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 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Howdy from WikiMapia, one of the map services that pops up when you click on coordinates in Wikipedia!
We are currently running a petition to release the software that we use under a Free Software license, and that all content we contribute be released under a Free creative license, so that we are working under the same terms as Wikipedia contributors.
This has resulted from extreme neglect of the users' needs by the closed Wikimapia Team (the two guys who started it), and spurred by the Free Software add-on that I created to work around Wikimapia's deficiencies. Many top contributors have already signed it.
I thought this is an unusual situation, and maybe you would be interested, or maybe offer some advice on how to increase our chance of success as this point.
Cheers,
-- Specious ( talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a great idea. The ones who work on geography here have long thought wikimapia the best site for obtaining coordinates, particularly on smaller settlements and landmarks. I would like to see wikimapia taken under the wing of the wikimedia personally as it is the mapping project we are missing and of course it is aptly named as a sister project. I would very much like to see wikimapia adopted by wikimedia and to becoming a branch of our project. That would be awesome. It would seem to share our exact same goals, and if we could obtain the funding to run it through our donations we could free the site of google ads and make it part of our own. What I'd hate is for a site that well developed to close down because of neglect. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
a project that Wikimedia is ALREADY in consultation with?
Wikimapia is at best a site with propriatery licensing. Furthermore the exact relationship between Wikimapia and the geo-data providers it uses was when I last checked seemed at best ambiguous. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
were concern was expressed about certain things. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide some public sign to demonstrate that the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development is indeed convened by the Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales?
Thanks, William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I think it's a good idea. It's an advisory body with no power, a more formal way to seek diverse input from a variety of sources. I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down. I believe that a small working group, composed of diverse membership, could be quite useful to the ArbCom, to me, and to the community in general.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all about taking the conversation out of the echo box. Venues such as AN end up being unproductive because a small group of more political editors end up being the only consensus by default and its self selecting nature excludes a number of editor cross-sections. — Coren (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development Durova 275 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agitants, eh? Your usefulness to this project grows short. I think it's time we began driving forward change without you. I think you'll find you're the agitant, shortly. rootology ( C)( T) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You proposed, a few years ago if I remember correctly, a scheme for introducing credential verification. This was opposed, and I was one of them, but it is clear now that this was a good idea and that I was wrong, as content disputes have proliferated and as there is no way for forcefully resolving them in favour of respectable view, in the process, taking sides and thus being unneutral. ArbCom can never do this, and isn't qualified to. But we are an encyclopedia after all. As wikipedia has grown in size it's become rather obvious that hierarchy, even of the delegated king, is needed. You set up the ArbCom to deal with particularly behavioural disputes, and this was a good idea. But with our current size and the way process depends more often than not on unachievable community consensus, it is impossible to deal with certain things without expanding this committee's role to something close to government of en.wiki. On that basis, would you ever contemplate setting up other such committees? I mean, committees such as a content committee/enyclopedia review board (with people elected/appointed based on verifiable expertise) or even a policy committee? I mean, in principle, irrespective of what the details might be? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, are you still there? Another user and I've asked you some questions about the censorship incident... but you didn't answer. The discussion has been archived at the Village Pump, but I'm still waiting... Scared, Jimbo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.141.215 ( talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you ask me here, if I overlooked something at the Village Pump.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I've taken the original questions as they were reported on the Village Pump page.
The problem with this sort of suppression is that we have no idea what else is being swept under the rug. It would help me a lot if you could come clean about any other similar actions and plans for future actions. Otherwise, It is just me and my imagination, which is probably worse than the truth
Questions and following comment made by 128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to get an answer from you, Mr. Wales. Thank you.
Questions and following comment made by me. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.225.78.169 (
talk) 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No. I asked politely two questions when the topic was hot and Mr. Wales ignored (or overlooked) them at the time. I still want answers.
And I quote from the Wikipedia article: "After David Rohde escaped, some people involved, including David himself, indicated that the reason the Times imposed a media blackout was not for Rohde's safety, but to decrease his ransom. An anonymous source quoted by New York Magazine claims that experts involved in the kidnapping never believed that David's life was in danger." So it was a matter of MONEY and not a matter of LIFE-and-DEATH. That brings the whole incident down even more to a disgraceful level. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
150.217.15.245 (
talk •
contribs) 13:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Zozca. Whoever he is? He doesn't even know how to edit an article in Wikipedia. He is a newcomer and he started putting false blames on others. What proof does he has that I'm a sockpuppet of User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com. I think he is a sockpuppet of that user, that's why he is making me a sockpuppet. He doesn't know, who The Great One is, so how can he make me a sockpuppet. I want a proof. Jimmy, you should control your users and you should block those users who don't have any proof and they start blaming others.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, whatever I have written in your talkpage. User:Zozca, will try to remove it. He will replace my names with his name and his name with my name and will try to edit the section, which I have written in your talk page. History of your talkpage will be the proof. Similarly, JuJube also tried to put false blames on me last year when I returned to Wikipedia after a brief hiatus. I request you to do research and inquiry on whatever Zozca and JuJube have done to me.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Your user, Zozca has started abusing me and has started using offensive language against me. He has started using bad words to me. Jimmy, please prevent him from doing any harm to me. I request you to stop his false things and block his account immediately.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I used classical encyclopaediae alot over the years prior to the era of the ineternet. My recent interest in wikipedia stems from the fact that wikipedia is invariably the first hit on any google search. At first, I thought that the articles were written by experts. But gradually I heard that wikipedia is written by anybody and can be altered by anybody. Initially the idea seemed rather strange to me and it is a fact which I always remember at the back of my mind when depending on a wikipedia article for some piece of information. But if the subject matter is not controversial, I will always adopt the attitude that the information is probably correct because nobody is going to be wasting their time writing falsely about that topic.
I found wikipedia useful in ways that classical encyclopaedie on the library shelves were not. Wikipedia, with the help of modern computerized search engines gives access to a much wider range of specialized topics. There are many specialized topics that in the past I would simply not have been able to find in ordinary encyclopaediae. As such, wikipedia has helped me to get answers to questions that had been outstanding for many years. In that respect, wikipedia is good.
I have therefore attempted to introduce specialized knowledge back into wikipedia in areas that I have done alot of research in. Examples are the history and currencies of the British Empire. The edits that I have made on those subjects have seldom encountered any opposition. But the situation has been quite different as regards edits to physics related articles. Over the years, I have done alot of research in electromagnetism and I have worked through all the inter-relationships between the quantities. I managed to improve quite a few of your electromagnetism articles, but it was not without a certain degree of resistance. Sometimes that resistance was quite considerable, although discussions on the talk pages in most cases resulted in a beneficial exchange of views and some compromises.
The situation however has been quite different as regards the single topic of centrifugal force. There are some basic well sourced facts about centrifugal force which are simply being vetoed outright on that article, and these are the most important facts of all as regards that topic. There has been an ongoing dispute there going back to 2007 when I first edited using an IP server. What is most interesting is that whenever the argument got to a critical stage last year, the article was split into two. This confused the matter even further because the most important aspects of that topic, which are the aspects which are encountering the absolute resistance, do not correctly fit into either of the two sub-divisions.
Eventually, with the help of an outsider, a unified article was once again created. Things were going well for a short while but then trouble arose again with the intervention of one editor in particular. Editor FyzixFighter, more than any other editor has been repeatly following me around on physics related articles and confusing the topics in question. His style is to do wholesale reverts and then disappear. He will seldom come to the talk page unless a revert war continues or a third party gets involved. His strategy is then to try and form an alliance with that third party. His views have changed quite considerably according to who he is trying to align himself with against me. As you can see, last month he was involved in an edit war to push the idea that there were only two kinds of centrifugal force. Over the last few days it came to the brink of an edit war in which he is now trying to push the idea that there are three kinds of centrifugal force.
At the moment, it is chiefly FyzixFighter who is instrumental in keeping all references to the role of centrifugal force in planetary orbits out of the article. If you look at the debate, you will see that once again the discussion is now vearing into the issue of the two re-direct articles.
The purpose of the split in my opinion is to remove all aspects of centrifugal force that relate to a real outward push or pull, and to put those aspects into the 'reactive centrifugal force' re-direct article. The idea is then to promote the other re-direct article 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' as being the main article. Until recently, it was indeed this latter re-direct article that got the google hits.
This splitting of a single subject is not in the interests of the wider public readership. It is important to watch carefully the specious arguments which are being put forward by certain editors to justify having two articles. In truth, the main purpose is to create a situation in which the illustrative example of centrifugal force in planetary orbits can be legitimately denied entry to the main article. We are seeing all kinds of reasons for vetoing the planetary orbital example. We have seen the following bogus arguments over the last two years, (1) that it is original research, (2) that it is a special case of the rotating frames approach and hence doesn't need to be mentioned, (3) that it is the reactive centrifugal force, (4) that the main article is only a summary article and that it is getting too big and that there is not enough room.
I would hope that you and some of your colleagues would pay attention to the ongoing debate on the talk page to see for yourselves that there are certain editors who are determined to destroy the article, and they are engaging in plausible arguments so as to look as if they are working for the good of the article.
If wikipedia is to have increased credibility with the public, these kind of editors need to be dealt with. Democracy alone cannot deal with this kind of situation. It is totally unsatisfactory to have a situation in which somebody who is trying to fix up an article is being persistently over ruled by superior numbers. The dispute resolution mechanisms have failed to bring forth any interested administrators.
Because of the prominence given to wikipedia by the major search engines such as google, you have a responsibility to the public at large to ensure that wikipedia is not being abused. There needs to be more administrator intervention. Consenus as a concept sounds very noble, but it is vulnerable to widespead abuse. David Tombe ( talk) 15:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Darrenhusted, it is alot more than a content dispute. It is about the fact that one editor has been following me around deleting my edits. A careful examination of his latest reversion and the reasons which he has given should clearly expose what has been going on. David Tombe ( talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
[Outdent] David Tombe has already taken this to wp:ani twice, to wp:an once and to this page once before. None of these attempts to gain an advantage over FyzixFighter in a long-running content dispute came to anything, because no evidence was presented that Fyzixfighter had done anything wrong.
Location / 1st Diff / Completed Thread
Adminstrators's Noticeboard [4] [5]
Ani 1st Ani thread [6]
Ani 2nd Ani thread [7]
Seriously, this is starting to look like forum shopping. Cardamon ( talk) 04:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You maybe can't examine him for his motives. But you can easily examine him on his content. As regards stating that FF has been found not guilty of the charges, I must have missed the court case. David Tombe ( talk) 11:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Now hang on a minute Darrenhusted, FyzixFighter has been following me around and repeatedly deleting my edits on different articles. I don't do that to him. So it would take a very twisted judge to come to the the conclusion that I am the one that is harassing him. David Tombe ( talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sir, What Mr Tombe says is basically correct. He has worked hard to observe the rules and work with other editors to get an article which satisfies the others. Then Mr FyzixFighter came in and deleted all of Mr Tombes efforts, turned the other editors against him, and generally created an edit war for his own personal satisfaction. I think your procedures are the problem. You should be banning FyzixFighter from intervening when he doesnt participate in the discussions. His technique is to interveen after compromises have been reached. That is basically wrong. If Mr FyzixFighter has some real arguments to present he should participate in the discussions and not wait until the other editors have agreed with Mr Tombe. This is in my opinion disruptive editing. It is clearly because Mr FyzixFighter has an animus for Mr Tombe. If you guys don't get that, then you are not paying attention to reality. Mr FyzixFighter is a disruptive editor and his actions are reprehensible and are a discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia. If you continue to allow editors like him to act the way he does, Wikipedia will be come what many already think it is, simply an erronous source of information. 72.84.68.85 ( talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or has the level of conflict and drama, on matters of governance and policy, been unusually high for the past few months? Finell (Talk) 21:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hard to measure, but perhaps a bit.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
According to a byword (really: Paul of the bible), "Pleasantly, (ηδεως) wherefore, (γαρ) show patience with (ανεχεσθε) the (των) doubting/mindless/egotistic/rash (αφρονων), (your being) more discreet/thoughtful (φρονιμοι)." King James Version: "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise." ↜Just M E here , now 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your post here - I'm sw dev, and there is a joke you may not have heard which seems to apply here: A project manager asked the master, how much time do you need to code this project?
The project manager asked, if I give you six developers to work with you, how long will it take?
The project manager asked, if I give you one hundred developers?
-- KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive criticism of our project. I have figured out the inline reference process and now have the first two paragraphs mostly cleaned up and properly referenced. We will be continuing work on the rest of it. Sfrahm ( talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if this was already brought to your notice. There is a company called Wiki Experts who write articles for money in Wikipedia and the accounts of Wiki Experts company account in Wikipedia and then the account of Spokesperson of Wiki Experts in Wikipedia was blocked both rightly as per my opinion.A editor and Staff of Wiki Experts upset about this they have both Outside Wikipedia [10] and On Wikipedia by Cinagua ( talk · contribs) a paid editor have accused Wikipedia of racism, personal vendettas ,restricting free Speech they use the | They use the name Tayzen in Elance and a editor has opened a Ani discussion on this [11]. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Thanks for letting me know!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, can ArbCom do this? [12]. It seems that ArbCom has snooped on incoming email, and has used it to block an editor of 3000 edits. Is acting "ultra vires", or does ArbCom need its parameters delineated. Can ArbCom snoop on email that is being sent, or is it a "non-judgmental body"? The bottom line is "can ArbCom be trusted anymore?" Tfz 00:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Recently a couple of editors put together this five-day article writing project with the intention to stay away from drama for a few days and focus more on article improving. Saw the section above and thought you might like to take a look. a little insignificant 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi My name is Martin J. Siegel, an arbitrageur who formerly worked on Wall Street. Unfortunately there is, on Wikipedia , a listing for a Martin Siegel who also worked on Wall Street, was convicted and sent to jail for stock market fraud. I am currently an Adjunct Professor at Stern-NYU and some of my students have queried Wikipedia and have come back assuming that I am the Martin Siegel who went to jail. I would like the profile that I submitted listed under his so tht I can avoid this type of confusion in the future. I typed a brief bio but apparently it was not accepted. There is a major difference between Martin Siegel and Martin J. Siegel and I think that the readers of Wiki should see them both when they search. Many thanks for your consideration Martin J. Siegel a copy of what I wanted to post is below
Martin J. Siegel was born and raised in Brooklyn New York. He attended the University of Vermont and upon graduation joined his father’s children’s dress manufacturing firm.. The firm was acquired in 1965 and in 1968 he left the firm to take his MBA at Columbia University-Graduate School of Business- class of 1970. Upon graduation Mr. Siegel joined the firm of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette to run their foreign equity arbitrage department. In 1973 he joined Salomon Brothers to create the international equity arbitrage department. which he subsequently managed for 20 years. Mr. Siegel joined the firm of Long Term Capital Management in 1994 and remained with the firm until October 1998 trading both emerging market equity and debt. In 1999 he joined NYU-Stern as an Adjunct Professor of Finance and International Business and teaches a course on Emerging Financial Markets. He is married and lives in Tomkins Cove New York in the lower Hudson Valley. Mjsiegel ( talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Don't feel the need to respond to this, but I would like to suggest that you, or somebody else senior in the project, may want to have a personal chat with this guy. I have been reading what has been going on and it seems that there is a tangible threat of criminal charges being used to put pressure on him (on the basis that they allege he may have circumvented the very basic means used to prevent download of a whole image). My reading of the situation is that he may feel under intense peer pressure to "make a stand" in this dispute, and therefore put himself at possible risk but certainly put himself under intense personal pressure. I am not sure that everyone who is advising him has his best interests at heart. Perhaps you, or somebody else can advise him - not from a legal standpoint, but from the point of whether he should put the defence of the project and the defence of various principles before his own interests. Just a thought. ConcernedCeltic ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with WP is that thugs rule. The Barack Obama article is under article probation. Yet, people (THuranX and GoodDamon) remove rational talk page comments and collapse discussion into boxes so nobody can see this. Especially when an article is under article probation, ALL editors should be at their best behaviour. Yet when antics like this go unpunished, all the rational editors leave. In fact, I am leaving your myspace type website. I may come back but don't count on it.
Before the drama out campaign mentioned above starts, you should put your foot down and force those thugs who violate the spirit of article probation out of wikipedia or topic ban them. If an article probation doesn't work, how can other non-probated article work? Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect ( talk) 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, for the next 5 days, I'm requesting that this page be considered closed for renovations during The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Go read up on it, it sounds fun.
I'll not be answering questions related to big picture policy, people you are mad about, things you're mad at me about, etc. I'm just gonna go write some articles. And I'm hopeful that the bug will infect you too. If you're mad about something of incredible meta importance, I recommend sleeping on it for a few days. There's nothing that I can help with which is likely to be urgent, and I think we'll all have clearer heads for solving longterm problems in the project if we just edit articles for a few days.
Usually, this is not the right page for many of the concerns that are raised here anyway, although I don't mind getting a steady sampling of what is going on. But not during the Dramaout. If you want to comment here, please be sure it's about article improvement on an article that I'm actually seen working on currently.
I haven't actually checked on who invented this idea, but I love it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping Mr Siegel with his identity problem. I'm afraid I offered my help without knowing exactly what should be done, but I found you and SqueakBox had already done something about it before I could fumble around with it. Btw, I hope I wasn't too presumptive to assume you'd be too busy to look at something like that. Clearly, I was wrong. :D Eaglizard ( talk) 10:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC) PS: I sure hope the comment previous to mine is meant as a joke, tho I doubt it was. Still, you don't any manners! Classic stuff. Eaglizard ( talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that you may wish to change your babel boxes at the English Wikibooks. You may wish to change {{Babel|en|de}} to the code described below the userboxes. Thank you for your kind attention. Kayau | Jane Eyre| PRIDE AND PREJUDICE| les miserables 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jimbo. I'm about to request arbitration of you. Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
Hi, there. I had a great idea to share with wikipedia, but I don't know where to post it. I also noticed that one of our sister projects, Simple English Wikipedia, had a place where people could go to list there question and be able to be read and answered by anyone. So I was wondering if you could please set one up for the main page (or in the way Simple English set it up) and if it was already set up, can you make a direct link to it from the main page? Please respond on my talkpage. Signed and regards from -- Secret Saturdays ( talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr Wales. I've blocked a user with your username on the Simple English Wikipedia. Just to be on the safe side, I'd like to cofirm if it is really you. Thank you.-- TVB dx iang (Ta lk) 07:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy. Please see my offer to formally mediate your dispute with Bishonen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Ryan_Postlethwaite here. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be very happy with that, so my answer is yes. I hope that Bishonen will agree.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I believe an old schoolfriend of mine is being discussed on the board of Biography of Living People. I have been reading about these biographies, and it is currently being suggested that Mike is a homophobe, due to the fact that he once signed a petition opposing the adoption of children by certain gay groups. I assure you he is not a homophobe, and this is by no account a reliable source, especially considering the spurious claims that are being made on the article as a result of signing this petition. Please assure me that this enclyclopedia does not allow such controvercial claims to be made based on such a insubstantial piece of 'evidence'. It has never been reported in any newspaper that Mike is at all homophobic (as he is not), and the fact that your website finds it ok to call him this is disgusting. I used to rely on this website for a source of information, and reliable information at that! Now I am not so sure. I will definately be speaking to my wife and her friends about this.
Yours,
Hands of gorse, heart of steel ( talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, considering your recent foray into journalism ethics, I was hoping that you might weigh in on this particular discussion here on the Falklands War discussion page. Thank you in advance, if you do decide to help out by clarifying how we proceed. -- Thekohser 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone, who is making me Zozca. What is the proof of that user. He, should come on my talk page and give me the proof-- TZX Master ( talk) 11:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I voluntarily offered, in my discussions with Bishonen, and as a good faith gesture to demonstrate my good will in trying to resolve all disputes with her, to not use the block tool for 6 months. Upon my own private reflection, I have decided to simply give up the use of the block tool permanently. I don't need it, it isn't important, and it is too widely viewed as a "nuclear option". I simply can't use the block tool normally, because people over-interpret it. No problem, I just won't use it at all.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict)While I think there is some value in such an undertaking, I doubt it would be useful. Should we reasonably expect Jimbo to encounter an ongoing and egregious breach of WP:BLP, say, and wait until his report to WP:AIV is processed? I think not. Whereas Jimbo does not necessarily engage in that function, I've certainly seen him/you act to prevent legal damage to the encyclopedia and the WMF by imposing blocks. If "other admins" don't block people, either they are operating in areas where blocking is not an option, or they are not doing their job properly. Either way, an admin without the block or protect option cannot be effective here, and I perceive that that applies equally to Jimbo. An alternative, of course, is that Jimbo voluntarily retains the block option, but reports such blocks to WP:ANI for community review unless the reason for blocking is "obvious and gross". All in all, my view is that one exceptional case does not justify a severe change of either policy or attitude- unless it is part of a pattern of egregious behaviour; and I don't see that here. Rodhull andemu 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The intention of the godking to hold back from direct intervention is commendable. If he needs to issue a block, it should be clear enough to others for them to issue the block. If his intervention is every needed, he still can. The system of constitutional monarchy is in practice a stable system, with a significant psychological feature: Those who wield the power don’t ultimately hold it, and the one who does hold it doesn’t use it. It is not power that corrupts, it is the free exercise of power that corrupts. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What about the idea of electing a group of administrators whose job is to police other administrators? They would handle issues such as routine misconduct by administrators and be able to block administrators for short durations. They would be able to do this individually, without engaging in the prolonged discussions of the ArbCom. The ArbCom would still be used to address more severe and chronic conduct issues. --
Atomic blunder (
talk) 13:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has become for me a layer that sits atop google search for ordered information. In this sense it goes far beyond what any printed encyclopaedia could provide. Inclined towards this kind of paradigm I wonder what the implications are for the project as it heads towards the 3,000,000+ articles range. Suspecting this subject has maybe already been talked to death could you point me to any papers or articles that discuss this subject? Taam ( talk) 14:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
My, e-mail address is mastertahir@rocketmail.com. Please activate the new password,, please give instruction to admins to activate the new password. Someone is using my passowrd.-- 119.152.6.18 ( talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, I request you to block the account of the vandal, TZX Master. If you don't do it immediately, he will spread vandalism in Wikipedia and will ruin your encyclopedia. He has confessed himself on his userpage that he is a sockpuppet, then his account should not exist. Please, block it for the sake of your encyclopedia, you have created. For the sake of your earnings, your hardworking.-- Hell With Arun ( talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone is using my password to prove that I am sockpuppet because he has no prove.-- TZX Master ( talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC), he should signature his name.-- 119.152.6.18 ( talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you have decided not to block users in the future, would you end your blocking history with a final block of 1 hours against me, User:User F203 -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The stated reason would be "Thank you for your article writing drive idea, which resulted in the dramaout campaign. While I supported it, there were a few opposing it. For them, I block you for 1 hour per your request. This block is intended to be my last block though I retain the right to block in the future"
I know that blocking is not normally done because of a self-request so I've provided an excuse above. User F203 ( talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, no. But thanks a lot for sure. :)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You have messages waiting for you here. Griffinofwales ( talk) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales
I have been on Wikipedia for a year I have been looking for a position in which I can hold a little amount of power here to try and help sort out desputes and help others and the Arbitration Commitee piqued my interest. I would very much like to know more about it (with the possibility of joining) because I can't seem to find any helpful information around here.
Yours Sincerly
The C of E
The C of E ( talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, holding an ArbCom seat is a very draining investment of time and effort; you probably want to get deep "in the trenches" for a while so you get a better idea of the commitment scope involved. — Coren (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What about the idea of electing a group of administrators whose job is to police other administrators? They would handle issues such as routine misconduct by administrators and be able to block administrators for short durations. They would be able to do this individually, without engaging in the prolonged discussions of the ArbCom. The ArbCom would still be used to address more severe and chronic conduct issues. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The community should have a right to see the blocked logs of administrators. That is, the logs of everyone administrators have blocked and the amount of time they have blocked them for. Those logs would be helpful in determining if administrators are acting justly. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Following recent discussions around the WP:Advisory Council on Project Development, Slrubenstein ( talk · contribs) created WP:Areas for Reform, a page for the community to identify problems and brainstorm potential solutions. Among the issues currently discussed there are
If you have any ideas or other input, please contribute. I imagine the BLP issue in particular might benefit from input from you, or Foundation consultants, to be discussed effectively. JN 466 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo. I've gone ahead and filed a request for mediation which will be accepted should both you and Bishonen agree to the request. I've added a number of issues to discuss during the mediation, but please feel free to add more should you think of any. As it stands now, me and Sunray will be acting as mediators. Should this be a problem, we can certainly look at other mediators to take over the role. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Two questions: do we have plans for Wikipedia:Survey 2009, and when is the data set from 2008 going to be made publicly available? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
For the Encyclopedia Dramatica may well have to close due to a lack of funds!!!-- 89.168.144.29 ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hooray. -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You do know that they do this every month just to coax money from those who read it. 75.131.224.220 ( talk) 07:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:ARBCOM#Secret_ballot_for_future_elections. It also appears (without doing a lot of archive searching) that your role in this year's arbcom election is not completely clear. It would be much better to resolve the procedures for the election now, instead of waiting until it is too late for any changes to be made. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add a Wiki cookie to Jimbo's barnstars for me. I tried to, but I had a little glitch which meant I could not add one. That was not about blocking, but just I am not very good at wiki items yet. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.242.237 ( talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seen many people (including you) make comparisons between Wikipedia and Usenet, typically as a justification for civility policies. I think such comparisons demonstrate a marked lack of understanding of how Usenet operated (no offense meant; an understanding of Usenet culture is hardly a sign of superiority.) Some members of the Usenet community eventually discovered killfiles, while others did not. For those that did not, Usenet seemed an anarchic and barbaric place. For those that learned to use technology to filter out the noise, Usenet was a quiet and serene place, full of lively discussion. In an environment that's essentially anonymous (and in which it is thus effectively impossible to truly "ban" anybody) it simply makes no sense to try to enforce behavioral guidelines. The only effective way to deal with unruly behavior in such situations is to ignore it. If the sheer volume of such behavior is an issue (as it was on Usenet and is arguably becoming so here) then it should be filtered out at the reader's discretion. Given that talk pages here often follow a model of threaded discussion anyway, it would seem that the best solution would be to simply modify the software so that they were genuine threaded discussions, which would make it trivial to apply filters. The alternative — empowering some individuals to act as overseers of the others — is fraught with peril and doomed to failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shdfbsjhc ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As one of the historical proponents of Wikipedia, probably the "Father of Wikipedia", your guidance on what Wikipedia is supposed to be is requested.
The background of this is a minor politician who got fired because the city found out his wife is a pornographic actress, leading to a Wikipedia article read in Finland, United States, and probably many other countries. Whether or not this article is deleted is not the question. I can see what both sides are saying.
The real question is "What is Wikipedia". Here, I quote what I wrote to another editor...
What I want to ask you is what do we want WP for? On one extreme, it would cover very trivial items, news, video games, etc. On the other extreme, only the most scholarly topics like Australia, Charles de Gaulle, Lung cancer, World War II would be covered. Without quoting our rules, what should WP be?
1. Wikipedia should be any topic that anyone would conceivably look up.
2. Wikipedia should be most topics but nothing that would make people laugh at Wikipedia, so serious subjects only.
3. Wikipedia should be most topics but no nudity or anything that the ___ religion prohibits doing or looking at.
4. Wikipedia should be only what Encyclopedia Britannica has.
5. Wikipedia should be #4 plus a little more.
6. Wikipedia should only be biographies of people who will be known 100 years later, major geographic locations, and major wars.
Once we know what WP should be, we can work towards that WP and maybe even fine tune the rules. Should it be 1, 2, or 5? I don't expect a definitive answer only some thoughts that come to mind, Mr. Wales.
One thought that came to mind would be #1 except WP must be seen as honorable so no nasty attacks against mainly people but also topics. This would support the BLP rules but, again, I would like to focus on the product and purpose, not try to think of what description fits our current rules.
Note to others reading this: This communication is mainly to get Mr. Wales' opinion and not everyone else's although you may comment as you see fit. User F203 ( talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo. WP:NODRAMA was a success and it was good to see your approval of it. I've just had an idea. We could have an official day in July each year where there is to be no drama for 24 hours. It could be an official event and could have a proper title such as "Nodrama Day." It could be that July 18 of every year is "Wikipedia Nodrama Day". Your thoughts?-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Good luck. ceran thor 12:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, with Susan Sarandon as my co-star... :-p You're silly. :)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...according to an article I just saw on Digg, from New Scientist. [20]
Do you agree that it is "disconcerting" for doctors to use Wikipedia as a resource for information? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would assume that most doctors are intelligent enough to use Wikipedia appropriately.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know about you guys, but I don't have health insurance, so I go to the clinic where anyone can practice. It's not so bad. *cough* Lara 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia is run by Drini, Drini the King, please review his actions. Can he reset passwords? How much power a steward really needs? The Spanish Wikipedia is dark place where discussions are censor and any attempt to question an administrator will result in block. The Spanish Wikipedia is running wild, please put some control, ask Drini, he knows.
I believed in this project, but then realized this has been hick jacked by teens in a role-playing game, but dont believe me ask the foundation to run a survey and get the input of the few Spanish WIkipedians that still edits the project. Ask for example, why so few Puerto RIcans edit in that project, ask how users feels about the fair treatment of administrators. Please look into the Spanish project before is too late. My user name is jmundo but Drini reset my password and I dont have a way to get into my account. -- 71.68.208.166 ( talk) 06:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But hey, I dont care if you don't unblock me, I was in not coming back wikibreak anyway. Wales, I respect a man of great ideas, too bad this place was run over by role playing boys and girls with no respect to due process. -- 74.249.3.58 ( talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear reader, that wathchlisted this page, get a life. The economy depends on you to go out a produce something, unless wikipedia is new age manifesto for not working and breaking the world wide system, go anarchy from the comfortable living room and the jetta, imagine thousands of jetta and organic coffee drinkers starting a revolution, what a joke! I given my knowledge to Wikipedia, and I'm done working with assholes for that a can keep working wiht coworkers. Good job Jimmy controlling the masses, dont give them too much power they run you over... No constitutional monarchy, just plain monarchy, long live the king. -- 74.236.128.117 ( talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Know Im free to start over, no more Wiki, Im feel real again, and Im out of this hypereality of edit contributions, Free, I'm free at last......
A new project has been created dedicated to starting and translating missing articles and improving articles from other wikipedias. It is intended to be partly missing encyclopedia articles project and partly translation project. Both the previous projects fizzled out but the main objective here is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from each wikipedia by language and then work towards ensuring there is an article on english wikipedia. If anybody is interested please comment or if anybody is learning a language and thinks it would help them practice by translating an article, join it!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just protected this page for one hour. Guys - the edit war is stupid. There's no need to start calling other users assholes - discuss things in a more collegial manner. WP:NOTCENSORED certainly doesn't apply to incivility. When the protection is finished, I suggest everyone leaves things how they are and moves on to more important tasks. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's just move on. This is just wasting valuable time, which I now intend to spend trying to get some sleep. Some hope! Rodhull andemu 01:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Jimmy is sick of the new messages bar yet... :) Until It Sleeps Wake me 03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo. I got your message about your wanting me to supervise Arbcom by vetoing the more inane decisions and directing them towards constructive remedies wherever possible. Do you think the community will be okay with your investing me with absolute power as a kind of High Priest of Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Uhhh, I can only assume you're joking. :) But on the off chance that you're not, can you let me know where you got this obviously impersonated message? :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread at AN to request a wider discussion of giving automated processes the ability to block users. I don't believe that there was ever a wide discussion, let alone an acceptance, of granting admin rights to bots. A recent proposal to allow some abuse filters to block users raised some concerns for me, which I have outlined in the AN thread. Please take a look, and weigh in if you have an opinion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Approximately 36 hours from now, I will go into a remote forest on a camping trip with my daughter. For several days I will have no Internet service nor even cellphone service. I will therefore be slow in answering email or doing anything else online.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Aside from being enjoyable, this type of vacation is beneficial psychologically, provided that you leave Wikipedia behind mentally as well as physically. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo Wales, just noting for the record that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion relating to you at WP:AC/N.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 05:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Almost one month away from your 43rd birthday. Are you excited or are you dreading it? Just curious :P SparksBoy ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Check this out when you get back and look at number 45. Nicely done :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What happened about this? I thought you were all for it Jimbo? At the very least we should have flagged revisions on BLPs. What is it going to take to get it implemented? It seems silly to not introduce some form of protection on them. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, it seems that all our wiki projects have been license-updated to CC-BY-SA-3.0 + GFDL, but your userpage remains showing only GFDL. I don't know for sure maybe this is kept on purpose or just a carelessness. So I came to ask you for some comment. And after all, happy your 43rd birthday! Jimbo, we love you, man!-- Jimmy xu wrk ( talk) 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy xu wrk has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
The beta will be Optional right? Sorry about this, but please post a response on my talk page. Thanks! Old Al ( talk) 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo. Happy birthday to you. I am working on sh. wiki, and I am friend of Vatrena ptica. I am working on biology and categorization at sh Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great. -- Biologinja ( talk) 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Some time in the next few days. I haven't forgotten about the "mystery". :P — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:56 6 August, 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday, and wishing you good health and good fortune. After all, we expect you to be editing Wikipedia when you're in your 80s. :) Otumba ( talk) 00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Griffinofwales (
talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{ subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
What's a birthday without cake? Griffinofwales ( talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"They say it's your birthday...well it's my birthday too, yea!"...
-- Buster7 ( talk) 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy Birthday, Jimmy! Hope it was a great one! Have some birthday cookies.... Ks0stm ( T• C) 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
What he said. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride scent 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a long-shot, but forewarned is forearmed. An idle thought crossed my mind that AIs being tested on Wikipedia could harm the project, so I proposed this policy Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Artificial Intelligence User Accounts. There is some uncertainty about the seriousness of the motivation, but looking at it objectively, it does make some sense. Even if it at first sounds off the wall. Cheers HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Javert, Rjd0060, and Jimbo and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
nb: I'm just posting this here because Drew seems banned from this page ;) See diff diff. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
BYT ( talk) 12:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my day job. Here's my total edit count, now approaching 7,000.
The Hello Barnstar | ||
This is to say hello to a fellow Wikipedian User F203 ( talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)) |
Please, Jimmy, wait. Just, like, don't delete this right away. This is so a legitimate question. To what extent is Wikipedia censored? I mean, fine: I'll ask one question: Are pedophiles allowed here at all? I mean, if pages like: Child pornography and List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors are allowed, why shouldn't they? It's natural, and it's happening in the world even today. I mean, come on, don't just give me crap (pardon the language, if that somehow violates "civility" on Wikipedia) about Wikipedia policies. You're a big part of modern society; respect that and learn from it. You're seriously gonna swear that none of the editors, maybe even sysops, aren't pedophiles? My point is this: If we don't care about it at all, why are some articles marked freaking "controversial", then? It's almost laughable. Some users, it's almost positive they're pedophiles, but say one word to them about it, and you're, like, banned forever; like, who contributes to an article about raping little girls or sacrificing children as Satanists? Well, heck, as long as it's constructive editing, in some people's eyes... But no one effing cares. Cute. Wales, look, I don't want to give you trouble, but this is just tiring me, seriously. Wikipedia's awesome, but, like...See, like, Child Pornography was nominated for deletion a few months ago, give or take, but, listen, the nominator was banned and the deletion template was removed before anyone could give evaluation. But I'm cool with that; none of my business. But, Jimmy, look at User:Squeakbox[ [22]]. I mean, an old man with two dogs and who deletes the Deletion Nomination Tag on Child Pornography, like, right after it was posted...Well, I don't know what to say; please don't get mad. I won't talk to you at all after this if you don't want me to. Just give one comment, one response. Even telling me to f*** off and that you don't care could be fine; it is your own personal, honest opinion, after all. Bye, Jimbo. Please, I wouldn't be here wasting my time and yours if I really didn't think it important; there are Anti-Pedophilia agencies, you know. I just don't understand...are you sure your policies about Censorship are unflawed? Because, I personally don't know. Please, just enlighten me. Best wishes, Jim, ArnoldHash ( talk) 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I thank you very much indeed for your input, my friends. I have little more to say, nor do I wish to dwell on such subjects any longer. Zenwhat's reply has at least hinted that not all Wikipedians are at ease with such articles, even if they clearly acknowledge them as not violating any rules. "Nice veiled accusation"? Well, I am not sure how to exactly respond to that. Forgive me if this somehow violates Wikipedian rules, but I personally do not believe that I am disrupting anything; no edits have I yet made other than to talk pages, and thus what "disruption" is fairly limited. Do I take it that such someone who regards such a person thus in our modern society is too be condemned, instead of that person? I do not say I am better or worse than any of the said users through my bringing this to notice; that is for you to decide. Obviously a tone of neutrality is to be preferred, but removing the nomination tag so speedily hints at a possible subtle lack of neutrality in itself. If Mr. Wales himself could add just one comment, I would be immensely grateful, though of course I would understand if he chooses not to. Whatever you wish, then, my friends. I did not think Wikipedia would suffer such harm from my messages, but I am unsure what to think now from Tony's response; if you wish me to leave, then say so, and I will likely do so, but frankly, I cannot see a truly legitimate reason. Kind regards, ArnoldHash ( talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I simply wish to make note of this: My user talk page was recently vandalized; After been shown I had new messages and seeing none, I discovered a random IP Address had threatened me on my talk. Heh. No prizes for what kind of guy that was...Hope he's blocked soon, but just my opinion. I do not care much for such users.
Look, I said I wouldn't dwell on this, and I won't; Wikipedia's too...strict, on a first glance, but I personally think in some areas it's, well, rather lax. SqueakBox, I'm very, very sorry to have asked you such a question; I believe the user called Sparaca12 is actually to blame. Certainly, Mr. Wales's perspective is not uncommon here and is of course not to be blamed. After all, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. I was most foolish and immature indeed to have missed that. I still find such people editing here...rather distasteful, let us say, but I shall trouble you no longer over it. I beg you, Jimbo, and SqueakBox, to consider forgiving me for bringing such a point up and wasting your time. Nonetheless, I shall admit I am more relieved now to actually see first-hand at least a few users of strong standing are not actually defending the articles because of their topics, but of legitimate use, and I thank you for that, all of you. However, if there are some here that might still be displeased with the existence of such articles, I only ask this: Wikipedia is truly not the suitable place for such discussions; take act elsewhere if you are so enthusiastic about fighting pedophilia. All in all, I wish you the best in the coming years, Jimbo Wales, and may it be that you and your creation of genius continue to prosper. Kind regards, ArnoldHash ( talk) 11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've received considerable help from "Invertzoo". She has been of outstanding support. Giving guidance and direction to me. She is a wonderful asset to Wikipedia.
You recently congratulated Sue for her work on molluscs. Rightly so!
kind regards PETE Poyt448 ( talk) 09:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you? 173.50.150.120 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
I am aware of the standard definition of the term, yes. And I have seen a few examples in my day.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I think I know what excessive repetition of punctuation marks is. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I remember when it took weeks for a Wikipedia article to show up in Google searches. Less that three hours after Bonse's inequality was created, it's the second item that appears when the search terms given to google are that sequence of words (with no quotation marks).
(OK, I haven't kept track of that sort of thing. I suppose it's childish to think this might come as news to anyone who cares about such.....) Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
High profile events will undoubtedly attract new editors, and in my experience, not all with good intent. This is especially so when sources for breaking news are not as we would normally expect as reliable, and rumour is rife. I don't think it improper to wait until the dust settles a little, and if that means protecting an article against poorly-sourced additions, which may well be a breach of WP:BLP, sorry, I can't apologise for that. From my own user page :
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
Not my words - Jimbo's. Being up to date may be desirable, but that does not mean we pander to the rumour mill that follows such events. Relevant sourced material should go to Wikinews, but Wikipedia isn't a news service. Rodhull andemu 01:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo Wales! You are invited to participate in the Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, an effort to end arguments and discussions, and fight vandalism! It is intended to stop discussions from interfering everyone's work in the article namespace. Please sign up here! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I was browsing Wikipedia the other day and I was trying to edit both the Main Page and the article about ourselves (Wikipedia}. It's not the Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia? article but the casual, public article itself. I tried to edit both articles, and all I recieved was "View source" on the top of the page. Why are these pages semi/protected? Who made the protection? With regards,-- ROT9 ( talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is only semi-protected, and you will be able to edit that page once you are auto-confirmed. Darrenhusted ( talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that I am not the first casual user of wikipedia to find themselves captivated by your photos. You are quite handsome. Peace. Derekbd ( talk) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think the Jim Demint letter is a reliable source for reporting on a vote in the Honduran National Congress. He's reporting on hearsay, just what he was told by supporters of the coup.
All of these points are sourced within the article. Just because he posted the letter does not make it a reliable source. Please rethink your addition to the 2009 Honduran Constitutional Crisis. Thanks. Rsheptak ( talk) 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it's been covered before, but I think there's a glitch existing between wikias and Wikipedia. I chose a different name on a wikia than to here, but after around a month it wouldn't register my password. This happened after a made a new account. Are you aware of this? Steel Talon ( Interrogation room) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I browsed Wikipedia the other day and I looked at this page called Wikipedia:Banning policy. In the page itself, it clearly states the matter of permanent bans. THere is one question, how can a permanent ban occur? And does that mean that the permanently banned user is no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia for good?. Regards,-- ROT9 ( talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking about the definition. I'm asking about the factors that result in a permanent ban.-- ROT9 ( talk) 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why impose a permanent ban on such occasions?-- ROT9 ( talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo! Sorry for being late, but I made you this:
The flag of Wikipedia. Happy Birthday! User:Secret Saturdays/Signature (Archiving comment Fram ( talk) 08:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC))
Hi Jimbo. I am one of those supporters of your gift to all of us: Wikipedia. But I am afraid your creation is in danger: it is being manipulated by groups of communists related to the ex-KGB in the Baltic States. They use "promoters" of their ideology, like for example user:DIREKTOR, inside Wikipedia. Direktor is a pusher of diktator Tito communist ideas inside en.wiki, no doubt about it. I want to repeat what user:Sir Floyd wrote, because I agree with him totally about this medicine student and the way he promotes his croatian nationalism: "While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).Info from M. & Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direktor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion." Furthermore, I want to pinpoint that en.wiki will be better if Direktor is banned, because a lot of fighting (with Serbs-Bosniaks-Italians-Montenegrins-Albanians et al) will disappear. His discussion page is full of these fightings and his edit page is a clear evidence of this reality, just read it from the times he showed up in en.wiki ! He is supported by members of the group of communists related to the (KGB) hackers disrupting western websites (like user: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog). He is always helped by admin & check users with slav roots and supporters of communist ideology inside wikipedia (like user:Spellcast). You can verify it easily, and so try to save your creation (that otherwise can become a useful instrument of the communist groups centered around ex-KGB members). Sincerely.-- Formyopinion ( talk) 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your article Mzoli's is nominated for deletion on August 19, 2009. For further information please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mzoli%27s_(2nd_nomination). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso McLaren ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Prashanthns/Invitation prashanthns ( talk) 09:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I don't want to elaborate on this just yet. I only want the dates checked before the pages in question become harder to access. Basically, there was an edit war recently at speed of light. I wasn't involved in it. But I have ended up as the only person to be topic banned from that page. David Tombe ( talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
Jimbo, Thanks for your response. I left a note on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page that may clarify the issue. In summary, anything that touches on the contents of the paper which James Clerk-Maxwell wrote in 1861, at the beginning of the American civil war, tends to ignite a civil war. The speed of light is a highly sensitive issue, and any topic which sails close to equation (132) on that paper is dynamite. The problem is that we still use Maxwell's results to this very day, but we have swept his method under the carpet. The clashes that are likely to follow as a consequence of this dilemma will mainly be be at centrifugal force, Faraday's law, and Ampère's circuital law. I will now bear in mind the trouble that seems to arise everytime that I touch one of these three pages, and I will try to minimize conflict in future. But at any rate, I would be most obliged if you could remove the topic ban, just as a matter of principle. I wasn't actually editing on the page in question at the time of the ban and I don't intend to return to the current stage of the dispute on the talk page. I have also given my advice to Brews ohare to leave it alone. I fully sympathize with Brews, and I see that perhaps even a new editor called 'Abtract' may be beginning to see the point too. But I think that Brews should come out now (voluntarily) because he has made his point loud and clear. I do also think that as a token gesture to Brews, that some other editor should at least make an attempt to neutralize the introduction. David Tombe ( talk) 10:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo! August 25, 2009 is going to be my 13th brithday! Can you post something on my talk page (about that)?-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk has given you a cookie for inventing the cookie jar!
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a huge success. Traffic statistics tell the real story as opposed to polls or news stories. By any objective measure, Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites in the world.
A recent poll on Cnet.com asks whether users prefer Wikipedia or Britannica and it was a 50/50 result. That is completely bogus. The real web traffic statistics tell us that people prefer Wikipedia at least 1000 to 1 over Britannica. People will often say one thing in polls and on the news, and in the real world do something else.
As far as requiring edit to be supervised by "experts" or "trusted individual" before being accepted, Don't do it. Of course, talk show hosts and the news make great fun about it, though the reality is that people still trust and want the current state of Wikipedia, because of it's speed and flexibility. Trying to control edits is trying to be more "respectable" or "professional" like Britannica, and that is exactly what people do not want.
The way I see the options are
1) Bad content is put on Wikipedia and remains there for less than 1 day 2) Good content is prevented from being put on Wikipedia for 1 week to 1 month
I would rather take the risk of a short stretch of bad content versus a long stretch lacking good content.
How would you have handled the death of Michael Jackson? No amount of hand selected experts would have been able to handle that flood of edits and the information would have been delayed for weeks before we could find out what was going on.
Wikipedia is a genius idea. Please don't try and make it more like the old centrally controlled systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.239.38 ( talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The myth should be busted that this is being sent down from on high. IPs can't create articles, they can't edit protected pages and in some section of WP they can't vote, and this would be a scandal were it not for the fact that it costs nothing to register, so there is nothing stopping any IP editor from registering and joining one of the "Select People", not that the list is a short one. I'm on that list, why? Because I registered and began editing, and more than anything that is what Wikipedia is about, and anything that makes editing easier can only be goods for the project. Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing above in "about communist propaganda inside wikipedia". User:DIREKTOR and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres. And in Direktor's edits we can read that he is starting to request "help" from admins & check users friendly to him, in order to eliminate opponents to his posts supporting Tito's communism & other communist propaganda articles in wikipedia. May I repeat that he is only the tip of the iceberg (a huge iceberg made of many communists spreading their propaganda inside wikipedia). I am afraid that wikipedia can become a useful instrument of the communist groups in the internet.Sincerely.-- Formyopinion ( talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled across this user page at User:WebHamster, and was wondering if you were aware of it? Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? Zhebius ( talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
While I understand that the "article space" in Wikipedia needs to be vigorously defended against attacks on free speech per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't believe this policy gives the right for individual users to post pornographic images of children on their personal pages. I also wish to raise my concerns that this page may breach California law where the servers of Wikipedia are situated. Zhebius ( talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, that was his page (referring to WH) on Wikipedia and as I understand it, you can do pretty much what you want with it without going into the specifics of WP:NPA or WP:BLP or WP:SPAM or WP:CIVIL, right? Note that I, too, endorses WP:DGAF and to be honest, WH has chosen to disengage from all the petty squabbles here and focus on what we editors do best — edit and improve article pages. So, without further distraction and I really hate to say this... guys, let us all drop the nonsensical WP:STICK in our hands and do as what Snagglepuss do at the end of a brilliant performance — "Exit, stage left"~! -- Dave1185 ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
They are calling Barack Obama professor when the University of Chicago does not use the term but uses the term "faculty member". Resume inflation is misleading and can result in people being fired. Yet, a host of people are banding together to get fake information into the Barack Obama article. They should all be blocked unless you want Wikipedia to be the joke website of kids. Gaydenver ( talk) 18:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled across this user page at User:WebHamster, and was wondering if you were aware of it? Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? Zhebius ( talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
While I understand that the "article space" in Wikipedia needs to be vigorously defended against attacks on free speech per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't believe this policy gives the right for individual users to post pornographic images of children on their personal pages. I also wish to raise my concerns that this page may breach California law where the servers of Wikipedia are situated. Zhebius ( talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, that was his page (referring to WH) on Wikipedia and as I understand it, you can do pretty much what you want with it without going into the specifics of WP:NPA or WP:BLP or WP:SPAM or WP:CIVIL, right? Note that I, too, endorses WP:DGAF and to be honest, WH has chosen to disengage from all the petty squabbles here and focus on what we editors do best — edit and improve article pages. So, without further distraction and I really hate to say this... guys, let us all drop the nonsensical WP:STICK in our hands and do as what Snagglepuss do at the end of a brilliant performance — "Exit, stage left"~! -- Dave1185 ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. I've done some research including past comments on this talkpage and would like your opinion and any ideas. Some users feel we must include a statement about paid admining. If we do I feel it also has to be accurate. Is there anything on this draft you feel should be changed and if so how:
“ | Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining may be seen as problematic.</ref> | ” |
I have a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Opinions/advice please but it may be of only so much interest to most folks. Comments there would also be fine but that thread may expire before this one. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It absolutely would be a conflict of interest, I agree with Finell. As written, the sentence is misleading, that there is no policy against it. Indeed, this page *should become* policy against it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposition that today, without adopting a new policy, an admin is permitted to accept payment in exchange for exercising administrative authority or tools. This shows how easy it is to slide from the idea that allowing paid advocates to edit Wikipedia is alright, to accepting the idea that it may be OK to bribe the police. — Finell (Talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:Paid needs help. It started as a summary of existing policy, however there is no existing policy, therefore all attempts to tighten the language have been strongly resisted. The above text ("[admin payment]...is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI") shows the flavor of recent versions of WP:Paid. A group proposing restrictions on paid editing has started WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic.</ref> | ” |
Please do contribute to Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text if you don't like "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining." Actually everybody is invited, but we're asking that editors follow a WP:1RR policy. Smallbones ( talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Moving forward ...
“ | Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic. Administrative authority and tools are entrusted solely in the best interest of Wikipedia.</ref> | ” |
Jimbo or anyone else, I've seen the Nichalp(spelling?) bits, are there any other paid editing or paid admining cases that were addressed by Arbcom? I think this would help lay groundwork for expressing general disdain or whatever. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 29 August 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 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Howdy from WikiMapia, one of the map services that pops up when you click on coordinates in Wikipedia!
We are currently running a petition to release the software that we use under a Free Software license, and that all content we contribute be released under a Free creative license, so that we are working under the same terms as Wikipedia contributors.
This has resulted from extreme neglect of the users' needs by the closed Wikimapia Team (the two guys who started it), and spurred by the Free Software add-on that I created to work around Wikimapia's deficiencies. Many top contributors have already signed it.
I thought this is an unusual situation, and maybe you would be interested, or maybe offer some advice on how to increase our chance of success as this point.
Cheers,
-- Specious ( talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a great idea. The ones who work on geography here have long thought wikimapia the best site for obtaining coordinates, particularly on smaller settlements and landmarks. I would like to see wikimapia taken under the wing of the wikimedia personally as it is the mapping project we are missing and of course it is aptly named as a sister project. I would very much like to see wikimapia adopted by wikimedia and to becoming a branch of our project. That would be awesome. It would seem to share our exact same goals, and if we could obtain the funding to run it through our donations we could free the site of google ads and make it part of our own. What I'd hate is for a site that well developed to close down because of neglect. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
a project that Wikimedia is ALREADY in consultation with?
Wikimapia is at best a site with propriatery licensing. Furthermore the exact relationship between Wikimapia and the geo-data providers it uses was when I last checked seemed at best ambiguous. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
were concern was expressed about certain things. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide some public sign to demonstrate that the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development is indeed convened by the Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales?
Thanks, William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I think it's a good idea. It's an advisory body with no power, a more formal way to seek diverse input from a variety of sources. I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down. I believe that a small working group, composed of diverse membership, could be quite useful to the ArbCom, to me, and to the community in general.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all about taking the conversation out of the echo box. Venues such as AN end up being unproductive because a small group of more political editors end up being the only consensus by default and its self selecting nature excludes a number of editor cross-sections. — Coren (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development Durova 275 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agitants, eh? Your usefulness to this project grows short. I think it's time we began driving forward change without you. I think you'll find you're the agitant, shortly. rootology ( C)( T) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You proposed, a few years ago if I remember correctly, a scheme for introducing credential verification. This was opposed, and I was one of them, but it is clear now that this was a good idea and that I was wrong, as content disputes have proliferated and as there is no way for forcefully resolving them in favour of respectable view, in the process, taking sides and thus being unneutral. ArbCom can never do this, and isn't qualified to. But we are an encyclopedia after all. As wikipedia has grown in size it's become rather obvious that hierarchy, even of the delegated king, is needed. You set up the ArbCom to deal with particularly behavioural disputes, and this was a good idea. But with our current size and the way process depends more often than not on unachievable community consensus, it is impossible to deal with certain things without expanding this committee's role to something close to government of en.wiki. On that basis, would you ever contemplate setting up other such committees? I mean, committees such as a content committee/enyclopedia review board (with people elected/appointed based on verifiable expertise) or even a policy committee? I mean, in principle, irrespective of what the details might be? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, are you still there? Another user and I've asked you some questions about the censorship incident... but you didn't answer. The discussion has been archived at the Village Pump, but I'm still waiting... Scared, Jimbo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.141.215 ( talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you ask me here, if I overlooked something at the Village Pump.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I've taken the original questions as they were reported on the Village Pump page.
The problem with this sort of suppression is that we have no idea what else is being swept under the rug. It would help me a lot if you could come clean about any other similar actions and plans for future actions. Otherwise, It is just me and my imagination, which is probably worse than the truth
Questions and following comment made by 128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to get an answer from you, Mr. Wales. Thank you.
Questions and following comment made by me. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.225.78.169 (
talk) 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No. I asked politely two questions when the topic was hot and Mr. Wales ignored (or overlooked) them at the time. I still want answers.
And I quote from the Wikipedia article: "After David Rohde escaped, some people involved, including David himself, indicated that the reason the Times imposed a media blackout was not for Rohde's safety, but to decrease his ransom. An anonymous source quoted by New York Magazine claims that experts involved in the kidnapping never believed that David's life was in danger." So it was a matter of MONEY and not a matter of LIFE-and-DEATH. That brings the whole incident down even more to a disgraceful level. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
150.217.15.245 (
talk •
contribs) 13:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Zozca. Whoever he is? He doesn't even know how to edit an article in Wikipedia. He is a newcomer and he started putting false blames on others. What proof does he has that I'm a sockpuppet of User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com. I think he is a sockpuppet of that user, that's why he is making me a sockpuppet. He doesn't know, who The Great One is, so how can he make me a sockpuppet. I want a proof. Jimmy, you should control your users and you should block those users who don't have any proof and they start blaming others.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, whatever I have written in your talkpage. User:Zozca, will try to remove it. He will replace my names with his name and his name with my name and will try to edit the section, which I have written in your talk page. History of your talkpage will be the proof. Similarly, JuJube also tried to put false blames on me last year when I returned to Wikipedia after a brief hiatus. I request you to do research and inquiry on whatever Zozca and JuJube have done to me.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Your user, Zozca has started abusing me and has started using offensive language against me. He has started using bad words to me. Jimmy, please prevent him from doing any harm to me. I request you to stop his false things and block his account immediately.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I used classical encyclopaediae alot over the years prior to the era of the ineternet. My recent interest in wikipedia stems from the fact that wikipedia is invariably the first hit on any google search. At first, I thought that the articles were written by experts. But gradually I heard that wikipedia is written by anybody and can be altered by anybody. Initially the idea seemed rather strange to me and it is a fact which I always remember at the back of my mind when depending on a wikipedia article for some piece of information. But if the subject matter is not controversial, I will always adopt the attitude that the information is probably correct because nobody is going to be wasting their time writing falsely about that topic.
I found wikipedia useful in ways that classical encyclopaedie on the library shelves were not. Wikipedia, with the help of modern computerized search engines gives access to a much wider range of specialized topics. There are many specialized topics that in the past I would simply not have been able to find in ordinary encyclopaediae. As such, wikipedia has helped me to get answers to questions that had been outstanding for many years. In that respect, wikipedia is good.
I have therefore attempted to introduce specialized knowledge back into wikipedia in areas that I have done alot of research in. Examples are the history and currencies of the British Empire. The edits that I have made on those subjects have seldom encountered any opposition. But the situation has been quite different as regards edits to physics related articles. Over the years, I have done alot of research in electromagnetism and I have worked through all the inter-relationships between the quantities. I managed to improve quite a few of your electromagnetism articles, but it was not without a certain degree of resistance. Sometimes that resistance was quite considerable, although discussions on the talk pages in most cases resulted in a beneficial exchange of views and some compromises.
The situation however has been quite different as regards the single topic of centrifugal force. There are some basic well sourced facts about centrifugal force which are simply being vetoed outright on that article, and these are the most important facts of all as regards that topic. There has been an ongoing dispute there going back to 2007 when I first edited using an IP server. What is most interesting is that whenever the argument got to a critical stage last year, the article was split into two. This confused the matter even further because the most important aspects of that topic, which are the aspects which are encountering the absolute resistance, do not correctly fit into either of the two sub-divisions.
Eventually, with the help of an outsider, a unified article was once again created. Things were going well for a short while but then trouble arose again with the intervention of one editor in particular. Editor FyzixFighter, more than any other editor has been repeatly following me around on physics related articles and confusing the topics in question. His style is to do wholesale reverts and then disappear. He will seldom come to the talk page unless a revert war continues or a third party gets involved. His strategy is then to try and form an alliance with that third party. His views have changed quite considerably according to who he is trying to align himself with against me. As you can see, last month he was involved in an edit war to push the idea that there were only two kinds of centrifugal force. Over the last few days it came to the brink of an edit war in which he is now trying to push the idea that there are three kinds of centrifugal force.
At the moment, it is chiefly FyzixFighter who is instrumental in keeping all references to the role of centrifugal force in planetary orbits out of the article. If you look at the debate, you will see that once again the discussion is now vearing into the issue of the two re-direct articles.
The purpose of the split in my opinion is to remove all aspects of centrifugal force that relate to a real outward push or pull, and to put those aspects into the 'reactive centrifugal force' re-direct article. The idea is then to promote the other re-direct article 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' as being the main article. Until recently, it was indeed this latter re-direct article that got the google hits.
This splitting of a single subject is not in the interests of the wider public readership. It is important to watch carefully the specious arguments which are being put forward by certain editors to justify having two articles. In truth, the main purpose is to create a situation in which the illustrative example of centrifugal force in planetary orbits can be legitimately denied entry to the main article. We are seeing all kinds of reasons for vetoing the planetary orbital example. We have seen the following bogus arguments over the last two years, (1) that it is original research, (2) that it is a special case of the rotating frames approach and hence doesn't need to be mentioned, (3) that it is the reactive centrifugal force, (4) that the main article is only a summary article and that it is getting too big and that there is not enough room.
I would hope that you and some of your colleagues would pay attention to the ongoing debate on the talk page to see for yourselves that there are certain editors who are determined to destroy the article, and they are engaging in plausible arguments so as to look as if they are working for the good of the article.
If wikipedia is to have increased credibility with the public, these kind of editors need to be dealt with. Democracy alone cannot deal with this kind of situation. It is totally unsatisfactory to have a situation in which somebody who is trying to fix up an article is being persistently over ruled by superior numbers. The dispute resolution mechanisms have failed to bring forth any interested administrators.
Because of the prominence given to wikipedia by the major search engines such as google, you have a responsibility to the public at large to ensure that wikipedia is not being abused. There needs to be more administrator intervention. Consenus as a concept sounds very noble, but it is vulnerable to widespead abuse. David Tombe ( talk) 15:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Darrenhusted, it is alot more than a content dispute. It is about the fact that one editor has been following me around deleting my edits. A careful examination of his latest reversion and the reasons which he has given should clearly expose what has been going on. David Tombe ( talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
[Outdent] David Tombe has already taken this to wp:ani twice, to wp:an once and to this page once before. None of these attempts to gain an advantage over FyzixFighter in a long-running content dispute came to anything, because no evidence was presented that Fyzixfighter had done anything wrong.
Location / 1st Diff / Completed Thread
Adminstrators's Noticeboard [4] [5]
Ani 1st Ani thread [6]
Ani 2nd Ani thread [7]
Seriously, this is starting to look like forum shopping. Cardamon ( talk) 04:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You maybe can't examine him for his motives. But you can easily examine him on his content. As regards stating that FF has been found not guilty of the charges, I must have missed the court case. David Tombe ( talk) 11:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Now hang on a minute Darrenhusted, FyzixFighter has been following me around and repeatedly deleting my edits on different articles. I don't do that to him. So it would take a very twisted judge to come to the the conclusion that I am the one that is harassing him. David Tombe ( talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sir, What Mr Tombe says is basically correct. He has worked hard to observe the rules and work with other editors to get an article which satisfies the others. Then Mr FyzixFighter came in and deleted all of Mr Tombes efforts, turned the other editors against him, and generally created an edit war for his own personal satisfaction. I think your procedures are the problem. You should be banning FyzixFighter from intervening when he doesnt participate in the discussions. His technique is to interveen after compromises have been reached. That is basically wrong. If Mr FyzixFighter has some real arguments to present he should participate in the discussions and not wait until the other editors have agreed with Mr Tombe. This is in my opinion disruptive editing. It is clearly because Mr FyzixFighter has an animus for Mr Tombe. If you guys don't get that, then you are not paying attention to reality. Mr FyzixFighter is a disruptive editor and his actions are reprehensible and are a discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia. If you continue to allow editors like him to act the way he does, Wikipedia will be come what many already think it is, simply an erronous source of information. 72.84.68.85 ( talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or has the level of conflict and drama, on matters of governance and policy, been unusually high for the past few months? Finell (Talk) 21:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hard to measure, but perhaps a bit.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
According to a byword (really: Paul of the bible), "Pleasantly, (ηδεως) wherefore, (γαρ) show patience with (ανεχεσθε) the (των) doubting/mindless/egotistic/rash (αφρονων), (your being) more discreet/thoughtful (φρονιμοι)." King James Version: "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise." ↜Just M E here , now 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your post here - I'm sw dev, and there is a joke you may not have heard which seems to apply here: A project manager asked the master, how much time do you need to code this project?
The project manager asked, if I give you six developers to work with you, how long will it take?
The project manager asked, if I give you one hundred developers?
-- KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive criticism of our project. I have figured out the inline reference process and now have the first two paragraphs mostly cleaned up and properly referenced. We will be continuing work on the rest of it. Sfrahm ( talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if this was already brought to your notice. There is a company called Wiki Experts who write articles for money in Wikipedia and the accounts of Wiki Experts company account in Wikipedia and then the account of Spokesperson of Wiki Experts in Wikipedia was blocked both rightly as per my opinion.A editor and Staff of Wiki Experts upset about this they have both Outside Wikipedia [10] and On Wikipedia by Cinagua ( talk · contribs) a paid editor have accused Wikipedia of racism, personal vendettas ,restricting free Speech they use the | They use the name Tayzen in Elance and a editor has opened a Ani discussion on this [11]. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Thanks for letting me know!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, can ArbCom do this? [12]. It seems that ArbCom has snooped on incoming email, and has used it to block an editor of 3000 edits. Is acting "ultra vires", or does ArbCom need its parameters delineated. Can ArbCom snoop on email that is being sent, or is it a "non-judgmental body"? The bottom line is "can ArbCom be trusted anymore?" Tfz 00:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Recently a couple of editors put together this five-day article writing project with the intention to stay away from drama for a few days and focus more on article improving. Saw the section above and thought you might like to take a look. a little insignificant 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi My name is Martin J. Siegel, an arbitrageur who formerly worked on Wall Street. Unfortunately there is, on Wikipedia , a listing for a Martin Siegel who also worked on Wall Street, was convicted and sent to jail for stock market fraud. I am currently an Adjunct Professor at Stern-NYU and some of my students have queried Wikipedia and have come back assuming that I am the Martin Siegel who went to jail. I would like the profile that I submitted listed under his so tht I can avoid this type of confusion in the future. I typed a brief bio but apparently it was not accepted. There is a major difference between Martin Siegel and Martin J. Siegel and I think that the readers of Wiki should see them both when they search. Many thanks for your consideration Martin J. Siegel a copy of what I wanted to post is below
Martin J. Siegel was born and raised in Brooklyn New York. He attended the University of Vermont and upon graduation joined his father’s children’s dress manufacturing firm.. The firm was acquired in 1965 and in 1968 he left the firm to take his MBA at Columbia University-Graduate School of Business- class of 1970. Upon graduation Mr. Siegel joined the firm of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette to run their foreign equity arbitrage department. In 1973 he joined Salomon Brothers to create the international equity arbitrage department. which he subsequently managed for 20 years. Mr. Siegel joined the firm of Long Term Capital Management in 1994 and remained with the firm until October 1998 trading both emerging market equity and debt. In 1999 he joined NYU-Stern as an Adjunct Professor of Finance and International Business and teaches a course on Emerging Financial Markets. He is married and lives in Tomkins Cove New York in the lower Hudson Valley. Mjsiegel ( talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Don't feel the need to respond to this, but I would like to suggest that you, or somebody else senior in the project, may want to have a personal chat with this guy. I have been reading what has been going on and it seems that there is a tangible threat of criminal charges being used to put pressure on him (on the basis that they allege he may have circumvented the very basic means used to prevent download of a whole image). My reading of the situation is that he may feel under intense peer pressure to "make a stand" in this dispute, and therefore put himself at possible risk but certainly put himself under intense personal pressure. I am not sure that everyone who is advising him has his best interests at heart. Perhaps you, or somebody else can advise him - not from a legal standpoint, but from the point of whether he should put the defence of the project and the defence of various principles before his own interests. Just a thought. ConcernedCeltic ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with WP is that thugs rule. The Barack Obama article is under article probation. Yet, people (THuranX and GoodDamon) remove rational talk page comments and collapse discussion into boxes so nobody can see this. Especially when an article is under article probation, ALL editors should be at their best behaviour. Yet when antics like this go unpunished, all the rational editors leave. In fact, I am leaving your myspace type website. I may come back but don't count on it.
Before the drama out campaign mentioned above starts, you should put your foot down and force those thugs who violate the spirit of article probation out of wikipedia or topic ban them. If an article probation doesn't work, how can other non-probated article work? Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect ( talk) 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, for the next 5 days, I'm requesting that this page be considered closed for renovations during The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Go read up on it, it sounds fun.
I'll not be answering questions related to big picture policy, people you are mad about, things you're mad at me about, etc. I'm just gonna go write some articles. And I'm hopeful that the bug will infect you too. If you're mad about something of incredible meta importance, I recommend sleeping on it for a few days. There's nothing that I can help with which is likely to be urgent, and I think we'll all have clearer heads for solving longterm problems in the project if we just edit articles for a few days.
Usually, this is not the right page for many of the concerns that are raised here anyway, although I don't mind getting a steady sampling of what is going on. But not during the Dramaout. If you want to comment here, please be sure it's about article improvement on an article that I'm actually seen working on currently.
I haven't actually checked on who invented this idea, but I love it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping Mr Siegel with his identity problem. I'm afraid I offered my help without knowing exactly what should be done, but I found you and SqueakBox had already done something about it before I could fumble around with it. Btw, I hope I wasn't too presumptive to assume you'd be too busy to look at something like that. Clearly, I was wrong. :D Eaglizard ( talk) 10:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC) PS: I sure hope the comment previous to mine is meant as a joke, tho I doubt it was. Still, you don't any manners! Classic stuff. Eaglizard ( talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that you may wish to change your babel boxes at the English Wikibooks. You may wish to change {{Babel|en|de}} to the code described below the userboxes. Thank you for your kind attention. Kayau | Jane Eyre| PRIDE AND PREJUDICE| les miserables 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jimbo. I'm about to request arbitration of you. Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
Hi, there. I had a great idea to share with wikipedia, but I don't know where to post it. I also noticed that one of our sister projects, Simple English Wikipedia, had a place where people could go to list there question and be able to be read and answered by anyone. So I was wondering if you could please set one up for the main page (or in the way Simple English set it up) and if it was already set up, can you make a direct link to it from the main page? Please respond on my talkpage. Signed and regards from -- Secret Saturdays ( talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr Wales. I've blocked a user with your username on the Simple English Wikipedia. Just to be on the safe side, I'd like to cofirm if it is really you. Thank you.-- TVB dx iang (Ta lk) 07:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy. Please see my offer to formally mediate your dispute with Bishonen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Ryan_Postlethwaite here. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be very happy with that, so my answer is yes. I hope that Bishonen will agree.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I believe an old schoolfriend of mine is being discussed on the board of Biography of Living People. I have been reading about these biographies, and it is currently being suggested that Mike is a homophobe, due to the fact that he once signed a petition opposing the adoption of children by certain gay groups. I assure you he is not a homophobe, and this is by no account a reliable source, especially considering the spurious claims that are being made on the article as a result of signing this petition. Please assure me that this enclyclopedia does not allow such controvercial claims to be made based on such a insubstantial piece of 'evidence'. It has never been reported in any newspaper that Mike is at all homophobic (as he is not), and the fact that your website finds it ok to call him this is disgusting. I used to rely on this website for a source of information, and reliable information at that! Now I am not so sure. I will definately be speaking to my wife and her friends about this.
Yours,
Hands of gorse, heart of steel ( talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, considering your recent foray into journalism ethics, I was hoping that you might weigh in on this particular discussion here on the Falklands War discussion page. Thank you in advance, if you do decide to help out by clarifying how we proceed. -- Thekohser 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone, who is making me Zozca. What is the proof of that user. He, should come on my talk page and give me the proof-- TZX Master ( talk) 11:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I voluntarily offered, in my discussions with Bishonen, and as a good faith gesture to demonstrate my good will in trying to resolve all disputes with her, to not use the block tool for 6 months. Upon my own private reflection, I have decided to simply give up the use of the block tool permanently. I don't need it, it isn't important, and it is too widely viewed as a "nuclear option". I simply can't use the block tool normally, because people over-interpret it. No problem, I just won't use it at all.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict)While I think there is some value in such an undertaking, I doubt it would be useful. Should we reasonably expect Jimbo to encounter an ongoing and egregious breach of WP:BLP, say, and wait until his report to WP:AIV is processed? I think not. Whereas Jimbo does not necessarily engage in that function, I've certainly seen him/you act to prevent legal damage to the encyclopedia and the WMF by imposing blocks. If "other admins" don't block people, either they are operating in areas where blocking is not an option, or they are not doing their job properly. Either way, an admin without the block or protect option cannot be effective here, and I perceive that that applies equally to Jimbo. An alternative, of course, is that Jimbo voluntarily retains the block option, but reports such blocks to WP:ANI for community review unless the reason for blocking is "obvious and gross". All in all, my view is that one exceptional case does not justify a severe change of either policy or attitude- unless it is part of a pattern of egregious behaviour; and I don't see that here. Rodhull andemu 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The intention of the godking to hold back from direct intervention is commendable. If he needs to issue a block, it should be clear enough to others for them to issue the block. If his intervention is every needed, he still can. The system of constitutional monarchy is in practice a stable system, with a significant psychological feature: Those who wield the power don’t ultimately hold it, and the one who does hold it doesn’t use it. It is not power that corrupts, it is the free exercise of power that corrupts. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What about the idea of electing a group of administrators whose job is to police other administrators? They would handle issues such as routine misconduct by administrators and be able to block administrators for short durations. They would be able to do this individually, without engaging in the prolonged discussions of the ArbCom. The ArbCom would still be used to address more severe and chronic conduct issues. --
Atomic blunder (
talk) 13:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has become for me a layer that sits atop google search for ordered information. In this sense it goes far beyond what any printed encyclopaedia could provide. Inclined towards this kind of paradigm I wonder what the implications are for the project as it heads towards the 3,000,000+ articles range. Suspecting this subject has maybe already been talked to death could you point me to any papers or articles that discuss this subject? Taam ( talk) 14:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
My, e-mail address is mastertahir@rocketmail.com. Please activate the new password,, please give instruction to admins to activate the new password. Someone is using my passowrd.-- 119.152.6.18 ( talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, I request you to block the account of the vandal, TZX Master. If you don't do it immediately, he will spread vandalism in Wikipedia and will ruin your encyclopedia. He has confessed himself on his userpage that he is a sockpuppet, then his account should not exist. Please, block it for the sake of your encyclopedia, you have created. For the sake of your earnings, your hardworking.-- Hell With Arun ( talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone is using my password to prove that I am sockpuppet because he has no prove.-- TZX Master ( talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC), he should signature his name.-- 119.152.6.18 ( talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you have decided not to block users in the future, would you end your blocking history with a final block of 1 hours against me, User:User F203 -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The stated reason would be "Thank you for your article writing drive idea, which resulted in the dramaout campaign. While I supported it, there were a few opposing it. For them, I block you for 1 hour per your request. This block is intended to be my last block though I retain the right to block in the future"
I know that blocking is not normally done because of a self-request so I've provided an excuse above. User F203 ( talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, no. But thanks a lot for sure. :)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You have messages waiting for you here. Griffinofwales ( talk) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales
I have been on Wikipedia for a year I have been looking for a position in which I can hold a little amount of power here to try and help sort out desputes and help others and the Arbitration Commitee piqued my interest. I would very much like to know more about it (with the possibility of joining) because I can't seem to find any helpful information around here.
Yours Sincerly
The C of E
The C of E ( talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, holding an ArbCom seat is a very draining investment of time and effort; you probably want to get deep "in the trenches" for a while so you get a better idea of the commitment scope involved. — Coren (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What about the idea of electing a group of administrators whose job is to police other administrators? They would handle issues such as routine misconduct by administrators and be able to block administrators for short durations. They would be able to do this individually, without engaging in the prolonged discussions of the ArbCom. The ArbCom would still be used to address more severe and chronic conduct issues. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The community should have a right to see the blocked logs of administrators. That is, the logs of everyone administrators have blocked and the amount of time they have blocked them for. Those logs would be helpful in determining if administrators are acting justly. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Following recent discussions around the WP:Advisory Council on Project Development, Slrubenstein ( talk · contribs) created WP:Areas for Reform, a page for the community to identify problems and brainstorm potential solutions. Among the issues currently discussed there are
If you have any ideas or other input, please contribute. I imagine the BLP issue in particular might benefit from input from you, or Foundation consultants, to be discussed effectively. JN 466 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo. I've gone ahead and filed a request for mediation which will be accepted should both you and Bishonen agree to the request. I've added a number of issues to discuss during the mediation, but please feel free to add more should you think of any. As it stands now, me and Sunray will be acting as mediators. Should this be a problem, we can certainly look at other mediators to take over the role. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Two questions: do we have plans for Wikipedia:Survey 2009, and when is the data set from 2008 going to be made publicly available? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
For the Encyclopedia Dramatica may well have to close due to a lack of funds!!!-- 89.168.144.29 ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hooray. -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You do know that they do this every month just to coax money from those who read it. 75.131.224.220 ( talk) 07:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:ARBCOM#Secret_ballot_for_future_elections. It also appears (without doing a lot of archive searching) that your role in this year's arbcom election is not completely clear. It would be much better to resolve the procedures for the election now, instead of waiting until it is too late for any changes to be made. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add a Wiki cookie to Jimbo's barnstars for me. I tried to, but I had a little glitch which meant I could not add one. That was not about blocking, but just I am not very good at wiki items yet. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.242.237 ( talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seen many people (including you) make comparisons between Wikipedia and Usenet, typically as a justification for civility policies. I think such comparisons demonstrate a marked lack of understanding of how Usenet operated (no offense meant; an understanding of Usenet culture is hardly a sign of superiority.) Some members of the Usenet community eventually discovered killfiles, while others did not. For those that did not, Usenet seemed an anarchic and barbaric place. For those that learned to use technology to filter out the noise, Usenet was a quiet and serene place, full of lively discussion. In an environment that's essentially anonymous (and in which it is thus effectively impossible to truly "ban" anybody) it simply makes no sense to try to enforce behavioral guidelines. The only effective way to deal with unruly behavior in such situations is to ignore it. If the sheer volume of such behavior is an issue (as it was on Usenet and is arguably becoming so here) then it should be filtered out at the reader's discretion. Given that talk pages here often follow a model of threaded discussion anyway, it would seem that the best solution would be to simply modify the software so that they were genuine threaded discussions, which would make it trivial to apply filters. The alternative — empowering some individuals to act as overseers of the others — is fraught with peril and doomed to failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shdfbsjhc ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As one of the historical proponents of Wikipedia, probably the "Father of Wikipedia", your guidance on what Wikipedia is supposed to be is requested.
The background of this is a minor politician who got fired because the city found out his wife is a pornographic actress, leading to a Wikipedia article read in Finland, United States, and probably many other countries. Whether or not this article is deleted is not the question. I can see what both sides are saying.
The real question is "What is Wikipedia". Here, I quote what I wrote to another editor...
What I want to ask you is what do we want WP for? On one extreme, it would cover very trivial items, news, video games, etc. On the other extreme, only the most scholarly topics like Australia, Charles de Gaulle, Lung cancer, World War II would be covered. Without quoting our rules, what should WP be?
1. Wikipedia should be any topic that anyone would conceivably look up.
2. Wikipedia should be most topics but nothing that would make people laugh at Wikipedia, so serious subjects only.
3. Wikipedia should be most topics but no nudity or anything that the ___ religion prohibits doing or looking at.
4. Wikipedia should be only what Encyclopedia Britannica has.
5. Wikipedia should be #4 plus a little more.
6. Wikipedia should only be biographies of people who will be known 100 years later, major geographic locations, and major wars.
Once we know what WP should be, we can work towards that WP and maybe even fine tune the rules. Should it be 1, 2, or 5? I don't expect a definitive answer only some thoughts that come to mind, Mr. Wales.
One thought that came to mind would be #1 except WP must be seen as honorable so no nasty attacks against mainly people but also topics. This would support the BLP rules but, again, I would like to focus on the product and purpose, not try to think of what description fits our current rules.
Note to others reading this: This communication is mainly to get Mr. Wales' opinion and not everyone else's although you may comment as you see fit. User F203 ( talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo. WP:NODRAMA was a success and it was good to see your approval of it. I've just had an idea. We could have an official day in July each year where there is to be no drama for 24 hours. It could be an official event and could have a proper title such as "Nodrama Day." It could be that July 18 of every year is "Wikipedia Nodrama Day". Your thoughts?-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Good luck. ceran thor 12:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, with Susan Sarandon as my co-star... :-p You're silly. :)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...according to an article I just saw on Digg, from New Scientist. [20]
Do you agree that it is "disconcerting" for doctors to use Wikipedia as a resource for information? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would assume that most doctors are intelligent enough to use Wikipedia appropriately.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know about you guys, but I don't have health insurance, so I go to the clinic where anyone can practice. It's not so bad. *cough* Lara 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia is run by Drini, Drini the King, please review his actions. Can he reset passwords? How much power a steward really needs? The Spanish Wikipedia is dark place where discussions are censor and any attempt to question an administrator will result in block. The Spanish Wikipedia is running wild, please put some control, ask Drini, he knows.
I believed in this project, but then realized this has been hick jacked by teens in a role-playing game, but dont believe me ask the foundation to run a survey and get the input of the few Spanish WIkipedians that still edits the project. Ask for example, why so few Puerto RIcans edit in that project, ask how users feels about the fair treatment of administrators. Please look into the Spanish project before is too late. My user name is jmundo but Drini reset my password and I dont have a way to get into my account. -- 71.68.208.166 ( talk) 06:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But hey, I dont care if you don't unblock me, I was in not coming back wikibreak anyway. Wales, I respect a man of great ideas, too bad this place was run over by role playing boys and girls with no respect to due process. -- 74.249.3.58 ( talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear reader, that wathchlisted this page, get a life. The economy depends on you to go out a produce something, unless wikipedia is new age manifesto for not working and breaking the world wide system, go anarchy from the comfortable living room and the jetta, imagine thousands of jetta and organic coffee drinkers starting a revolution, what a joke! I given my knowledge to Wikipedia, and I'm done working with assholes for that a can keep working wiht coworkers. Good job Jimmy controlling the masses, dont give them too much power they run you over... No constitutional monarchy, just plain monarchy, long live the king. -- 74.236.128.117 ( talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Know Im free to start over, no more Wiki, Im feel real again, and Im out of this hypereality of edit contributions, Free, I'm free at last......
A new project has been created dedicated to starting and translating missing articles and improving articles from other wikipedias. It is intended to be partly missing encyclopedia articles project and partly translation project. Both the previous projects fizzled out but the main objective here is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from each wikipedia by language and then work towards ensuring there is an article on english wikipedia. If anybody is interested please comment or if anybody is learning a language and thinks it would help them practice by translating an article, join it!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just protected this page for one hour. Guys - the edit war is stupid. There's no need to start calling other users assholes - discuss things in a more collegial manner. WP:NOTCENSORED certainly doesn't apply to incivility. When the protection is finished, I suggest everyone leaves things how they are and moves on to more important tasks. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's just move on. This is just wasting valuable time, which I now intend to spend trying to get some sleep. Some hope! Rodhull andemu 01:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Jimmy is sick of the new messages bar yet... :) Until It Sleeps Wake me 03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo. I got your message about your wanting me to supervise Arbcom by vetoing the more inane decisions and directing them towards constructive remedies wherever possible. Do you think the community will be okay with your investing me with absolute power as a kind of High Priest of Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Uhhh, I can only assume you're joking. :) But on the off chance that you're not, can you let me know where you got this obviously impersonated message? :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread at AN to request a wider discussion of giving automated processes the ability to block users. I don't believe that there was ever a wide discussion, let alone an acceptance, of granting admin rights to bots. A recent proposal to allow some abuse filters to block users raised some concerns for me, which I have outlined in the AN thread. Please take a look, and weigh in if you have an opinion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Approximately 36 hours from now, I will go into a remote forest on a camping trip with my daughter. For several days I will have no Internet service nor even cellphone service. I will therefore be slow in answering email or doing anything else online.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Aside from being enjoyable, this type of vacation is beneficial psychologically, provided that you leave Wikipedia behind mentally as well as physically. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo Wales, just noting for the record that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion relating to you at WP:AC/N.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 05:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Almost one month away from your 43rd birthday. Are you excited or are you dreading it? Just curious :P SparksBoy ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Check this out when you get back and look at number 45. Nicely done :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What happened about this? I thought you were all for it Jimbo? At the very least we should have flagged revisions on BLPs. What is it going to take to get it implemented? It seems silly to not introduce some form of protection on them. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, it seems that all our wiki projects have been license-updated to CC-BY-SA-3.0 + GFDL, but your userpage remains showing only GFDL. I don't know for sure maybe this is kept on purpose or just a carelessness. So I came to ask you for some comment. And after all, happy your 43rd birthday! Jimbo, we love you, man!-- Jimmy xu wrk ( talk) 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy xu wrk has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
The beta will be Optional right? Sorry about this, but please post a response on my talk page. Thanks! Old Al ( talk) 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo. Happy birthday to you. I am working on sh. wiki, and I am friend of Vatrena ptica. I am working on biology and categorization at sh Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great. -- Biologinja ( talk) 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Some time in the next few days. I haven't forgotten about the "mystery". :P — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:56 6 August, 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday, and wishing you good health and good fortune. After all, we expect you to be editing Wikipedia when you're in your 80s. :) Otumba ( talk) 00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Griffinofwales (
talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{ subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
What's a birthday without cake? Griffinofwales ( talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"They say it's your birthday...well it's my birthday too, yea!"...
-- Buster7 ( talk) 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy Birthday, Jimmy! Hope it was a great one! Have some birthday cookies.... Ks0stm ( T• C) 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
What he said. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride scent 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a long-shot, but forewarned is forearmed. An idle thought crossed my mind that AIs being tested on Wikipedia could harm the project, so I proposed this policy Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Artificial Intelligence User Accounts. There is some uncertainty about the seriousness of the motivation, but looking at it objectively, it does make some sense. Even if it at first sounds off the wall. Cheers HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Javert, Rjd0060, and Jimbo and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
nb: I'm just posting this here because Drew seems banned from this page ;) See diff diff. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
BYT ( talk) 12:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my day job. Here's my total edit count, now approaching 7,000.
The Hello Barnstar | ||
This is to say hello to a fellow Wikipedian User F203 ( talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)) |
Please, Jimmy, wait. Just, like, don't delete this right away. This is so a legitimate question. To what extent is Wikipedia censored? I mean, fine: I'll ask one question: Are pedophiles allowed here at all? I mean, if pages like: Child pornography and List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors are allowed, why shouldn't they? It's natural, and it's happening in the world even today. I mean, come on, don't just give me crap (pardon the language, if that somehow violates "civility" on Wikipedia) about Wikipedia policies. You're a big part of modern society; respect that and learn from it. You're seriously gonna swear that none of the editors, maybe even sysops, aren't pedophiles? My point is this: If we don't care about it at all, why are some articles marked freaking "controversial", then? It's almost laughable. Some users, it's almost positive they're pedophiles, but say one word to them about it, and you're, like, banned forever; like, who contributes to an article about raping little girls or sacrificing children as Satanists? Well, heck, as long as it's constructive editing, in some people's eyes... But no one effing cares. Cute. Wales, look, I don't want to give you trouble, but this is just tiring me, seriously. Wikipedia's awesome, but, like...See, like, Child Pornography was nominated for deletion a few months ago, give or take, but, listen, the nominator was banned and the deletion template was removed before anyone could give evaluation. But I'm cool with that; none of my business. But, Jimmy, look at User:Squeakbox[ [22]]. I mean, an old man with two dogs and who deletes the Deletion Nomination Tag on Child Pornography, like, right after it was posted...Well, I don't know what to say; please don't get mad. I won't talk to you at all after this if you don't want me to. Just give one comment, one response. Even telling me to f*** off and that you don't care could be fine; it is your own personal, honest opinion, after all. Bye, Jimbo. Please, I wouldn't be here wasting my time and yours if I really didn't think it important; there are Anti-Pedophilia agencies, you know. I just don't understand...are you sure your policies about Censorship are unflawed? Because, I personally don't know. Please, just enlighten me. Best wishes, Jim, ArnoldHash ( talk) 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I thank you very much indeed for your input, my friends. I have little more to say, nor do I wish to dwell on such subjects any longer. Zenwhat's reply has at least hinted that not all Wikipedians are at ease with such articles, even if they clearly acknowledge them as not violating any rules. "Nice veiled accusation"? Well, I am not sure how to exactly respond to that. Forgive me if this somehow violates Wikipedian rules, but I personally do not believe that I am disrupting anything; no edits have I yet made other than to talk pages, and thus what "disruption" is fairly limited. Do I take it that such someone who regards such a person thus in our modern society is too be condemned, instead of that person? I do not say I am better or worse than any of the said users through my bringing this to notice; that is for you to decide. Obviously a tone of neutrality is to be preferred, but removing the nomination tag so speedily hints at a possible subtle lack of neutrality in itself. If Mr. Wales himself could add just one comment, I would be immensely grateful, though of course I would understand if he chooses not to. Whatever you wish, then, my friends. I did not think Wikipedia would suffer such harm from my messages, but I am unsure what to think now from Tony's response; if you wish me to leave, then say so, and I will likely do so, but frankly, I cannot see a truly legitimate reason. Kind regards, ArnoldHash ( talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I simply wish to make note of this: My user talk page was recently vandalized; After been shown I had new messages and seeing none, I discovered a random IP Address had threatened me on my talk. Heh. No prizes for what kind of guy that was...Hope he's blocked soon, but just my opinion. I do not care much for such users.
Look, I said I wouldn't dwell on this, and I won't; Wikipedia's too...strict, on a first glance, but I personally think in some areas it's, well, rather lax. SqueakBox, I'm very, very sorry to have asked you such a question; I believe the user called Sparaca12 is actually to blame. Certainly, Mr. Wales's perspective is not uncommon here and is of course not to be blamed. After all, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. I was most foolish and immature indeed to have missed that. I still find such people editing here...rather distasteful, let us say, but I shall trouble you no longer over it. I beg you, Jimbo, and SqueakBox, to consider forgiving me for bringing such a point up and wasting your time. Nonetheless, I shall admit I am more relieved now to actually see first-hand at least a few users of strong standing are not actually defending the articles because of their topics, but of legitimate use, and I thank you for that, all of you. However, if there are some here that might still be displeased with the existence of such articles, I only ask this: Wikipedia is truly not the suitable place for such discussions; take act elsewhere if you are so enthusiastic about fighting pedophilia. All in all, I wish you the best in the coming years, Jimbo Wales, and may it be that you and your creation of genius continue to prosper. Kind regards, ArnoldHash ( talk) 11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've received considerable help from "Invertzoo". She has been of outstanding support. Giving guidance and direction to me. She is a wonderful asset to Wikipedia.
You recently congratulated Sue for her work on molluscs. Rightly so!
kind regards PETE Poyt448 ( talk) 09:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you? 173.50.150.120 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
I am aware of the standard definition of the term, yes. And I have seen a few examples in my day.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I think I know what excessive repetition of punctuation marks is. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I remember when it took weeks for a Wikipedia article to show up in Google searches. Less that three hours after Bonse's inequality was created, it's the second item that appears when the search terms given to google are that sequence of words (with no quotation marks).
(OK, I haven't kept track of that sort of thing. I suppose it's childish to think this might come as news to anyone who cares about such.....) Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
High profile events will undoubtedly attract new editors, and in my experience, not all with good intent. This is especially so when sources for breaking news are not as we would normally expect as reliable, and rumour is rife. I don't think it improper to wait until the dust settles a little, and if that means protecting an article against poorly-sourced additions, which may well be a breach of WP:BLP, sorry, I can't apologise for that. From my own user page :
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
Not my words - Jimbo's. Being up to date may be desirable, but that does not mean we pander to the rumour mill that follows such events. Relevant sourced material should go to Wikinews, but Wikipedia isn't a news service. Rodhull andemu 01:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo Wales! You are invited to participate in the Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, an effort to end arguments and discussions, and fight vandalism! It is intended to stop discussions from interfering everyone's work in the article namespace. Please sign up here! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I was browsing Wikipedia the other day and I was trying to edit both the Main Page and the article about ourselves (Wikipedia}. It's not the Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia? article but the casual, public article itself. I tried to edit both articles, and all I recieved was "View source" on the top of the page. Why are these pages semi/protected? Who made the protection? With regards,-- ROT9 ( talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is only semi-protected, and you will be able to edit that page once you are auto-confirmed. Darrenhusted ( talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that I am not the first casual user of wikipedia to find themselves captivated by your photos. You are quite handsome. Peace. Derekbd ( talk) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think the Jim Demint letter is a reliable source for reporting on a vote in the Honduran National Congress. He's reporting on hearsay, just what he was told by supporters of the coup.
All of these points are sourced within the article. Just because he posted the letter does not make it a reliable source. Please rethink your addition to the 2009 Honduran Constitutional Crisis. Thanks. Rsheptak ( talk) 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it's been covered before, but I think there's a glitch existing between wikias and Wikipedia. I chose a different name on a wikia than to here, but after around a month it wouldn't register my password. This happened after a made a new account. Are you aware of this? Steel Talon ( Interrogation room) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I browsed Wikipedia the other day and I looked at this page called Wikipedia:Banning policy. In the page itself, it clearly states the matter of permanent bans. THere is one question, how can a permanent ban occur? And does that mean that the permanently banned user is no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia for good?. Regards,-- ROT9 ( talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking about the definition. I'm asking about the factors that result in a permanent ban.-- ROT9 ( talk) 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why impose a permanent ban on such occasions?-- ROT9 ( talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo! Sorry for being late, but I made you this:
The flag of Wikipedia. Happy Birthday! User:Secret Saturdays/Signature (Archiving comment Fram ( talk) 08:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC))
Hi Jimbo. I am one of those supporters of your gift to all of us: Wikipedia. But I am afraid your creation is in danger: it is being manipulated by groups of communists related to the ex-KGB in the Baltic States. They use "promoters" of their ideology, like for example user:DIREKTOR, inside Wikipedia. Direktor is a pusher of diktator Tito communist ideas inside en.wiki, no doubt about it. I want to repeat what user:Sir Floyd wrote, because I agree with him totally about this medicine student and the way he promotes his croatian nationalism: "While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).Info from M. & Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direktor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion." Furthermore, I want to pinpoint that en.wiki will be better if Direktor is banned, because a lot of fighting (with Serbs-Bosniaks-Italians-Montenegrins-Albanians et al) will disappear. His discussion page is full of these fightings and his edit page is a clear evidence of this reality, just read it from the times he showed up in en.wiki ! He is supported by members of the group of communists related to the (KGB) hackers disrupting western websites (like user: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog). He is always helped by admin & check users with slav roots and supporters of communist ideology inside wikipedia (like user:Spellcast). You can verify it easily, and so try to save your creation (that otherwise can become a useful instrument of the communist groups centered around ex-KGB members). Sincerely.-- Formyopinion ( talk) 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your article Mzoli's is nominated for deletion on August 19, 2009. For further information please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mzoli%27s_(2nd_nomination). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso McLaren ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Prashanthns/Invitation prashanthns ( talk) 09:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I don't want to elaborate on this just yet. I only want the dates checked before the pages in question become harder to access. Basically, there was an edit war recently at speed of light. I wasn't involved in it. But I have ended up as the only person to be topic banned from that page. David Tombe ( talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
Jimbo, Thanks for your response. I left a note on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page that may clarify the issue. In summary, anything that touches on the contents of the paper which James Clerk-Maxwell wrote in 1861, at the beginning of the American civil war, tends to ignite a civil war. The speed of light is a highly sensitive issue, and any topic which sails close to equation (132) on that paper is dynamite. The problem is that we still use Maxwell's results to this very day, but we have swept his method under the carpet. The clashes that are likely to follow as a consequence of this dilemma will mainly be be at centrifugal force, Faraday's law, and Ampère's circuital law. I will now bear in mind the trouble that seems to arise everytime that I touch one of these three pages, and I will try to minimize conflict in future. But at any rate, I would be most obliged if you could remove the topic ban, just as a matter of principle. I wasn't actually editing on the page in question at the time of the ban and I don't intend to return to the current stage of the dispute on the talk page. I have also given my advice to Brews ohare to leave it alone. I fully sympathize with Brews, and I see that perhaps even a new editor called 'Abtract' may be beginning to see the point too. But I think that Brews should come out now (voluntarily) because he has made his point loud and clear. I do also think that as a token gesture to Brews, that some other editor should at least make an attempt to neutralize the introduction. David Tombe ( talk) 10:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo! August 25, 2009 is going to be my 13th brithday! Can you post something on my talk page (about that)?-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk has given you a cookie for inventing the cookie jar!
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a huge success. Traffic statistics tell the real story as opposed to polls or news stories. By any objective measure, Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites in the world.
A recent poll on Cnet.com asks whether users prefer Wikipedia or Britannica and it was a 50/50 result. That is completely bogus. The real web traffic statistics tell us that people prefer Wikipedia at least 1000 to 1 over Britannica. People will often say one thing in polls and on the news, and in the real world do something else.
As far as requiring edit to be supervised by "experts" or "trusted individual" before being accepted, Don't do it. Of course, talk show hosts and the news make great fun about it, though the reality is that people still trust and want the current state of Wikipedia, because of it's speed and flexibility. Trying to control edits is trying to be more "respectable" or "professional" like Britannica, and that is exactly what people do not want.
The way I see the options are
1) Bad content is put on Wikipedia and remains there for less than 1 day 2) Good content is prevented from being put on Wikipedia for 1 week to 1 month
I would rather take the risk of a short stretch of bad content versus a long stretch lacking good content.
How would you have handled the death of Michael Jackson? No amount of hand selected experts would have been able to handle that flood of edits and the information would have been delayed for weeks before we could find out what was going on.
Wikipedia is a genius idea. Please don't try and make it more like the old centrally controlled systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.239.38 ( talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The myth should be busted that this is being sent down from on high. IPs can't create articles, they can't edit protected pages and in some section of WP they can't vote, and this would be a scandal were it not for the fact that it costs nothing to register, so there is nothing stopping any IP editor from registering and joining one of the "Select People", not that the list is a short one. I'm on that list, why? Because I registered and began editing, and more than anything that is what Wikipedia is about, and anything that makes editing easier can only be goods for the project. Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing above in "about communist propaganda inside wikipedia". User:DIREKTOR and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres. And in Direktor's edits we can read that he is starting to request "help" from admins & check users friendly to him, in order to eliminate opponents to his posts supporting Tito's communism & other communist propaganda articles in wikipedia. May I repeat that he is only the tip of the iceberg (a huge iceberg made of many communists spreading their propaganda inside wikipedia). I am afraid that wikipedia can become a useful instrument of the communist groups in the internet.Sincerely.-- Formyopinion ( talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled across this user page at User:WebHamster, and was wondering if you were aware of it? Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? Zhebius ( talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
While I understand that the "article space" in Wikipedia needs to be vigorously defended against attacks on free speech per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't believe this policy gives the right for individual users to post pornographic images of children on their personal pages. I also wish to raise my concerns that this page may breach California law where the servers of Wikipedia are situated. Zhebius ( talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, that was his page (referring to WH) on Wikipedia and as I understand it, you can do pretty much what you want with it without going into the specifics of WP:NPA or WP:BLP or WP:SPAM or WP:CIVIL, right? Note that I, too, endorses WP:DGAF and to be honest, WH has chosen to disengage from all the petty squabbles here and focus on what we editors do best — edit and improve article pages. So, without further distraction and I really hate to say this... guys, let us all drop the nonsensical WP:STICK in our hands and do as what Snagglepuss do at the end of a brilliant performance — "Exit, stage left"~! -- Dave1185 ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
They are calling Barack Obama professor when the University of Chicago does not use the term but uses the term "faculty member". Resume inflation is misleading and can result in people being fired. Yet, a host of people are banding together to get fake information into the Barack Obama article. They should all be blocked unless you want Wikipedia to be the joke website of kids. Gaydenver ( talk) 18:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled across this user page at User:WebHamster, and was wondering if you were aware of it? Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? Zhebius ( talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
While I understand that the "article space" in Wikipedia needs to be vigorously defended against attacks on free speech per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't believe this policy gives the right for individual users to post pornographic images of children on their personal pages. I also wish to raise my concerns that this page may breach California law where the servers of Wikipedia are situated. Zhebius ( talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, that was his page (referring to WH) on Wikipedia and as I understand it, you can do pretty much what you want with it without going into the specifics of WP:NPA or WP:BLP or WP:SPAM or WP:CIVIL, right? Note that I, too, endorses WP:DGAF and to be honest, WH has chosen to disengage from all the petty squabbles here and focus on what we editors do best — edit and improve article pages. So, without further distraction and I really hate to say this... guys, let us all drop the nonsensical WP:STICK in our hands and do as what Snagglepuss do at the end of a brilliant performance — "Exit, stage left"~! -- Dave1185 ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. I've done some research including past comments on this talkpage and would like your opinion and any ideas. Some users feel we must include a statement about paid admining. If we do I feel it also has to be accurate. Is there anything on this draft you feel should be changed and if so how:
“ | Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining may be seen as problematic.</ref> | ” |
I have a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Opinions/advice please but it may be of only so much interest to most folks. Comments there would also be fine but that thread may expire before this one. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It absolutely would be a conflict of interest, I agree with Finell. As written, the sentence is misleading, that there is no policy against it. Indeed, this page *should become* policy against it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposition that today, without adopting a new policy, an admin is permitted to accept payment in exchange for exercising administrative authority or tools. This shows how easy it is to slide from the idea that allowing paid advocates to edit Wikipedia is alright, to accepting the idea that it may be OK to bribe the police. — Finell (Talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:Paid needs help. It started as a summary of existing policy, however there is no existing policy, therefore all attempts to tighten the language have been strongly resisted. The above text ("[admin payment]...is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI") shows the flavor of recent versions of WP:Paid. A group proposing restrictions on paid editing has started WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic.</ref> | ” |
Please do contribute to Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text if you don't like "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining." Actually everybody is invited, but we're asking that editors follow a WP:1RR policy. Smallbones ( talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Moving forward ...
“ | Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic. Administrative authority and tools are entrusted solely in the best interest of Wikipedia.</ref> | ” |
Jimbo or anyone else, I've seen the Nichalp(spelling?) bits, are there any other paid editing or paid admining cases that were addressed by Arbcom? I think this would help lay groundwork for expressing general disdain or whatever. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)