughtfully sounds to me like a very good idea. I am not the best person to decide, so other than offering my usual advice to seek compromise and a middle path which addresses the concerns of everyone as best we can, I have no particular thoughts. I would be opposed to randomly unleashing a bot which generates 2 million articles overnight without a HUGE amount of community oversight. I would also be opposed to simply saying "no" to the whole project. So, other than those two extreme positions which I think no one is advocating, I think there are many valid options in the middle and trust that the community will work to figure out a decent compromise.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Zebra Stripe Padlock | |
To Jimbo Wales, I present to you a super snazzy, totally razzy, zebra fur padlock! I've awarded this to you because you have a cool userpage and because you are literally Mr. Wikipedia ...and because it's furry! Who can resist soft plush fur? Don't worry, it's not made from real animals, of course! --
.:
Alex
:.
17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (The manufacturer does not guarantee that no fat striped zebras were harmed in the production of this padlock) |
I noticed you (or another user claiming to be you) have recently requested an account for the ACC tool on the toolserver. Please can you verify that you did make this request, by replying here, or on my talk page. Thanks. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
Sockpuppets of Gsnguy, who received an indefinite block in October 2006 for initiating a spree of incorrect slogans for American television stations or slipping profanities into user talk discussions between users who acted on his vandalism, and has resumed the same behavior in February 2008. He was unnoticed before that month with a new behavior before connections between these socks were made, which was adding irrelevant articles about network imaging slogans that have almost universally been taken to AfD and subsequently deleted. The vandalism of the sockfarm created by TheInvisibleMachine is likely also from the same editor.
It was believed that Gsnguy may have been neutralized, as he used an IP belonging to Indiana University of Pennsylvania to vandalize and attempt to use the password forget option to unsuccessfully 'hack' accounts of other editors. The IP was reported to IUP's abuse department as a violation of the school's Internet Use Policy on March 21, 2008, along with the backstory of Gsnguy's vandalism. The abuse director with IUP responded on March 24 that appropriate action against the IP (likely Gsnguy) would be taken. However with the end of the school year, Gsnguy has resumed activity in the first week of June 2008 through either home IPs or other means.
Please ban Gsnguy from editing wikipedia, lock his sockpuppets, protect his talk pages. Please ban Gsnguy. CrazyKid2000 ( talk) 00:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting that the user coolio98 be banned for copying my name and tarnishing wikipedia articles and my pages and calling me a f*g. Coolio 01 ( talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I emailed you about May 29 concerning a news story I am writing. Just wondering if you received it? ~ Viennan U T @ 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't remember that. Try again?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello!I don't think you know me.(There's too many Wikipedians for that to be possible) But I'm here with a little proposal. Original proposal [4] here
The Basic Outlines of the Proposal are:
Thanks for your time!!!
Xp54321 (
Hello!,
Contribs)
01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Several IPs (92.2.101.94, 92.3.33.48, 92.4.223.217) have vandalised my user-page. Can you do something about these attacks? Dagoth Ur, Mad God ( talk) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I hve question. I work for a market research company that conducts screenings of films prior to their release, and naturally, I have the opportunity to see films in this manner now and again. Yesterday, I attended a press screening of The Incredible Hulk, and added the plot synopsis to the article, feeling that the movie was the source I was citing. I'm an editor and administrator in good standing, and I think that should go to Good Faith reliability that the source is valid, since it's coming out in a week. I had a feeling someone might revert it, and sure enough, someone did, saying that the movie isn't out yet. Do I really have to wait until the 13th to add the information from the source I indeed viewed? Are press screenings not valid? What about midnight showings of films that occur prior to the day of release? While I wouldn't cite a research screening, since those are held months or years before release, and the film is still considered a work in progress at that point, and subject to change, press screenings are presentations of the final product to the press, and are common in big cities (I live near Manhattan). At what point is it considered believable that I saw the film in question? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There were no press kits that I was aware of at the screening. If there were, I didn't not see or receive any, since I'm not a member of the press. I was a guest of the market research company that the studios (in this case, Universal) hires to arrange the screening, and to recruit citizens to fill seats. Moreover, the synopsis I wrote has a bit more detail in it than would be found in a press kit. So should I restore the material, or not? Nightscream ( talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, the screening wasn't conducted by the company I work for; it was arranged by one of our competitors. Because I'm friendly with the recruiters from that other company, I managed to get them to allow me to attend. While there is probably some type of nondisclosure understanding, implicit or explicit, no one can prevent a civilian respondent attending a screening from revealing anything in the film, and I was attending the film in that capacity. They even stopped having the respondents sign such cards stating as much years ago. Second, nondisclosure is more important when a film is in the research stage. Research screenings are held months or years before a film comes out, the film is still a work-in-progress, the respondents are given questionnaires regarding their reaction, and the final cut is determined in part by this. This was a press screening, in which the final cut has been determined, there are no questionnaires, and the film is screened for the press just prior to release so they can write their reviews. So my describing the plot in Wikipedia, with only minimal details, a week before release, would hardly trouble anyone at Universal or the m.r. company in question. Nightscream ( talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
1. The material in question was not a review, WAS. It was a plot synopsis, as I made clear above, and as can be seen by clicking on the relevant version. While I have posted my personal reviews on my MySpace page and Nitcentral.com, I don't know how to go about doing so on Wikinews, as a search for "Incredible Hulk (film)" turned up no results, and I'm not that familiar with contributing to that sister project.
2. The company in question does not handle promotion or public relations, and I never indicated that it did. It simply recruits civilian respondents to fill seats at research and press screenings. At research screenings, they're recruited in order to give the studio/producers/director pre-release feedback that can affect the final cut or some aspect of their approach to marketing it. This is market research, not public relations or promotion, because market research is conducted privately and quietly, before a final product is decided, and is therefore the opposite of "public". At press screenings, they're recruited because the press likes to see the film in a "natural movie setting" in order to see how the public sitting around them reacts to the film, as this is something that critics like to factor into or mention in their reviews. While I would not add a plot synopsis when a film is still in the research stage, I see nothing unprofessional about describing the plot within a week of release if I was one of the guests viewing it at a press screening. The only considerations would be spoilers (now a moot point, since Wikipedia itself did away with spoiler warnings some time ago on the grounds that readers can gauge for themselves the danger of reading a spoiler), and verifiability, for which I acquiesced to Jimbo and WAS's admonitions above. As for critics, I know of no practice of "embargoes", but keep in mind that critics write reviews, not plot descriptions in encyclopedias. I very much doubt that studios want them to hold off publishing their reviews, especially if they're positive, since the studios want such publicity. Nightscream ( talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Fawn Lake is banned user User:MyWikiBiz. DNFTT. PouponOnToast ( talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1. Okay, thanks, but I'm not interested in expanding my Wiki activities at this time. I just recently began uploading files to the Commons, and I think that's enough for now. I already posted my review on my MySpace page and at nitcentral.com. If you want to read it, it's here. Spoiler warning bookends are placed around any spoilers, and are formatted to be hidden unless you highlight them.
2. The people who fill the press screening with non-press (what I understand you meant by "promoting the film") are not "giving me money", and have never "paid" me for anything. I do not work for them, and never have, as was made clear in two different posts above. Nightscream ( talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you remember your "Sysop is no big deal" remark. It's often quoted on User pages (usually admin's) and it's a nice, refreshing idea. That's what the Wiki community should be like. I came across that quote a while ago, after reading some requests for adminship. The gap between theory and Real Life could hardly be bigger.
As far as I can see RfA requests have turned into an exam where candidates have to answer numerous questions and where their edit histories are scrutinized as if we're nominating a Supreme Court justice [5]. In my opinion the general atmosphere there is elitist and slightly arrogant, and some of the stuff the candidates are asked to go through borders on the ridiculous [6]. And then candidates still fail because 67 "yes" votes against 28 "no" is not enough [7]. That's "no big deal" in action?
In the same quote you say you sometimes consider giving out admin rights semi-random, just to make the point. As far as I know you haven't done that yet. If that's the case, may I suggest that you do it? Just to balance things a bit?
No, I haven't had an RfA fail and no, this isn't some sort of revenge against admins (some of my best Wiki-friends... etc). I honestly believe the RfA proces is turning into a monster and I'd like to know what you think about it. Kind regards, Channel ® 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
LiteralKa (
talk)
00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that The Economist knows you exist. But they think you made your money from Bomis. Are they confused or am I? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if (on that wiki) my comments seem bad, however are you a member of this wiki. Is a vandal pretending to be you? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo,
So for whatever reason I just got it in my head to take a trip back in time and look at your earliest contributions and, well... is there something you want to tell us? =) -- jonny- m t 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Man, I cant believe you founded this joint. So you would know some pointers. What should I get involved with so that I am ready for a RFA. Gears Of War 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I created this little dab page today. I remember on this page you said a while back that you saw your role on wikipedia as somewhat like that of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in the UK. What I only yesterday realised is that you actually share your surname with the 2 illustrious Princes, William Wales and Harry Wales, both of whom use the Wales surname in their current roles as UK military officers, eg Cadet Wales. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, How are you? Whatever, can i request? My request is that Fair use of Korean Wikipedia. They doesn't agree fair use.(because i heard that Korean Law doesn't agree the fair use) But I heard that EDP passed all Wikipedia. How do you think that? And can you agree fair use in Korean Wikepedia?-- Abigail alderate ( talk) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
A bit of a long shot as americans say but would you like to sign my Autograph page? I am well known in the transport areas of Wikipedia partically for starting up WikiProject London Transport which has grown to include nearly 650 articles. I have also started up many articles and have contributed to hundreds, mainly to do with transport, and I have uploaded many photos and diagrams. With thanks, UNI| SOUTH 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Una de las peores cosas de la wikipedia es la élite de bibliotecarios (sysops) que se ha formado, mientras aquellos que intentan dialogar y negociar terminan abandonando, el número de bibliotecarios "radicales" y "autoritarios" aumenta. Un ejemplo claro del daño que pueden hacer es el siguiente:
Manuel de Lekuona (o Juan Antonio Moguel y otros muchos) era un escritor vasco y que dedicó su vida el estudio de la literatura vasca, pero llega su biografía a la wikipedia y de protno una información que era importante para entender su labor y tarea (es decir que era un escritor, poeta, etnógrafo vasco) desaparece, deja de ser vasco, para ser simplemente español. Entendiend que su nacionalidad legal es la española se rogó al CRC que sentará jurisprudencia y permitiera incluir su pertenencia a la cultura y el pueblo vasco, pero esté se desentendió. De manera que ahora, a hurtadillas y esperando que nadie lo revise, debemos añadir la coletillas "de origen vasco", para clarificar, pues no se entendería a un catalán escribiendo sobre literatura en euskera, un gallego haciendo lo mismo con la catalana o un andaluz sentando las bases de las gramática del euskera.
Y a pesar de ello no nos dejan ni siquiera añadir esa coletilla de "español de origen vasco", no hay manera, quieren que esa información (importante y útil, sobretodo en el caso de escritores en euskera) desaparezca. Es por eso que recurro a ti, pues en la wikipedia en inglés se permite escribir scottish cuando un escritor ha nacido en Escocia, porque no se puede hacer lo mismo con los escritores vascos? por favor, haga algo, una recomendación (no hablamos de eliminar su nacionalidad legal, pero incluir la cultural, recordemos que el Estatuto de Gernika reconoce la nacionalidad vasca), una sugerencia al debate, no lo sé.
Muchas gracias / eskerrik asko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.202.27 ( talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey sorry about my editing of the quotations, bit.
Was my mistake, i didn't mean to do it, and didn't even realise! - oops!
I have not undone the edit, so it should be back to normal!
Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred.bradley ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, me again from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_37#Email. I sent another email a few days ago. Thanks. ~ Viennan U T @ 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No clue, can you send it again with Viennan in the subject line?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 07:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My name is Ben, i've had some trouble on wikipedia, i've seen the video on how wikipedia came about, the admins who i have recently encountered are young 16, 17 year olds that pretty much take over wikipedia like on that video on youtube. It is pretty amazing how wikipedia came about. At the end of the year in december, my friend will post you a message. Thanks for your time. ;)
Cheers... BJinsect ( talk) 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
PS.Here is my EMail so you can give me a note.....G_unitBenny |AT| hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJinsect ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
From my friend(because anonymous users can't edit this page and we can't register on the school network): Wikipedia is really helpful. Thank you so much for this amazing website. From Sami and Yupei-- Faizaguo ( talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to spam your talk page but I would be grateful if you could make a few articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, the project which tackles systemic bias. Your articles have a greater chance of surviving AFD than a normal editor and dont get speedy tags and prods like everyone else. I don't want to embroil you in another Mzoli's incident but the deletionists are attacking the noble endeavor to improving wikipedia coverage. Cabal111 ( talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading Wikipedia (I tend to do more reading than editing unfortunately) and I noticed something which perhaps demonstrates some of the problems of Wikipedia. I thought I'd bring it to your attention, so that maybe it could get fixed. At the very least, perhaps it's interesting.
Compare the article on Cannabis with any other article on any other plant. As an example, we'll use Hibiscus. This is an especially good comparison, because hibiscus is often mistaken for cannabis by police. These shouldn't be obscure articles, because both are pretty broad subjects.
The article on cannabis has a peculiar redirect mentioned at the top:
"Sticky Icky" redirects here. For the song by the same name from Pitbull see the album The Boatlift.
Is "Sticky Icky" actually a sensible redirect to make and is this band's song notable? Their own article mentions that their most popular song made it to #50 on the music charts and it wasn't "Sticky Icky."
The cannabis article has 78 references cited, largely internet sources, while the hibiscus article does not have a single reference. This isn't due to a lack of available internet sources, though. On Google, hibiscus has 12.2 million hits [8], while cannabis has 19.8 million hits [9]. Cannabis wins the Googlefight, but not by too much.
The taxonomy section in the cannabis article is several sub-sections long, containing a large amount of information unrelated to taxonomy. In fact, there's an entire section -- containing images -- on how the Founding Fathers used cannabis. Some of the information doesn't seem to be sourced at all, while some of it (such as the info on the Founding Fathers) seems to be poorly sourced. It also contradicts itself, saying in the "popular usage" section that Sativa, Indica, etc, isn't an official scientific classification, but then uses these same terms elsewhere in the article, in a very scientific sense, identifying them as actual sub-species rather than customary terms without necessarily any root in reality.
Worst of all, some parts of the taxonomy section are so technical that they were likely plagiarized or at least horribly paraphrased. An example:
In his doctoral dissertation published the same year, Hillig stated that principal components analysis of phenotypic (morphological) traits failed to differentiate the putative species, but that canonical variates analysis resulted in a high degree of discrimination of the putative species and infraspecific taxa.
Is this doctoral dissertation notable? There are quite a few new thesis papers every year, but they do not make it onto Wikipedia because of the WP:SYNTH rule. Encyclopedias themselves generally don't reference them either, since an encyclopedia is a compendium of general knowledge, not merely collections of facts, regardless of how truthy they might be.
The sub-section, "Various strains of cannabis," contains a number of slang terms for alleged strains of cannabis which is both inaccurate and redundant. The factual information about alleged sub-species is already in the previous section. Almost every slang term mentioned has its own article devoted to it. Then the section mentions an obscure jazz performer. Finally, the last sentence in the section (about drug-dealers engaged in branding) is likely true, but it is original research.
A long time ago, Portal:Cannabis looked like something which had been thrown together by stoner vandals. Thankfully it was fixed, but now there is a lack of content there.
The problem, in case it isn't apparent, is simple: There is a lack of good editors where they are needed (i.e. the article on hibiscus), while on certain articles, usually the more popular ones, there are clusters of bad editors. It's because of articles like this that I don't think we should really call Wikipedia an "encyclopedia." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at the dicision on this case? The admin who decided he was innocent admitted to not looking at the original evidence or reading the whole discussion. If you look at the diffs, which he did not do as they are part of the original evidence, you will see why I am pretty upset about this. The admin seems to think because he owned up to using an IP when the case was brought against him he is innocent. Does this mean I could get away with using a sockpuppet as long as I confessed when I knew I was going to be found out? I would be grateful if one admin at least could look at all of the evidence. Thanks! Jack forbes ( talk) 08:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please review Talk:Wilmington_Insurrection_of_1898 for totally unnecessary, racist language. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 ( talk) 16:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
Kudos for your revolutionary advancement of public information. You may or may not have heard of me, but I am one of the most prolific editors on all of WP. I would like to call your attention to something that is quite alarming. I believe I am being blackballed for some unknown reason. I understand that I am suppose to exhaust all avenues, but if the effort is as concerted as I believe, I am sure there will be a lot of chain jerking at Help. I think you should be aware of this issue. Sorry to make my introduction under such circumstances.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment ca va? ( i saw that you like foreign languages, so theres French) (in case you dont know what it says, its "Hello! How are you?") Reply on my talk page if you will. >|< Tratos the Great >|<' —Preceding comment was added at 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
At least we all know what you do in your free time now ;-) [10] Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Poss, that makes me wonder if Jimmy was the model for pirate admin! The artist refuses to identify her source but after looking at your picture I feel quite convinced that it was Jimmy and that this image was really sekrit communique to mobilise ze cabal. Hehe. :) Sarah 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think John Hospers once attributed this aphorism to Ayn Rand. Do you think it could serve as Wikipedia's motto? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course. And Ayn Rand would not have endorsed that second part. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall Hospers said Rand used the expression to mean one should not expect a person to appreciate a written work that exceeds his ability to understand it. But nonetheless, "From each according to his ability" seems to be what we find on Wikipedia more than anywhere else. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Randians among us will be having a right laugh at the unquestioning credulousness of the above conversants; the quoted Rand in the original comment omits Rand's reworking of the altruistic, life-destructive slogan linked above to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution". You will appreciate the subtle change in emphasis. Yours with tongue in cheek, Skomorokh 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hooray for your generic mini barnstar!!! Wheeeee!
Wyatt 915 ✍ 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that the WMF Board election voting is closed, do you have a public wish for whom you would like to see elected and seated, from among the 15 candidates? Of course, multiple choices are acceptable! - TwinkMonitor ( talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sir,
My ISP was blocked as was my accounts. I believe my accounts still are but if it was you who unblocked my IP address, I thank you for your kind act of mercy. May I ask your authorization to create a new account to start over again with? 68.236.153.166 ( talk) 06:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You would have known me as ForeverSearching before. May I have your blessing to create a new account and start again on your authority? If so, could you notify User:Metros and User:Scientizzle I have your okay? It'd help me avoid problems. 68.236.153.166 ( talk) 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Your the BEST website creator hit me on my talk page User: SPBLU (added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008!
Mifter (
talk)
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!
Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.
(Added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
Hallo Jimmy,
Erwidern Sie wenn möglich
Am besten, Mww113 (talk) (Added timestamp for archicing purposes Fram ( talk) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
You might want to be aware of this discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work on wikipedia and thanks for making wikipedia..........
![]() |
The Rosetta Barnstar | |
for your work in trying new languages on wikipedia......danke! BJinsect ( talk) 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
The history barnstar | |
for TIRELESS work on wikipedia |
Lately, a 12 year old editor was denied Adminship because of his age. One editor commented: "how can I trust an editor who has a bedtime to be an admin". I find that horrible and so now there is a active discussion going on and I want you to join in. The discussion is taking place here. Gears Of War 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading your nice user page when I've tried to click on this link: edit summary usage. But... it seems broken :-) Maybe it's just temporary problem, so there's no need to delete it, but I thought that it should be better to let you know that ;-) -- Fil nik dimmi! 11:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the end of the situation of the kids vrs adults, a cabal was formed to hopfully rebel against the discrimination. Eventualy it was deleted and a user retired because of the stress. I nearly retired and so did aother memeber. A WP:RFA, we closed the discussion deciding that it was getting way out of hand. I have lost many friends because of this refute but it is finnally over. Gears Of War 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I just happened across your userpage while looking at userboxes. So I just thought I'd say "Hi" and tell you how much I enjoy Wikipedia and being an editor here. I know you're busy, so I'll be off. ;) -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah man. Again. You've done humanity a great service by starting this project! We love you. Und ja, we do.xD Germans a pretty good language. I know a little, but... i've allways hard a hard time pronouncing words right. I'll THINK i'm saying it right, and then find a person to speak german too, and they'll tell me its all wrong. Anyways. Just dropping by... I wonder if you check this page... Cindy Flynn ( talk) 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Ting Chen has wrapped up the victory. Congratulations! Thank heavens that idiot Thekohser did not do well. LAST PLACE, in fact. HA HA HAAAAHHH!!! -- Cool as a Cuke ( talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar | |
Here's to the most well known vandal fighter on Wikipedia! GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
Sir, I'd be honored to receive your quick comment, if poss...here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community? :^) — Justmeherenow ( ) 02:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely incredible. I realize you get requested for comment on a lot of things here, but this is pretty important to a large portion of the project and involves the core fundamentals of Wikipedia. There've been discussions going on about the subject of what should or shouldn;t be included int he encyclopedia for months, possibly years now and they haven't really gone anywhere. As the owner and creator of this site I think it's your duty to do something here. - Norse Am Legend ( talk) 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
But what is YOUR view on minors becoming admins here on Wikipedia? I'm just curious as to what your opinion is. Other editors, please allow Jimbo answer himself. Thanks and happy editing!! Dusti SPEAK!! 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm.....not too sure what you mean by that... Dusti SPEAK!! 00:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
<-- That, I believe, is part of the greatness of Wikipedia in that it's not what or who you are, it's how you behave. Jimbo is largely correct and I might argue with a preference for college students or graduates; that's not necessarily an indicator of wisdom, in my experience. Actually, my experience is that college graduates can easily cause massive amounts of disruption here, to the detriment of the mission; the reason being that they "know" how things should be and don't fully understand the parameters in which we work here. Yet I have been pleasantly surprised, and heartened on several occasions, to discover that some respected admins are in their teens. I repeat, it's not age; it's attitude. I would be wary of supporting a pre-teen as an admin because it can be a rough ride; OTOH, if they can get through the roller-coaster of an RfA, I would guess that they're pretty much clued up. Fair play to them, I say. -- Rodhull andemu 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:JIMBO. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was chatting (via email) with an old friend from Bell Labs, Rich Latimer, and he said he knew you from NIF out in Illinois. Rich and I have chatted a lot over the years re: Ayn Rand and epistemology. I have ended up inventing a new language, mKR, based on Rand's work. Even closer to home, I am currently working on putting it up on Wikipedia:mKR (programming language).
I used to see Rich occasionally when I visited my kids in Glen Ellyn area. But Rich & Lynn finally took the plunge and moved to Wisconsin.
Rich tells me you're still an Ayn Rand fan. Maybe we could chat about it sometime. Rhmccullough ( talk) 03:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, I would like to direct your attention to the above case and the following WP:AN threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Orangemarlin and other matters. This has the makings of getting out of hand very quickly, and it seems that there is a lot of confusion on how the Arbitration Committee acted, and whether the above linked case is actually sanctioned by the Committee. If you have any details on this matter I am sure your opinion would go a long way in finding a remedy to this situation. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking with my journalist hat on (sorry, Jimbo), can I suggest as this unfolds that someone provide an ongoing attempted-NPOV summary of the players and the issues? As in, pretend you were writing a Wikipedia article on "The ArbCom Controversy of June 2008". That would be beneficial for everyone. As it is, I find myself having to go read A Site Which Shall Not Be Named in order to find out what it's all about, and I suspect I'm not the only observer in that position. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your post Jimbo. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in. Guettarda ( talk) 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, you encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully, but already they've announced a rushed RfAR with a novel and unrealistic timetable offering no hope of a proper detailed analysis of the evidence, or time for analysis of FT2's argument which has not yet been fully revealed. The arb making the announcement has already decided to accept this tainted case without reviewing community input. This is not helping the reputation or credibility of Arbcom, or any hopes of a legitimate outcome. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee. Please allow me to be a messenger from said discussion who invites you, per the community, to voluntarily announce a relinquishment of all your right to personally intercede in community workings and policy creation. JeanLatore ( talk) 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, thanks for commenting on one of my proposals on the above Request for Comment, even if it was to oppose it! :) Are there any of them you would support? I would be particular interested in your views on expanding the Arbitration Committee to four tranches of seven arbitrators, not three of five, and reducing the term to two years. I think the current base of arbitrators is getting overworked and underappreciated - this is probably due to all the additional responsibilities they are getting, and the fact Wikipedia's scale has increased hugely since you appointed the first Arbitration Committee back in. Increasing their numbers would reduce the pressure and probably help open arbitration cases move a little smoother, making it a nicer place for everyone. Best, Neıl 龱 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo. The things that are going on in Azeri wikipedia, are just ridiculous - and sad that no one in Meta is giving a damn about it. Please check http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Azeri_wikipedia
A Turkish editor was complaining to me that he was banned from azeri wiki because he demanded the speedy deletion of about a 8000 (!!!) EMPTY pages opened by User Vüsal, who is now being promoted to be checkuser! [12] The admins in azeri wiki are not willing to delete these completely empty pages that are only opened to boost article count, and reverted useful edits by this Turkish editor without reason. I would't have believed these if I haven't seen those empty pages with my own eyes. And the admins are now voting for this empty-page creator user to be checkuser.... I mean, shouldn't someone keep an eye on what is going on in azeri wiki and at least give them a warning that is really an outrageous way of behaviour. I wouldn't mind of the admin bit was taken back from some of the admins over there. Or at least - someone should take a deeper look into this matter at Meta. These guys in azwiki are breaching everything that Wikkipedia is about. Could you please take some time to check this situation as no one in meta cares??
Thank you in advance. -- Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I found, at
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/free_software_heroes_stallman_google_list_inspiring_individuals_who_made_everything_
a place where it is giving a tribute to various heroes such as Richard Stallman,
Bram Cohen, and several others... including Jimmy Wales.
But wait!: in the section about
Jimmy Wales,
I think it has an error. Where it says:
Wikipedia’s software is available under a free license (GPL).
shouldn't it say under the "
GFDL" instead?
My first impulse was to click on "[edit]" and fix it; but then,
(Doh!) it is not a wiki.
So maybe someone (you?) should send a suggestion to fix it.
I think the appropriate e-mail address would be [input@freesoftwaremagazine.com].
for all you do,
(and -- feel free to just forward this) (save on typing?) --
Mike Schwartz (
talk)
20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the software is GPL. The content is (mostly) GFDL.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How would I go about requesting or proposing a new project for Wikimedia... a WikiAtlas. This is a divison of Wikipedia (or not), where the WikiAtlasians (work in progress), would contribution with geographical places. I would be willing to create and admin this wiki. How could I do this?
I am not sure if this subject has been brought up before, but it isn't Wikipedia supossed to be controlled and governed by the editors and the editors only? If so, I think it is a little bit wierd that Jimbo Wales, who's the founder of Wikipedia and its sister projects is also allowed to mannage the the way wikipedia is supossed to run. This kind of controll much more resembles a dictatorship with its allready chosen ruler and king, than a free democracy where the people chooses its own leader.
I know that governing of this wiki isn't of as much importance as the goverment in a real country, still, I think it is a neutrality issue which should be dealt with, in one way or another. -- Nabo0o ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, Please take a look at this thread arabic wiki
Arabic wiki is run by a majority of Sunni fanatics, which turned the administration to their objectives. I understand that wiki should be free, but any respected democracy has RULES, nd the admins over there, do interfere with them. I've an answer, by putting 3 0r 4 tough bureaucrats (Christians or Atheists over there, to balance to judgment). I'm blocked now, for 14days again. Imagine that i translated the article of the Caliph Othman form the English wiki, and it got locked, they want to hear what they like, so to put Wikipedia weight on the blink. Regards, Jimbo. Stayfi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayfi ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never fully understood whether ArbCom is supposed to be a simple dispute resolution commitee, or something more general, could you please clarify this?-- Serviam (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If one should merge articles without at least a discussion and not putting up a merge tag, it is considered disruptive and malicious, correct? ZeroGiga ( talk) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, wie geht's dir? :) Mallerd ( talk) 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you hear it all the time, but I'd like to thank you for your time and involvement in Wikipedia. Even with all the vandalism and internal strife, Wikipedia continues on and (seems to) get a little better each day. Also, if it weren't for you, I would have nothing to do all day, and probably just sit around surfing eBay... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you have seen this, but there is a website called Metapedia, which is a quite nasty white supremacist site masquerading as an encyclopedia. Since the Wikimedia Foundation already runs Meta-wiki, would it be possible to sue the operators of Metapedia for trademark infringement or some similar cause of action?
Thank you for your time. -- Eastlaw ( talk) 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to be sure you were aware of this unwritten administrative policy which is being followed my many administrators. see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Simply put, Admins do not need to respond to Template:hangon or Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed, they only need to review the reason stated and act accordingly. - This is a very poor policy from my point of view. When a user posts a dispute tag, such as the above, they expect some type of response or acknowledgement. But administrators do not feel that users deserve any response and that it is fine to effectively ignore the tag (as long as they have read the reason posted). If you agree with this "policy", then I will see to it that the actually policies and templates are updated to reflect this POV. I simply find it impossible to believe that this would actually be Wikipedia policy, but then I am only one simple user. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel ( Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
What does "apologize where beneficial to do so" mean? If someone has made a mistake - they should apologize. Apologies aren't about making judgements on their usefulness or otherwise, they are about being honest and letting others know that one has recognized one's failings. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"I am sorry if my words were unclear." This is an example of an apology one could make even if not completely convinced of having made an error. Obviously, you are correct: if someone has made a mistake (with negative consequences for someone), then they should apologize. And if you are absolutely convinced that you are right and have done nothing wrong at all, then a pseudo-apology can often just make things worse. But there is a very broad middle ground in human interactions, in which you are not sure. You did your best, but something went wrong somewhere. Fighting to prove that you were right is often just annoying and pointless, and the source of further friction. An apology in such circumstances, even a conditional apology like my example, one which acknowledges the complexity of judging various situations, can be quite beneficial.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an
edit summary. Thank you. Quite frankly - you're supposed to be a role model to the community, and this is disgraceful. I would have thought better of someone whose job it is to set a good example.
I won't be liked for this,
but you shouldn't be treated any differently......
Dendodge ..
Talk
Contribs
21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is useful and every year is more useful; and the Foundation has improved in assets, professionalism, and accountability every year. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The use of Promotional Photos of current musical groups has been an long on going debate that seems to have died off, but the core issue remains. It is still your belief that the use of Promotional Photos to represent musical groups in Wikipedia articles about those groups should not be use simply because the group is still in existance and because of that fact it just might be possible for someone to aquire a free use photo of the group? Is Wikipedia actually better for having articles like DAT Politics with no photo of the group? Would it not be better to allow the use of promotional photos (as was the case in the linked article until the image was deleted due to "current policy"? Promotional photos are issued for the purpose of presenting the group in the best possible light and in a why that the group would approve of. On the other hand, any free photo would in many cases be of a nature that the group would rather not have used in an encyclopedic article about the group. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel ( Talk) 04:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Expanded statement: Basicly what current policy seems to be saying is that unathourized free use photos of current musical groups are a better representation of the group that authourized promotional photos. This makes no sense to me and make Wikipedia a very poor source for photographic information on current musical groups. Dbiel ( Talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, re your note: thanks, glad you like it! — An gr 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
He should receive that for being a serial spammer. Take a look with his activity: starting off with this spam edit, he created his now-deleted talk page with the same. After being blocked here in the English Wikipedia, he created his userpage in the Portugese Wikipedia with this. So far, all of his edits were in Portugese. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you an administrator, or perhaps some secret high class above all others that allows complete control?
Don't be afraid to admit it. I created an MSWLogo-based program called infsrv.lgo (the InfoBase Server) and created level rhinoboot (for the name of the high-level loopback on Netzero) as level 6: the highest level that anyone can take. Alas, any requests to set to this level are only temporary, as after the commands following the SYS ACCESS clause are executed, the level is reset to its previous state.
I feel so uninformed, like I'm asking a stupid question...
Graham ( talk, contrib) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
BARTLET: Well the President of Turkmenistan just officially extended the date of adolescence to twenty-five. So, things like that.
LEO: I think he also renamed the month of January after himself.
BARTLET: That's just greedy. Real power is knowing when to leave a little something on the table
<--- For the record, Jimbo has no ability to strike votes during board elections. While Special:Boardvote still exists, it's just a forward to a third party site hosted by Software in the Public Interest. While there are a VERY few people who have the ability to strike votes on that site (I'm one of them, for the record) in order to prevent fraud during the elections, Jimbo is not one of them. Also for the record, we report on the number of votes struck, and the reason why (in general) to the community on foundation-l. Speaking informally, but as a member of the election committee, - Philippe 00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I would like to know if you are going to come to India again?. If so when and do you have plans to come to Bangalore any time?. I would like to meet you. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will be in India in December. In Kerala. I am not sure exactly when yet, but something like 4-12 December.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Kerala is a very nice place. I was born there. Currently iam not in Kerala iam studying in Bangalore. Any plans of visiting Bangalore?. Also if i can ask what are the places you will be visiting in Kerala?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 07:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to be sure you were aware of this unwritten administrative policy which is being followed my many administrators. see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Simply put, Admins do not need to respond to Template:hangon or Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed, they only need to review the reason stated and act accordingly. - This is a very poor policy from my point of view. When a user posts a dispute tag, such as the above, they expect some type of response or acknowledgement. But administrators do not feel that users deserve any response and that it is fine to effectively ignore the tag (as long as they have read the reason posted). If you agree with this "policy", then I will see to it that the actually policies and templates are updated to reflect this POV. I simply find it impossible to believe that this would actually be Wikipedia policy, but then I am only one simple user. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel ( Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Copied back from the archive looking for a reply, I hope. Dbiel ( Talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on the history requirements of the GFDL. I'll admit that the history requirements of the license is one of the most confusing aspects of it. You were right that I'm hardly alone in this regard, even to point that everything in WP:VERBATIM having to do with the history requirements on verbatim copies is stamped "(legally questionable)". There are many parts of the GFDL I sincerely wish were more clear. At any rate, I appreciate the time you spent in making the clarification. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A while back [13], I asked you concerning the terms of Arbcomm members. You were pleasantly codial in your response that you'd take it under consideration [14].
I've noted in the recent RfC (which is already starting to be a "mess" to try to read, much less, edit) that legth of term has repeatedly come up.
Have you discussed this with anyone since the last time we discussed it here?
And is this something you still would consider?
I think that this alone might help quite a bit, since I think most of the concerns (besides the ones concerning secrecy/transparency; precedence/"binding" resolutions; and perceptions of "power") are about the activity/communicativeness of arbitrators. And I think shorter terms might be key in helping promote at least the "appearance" of activity. (And probably assuage some of the other concerns as well.)
Personally, as I said then [15], I also agree with what you noted previously [16], and in particular, considering the current "climate" , think that there should be a protection of the arbitrators from reprisal from the community, similar to the situation of sysops/admins. So in this case, the terms should be "long enough", without being "overlong".
(As an aside, I also personally think that they should have any and all tools necessary to "do the job", and going along with that, meet the requirements of using those tools, and, if they wish, be able to help with tasks associated with those tools.)
And I'm concerned that this may turn into a " witch-hunt" of some type, where others' privacy may end up being "violated" in order for someone to defend ones' self. Or where we make the system impotent, and "shoot ourselves in the foot" [17].
Thank you in advance for your thoughts/responses. - jc37 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
hello. i am friends of BJinsect, someone who has been unfairly blocked by a user named J Milburn. Bjinsect claimes he was stereotyped and cyber bullied. he thinks he has been unfairly treated. he would like his account back and possibly the cyber bully j milburn blocked. i am not him on a differnet account, i promise you. thanks for your time. -Sector311 ( talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks. i also look forward to Jimbo's advice on this. -Sector311 ( talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I would not want to waste Jimbo's time on this one. User:BJinsect was created on June 9,2008 with the first post bing a request to create a new Bot - InsectBot. This was followed by a request to change the user name from BJinsect to InsectBot diff and no indication of any previous account(s) which one would assume would exist for someone interested in creating a bot account. Not the normal actions of a first time editor. There also remain unanswered questions at User talk:BJinsect regarding additional accounts. The bot request was denied, as expected, since that was no acknowledgment of any previous primary account. Dbiel ( Talk) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I told you already I'm not BJinsect. Check my talk page. And also, we edit VERY different articles. We have very different interests. BJinsect told me on msn messenger who I could contact to try to get him unblocked after being cyber bullied by J Milburn. -Sector311 ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I know he is(was) also Bjaco, and believe he was blocked unjustly and was bullied and discriminated. -Sector311 ( talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess the only evidence I have is what he told me, and he isn't the kind of person that will lie. Don't unblock him if you don't want to, but I know who you are and what you do, J Milburn, so let that stay in your mind as BJinsect remains blocked. Thanks and have a great day cyber bullying. -Sector311 ( talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys I wanna say two things: One: I did not mean that to be a threat, I used the wrong wording. I don't want to hrut anyone and I didn't mean to sound like that. Two: I guess I overreacted now that I've looked into things I see maybe he was justly blocked. I am stupid. Sorry. I'm not even being sarcastic. I wasted everyone's time. I never knew until now that it could be read so yeah I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector311 ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia WAS 4.250 ( talk) 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy, I asked some questions about the Genetic project in English Wikipedia
here.
I am curious for the anwsers and they might be interesting for you as well.
Regards, Simplicius —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Simplicius (
talk •
contribs)
11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You are trully amazing. God bless you.-- I Am The Great Editor in Chief ( talk) 03:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo - there's a discussion over at WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone_wording that you might be interested in looking at (and I don't mean to imply anything by that; I really just think you might find it an interesting read). it's getting at some very core aspects of Wikipedia policy, and may have some broader impact across the wikis regardless of how it pans out. -- Ludwigs2 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (I don't know why, but this didn't get archived: added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram ( talk) 07:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC))
Mr. Wales, please see this. If you want to lead Wikipedia, then lead. Otherwise, please step out of the way. Kelly hi! 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales you are a gentleman and a scholar. I look up to you so much that I added your name to my list of role models at school. Thank you for all that you have done. --
Vhoscythe
chatter-
sign
18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You are close to all the hardware that drives Wikipedia, right? If not, can you refer me to a place where someone is?
Anyway, my question is:
How much total space (in the whole Wikipedia project, all name spaces, etc.) is taken up by Wikipedia:Requested articles and all subpages (as two raw values, maybe with a percentage)? Also, how many links are present in Wikipedia:Requested articles (et. al.), and, assuming the size of the "average page", how much space would it take up if someone (some completely godlike person) created all articles at the same time?
Thanks! Graham ( talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've been watching both John McCain and Barack Obama for a week or two and it's pretty obvious both of these articles are being edited for partisan purposes. To the credit of many of the people involved, most of the partisanship is being confined to the respective talk pages, but there's a tremendous amount of clearly politically motivated bickering going on. I'm curious what you would think about replacing these pages until the November elections with very simple soft redirect pages (fully protected) along the lines of:
Wikipedia was not as well known in 2004. I certainly don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of the parties are paying people to try to slant these articles in their direction (with negative and positive spin). Paid or not, there are certainly plenty of folks apparently trying to do this. I'm not sure if this is the best solution, but there is definitely a problem. Another admin, user:Clubjuggle, was trying to moderate the Obama talk page and has given up (in exasperation). The Obama page has been protected off and on, but leaving both of these pages openly editable seems to make them irresistible targets for political POV-pushers. Perhaps there are enough reasonable people around to keep these pages NPOV, but the amount of effort involved seems to me to be quite herculean.
As I say, I'm not sure what the best solution is but I suggest you watch these pages for a while and ponder.
Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that one of the last two sections of my talk page, as of July 2008 (preserved on this Google cache) were BLP compliant? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
You actually answer my emails and provide great points. Danke Herr Wales. Undeath ( talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, Jimbo. Do you think there should be a category "Propaganda films", at least for any film other than those whose identity as such is undisputed by any sizable group? Categories is not an area I'm very well-versed in, and I can understand categorizing work by Joseph Goebbels or Nazi filmmakers as such, because there is no mainstream group that would disagree, but the addition of such categories to the articles on the films The God Who Wasn't There, Sicko and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has been a source of conflict. Me, I've usually removed them, but some seem to feel that they belong, and that my removal of them is an indication of my own POV. It is not. I think that Michael Moore's films, for example, are obviously propaganda. But I don't think that such a category should be added, since it clearly smacks of POV. The best compromise I can think of is renaming the category "Films accused of being propaganda", or something similar. I know it's more clunky, but it would satisfy NPOV. What do you think? Nightscream ( talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Less, I didn't say that films told from a particular viewpoint are propaganda, and indeed, that wasn't even the point of my post. If anything, you seem to be arguing my point for me (at least in part). The point of my post was to ask what should we do about that category? Doesn't the inclusion of the category raise POV concerns? One person's documentary is another person's propaganda, and vice versa. Personally, I don't think any film should be categorized as such, unless it's a film on which that label is completely undisputed by anyone in the mainstream. Nightscream ( talk) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As I stated before, the only type of film that should be excluded would be films who have supporters/fans/advocates in the mainstream who dispute the label. Whether the film is a government-made one or a commercial one seems beside the point. Moreoever, is it true that some of Moore's films, like Bowling for Columbine received partial funding from the Canadian government? If so, that would complicate the line that you suggest. Nightscream ( talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am certainly interested in discussing with you via email the reasons for the office action removing the photograph I uploaded, but I will have to look into getting an anonymous email account established on Gmail first. Several friends and relatives have been encouraging me to set up a Gmail account for over a year. But I am very busy with work and with personal matters at the moment, so it will take several days before I put aside a few hours to sign up for Gmail and figure out how it works. Anyway, I suppose you and the Board are presently busy with Wikimania in Alexandria. I will let you know when the account is established.-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you simply use your normal email account, the one you used to vote in the board election?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, could you please sign my guestbook. It would so be great for the founder of wikipedia to sign my guestbook. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please! Cheers have a great day! Thankyou so much for your time. wwe socks sign 06:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy. I seem to be having some problems with a user from Pakistan called User:Minhaaj who I believe labelled us bigots, xenophobics and the whole works. He has accused us of being corrupt and unwilling to give the thrid world a chance. I told him he is wrong. Despite this and trying to reason with him, I keep getting uncivil messages like this. It is not pleasant to log in and receive such a message. What would you suggest we do about him? Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Blofeld, when you say he as called "us" bigots and called "us" corrupt, whom are you referring to? Yourself and who else? Everyone who edits Wikipedia except the person who used that language? Or some specific users? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You've made 3905 edits as of 15:18, 20 July 2008! How I envy you!-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 14:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
PS
Evidence here.
This discussion was just plain out of hand. Glad it's archived, but I'm never forgiving Daniel for that comment.-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I award you this barnstar for co-founding this amazing project. Thank you for providing free knowledge to the world. EoinMahon ( talk) 11:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
I am Dylan Borg from the Maltese Wikipedia. I edit on both the Maltese and the English Wikipedias. I am proud to be a Wikipedian and I also want to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am currently doing chemistry realted work on the Maltese Wikipedia.
From the Maltese Wikipedian: Dylan Borg ( talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. My existing User Pages: en · mt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgdylan ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We have a special admin-viewable page for unwatched article. Such a report would be incredibly valuable for finding subtle vandalism, or vandalism that slips past RC patrol. It would be especially useful if we could filter for pages that need extra scrutiny, like articles with the BLP category.
Unfortunately, this special page only lists the first 1000 articles in alphabetical order, and is only updated perhaps once a week. It's therefore been nearly useless. Since it debuted over two years ago, we've actually moved backwards in the alphabet. We can only see a small tip of the iceberg.
Some admins have proposed various ways to make the page more useful, but it's apparently not a priority. I think that's unfortunate, and I hope you could use some of your influence to help make this special pages as valuable as it ought to be. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages#Suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time the English Wikipedia got on the Twitter bandwagon. Thus, I've created an account called @ArticleoftheDay (it wouldn't let me create @Wikipedia, even though there seems to be no one actually using such an acccount) to broadcast the featured article from the main page every day. I've emailed the general info address of the Foundation about this from the email account created to register it (wikipediatwitter [at] gmail [dot] com), but I thought I'd drop you a line as well. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo...can you take a look at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buster7/Wikiknights and tell me what you think. And, if you think it has potential, how and where should I develope the idea? In the short time I've been editing, it just seems that I run across many, many editors that have called it quits. Also, I see the knights as a way to implement support for the overwhelming majority of good faith editors that wind up "going down the rabbit hole".-- Buster7 ( talk) 06:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added a "disputed" tag to Wikipedia's article titled error. How many points do I win for unintentional humor? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's no great problem in principle to have accredited/trustworthy editors to certify and freeze articles as to meet policy and guidelines and only permit major edits when they are justified by WP:RS and WP:V. In a sense, we have this with page protection, but Admins are not supposed to protect on the basis of content. However, in an accountable and volunteer community, the authority to freeze an article in an acceptable form is, although attractive in pragmatic terms, likely to be politically unattractive. I've committed my last few remaining years to transferring my expertise on to this website, because I suppose, for what it's worth, I choose it to be my epitaph. Not much, perhaps, but it matters to me. If it had been around thiry years ago, however.... -- Rodhull andemu 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hallo Jimbo, ich find's richtig gut, dass du Deutsch lernst! Eine interessante Seite gibt es hier: [19]. Sorry, der Beitrag ist etwas länger geworden. Ich hoffe, du verstehst trotzdem, worum es geht. Grüße aus Dresden (no, it's not near Frankfurt, it is near Berlin ;-)) -- Brutus Brummfuß ( talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Jimmy. Which was the MySpace blog post of death for Bedford's administrative privileges? -- harej 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
We need a better process for de-admining admins. Also, a required one month per year vacation from admin tools might be useful. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
I appreciate very much your creation "Wikipedia". I have contributed to your creation in 3 languages (english, italian and spanish) in the last years but now I believe it is changing to something where little groups (well connected to admins who are their friends) can decide everything....even create the ban of wikipedians who disagree with them. Specifically, I refer to what is doing a group of nationalists from former Yugoslavia: they have obtained the ban of all the Italians dealing with dalmatian issues. I wrote you last year about how they were manipulating the sockpuppetry issue creating multiple IP from webservers like "earthlink" and then accusing we italians. Indeed they have used last year the hacker method of stealing my IP and create, for example, a user:Dalmata sockpuppet of me (I am user:Brunodam). You probably know that an "emerging gang of wrongdoers called “bot-herders” hijack other people's computers, stitch them together in a “botnet” and use them to send spam, steal data or disrupt the internet" Please, see article on [20]". That is why I wrote you [21] and we got successively the dalmatia arbitration [22], where I was not found guity of anything. But then I found myself accused to be a confirmed sockpuppeteer of the same user:Dalmata by a checkup that did not consider the hacker method I explained before. And that was the beginning! After that the group of nationalistic croats went irritating and consequently obtaining the ban of user:Giovanni Giove, user:PIO, user: Luigi 28, user:Marygiove, user:ItaliaIrredenta and many other italians who defended the "italianity" of Istria/Dalmatia. I was accused of being all of them, of course, even if chekups later demonstrated the contrary. Then in november 2007 appeared a slovenian user:AlasdairGreen27, who suddenly from nowhere (he started saying he is a "british boy" living in Lubiana [23]) showed very good knowledge of croatian topics and a few months later now dominates wikipedia rules, creating continuously cases against we Italians (e.g.[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (4th)],[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents], [24], etc...). How a boy can master all this in a few months? May be he is a banned fanatic croatian, like user:Pio writes in Simple english wikipedia. Pio writes here [25] that this "boy" is a sockpuppet of banned croatian user:No.13 ( [26] and banned croatian user:AfrikaPaprika ( [27]; [28]). This is the only logical explanation of how a kid can write so many articles on croatian issues with perfect knowledge of the topics, in just a few months! If you check his history page you will agree that his knowledge is astonishing: a man need many years to accumulate such a knowledge. Now this "boy" is harrassing me because I am the only italian left in the english wikipedia defending italian dalmatia issues. If you check how the articles on Dalmatia were last year (even with italian points or view), and how they are now totally written by croats, you will understand why they want to ban all we italians. Now the croatian group is accusing me of being a lot of other users, who are totally unrelated to me. Some inappropriate admins banned Italian accounts of users Luigi 29, Jxy, Ciolone for simple suspects and no evidence, like they want to do with me now here [29]. They use the same trick of inserting my name as "proven" sockpuppet, like here: Cherso = 4.231.202.49 = Brunodam seems clear were the "seems" means proven! And the usual "boy" (AladairsGreen27) writes that I am user:ItaliaIrredenta even if the checkup has proven that I am "unrelated" to him! Furthermore, an anonimous user:210.19.71.60 (probably another croat) accuses me to be user:MagdelenaDiArco without any evidence and the "boy" quickly uses this accusation to ask my ban! Admin Sam Korn writes about my checkups that "Obviously there is a limit to the evidence CheckUser can provide", and this means to me that the croats are pushing my ban with incredible imagination. They argue that I post from Colorado (while I live in southern Florida), then from New York and then from Italy and then from Broomfield ....in their fanatical minds I should travel half the world across the Atlantic only to post something on Wikipedia!! Unbelievable. Why should I write so many posts from so many places? Why should I have so many sockpuppets? The usual croatian trick has banned user:Luigi 28 for being user:PIO, while they are not related and communicate in the italian wikipedia (see [30]): why admins don't see this mistake and reinstate user Luigi 28, who is an experienced writer on dalmatian issues at scholar level? May be they too are afraid of the growing power of this group inside the english wikipedia? Listen, dear Jimbo, I don't write on the english wikipedia since the beginning of may 2008 and for nearly 3 months my discussion page has been harrassed by the croats (see [31]) without any admin intervention to forbide this offensive abuse [32] at the level of teenager students. Two weeks ago the "kid" (AlasdairGreen28/AfrikaPaprika) accused me of multiple socks [33], but was forced to accept the evidences by a serious admin. Yesterday was the last false accusation against me (see [34]): How do you call all this harrassment and invasion of my privacy? And now the croats got me out, irritating me as they did with Giovanni Giove, Pio, etc..: now who is going to balance the dalmatian and istrian articles? Thanks to some admins who ban even ladies who want a peaceful wikipedia (like user:Marygiove, see [35]) all is in the croatian hands now....... Well, this post is too long now. Sorry for this, but it is my farewell to you and your wonderful creation. I hope you can prevent Wikipedia from falling in the hands of fanatical groups, supported by admin who are onesided and not based on clear and precise proofs. Sincerely,-- Brunodam ( talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mr Wales,
Would you please give your point of view on users who whine about issues on your user page with complete disregard to the processes set in place to deal with those issues? Thanks «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither desysopping him, nor "dictating" the terms under which he can be resysopped again, is your decision to make. All authority properly rests with the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jimbo is a trustee of a kind, as are all admins, in a lesser way. Trustees are empowered to use their tools as they see fit in the interest of the community. They not only may ignore rules, indeed they must, they are not mere robots. We see this every day with an efficient chair of a meeting. They bypass rules of procedure routinely. However, any member may appeal at any time, after the fact. If I had an employee who insisted on asking my permission to do something obviously necessary, before doing it, and delaying it when delay was harmful, I'd probably fire him. Depends. Kurt has a private fantasy of "legitimacy." Jimbo has the authority to use his tools as he did because (1) He began with it. (2) Nobody took it away. (3) He has not relinquished it. It's a fact that the community, awakened, would have the power to take it away if it were to so choose. But (1) the community is not awake to the necessary degree and (2) it is far from obvious that, were it awake, it would take the power away. Why take away the power of a servant? It's only shooting yourself in the foot. Speaking, now, for that community that isn't awake yet, and thus unable to confirm or deny what I'm saying, we would not take away anyone's power unless it became blatantly necessary to do so. Surely a libertarian would understand that, in theory. -- Abd ( talk) 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales,
In Uzbekistan there is no access to uz.wiki. People believe it is banned by the Government. I'd like to know your opinion about this problem and also would like to know does the Wikimedia Foundation have a power to overcome such problems. Thank you. Gülməmməd Talk 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Gulmammad,
I was unaware of this problem. Can you please email me with details. In general, of course, we do not have the power to reverse the blocking decision of governments, but I spend a fair amount of my time working on negotiating or campaigning publicly against censorship. I am certainly willing to try.
If you could write to me and explain to me in some more detail, I would be happy to learn about it and try to help if I can.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)