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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
There are bigger issues at stake than Jimbo and Giano and personality conflicts. I think we collectively handled this very badly, and I include myself. What we have seen in action, is what many of us have long suspected: our BLP-culture is hysterical. Its fine to take BLP seriously - and its fine to take BLP a little less seriously than others - there is room for legitimate disagreement. (I do not include no concern at all for BLPs as a legitimate position) We need to stop pretending there is a magical bright line that everyone will immediately recognize, and anyone who crosses it does so in malice or total incompetence. Even if there was a bright line it remains the the responsibility of every Wikipedian to be calm, rational, charitable in conflict. In other words, to explain their reasoning, rather than simply state their positions. This latest incident was notably free of peace makers and consensus building. On a project where we all feel so strongly about Neutrality and consensus, little was found, built, or sought. I myself, jumped into to thick of it - and my conduct was civil - yet still seriously lacking. It is not enough to be civil and polite, we must actively work towards peace and consensus in times of heated conflict.
Giano's intent in writing the article as a defense or a rebuttal was flawed in conception. Yet we should not to harshly judge him just yet. He thought he was doing right. He stands by his work. He told me, and has repeated on wiki that the article was "factual referenced and true" Which in fact it was. It was also, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, An article that was nominally Giles Hattersley, but really about his Wikipedia error. Lets reconcile these two ideas for a moment. What if Giano's intended rebuttal was to create a factual referenced and true neutral) article - and what if he failed, but did so genuinely.
Thus, I return to the subject of BLP-hysteria. In the midst of our entrenched positions on BLPs, we forgot to actually talk to eachother, instead of at eachother. Our collective response to this article was to edit war over it, then protect it, then delete it, all the while bickering with eachother. Giano did not write a properly balanced article (so says me anyway), but after a night's sleep, I can hardly blame him for it. Current event related BLPs have bizarre arcane rules, their own special jargon, and a culture of BLP specialists and their WP:BLP-is-a-stupid-anti-Wikipedia-policy opponents. Even a Wikipedian who has broken through the cultural barrier to get into the general Wikipedia culture will find themselves quickly lost in BLP Wikipedia culture. Our urge to "do no harm" with BLPs is laudable: our tendency to treat people who make purported BLP mistakes is not, and our inability to accept legitimate disagreement is worst of all.
Returning to the latest incident, I think apologies (in the order listed) should be made. First, I apologize for my failure to really do anything particularly useful in this mess, despite being involved in it. I'd like to think I didn't make it worse, but I very much may have - I certainly did not help in the ways that I should have, as I described above. Second, I ask Jimbo to apologize to Giano. No one man can be held responsible for an entire culture gone wrong, but Jimbo, you are our Founder, and you must serve as a leader. You must be the better man, always. Calling Giano's work a hatchet-job was, to put it mildly, insulting (especially to anyone who considers themselves a serious writer) and unhelpful, even if you felt it was true. Third, I ask that Giano apologize (though, as he has left, it scarcely seems necessary for him to do so.) to Jimbo and others at whom he has directed abuse. There are those who will disagree with you, because they share your devotion to making Wikipedia a better place - and by now you should know that you have a special talent for making even innocuous words deeply aggravating and even hurtful. Finally, I think the entire section of the community who was involved and pissed off should apologize and forgive eachother. It may not happen, but it would help the next step.
That next step, in my opinion, is a reexamination of BLPs. Not of our need to get them right - that ship has sailed - but of how we handle the discourse, how we protect Wikipedia, Living persons, and the contributors from harm. -- Tznkai ( talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is another one brewing at Libelous comments concerning Professor Hewitt.-- 67.169.144.164 ( talk) 22:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, did you - in blocking Giano for incivility - request and receive permission of the ArbCom, as required by the WP:AE conditions relating to Giano? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If anyone really wanted to write a hatchet job on Mr Hattersley, 5 minutes' googling would give them more than enough for a much longer and more detailed article than Giano's innocuous stub. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish that we enforced WP:NPA as rigorously as we seek to enforce WP:BLP. In the past I have been slandered in projectspace, and there is no effective recourse. Editors who participate under their real world identities should be protected. It is a shame that people feel the need to use pseudonyms. (And if somebody uses a pseudonym, they also should be protected from personal attacks!) Jehochman Talk 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming G's report of what he wrote is correct (a couple of arbs have implicitly affirmed this as has Jimbo), given history of past conflict etc. this is the type of misuse of a block, for simply giving undue emphasis to a statement otherwise compliant with BLP, that would have us seriously questioning an admin's access to the tools. Then there's the above misrepresentation of the edits in question ("hatchet job" etc) and patronising and frankly clueless comments which accompanied the unblock (complete with wondering aloud about about trolling, how extraordinarily amusing). Given that Jimbo recently couldn't be bothered to use what remains of his 'executive power' to start a trial of flagged revisions (arguably significantly more useful than any number of dubious "BLP blocks") what exactly is the point of his continuing to be anything other than a figure-head?-- Misarxist ( talk) 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you get it done? :) Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I did my readings, and I wrote up a proposal. Now I'm sleeping on it for a couple of nights to revisit it to make sure it seems like something that people will like.
Yesterday I had a very full day of meetings here in the Dominican Republic, and today I am going to visit a school and community center. They are showing me how IT is impacting the poorest segments of D.R. society, and I am learning a lot. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 11:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, mr. Wales!
Is it acceptable do discuss user`s private life on Wikipedia pages and to give personal evaluations and comments on it?-- SkyDrinker ( talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I've created a short bio for Giles Hattersley. It's well referenced and I think it shows how he's notable - he was shortlisted for young journalist of the year at the British Press Awards and was also the youngest ever chief interviewer at the Sunday Times. I've left the Wikipedia controversy out because I don't believe it's notable enough to include - we don't have any reliable sources that say exactly what happened, and I think from a BLP perspective it's wrong to include even a mention of it when it wasn't even Hattersley's fault. If there's some significant coverage of it in the news, then we can take another look, but at the minute there only seems to be one blog entry from another journalist. Would you mind if I moved it into mainspace? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently there was a discussion on the nl.wiki about your administrator rights, currently you still have local admin rights but your not active on the Wikipedia. (But as special moderator you don't have to be confirmed every year).
The question is now if you don't mind if we remove your rights voluntary, because you will not even notice the are gone. You are also a developer so you have the admin rights on all wikimedia projects. And a desysop will also make it possible to remove your right but it should be a waste of our and maybe your time.
I hope you will respond quickly, Abigor ( talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo it would be good if you could sign in my sign book. →Ratón Bat→ 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy Wales,
Thanks for reading my letter, I am a user and editor of Chinese Wikipedia and I want to share some ideas about the development of Chinese Wikipedia.
The Chinese Wikipedia finally got the Turning Point, after the long-term banning by the PRC government, Wikipedia could be visited in a certain degree of free, from our experience, this free would be keep if there is no big change. The most frequently used language Wikipedia can be used by a number of 400,000,000 netizens partly free, but what can we see is that the Chinese Wikipedia is a superficial encyclopedia, Original article with high Quality is so little, most of the featured articles are the translate version of English or other Wikipedia. Facing the competitors such as baidu encyclopedia(baidu baike in pinyin, a product by a Chinese company) Wikipedia is losing its advantage gradually.
In my point of view, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia for all of the world for free and NPOV, it could be and should be written by people who have different view, whether you are left-wing,right-wing,communist,or even you are a nazist, you have the right to edit the area you are good at, so, why Chinese Wikipedia should be the translate version of English Wikipedia?
What I want to do is beginning a program of inventing Chinese experts to edit the Chinese Wikipedia, some of Chinese experts are not unlike the idea of Wikipedia, just because they do not know the program and our idea, so why do we tell them the idea. NPO also need marketing, if no one know us, we would be forgotten.
I think the following things could be done:
1. Begin a program officially .
2. Sending Inventing E-mails to professors in each university.
3. Set a group to help these experts getting used to the use of Wikipedia.
4. Contact the administrator of BBS in some Universities to begin the topic of Wikipedia.
These are just a start of the program, more and more things should be done to improve the quality of Chinese Wikipedia.
Best Wishes to Wikipedia
Raintwoto
raintwoto@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Jimbo. I was in the speech you gave at FUNGLODE in Dominican Republic yesterday, which was very interesting. I just want to congratulate you for your work and thank you for visiting us, I hope you liked your stay here and I'd like to attend if you give another one here. Have a good day.
Alex2610 (
talk)
11:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I almost ask you to let me take a picture with you at the end of the conference when you were leaving the conference room, but I felt too embarrassed to ask :S
Hello Mr. Jimbo. I'm kiri Simeonovski, administrator on Wikipedia on macedonian language. The parameter Depth which is calculated to show the quality of the articles, for me and for us on mk.Wiki is not a good statistic shower about it. The formula (Eits/Articles)·(Non-Articles/Artciles)·(1- stub-ratio) is weak, because of its manipulation from the users. Expanding edits by talkpage edits or user edits has positive impact on the Depth value, so you can get higher Depth without editing encyclopedic pages. So, I want to propose to change the formula of this parameter and to install values in it, such as kilobytes merge of the articles and to eliminate the impact of the talkpage and user edits. Regards.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 16:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Will Mr Hattersley himself be publicly stating that at no time did he accuse either Wikipedia or its editors of libel? 'Cos in the article as it is on the Sunday Times website he appears to be doing exactly that. DuncanHill ( talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what he will say. But I am pretty sure that relaxing about it for a couple of days will do no one any harm.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, you're way off base here. You are arguing with someone else, not me, about your view about what I might say, although I haven't. You accuse me of not trusting the community, of refusing to tell the community something important, etc. I think it is extremely important to note that you simply made all that up out of thin air to advance your own agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself, you are behaving like a spoiled brat.
I am talking to Mr. Hattersley and (through him) his editors. Inquiries are being made. It takes them time to get back to me. He has to talk to his people, and they have to... I don't know... but there's no hurry and there's nothing new for me to tell you. Now please stop attacking me over infractions that you simply made up. Remember, this is a weekly newspaper. Everyone was off work on Monday. Tuesday he talked to them. He got back to me with an update, I responded, he responded. We're having a conversation. When there is anything useful to tell you, I will tell you. Not before. The world does not revolve around your demands for instant gratification.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Per my message from a few days ago, I have been doing my homework. What I am trying to do is craft a proposal for FlaggedRevs which is not controversial, that addresses as many competing concerns as possible, and gives us a clear track forward at the end of the trial. I had hoped to have something ready by Monday (today), and I still may, but due to having diverted a few hours of my time yesterday to dealing with the Giles Hattersley hatchet-job biography situation, I'm running somewhat behind. -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the community is ready for another debate on Flaggedrevs yet, the poll just finished in late January and the survey is still not closed. Some time to let the media frenzy die down wouldn't hurt too. Various proposals and trials are discussed, as usual the ones most supported will be presented to the community for consideration in time. Cenarium ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, could I ask you to review the new article at Giles Hattersley? This is not a restoration of an old version but a completely new article, written from scratch, without any of the elements that made the last one a problem. Page protection is still in place until March 14th to prevent any short-term mischief and to enable you to review the article in the meantime. Hopefully this will resolve any lingering issues with this article. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The article looks fine.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy, I am a fairly new wiki member. I am wondering what you think of the state of affairs in the world. Do you think we are in the endtimes. Also, have you ever listened to raul midon?
Thanks and God Bless Lulu262 ( talk) 12:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
A friend of mine thinks that User: Jimbo Wales is not actually you but a sort of "Agent who works for him" that runs you're Wikipedia page on your behalf. I don't think this is true so can you confirm it isn’t? Misortie ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Dunno Tbh. Misortie ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the DisabilityInfo.gov article was speedied recently. Please move it to the most appropriate user page. Ottre 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo,
First, some news about {{ val}}, which is a template that is used to create expressions like this: 6.0223427534(32)×10−23 kg. It had a annoying bug where it was occasionally generating rounding errors, where the final “4” might render as “39”. That is all fixed now. For a full paragraph’s worth of update, you can see this MOSNUM update. As we had earlier left things here on your talk page, I was proposing some character-counting parser functions. That would still be the best way to handle this sort of thing but StringFunctions is buggy and there just wasn’t any enthusiasm for making small, bullet-proof string function parser functions to tackle the issue. The work-around proved to be more productive in the end.
In a nutshell, I did as you proposed and got active on Wikitech-l. After a month of my “not going away”, a developer, Dragons flight, hopped up in a saddle and completely revised the behind-the-scenes number-handling of {val} and made it so it has an order of magnitude less processor overhead when doing its magic. I had created some testing sandboxes like User:Greg_L/Val_sandbox, where we found that usually, {val} worked to 14 digits, but only to 12 digits 20% of the time. Dragons flight theorized that it was because some of the servers had a different precision setting than the rest. It turned out that the random limitation to 12 digits was due to the user request being served by older, Fedora-based servers which have different software settings. It developed that there was no point correcting the settings since those older servers are currently being phased out and replaced with newer ones running Ubuntu. When this is all done (a mater of weeks), all the servers will be identical and {val} will work consistently to 14 digits.
The exercise got everyone at Wikitech thinking about the PHP settings and other math-related low-level services. As I understand it, Wikitech developers are busy improving some math-related software. All good stuff. It didn’t take long with me whining about this problem for developers’ natural inquisitiveness to kick in and say “hey, this software can be way improved.”
Now, to the “navigation help”: I don’t understand the organization of Wikipedia well enough to know who to appeal up to in the arbitration world. There is an arbitration workshop on delinking dates going on here, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop for a month. Stepping stone pages have been going on before this, so this arbitration process has gone on for well over a month. The trouble is, we’ve now got a very specific Proposal to end it all for the arbitrators to consider. But, though they volunteered to arbitrate and are officially “assigned” as arbitrators on the issue, they aren’t *arbitrating*. The most charitable way to describe it is “they are very hands off.”
Why should anyone care about this? Principally, WP:MOSNUM is completely locked down while this dispute rages. So the arbitration really should be arbitrated, MOSNUM updated with community consensus on date linking, and editors can move on to other, more productive things. I’ve had my hands full juggling real life, {{ val}}/Wikitech‑l, Kilogram, and the Date delinking workshop arbitration. I enjoy the first three. The last one, not so much. For the good of WP:MOSNUM and Wikipedia, we need to break the logjam. So…
Where is the very best place to appeal for arbitration to get moving and arbitrate?
Greg L ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. We posted a request at here at WT:ArbCommittee. If that is the best place there is, then we’ve done what we can. Please advise if there is something further/else we ought to do. Greg L ( talk) 05:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This situation is out of hand. We're basically saying if you're a banned user, just get a dynamic IP, and we'll do absolutely nopthing to stop you harassing anyone even tangentally involved with your ban.
Please put an end to this, whatever the collateral damage. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(archive this undated template message Fram ( talk) 09:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Hi Jimbo, I read your bio on Wikipedia but I could not find much info on your religious beliefs or lack there of. Do you consider yourself an atheist, or perhaps an agnostic, or are you religious and if so what religion? Just curious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.160.18 ( talk) 07:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Jimbo. How'd ya like to be (one-of-three) a moderator, in the attempts to reach an agreement on the naming of the articles Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation)? -- GoodDay ( talk) 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It sounds fun, but I'd best not. I think it's better if I stay out of such issues.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. Just recently I've noticed that species are now using italics in the title see Gryllus veletis etc. It seems to be programmed into their infoboxes to produce an italicized title. What would anybody think about this for film, book, song, opera etc titles? As a name which is italized in the article intro below and according to MOS is put in Italics in the article links, would this seem more consistent to also have the title of the page italicized in coordination? Please respond at the village pump. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, I have some good BLP news. I recently blogged about the "bisexuality" bizarreness and shenanigans going on with Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez. In short, Valdes-Rodriguez has a history of making stunning declarations she later recants, and she has taken this war to her Wikipedia biography. The blog post has led to some very good press for us about our diligence with BLPs. I don't know Valdes-Rodriguez, but only acted as an editor trying to sort out the controversy to ensure an accurate biography. I think the column on one of the premiere LGBT websites shows we take the accurateness of our biographies seriously. Now if we can only get Flagged Revs turned on...? --David Shankbone 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, today I present one more of your stunning kiddy admins on commons
3+1 Diti still unblocked
Somewhat ironic as I was someone who initially was prepared to unblock you however you appear to continually show a disinterest in behaving in a reasonable manner & co-operatively so I have now amended your block per this. I will not take offence if others deem me wrong however your behaviour is aggressive & unpleasant and there is no sign you plan to change that. -- Herby talk thyme 10:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=User_talk:Mutter_Erde&action=edit&oldid=17242085
Moved to User:Tango/GH discussion (discussion finished, can be archived. Fram ( talk) 10:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
I know you receive thanks and applause for Wikkipedia on a more-or-less continuous basis, Jimbo, and probably have no desire for more. Too bad, I can't help myself. Here it is.
I thought you had a super idea years ago, when Nupedia began. That, of course, was nothing. The real Wikkipedia and your Wikkipedia philosophy are not only wonderful in their own right, but they are clearly changing the world in wonderful ways.
So, thank you, Jimbo, thank you. Tim Ross (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry to make such petty requests, but would you sign my guestbook? Thanks! (If you're too busy, you don't have to) Math Cool 10 Sign here! 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Some readers of this page may wish to contribute to the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jimmy Wales/1 Reassessment being conducted on the article Jimmy Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversider2008 ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Tonight's Google cache of our page on Barack Obama - just the search results: Look at the second search result: m:File:Google search -- Barack Obama.png. Admiteedly, this will eventually die away, the vandalism was reverted and Google will eventually re-cache the page. But what if the vandalism on a BLP was not caught? Then a vandalised version reaches the top of Google's rankings, is cached, copied all over the web by mirrors. Some food for thought, anyway Fritzpoll ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the edit in question, the contention is presumably that applying FR is the only way we could have stopped that edit from getting onto the page (for two minutes). Seriously? There is no other way we can pre-emptively stop the virtual blanking of large long standing BLP articles? There is no other way we can pre-emptively stop the addition of the words NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA into an article? The only way to deal with this edit would have been to apply FR and crudely introduce a pre-emptive assumption of bad faith across a number of articles, just because of stuff like this? Quit yanking me, as the Americans like to say. I won't comment on the whole oddness of the incident or the malicious user in question, although at least this time they were blocked for a first offence of blatant vandalism. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your supportive comments here [5] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
At 5:20 am (GMT), the date of birth template Template:birth date and age changed from displaying the age purely as an integer, and started showing decimal points in the figure, eg 23 became 23.0000000000000000. An example of this is in the aticle Mark Harmon.
The same thing happened to the height formula Template:Height, it now shows the phrase "Expression error: Missing operand for" when using feet and inches in the case of the Template:Infobox Football biography. An example of where this has occured is in the article Chris Maguire.
Have these infoboxes been changed as of today (18 February 2009) or is wikipedia having some problems with these templates?
Please can you respond to my usertalk page, thanks Dreamweaverjack ( talk) 05:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
As the Flagged Revs thing is still cooking, please take a look at, and weigh in at Wikipedia:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal or WP:NOCACHE if you could? Not open for "polling" yet, and it's just a rough form, but the gist is pretty obvious. Thanks. You'll want to read the referenced article as well. rootology ( C)( T) 07:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
King Kong defence has gotten some media attentions, and the currently ongoing AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence) is pretty much a mess at the moment; perhaps you are intrested to make your voice heard in this matter. → Aza Toth 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi User:Jimbo Wales,
Thank you for your help on the talk page for the
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love.
I was wondering if you could help me expand on the article.
Son-Rise, an
Early childhood intervention therapy program that was created by two parents in the '70s that got their son to completely recover from Autism and the Autsim spectrum.
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love is a
docudrama about the recovery and was adapted by the book, Son-Rise (now known as Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues).
Their is not to many references supporting the movie, the most reliable references for the film is not informative enough or 100% accurate (e.g. New York Times Film Synopsis said that (from All Media Guide) Raun Kaufman was high-functioning (a lot of other sources about the movie says that to), but it is wrong, he was severe and
Mentally retarded, even in the movie.
Their is more info from the book, which adapted into the film.
Could I reference a lot from the book, and use it as a reliable source since it has the majority of the information from the movie and is more accurate.
Could you also help me with the book,
Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues that I haven't created yet.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm scared if you do. -- 62.240.86.108 ( talk) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
One idea for featured articles is to have a full protected policy on all featured articles. Since featured articles are already *perfect*, any more edits after featured status would just make the articles worse. TeH nOmInAtOr ( talk) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello mr. Wales, I have found an interessting discussion about you http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AU#Wie_reich_ist_Jimmy_Wales.2C_Mitbegr.C3.BCnder_von_Wikipedia.3F in the german Wikipedia. Perhaps you want to know it. I had see, that you want to learn german...is it not a good idea? But than I musst warning you, that is germanhumor -- 84.62.185.134 ( talk) 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo. Your expertise is drastically needed at the above WP:ANI/Commemorative Coins Controversy. Policy issues need to be clearly defined, free of incumberment and in a way that is clear to all. Not all editors are being candid as to purpose and the truthfulness of interpretations as presented has to be called into question. This is an important issue and needs you guidance.-- Buster7 ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo...I hope some reply of some kind is close at hand. This altercation has effected hundreds of articles.-- Buster7 ( talk) 11:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Investigation shows this to be a simple and standard case of block evasion and website self-promotion. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, IP blocked by Gwen Gale. Guy ( Help!) 09:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales
Forgive us if we break Wikipedia protocol and ask for a COMPLAINT to be dealt with by this medium. I am new to Wikipedia, and at 60 basically new to computers in general, because I have severe Aspergers Syndrome My son (who is also on the autistic spectrum) and I have worked very hard together to produce a website called THEDUCHYOFEFFENHAUER.COM and invite contribution for its enhancement, by having our own website and by putting it on Wikipedia in good faith. Within minutes it was disregared and we politely appealed gaving our reasons, BUT by receiving comments from your administrator of 'Yeah whatever you say...show me sources" and "if you be nice I might consider it" is a little too unreasonable. I should be grateful if you pass on this message to Orangemike and suggest a review of mind-set in properly representing Wikipedia. We can all make mistakes and I am willing to learn by them but being greeted by childishness is beyond acceptable conduct - even by your own standards.
Thank you
79.74.103.205 ( talk) 14:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a direct link to the deleted article: The Duchy of Effenhauer. I don't see anything in User_talk:Accounting4Taste#The_Duchy_of_Effenhauer that suggests that Accounting4Taste said the "yeah whatever" and the "if you be nice" statements. either way ( talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you ALL for reviewing my complaint and the time you have given -much appreciated. To be honest its still as clear as mud to me but thats down to my total lack of 'know how'. I would still like to put my site onto your pages and would politely request anyone that has the time to email me and put me in the right direction I would be most thankful. A few knowledgable suggestion would be very useful. Just for the record H.M Department of Science & Technology has, as its central filing store a superb building complex in Earlsfield. South London and it is incombant for the department and others, to allow certain document out for public scutiny after a certain amount of years (50 in terms of secret WWII stuff - Operation Foxley, for example). The arrangemnt also allows for archive copies to be forwardwed to overseas governments where in most cases thay are published BEFORE those in the UK. In the case of the Duchy of Effenhauer that was probably the case. Only part of those files was sent to me because of my late Fathers persistance, position and registered inquiries over the years. My request was basically to enhance my website(THEDUCHYOFEFFENHAUER.COM) not to offend anyone, but to complete, if possible, the work done by him As I say if someone would like to share the journey. I would really appreciate it - even if only for my sons sake For the meantime thank you ALL again and rest assured its not too late to start learning at 60 Kind regards 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Ms Kittybrewster for a most speedy reply - much appreciated. Not quite sure what you mean though, perhaps you might like to explain the benefits, if you have time. For the moment I wish you well and perhap you might like to look in yourself, to the work already done by Tom, my son. and I on our website and possibly tell us how to improve. Please note however that it is still being built - Kind regards 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 20:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - most kind- excellent idea! I'll check with H.M. College of Arms here in London who are the font of all heraldic knowledge, pedigrees and knowledgable contacts. They were extraordinarily helpful when I petitioned for Arms, Crest and badge and banner for my late Mother and Father, and intail my own, and Tom, my sons, Arms. Henry Paston=Bedingfeld York Herald, is phenominal when it comes to that sort of thing. His good lady, who assist him, in chambers, is most charming and will probably oblige. Also, on thinking about it the archives of the City of London- I was granted Freedom of the City when I attained my Guild of Air Pilots and Air navigators Freedom. Copies of those those certificates are indeed available, but that is beside the point, why have the watery gravy when a giood size steak is on offer, so to speak. My contacts at Central Store will be first port of call, both can get into files and reference numbers without even a word. Many, many thanks and good pointers - well done! 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 21:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you and I note your information and can assure you it will be addressed first thing tomorrow morning. The names you bring to my notice and Tom Sayle are indeed my autistic son, a9atom SALES) and in my absense has been entering information I have expressly told him not to. Should you or any of your colleagues find unacceptable info elsewhere please let me know and I'll have words and get TOM off air. Oh dear - again I have been remiss not only to Wikipedia but to my own son. In the spirit of open co-operation I can let you know that a couple of months ago I spoke to Henry Paston-Bedingfeld (York Herald) on another matter and the subject of THE ORDER OF ST JOACHIM came up. (see the Wikipedia page) and as I understand it, it may have been recognised by the College of Arms and Burkes Peerage in Lord Nelsons day, but certainly does not exist today in that form. By name and historic fact yes, but a total nonsence blindfold, nevertheless, with no verifiable content whatsoever except their own spin. Apparently even its founder Helmut von Br (whatever)-Falkensee has again no verifiable background and therefore is questionable throuigfh uncertainty. Moreover, their charitable precepts appear to contain a gap in their returns to the Charity Commission. I will, as I say, make amends tomorrow morning, on Tom, but I seem to have opened a negative can of worms for him in trying to do the right thing for my Father. What a world!! Just a last though -the files I mention in THE DUCHY OF EFFENHAUER website that apprently come from Russian intelligence bear the name of the same department - I think, therefore, someone is having a mighty laugh at my expence - can I come back to you tomorrow, and thank you so much for being very much on the ball! Salute and kind regards 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 23:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Nasdijj article has been protected for 2 1/2 years, do you think we can try unprotection? (Cyde's comment indicated it was protected at your request). best, – xeno ( talk) 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but please keep a close eye on it. It's only semi-protected, by the way, not protected.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
[8] is unacceptable piling on surely. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
We're about to hit 100 featured sounds on English Wikipedia. Is there any chance of getting a press release to announce this milestone, and to encourage participation in finding more? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales
I respectfully request that you permanently block my IP address.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Ingvar Heter Esq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingvar Heter ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per consensus established on the admin's IRC channel, I've blocked the user. Details here. Tom Harrison Talk 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it was all a ridiculous lie. No blocks, no IRC.
Tom Harrison
Talk
21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
[9] Indeed. Can I block you for
disruption now.
Pedro :
Chat
21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)(comment edited from original by Jimbo)
Hello, Jimmy Wales. You can't know me, I'm just an wikipedian that discovered your userpage. Well, the english wikipedia adopted the fair use, a law in the United States that anyone can show an image without comercial uses, or distributing it (I think, obviously, you knew that). The Portuguese Wikipedia didn't adopted this. There was a voting and, for a difference of 8 persons, the fair use was not adopted. I know you cannot do anything, but I just wanna your opinion about that, because there's persons who don't want to adopt the fair use that say: "The fair use would remove the concept of 'free' in the Wikipedia." What do you think? Is this correct?
Please, message me back in my talk page in the Portuguese Wikipedia (clicking here).
Raafael ( talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are there different wikipedias for different languages? It makes more sense to have a single Wikipedia translated/translateable into multiple languages, that way there is not a large English-language wikipedia and smaller Spanish-language wikipedia for example, and new articles and changes to existing articles in one language could then translate to all other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.176.176 ( talk) 06:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This has just got removed by being a personal attack, when actually there is no evidence to support this and was actually just questioning your policy that everybody has the right to edit this website, when surely it would be better if the editors were contained to a strict few. So this is not a personal attack, so i've put it back, as i see no reason for it to get taken down in the first place and i want User: Jimbo Wales to answer, not one of his minions
In Great Britain, GCSE coursework has been stopped, because the government was worried students were getting the incorrect information, because it usually came from this website. Several students have used it as a reference point and got a poorer grade then they were expected to This has led to the government stopping coursework, which could have a dreadful effect on many students who struggle under exam conditions. Are you pleased that your website has ruined their future. Kind regards and please respond soon. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
But why is saying 'minion' a bad way to start a conversation with Jimbo Wales, seeing as he can't be one of the 'minion' i was talking about. Also my concern is that student aren't directly copying this, but rather using it as a source and getting incorrect information and don't have the time to check all the sources,as they have short time limit. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
First of all, can i get an answer from user:jimbo wales only please. Secondly all the information is on Wikipedia, false or otherwise and not all of it is on the sources. And i do appreciate that this website makes some mistakes, but that is surely why there should be only a small and trusted number of editors. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Yes, but it would be more trusted and probably a lot more accurate. i think we can all agree though that Wikipedia is too easy to edit. You don't even need to log in. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Wow, my first post has certainly inflamed a lot of comment, but not from the person i want. I'm starting to wonder if he still logs on to this site. You may not trust a small number of editors, but with everybody allowed to edit, Wikipedia has gained such a terrible reputation that i believe it is one of the main reasons why coursework has been stopped in the UK. Surely its time for a policy change and only Jimbo Wales can answer that properly, so that is why i want a response from him.
What i mean by that comment is that the information is in the sources, it is just stretched out over many different ones, and it is extremely difficult to search through all of them, because as you know, sometimes there can be over a hundred sources in just one article. Also, if the community dictates policy, does Jimbo actually have any power anymore. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
You're right and i'm just patiently waiting for a response. (17:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Jimbo shouldn't have to reply to people who have got both their facts and reasoning wrong. That's what his 'minions' are for. So...the newspaper article you provided as evidence on your talk page does not mention Wikipedia anywhere, and anyway the point made in it was that the internet was making it too easy to cheat, not that the information was wrong. Hadrian89 ( talk) 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have given my reasons as to why examiners think students are cheating, in one of my earlier message's. Please read through them more carefully. I also think that we'll let Jimbo be the judge of wherever he responds to a question or not. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
This discussion is continued at BH900's talk page. Hadrian89 ( talk) 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a response though from jimmy wales. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
It seems Jimbo Wales is logged on, or has been so in the past, but its clear he's too scared to answer me. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 19:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
Why has everybody on Wikipedia got so scared of a simple question. You no longer even giving reasons, as you know that I have outsmarted you. I'm sorry for the arrogance, but I have. If Jimbo Wales, unlike you lot, has an intelligent response to my original question, then I invite him to reply, but it seems to anybody who just stumbled across the talk page, he's too afraid. One of the Top Hundred People of the Year? Don't make me laugh. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
I haven't posted at this talk page before, but....it would mean a lot to me, Mr. Wales, if you would comment (pro or con) at this RFC. IMO, the RFC touches on a core issue at Wikipedia, namely censorship. I hope you can drop by. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an uninvolved adminstrator should consider if User:Ferrylodge editing any page (including talk pages) in any way related to Abortion or Pregnancy is in any way helpful to an encyclopedia. Admins should note that the ArbCom has stated that "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Just a thought - is this "appropriate editing" of a talk page? Hipocrite ( talk) 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have compressed several images in Wikipedia and have contact several developers about replacing the current ones, but have yet to receive a reply. Below are several of the images I have compressed:
Optimized and Compressed Images |
---|
I would like to request that the current images be replaced with the ones above. The savings are moderate, but amount to several kilobytes. The title "Wikipedia" at [www.wikipedia.org wikipedia] has been crushed by about 5kb. I don't know how much the savings(in terms of bandwidth) will be, for I haven't found the appropriate statistics, but I do believe they should be noticeable(and if not, at least the page will load faster ^.^). For the current discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Smaller Wikipedia Logo files. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or comments you have on this. Thank you in advance. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1: I would also like to request to know how many times the front page is cached a day? Smallman12q ( talk) 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably better to talk to Brion Vibber, rather than me.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
[12] It says "WWW.MEATSPIN.COM BITCH GOT OWNED" over and over. Look for it in the news soon, like that Obama one. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It actually looks fine now. I doubt if things like this will hit the media much, although I suppose lazy journalists might think that "wikipedia was vandalized and google cached it for a little while" is somehow interesting.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Wales: The situation regarding Calton seems to have flared up again. Please see [ [13]] as it is believed his user page entry still violates WP:NPA. Also, an ANI [ [14]] has been posted regarding Calton's recent attacks on the user pages of Cla68 [ [15]] and user Dtobias [ [16]]. 78.102.139.114 ( talk) 10:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all I would like to establish that this is not a personal attack or a vandalism secondly I doubt that Mr. Wales will answer me so any of the good editors who patrol this page are free to answer and last of all I respect the right to express oneself as being one of the most fundamental rights. Dear Mr. Wales I know myself and many others would appreciate if you changed the "founded" to "co-founded with Larry Sanger" because this is the right thing to do and because another human beings deseveres appreciation for this great project and you have so nicley mentioned Angela Beesley Starling as the other co-founder of wikia. This is your change to make to be civil one of the pillars of wikipedia. (I would appreciate if this wasn't deleted) by some editor who believes it constitutes as vandalism. 211.30.14.161 ( talk) 11:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.14.161 ( talk) 11:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I want to inform you, that yours account on cs.wiki is now free (per this requestú, if you want to use it. JAn Dudík ( talk) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd appreciate a response to the thread you started at my usertalk; I've left a reply there, but haven't received a response. If this wasn't actually an edict regarding OS nomenclature on the encyclopedia, then I don't see why the normal dispute resolution process which has been used thus far in the debate can't be followed. As noted on Gronky's user talk, a considerable number of his mass-reverts were either baseless or counterproductive, but I'd rather wait for a response before re-engaging. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Jimbo. Remember Modernista!? You might want to pop over to the the Skittles talk page - seems that Mars has done exactly the same thing, but is linking to specific sections in our page in lieu of its own product descriptions, with its logo and menu not removable. This would seem to need your input. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added COI and advertising tags to the article and commented on the talk page. The text is very cleanly done and seems neutral, but it's neither neutral nor encyclopedic. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As per title just stopping by to say hi and how are you ? Thanks for founding wikipedia you are awesome,Take care Regards,
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
ps have a cookie
staffwaterboy has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Does each episode of a popular TV show have to achieve notability via these guidelines to merit its own article? I mean, I remember reading somewhere Jimmy Wales saying that if people wanted to, they could start an article on their high school, or something. But right now there's a discussion as to whether certain first season episodes of South Park, like " Pinkeye" and " Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo"that already have their own article really merit them. I mean, it's South Park. Isn't the show itself noteworthy enough for each episode to merit an article if someone wants to write one? I've read the General guidelines, but shouldn't TV episodes have their own guidelines, much as Films do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream ( talk • contribs)
Yes, I would like to have my account unified. Thanks!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
G'day, You have been invited for input at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Non_commercial_image_license. -- Noodle snacks ( talk) 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear friend,
We have read the Arbitration Commitee History and see that we could address to you. We can see that one of the arbitrators (
FayssalF) has sent the request out of focus, and some others are quickly following him advising "decline".
I have sent to a clerk (
Ryan_Postlethwaite)a statement to stress this to be put up, if suitable.
Could you please help me on posting the following statement?
My impression is that they are just following FayssalF's misunderstanding.
I expect your news. Thank you. Regards.
-- Iberomesornix ( talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Jimmy, ich las deine Nachricht auf der Benutzerseite, dass du es magst deutsche Kommentare zu bekommen! Nun biete ich dir an, dein Deutsch zu verbessern!
Kannst dazu vielleicht mal im ICR.Chat der Wikipedia vorbeischauen! http://platon.ext.baur4.info/wpchat/deWP.html</nowik> Ich bin immer abends dort. Vielleicht könntest du mir dann mit meinem Englisch weiterhelfen?
Ich würde mich, (ach, auch alle anderen) freuen, wenn du mal wieder in der deutschen Wikipedia vorbeischaust
Hi Jimmy, I read your message on your user page that you like to receive comments in German. Now I offer you to improve your German. Could you take a look at http://platon.ext.baur4.info/wpchat/deWP.html. I'm always there at night. Perhaps you could help me with my English? I, and others, would be happy when you shown up in the German Wikipedia once again. -- Rodhull andemu 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jasonr_(reconfirmation). Someone has posted this, without much forethought it seems like. Perhaps you can head it off - if this person, who reportedly worked for you and got his admin bit as a result, is no longer associated with Wikipedia... Would you remove the bit then yourself? Avruch T 15:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
what happens when there are multiple reliable 3rd party sources that conflict, but multiple 1st party sources that say one thing. do the editors go with the 1st party source..Example: Johnny A releases a book stating he is a homosexual. "News weekly" denies the book saying Johnny A. isn't a homosexual. "News Report hour' states that Johnny is infact a homosexual. Who does wikipedia beleive? reply on my talk page. 70.242.179.192 ( talk) 04:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo,
I am having trouble with a user named WebHampster in the Skull and Bones discussion pages. He is hiding my text in a collapse box and told me to F-off. I thought that wikipedia users were required to respect each other and act like gentlemen. Could you please talk to this user.
Thank you, M
I edit conflicted with User:Coren who was removing a note which let you know that silliness is occurring at the domains above as trolling - I thought you might like to know, so have popped this bit back - the full post is in the history, but basically someone is squatting on your domain. (ew....) Privatemusings ( talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should simply ban those domains. But lets ask Jimbo first. He might be in negotiations with this silly site squatter as we speak. Wikiwarriorwayne ( talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo - having been dead busy away from wikipedia for the last few weeks, I thought I'd come straight to the horse's mouth and ask what the current status of the flagged revisions trial is? If anyone could point me in the direction of current discussion, or try and sum up the status quo in a few words, it'd be appreciated. My reading of the various places I've dug around is that nothing happened, and no specific action is yet scheduled? cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 23:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be dense, Carbuncle, but I can't make sense of why you linked to that page. It's about someone being alleged to have reverted a template more than three times. Nothing about flagging. Is there a page where it's being discussed? Here's my view on it:
Mr. Jones ( talk) 11:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The relevant pages seem to be
It's dormant. Jimbo hasn't said any thing about it for a while. The discussion of proposed trials has had just a few edits the past month. Same with other relevant pages. Wikipedia Review is complaining about it, but they're putting more actual effort into deleting some British quiz show contestant. If want to do something about it, I suggest going through the proposed trials and make something out of it that could get wide acceptance. Shameless plug: Trial 18: Shadow flagging -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo. I've been working on assessing consensus w.r.t. flagged revisions for some time now, and I finally drafted Wikipedia:Flag protection and patrolled revisions. I think there's a need and support for a system to monitor and better control blps, but in the same time, a strict Flaggedrevs for all of them has no consensus. So, I think we could have consensus for a passive flag, patrolled revisions. And we also need to be able to fully 'activate' flagged revs on some pages, as a protection measure, that's what I proposed as a variant of flagged protection. Comments are welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
< - seems like quite a few people are pulling in kinda the same direction, kinda like a cat sleigh perhaps.... Is the 'soon' of your timeframe roughly 'this week', or maybe 'March sometime', Jimbo? Privatemusings ( talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There sometimes appears at the top of the page "Live near SF and have an hour to help Wikipedia?" but the only link it gives is a javascript link, which is a dead link. I asked on one of the forums and nobody knew what it was, only confirming he javascript link "ethnio.show" was dead for them, too. Perhaps you know? Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, Jimbo is blinking at me. Does anyone else find this to be, oh I don't know... weird? I figured I was just tired when I first thought I saw his picture blink, but then I definitely saw Jimbo blink at me! I then realized his picture is a .gif image. Maybe a still frame would be more, uh, not off-putting? Am I alone in my opinion? - Sesu Prime ( talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,Jimbo. I'm worry that I have to report that Japanese Wikipdians are POV about Christianity articles. They say trinity is the main doctrine of Christianity and the religion that doesn't support that is non-Christianity or heresy without no explainations. But I think 'heresy' is word to avoid, and I deleted this words. Then Japanese administrators decided it trolls without no explainations, and they blocked my ID. What do you think of this? 118.111.5.64 ( talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You might (or might not) be interested in this and this. Just a thought: Right now we have 2 options, either keep reverting the edits or place full protection on the article — either one will attract even more notice from the media (Now Wikipedia reverts all edits or Now Wikipedia has prohibited all editing). Either way, it's lose-lose. Now, if flagged revisions were in place.... Just thinking out loud. -- 64.85.217.74 ( talk) 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wondering what we should do about Aaron Klein. Editing (it appears) as Jerusalem21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he first creates his own vanity article [19] and, despite getting caught sockpuppeting (see his talk page), squats on the article for two years to prevent anyone from cleaning it up. Then he engineers a fake scandal to bring disrepute on Wikipedia. On February 24, after never editing (from that account) any other article he suddenly makes three rapid-fire edits to the Obama article - two on the crackpot theory that Obama was born in Kenya [20] [21] and one to promote the election year smear involving Bill Ayers [22] that was by consensus too trivial for Obama's main bio page. He publishes an expose about Wikipedia in his right wing site, World Net Daily [23] without admitting that he is actually reporting on the breaching experiment he perpetrated to get himself blocked. The story gets mainstream coverage for a while [24] [25] until the hoax is discovered [26] [27] but by that time the story has hit the conservative blogosphere and editors are rushing from all over to as ChildofMidnight puts it above "fix the article" (i.e. edit war and badmouth the supposed "libtards" and censors who rule Wikipedia). That results in full indefinite protection for the article [28] and a state of siege on its talk page.
Whatever Klein is doing here, it is clearly not to build an encyclopedia. He has sabotaged the project to create a fake scandal so he can cover it to further a political agenda. Now his article is nominated for deletion (see [ [29]]). I'm thinking we should root out his accounts and not let him edit here unless he shows he wants to use accounts to write articles. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think hardly anyone would disagree with the important parts of all these observations, and most people who think at all about them agree that they're important problems. They're such big problems that few of us know just what to do about them and, given the difficulty of getting a consensus to implement any big Wikipedia policy change, few people bother to try.
Broad, possible solutions:
I don't really know what specific reforms would be best, but I think workable reforms would move in the direction of hierarchy and rules for discussions that keep them on track, with predictable ways of making decisions. Nothing will stop people from acting badly or making bad decisions, but these types of reforms would help. I'm posting this here because I want more people, including you, Jimbo, thinking about this, and because the Obama article provides so many good examples of the problems here. I spent months at the Obama article talk page trying to come to rational conclusions and avoid abuse, only to lose my own temper finally, after Wikidemon wouldn't accept a 2:1 majority as a consensus on whether or not any of dozens of reliable sources could be used to call a terrorist a "terrorist" (difs available on request). After arguing for months whether or not Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko either could be mentioned in the Obama article, or how, I washed my hands of it. And the same disputes are back again, even at AN/I. I never want to touch another article with a big political controversy again. The discussions have too little to do with what's best for Wikipedia and too much to do with what's best for particular editors' personal preferences. And they're full of sleazy games playing, insults, immature accusations, skulduggery and sophistry. But it's just ludicrous to think that if we only identify the bad guys and block or ban them everything will be all right. Yet it's about the only solution that ever comes up at AN/I, because it's just about all a body like that can do.
I think it might help if you acknowledged that there are some systemic problems here, particularly with contentious articles and the way we make decisions on them. Your voice might get more people thinking about these problems (and maybe you've done this; if so, my apologies for lengthy blather). That's your bailiwick, God King, more so than whether some guy should get blocked or banned, which AN/I can deal with. -- Noroton ( talk) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you are trying hard to craft a flagged revs proposal that will make everyone happy, but I think some stop-gap measure is needed. Six admins, including 2 checkusers have resigned in March, many citing what can be summed up on User:Kevin. Until the management (you) actively changes the status quo (make BLP1E a CSD, put flagged revs on all BLPs, semi-protect all BLPs), people will believe your words are just words without action. And we will continue to lose more admins and more active editors. It is no surprise that in the last year, despite promoting 201 people to adminship, the number of active admins has declined by about 80 as more and more people tire of the endless debate on life changing issues like proper BLP enforcement and decide their time is better spent on more responsible hobbies (or at least less destructive ones). Regards. MBisanz talk 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Some discussions have happened here and there. I intend to propose Wikipedia:Flag protection and patrolled revisions to the community very soon as I believe we can have consensus for that. Preliminary discussion is welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jimbo is working on a proposal, but I don't think he wants us to sit by idly and wait. I made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get. Some of you will see it as watered down, but the alternative is to continue like now. I like Cenarium's proposal too, but I want something as simple as possible that can be understood in five minutes. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, the community will discuss this to pieces, over and over again. Maybe it is time that everybody who thinks that flagged revisions should be implemented NOW go on strike, and let those that who doesn't want them ydo the dirty work. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The community is still capable of finding a solution. I personally have works literally hundreds of hours on finding a compromise proposal for FlaggedRevs, and I know other people, including some above, who have done the same. Get involved in the discussions, try to help in finding a compromise, accept reasonable compromise, etc. The foundation knows that if they impose a certain implementation of FlaggedRevs, it'll certainly result in a massive wave of retirements, their hands are tied. We still have opportunities to find a consensual proposal, let's no waste them. Cenarium ( talk) 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Dearest Jimbo, as you can see by the important contributions I've made at Glorified rice, Dutch oven (practical joke) and Exopolitics, it's very important that I attend Wikimania 2009 in Buenos Aires. Thank you for your kind consideration of providing me with an all expense paid trip to make this possible. I'm very appreciative. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, let me reassure you, I cannot make Wikimania 2009 (a little thing called work, mortgage, etc.), so you can save my plane and hotel fare for someone else -- Avi ( talk) 00:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
For (Just being the most awesome person and for founding wikipedia.), I hereby award Jimbo Wales with the “
Cool Award.”
Staffwaterboy
Critique Me
Guestbook
Hate Comments
00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy and have fun at Wikimania i can't make it unfortunately i have no way of getting there. Take care
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This disgrace of a BLP requires immediate attention. For five months the libellous content has sat there for anyone to read. I'm sure one of your many TPS can oblige. 88.108.143.156 ( talk) 02:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I can't get an admin to listen to me (I've posted several unblock requests over the past few months and have failed to be unblocked or even listened to,) I thought I'd come to the main man, you. At this point I do not see that there is one chance of me being able to appeal anytime soon and I think that the only reason I was "indef" blocked is because someone using a proxy server posted some uncreative insults on the page of the guy I insulted the night before while I was in school. I plead that you take a look at this and PLEASE get to the bottom of this once and for all. If they weren't planning on unblocking me they should've made it a Perm block instead of an indef block. Thank you. HPJoker
A classic BLP1E article about someone who seems to have mental health issues and craves attention. The references section is largely laughable. 88.108.193.221 ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear 88.108,
Because I'm sympathetic to your concerns, I'd like to suggest a couple of points to you:
In regard to the biography you have pointed out here, I agree with you completely. BLP1E. Should be speedied, in my opinion.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, I would like your input at this userbox's deletion nomination. Thank you in advance. — Jch thys 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
When I was in Grade IV (1963), I had the first glimpse Edgar Allan Poe's pages in Encyclopedia Britannica, at my aunt's house, due to our class assignment. In 1973, I had used EB 2 times at the Loyola House of Studies Library. In 2006, it was the first time I opened Wikipedia researching on witches. Today, our Encyclopedia online has devastated EB, but the latter still sways - proudly displayed in almost all top libraries of this weird planet. I am fascinasted with witches [33] Six suspected witches lynched in Pokot. They were burned at stakes by the Inquisition during the Middle Ages.
I edit conflicted with User:Coren who was removing a note which let you know that silliness is occurring at the domains above as trolling - I thought you might like to know, so have popped this bit back - the full post is in the history, but basically someone is squatting on your domain. (ew....) Privatemusings ( talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like its jimmywales.info too. This is starting to spread around the net. Acerpatch ( talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
DougsTech (
talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Chickens promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot chicken, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of chickens by adding {{ subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- DougsTech ( talk) 17:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr Wales. I am a reporter following up on reported allegations of character assasination at wikipedia. Do you have a wikipedian named Yale Simkin? I would very much like to speak to him as well. In regards to false information he passed on to smh back in 2006. Could you please contact me as soon as possible. This is a very serious matter. Deliberately misleading a major newspaper is a criminal offense. Ledzeppelinwaagh ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please review actions of Admin User:Avi on Carlos Latuff, Talk:Carlos Latuff, antisemitism, and User_talk:65.246.126.130#March_2009 and render an opinion. - 74.242.252.249 ( talk) 05:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Another roll of the dice - Flagged protection to open up pages currently forced to reside under our existing draconian protection schemes with a non-intrusive passive flag for BLPs to make it easier to monitor them. A poll has also opened up on a subpage, but no need to link there directly. Fritzpoll ( talk) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This text: It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
The above obviously includes various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist", an indefinitely banned (for good reason) spammer, and an indefinitely banned anger-management poster child socking from the Czech Republic. If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost.
Link is here: [34]
This is a bit uncivil, rude, and promotes a negative view of the project. This is from user Calton's front page. 67.232.62.114 ( talk) 01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy yours. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Might I request you look into this edit, where MBisanz ( talk · contribs) cited you as a reason to reject Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal. Do you feel that your words should be implied to mean that you reject the idea of removal of unused rights, like they currently do at Commons or other Wikipedias? Thank you for your time. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I contribute Jehovah's Witnesses article that Jehovah's Witnesses are registered as a Christianity group, but Japanese administrators try to hide it because of their belief that JWs don't believe trinity. I think this is extremely POV because JW are formally registered as Christianity in Japan. Then what do you think of this? 118.111.5.64 ( talk) 04:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I am doing a school project about you and I need a few questions.
1. What are some things that you did that involves leadership?
2. Have you had any struggles with Wikipedia?
Please answer on my talk page.
Thank you. AgentSpy101 ( talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I dont have an email. AgentSpy101 ( talk) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
There are bigger issues at stake than Jimbo and Giano and personality conflicts. I think we collectively handled this very badly, and I include myself. What we have seen in action, is what many of us have long suspected: our BLP-culture is hysterical. Its fine to take BLP seriously - and its fine to take BLP a little less seriously than others - there is room for legitimate disagreement. (I do not include no concern at all for BLPs as a legitimate position) We need to stop pretending there is a magical bright line that everyone will immediately recognize, and anyone who crosses it does so in malice or total incompetence. Even if there was a bright line it remains the the responsibility of every Wikipedian to be calm, rational, charitable in conflict. In other words, to explain their reasoning, rather than simply state their positions. This latest incident was notably free of peace makers and consensus building. On a project where we all feel so strongly about Neutrality and consensus, little was found, built, or sought. I myself, jumped into to thick of it - and my conduct was civil - yet still seriously lacking. It is not enough to be civil and polite, we must actively work towards peace and consensus in times of heated conflict.
Giano's intent in writing the article as a defense or a rebuttal was flawed in conception. Yet we should not to harshly judge him just yet. He thought he was doing right. He stands by his work. He told me, and has repeated on wiki that the article was "factual referenced and true" Which in fact it was. It was also, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, An article that was nominally Giles Hattersley, but really about his Wikipedia error. Lets reconcile these two ideas for a moment. What if Giano's intended rebuttal was to create a factual referenced and true neutral) article - and what if he failed, but did so genuinely.
Thus, I return to the subject of BLP-hysteria. In the midst of our entrenched positions on BLPs, we forgot to actually talk to eachother, instead of at eachother. Our collective response to this article was to edit war over it, then protect it, then delete it, all the while bickering with eachother. Giano did not write a properly balanced article (so says me anyway), but after a night's sleep, I can hardly blame him for it. Current event related BLPs have bizarre arcane rules, their own special jargon, and a culture of BLP specialists and their WP:BLP-is-a-stupid-anti-Wikipedia-policy opponents. Even a Wikipedian who has broken through the cultural barrier to get into the general Wikipedia culture will find themselves quickly lost in BLP Wikipedia culture. Our urge to "do no harm" with BLPs is laudable: our tendency to treat people who make purported BLP mistakes is not, and our inability to accept legitimate disagreement is worst of all.
Returning to the latest incident, I think apologies (in the order listed) should be made. First, I apologize for my failure to really do anything particularly useful in this mess, despite being involved in it. I'd like to think I didn't make it worse, but I very much may have - I certainly did not help in the ways that I should have, as I described above. Second, I ask Jimbo to apologize to Giano. No one man can be held responsible for an entire culture gone wrong, but Jimbo, you are our Founder, and you must serve as a leader. You must be the better man, always. Calling Giano's work a hatchet-job was, to put it mildly, insulting (especially to anyone who considers themselves a serious writer) and unhelpful, even if you felt it was true. Third, I ask that Giano apologize (though, as he has left, it scarcely seems necessary for him to do so.) to Jimbo and others at whom he has directed abuse. There are those who will disagree with you, because they share your devotion to making Wikipedia a better place - and by now you should know that you have a special talent for making even innocuous words deeply aggravating and even hurtful. Finally, I think the entire section of the community who was involved and pissed off should apologize and forgive eachother. It may not happen, but it would help the next step.
That next step, in my opinion, is a reexamination of BLPs. Not of our need to get them right - that ship has sailed - but of how we handle the discourse, how we protect Wikipedia, Living persons, and the contributors from harm. -- Tznkai ( talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is another one brewing at Libelous comments concerning Professor Hewitt.-- 67.169.144.164 ( talk) 22:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, did you - in blocking Giano for incivility - request and receive permission of the ArbCom, as required by the WP:AE conditions relating to Giano? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If anyone really wanted to write a hatchet job on Mr Hattersley, 5 minutes' googling would give them more than enough for a much longer and more detailed article than Giano's innocuous stub. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish that we enforced WP:NPA as rigorously as we seek to enforce WP:BLP. In the past I have been slandered in projectspace, and there is no effective recourse. Editors who participate under their real world identities should be protected. It is a shame that people feel the need to use pseudonyms. (And if somebody uses a pseudonym, they also should be protected from personal attacks!) Jehochman Talk 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming G's report of what he wrote is correct (a couple of arbs have implicitly affirmed this as has Jimbo), given history of past conflict etc. this is the type of misuse of a block, for simply giving undue emphasis to a statement otherwise compliant with BLP, that would have us seriously questioning an admin's access to the tools. Then there's the above misrepresentation of the edits in question ("hatchet job" etc) and patronising and frankly clueless comments which accompanied the unblock (complete with wondering aloud about about trolling, how extraordinarily amusing). Given that Jimbo recently couldn't be bothered to use what remains of his 'executive power' to start a trial of flagged revisions (arguably significantly more useful than any number of dubious "BLP blocks") what exactly is the point of his continuing to be anything other than a figure-head?-- Misarxist ( talk) 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you get it done? :) Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I did my readings, and I wrote up a proposal. Now I'm sleeping on it for a couple of nights to revisit it to make sure it seems like something that people will like.
Yesterday I had a very full day of meetings here in the Dominican Republic, and today I am going to visit a school and community center. They are showing me how IT is impacting the poorest segments of D.R. society, and I am learning a lot. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 11:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, mr. Wales!
Is it acceptable do discuss user`s private life on Wikipedia pages and to give personal evaluations and comments on it?-- SkyDrinker ( talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I've created a short bio for Giles Hattersley. It's well referenced and I think it shows how he's notable - he was shortlisted for young journalist of the year at the British Press Awards and was also the youngest ever chief interviewer at the Sunday Times. I've left the Wikipedia controversy out because I don't believe it's notable enough to include - we don't have any reliable sources that say exactly what happened, and I think from a BLP perspective it's wrong to include even a mention of it when it wasn't even Hattersley's fault. If there's some significant coverage of it in the news, then we can take another look, but at the minute there only seems to be one blog entry from another journalist. Would you mind if I moved it into mainspace? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently there was a discussion on the nl.wiki about your administrator rights, currently you still have local admin rights but your not active on the Wikipedia. (But as special moderator you don't have to be confirmed every year).
The question is now if you don't mind if we remove your rights voluntary, because you will not even notice the are gone. You are also a developer so you have the admin rights on all wikimedia projects. And a desysop will also make it possible to remove your right but it should be a waste of our and maybe your time.
I hope you will respond quickly, Abigor ( talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo it would be good if you could sign in my sign book. →Ratón Bat→ 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy Wales,
Thanks for reading my letter, I am a user and editor of Chinese Wikipedia and I want to share some ideas about the development of Chinese Wikipedia.
The Chinese Wikipedia finally got the Turning Point, after the long-term banning by the PRC government, Wikipedia could be visited in a certain degree of free, from our experience, this free would be keep if there is no big change. The most frequently used language Wikipedia can be used by a number of 400,000,000 netizens partly free, but what can we see is that the Chinese Wikipedia is a superficial encyclopedia, Original article with high Quality is so little, most of the featured articles are the translate version of English or other Wikipedia. Facing the competitors such as baidu encyclopedia(baidu baike in pinyin, a product by a Chinese company) Wikipedia is losing its advantage gradually.
In my point of view, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia for all of the world for free and NPOV, it could be and should be written by people who have different view, whether you are left-wing,right-wing,communist,or even you are a nazist, you have the right to edit the area you are good at, so, why Chinese Wikipedia should be the translate version of English Wikipedia?
What I want to do is beginning a program of inventing Chinese experts to edit the Chinese Wikipedia, some of Chinese experts are not unlike the idea of Wikipedia, just because they do not know the program and our idea, so why do we tell them the idea. NPO also need marketing, if no one know us, we would be forgotten.
I think the following things could be done:
1. Begin a program officially .
2. Sending Inventing E-mails to professors in each university.
3. Set a group to help these experts getting used to the use of Wikipedia.
4. Contact the administrator of BBS in some Universities to begin the topic of Wikipedia.
These are just a start of the program, more and more things should be done to improve the quality of Chinese Wikipedia.
Best Wishes to Wikipedia
Raintwoto
raintwoto@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Jimbo. I was in the speech you gave at FUNGLODE in Dominican Republic yesterday, which was very interesting. I just want to congratulate you for your work and thank you for visiting us, I hope you liked your stay here and I'd like to attend if you give another one here. Have a good day.
Alex2610 (
talk)
11:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I almost ask you to let me take a picture with you at the end of the conference when you were leaving the conference room, but I felt too embarrassed to ask :S
Hello Mr. Jimbo. I'm kiri Simeonovski, administrator on Wikipedia on macedonian language. The parameter Depth which is calculated to show the quality of the articles, for me and for us on mk.Wiki is not a good statistic shower about it. The formula (Eits/Articles)·(Non-Articles/Artciles)·(1- stub-ratio) is weak, because of its manipulation from the users. Expanding edits by talkpage edits or user edits has positive impact on the Depth value, so you can get higher Depth without editing encyclopedic pages. So, I want to propose to change the formula of this parameter and to install values in it, such as kilobytes merge of the articles and to eliminate the impact of the talkpage and user edits. Regards.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 16:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Will Mr Hattersley himself be publicly stating that at no time did he accuse either Wikipedia or its editors of libel? 'Cos in the article as it is on the Sunday Times website he appears to be doing exactly that. DuncanHill ( talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what he will say. But I am pretty sure that relaxing about it for a couple of days will do no one any harm.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, you're way off base here. You are arguing with someone else, not me, about your view about what I might say, although I haven't. You accuse me of not trusting the community, of refusing to tell the community something important, etc. I think it is extremely important to note that you simply made all that up out of thin air to advance your own agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself, you are behaving like a spoiled brat.
I am talking to Mr. Hattersley and (through him) his editors. Inquiries are being made. It takes them time to get back to me. He has to talk to his people, and they have to... I don't know... but there's no hurry and there's nothing new for me to tell you. Now please stop attacking me over infractions that you simply made up. Remember, this is a weekly newspaper. Everyone was off work on Monday. Tuesday he talked to them. He got back to me with an update, I responded, he responded. We're having a conversation. When there is anything useful to tell you, I will tell you. Not before. The world does not revolve around your demands for instant gratification.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Per my message from a few days ago, I have been doing my homework. What I am trying to do is craft a proposal for FlaggedRevs which is not controversial, that addresses as many competing concerns as possible, and gives us a clear track forward at the end of the trial. I had hoped to have something ready by Monday (today), and I still may, but due to having diverted a few hours of my time yesterday to dealing with the Giles Hattersley hatchet-job biography situation, I'm running somewhat behind. -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the community is ready for another debate on Flaggedrevs yet, the poll just finished in late January and the survey is still not closed. Some time to let the media frenzy die down wouldn't hurt too. Various proposals and trials are discussed, as usual the ones most supported will be presented to the community for consideration in time. Cenarium ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, could I ask you to review the new article at Giles Hattersley? This is not a restoration of an old version but a completely new article, written from scratch, without any of the elements that made the last one a problem. Page protection is still in place until March 14th to prevent any short-term mischief and to enable you to review the article in the meantime. Hopefully this will resolve any lingering issues with this article. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The article looks fine.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy, I am a fairly new wiki member. I am wondering what you think of the state of affairs in the world. Do you think we are in the endtimes. Also, have you ever listened to raul midon?
Thanks and God Bless Lulu262 ( talk) 12:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
A friend of mine thinks that User: Jimbo Wales is not actually you but a sort of "Agent who works for him" that runs you're Wikipedia page on your behalf. I don't think this is true so can you confirm it isn’t? Misortie ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Dunno Tbh. Misortie ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the DisabilityInfo.gov article was speedied recently. Please move it to the most appropriate user page. Ottre 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo,
First, some news about {{ val}}, which is a template that is used to create expressions like this: 6.0223427534(32)×10−23 kg. It had a annoying bug where it was occasionally generating rounding errors, where the final “4” might render as “39”. That is all fixed now. For a full paragraph’s worth of update, you can see this MOSNUM update. As we had earlier left things here on your talk page, I was proposing some character-counting parser functions. That would still be the best way to handle this sort of thing but StringFunctions is buggy and there just wasn’t any enthusiasm for making small, bullet-proof string function parser functions to tackle the issue. The work-around proved to be more productive in the end.
In a nutshell, I did as you proposed and got active on Wikitech-l. After a month of my “not going away”, a developer, Dragons flight, hopped up in a saddle and completely revised the behind-the-scenes number-handling of {val} and made it so it has an order of magnitude less processor overhead when doing its magic. I had created some testing sandboxes like User:Greg_L/Val_sandbox, where we found that usually, {val} worked to 14 digits, but only to 12 digits 20% of the time. Dragons flight theorized that it was because some of the servers had a different precision setting than the rest. It turned out that the random limitation to 12 digits was due to the user request being served by older, Fedora-based servers which have different software settings. It developed that there was no point correcting the settings since those older servers are currently being phased out and replaced with newer ones running Ubuntu. When this is all done (a mater of weeks), all the servers will be identical and {val} will work consistently to 14 digits.
The exercise got everyone at Wikitech thinking about the PHP settings and other math-related low-level services. As I understand it, Wikitech developers are busy improving some math-related software. All good stuff. It didn’t take long with me whining about this problem for developers’ natural inquisitiveness to kick in and say “hey, this software can be way improved.”
Now, to the “navigation help”: I don’t understand the organization of Wikipedia well enough to know who to appeal up to in the arbitration world. There is an arbitration workshop on delinking dates going on here, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop for a month. Stepping stone pages have been going on before this, so this arbitration process has gone on for well over a month. The trouble is, we’ve now got a very specific Proposal to end it all for the arbitrators to consider. But, though they volunteered to arbitrate and are officially “assigned” as arbitrators on the issue, they aren’t *arbitrating*. The most charitable way to describe it is “they are very hands off.”
Why should anyone care about this? Principally, WP:MOSNUM is completely locked down while this dispute rages. So the arbitration really should be arbitrated, MOSNUM updated with community consensus on date linking, and editors can move on to other, more productive things. I’ve had my hands full juggling real life, {{ val}}/Wikitech‑l, Kilogram, and the Date delinking workshop arbitration. I enjoy the first three. The last one, not so much. For the good of WP:MOSNUM and Wikipedia, we need to break the logjam. So…
Where is the very best place to appeal for arbitration to get moving and arbitrate?
Greg L ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. We posted a request at here at WT:ArbCommittee. If that is the best place there is, then we’ve done what we can. Please advise if there is something further/else we ought to do. Greg L ( talk) 05:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This situation is out of hand. We're basically saying if you're a banned user, just get a dynamic IP, and we'll do absolutely nopthing to stop you harassing anyone even tangentally involved with your ban.
Please put an end to this, whatever the collateral damage. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(archive this undated template message Fram ( talk) 09:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Hi Jimbo, I read your bio on Wikipedia but I could not find much info on your religious beliefs or lack there of. Do you consider yourself an atheist, or perhaps an agnostic, or are you religious and if so what religion? Just curious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.160.18 ( talk) 07:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Jimbo. How'd ya like to be (one-of-three) a moderator, in the attempts to reach an agreement on the naming of the articles Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation)? -- GoodDay ( talk) 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It sounds fun, but I'd best not. I think it's better if I stay out of such issues.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. Just recently I've noticed that species are now using italics in the title see Gryllus veletis etc. It seems to be programmed into their infoboxes to produce an italicized title. What would anybody think about this for film, book, song, opera etc titles? As a name which is italized in the article intro below and according to MOS is put in Italics in the article links, would this seem more consistent to also have the title of the page italicized in coordination? Please respond at the village pump. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, I have some good BLP news. I recently blogged about the "bisexuality" bizarreness and shenanigans going on with Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez. In short, Valdes-Rodriguez has a history of making stunning declarations she later recants, and she has taken this war to her Wikipedia biography. The blog post has led to some very good press for us about our diligence with BLPs. I don't know Valdes-Rodriguez, but only acted as an editor trying to sort out the controversy to ensure an accurate biography. I think the column on one of the premiere LGBT websites shows we take the accurateness of our biographies seriously. Now if we can only get Flagged Revs turned on...? --David Shankbone 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, today I present one more of your stunning kiddy admins on commons
3+1 Diti still unblocked
Somewhat ironic as I was someone who initially was prepared to unblock you however you appear to continually show a disinterest in behaving in a reasonable manner & co-operatively so I have now amended your block per this. I will not take offence if others deem me wrong however your behaviour is aggressive & unpleasant and there is no sign you plan to change that. -- Herby talk thyme 10:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=User_talk:Mutter_Erde&action=edit&oldid=17242085
Moved to User:Tango/GH discussion (discussion finished, can be archived. Fram ( talk) 10:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
I know you receive thanks and applause for Wikkipedia on a more-or-less continuous basis, Jimbo, and probably have no desire for more. Too bad, I can't help myself. Here it is.
I thought you had a super idea years ago, when Nupedia began. That, of course, was nothing. The real Wikkipedia and your Wikkipedia philosophy are not only wonderful in their own right, but they are clearly changing the world in wonderful ways.
So, thank you, Jimbo, thank you. Tim Ross (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry to make such petty requests, but would you sign my guestbook? Thanks! (If you're too busy, you don't have to) Math Cool 10 Sign here! 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Some readers of this page may wish to contribute to the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jimmy Wales/1 Reassessment being conducted on the article Jimmy Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversider2008 ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Tonight's Google cache of our page on Barack Obama - just the search results: Look at the second search result: m:File:Google search -- Barack Obama.png. Admiteedly, this will eventually die away, the vandalism was reverted and Google will eventually re-cache the page. But what if the vandalism on a BLP was not caught? Then a vandalised version reaches the top of Google's rankings, is cached, copied all over the web by mirrors. Some food for thought, anyway Fritzpoll ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the edit in question, the contention is presumably that applying FR is the only way we could have stopped that edit from getting onto the page (for two minutes). Seriously? There is no other way we can pre-emptively stop the virtual blanking of large long standing BLP articles? There is no other way we can pre-emptively stop the addition of the words NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA into an article? The only way to deal with this edit would have been to apply FR and crudely introduce a pre-emptive assumption of bad faith across a number of articles, just because of stuff like this? Quit yanking me, as the Americans like to say. I won't comment on the whole oddness of the incident or the malicious user in question, although at least this time they were blocked for a first offence of blatant vandalism. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your supportive comments here [5] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
At 5:20 am (GMT), the date of birth template Template:birth date and age changed from displaying the age purely as an integer, and started showing decimal points in the figure, eg 23 became 23.0000000000000000. An example of this is in the aticle Mark Harmon.
The same thing happened to the height formula Template:Height, it now shows the phrase "Expression error: Missing operand for" when using feet and inches in the case of the Template:Infobox Football biography. An example of where this has occured is in the article Chris Maguire.
Have these infoboxes been changed as of today (18 February 2009) or is wikipedia having some problems with these templates?
Please can you respond to my usertalk page, thanks Dreamweaverjack ( talk) 05:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
As the Flagged Revs thing is still cooking, please take a look at, and weigh in at Wikipedia:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal or WP:NOCACHE if you could? Not open for "polling" yet, and it's just a rough form, but the gist is pretty obvious. Thanks. You'll want to read the referenced article as well. rootology ( C)( T) 07:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
King Kong defence has gotten some media attentions, and the currently ongoing AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence) is pretty much a mess at the moment; perhaps you are intrested to make your voice heard in this matter. → Aza Toth 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi User:Jimbo Wales,
Thank you for your help on the talk page for the
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love.
I was wondering if you could help me expand on the article.
Son-Rise, an
Early childhood intervention therapy program that was created by two parents in the '70s that got their son to completely recover from Autism and the Autsim spectrum.
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love is a
docudrama about the recovery and was adapted by the book, Son-Rise (now known as Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues).
Their is not to many references supporting the movie, the most reliable references for the film is not informative enough or 100% accurate (e.g. New York Times Film Synopsis said that (from All Media Guide) Raun Kaufman was high-functioning (a lot of other sources about the movie says that to), but it is wrong, he was severe and
Mentally retarded, even in the movie.
Their is more info from the book, which adapted into the film.
Could I reference a lot from the book, and use it as a reliable source since it has the majority of the information from the movie and is more accurate.
Could you also help me with the book,
Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues that I haven't created yet.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm scared if you do. -- 62.240.86.108 ( talk) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
One idea for featured articles is to have a full protected policy on all featured articles. Since featured articles are already *perfect*, any more edits after featured status would just make the articles worse. TeH nOmInAtOr ( talk) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello mr. Wales, I have found an interessting discussion about you http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AU#Wie_reich_ist_Jimmy_Wales.2C_Mitbegr.C3.BCnder_von_Wikipedia.3F in the german Wikipedia. Perhaps you want to know it. I had see, that you want to learn german...is it not a good idea? But than I musst warning you, that is germanhumor -- 84.62.185.134 ( talk) 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo. Your expertise is drastically needed at the above WP:ANI/Commemorative Coins Controversy. Policy issues need to be clearly defined, free of incumberment and in a way that is clear to all. Not all editors are being candid as to purpose and the truthfulness of interpretations as presented has to be called into question. This is an important issue and needs you guidance.-- Buster7 ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo...I hope some reply of some kind is close at hand. This altercation has effected hundreds of articles.-- Buster7 ( talk) 11:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Investigation shows this to be a simple and standard case of block evasion and website self-promotion. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, IP blocked by Gwen Gale. Guy ( Help!) 09:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales
Forgive us if we break Wikipedia protocol and ask for a COMPLAINT to be dealt with by this medium. I am new to Wikipedia, and at 60 basically new to computers in general, because I have severe Aspergers Syndrome My son (who is also on the autistic spectrum) and I have worked very hard together to produce a website called THEDUCHYOFEFFENHAUER.COM and invite contribution for its enhancement, by having our own website and by putting it on Wikipedia in good faith. Within minutes it was disregared and we politely appealed gaving our reasons, BUT by receiving comments from your administrator of 'Yeah whatever you say...show me sources" and "if you be nice I might consider it" is a little too unreasonable. I should be grateful if you pass on this message to Orangemike and suggest a review of mind-set in properly representing Wikipedia. We can all make mistakes and I am willing to learn by them but being greeted by childishness is beyond acceptable conduct - even by your own standards.
Thank you
79.74.103.205 ( talk) 14:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a direct link to the deleted article: The Duchy of Effenhauer. I don't see anything in User_talk:Accounting4Taste#The_Duchy_of_Effenhauer that suggests that Accounting4Taste said the "yeah whatever" and the "if you be nice" statements. either way ( talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you ALL for reviewing my complaint and the time you have given -much appreciated. To be honest its still as clear as mud to me but thats down to my total lack of 'know how'. I would still like to put my site onto your pages and would politely request anyone that has the time to email me and put me in the right direction I would be most thankful. A few knowledgable suggestion would be very useful. Just for the record H.M Department of Science & Technology has, as its central filing store a superb building complex in Earlsfield. South London and it is incombant for the department and others, to allow certain document out for public scutiny after a certain amount of years (50 in terms of secret WWII stuff - Operation Foxley, for example). The arrangemnt also allows for archive copies to be forwardwed to overseas governments where in most cases thay are published BEFORE those in the UK. In the case of the Duchy of Effenhauer that was probably the case. Only part of those files was sent to me because of my late Fathers persistance, position and registered inquiries over the years. My request was basically to enhance my website(THEDUCHYOFEFFENHAUER.COM) not to offend anyone, but to complete, if possible, the work done by him As I say if someone would like to share the journey. I would really appreciate it - even if only for my sons sake For the meantime thank you ALL again and rest assured its not too late to start learning at 60 Kind regards 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Ms Kittybrewster for a most speedy reply - much appreciated. Not quite sure what you mean though, perhaps you might like to explain the benefits, if you have time. For the moment I wish you well and perhap you might like to look in yourself, to the work already done by Tom, my son. and I on our website and possibly tell us how to improve. Please note however that it is still being built - Kind regards 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 20:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - most kind- excellent idea! I'll check with H.M. College of Arms here in London who are the font of all heraldic knowledge, pedigrees and knowledgable contacts. They were extraordinarily helpful when I petitioned for Arms, Crest and badge and banner for my late Mother and Father, and intail my own, and Tom, my sons, Arms. Henry Paston=Bedingfeld York Herald, is phenominal when it comes to that sort of thing. His good lady, who assist him, in chambers, is most charming and will probably oblige. Also, on thinking about it the archives of the City of London- I was granted Freedom of the City when I attained my Guild of Air Pilots and Air navigators Freedom. Copies of those those certificates are indeed available, but that is beside the point, why have the watery gravy when a giood size steak is on offer, so to speak. My contacts at Central Store will be first port of call, both can get into files and reference numbers without even a word. Many, many thanks and good pointers - well done! 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 21:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you and I note your information and can assure you it will be addressed first thing tomorrow morning. The names you bring to my notice and Tom Sayle are indeed my autistic son, a9atom SALES) and in my absense has been entering information I have expressly told him not to. Should you or any of your colleagues find unacceptable info elsewhere please let me know and I'll have words and get TOM off air. Oh dear - again I have been remiss not only to Wikipedia but to my own son. In the spirit of open co-operation I can let you know that a couple of months ago I spoke to Henry Paston-Bedingfeld (York Herald) on another matter and the subject of THE ORDER OF ST JOACHIM came up. (see the Wikipedia page) and as I understand it, it may have been recognised by the College of Arms and Burkes Peerage in Lord Nelsons day, but certainly does not exist today in that form. By name and historic fact yes, but a total nonsence blindfold, nevertheless, with no verifiable content whatsoever except their own spin. Apparently even its founder Helmut von Br (whatever)-Falkensee has again no verifiable background and therefore is questionable throuigfh uncertainty. Moreover, their charitable precepts appear to contain a gap in their returns to the Charity Commission. I will, as I say, make amends tomorrow morning, on Tom, but I seem to have opened a negative can of worms for him in trying to do the right thing for my Father. What a world!! Just a last though -the files I mention in THE DUCHY OF EFFENHAUER website that apprently come from Russian intelligence bear the name of the same department - I think, therefore, someone is having a mighty laugh at my expence - can I come back to you tomorrow, and thank you so much for being very much on the ball! Salute and kind regards 79.74.103.205 ( talk) 23:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Nasdijj article has been protected for 2 1/2 years, do you think we can try unprotection? (Cyde's comment indicated it was protected at your request). best, – xeno ( talk) 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but please keep a close eye on it. It's only semi-protected, by the way, not protected.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
[8] is unacceptable piling on surely. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
We're about to hit 100 featured sounds on English Wikipedia. Is there any chance of getting a press release to announce this milestone, and to encourage participation in finding more? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales
I respectfully request that you permanently block my IP address.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Ingvar Heter Esq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingvar Heter ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per consensus established on the admin's IRC channel, I've blocked the user. Details here. Tom Harrison Talk 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it was all a ridiculous lie. No blocks, no IRC.
Tom Harrison
Talk
21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
[9] Indeed. Can I block you for
disruption now.
Pedro :
Chat
21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)(comment edited from original by Jimbo)
Hello, Jimmy Wales. You can't know me, I'm just an wikipedian that discovered your userpage. Well, the english wikipedia adopted the fair use, a law in the United States that anyone can show an image without comercial uses, or distributing it (I think, obviously, you knew that). The Portuguese Wikipedia didn't adopted this. There was a voting and, for a difference of 8 persons, the fair use was not adopted. I know you cannot do anything, but I just wanna your opinion about that, because there's persons who don't want to adopt the fair use that say: "The fair use would remove the concept of 'free' in the Wikipedia." What do you think? Is this correct?
Please, message me back in my talk page in the Portuguese Wikipedia (clicking here).
Raafael ( talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are there different wikipedias for different languages? It makes more sense to have a single Wikipedia translated/translateable into multiple languages, that way there is not a large English-language wikipedia and smaller Spanish-language wikipedia for example, and new articles and changes to existing articles in one language could then translate to all other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.176.176 ( talk) 06:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This has just got removed by being a personal attack, when actually there is no evidence to support this and was actually just questioning your policy that everybody has the right to edit this website, when surely it would be better if the editors were contained to a strict few. So this is not a personal attack, so i've put it back, as i see no reason for it to get taken down in the first place and i want User: Jimbo Wales to answer, not one of his minions
In Great Britain, GCSE coursework has been stopped, because the government was worried students were getting the incorrect information, because it usually came from this website. Several students have used it as a reference point and got a poorer grade then they were expected to This has led to the government stopping coursework, which could have a dreadful effect on many students who struggle under exam conditions. Are you pleased that your website has ruined their future. Kind regards and please respond soon. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
But why is saying 'minion' a bad way to start a conversation with Jimbo Wales, seeing as he can't be one of the 'minion' i was talking about. Also my concern is that student aren't directly copying this, but rather using it as a source and getting incorrect information and don't have the time to check all the sources,as they have short time limit. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
First of all, can i get an answer from user:jimbo wales only please. Secondly all the information is on Wikipedia, false or otherwise and not all of it is on the sources. And i do appreciate that this website makes some mistakes, but that is surely why there should be only a small and trusted number of editors. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Yes, but it would be more trusted and probably a lot more accurate. i think we can all agree though that Wikipedia is too easy to edit. You don't even need to log in. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Wow, my first post has certainly inflamed a lot of comment, but not from the person i want. I'm starting to wonder if he still logs on to this site. You may not trust a small number of editors, but with everybody allowed to edit, Wikipedia has gained such a terrible reputation that i believe it is one of the main reasons why coursework has been stopped in the UK. Surely its time for a policy change and only Jimbo Wales can answer that properly, so that is why i want a response from him.
What i mean by that comment is that the information is in the sources, it is just stretched out over many different ones, and it is extremely difficult to search through all of them, because as you know, sometimes there can be over a hundred sources in just one article. Also, if the community dictates policy, does Jimbo actually have any power anymore. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
You're right and i'm just patiently waiting for a response. (17:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Jimbo shouldn't have to reply to people who have got both their facts and reasoning wrong. That's what his 'minions' are for. So...the newspaper article you provided as evidence on your talk page does not mention Wikipedia anywhere, and anyway the point made in it was that the internet was making it too easy to cheat, not that the information was wrong. Hadrian89 ( talk) 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have given my reasons as to why examiners think students are cheating, in one of my earlier message's. Please read through them more carefully. I also think that we'll let Jimbo be the judge of wherever he responds to a question or not. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
This discussion is continued at BH900's talk page. Hadrian89 ( talk) 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a response though from jimmy wales. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
It seems Jimbo Wales is logged on, or has been so in the past, but its clear he's too scared to answer me. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 19:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
Why has everybody on Wikipedia got so scared of a simple question. You no longer even giving reasons, as you know that I have outsmarted you. I'm sorry for the arrogance, but I have. If Jimbo Wales, unlike you lot, has an intelligent response to my original question, then I invite him to reply, but it seems to anybody who just stumbled across the talk page, he's too afraid. One of the Top Hundred People of the Year? Don't make me laugh. ( Beinghuman900 ( talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
I haven't posted at this talk page before, but....it would mean a lot to me, Mr. Wales, if you would comment (pro or con) at this RFC. IMO, the RFC touches on a core issue at Wikipedia, namely censorship. I hope you can drop by. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an uninvolved adminstrator should consider if User:Ferrylodge editing any page (including talk pages) in any way related to Abortion or Pregnancy is in any way helpful to an encyclopedia. Admins should note that the ArbCom has stated that "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Just a thought - is this "appropriate editing" of a talk page? Hipocrite ( talk) 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have compressed several images in Wikipedia and have contact several developers about replacing the current ones, but have yet to receive a reply. Below are several of the images I have compressed:
Optimized and Compressed Images |
---|
I would like to request that the current images be replaced with the ones above. The savings are moderate, but amount to several kilobytes. The title "Wikipedia" at [www.wikipedia.org wikipedia] has been crushed by about 5kb. I don't know how much the savings(in terms of bandwidth) will be, for I haven't found the appropriate statistics, but I do believe they should be noticeable(and if not, at least the page will load faster ^.^). For the current discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Smaller Wikipedia Logo files. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or comments you have on this. Thank you in advance. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1: I would also like to request to know how many times the front page is cached a day? Smallman12q ( talk) 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably better to talk to Brion Vibber, rather than me.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
[12] It says "WWW.MEATSPIN.COM BITCH GOT OWNED" over and over. Look for it in the news soon, like that Obama one. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It actually looks fine now. I doubt if things like this will hit the media much, although I suppose lazy journalists might think that "wikipedia was vandalized and google cached it for a little while" is somehow interesting.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Wales: The situation regarding Calton seems to have flared up again. Please see [ [13]] as it is believed his user page entry still violates WP:NPA. Also, an ANI [ [14]] has been posted regarding Calton's recent attacks on the user pages of Cla68 [ [15]] and user Dtobias [ [16]]. 78.102.139.114 ( talk) 10:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all I would like to establish that this is not a personal attack or a vandalism secondly I doubt that Mr. Wales will answer me so any of the good editors who patrol this page are free to answer and last of all I respect the right to express oneself as being one of the most fundamental rights. Dear Mr. Wales I know myself and many others would appreciate if you changed the "founded" to "co-founded with Larry Sanger" because this is the right thing to do and because another human beings deseveres appreciation for this great project and you have so nicley mentioned Angela Beesley Starling as the other co-founder of wikia. This is your change to make to be civil one of the pillars of wikipedia. (I would appreciate if this wasn't deleted) by some editor who believes it constitutes as vandalism. 211.30.14.161 ( talk) 11:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.14.161 ( talk) 11:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I want to inform you, that yours account on cs.wiki is now free (per this requestú, if you want to use it. JAn Dudík ( talk) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd appreciate a response to the thread you started at my usertalk; I've left a reply there, but haven't received a response. If this wasn't actually an edict regarding OS nomenclature on the encyclopedia, then I don't see why the normal dispute resolution process which has been used thus far in the debate can't be followed. As noted on Gronky's user talk, a considerable number of his mass-reverts were either baseless or counterproductive, but I'd rather wait for a response before re-engaging. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Jimbo. Remember Modernista!? You might want to pop over to the the Skittles talk page - seems that Mars has done exactly the same thing, but is linking to specific sections in our page in lieu of its own product descriptions, with its logo and menu not removable. This would seem to need your input. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added COI and advertising tags to the article and commented on the talk page. The text is very cleanly done and seems neutral, but it's neither neutral nor encyclopedic. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As per title just stopping by to say hi and how are you ? Thanks for founding wikipedia you are awesome,Take care Regards,
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
ps have a cookie
staffwaterboy has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Does each episode of a popular TV show have to achieve notability via these guidelines to merit its own article? I mean, I remember reading somewhere Jimmy Wales saying that if people wanted to, they could start an article on their high school, or something. But right now there's a discussion as to whether certain first season episodes of South Park, like " Pinkeye" and " Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo"that already have their own article really merit them. I mean, it's South Park. Isn't the show itself noteworthy enough for each episode to merit an article if someone wants to write one? I've read the General guidelines, but shouldn't TV episodes have their own guidelines, much as Films do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream ( talk • contribs)
Yes, I would like to have my account unified. Thanks!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
G'day, You have been invited for input at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Non_commercial_image_license. -- Noodle snacks ( talk) 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear friend,
We have read the Arbitration Commitee History and see that we could address to you. We can see that one of the arbitrators (
FayssalF) has sent the request out of focus, and some others are quickly following him advising "decline".
I have sent to a clerk (
Ryan_Postlethwaite)a statement to stress this to be put up, if suitable.
Could you please help me on posting the following statement?
My impression is that they are just following FayssalF's misunderstanding.
I expect your news. Thank you. Regards.
-- Iberomesornix ( talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Jimmy, ich las deine Nachricht auf der Benutzerseite, dass du es magst deutsche Kommentare zu bekommen! Nun biete ich dir an, dein Deutsch zu verbessern!
Kannst dazu vielleicht mal im ICR.Chat der Wikipedia vorbeischauen! http://platon.ext.baur4.info/wpchat/deWP.html</nowik> Ich bin immer abends dort. Vielleicht könntest du mir dann mit meinem Englisch weiterhelfen?
Ich würde mich, (ach, auch alle anderen) freuen, wenn du mal wieder in der deutschen Wikipedia vorbeischaust
Hi Jimmy, I read your message on your user page that you like to receive comments in German. Now I offer you to improve your German. Could you take a look at http://platon.ext.baur4.info/wpchat/deWP.html. I'm always there at night. Perhaps you could help me with my English? I, and others, would be happy when you shown up in the German Wikipedia once again. -- Rodhull andemu 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jasonr_(reconfirmation). Someone has posted this, without much forethought it seems like. Perhaps you can head it off - if this person, who reportedly worked for you and got his admin bit as a result, is no longer associated with Wikipedia... Would you remove the bit then yourself? Avruch T 15:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
what happens when there are multiple reliable 3rd party sources that conflict, but multiple 1st party sources that say one thing. do the editors go with the 1st party source..Example: Johnny A releases a book stating he is a homosexual. "News weekly" denies the book saying Johnny A. isn't a homosexual. "News Report hour' states that Johnny is infact a homosexual. Who does wikipedia beleive? reply on my talk page. 70.242.179.192 ( talk) 04:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo,
I am having trouble with a user named WebHampster in the Skull and Bones discussion pages. He is hiding my text in a collapse box and told me to F-off. I thought that wikipedia users were required to respect each other and act like gentlemen. Could you please talk to this user.
Thank you, M
I edit conflicted with User:Coren who was removing a note which let you know that silliness is occurring at the domains above as trolling - I thought you might like to know, so have popped this bit back - the full post is in the history, but basically someone is squatting on your domain. (ew....) Privatemusings ( talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should simply ban those domains. But lets ask Jimbo first. He might be in negotiations with this silly site squatter as we speak. Wikiwarriorwayne ( talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo - having been dead busy away from wikipedia for the last few weeks, I thought I'd come straight to the horse's mouth and ask what the current status of the flagged revisions trial is? If anyone could point me in the direction of current discussion, or try and sum up the status quo in a few words, it'd be appreciated. My reading of the various places I've dug around is that nothing happened, and no specific action is yet scheduled? cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 23:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be dense, Carbuncle, but I can't make sense of why you linked to that page. It's about someone being alleged to have reverted a template more than three times. Nothing about flagging. Is there a page where it's being discussed? Here's my view on it:
Mr. Jones ( talk) 11:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The relevant pages seem to be
It's dormant. Jimbo hasn't said any thing about it for a while. The discussion of proposed trials has had just a few edits the past month. Same with other relevant pages. Wikipedia Review is complaining about it, but they're putting more actual effort into deleting some British quiz show contestant. If want to do something about it, I suggest going through the proposed trials and make something out of it that could get wide acceptance. Shameless plug: Trial 18: Shadow flagging -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo. I've been working on assessing consensus w.r.t. flagged revisions for some time now, and I finally drafted Wikipedia:Flag protection and patrolled revisions. I think there's a need and support for a system to monitor and better control blps, but in the same time, a strict Flaggedrevs for all of them has no consensus. So, I think we could have consensus for a passive flag, patrolled revisions. And we also need to be able to fully 'activate' flagged revs on some pages, as a protection measure, that's what I proposed as a variant of flagged protection. Comments are welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
< - seems like quite a few people are pulling in kinda the same direction, kinda like a cat sleigh perhaps.... Is the 'soon' of your timeframe roughly 'this week', or maybe 'March sometime', Jimbo? Privatemusings ( talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There sometimes appears at the top of the page "Live near SF and have an hour to help Wikipedia?" but the only link it gives is a javascript link, which is a dead link. I asked on one of the forums and nobody knew what it was, only confirming he javascript link "ethnio.show" was dead for them, too. Perhaps you know? Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, Jimbo is blinking at me. Does anyone else find this to be, oh I don't know... weird? I figured I was just tired when I first thought I saw his picture blink, but then I definitely saw Jimbo blink at me! I then realized his picture is a .gif image. Maybe a still frame would be more, uh, not off-putting? Am I alone in my opinion? - Sesu Prime ( talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,Jimbo. I'm worry that I have to report that Japanese Wikipdians are POV about Christianity articles. They say trinity is the main doctrine of Christianity and the religion that doesn't support that is non-Christianity or heresy without no explainations. But I think 'heresy' is word to avoid, and I deleted this words. Then Japanese administrators decided it trolls without no explainations, and they blocked my ID. What do you think of this? 118.111.5.64 ( talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You might (or might not) be interested in this and this. Just a thought: Right now we have 2 options, either keep reverting the edits or place full protection on the article — either one will attract even more notice from the media (Now Wikipedia reverts all edits or Now Wikipedia has prohibited all editing). Either way, it's lose-lose. Now, if flagged revisions were in place.... Just thinking out loud. -- 64.85.217.74 ( talk) 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wondering what we should do about Aaron Klein. Editing (it appears) as Jerusalem21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he first creates his own vanity article [19] and, despite getting caught sockpuppeting (see his talk page), squats on the article for two years to prevent anyone from cleaning it up. Then he engineers a fake scandal to bring disrepute on Wikipedia. On February 24, after never editing (from that account) any other article he suddenly makes three rapid-fire edits to the Obama article - two on the crackpot theory that Obama was born in Kenya [20] [21] and one to promote the election year smear involving Bill Ayers [22] that was by consensus too trivial for Obama's main bio page. He publishes an expose about Wikipedia in his right wing site, World Net Daily [23] without admitting that he is actually reporting on the breaching experiment he perpetrated to get himself blocked. The story gets mainstream coverage for a while [24] [25] until the hoax is discovered [26] [27] but by that time the story has hit the conservative blogosphere and editors are rushing from all over to as ChildofMidnight puts it above "fix the article" (i.e. edit war and badmouth the supposed "libtards" and censors who rule Wikipedia). That results in full indefinite protection for the article [28] and a state of siege on its talk page.
Whatever Klein is doing here, it is clearly not to build an encyclopedia. He has sabotaged the project to create a fake scandal so he can cover it to further a political agenda. Now his article is nominated for deletion (see [ [29]]). I'm thinking we should root out his accounts and not let him edit here unless he shows he wants to use accounts to write articles. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think hardly anyone would disagree with the important parts of all these observations, and most people who think at all about them agree that they're important problems. They're such big problems that few of us know just what to do about them and, given the difficulty of getting a consensus to implement any big Wikipedia policy change, few people bother to try.
Broad, possible solutions:
I don't really know what specific reforms would be best, but I think workable reforms would move in the direction of hierarchy and rules for discussions that keep them on track, with predictable ways of making decisions. Nothing will stop people from acting badly or making bad decisions, but these types of reforms would help. I'm posting this here because I want more people, including you, Jimbo, thinking about this, and because the Obama article provides so many good examples of the problems here. I spent months at the Obama article talk page trying to come to rational conclusions and avoid abuse, only to lose my own temper finally, after Wikidemon wouldn't accept a 2:1 majority as a consensus on whether or not any of dozens of reliable sources could be used to call a terrorist a "terrorist" (difs available on request). After arguing for months whether or not Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko either could be mentioned in the Obama article, or how, I washed my hands of it. And the same disputes are back again, even at AN/I. I never want to touch another article with a big political controversy again. The discussions have too little to do with what's best for Wikipedia and too much to do with what's best for particular editors' personal preferences. And they're full of sleazy games playing, insults, immature accusations, skulduggery and sophistry. But it's just ludicrous to think that if we only identify the bad guys and block or ban them everything will be all right. Yet it's about the only solution that ever comes up at AN/I, because it's just about all a body like that can do.
I think it might help if you acknowledged that there are some systemic problems here, particularly with contentious articles and the way we make decisions on them. Your voice might get more people thinking about these problems (and maybe you've done this; if so, my apologies for lengthy blather). That's your bailiwick, God King, more so than whether some guy should get blocked or banned, which AN/I can deal with. -- Noroton ( talk) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you are trying hard to craft a flagged revs proposal that will make everyone happy, but I think some stop-gap measure is needed. Six admins, including 2 checkusers have resigned in March, many citing what can be summed up on User:Kevin. Until the management (you) actively changes the status quo (make BLP1E a CSD, put flagged revs on all BLPs, semi-protect all BLPs), people will believe your words are just words without action. And we will continue to lose more admins and more active editors. It is no surprise that in the last year, despite promoting 201 people to adminship, the number of active admins has declined by about 80 as more and more people tire of the endless debate on life changing issues like proper BLP enforcement and decide their time is better spent on more responsible hobbies (or at least less destructive ones). Regards. MBisanz talk 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Some discussions have happened here and there. I intend to propose Wikipedia:Flag protection and patrolled revisions to the community very soon as I believe we can have consensus for that. Preliminary discussion is welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jimbo is working on a proposal, but I don't think he wants us to sit by idly and wait. I made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get. Some of you will see it as watered down, but the alternative is to continue like now. I like Cenarium's proposal too, but I want something as simple as possible that can be understood in five minutes. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, the community will discuss this to pieces, over and over again. Maybe it is time that everybody who thinks that flagged revisions should be implemented NOW go on strike, and let those that who doesn't want them ydo the dirty work. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The community is still capable of finding a solution. I personally have works literally hundreds of hours on finding a compromise proposal for FlaggedRevs, and I know other people, including some above, who have done the same. Get involved in the discussions, try to help in finding a compromise, accept reasonable compromise, etc. The foundation knows that if they impose a certain implementation of FlaggedRevs, it'll certainly result in a massive wave of retirements, their hands are tied. We still have opportunities to find a consensual proposal, let's no waste them. Cenarium ( talk) 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Dearest Jimbo, as you can see by the important contributions I've made at Glorified rice, Dutch oven (practical joke) and Exopolitics, it's very important that I attend Wikimania 2009 in Buenos Aires. Thank you for your kind consideration of providing me with an all expense paid trip to make this possible. I'm very appreciative. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, let me reassure you, I cannot make Wikimania 2009 (a little thing called work, mortgage, etc.), so you can save my plane and hotel fare for someone else -- Avi ( talk) 00:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
For (Just being the most awesome person and for founding wikipedia.), I hereby award Jimbo Wales with the “
Cool Award.”
Staffwaterboy
Critique Me
Guestbook
Hate Comments
00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy and have fun at Wikimania i can't make it unfortunately i have no way of getting there. Take care
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This disgrace of a BLP requires immediate attention. For five months the libellous content has sat there for anyone to read. I'm sure one of your many TPS can oblige. 88.108.143.156 ( talk) 02:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I can't get an admin to listen to me (I've posted several unblock requests over the past few months and have failed to be unblocked or even listened to,) I thought I'd come to the main man, you. At this point I do not see that there is one chance of me being able to appeal anytime soon and I think that the only reason I was "indef" blocked is because someone using a proxy server posted some uncreative insults on the page of the guy I insulted the night before while I was in school. I plead that you take a look at this and PLEASE get to the bottom of this once and for all. If they weren't planning on unblocking me they should've made it a Perm block instead of an indef block. Thank you. HPJoker
A classic BLP1E article about someone who seems to have mental health issues and craves attention. The references section is largely laughable. 88.108.193.221 ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear 88.108,
Because I'm sympathetic to your concerns, I'd like to suggest a couple of points to you:
In regard to the biography you have pointed out here, I agree with you completely. BLP1E. Should be speedied, in my opinion.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, I would like your input at this userbox's deletion nomination. Thank you in advance. — Jch thys 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
When I was in Grade IV (1963), I had the first glimpse Edgar Allan Poe's pages in Encyclopedia Britannica, at my aunt's house, due to our class assignment. In 1973, I had used EB 2 times at the Loyola House of Studies Library. In 2006, it was the first time I opened Wikipedia researching on witches. Today, our Encyclopedia online has devastated EB, but the latter still sways - proudly displayed in almost all top libraries of this weird planet. I am fascinasted with witches [33] Six suspected witches lynched in Pokot. They were burned at stakes by the Inquisition during the Middle Ages.
I edit conflicted with User:Coren who was removing a note which let you know that silliness is occurring at the domains above as trolling - I thought you might like to know, so have popped this bit back - the full post is in the history, but basically someone is squatting on your domain. (ew....) Privatemusings ( talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like its jimmywales.info too. This is starting to spread around the net. Acerpatch ( talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
DougsTech (
talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Chickens promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot chicken, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of chickens by adding {{ subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- DougsTech ( talk) 17:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr Wales. I am a reporter following up on reported allegations of character assasination at wikipedia. Do you have a wikipedian named Yale Simkin? I would very much like to speak to him as well. In regards to false information he passed on to smh back in 2006. Could you please contact me as soon as possible. This is a very serious matter. Deliberately misleading a major newspaper is a criminal offense. Ledzeppelinwaagh ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please review actions of Admin User:Avi on Carlos Latuff, Talk:Carlos Latuff, antisemitism, and User_talk:65.246.126.130#March_2009 and render an opinion. - 74.242.252.249 ( talk) 05:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Another roll of the dice - Flagged protection to open up pages currently forced to reside under our existing draconian protection schemes with a non-intrusive passive flag for BLPs to make it easier to monitor them. A poll has also opened up on a subpage, but no need to link there directly. Fritzpoll ( talk) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This text: It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
The above obviously includes various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist", an indefinitely banned (for good reason) spammer, and an indefinitely banned anger-management poster child socking from the Czech Republic. If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost.
Link is here: [34]
This is a bit uncivil, rude, and promotes a negative view of the project. This is from user Calton's front page. 67.232.62.114 ( talk) 01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy yours. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Might I request you look into this edit, where MBisanz ( talk · contribs) cited you as a reason to reject Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal. Do you feel that your words should be implied to mean that you reject the idea of removal of unused rights, like they currently do at Commons or other Wikipedias? Thank you for your time. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I contribute Jehovah's Witnesses article that Jehovah's Witnesses are registered as a Christianity group, but Japanese administrators try to hide it because of their belief that JWs don't believe trinity. I think this is extremely POV because JW are formally registered as Christianity in Japan. Then what do you think of this? 118.111.5.64 ( talk) 04:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I am doing a school project about you and I need a few questions.
1. What are some things that you did that involves leadership?
2. Have you had any struggles with Wikipedia?
Please answer on my talk page.
Thank you. AgentSpy101 ( talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I dont have an email. AgentSpy101 ( talk) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)