![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
[1] First I get banned for BS and now the Taleb article is getting out of hand and has been escalated to WP:Office. Since Taleb has recently been the subject of the Wall Street journal as a potential target of death threats [2] This after no administrator did anything to the perceived harassing editors. NOTHING. But one administrator took time out from their busy, to post a remark on my talk page. Singled me out and then repeatedly blames me for pointing out them being hypocritical in their behavior. The admin blew me off and went back to doing nothing to the opposing editors. This could have been handled by admin without going office. If administrators had followed policy and been fair in the comments and behavior then it could have been handled on the bio talk page. Administrators are still not addressing the abuses of editors on the article harassing the Taleb estate legal rep with comments that they are violating Wikipedia policy by addressing perceived misconduct. No Admin has told the offending editors publicly to stop misusing Wiki policy to end the Taleb estate rep from posting on Wiki. They have instead reported the rep for WP:No legal threat and WP:COI which is reprehensible. This behavior needs to be addressed. Some administrators are too buzy giving knee jerk reaction bans and sarcastic comments to stop behavior that has already been escalated to office. I am requesting an apology and the behavior addressed publicly. If people can post a warning about my comments publicly on my talkpage then their oversights can be correctly publicly to. People's security should matter more then policy. LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on Google Earth that the newer articles are not been added like Russell Lake has Wikipedia stop adding to the Google Earth Layer ? Cherry1000 ( talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Wondered how important is Wikiproject Biography Thoughts, concerns? ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems important to me, but I suppose the best measure of importance of anything like this depends on the importance it has to the participants.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, if you have the time I would like your opinion on a hypothetical situation - at a Deletion Review, someone votes to keep a page deleted. The DRV is closed as upheld but allows for the recreation of the page if the original problems are fixed. The person who voted to keep the page was an admin and decides to full protect the page from being created as per the DRV. Question - 1. Is the admin conflicted from being able to ethically page protect the original page? 2. Are page protections acceptable without seeking community support for such a salting of earth? 3. In the situation where the DRV is closed stating that the page should be recreated with the original problems corrected and conforming to Wiki standards a page that should have any sort of protection which would hinder the easy creation of the page with such fixes? Thank you for your time. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, first you say that "I've never seen a page protected after an AfD or a DRV.", and three hours later you claim that "I can post other situations where the same action has come up before." It looks like these two statements can't both be correct... Fram ( talk) 07:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty please?-- AodhanTheCelticJew ( talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just created Wikipedia:Contract Editing Review. This is kind of a partial implementation of the suggestion you made in your statement. Discussions at the RfC have become very heated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a featured article about you (sort of) in Uncyclopedia. Just wondered about your reaction? Bah! I care more about Chronarion's reaction! ...I don't care about anyone's reaction, it got featured on the front page! Woo! 76.222.253.225 ( talk) 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC) (Cajek)
Do you have any idea what this is about? rootology ( C)( T) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement:
appears to me to be so self-contradictory and self-serving it caused me to gag.
Do you think article subjects suddenly become non-notable after they receive substantial coverage in reliable sources? On what basis? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
By what process was the David Boothroyd article deleted? I saw 3 AfD's that failed; I didn't see one that passed. Had the article really been on Wikipedia for 4 years or so? Finell (Talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to get a Wikinews article together to address the misreporting that has happened on Sam Blacketer's resignation (in particular, that Sam did not resign because it was discovered "he made secret, politically motivated edits to the David Cameron BLP under a false name). As part of the article, I would like to quote your comment above, about the picture edit having in fact been "A perfectly good edit. The photo that was removed was obviously ridiculous, and the one that was added is perfectly normal." Would that be okay? For reference, the article draft is at [5]. The headline and content may still change; I am a novice to Wikinews, and not very good at it.
I've asked the arbcom at WP:ACN talk if they would like to make a statement to be added to the article, and you're obviously invited to comment as well, if you would like to. I'll also ask Sam if he wants to make a statement.
Please let me know your thoughts. I have e-mail enabled, and will watchlist this page as well. Regards, JN 466 14:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at the FBLA article and I noticed there was a key part of information left out. The list of states for each region. I have tried adding the list but the user eitherway keeps undoing it. He says it is irrelevant information while I feel it is a neccessary additive to the article's overall totality. I would like your opinion on this discussion. Please note I am not trying to trash the article but only mean to enrich it with useful information. Runesage106 ( talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
well my ip adress used instead of my account because I had forgotten I even had one. 65.73.17.220 is it and you can see the point I was trying to add on the article but if it is too detailed I understand and I am not a paid advocate. I am merely a High school student and have not used my account because as I said I had forgotten I even had it. Go on ahead and investigate me. I am an eleventh grader only trying to better Wikipedia to prove it my Facebook adress is here Of course you have to log in and if that doesn't do it go here I haven't done any damage through the ip adress except for the Alcorn School District article and please forgive me for that but I wasn't thinking at the time and was angry at our previous superintendent who led our district into a million dollar debt, which has adversely affected my high school career. I am thoroughly sorry for that incident. Runesage106 ( talk) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I sm concerned "Paid advocacy in article space" is already against WP:NPOV policy and WP:COI guideline. Jimbo, what changes, if any, would you like to see made to those to make this clear? I would like WP:COI to be made policy and tightened up as (in my opinion) people with conflicts of interest have watered it down. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Within paid editing there is a spectrum of activities:
I think we need to make a few changes:
Somebody could fine tune these proposals and try to get them approved. Jehochman Talk 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to offer my two cents here, and of course due to the Arbitration Committee deciding on brute force remedies as a "preventive" first resort, it's actually worth about $0.000000002 at current market value. But here goes anyhow. Wikipedia welcomes editors* to contribute what they can give towards Wikipedia's mission. Some editors are placed such that they have acquired a really in-depth knowledge of a particular POV, and knowledge of where the details of this POV can be found in reliable sources. Other editors are placed such that they have no ties to any particular POV, and they can exercise an unfettered judgment about how to include information from the reliable sources on all sides to bring the articles closer to the ideal NPOV. Both editors have a valuable role, but no editor can fulfill both roles. An editor may tell Wikipedia that he can be fully neutral when editing the articles on Blarney's Beer even though he's being paid by the Blarney Brewery to represent them on Wikipedia, and he may fully mean that. But that doesn't mean he's correct. He is most likely not anywhere as neutral as he thinks -- by which I mean "not near enough to neutral for Wikipedia to accept as such". Even if he were completely neutral on the subject of the client that's paying him -- assuming for the sake of argument that that's possible -- it would mean he's performing inadequately in his role as paid representative. And if that editor is neglecting obligations and expectations for which he is taking pay -- even if in completely good faith -- it means we cannot expect that that editor will live up to the obligations and expectations of Wikipedia.
IMHO: Paid representatives should not be forbidden on Wikipedia. But they must declare that paid relationship, and if they do not, it's a serious sign of dishonesty. They also should not be editing the articles on their clients directly, because making the final decision on what should or shouldn't go in the article requires an unbiased judgment which they simply don't have.
Paid advocacy (distinct from Paid editing) should be not allowed, because it implies a violation of other policies (NPOV), which are already standing policies. I conjecture the most likely goal of a company soliciting paid advocacy: is to obtain free advertising. That is, to get an article created on a non-notable subject, so they can imrpove their
Google search results. Most companies that would seek advertising or advocacy are ones that aren't well-known, i.e. non-notable, so there should be no article about them, but the paid advocate creates one anyways.
My suggestion would be for Wikipedia to adopt technical measures that cause new, immature articles to not be eligible for outside search result listings, that is, mark them NOINDEX, until there are alterations by several registered editors, and/or the article to have existed for a minimum duration (or to have a "flagged revision"). The problematic activity is basically an intentional violation of existing policies (NPOV), and Wikipedia notability guildelines, however, there are no means of adequate enforcement, especially against anonymous editors, or even random registered editors.
By providing a 'time buffer' before search engines index the article, the rewards of paid advocacy will be limited, until other Wikipedians have had time to review their work -- Mysidia ( talk) 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The RFC is too long to read, so may I draw attention to this informative evidence by User:Ha! who has gone to the trouble of writing up some eye-opening evidence for paid advocacy. No one appears to have yet checked Ha!'s results, so that needs to be done, but the report is vital reading. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, it would be easy to miss the link to this important expansion of the above statement by User:Ha!, so here it is. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes#Paid_editing has some additional information. On Elance.com, the going price for an article about a company acording to its taste, written by an established editor, seems to be a few hundred dollars ( [8], click "Feedback"). Regards, HaeB ( talk) 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Im still thinking about this issue, but i am reminded of what is written on Keats gravestone: "Here lies one whose name was writ in water". how can someone be paid for writing on water? Will the world simply realize that its simply not possible to get effective results from paid writing, and not even try? not very helpful, but the image is appropriate. thanks for being open to the community. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
this image is of the incorect lisencing how to go through the process etc.
Thanks Matt User talk:Matt037291 08:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) edtted User talk:Matt037291 08:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya veo Jimbo Wales que no me haces caso y que no me has desbloqueado de wikiquote en español. Te lo voy a decir bien clarito: Drini me tiene bloqueada la Ip en wikiquote en español, confundiéndome con no sé quién. Te pido que hables con él para que desbloquee mi Ip de allí. Parece mentira que te este pidiendo esto y que me estés ignorando. Venga desbloqueame en cuanto antes. -- 87.220.31.98 ( talk) 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As ' constitutional monarch' of Wikipedia, Jimbo, your opinion is requested on the issue of self electing groups on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Matthewedwards&oldid=292565424#Deleting_page_histories Is there a new rule for that, which I have missed? I can't find it. btw: The mentioned talk page is a part of your history too, perhaps there are some more. Regards 78.48.120.93 ( talk) 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This 'what a policy page about paid editing might look like' type draft is interesting... and I have a quick question which I'm interested in view on.... if a company (for example one of the 'virgin' ones) ran a competition to improve wiki coverage of an event (say the 'V Festival') in return for prizes (say 'tickets') - is that cool? This isn't really either a rhetorical or hypothetical question, btw :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 22:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am in denial that Guiding Light and Passions ended because I thought that soap operas lasted indefinitely. Ericthebrainiac ( talk) 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo,
I've just finished programming a free, large font, text-to-speech, text file reader for the visually impaired. It is written to run in OS X. Sorry, there isn't a PC version. I've made it open source, so one can compile one's own binaries. I wonder, would you possibly consider featuring it somehow on Wikipedia? There is nothing for sale on this site - no other programs. I just want to offer something nice to everyone.
https://sites.google.com/site/mikeybeesoftware/
206.109.195.126 ( talk) 09:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as WP's license has been changed to both Creative Commons and the GFDL, should the Statement of principles be updated accordingly? It currently only mentions the GFDL. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 06:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, please check your email. Durova Charge! 03:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Following up from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 47#Block of Bishonen, question, whereupon you notified Bishonen of her block, there was a subsequent discussion on her talk ( now archived) and she has now agreed at User talk:Bishonen#an audience with the king to discuss the matter with you openly at a subpage in her userspace. The intention is that it would be a one-on-one chat, in order to talk through the problems, which I think will be useful for you both. This is an opportunity to establish whether the Founder is a meatball:FirstServant, meatball:GodKing, or something else. John Vandenberg ( chat) 01:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created User talk:Bishonen/block discussion with the statement from Bishonen dated June 7. It is protected to avoid disruption. John Vandenberg ( chat) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales,
I ran across your interest in the issue of paid editing while I was contributing to the discussion myself on the RFC. I have a proposal that you might like (as it raises money for the foundation and perhaps for you as well while discourages paid editing) here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Paid_Editing_proposal:_Wikipedia_.22tax.22_on_paid_editors.3F. This proposal has generated some community discussion.
Also, I must inform you of this also: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Paid_editing.
Thank you and have a good day! Erich Mendacio ( talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think wikipedia has got problems, and that is the reason I am leaving for good! I think consensus is a pile of you know what, which anyone can drum up consensus for a period of time, and shove it down everyones throat! I think your notability standards are crude at best, and need to be revised! I think your OWN criteria is stupid because you want people to feel a since of ownership of what they create or else anything will go! I think that everyone should be made ADMINS or SYOPS or none should and then let Bureaucrats deal with the ramifications because ADMINS think they are GOD on wikipedia! I think that wikipedia is a false doctrine because you all let ANSWERS.com or con use the content we create to make money! HOW SAD! I used to love Wikipedia now I despise it! I am user formally known as bluedogtn and others'! My e-mail is bluedogtenn@gmail.com if you would love to talk further. This is the last time I will visit this fraud of a site! 98.240.44.215 ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
How much power do you wield as a user on wikipedia as Chair Emeritus? What would happen if you somehow ended up incapable of being Chair Emeritus or are taken hostage by aliens in a last ditch effort to destroy human civilization? No, really? Seriously! Pisharov ( talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so you don't have any power any more? So how do things like the arbitration committee get started? Or can any admin do that? Pisharov ( talk) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano ( talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at this. I don't know this is a joke or vandalism but it's very interesting for having such imagination. -- 98.154.26.247 ( talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a pretty obvious fake, since everyone knows I don't know how to use sophisticated wiki markup like that. :)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest this current pattern of removing responses to robot-generated copyvio allegations be dealt with in a way that might be somewhat more consistent with standard WP community practice, or otherwise administratively resolved. If WP is going to have a page devoted to bot-generated alleged copyright violations, it would seem it ought be open to appropriate responses without summary dismissal, e.g. by User:MER-C such as is done with edit summaries like "-29" (again here). Standard practice in the modern civilized world is generally some form of "notice and an opportunity to be heard" w.r.t. such general allegations-- perhaps more so when bot generated. Kindly refer this to appropriate administrative participants in the project. Thanks Jimbo. ... Kenosis ( talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I realize that commons needs to guard against copyrights infringement, but is it really necessary to delete the pictures of a true hero just because people in Iran have other worries than to divulge their sources. I am referring to the photographs of the brave young woman who gave her life on the streets of Tehran yesterday. Jcwf ( talk) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
USA copyright law allows fair use as does the English language Wikipedia. Please don't throw "copyright violation" around so easily. We prefer copy-left content as that is important to our over-all mission, but fair use quotes and images that are deemed appropriate are allowed. Winning arguments with bumper-sticker slogans misinforms the newbies. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
One admin said that Fair Use images of dead people on their pages is not allowed according to Wikipedia:Non-free content, and wants to use that to delete Neda images from the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article. See my talk page and
Are we now going to delete Fair Use images of dead people from their article pages? Many of those pages have no other images of those people. Are we becoming that illogical in our application of Wikipedia:Non-free content? I mean how far do we want to go in encouraging people to give up their images for free use? See:
In particular, an admin wrote the following concerning the only reason they would allow Fair Use photos of Death of Neda Agha-Soltan in her article:
"That means as subjects of sourced commentary on the individual images themselves, as images, as works of photography or art, not the topic they show."
So we would have to remove all currently existing photos and video stills of Neda Soltan from Wikipedia. All of them are being used under Fair Use. How illogical this is....
The guideline referred to is from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. No matter how obtusely this is justified it does not pass common sense, and I think most people would be shocked if this rule were really applied across all articles about dead people. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Two separate issues apply. One is personality rights and the other is the interaction between legal fair use and Wikipedia's nonfree image use policy. In addition to copyright, personality rights also apply to many images of living people. Those rights have various nuances, but the bottom line is that they usually cease to apply once the person is no longer alive. From the moment onward, a copyrighted image of a non-living person (from most jurisdictions) gets covered in basically the same group as copyrighted images of landscapes, cartoons, etc. Fair use is not the operative principle at Wikipedia user space: our local nonfree image use requirements are stricter than the law requires. This sums up quite simply: if an image is under full copyright, don't use it in user space. It may be frustrating, but the reasoning behind it is sound--it has something to do with the habits of a minority of editors who pushed fair use to the breaking point, and the potential that carries to redirect volunteer time away from core project functions. Sadly, this is one of the situations where a small number of people spoiled it for everyone. On a brighter note, there are other productive things that concerned editors can do to honor Neda Soltan and her culture. I blogged about one suggestion the other day. [26] With best wishes and respect, Durova Charge! 02:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently, all photos of Neda Agha-Soltan while alive and well have been removed from the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article.
Maybe Jimbo and others can suggest the following policy clarification to the Wikimedia Foundation board. Where does one go to leave comments to be read by the WMF board?
Rather than remove all Fair-Use images from articles about dead people, I suggest only allowing small thumbnail photos of the people. Smaller than what is currently allowed in infoboxes. See examples of 120-pixel-wide photos of people here:
This way we encourage people to find larger, free images. But without depriving deceased-people articles of any images.
Viewing 120-pixel-wide images may irritate enough people to go find those "lurking" free images mentioned previously, and to find and ask some of the copyright holders to free up some of their copyrighted images.
Most of the many, many copyrighted Fair-Use album covers have images of people, and are between 200 and 300 pixels wide. See:
Of course they often have more than just face shots of people, and so the larger size is justified.
There are Neda images here:
The Neda images seem to be getting out semi-anonymously, "family friend," etc.. I am not sure, but I don't think it is allowed on Wikipedia to use them as anonymous-source images. Even if they are released as free images. How does one verify they are free? Do we trust CNN or the BBC if they say the family friends released them as free images? I don't know what the policy is. That leaves only Fair Use for now. It may be years before family and friends in Iran are willing, or feel safe enough, to put their names to some photos of Neda, and make them free images. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I'm really getting sick of you misrepresenting my actions. Of course the two images would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that they were both non-free- the more the merrier, within reason. The reason I removed the image of her with the headscarf was not because I was part of some secret cabal trying to force the idea of headscarves out of Wikipedia, but because that was the extra one- the other image was the one used in the infobox. This would have been a standard, uncontroversial action, apart from the fact that this was a current event. Of course, everything about a current event has to be controversial, including policy enforcement. The fact we still have two images of her in her own biography is alarming. If the biography is kept, which it shouldn't be, one should be kept, if any. It doesn't matter which one, really. You're free to argue about that all you want. Using both of them is clearly an abuse of our NFCC. J Milburn ( talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg. The woman, Neda, was killed while wearing a scarf. But she also has photos of her without the scarf.
WP:NFCC does not say how many Fair Use images are allowed in an article. It says "minimal". If the policy is only one is allowed, then it would say "one" and not "minimal."
The Emmet Till article has 2 Fair Use images. He is notable because he was murdered. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Jim, I know (1) you don't generally get involved in content disputes and (2) have encouraged Wikipedians to e-mail around to secure free media for the project. Still, FWIW, I'm simply curious what your personal take would be wrt an issue addressed too-lengthily a few posts up on your talkpage.
Yeah, a **free** pic of its now-iconic subject in conservative/formal Iranian dress would be great. (It's doubtful the dresscode at Islamic Azad University, where " Neda" studied religion and philosophy, allowed for the "colorful-scarf-haphazardly-falling-down-to-the-back-off-the-crown-in-public" look otherwise in fashion among underground pop-chanteuses, which just so happens to have been our late subject's aspiration as well.) But she's dead, the few best-known pix of her iconic; and her family, who had previously released the image to the LATimes have since then been required to move to a different residence by the athorities and have been requested to avoid speaking with the foreign press during these difficult times of unrest in Iran. What would be your quick, general take on this, Jimbo? Do you think this situation presents special circumstances? ↜Just M E here , now 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there are two separate questions here: the photo of her death, and other photos of her.
I do think that this situation does present special circumstances, one of which is a concern for the human dignity of the deceased. This is also quite clearly a case of WP:BLP1E, and should be considered from that angle as well. (I see the article is in the process of likely being merged with an article about the incident, and I think that's good.) I think that the image of her death is iconic, historically important, and relevant to the article about her death. That the image is haunting and emotionally moving is something the reader needs to see in order to understand in part some of the reaction this created.
For the other images, among the factors to be considered here is replaceability with free alternatives - as she was a college student there are presumably many pictures of her whose copyright is owned by friends and loved ones - perhaps if they have one that they like or think accurately captures her spirit, they will wish to donate it... however, this may not happen for some time, and may never happen. Using a "fair use" picture in such a circumstance strikes me as undesirable, but there is a complex judgment call as to whether it is nonetheless something we should accept, although undesirable to some extent. I have no very strong opinion about it.
I do think, as is well known - and this is just a specific case of the general principle - that we should be quite diligent about seeking out photos under free licenses. Wikipedia is quite famous and important and generally admired all around the world, and I think people will generally be happy to help us make it better. -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Bookbound barnstar | |
To
Jimbo Wales, for his kind and expert, scalpel-quick opinions often granted to the users of Wikipedia . . . . . . . (and also for happening to have created such a prime vehicle of the new century's citizen journalism). — Justmeherenow 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC) |
Dear Mr. Wales,
I have come here to ask for information about the very pillars that suport the entire Wiki Movement, in order to prevent some spasms of confusion and madness from negatively interfering in the normal course of the Wiki Process, in my native language's Wikipedia. Amen! Actually, it's not that grave. But, in the name of the Wiki Culture, I want to defeat it in the most coherent way possible.
What happens is that the (rather schizophrenic) Lusophone community is discussing, again, some of the worst things that could ever be discussed in a Wikimedian environment. And the one I am talking about is to deny anonymous users the right to edit.
Could you give me some orientation about the status of this right? I would be most grateful if you pointed me some official policies or founding principles (and discussions related to these, if posssible) in a way I can have solid data to base my positions on. As you like to write around here, "this comment in a nutshell": what are the relevant pages related to anonymous edits that can be used in a debate?
Faithfully yours, Vinte e Dois ( talk) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wondered about the validity of this blog post; has everything been represented accurately, or is there some information that was inadvertently left out? NW ( Talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh, not sure how to answer that question. There's always tons of information left out of any blog post or news story. That particular post looks like a pretty decent repeat of the New York Times story, but I can't vouch for any part of it that I don't know about. Did you have a more specific question? :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to watch or participate in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pajhwok_Afghan_News. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
I would like to let you know that I just defended my dissertation on Wiki-pt. I was approved! The title of my dissertation is "Nos bastidores da Wikipédia Lusófona: percalços e conquistas de um projeto de escrita coletiva online" ("Behind the scenes of Wikipedia in Portuguese: Pitfalls and conquests of a collectively written online project"). I believe this is the first dissertation of its kind, in the Portuguese language.
Thank you for your vision and, if I may divulge a bit, I remember when you came down to Brazil (São Paulo) last year. Some said that Wikipédia hadn't achieved or reached a phase worthy enough to be studied as a social phenomena. The successful defense of this dissertation demonstrates this outlook concerning Wikipédia is at least not true and indeed maybe completely false.
My very best regards,
Telma Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.164.255.201 ( talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy - Raul said that the Michael Jackson article got more hits (5.9 million) than the main page. Can you confirm if that is a record for most viewed article in a 24 hour period?
It's worth mentioning one of the main editors of that article, Realist2. He's heavily associated with it, bringing it to featured status. I wrote about him when I dedicated a photo to him. Editors like Realist2 save this site and its community a lot of headaches and bad headlines. The MJ story is clearly the news event of the year, and the media has been looking for any angle on it. Editors like Realist2, through diligent work and effort on a topic that is important to him, spare us headlines about ghastly vandalism that wasn't caught or embarrassing mistakes. He's pretty broken up over Jackson's passing (as you can see from his talk page), but we all owe him and editors like him thanks for their hard work. -->David Shankbone 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This ( "Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia") was well done. Congrats! -- Noroton ( talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
“We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” I take it then that you would have supported keeping it out even if there were reliable sources? What about if it was widely reported? J Milburn ( talk) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You may or may not have heard of it, but I'm sure you've heard of the psychological type idea from which it stems. According to the Russian Wikipedia, ("Соционика") it is bigger over there than communism. And yet, people over here are trying to delete it. One user, Mango, seems particularly focused on eliminating it. I ask this: if you can point to hundreds of sources for a topic from hundreds of authors, then need it even be asked if the topic is notable? Tcaudilllg ( talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to get the rollback feature for my account. Texcarson ( talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposal at WP:VPR to create a recent changes page for unwatched articles. This would be done by adding an rc_watched column to the recentchanges table to store the watcher-count at the time of each revision, based on the watchlist table. Bug 18790 has more technical details. This essentially allows the filtering-out all 'watched' pages from recent changes: if someone's watching, you don't need to. This proposal has been active since April 25th - two months now - and has 17 unanimous and often enthusiastic supports at its straw poll and discussion (which could still use more input).
In 2005 you requested Special:UnwatchedPages in order to reduce vandalism on unwatched pages. This proposal is essentially an enhancement of Special:UnwatchedPages. Though that tool has been useful to some extent, it is limited to administrators and is updated infrequently. What do you think of this proposal as a potential replacement for Special:UnwatchedPages? M 03:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I've rewritten David S. Rohde pretty much from scratch; I think you'll find it's in much better shape now. Kudos on your actions in this matter - I think you did exactly the right thing. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I would also like to express my support. I believe you acted in the most appropriate way, and hope you'd do it again ( hoping you won't have to though...).I'd do exactly the same thing.
Cheers, Paul Paul Roberton ( talk) 03:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, everyone here is supporting you... I do not. Given the amount of discussion at the Village Pump I'm wondering why nobody asks questions here. Well, I've got some for you at VP waiting for your answer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.217.15.245 ( talk) 11:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ciao, Jimbo. An editor has raised a concern here that your daughter is named in our biography of you (there are two references to her in the Personal life section). I had assumed you were fine with this since you have discussed her in public, but do please let us know if it's something you're uncomfortable with. Mahalo, Skomorokh 11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift and useful response on this. If you ever feel like disputing something in the article, posting a note to a public off-wiki forum (such as your blog) should be enough to qualify claims at least; except on a few contentious points, the editors of the article are not as entrenched as one might expect. I realise the article over the years has been something of a black spot, and personally distressing for you, but efforts have been made recently to develop it into a biography of some depth rather than the string of controversies it used to be. Hopefully, once this process matures, we will send the article to peer review, where your input would be very valuable. Regards, Skomorokh 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This is you bargaining with Bishonen that you won't block anyone for six months if she agrees with you to support a policy of punitive blocking for naughty language. That sounds awfully ill-thought out to me. I think you should strike that and think it through a little more. You're reversing long established policy in order to block people who use bad language. Who decides what language is acceptable? Would you block for "piss off" which means "go away" in some cultures? Would you block for "You are prevaricating"? No? How about, "you're full of crap", is that blockable? They mean precisely the same thing. You want to dictate what precise words are allowable and not, and you want to have three hour blocks for using words you don't like, and you - and this is very important - you have made it clear that unless Bishonen agrees with your view, you're done discussing your actions. Oh really? You're saying, "Agree with me, or I won't talk to you?" I'm going to presume you merely posted before coffee and didn't think this one through, Jimmy. There must always be room for disagreement in civil discussion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Well,
since you asked: Talk pages and moved talk pages of banned users are not usually deleted. The typical exception is the
right to vanish, but that courtesy is not usually extended to banned users. RMHED got them deleted initially by moving them around to various subpages, adding sandbox edits to the history, and thereby obfuscating them enough so that admins deleted them in good faith as
WP:CSD#U1, which specifically excludes user talk pages. Some time after the ban I noticed some deleted user talk page edits, so I investigated and restored his talk page archives and courtesy blanked them.
So much for background. I am not particularly familiar with RMHED, and what led to his ban. I believe the discussion leading up to it was
here (February 2009), and the actual community ban was
here (March 2009). I don't mind per se if a banned editor's talk pages are deleted after a while. With RMHED though, one of his last edits
was this threat: "... maybe I will vanish or maybe I'll just retire this account and start a new one. Six months+ of being a good, well rounded little wikipedian should then equate to a nice easy RFA. Then the fun can really begin."
Quite possibly an empty threat, but if he's emailing you about his archives who knows? The old talk page archives might help identifying such a sock, and I think should stay around unless there is a very specific concern with them.
Amalthea
10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Jimbo. Any idea as to the problems with WikiMedia Foundation today? It's servers are continously 'down'. GoodDay ( talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, Matty has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hope all is still well, remember to smile! Matty ( talk) 02:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You made a comment a few days ago before you had your coffee. I want to make sure that doesn't happen again, so here you go.
Griffinofwales (
talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying
calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{ subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Griffinofwales ( talk) 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the kind words you sent the other day. I have only just returned to Wikipedia following the death of Jackson. The main article has deteriorated somewhat in recent days, but that is to be expected considering the traffic. I'm planning to get it cleaned up in time for the funeral, which I believe is on Tuesday. I'm just glad it was in good form when the world and much of the media started to check it out. — Please comment R 2 04:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I know your on line. Why do you think continuing this "feud" is doing wikipedia any good? Jack forbes ( talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about before until it was ignored. If an admin doesn't thing an admin cursing and yelling is immature, then let him/her speak. Since there will probably be no response, I already know I am right. 75.91.164.188 ( talk) 06:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this is why
|
---|
|
Hello Jimmy,
Before I begin I would like to sincerely thank you for co-founding such a wonderful project. Wikipedia has greatly aided my quest for increasing my knowledge on most subjects I can think of. I am trying to find a role to contribute in a meaningful way to Wikipedia and to the community that supports it, which will probably take some time and considerable effort. This paragraph is starting to feel like brown-nosing, so I will move on...
Here are my questions:
I know there are other sources on this website which might clarify these questions (including your user page), but I would love to hear from you directly.
Sincerely,
Mad Pierrot ( talk) 04:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no one has drawn your attention to the above-mentioned proposal and related RFC on the talk page. – xeno talk 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It is much too premature for this proposal, and it seems to mix several different issues. I am very open, as always, to making changes, and support a general movement to refine processes over time, but I think a much more comprehensive discussion is needed before an actual proposal like this is put forward.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"Leave ... Jimmy D. ... alone!" --- CHRIS CROCKER (link) ↜Just M E here , now 04:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
To give a sense of perspective, out of the approximately 16000 emails that have been on arbcom-l in the past six months, Jimbo has around 70 to his name, nearly half of which are on topics more social than Wikipedian. Rumors of his still ruling Wikipedia with the iron fist of an eminence grise are, at best, misguided. — Coren (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
(UTC) And the kicker is this: According to WP:CONEXCEPT, this would be entirely official. <innocent cat-got-cream look>
Thanks Jimbo, I confess I'm rather confused by your analogy and think, as perhaps analogies like this are necessarily limited, that it is of little value. Furthermore, being from the UK and regularly seeing the lords temporal and spiritual drooling into their ermine, and given their resistance to the parliament acts, reform and generally conservative nature - I'm quite alarmed - I'm sure they're not exactly the best model for admins. The system is largely a finely balanced 1000 year fudge which has taken a millenia to evolve under competing and changing pressures. Ultimately it's flexibility is a strength, but the confusion of a lack of written constitution ensures only lawyers can understand it in totality - surely not a good thing. I'm also not sure we have the time and the key missing element is the commons. Perhaps better to visualise how our system might evolve.
Discussion of 'founder' contingencies or your gradual replacement leads to a question of what we might be replacing. Perhaps a good start would be to clarify your current role? The following are suggestions for a probably incomplete list - could you comment or add to them (or your TPWs)? Cheers. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The English system of government minus the House of Commons is feudalism. I'm not really sure if that's the sort of governance model we'd want for 2009. Baileyquarter ( talk) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think two things are being conflated in current discussions around the wiki. Blocks are for editing abuse. Admin abuse should be met with loss of sysop access. It would be very straightfoward for you to state that admins may not swear at or otherwise abuse users. If such abuses happen, and there is no ambiguity, you may remove sysop access temporarily or permanently. I think this approach is better than using 3 hour blocks. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In case you weren't aware Jimbo, arbitrator Risker has unilateraly removed an entire section of that page, my Simulated Rfa Question, based on the fact that it in itself was incivil. Given that you, and many other experienced editors including former arbitrators, had already commented on it without issue, then I think that is a pretty clear sign that the community understanding of what 'civility' is more broken, and the fractures are eminating higher up, than many had perhaps first thought. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Jimbo blocked Bishonen for 3 hours on May 22. Bishonen's last two salvos were on July 3, on this talk page. [37] [38] That is 6 weeks. If Bishonen had simply endured her 3-hour block and then returned to business as usual, this issue would have ended on May 22. It is Bishonen who created this controversy and kept alive. Since her block expired, almost all of of Bishonen's "contributions" to Wikipedia have been her arguing, arguing, and arguing about Jimbo's 3-hour block. Throughout, Bishonen very skillfully shifted the issue from her personal attack of Daedalus969 (who deserved a reprimand, but not to be cursed at and then then repeatedly baited) to whether Jimbo's 3-hour block conformed to the letter of the blocking policy—she framed the issue as a misuse of the block to punish her—and rallied other admins and friends to join her campaign against Jimbo.
I don't know if Jimbo looked at Bishonen's prior edit history before he blocked her, but she also lost it a week earlier. Bishonen was supporting an RfA (the candidate was previously de-sysoped; the RfA failed) and got into an argument with someone who opposed it. Again, in addition to cursing at the other editor, she expressed anger that the other editor disregarded Bishonen's "advice" to stop arguing against the RfA. The discussion on Bishonen's talk page, which Bishonen later deleted, shows her uncivil conduct and contemptuous attitude toward another editor who crossed her [39] (indents omitted):
You mean supporters, no? And the talk page only shows the level of hate that Everyking will put forth, so I doubt it really supports your argument in any kind of regard. Thankfully, Crats don't do what Everyking would do (merely count votes) so your argument definitely wont hold up. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It definitely won't, will it? That's interesting. Are you suffering from some kind of hysteria, to be addressing me like that after I advise you to not—not—keep blathering against the opposers [sic: should be "supporters"]? Or are you trying to avoid the childishness of immediately doing what I asked you not to do, by posting on my page instead of on the RFA? Or, Machiavellian thought, are you deliberately making yourself look absurd in order to make Everyking look the better? Are you secretly on his side? Whichever it is, and, believe me, I don't really want to know, piss off my page and stay off. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
Hrmph. A crude edit summary ["Har har. Piss off."] is fine in small doses. Use one too much and you ruin its mystique. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The mystique is perhaps not necessary, MZMcBride. Got any suggestions? What do you think of "Fuck off"? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
Bishonen's abusive behaviour toward editors, her continuing argument that Jimbo's 3-hour block of her was unjustified, and, most distressing, other admins' supporting Bishonen throughout her campaign, are germane to the community poll on the adequacy of Wikipeida's civility policy, the adequacy of the policy's enforcement, and particularly whether selective enforcement unfairly favors admins. Suppressing discussion of these issues of legitimate community concern is damaging to the already frayed morale of many active editors, and also ineffective. If there is concern that the poll questions should have been phrased more neutrally, that can be fixed (provided the facts are stated accurately). But the questions and the discussion should be restored to the poll. In fact, the civility policy poll is probably the least confrontational forum for discussing the matter. But if community discussion continues to be suppressed there, it will arise elsewhere. That is what happens when debate is suppressed, and why suppression is counterproductive. Finell (Talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding blocks for admin abuse -- I agree, people definitely should be blocked for abusing admins. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, you may be interested in a policy I have just proposed: Wikipedia:Rehabilitation of offenders. -- Tango ( talk) 01:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You have my full, complete, unreserved support for this. I think it is a brilliant idea. It could and should very well be that checkusers (or similar) can still see the ancient history, i.e. it might not be "burned" forever, but there is no reason for it to remain in the logs.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. We are having difficulties to find a concrete consensus regarding the above matter. As you can see it involves some hundred thousands over articles and possibly millions. Please, your comments & suggestion are very much appeciated. Thank you Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb you Jimbo, at first I just thought that you would like to give some suggestions in regard to the above discussion Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Unfortunately some of the wikipedians who are not familiar with the scientific subjects try to delete the important articles of Wikipedia. As a researcher, I believe that the new articles published in the scientific journals are the best references in Wikipedia. The problem comes when the wikipedians who have never even seen a scientific article related to these subjects, judge that these articles in wikipedia are not important. Do you have an alternative to overcome this problem? Javanbakht ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you please add the following paragraph to the Gerald Walpin article? I cannot do so, because I have been topic banned from political articles for three months:
In June, 2009, President Barack Obama fired Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. According to Associated Press, Johnson is a friend of Obama's. [1] Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. [2] In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." [3] A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. [4] The letter can be read here.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
A review of English Wikipedia governance has been started here. Your input there would be greatly appreciated. -- Tango ( talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently saw an australlian programme from the BBC site and you were featured as a celebrity that had to answer "ten questions". One of them was "Are you a teenage drug lord from Malaysia?". My question is should there be a redirect (of Teenage drug lord from Malaysia) to your wikipedia page or your userpage? Of course this would be only in good humour. NarSakSasLee ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, once again the problem with editor FyzixFighter has arisen. He has removed a perfectly sourced edit which I made to improve the centrifugal force article. Any outsider should be able to see clearly that FyzixFighter only comes to physics articles to remove edits or to trample over edits that I make. This has been an ongoing problem and it has been to the detriment of a number of physics articles, namely Faraday's law, Kepler's laws, centrifugal force, and Coriolis force. FyzixFighter has been determined to keep the planetary orbital equation off the centrifugal force page. Something needs to be done to sort this problem out.
This is not a content dispute. This is about an editor who is determined to prevent me from editing on physics pages which I have done alot of research on. David Tombe ( talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'm sure someone else can help you find the appropriate avenues for dispute resolution. I'd love to help you, but the process doesn't start here. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo and Tango, thanks for the advice. I will see how the debate goes over the next few days before deciding whether or not to go down the 'dispute resolution' road. This matter has been raised before and ignored, hence sending out the signal to FyzixFighter that he has got the green light to continue. He has deleted a perfectly good edit on totally specious grounds. Following the intervention of two other editors he has backtracked somewhat and decided to put some of the content of that edit into the history section, even though the topic is still being taught today in the universities using that very equation. Planetary orbital theory is definitely not a historical topic.
A careful analysis of FyzixFighter's interventions will clearly expose the fact that he has been involved in a prolonged and subtle form of vandalism and he is trying to ally himself with those other editors that I have been arguing with. David Tombe ( talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist ( talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
☩
Damërung
☩
. --
02:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC) has given you a
LOL
ipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes
WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{ subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
For being
bold enoug to create wikipedia. (This talk page could possibly be the largest in wikipedia).
Hi Jimmy,
You've probably never seen me around before, but as you may already yourself now fully be aware, Juliancolton is up for bureaucratship right now, and one of the recurring themes among some of the opposers is that he's a minor. I'm curious to know a) what your personal views are towards WP:Ageism, and b) do you know of any legal issues with minors being bureaucrats (or do I need to go ask Mike on this)?
Thanks, Matt ( talk) 06:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Best to ask Mike about any legal issues, but I wouldn't think that there are any. One of the reasons for the term "Bureaucrat" is that it's supposed to be a pretty dully technical position. :-) I don't think Bureaucrats have access to any private data, which might be the only issue, but again, best to ask Mike.
I strongly disagree with many points in WP:Ageism, and find it to be offensive in a great many ways and if I were to rewrite it, it would end up substantially different.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, as the primary author of WP:ageism, I would be interested in finding out what you find offensive with the essay, because it is essentially very much in line with previous statements that you've made. I wish I could find the quote, but you are often quoted when you said that you felt that (paraphrased as best I can recall it) as a general rule you felt that admins should be in college, but that there are exceptions to this rule. This essay is nothing more than an extension of that.
The entire purpose of the essay is to point out why arguing over the issue of ageism is a waste of time. Don't waste people's time arguing about whether or not ageism is a valid reason. Instead focus on why, even if ageism is valid, that the individual candidate is the exception.
Finally, I should point out, that Julian the person who is running for 'crat, actually supported the essay. He initially wrote an essay to counter it, but via discussion and editing, he withdrew his objection and deleted his essay. The problem that Julian is having with Ageism, isn't that he is under 18, but rather that he has been an outspoken advocate of promoting underage admins. He is the admin that I quoted who compared Ageism to racism (and has also made similar statements comparing it to sexism). (Just a few months ago, we promoted another under aged admin to 'crat.)
Also, it should be noted, that I voted for Julian and have nominated several people who are underage, but whom I deemed exceptional. They key, as the essay discusses, is to focus on why the individual is the exception to the rule.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I´m brasilian and i dont speak English very well, but i have a terrible problem and need a help. I do a article in wikipedia lusofona, and this user vandalize this article. I can´t revert cause i´m bloqued, but nobody revert this article. Why do i di? I´m desesperate, cause´ various administrators be do a cyberbuilling with me. Please, helpe-me.
Thank you very very very much.
Litrix Linuxer ( talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)LitrixLinuxer
That's interesting. I see the vandalism in the page, but when I click to edit, I don't see it. I'm a little puzzled.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I gather that the latest funding drive will pay for updating the server? I've been having terrible server trouble and it seems to have increased over the past few weeka. There is a discussion about it at village pump tech. As I type the globe has not even appeared in the left hand corner! Also are there no plans to update the front page, I think it looks a little dated. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I am wondering if you can kindly point me in the direction of the discussions that brought about the usage of fair-use images here on enWP? I'm a sysop on Simple English Wikipedia and I'm really interested in the rationale that was used to permit the upload and usage of non-free images here as there have been some efforts to get it going over at simpleWP. I understand that a lot was discussed on mailing lists initially but I don't know which or when. If you could even recall the rough time when it was discussed it'd help! I asked Angela but she said it was before her time here. Thanks in advance and feel free to drop by to simpleWP any time, even if it's just to say 'Hi!'!! :-) Yours, fr33k man -simpleWP- 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you might find the original discussions, probably on the mailing list?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Good, you are around. Tell Kirill that he should reconsider - if you are to have these special powers then bloody use them to keep the really good people doing the job the community entrusted them with! Dammit, demand Kirill that he reconsider!!! LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:20, 11 July 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
[1] First I get banned for BS and now the Taleb article is getting out of hand and has been escalated to WP:Office. Since Taleb has recently been the subject of the Wall Street journal as a potential target of death threats [2] This after no administrator did anything to the perceived harassing editors. NOTHING. But one administrator took time out from their busy, to post a remark on my talk page. Singled me out and then repeatedly blames me for pointing out them being hypocritical in their behavior. The admin blew me off and went back to doing nothing to the opposing editors. This could have been handled by admin without going office. If administrators had followed policy and been fair in the comments and behavior then it could have been handled on the bio talk page. Administrators are still not addressing the abuses of editors on the article harassing the Taleb estate legal rep with comments that they are violating Wikipedia policy by addressing perceived misconduct. No Admin has told the offending editors publicly to stop misusing Wiki policy to end the Taleb estate rep from posting on Wiki. They have instead reported the rep for WP:No legal threat and WP:COI which is reprehensible. This behavior needs to be addressed. Some administrators are too buzy giving knee jerk reaction bans and sarcastic comments to stop behavior that has already been escalated to office. I am requesting an apology and the behavior addressed publicly. If people can post a warning about my comments publicly on my talkpage then their oversights can be correctly publicly to. People's security should matter more then policy. LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on Google Earth that the newer articles are not been added like Russell Lake has Wikipedia stop adding to the Google Earth Layer ? Cherry1000 ( talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Wondered how important is Wikiproject Biography Thoughts, concerns? ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems important to me, but I suppose the best measure of importance of anything like this depends on the importance it has to the participants.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, if you have the time I would like your opinion on a hypothetical situation - at a Deletion Review, someone votes to keep a page deleted. The DRV is closed as upheld but allows for the recreation of the page if the original problems are fixed. The person who voted to keep the page was an admin and decides to full protect the page from being created as per the DRV. Question - 1. Is the admin conflicted from being able to ethically page protect the original page? 2. Are page protections acceptable without seeking community support for such a salting of earth? 3. In the situation where the DRV is closed stating that the page should be recreated with the original problems corrected and conforming to Wiki standards a page that should have any sort of protection which would hinder the easy creation of the page with such fixes? Thank you for your time. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, first you say that "I've never seen a page protected after an AfD or a DRV.", and three hours later you claim that "I can post other situations where the same action has come up before." It looks like these two statements can't both be correct... Fram ( talk) 07:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty please?-- AodhanTheCelticJew ( talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just created Wikipedia:Contract Editing Review. This is kind of a partial implementation of the suggestion you made in your statement. Discussions at the RfC have become very heated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a featured article about you (sort of) in Uncyclopedia. Just wondered about your reaction? Bah! I care more about Chronarion's reaction! ...I don't care about anyone's reaction, it got featured on the front page! Woo! 76.222.253.225 ( talk) 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC) (Cajek)
Do you have any idea what this is about? rootology ( C)( T) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement:
appears to me to be so self-contradictory and self-serving it caused me to gag.
Do you think article subjects suddenly become non-notable after they receive substantial coverage in reliable sources? On what basis? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
By what process was the David Boothroyd article deleted? I saw 3 AfD's that failed; I didn't see one that passed. Had the article really been on Wikipedia for 4 years or so? Finell (Talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to get a Wikinews article together to address the misreporting that has happened on Sam Blacketer's resignation (in particular, that Sam did not resign because it was discovered "he made secret, politically motivated edits to the David Cameron BLP under a false name). As part of the article, I would like to quote your comment above, about the picture edit having in fact been "A perfectly good edit. The photo that was removed was obviously ridiculous, and the one that was added is perfectly normal." Would that be okay? For reference, the article draft is at [5]. The headline and content may still change; I am a novice to Wikinews, and not very good at it.
I've asked the arbcom at WP:ACN talk if they would like to make a statement to be added to the article, and you're obviously invited to comment as well, if you would like to. I'll also ask Sam if he wants to make a statement.
Please let me know your thoughts. I have e-mail enabled, and will watchlist this page as well. Regards, JN 466 14:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at the FBLA article and I noticed there was a key part of information left out. The list of states for each region. I have tried adding the list but the user eitherway keeps undoing it. He says it is irrelevant information while I feel it is a neccessary additive to the article's overall totality. I would like your opinion on this discussion. Please note I am not trying to trash the article but only mean to enrich it with useful information. Runesage106 ( talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
well my ip adress used instead of my account because I had forgotten I even had one. 65.73.17.220 is it and you can see the point I was trying to add on the article but if it is too detailed I understand and I am not a paid advocate. I am merely a High school student and have not used my account because as I said I had forgotten I even had it. Go on ahead and investigate me. I am an eleventh grader only trying to better Wikipedia to prove it my Facebook adress is here Of course you have to log in and if that doesn't do it go here I haven't done any damage through the ip adress except for the Alcorn School District article and please forgive me for that but I wasn't thinking at the time and was angry at our previous superintendent who led our district into a million dollar debt, which has adversely affected my high school career. I am thoroughly sorry for that incident. Runesage106 ( talk) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I sm concerned "Paid advocacy in article space" is already against WP:NPOV policy and WP:COI guideline. Jimbo, what changes, if any, would you like to see made to those to make this clear? I would like WP:COI to be made policy and tightened up as (in my opinion) people with conflicts of interest have watered it down. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Within paid editing there is a spectrum of activities:
I think we need to make a few changes:
Somebody could fine tune these proposals and try to get them approved. Jehochman Talk 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to offer my two cents here, and of course due to the Arbitration Committee deciding on brute force remedies as a "preventive" first resort, it's actually worth about $0.000000002 at current market value. But here goes anyhow. Wikipedia welcomes editors* to contribute what they can give towards Wikipedia's mission. Some editors are placed such that they have acquired a really in-depth knowledge of a particular POV, and knowledge of where the details of this POV can be found in reliable sources. Other editors are placed such that they have no ties to any particular POV, and they can exercise an unfettered judgment about how to include information from the reliable sources on all sides to bring the articles closer to the ideal NPOV. Both editors have a valuable role, but no editor can fulfill both roles. An editor may tell Wikipedia that he can be fully neutral when editing the articles on Blarney's Beer even though he's being paid by the Blarney Brewery to represent them on Wikipedia, and he may fully mean that. But that doesn't mean he's correct. He is most likely not anywhere as neutral as he thinks -- by which I mean "not near enough to neutral for Wikipedia to accept as such". Even if he were completely neutral on the subject of the client that's paying him -- assuming for the sake of argument that that's possible -- it would mean he's performing inadequately in his role as paid representative. And if that editor is neglecting obligations and expectations for which he is taking pay -- even if in completely good faith -- it means we cannot expect that that editor will live up to the obligations and expectations of Wikipedia.
IMHO: Paid representatives should not be forbidden on Wikipedia. But they must declare that paid relationship, and if they do not, it's a serious sign of dishonesty. They also should not be editing the articles on their clients directly, because making the final decision on what should or shouldn't go in the article requires an unbiased judgment which they simply don't have.
Paid advocacy (distinct from Paid editing) should be not allowed, because it implies a violation of other policies (NPOV), which are already standing policies. I conjecture the most likely goal of a company soliciting paid advocacy: is to obtain free advertising. That is, to get an article created on a non-notable subject, so they can imrpove their
Google search results. Most companies that would seek advertising or advocacy are ones that aren't well-known, i.e. non-notable, so there should be no article about them, but the paid advocate creates one anyways.
My suggestion would be for Wikipedia to adopt technical measures that cause new, immature articles to not be eligible for outside search result listings, that is, mark them NOINDEX, until there are alterations by several registered editors, and/or the article to have existed for a minimum duration (or to have a "flagged revision"). The problematic activity is basically an intentional violation of existing policies (NPOV), and Wikipedia notability guildelines, however, there are no means of adequate enforcement, especially against anonymous editors, or even random registered editors.
By providing a 'time buffer' before search engines index the article, the rewards of paid advocacy will be limited, until other Wikipedians have had time to review their work -- Mysidia ( talk) 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The RFC is too long to read, so may I draw attention to this informative evidence by User:Ha! who has gone to the trouble of writing up some eye-opening evidence for paid advocacy. No one appears to have yet checked Ha!'s results, so that needs to be done, but the report is vital reading. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, it would be easy to miss the link to this important expansion of the above statement by User:Ha!, so here it is. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes#Paid_editing has some additional information. On Elance.com, the going price for an article about a company acording to its taste, written by an established editor, seems to be a few hundred dollars ( [8], click "Feedback"). Regards, HaeB ( talk) 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Im still thinking about this issue, but i am reminded of what is written on Keats gravestone: "Here lies one whose name was writ in water". how can someone be paid for writing on water? Will the world simply realize that its simply not possible to get effective results from paid writing, and not even try? not very helpful, but the image is appropriate. thanks for being open to the community. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
this image is of the incorect lisencing how to go through the process etc.
Thanks Matt User talk:Matt037291 08:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) edtted User talk:Matt037291 08:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya veo Jimbo Wales que no me haces caso y que no me has desbloqueado de wikiquote en español. Te lo voy a decir bien clarito: Drini me tiene bloqueada la Ip en wikiquote en español, confundiéndome con no sé quién. Te pido que hables con él para que desbloquee mi Ip de allí. Parece mentira que te este pidiendo esto y que me estés ignorando. Venga desbloqueame en cuanto antes. -- 87.220.31.98 ( talk) 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As ' constitutional monarch' of Wikipedia, Jimbo, your opinion is requested on the issue of self electing groups on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Matthewedwards&oldid=292565424#Deleting_page_histories Is there a new rule for that, which I have missed? I can't find it. btw: The mentioned talk page is a part of your history too, perhaps there are some more. Regards 78.48.120.93 ( talk) 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This 'what a policy page about paid editing might look like' type draft is interesting... and I have a quick question which I'm interested in view on.... if a company (for example one of the 'virgin' ones) ran a competition to improve wiki coverage of an event (say the 'V Festival') in return for prizes (say 'tickets') - is that cool? This isn't really either a rhetorical or hypothetical question, btw :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 22:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am in denial that Guiding Light and Passions ended because I thought that soap operas lasted indefinitely. Ericthebrainiac ( talk) 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo,
I've just finished programming a free, large font, text-to-speech, text file reader for the visually impaired. It is written to run in OS X. Sorry, there isn't a PC version. I've made it open source, so one can compile one's own binaries. I wonder, would you possibly consider featuring it somehow on Wikipedia? There is nothing for sale on this site - no other programs. I just want to offer something nice to everyone.
https://sites.google.com/site/mikeybeesoftware/
206.109.195.126 ( talk) 09:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as WP's license has been changed to both Creative Commons and the GFDL, should the Statement of principles be updated accordingly? It currently only mentions the GFDL. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 06:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, please check your email. Durova Charge! 03:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Following up from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 47#Block of Bishonen, question, whereupon you notified Bishonen of her block, there was a subsequent discussion on her talk ( now archived) and she has now agreed at User talk:Bishonen#an audience with the king to discuss the matter with you openly at a subpage in her userspace. The intention is that it would be a one-on-one chat, in order to talk through the problems, which I think will be useful for you both. This is an opportunity to establish whether the Founder is a meatball:FirstServant, meatball:GodKing, or something else. John Vandenberg ( chat) 01:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created User talk:Bishonen/block discussion with the statement from Bishonen dated June 7. It is protected to avoid disruption. John Vandenberg ( chat) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales,
I ran across your interest in the issue of paid editing while I was contributing to the discussion myself on the RFC. I have a proposal that you might like (as it raises money for the foundation and perhaps for you as well while discourages paid editing) here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Paid_Editing_proposal:_Wikipedia_.22tax.22_on_paid_editors.3F. This proposal has generated some community discussion.
Also, I must inform you of this also: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Paid_editing.
Thank you and have a good day! Erich Mendacio ( talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think wikipedia has got problems, and that is the reason I am leaving for good! I think consensus is a pile of you know what, which anyone can drum up consensus for a period of time, and shove it down everyones throat! I think your notability standards are crude at best, and need to be revised! I think your OWN criteria is stupid because you want people to feel a since of ownership of what they create or else anything will go! I think that everyone should be made ADMINS or SYOPS or none should and then let Bureaucrats deal with the ramifications because ADMINS think they are GOD on wikipedia! I think that wikipedia is a false doctrine because you all let ANSWERS.com or con use the content we create to make money! HOW SAD! I used to love Wikipedia now I despise it! I am user formally known as bluedogtn and others'! My e-mail is bluedogtenn@gmail.com if you would love to talk further. This is the last time I will visit this fraud of a site! 98.240.44.215 ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
How much power do you wield as a user on wikipedia as Chair Emeritus? What would happen if you somehow ended up incapable of being Chair Emeritus or are taken hostage by aliens in a last ditch effort to destroy human civilization? No, really? Seriously! Pisharov ( talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so you don't have any power any more? So how do things like the arbitration committee get started? Or can any admin do that? Pisharov ( talk) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano ( talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at this. I don't know this is a joke or vandalism but it's very interesting for having such imagination. -- 98.154.26.247 ( talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a pretty obvious fake, since everyone knows I don't know how to use sophisticated wiki markup like that. :)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest this current pattern of removing responses to robot-generated copyvio allegations be dealt with in a way that might be somewhat more consistent with standard WP community practice, or otherwise administratively resolved. If WP is going to have a page devoted to bot-generated alleged copyright violations, it would seem it ought be open to appropriate responses without summary dismissal, e.g. by User:MER-C such as is done with edit summaries like "-29" (again here). Standard practice in the modern civilized world is generally some form of "notice and an opportunity to be heard" w.r.t. such general allegations-- perhaps more so when bot generated. Kindly refer this to appropriate administrative participants in the project. Thanks Jimbo. ... Kenosis ( talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I realize that commons needs to guard against copyrights infringement, but is it really necessary to delete the pictures of a true hero just because people in Iran have other worries than to divulge their sources. I am referring to the photographs of the brave young woman who gave her life on the streets of Tehran yesterday. Jcwf ( talk) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
USA copyright law allows fair use as does the English language Wikipedia. Please don't throw "copyright violation" around so easily. We prefer copy-left content as that is important to our over-all mission, but fair use quotes and images that are deemed appropriate are allowed. Winning arguments with bumper-sticker slogans misinforms the newbies. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
One admin said that Fair Use images of dead people on their pages is not allowed according to Wikipedia:Non-free content, and wants to use that to delete Neda images from the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article. See my talk page and
Are we now going to delete Fair Use images of dead people from their article pages? Many of those pages have no other images of those people. Are we becoming that illogical in our application of Wikipedia:Non-free content? I mean how far do we want to go in encouraging people to give up their images for free use? See:
In particular, an admin wrote the following concerning the only reason they would allow Fair Use photos of Death of Neda Agha-Soltan in her article:
"That means as subjects of sourced commentary on the individual images themselves, as images, as works of photography or art, not the topic they show."
So we would have to remove all currently existing photos and video stills of Neda Soltan from Wikipedia. All of them are being used under Fair Use. How illogical this is....
The guideline referred to is from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. No matter how obtusely this is justified it does not pass common sense, and I think most people would be shocked if this rule were really applied across all articles about dead people. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Two separate issues apply. One is personality rights and the other is the interaction between legal fair use and Wikipedia's nonfree image use policy. In addition to copyright, personality rights also apply to many images of living people. Those rights have various nuances, but the bottom line is that they usually cease to apply once the person is no longer alive. From the moment onward, a copyrighted image of a non-living person (from most jurisdictions) gets covered in basically the same group as copyrighted images of landscapes, cartoons, etc. Fair use is not the operative principle at Wikipedia user space: our local nonfree image use requirements are stricter than the law requires. This sums up quite simply: if an image is under full copyright, don't use it in user space. It may be frustrating, but the reasoning behind it is sound--it has something to do with the habits of a minority of editors who pushed fair use to the breaking point, and the potential that carries to redirect volunteer time away from core project functions. Sadly, this is one of the situations where a small number of people spoiled it for everyone. On a brighter note, there are other productive things that concerned editors can do to honor Neda Soltan and her culture. I blogged about one suggestion the other day. [26] With best wishes and respect, Durova Charge! 02:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently, all photos of Neda Agha-Soltan while alive and well have been removed from the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article.
Maybe Jimbo and others can suggest the following policy clarification to the Wikimedia Foundation board. Where does one go to leave comments to be read by the WMF board?
Rather than remove all Fair-Use images from articles about dead people, I suggest only allowing small thumbnail photos of the people. Smaller than what is currently allowed in infoboxes. See examples of 120-pixel-wide photos of people here:
This way we encourage people to find larger, free images. But without depriving deceased-people articles of any images.
Viewing 120-pixel-wide images may irritate enough people to go find those "lurking" free images mentioned previously, and to find and ask some of the copyright holders to free up some of their copyrighted images.
Most of the many, many copyrighted Fair-Use album covers have images of people, and are between 200 and 300 pixels wide. See:
Of course they often have more than just face shots of people, and so the larger size is justified.
There are Neda images here:
The Neda images seem to be getting out semi-anonymously, "family friend," etc.. I am not sure, but I don't think it is allowed on Wikipedia to use them as anonymous-source images. Even if they are released as free images. How does one verify they are free? Do we trust CNN or the BBC if they say the family friends released them as free images? I don't know what the policy is. That leaves only Fair Use for now. It may be years before family and friends in Iran are willing, or feel safe enough, to put their names to some photos of Neda, and make them free images. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I'm really getting sick of you misrepresenting my actions. Of course the two images would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that they were both non-free- the more the merrier, within reason. The reason I removed the image of her with the headscarf was not because I was part of some secret cabal trying to force the idea of headscarves out of Wikipedia, but because that was the extra one- the other image was the one used in the infobox. This would have been a standard, uncontroversial action, apart from the fact that this was a current event. Of course, everything about a current event has to be controversial, including policy enforcement. The fact we still have two images of her in her own biography is alarming. If the biography is kept, which it shouldn't be, one should be kept, if any. It doesn't matter which one, really. You're free to argue about that all you want. Using both of them is clearly an abuse of our NFCC. J Milburn ( talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg. The woman, Neda, was killed while wearing a scarf. But she also has photos of her without the scarf.
WP:NFCC does not say how many Fair Use images are allowed in an article. It says "minimal". If the policy is only one is allowed, then it would say "one" and not "minimal."
The Emmet Till article has 2 Fair Use images. He is notable because he was murdered. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Jim, I know (1) you don't generally get involved in content disputes and (2) have encouraged Wikipedians to e-mail around to secure free media for the project. Still, FWIW, I'm simply curious what your personal take would be wrt an issue addressed too-lengthily a few posts up on your talkpage.
Yeah, a **free** pic of its now-iconic subject in conservative/formal Iranian dress would be great. (It's doubtful the dresscode at Islamic Azad University, where " Neda" studied religion and philosophy, allowed for the "colorful-scarf-haphazardly-falling-down-to-the-back-off-the-crown-in-public" look otherwise in fashion among underground pop-chanteuses, which just so happens to have been our late subject's aspiration as well.) But she's dead, the few best-known pix of her iconic; and her family, who had previously released the image to the LATimes have since then been required to move to a different residence by the athorities and have been requested to avoid speaking with the foreign press during these difficult times of unrest in Iran. What would be your quick, general take on this, Jimbo? Do you think this situation presents special circumstances? ↜Just M E here , now 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there are two separate questions here: the photo of her death, and other photos of her.
I do think that this situation does present special circumstances, one of which is a concern for the human dignity of the deceased. This is also quite clearly a case of WP:BLP1E, and should be considered from that angle as well. (I see the article is in the process of likely being merged with an article about the incident, and I think that's good.) I think that the image of her death is iconic, historically important, and relevant to the article about her death. That the image is haunting and emotionally moving is something the reader needs to see in order to understand in part some of the reaction this created.
For the other images, among the factors to be considered here is replaceability with free alternatives - as she was a college student there are presumably many pictures of her whose copyright is owned by friends and loved ones - perhaps if they have one that they like or think accurately captures her spirit, they will wish to donate it... however, this may not happen for some time, and may never happen. Using a "fair use" picture in such a circumstance strikes me as undesirable, but there is a complex judgment call as to whether it is nonetheless something we should accept, although undesirable to some extent. I have no very strong opinion about it.
I do think, as is well known - and this is just a specific case of the general principle - that we should be quite diligent about seeking out photos under free licenses. Wikipedia is quite famous and important and generally admired all around the world, and I think people will generally be happy to help us make it better. -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Bookbound barnstar | |
To
Jimbo Wales, for his kind and expert, scalpel-quick opinions often granted to the users of Wikipedia . . . . . . . (and also for happening to have created such a prime vehicle of the new century's citizen journalism). — Justmeherenow 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC) |
Dear Mr. Wales,
I have come here to ask for information about the very pillars that suport the entire Wiki Movement, in order to prevent some spasms of confusion and madness from negatively interfering in the normal course of the Wiki Process, in my native language's Wikipedia. Amen! Actually, it's not that grave. But, in the name of the Wiki Culture, I want to defeat it in the most coherent way possible.
What happens is that the (rather schizophrenic) Lusophone community is discussing, again, some of the worst things that could ever be discussed in a Wikimedian environment. And the one I am talking about is to deny anonymous users the right to edit.
Could you give me some orientation about the status of this right? I would be most grateful if you pointed me some official policies or founding principles (and discussions related to these, if posssible) in a way I can have solid data to base my positions on. As you like to write around here, "this comment in a nutshell": what are the relevant pages related to anonymous edits that can be used in a debate?
Faithfully yours, Vinte e Dois ( talk) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wondered about the validity of this blog post; has everything been represented accurately, or is there some information that was inadvertently left out? NW ( Talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh, not sure how to answer that question. There's always tons of information left out of any blog post or news story. That particular post looks like a pretty decent repeat of the New York Times story, but I can't vouch for any part of it that I don't know about. Did you have a more specific question? :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to watch or participate in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pajhwok_Afghan_News. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
I would like to let you know that I just defended my dissertation on Wiki-pt. I was approved! The title of my dissertation is "Nos bastidores da Wikipédia Lusófona: percalços e conquistas de um projeto de escrita coletiva online" ("Behind the scenes of Wikipedia in Portuguese: Pitfalls and conquests of a collectively written online project"). I believe this is the first dissertation of its kind, in the Portuguese language.
Thank you for your vision and, if I may divulge a bit, I remember when you came down to Brazil (São Paulo) last year. Some said that Wikipédia hadn't achieved or reached a phase worthy enough to be studied as a social phenomena. The successful defense of this dissertation demonstrates this outlook concerning Wikipédia is at least not true and indeed maybe completely false.
My very best regards,
Telma Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.164.255.201 ( talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy - Raul said that the Michael Jackson article got more hits (5.9 million) than the main page. Can you confirm if that is a record for most viewed article in a 24 hour period?
It's worth mentioning one of the main editors of that article, Realist2. He's heavily associated with it, bringing it to featured status. I wrote about him when I dedicated a photo to him. Editors like Realist2 save this site and its community a lot of headaches and bad headlines. The MJ story is clearly the news event of the year, and the media has been looking for any angle on it. Editors like Realist2, through diligent work and effort on a topic that is important to him, spare us headlines about ghastly vandalism that wasn't caught or embarrassing mistakes. He's pretty broken up over Jackson's passing (as you can see from his talk page), but we all owe him and editors like him thanks for their hard work. -->David Shankbone 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This ( "Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia") was well done. Congrats! -- Noroton ( talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
“We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” I take it then that you would have supported keeping it out even if there were reliable sources? What about if it was widely reported? J Milburn ( talk) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You may or may not have heard of it, but I'm sure you've heard of the psychological type idea from which it stems. According to the Russian Wikipedia, ("Соционика") it is bigger over there than communism. And yet, people over here are trying to delete it. One user, Mango, seems particularly focused on eliminating it. I ask this: if you can point to hundreds of sources for a topic from hundreds of authors, then need it even be asked if the topic is notable? Tcaudilllg ( talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to get the rollback feature for my account. Texcarson ( talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposal at WP:VPR to create a recent changes page for unwatched articles. This would be done by adding an rc_watched column to the recentchanges table to store the watcher-count at the time of each revision, based on the watchlist table. Bug 18790 has more technical details. This essentially allows the filtering-out all 'watched' pages from recent changes: if someone's watching, you don't need to. This proposal has been active since April 25th - two months now - and has 17 unanimous and often enthusiastic supports at its straw poll and discussion (which could still use more input).
In 2005 you requested Special:UnwatchedPages in order to reduce vandalism on unwatched pages. This proposal is essentially an enhancement of Special:UnwatchedPages. Though that tool has been useful to some extent, it is limited to administrators and is updated infrequently. What do you think of this proposal as a potential replacement for Special:UnwatchedPages? M 03:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I've rewritten David S. Rohde pretty much from scratch; I think you'll find it's in much better shape now. Kudos on your actions in this matter - I think you did exactly the right thing. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I would also like to express my support. I believe you acted in the most appropriate way, and hope you'd do it again ( hoping you won't have to though...).I'd do exactly the same thing.
Cheers, Paul Paul Roberton ( talk) 03:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, everyone here is supporting you... I do not. Given the amount of discussion at the Village Pump I'm wondering why nobody asks questions here. Well, I've got some for you at VP waiting for your answer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.217.15.245 ( talk) 11:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ciao, Jimbo. An editor has raised a concern here that your daughter is named in our biography of you (there are two references to her in the Personal life section). I had assumed you were fine with this since you have discussed her in public, but do please let us know if it's something you're uncomfortable with. Mahalo, Skomorokh 11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift and useful response on this. If you ever feel like disputing something in the article, posting a note to a public off-wiki forum (such as your blog) should be enough to qualify claims at least; except on a few contentious points, the editors of the article are not as entrenched as one might expect. I realise the article over the years has been something of a black spot, and personally distressing for you, but efforts have been made recently to develop it into a biography of some depth rather than the string of controversies it used to be. Hopefully, once this process matures, we will send the article to peer review, where your input would be very valuable. Regards, Skomorokh 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This is you bargaining with Bishonen that you won't block anyone for six months if she agrees with you to support a policy of punitive blocking for naughty language. That sounds awfully ill-thought out to me. I think you should strike that and think it through a little more. You're reversing long established policy in order to block people who use bad language. Who decides what language is acceptable? Would you block for "piss off" which means "go away" in some cultures? Would you block for "You are prevaricating"? No? How about, "you're full of crap", is that blockable? They mean precisely the same thing. You want to dictate what precise words are allowable and not, and you want to have three hour blocks for using words you don't like, and you - and this is very important - you have made it clear that unless Bishonen agrees with your view, you're done discussing your actions. Oh really? You're saying, "Agree with me, or I won't talk to you?" I'm going to presume you merely posted before coffee and didn't think this one through, Jimmy. There must always be room for disagreement in civil discussion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Well,
since you asked: Talk pages and moved talk pages of banned users are not usually deleted. The typical exception is the
right to vanish, but that courtesy is not usually extended to banned users. RMHED got them deleted initially by moving them around to various subpages, adding sandbox edits to the history, and thereby obfuscating them enough so that admins deleted them in good faith as
WP:CSD#U1, which specifically excludes user talk pages. Some time after the ban I noticed some deleted user talk page edits, so I investigated and restored his talk page archives and courtesy blanked them.
So much for background. I am not particularly familiar with RMHED, and what led to his ban. I believe the discussion leading up to it was
here (February 2009), and the actual community ban was
here (March 2009). I don't mind per se if a banned editor's talk pages are deleted after a while. With RMHED though, one of his last edits
was this threat: "... maybe I will vanish or maybe I'll just retire this account and start a new one. Six months+ of being a good, well rounded little wikipedian should then equate to a nice easy RFA. Then the fun can really begin."
Quite possibly an empty threat, but if he's emailing you about his archives who knows? The old talk page archives might help identifying such a sock, and I think should stay around unless there is a very specific concern with them.
Amalthea
10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Jimbo. Any idea as to the problems with WikiMedia Foundation today? It's servers are continously 'down'. GoodDay ( talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, Matty has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hope all is still well, remember to smile! Matty ( talk) 02:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You made a comment a few days ago before you had your coffee. I want to make sure that doesn't happen again, so here you go.
Griffinofwales (
talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying
calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{ subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Griffinofwales ( talk) 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the kind words you sent the other day. I have only just returned to Wikipedia following the death of Jackson. The main article has deteriorated somewhat in recent days, but that is to be expected considering the traffic. I'm planning to get it cleaned up in time for the funeral, which I believe is on Tuesday. I'm just glad it was in good form when the world and much of the media started to check it out. — Please comment R 2 04:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I know your on line. Why do you think continuing this "feud" is doing wikipedia any good? Jack forbes ( talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about before until it was ignored. If an admin doesn't thing an admin cursing and yelling is immature, then let him/her speak. Since there will probably be no response, I already know I am right. 75.91.164.188 ( talk) 06:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this is why
|
---|
|
Hello Jimmy,
Before I begin I would like to sincerely thank you for co-founding such a wonderful project. Wikipedia has greatly aided my quest for increasing my knowledge on most subjects I can think of. I am trying to find a role to contribute in a meaningful way to Wikipedia and to the community that supports it, which will probably take some time and considerable effort. This paragraph is starting to feel like brown-nosing, so I will move on...
Here are my questions:
I know there are other sources on this website which might clarify these questions (including your user page), but I would love to hear from you directly.
Sincerely,
Mad Pierrot ( talk) 04:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no one has drawn your attention to the above-mentioned proposal and related RFC on the talk page. – xeno talk 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It is much too premature for this proposal, and it seems to mix several different issues. I am very open, as always, to making changes, and support a general movement to refine processes over time, but I think a much more comprehensive discussion is needed before an actual proposal like this is put forward.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"Leave ... Jimmy D. ... alone!" --- CHRIS CROCKER (link) ↜Just M E here , now 04:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
To give a sense of perspective, out of the approximately 16000 emails that have been on arbcom-l in the past six months, Jimbo has around 70 to his name, nearly half of which are on topics more social than Wikipedian. Rumors of his still ruling Wikipedia with the iron fist of an eminence grise are, at best, misguided. — Coren (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
(UTC) And the kicker is this: According to WP:CONEXCEPT, this would be entirely official. <innocent cat-got-cream look>
Thanks Jimbo, I confess I'm rather confused by your analogy and think, as perhaps analogies like this are necessarily limited, that it is of little value. Furthermore, being from the UK and regularly seeing the lords temporal and spiritual drooling into their ermine, and given their resistance to the parliament acts, reform and generally conservative nature - I'm quite alarmed - I'm sure they're not exactly the best model for admins. The system is largely a finely balanced 1000 year fudge which has taken a millenia to evolve under competing and changing pressures. Ultimately it's flexibility is a strength, but the confusion of a lack of written constitution ensures only lawyers can understand it in totality - surely not a good thing. I'm also not sure we have the time and the key missing element is the commons. Perhaps better to visualise how our system might evolve.
Discussion of 'founder' contingencies or your gradual replacement leads to a question of what we might be replacing. Perhaps a good start would be to clarify your current role? The following are suggestions for a probably incomplete list - could you comment or add to them (or your TPWs)? Cheers. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The English system of government minus the House of Commons is feudalism. I'm not really sure if that's the sort of governance model we'd want for 2009. Baileyquarter ( talk) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think two things are being conflated in current discussions around the wiki. Blocks are for editing abuse. Admin abuse should be met with loss of sysop access. It would be very straightfoward for you to state that admins may not swear at or otherwise abuse users. If such abuses happen, and there is no ambiguity, you may remove sysop access temporarily or permanently. I think this approach is better than using 3 hour blocks. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In case you weren't aware Jimbo, arbitrator Risker has unilateraly removed an entire section of that page, my Simulated Rfa Question, based on the fact that it in itself was incivil. Given that you, and many other experienced editors including former arbitrators, had already commented on it without issue, then I think that is a pretty clear sign that the community understanding of what 'civility' is more broken, and the fractures are eminating higher up, than many had perhaps first thought. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Jimbo blocked Bishonen for 3 hours on May 22. Bishonen's last two salvos were on July 3, on this talk page. [37] [38] That is 6 weeks. If Bishonen had simply endured her 3-hour block and then returned to business as usual, this issue would have ended on May 22. It is Bishonen who created this controversy and kept alive. Since her block expired, almost all of of Bishonen's "contributions" to Wikipedia have been her arguing, arguing, and arguing about Jimbo's 3-hour block. Throughout, Bishonen very skillfully shifted the issue from her personal attack of Daedalus969 (who deserved a reprimand, but not to be cursed at and then then repeatedly baited) to whether Jimbo's 3-hour block conformed to the letter of the blocking policy—she framed the issue as a misuse of the block to punish her—and rallied other admins and friends to join her campaign against Jimbo.
I don't know if Jimbo looked at Bishonen's prior edit history before he blocked her, but she also lost it a week earlier. Bishonen was supporting an RfA (the candidate was previously de-sysoped; the RfA failed) and got into an argument with someone who opposed it. Again, in addition to cursing at the other editor, she expressed anger that the other editor disregarded Bishonen's "advice" to stop arguing against the RfA. The discussion on Bishonen's talk page, which Bishonen later deleted, shows her uncivil conduct and contemptuous attitude toward another editor who crossed her [39] (indents omitted):
You mean supporters, no? And the talk page only shows the level of hate that Everyking will put forth, so I doubt it really supports your argument in any kind of regard. Thankfully, Crats don't do what Everyking would do (merely count votes) so your argument definitely wont hold up. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It definitely won't, will it? That's interesting. Are you suffering from some kind of hysteria, to be addressing me like that after I advise you to not—not—keep blathering against the opposers [sic: should be "supporters"]? Or are you trying to avoid the childishness of immediately doing what I asked you not to do, by posting on my page instead of on the RFA? Or, Machiavellian thought, are you deliberately making yourself look absurd in order to make Everyking look the better? Are you secretly on his side? Whichever it is, and, believe me, I don't really want to know, piss off my page and stay off. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
Hrmph. A crude edit summary ["Har har. Piss off."] is fine in small doses. Use one too much and you ruin its mystique. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The mystique is perhaps not necessary, MZMcBride. Got any suggestions? What do you think of "Fuck off"? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
Bishonen's abusive behaviour toward editors, her continuing argument that Jimbo's 3-hour block of her was unjustified, and, most distressing, other admins' supporting Bishonen throughout her campaign, are germane to the community poll on the adequacy of Wikipeida's civility policy, the adequacy of the policy's enforcement, and particularly whether selective enforcement unfairly favors admins. Suppressing discussion of these issues of legitimate community concern is damaging to the already frayed morale of many active editors, and also ineffective. If there is concern that the poll questions should have been phrased more neutrally, that can be fixed (provided the facts are stated accurately). But the questions and the discussion should be restored to the poll. In fact, the civility policy poll is probably the least confrontational forum for discussing the matter. But if community discussion continues to be suppressed there, it will arise elsewhere. That is what happens when debate is suppressed, and why suppression is counterproductive. Finell (Talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding blocks for admin abuse -- I agree, people definitely should be blocked for abusing admins. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, you may be interested in a policy I have just proposed: Wikipedia:Rehabilitation of offenders. -- Tango ( talk) 01:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You have my full, complete, unreserved support for this. I think it is a brilliant idea. It could and should very well be that checkusers (or similar) can still see the ancient history, i.e. it might not be "burned" forever, but there is no reason for it to remain in the logs.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. We are having difficulties to find a concrete consensus regarding the above matter. As you can see it involves some hundred thousands over articles and possibly millions. Please, your comments & suggestion are very much appeciated. Thank you Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb you Jimbo, at first I just thought that you would like to give some suggestions in regard to the above discussion Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Unfortunately some of the wikipedians who are not familiar with the scientific subjects try to delete the important articles of Wikipedia. As a researcher, I believe that the new articles published in the scientific journals are the best references in Wikipedia. The problem comes when the wikipedians who have never even seen a scientific article related to these subjects, judge that these articles in wikipedia are not important. Do you have an alternative to overcome this problem? Javanbakht ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you please add the following paragraph to the Gerald Walpin article? I cannot do so, because I have been topic banned from political articles for three months:
In June, 2009, President Barack Obama fired Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. According to Associated Press, Johnson is a friend of Obama's. [1] Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. [2] In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." [3] A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. [4] The letter can be read here.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
A review of English Wikipedia governance has been started here. Your input there would be greatly appreciated. -- Tango ( talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently saw an australlian programme from the BBC site and you were featured as a celebrity that had to answer "ten questions". One of them was "Are you a teenage drug lord from Malaysia?". My question is should there be a redirect (of Teenage drug lord from Malaysia) to your wikipedia page or your userpage? Of course this would be only in good humour. NarSakSasLee ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, once again the problem with editor FyzixFighter has arisen. He has removed a perfectly sourced edit which I made to improve the centrifugal force article. Any outsider should be able to see clearly that FyzixFighter only comes to physics articles to remove edits or to trample over edits that I make. This has been an ongoing problem and it has been to the detriment of a number of physics articles, namely Faraday's law, Kepler's laws, centrifugal force, and Coriolis force. FyzixFighter has been determined to keep the planetary orbital equation off the centrifugal force page. Something needs to be done to sort this problem out.
This is not a content dispute. This is about an editor who is determined to prevent me from editing on physics pages which I have done alot of research on. David Tombe ( talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'm sure someone else can help you find the appropriate avenues for dispute resolution. I'd love to help you, but the process doesn't start here. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo and Tango, thanks for the advice. I will see how the debate goes over the next few days before deciding whether or not to go down the 'dispute resolution' road. This matter has been raised before and ignored, hence sending out the signal to FyzixFighter that he has got the green light to continue. He has deleted a perfectly good edit on totally specious grounds. Following the intervention of two other editors he has backtracked somewhat and decided to put some of the content of that edit into the history section, even though the topic is still being taught today in the universities using that very equation. Planetary orbital theory is definitely not a historical topic.
A careful analysis of FyzixFighter's interventions will clearly expose the fact that he has been involved in a prolonged and subtle form of vandalism and he is trying to ally himself with those other editors that I have been arguing with. David Tombe ( talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist ( talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
☩
Damërung
☩
. --
02:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC) has given you a
LOL
ipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes
WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{ subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
For being
bold enoug to create wikipedia. (This talk page could possibly be the largest in wikipedia).
Hi Jimmy,
You've probably never seen me around before, but as you may already yourself now fully be aware, Juliancolton is up for bureaucratship right now, and one of the recurring themes among some of the opposers is that he's a minor. I'm curious to know a) what your personal views are towards WP:Ageism, and b) do you know of any legal issues with minors being bureaucrats (or do I need to go ask Mike on this)?
Thanks, Matt ( talk) 06:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Best to ask Mike about any legal issues, but I wouldn't think that there are any. One of the reasons for the term "Bureaucrat" is that it's supposed to be a pretty dully technical position. :-) I don't think Bureaucrats have access to any private data, which might be the only issue, but again, best to ask Mike.
I strongly disagree with many points in WP:Ageism, and find it to be offensive in a great many ways and if I were to rewrite it, it would end up substantially different.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, as the primary author of WP:ageism, I would be interested in finding out what you find offensive with the essay, because it is essentially very much in line with previous statements that you've made. I wish I could find the quote, but you are often quoted when you said that you felt that (paraphrased as best I can recall it) as a general rule you felt that admins should be in college, but that there are exceptions to this rule. This essay is nothing more than an extension of that.
The entire purpose of the essay is to point out why arguing over the issue of ageism is a waste of time. Don't waste people's time arguing about whether or not ageism is a valid reason. Instead focus on why, even if ageism is valid, that the individual candidate is the exception.
Finally, I should point out, that Julian the person who is running for 'crat, actually supported the essay. He initially wrote an essay to counter it, but via discussion and editing, he withdrew his objection and deleted his essay. The problem that Julian is having with Ageism, isn't that he is under 18, but rather that he has been an outspoken advocate of promoting underage admins. He is the admin that I quoted who compared Ageism to racism (and has also made similar statements comparing it to sexism). (Just a few months ago, we promoted another under aged admin to 'crat.)
Also, it should be noted, that I voted for Julian and have nominated several people who are underage, but whom I deemed exceptional. They key, as the essay discusses, is to focus on why the individual is the exception to the rule.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I´m brasilian and i dont speak English very well, but i have a terrible problem and need a help. I do a article in wikipedia lusofona, and this user vandalize this article. I can´t revert cause i´m bloqued, but nobody revert this article. Why do i di? I´m desesperate, cause´ various administrators be do a cyberbuilling with me. Please, helpe-me.
Thank you very very very much.
Litrix Linuxer ( talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)LitrixLinuxer
That's interesting. I see the vandalism in the page, but when I click to edit, I don't see it. I'm a little puzzled.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I gather that the latest funding drive will pay for updating the server? I've been having terrible server trouble and it seems to have increased over the past few weeka. There is a discussion about it at village pump tech. As I type the globe has not even appeared in the left hand corner! Also are there no plans to update the front page, I think it looks a little dated. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I am wondering if you can kindly point me in the direction of the discussions that brought about the usage of fair-use images here on enWP? I'm a sysop on Simple English Wikipedia and I'm really interested in the rationale that was used to permit the upload and usage of non-free images here as there have been some efforts to get it going over at simpleWP. I understand that a lot was discussed on mailing lists initially but I don't know which or when. If you could even recall the rough time when it was discussed it'd help! I asked Angela but she said it was before her time here. Thanks in advance and feel free to drop by to simpleWP any time, even if it's just to say 'Hi!'!! :-) Yours, fr33k man -simpleWP- 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you might find the original discussions, probably on the mailing list?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Good, you are around. Tell Kirill that he should reconsider - if you are to have these special powers then bloody use them to keep the really good people doing the job the community entrusted them with! Dammit, demand Kirill that he reconsider!!! LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)