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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
Apparently, Wikimedia moved to San Francisco quite some time ago, but the servers are still in Florida. With that, where are you exactly? San Francisco? What about the developers? Do they even show up? 67.180.161.183 ( talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a global nomad. Having said that, I'm based in Florida and spend a lot of time in New York City.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You will be aware of the "undertow/Law/Casliber/etc." matter, and of the East European Mailing List. I think it is time for you to make one last unilateral policy decision, and impose a method by which admins, and arbs and 'crats, can be made accountable to the community and have their accesses removed if found to be in breach of their responsibilities. Something needs to be done to re-establish the trust the community should have in its enhanced privilege endowed members, and a method to quickly remove people from positions of trust where it can be demonstrated it has been lost. I will work with you on this, if you wish, and I can direct you to people who have expressed these concerns previously and have put in place procedures and proposals that can be adapted. Whatever system or procedure that may arise will likely be messy and time consuming and open to undue influence - but we have that at the moment, and it does not appear to solve the problems being discussed presently. I hope that you will consider this request, for the future interests of Wikipedia and its community. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to assist with the formulation, implementation, and enforcement of policies leading to a greater degree of responsibility and trust at all levels of Wikipedia. But why should this one thing be the "last" thing I do, my friend? I'm not going anywhere. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Which image? A long-running debate - but the answer is blindingly obvious. See Talk:Human#New_Lead_Image. :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is time for Wikipedia to be bold to make the information complete.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it .....Mahatma Gandhi.
For this, you will need both the pen and the mind, Gandhi had.-- Gaunkars of Goa ( talk) 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you chose to remove a complaint Jimbo. It may have been ranty, but that sometimes happens with people who are frustrated. I haven't looked into the issues raised, so I don't know if they have merit, but simply removing a statement like that without addressing the concerns raised seems very bitey and strikes me as being in exceptionally bad form for Wikipedia's figurehead. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Read it through, and look into the details. If you think it merits my attention, please let me know. I didn't remove it because it was a complaint - I moved it because it was a long and tedious rant full of more editorializing than actual details. When I looked into the details, what I found wasn't particularly interesting. If you think I overlooked something important, by all means, I would like the opportunity to address it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Jimmy,
Just to let you know that all is not well on wikipedia. Almost all senior editors have started acting like autocrats and dictators. Many genuine facts are just not being considered for discussion, and are unreasonably termed as 'soapbox' or POV, and deleted. This is definitely killing the spirit of wikipedians and the credibility of wikipedia. This needs urgent attention! -- Gaunkars of Goa ( talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
*N.B. Gaunkars of Goa has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptively making inappropriate use of talk page space, soapboxing, using this project as a personal forum, and making threats against other users.
I also have a complaint about administrators.
I have a problem with some administrators at Wikipedia who seem to think that verifiable facts should not appear on the site if they contradict majority opinion.
A simple and clear example of this is the entry on Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. A New York Times article from 1919 refers to the former German chancellor as “of Jewish descent.” The entire PDF of that New York Times article is visible online and I provided a link to it to support the claim in the Wikipedia article, but yesterday future_perfect_at_sunrise deleted the information because of what he perceived as the agenda behind it.
This is a clear example of emotion overriding reason on the part of a Wikipedia administrator, and I am afraid the three other administrators who handled the appeal of my account suspension were no better in that regard.
Not one of them gave any indication of having checked whether any specific facts that I presented were true or false.
My username is Hadding. I would appreciate it if you would consider lifting the suspension and also have a talk with your administrators about allowing verifiable facts to be posted on Wikipedia even when they contradict what “everybody knows.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.151.114 ( talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to reason with one of the administrators, jpgordon, but this was impossible. The man's arrogance goes so far that not only does he feel no need to consider arguments, he also feels no need to maintain the appearance of civility. In his response to my appeal he declared, "This is bullshit!" and then when I posted a topic on his personal talk page his response was, "Fuck you!" and without at any point showing any sign of considering my arguments, proclaimed me a "lying sack of shit." He subsequently deleted the whole topic, but I happened to have saved it, so here is an account of one of your "hive mind administrators" in all his glory.
He drew my special attention because he had posted a comment on my user talk page and subsequently locked it, which I thought was unfair. He had posted this on my talk page:
"Here is a good refutation of the fraud this editor has been trying to perpetuate. It's an old denier argument: pretend the language doesn't mean what it always meant. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"
I went to jpgordon's own Wikipedia talk page and posted this:
__________
About Hadding
Don't you think it's a little unfair to continue making comments on my personal talk page when I can't respond?
By the way, that link that you posted there doesn't prove anything. We can all take it for granted that The Holocaust History Project claims that Ausrottung never means anything but killing. The dispute was precisely over whether they are right or wrong. I say that they are wrong.
You talk about "saying that words don't mean what they have always meant" but this shows that you are very naive on the subject of language, which happens to be my professional specialty. The meanings of words do change over time; that's one of the factors that makes Shakespeare hard to read. It's also why words don't mean the same in legalese as in colloquial English.
I can show some older German-English dictionaries that give some very different meanings for ausrotten and Ausrottung, and indeed I did include such a reference in my edit (subsequently deleted by future_perfect_before_sunrise) of the Posen Speeches article.
William Dwight Whitney's A Compendious German and English Dictionary (Henry Holt and Co., New York 1877) defines ausrotten as follows:
aus-rotten, tr. root out, ERADICATE, EXTIRPATE, exterminate, destroy.
"Eradicate" is simply Latin for "root out." "Exterminate," in older dictionaries like the 1910 edition of Webster's Practical Dictionary, has the primary meaning of to place outside (ex) the border (terminus).
So there it is.
By the way, I play bluegrass too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.151.114 (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
[Note that I was only trying to persuade jpgordon that the German word ausrotten in the past had more than one meaning, which is a demonstrable fact. I did not proclaimed myself a "Nazi" and I was not "denying the Holocaust" as such.]
Nice manners, jpgordon! And so rational!
Was I rude to you? Not one bit. Have I done anything other than try to reason with you?
I can add this to the portfolio that I am building to demonstrate what is so seriously wrong with Wikipedia's administrative staff.--Hadding
He banned my IP to try to prevent any response, but all I had to do was unplug and replug my modem to get around that, so then there was this:
Because some people actually can read and reason about what they have read, and it will be glaringly obvious to any rational person who reads the way you respond to my arguments that you are not rational. And they'll say, What the hell are people like this doing in charge of a so-called encyclopedia? --Hadding
Yawn. Go away and bother someone else. Your arguments aren't worth wasting time with. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's clear that you don't waste any time considering anybody's arguments. --Hadding
___________
jpgordon subsequently deleted this entire exchange.
So tell me, Jimbo, who here represents your ideal of the rational community objectively exchanging information? The Wikipedia administrators with whom I've been dealing are highly questionable in that regard.
I think Wikipedia is suffering from a problem that Plato noted in the Republic, that the people who have the greatest desire to wield authority are often precisely the ones who should not have it. Wikipedia needs a better vetting process for administrators, assuming that it has one at all.
--Hadding
Wikidemon, you are mistaken. One of the admins locked my userpage. I can't do anything except what I am doing. --Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.6.75 ( talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly know the holocaust happened. However, after looking into this myself, I believe jpgordon really handled this wrongly. It doesn't matter what this guy or gal believes it doesn't give jpgordon any right to say the things he said or handle the situation the way he did. I have encountered other people on the net that have had similar issues with jpgordon, i.e. rudness, foul language, and the sorts. I wish to remain anonymous in order to keep from feeling the wrath of jp. I am sure that wrath will come in an ip block. He is pretty good at shutting people up that disagree with him. I truly believe someone needs to tone down jp. 76.177.38.8 ( talk) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
http://lurkmore.ru/User:Jimbo_Wales — you? Dharma Station ( talk) 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of it. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I considered posting the anecdote you mentioned the other day about the feedback you got from a company on their experience with their article, but thought it might be better if you placed it somewhere on the page yourself. I am starting the ball rolling on this one to see what ideas can arise. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
Jimbo, if you could be so kind, I've a curious little editing question I could use some expert input on. (Somebody told me, I forget where, that you had been around Wikipedia for a while and sort of knew its ways.) My quandary, sir, is this. I moved a Wikipedia contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: " Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up is simply lacking. Would you happen to have an opinion as to whether a better name for it might even be " Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? As this, after all, is the name of the legal disagreement receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, per the link here. Btw, Jimbo, I've already started a discussion thread at the BLP Noticeboard, here --> WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn_Beck's dispute with Eiland-Hall over EH's use of Beck's name in a "parody" domain name . . . too. ↜Just M E here , now 00:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You know those fellow anonymous Wikipedians? Well, I would like to be one. But, I would like a userpage. Other IPs have it, why can't I? I even have a signature. I did consult two others before, but three recommend I counsult you. Cheers, --
67.180.161.183
(talk)
WHY SO SΣRIOUS?
01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator care to join us? — Ched : ? 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Jimbo Wales But why would anyone want to take away your tools? Except for one or two blocks of those you found uncivil (and you've already resigned your block button, as far as I know, unless you use "alternate account"s?). You seem relatively restrained and open to discussion and collegial collaboration as far as I'm concerned, but you know what they say about opinions and everybody being a critic.
Is it a coup? Will you invoke marshal law? Is it part of a conspiracy to consolidate power and tighten the reins?
Tune in next time for more of as the Wiki turns... ChildofMidnight ( talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
Wiki is definitely in the tank for Left-Wing personalities and biased against Conservative American commentators on Wiki. Mark Levin deserves better than the treatment shown and displayed here. His popularity and defense of American liberties and freedoms are commendable, have been deservedly recognized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.40.10 ( talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, I tried to have an article published on Wikipedia about a year and a half ago about an experimental and highly active band called In the labyrinth, but for some reason it never stuck and I never got an explanation why. Today I decided it's time to make a second attempt and once again my article was hastily deleted without any further hint of what was wrong. Maybe you've seen my contribuion somewhere or did I enter it in an unapropriate way, missing out on some esssential features? I would be glad to know because I do not have the time needed to sit all day attempting to get it right through trial and error. I've read all Wikipedia's instructions on how and what is needed, so please let me know how to improve or alter my work!
Not happy with this anonymous treatment I get at your website so far, Kdkwinana ( talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/October
Ok, so three CD releases having a world wide spread isn't enough if they didn't sell gold or gained price winning awards or something similar? So then I see!
However, I'm sure some of your readers or researchers will be missing out on something really interesting and innovative this way.
Maybe you need me to supply a bunch of noteworthy reviews with attached links and also references to various websites where music journalists have written about this act? Then you could see for yourselves what In the labyrinth is about!
But OK, if this is inadequate too, thanks anyway for your quick response!
Kdkwinana (
talk)
16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009
Then I will see what I can do as soon as I get some spare time on my hands.
However, I will only make one attempt hoping it's in line with what Wikipedia is expecting of me.
Tecnically I'm not sure I've grasped it all in detail, how to go about writing an article to meet the standards but I'll sure try!
Kdkwinana (
talk)
16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009
Thanks! But how do I get hold of an experienced editor? I haven't noticed any functions where one can choose who to talk to.
But maybe I just don't understand all the instructions presented on your website. After all, I am Swedish and needless to say, cannot comprehend every single syllable as well as most Anglo-Saxon speeking viewers would.
Also thanks a lot for mentioning to me how to initiate my article. That will come in handy once I go ahead with it.
Kdkwinana (
talk)
17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009
Yes but you didn't answer to my question on how to go about finding, as you expressed it, an experienced editor! Kdkwinana ( talk) 17:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten
Ta! You have been most helpful! Kdkwinana ( talk) 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten
Any chance you could contact some language schools and colleges to help practice their language skills by translating from Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki? For this to be a success we need numbers. Publicizing that we need translators in any language I think is an important step to make. Have you browsed French, Spanish and Italian and German wikis for instance? There are several million articles which we could benefit from having them translated into english... Himalayan 09:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, you may recall this discussion of last week? Well, I have drafted this rough page advancing a reasoning on why and how a policy for removing administrator privileges might be proposed. At the bottom of the page is links to two very good pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator and User:Tony1/AdminReview, which I think deserve far greater attention than my ramblings - if only for the numbers and calibre of the contributors. As it seems that there is now some part of the community that feels such a policy and process is needed, I consider that your traditional role may be of some benefit in building up the momentum that is required these days to get major policy changes (or new policies) adopted. Alternatively, if you hate the idea it is better that it is known now. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The main concern to me is that administrators should not take action against edits and editors based on their own personal feeling. Presently this is done not even in a subtle way but with blatant promotion of a point of view. They don't even try to disguise it.
The administrator future_perfect_at_sunrise who suspended my account INDEFINITELY, and later locked my user talk page so that I can't even complain through legitimate channels, complained about what he perceived as my "agenda." Well, I notice that he has a barnstar from the "Rouge Admin Cabal." Does that not represent an agenda? Indeed, it seems to be a proud proclamation of an agenda.
The first admin to receive and turn down my appeal, Fuhghettaboutit, says that my agenda (as he perceives it) makes him "nauseous": how is his personal feeling even slightly relevant to what is supposed to be a matter of verifiable fact? Fuhghettaboutit's justification for rejecting my appeal was that I used "cherry picked factoids to spin articles": if that's the case then let Fuhghettaboutit or somebody else post some equally verifiable "factoids" for balance. I don't see censoring the truth as a valid way to achieve "balance." Let them add their own truth.
Wikipedia is teeming with people who have one agenda or another, but I don't see that as a legitimate criticism as long no one agenda among the admins is allowed to stifle expression of its opposite.
In the mean time I would appreciate the restoration of my account or at least the unlocking of my personal user talk page so that I can continue appealing my indefinite suspension until I hit upon an admin who is able to see beyond his own point of view. I am sure that there must be a few.
--Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.150.90 ( talk) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know if you would permit a person to rejoin Wikipedia who had formerly been User:ESCStudent774441 and User:LonelyKnightRider. I feel he has alot to offer Wikipedia even if others don't. There's alot of articles that former user would like to work on, especially articles about various radio stations and broadcasting related topics. 68.236.155.30 ( talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales, I'm CristianCantoro and I'm mostly active on italian wikipedia, I'm also a member of Wikimedia Italia. I know that sunday, 18th october you will be in Bergamo for a conference on Wikipedia @ BergamoScienza. Now, we promote as WMI a project called " Wiki@Home" (on the italian version of Wikinews) and we wanted to make an interview with you. I've already contacted the press office of BergamoScienza, but they said that they'll only organise a press conference. I was wondering if you may give us some time for a "private" interview. The interview will take about 20 minutes, I guess. Thank you in advance. -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy to do it. Can you contact me by email for logistical details?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, sorry to interupt you. You are probably not the main brain in these things today but I have to say, I had a look at something on Wikia and had a few things to edit. There is a new format going on over there. I can't think of better words. There is a free 3D editor app called Blender 3D and it is to commercial 3D as Linux is to Windows. 3D is that bit more complicated than simple paint and draw. Paint and draw is a one handed operation but when it comes to 3D or even simple typing, you need two hands because by the time you have used the mouse on all the little pictures and stuff you forgot your place or something. I admit, the new input method has a few bugs but I still think that the editing method I am using right now is only complicated when you get into templates and stuff. I am writing here because as they say if you see something in America you will see it here in a few years. Sure, you could tweak the templates and the appearance but as for the bulk of it it shouldn't be to difficult as is for anyone capable of making the words. Couple of equals and a few apostophes, it's perfect. All best ~ R. T. G 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
How can I join wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.150.155 ( talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, We're going to organize meetup for the first time in a Pakistani city Karachi for users of the wiki projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Where we, take high tea and chat about Wikimedia projects. I would like to have your comments and thoughts on this. I would appreciate if you've some words for those, going to join Wikimeetup Karachi. Thank you! Saqib talk 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo
Three-year terms have been the norm for appointments to the Committee, but are starting to look decidedly long. I have the distinct impression that the community would be pleased, on balance, if the norm for new appointments were two years.
At issue, I guess, is whether a term-length (i) is sufficient in relation to new arbs' learning curve, and (ii) is sufficient to reap the benefits of staggered terms, where the experienced pass on their skills to newer arbs. This year's appointees seem to have been well prepared for the task and, where necessary, to have gained the required skills and experience rather quickly. I am optimistic that the electoral process is likely to continue to recommend highly skilled candidates.
Are you amenable to the idea of two-year terms (with the opportunity, as now, to stand for re-election)? I'm unsure of the opinions of the current arbs, although they may well be supportive. I wonder whether you might consider sounding them out on this matter. Tony (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
First Maurice Jarre now Rush Limbaugh, how much longer until WP:BLP is going to be taken seriously by Wikimedia? Wikiquotes is an unmonitored landmind; it needs to be scrapped, full-protected or merge it with WP, or at least get some freaking policies enacted over there (there is no BLP policy to speak of on WQ, and relatively few active admins). This is getting out of hand and permanently scarring whatever reputation Wikimedia has left. Please, address this break in the dam before it washes WP down the drain of the internet annals. -- 207.206.137.79 ( talk) 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for spotting the Strohviol – Stroh violin fork. These pages were indeed dealing with the same class of instruments, as far as I can tell. I've redirected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool idea no? Do it!!! I would buy one. Even though I'm rubbish at puzzles... -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 16:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, First meetup between Wikipedians in Karachi was a success. We mostly focused on development and publicity of Urdu edition of Wikipedia. You can see post-meetup media coverage and a detailed report however in Urdu. We're working on making English version of reports and send it to you as soon as earlier for your attentions. I was expecting just 3 attendees however I found total 6 including me at the venue. So sorry that I could not take photographs cause you know well about Muslim society is so conservative about that. Thank you. Saqib talk 11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
The following is a part reply to my Unblock request; .....The opinion of the various uninvolved administrators who have reviewed your block and declined to lift it is that any benefits you have brought to the project are heavily outweighed by the disruption. This seems to be a reasonable assessment and there is therefore no obvious reason, at this moment, for ArbCom to intervene.....
One of the administrators said that wikipedia works on consensus. So does it mean that if the editors are not well informed, any content will simply be termed as POV, soapbox, original research, vandalism, or disruption? Also I am damn sure editors do not take any effort to verify sources provided, if so, they should not have any right for accusations. Kindly scrutinize my case and decide in the best interest of wikipedia.
A suggestion: Pull up your socks on wikipedia policies, before this pulls wikipedia down. User:Gaunkars of Goa -- 59.95.15.49 ( talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks so much for wikipedia. Its impact on society is huge and still growing. Would appreciate your thoughts about removing artificial encyclopedia boundary and making it more of a knowledge base. Please comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Why_is_it_so_in_the_first_place...
Thanks!
Daniel.Cardenas (
talk)
19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings.
I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles. It is my opinion that Presidency of Barack Obama has violated this policy, by not including relevant info that is critical of the subject. When I added this negative info to balance out the article, other editors erased it. Now they want me permanently banned from editing all political articles.
I trust your judgement. I would appreciate it if you would read the discussion of my proposed ban here, and offer your opinion on it. If you support the ban, I will respect your wishes.
I am sure you are aware of the media attention that was given to past bias in the John Edwards article, regarding the exclusion of info on his extramarital affair. I hope you don't want the same thing to happen to Presidency of Barack Obama.
I am aware that you normally don't get involved in content disputes. However, the attempt to ban me is a serious threat to the NPOV policy that wikipedia is based on, so I hope you will consider getting involved.
Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Just wanted to know, if you consider making a bot, do you have to be an admin to do so? Plus, if a user has been blocked directly, or has been mistakenly auto/blocked, will this affect the number of votes on an RfA? Cheers,-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Good morning, Jimbo. We've (belatedly) started the process of setting up this year's Arbcom Election, and there is some discussion about the length of terms for the newly elected arbitrators. From last year's election discussion ( WT:ACE2008), the Arbcom RFC (at WP:ARBCOMRFC), and discussion for this year's election, there appears to be some interest in switching to a two-tranche system with staggered 2 year terms, rather than the current 3 year terms. Functionally, this would give us 9 arbs per tranche, with some elected this year to a 1 year rump term with Alpha, and others getting a full 2 years that would match Beta. There are arguments both ways; from a procedural standpoint, it won't impact how we run the election, but it might influence who runs. I'd invite your thoughts on the matter at WT:ACE2009#Vacancies, if you get the chance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Jimbo. I'm curious about your take on the discussions regarding the David Shankbone article. If the article is kept at the AfD will you support deletion if there is later a media controversy involving the subject? Can people opt in or out at any time depending on how the news cycle treats them?
I ask because, as you might recall, I've been critical about the appearance of nepotism, double standards, censorship, and bias on Wikipedia where editors are treated differently than other article subjects. And as far as an "informal" policy of letting persons with marginal notability opt out of having BLPs on them, unless we post this somewhere and notify COI editors instead of blocking and banning them when they try to alter their articles, it seems like another example of Wikipedia policy being made to benefit those with insider knowledge. Can the opt out be invoked at any time? Is it appropriate to grant special treament to those with membership in the Wiki-Club? Or do you have a different take? Should the David Boothroyd article be recreated? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, you have a bully pulpit. Use it. Start commenting in AfDs of BLPs so that your voice actually is heard directly there, arguing for opt out and for default to delete on marginally notable. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am disgusted by the antiitalianism behind the decision to delete Maltese Italians. The "usual" trick of accusing an Italian of sockpuppetry has obtained the usual result of erasing an article that has been 1) changed totally from the initial version;2) changed the name (the last name was "Pro-Italian Maltese");3) two or three times times requested to move or delete. Wikipedia needs articles showing all the areas of encyclopedia knowledge, not only those contrary to the Italian people in their historical/geographical Italian region. Indeed there were plenty of valid and useful references in the article just erased. The wikipedian who masterminded the vote against the article, showed HATE even toward his own people, only because they wanted to unite Malta to Italy. He even forced to retire a Maltese Italian who wanted to save the article (see user:Maltalia). Do you believe this is a fair attitude? I am sure you think that an encyclopedia can't be one-sided. And finally allow me to write that Wikipedia should not be in the hands of groups that do meatpuppetry: they accuse even a simple wife of a banned user, like me, of doing sockpuppetry in order to get unfair advantage and erase the articles they don't like. Sincerely.-- Mrs.Maria ( talk) 23:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello User talk:Jimbo Wales - I have pasted the following conversation below which can also be found on my talk page User talk:Classicfilms. Regards, - Classicfilms ( talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
How is it that a WWI battle gets a couple of sentences, but a minor video game character gets an extensive article? Presumably this is not based on relative importance, and perhaps is more down to the interests of the prevailing demographics in Wikipedia. Perhaps more needs to be done to get a bit more balance in those demographics, so that Wikipedia doesn't add to the perceived (by some) dumbing down of humanity and is, in turn, taken a bit more seriously by those that whose interests may not be the same as the people who write the video game articles. What do you think Jimbo? JasonBeales ( talk) 00:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering, if you can make a list of Wikipedians that left Wikipedia in the past 3 months, since Neurolysis' departure. It seems that a number of editors leave Wikipedia in a single week.
On a completely unrelated note, can you explain WHY are our trusted Wikipedians are leaving?-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1)When I feel that the project is no longer fun to me (see WP:GTFO} 2)Considering too much failed RfAs 3)When I'm OLD 4)Any other reasons, other than that of "the same stuff repeated".
Any inquires? Contact me on my email (dave.gregory96@gmail.com) or leave a note on my talk page!-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo Wales
The lest year a don’t have a work, so I went in http://yi.wikisource.org/ , and I have buildet it. I put already almost 2000 texts of Yiddish. And that is my question
I want to purchase a program that converts PDF documents to Word documents, in Hebrew. I have quite a few books in Yiddish in the PDF format and have to change them to Word. That way we'll be able to expand the web site with hundreds of texts. If we don't add them, they won't be used by the general public because these books are no longer printed. They were published from 50 to 100 years ago in Europe before the war and are studied in universities. They can't be bought anywhere and can only be photocopied at the university. The program that converts the PDF costs $700 here in Israel.
--
Israel.s (
talk)
10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
How much do you think it costs in Indonesia?-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you Mr. Wales.
You direct me to many options which can help me, when the simplest thing would be that I'll have this SW and can work with it without being dependent on otheres.
Since Wikimedia doesn't have the sum to fund this, I will try to collect money from my friends, which will probably take a few month. Then I will but the SW and will be able to add many hunderes of texts to Yiddish wikitext. --
Israel.s (
talk)
08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jimbo Wales. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Has Become the Source of Disinformation - A Public Forum To Mislead and Con the Public
Wikipedia is a free forum, unregulated, confusing and irresponsible.
Now, criminals use this forum to post lies.
Wikipedia is being used as an authoritative and trusted source of pseudo-encyclopedic information to mislead people and steal money. Wikipedia is being used to convince unknowing users to accept lies about professional requirements, to promote social agendas, and to influence public opinion - not to educate. Even scams are being perpetrated. Confidence-game practitioners and sales departments of companies are scheming through Wikipedia articles to influence busy decision-makers. This encyclopedia is used to deceive people into enrolling in education seminars or worse. People purchasing professional services are being mislead about many different legally regulated activities. The purpose of misinformation is to alter the beliefs of the targeted victim; as used in Wikipedia, its purpose is to get money from people or to trap them.
As nice an idea as it is for a completely public contributor based encyclopedia, this source of information is gradually being polluted by dishonest people who have a selfish agenda, not an interest in providing accurate and informative information. Wikipedia is now, by consent, contributing to this disinformation.
If Wikipedia doesn't do something to control the editing process so as to eliminate these misleading and inaccurate postings, and malicious deletions, two things will happen.
First, Wikipedia will become a joke and the last place that anyone will go to get an explanation.
Second, Wikipedia will get sued in a Federal or State Court for contributing to fraud and violations of many State and Federal laws.
Wikipedia has to take responsibility for what it is aiding to do, deceive the public.
ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho ( talk • contribs)
Funny thing is that a lot of articles are checked by the media wanting to drum up the "Wikipedia is wrong" story, and most of the time they are surprised by how accurate Wikipedia is. And WP can't be "sued...for contributing to fraud" for simply being inaccurate. Darrenhusted ( talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No one can tell exactly what ArchitectBoiseIdaho is actually complaining about. There is no reason to speculate about it or to respond. — Finell (Talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If User:ArchitectBoiseIdaho is complaining Wikipedia's notability, or the latter of any accuracy on Wikipedia, this only requires the response of Wikipedia heights. I think he feels that Wikipedia is just not as fun as it was then. If he feels so, please, ask him to leave.- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been ordered to create an account:
As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs [4] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement [5] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion [6] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [7] which interestingly may have produced this response [8] to my edit here: [9]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage: [10] as a stub without references. This was my work: [11]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.
As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute [12] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed [13] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here [14] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. A previous discussion here on this page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history [15] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here [16]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time.|- 99.135.174.186 ( talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ich habe soeben als Administrator kandidiert. Ich will in der Deutschen Wikipedia Administrator werden.
Es waren 24 Administratoren gegen mich. Diese 24 Administratoren haben ihr Meinungsbild basierend auf komplett falschen Informationen abgegeben. Diese 24 Administratoren haben einzig die Edits berücksichtigt. Ich habe wenige Edits. Ich bin aber ein Sichter.
Sollte ich ein Administrator in der Deutschen Wikipedia werden?
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Me too I did not have all information. Now I got a deeper understanding. Thank you.
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
At least I gained some more edits. Also I gained some new experiences. You only win, a creative participation is all. :-)
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 06:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo Wales, T3h 1337 b0y has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ms dos mode ( talk) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the smile. Wikipedia is a great place to get in touch with several cultures, for instance German or English. Let's go on and smile.
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 06:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy. fyi, there is an RFC about the structure of Arbcom 2010: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. Your unique perspective/views would be a valuable addition to the RFC. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to check out Andrew Dalby's book The World and Wikipedia? Is it any good? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what I'm worried about. I've seen this on their [[Special:Contributions]] page and find that they were indefinitely blocked! Any guidelines referring to this matter?-- One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, can I ask users to add the number of colons?-- One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Juliancolton may have retired. You need to do what any pusher worth his salt would do. Go over there and get high with him on Wikipedia again. Before the say-no-to-Wiki folks succeed in performing an intervention with him and he gets too high a count on his days of Wiki sobriety. ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Does Jimbo edit wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IWantToSayNo ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
He awakens to learn:
Is this acceptable? It isn't only that they are on a highly dangerous drug, but that they are also editing while on it really bothers me, especially when they have ops. Is there any applicable guideline, standard, or tradition regarding this? Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I've done some of my best coding while stoned, it is actually quite relaxing. Munchies are a problem though, as chip crumbs are a bitch to get out of a keyboard. Then there's the issues with memory, um...what were we talking about? Tarc ( talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that counts should be the editing output, not the mental state of the editor. If the editor does bad edits, we can revert/block/ban him regardless of his mental state. For what I know, you may all well be a Chinese room or a Boltzmann brain , but that's irrelevant. -- Cyclopia talk 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it silly season so soon? This is the most goofball non-issue on Wikipedia all day. November 1 must be the new April 1. If this is a joke, I think we've got it. If not, the thread is just a personal attack on Chillum and ought to be drawn to a close. On Wikipedia everyone is judged on the strength of their edits, not what they do in the privacy of their home, or what process their brain has been through to produce those edits. Indignation that somewhere a Wikipedian is doing something illegal, or that drug-taking Wikipedians are a threat to the project, is too farfetched to be worth any serious response. It may be unwise and undignified at a personal level, by some standards of decorum, to announce or joke about one's own drug-taking. But in other circles it's just fine, and we're not in any position to judge. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Remember to Keep cool during discussions. Overheated machinery tends to break down. :)
Unfortunately i was out of dove's, so i guess a cool drink will have to do for now. The temperature is a bit hot around here, so take a good glass of lemonade with a few ice cubes to cool down, and then resume talking. Nothing better then a cool resfreshment to cool down a heated discussion!. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the title of this section is not entirely appropriate. I suggest a pole (not sure whether it should be a North or South pole) to decide between the following two alternative titles:
Any preferences? Hans Adler 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer that all users, not just admins, conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism at all times. Certain kinds of references to illegal drug use would not be appropriate in any normal workplace, and are therefore similarly are not appropriate for Wikipedia. At the same time, I see no need to get too up in arms about a joke, an error, or similar. If there's an ongoing pattern of behavior which appears to be disruptive or which would tend to reflect negatively on the project, then it could be addressed - preferably with a minimum of drama and hand-wringing. But based on my experience with hundreds of Wikipedians all around the world, we are in no danger of being overrun by drug fiends or anything. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(←)Whatever, O. You keep climbing that Reichstag, kiddo. :) Crafty ( talk) 04:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A look at Chillum's contribs indicates he did not edit while high on LSD other than to his talk page once. So in no way can his actions be considered inappropriate - professionalism means not working in an altered state, and Chillum has indeed acted to this high professional standard. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Would an admin who was a member of the Native American Church be required to refrain from the use of psychotropics even when not editing? ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, please see my comment here. As a concerned member of the community I think this is something you could do to help. Jehochman Talk 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, please do yourself a favour and ignore all of the above section, unless of course you'd like to get a needless headache. RMHED ( talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Y'all realize Wales probably has a headache with the orange bar sticking on every few minutes... The reason for "Y'all" is that this page is practically not Jimbo's anymore :P Zoo Fari 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I was always wondering why editors do this (posting their "dirty laundry stuff" here). Still don't get it. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Check out this listing posted at my local section of Craigslist. What!? ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh just ignore it. This is hardly the first time paid editing has come up. Prodego talk 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kawaii is the Japanese word for cute! Silly person! see this educational video- [26] -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'm writing to inform you of a complaint against an administrator for wikihounding, disruptive editing, and improper tagging of good faith edits as vandalism. I'm concerned about getting fair review and fair resolution of this matter, given that the editor in question, Arthur Rubin, is also an administrator and has a long history, according to his current and archived talk pages, of engaging in reversion practices that have upset a very long list of people and yet there has been no action taken in the past. The case is ongoing here. The problem began after I made a simple addition of a book to a reading list on a controversial page that I had never edited in the past. Within the next 9 minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors. Even after making it clear my edits weren't vandalism, he continued to revert all of my edits to all pages, and he'll make successive excuses as to the reasons why. I'm seeing initial evidence that some people reviewing this may be trying to reduce this matter to being a case of him labelling things as vandalism rather than taking the time to write out a genuine reason for reverting. That's not the issue here, in my opinion. I feel bullied and hounded, and it's intimidating coming from an administrator. Thank-you. MeSoStupid ( talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales, First of all deep thanks for this incredible chain-link library you created, there are few men who believed in sharing information,sharing power. Without being too long I would like to suggest you to create a link in between Wikipedia pages in different language. I will try to explain myself better with an example: If I'm looking for "Income Approach" the english page will turn up. NOW if I want to know what is its corresponding result in Italian for instance?Or German? Since I'm sure there are their corresponding pages in different languages it will take only few second to create even an ultimate tool for translation. It sounds to me a great idea, and it will only take a few to reserve a small buttons section for languages. That will make the difference to something that already seems perfect. Hope to hear from you soon
Roberto S. <Email redacted; it is not necessary to provide personal contact information> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.186.137 ( talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit remained in your BLP for almost 14 hours even though over 800 accounts have the article watchlisted (I'm not one of them). Note that this happened in spite of the article being semi-protected. Perhaps you might have a personal stake in trying to expedite the implementation of a strict version of flagged revisions? Cla68 ( talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an opinion on this ANI?
Admins don't like wikipedia policies. When will this end? -- 91.130.188.8 ( talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support and rejuvenate the enwiki community. I'm looking to get a handful of people to get it off the ground, so what are your thoughts on this? Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Supporting volunteers" is, naturally, an idea that no-one will oppose. If anyone has concrete ideas on how we can do that, then everyone should be open to them. I'm just less convinced that a new group or project is the way to go. Two reasons: 1) Good ideas are good ideas, organisations and governments generally set up special groups when they have a lack of any ideas. If people have good ideas, there are currently lots of avenues open to them to propose and develop them. So I don't see what good the project does (although it may otherwise be perfectly harmless). 2) The ESP experience was not only negative because it was obsessed with its own structures, it was also negative in that it create a feeling that there were a self-appointed group of moral guardians running about rudely telling people to be civil - which certainly did not aid in creating a supportive environment (granted, most of them were well-meaning).
I suspect I'm also suspicious of moves that begin with vaguely pointing at current dramas and tensions and suggesting that they are evidence of some new deterioration and that things would be better if we could rewind to some golden age. Are things worse? What's the evidence of that? I remember far more drama in the past, and far more incivility. What is really needed to kick off any reform is a more sophisticated identification of what the problem is that one is trying to tackle. People are people, rudeness is rudeness; it has always been that way. If anyone can mitigate against some of that - good luck to them, but until there's some specifics there's nothing much to discuss.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales:
This letter is an alert, and a request for action in relation to disruption on Wikipedia that discourages good faith editors.
I am a well-credentialed contributor to WP under the user name Brews ohare, a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Laboratories, a former Editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, a professor of EE at the University of Arizona, and the author of technical books and articles. I don't think WP wishes to loose such editors. I have however grown such a distaste for interaction with the WP environment that I have decided to withdraw for the time being.
There are two major problems: one is lack of control of incivility, and the other is Administrators run amok.
As for the first, talk-page guidelines such as WP:Civil WP:NPA WP:Talk WP:Poll and others are flaunted. These violations are ignored by administrators, who even make violations themselves. The use of bans, and threats to ban, are applied unequally by administrators to sway the balance of talk-page discussion, making them bullying participants rather than administrators. The disruptions by uncivil editors and the interference by administrators make open discussion on talk-pages difficult or impossible , and these unwarranted activities encourage intolerance of even sourced mainstream opinion.
As for the second, administrators have lost sight of their roles. Administrators must be reminded that they don't run WP, they moderate it. Their role is to catalyze open discussion of sourced material, the backbone of WP, not to intrude their own preferences. Whether administrators are simply inept or subject to la folie des grandeurs, it is inexcusable for administrators to be unreflective, belligerent, and cavalier about WP welfare. A mutual admiration society is not healthy. I have proposed some sensible guidelines for administrators .
This matter has reached a point where careful review of administrators' actions is mandatory to avoid destruction of WP. It is insufficient to simply repeat to administrators their responsibilities. Some direct action is needed, and some administrators must be removed from their positions to underline the seriousness of these duties. Perhaps a committee can initiate review, which will take some time. A simpler, and possibly effective action, would add an additional approach for administrator recall to those presently under review, an approach allowing easier removal of administrators who fail to execute their duties impartially, and do not observe and enforce guidelines .
These matters are serious, and a letter cannot explain them adequately. Upon request, I'd be delighted to augment my description of the intolerance to open discussion outlined above with details from recent discussion at WP:NOR and from the Case/Speed of light. Although this particular case was completely mishandled, I wish to emphasize that I have little interest in overturning the remedies imposed there. I am highlighting this case, with which I am very familiar, simply as a blatant example of biased and uncomprehending lack of judgment on the part of administrators, where their laxity in enforcing guidelines led to a complete circus on Talk: Speed of light, and indeed, in the conduct of the case itself.
I hope action will be taken that restores a cooperative editing atmosphere on WP. I wish for WP's ultimate success in achieving a healthy editing environment, but prompt and decisive action is needed.
Regards,
John R Brews
Brews ohare ( talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Check out my sandbox! Maildiver ( talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've made a new script instead of tags <ref> in "scientific" style (but compatible with it and any other markup). It's simpler than tags "ref", for this example:
[Greenwood, 1997|p.1202] in a body of the article, and
[*Greenwood, 1997] and description of a book - in the "Bibliography" section.
Working sample, based on article zinc (it is not my article, I chose it at random), I've placed here: http://ru.great.wikia.com/wiki/Zinc Source code of script is here. X-romix ( talk) 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The two most common types of referencing systems used are:
- author-date systems—such as the Harvard system, APA and MLA
- numerical systems—such as Chicago or Turabian, Vancouver and Footnote [27]
It is possible to adjust showing reference (author-date or numerical) system in the personal user settings. X-romix ( talk) 18:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Aloha Jimbo.. Just wondering if you can help me out.. I wanted to add my website link to [28] as I have the biggest and most up to date "V" website on the net.. Just wondering if you can please add it to the external link section, as when I do, it gets removed, and my last membership was banned for spam etc, when all I did was add a link, and changed it a couple of times trying to get it looking right..
My website is The V Files and can be found at [29].. Thank you for your time and patience.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VGooderV ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).
Can you explain..
Aloha.> Well just wondering if you can explain why others can link then.. There is an unofficial forum there that has nothing to do with the show officially.. Being this:
[30] They are not affiliated with the show, at least I have backing from Jace Hall and Scott Rosenbaum, executive producers.. Also how is [31] official? Site has nothing to do with the show only a review so why can they? So why can others be allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VGooderV ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hi my name is Jerem Jurey and i lived in Sidney,Iowa. Is it possible to embed by url or upload by url, as i have a bunch of Park Ridge Transit Photos that i would like to place in the article, and am wondering it that is possible,
User talk:Matt037291 13:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
...that whenever I see a racist comment on any page, I plan to remove it, and I will likely block the contributor. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds completely appropriate to me. Be sure to carefully follow policy and of course don't over-interpret remarks. But yes, racist commentary has no place in Wikipedia.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I hope you're going to participate in this important event. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ruwiki checkuser ru:user:Ilya Voyager published the IP address of a user which he obtained using his checkuser privileges. Please check if this type of behavior is in agreement with Wikipedia privacy policy. That's the link to his edit in which he disclosed the IP address. SA ru ( talk) 21:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not following drame on ru-wikipedia, but the IP made the same spam edits on the same article as the both accounts in the report see e.g. [33] none needs checkuser to guess that the accounts are connected. I think ru:user:Ilya Voyager would better not to mention the IP in the sock report whether he guessed the connection using the checkuser tools or not but I personally see no crime here. AFAIK ru:user:Lvova was under checkuser investigations because she been quite a trusted wikipedian (a member of OTRS, an admin on ru-wikipedia and a spokesperson for Russian Wikichapter) has shared her IP with a notorious sockpuppeeter GSB. Nobody as far as I can tell was interested in her love life. I am a proponent of creation a sort of interproject conflict investigation team to act when serious allegations against a project arbcom but I am not sure there are anything interesting in this incident Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see this thread on it. Your input, and hopefully, action concerning the matter would be greatly appreciated.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I know that I shouldn't engage in general chat in Wikipedia (I like to keep discussions related to Wikipedia), but I must do this. I came here to say how fantastic it is to see that a founder of such a big organizaion/company as Wikipedia is, creates pages and edits like everyone else, when I am sure that you have alot of other things to do. I must say that I admire you very greatly. Ilyushka88 talk 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Jimbo, I never expected to be able to talk to the founder of Wikipedia, but now I do! Wow. Do you ever realize how helpful Wikipedia is to the entire world? For example, everyone I know uses Wikipedia for something (myself being the only active editor). Anyway, I just have always wanted to thank you for creating the most amazing tool on the Internet. Whenever I type something in on Google, Wikipedia comes up first the majority of the time. But WP:GOOGLEHITS tells us that it is not a guideline for notability, right? Well, in this case, I think it is. Thanks again! The Arbiter ★★★ 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The Arbiter has given you a fresh piece of
fried chicken! Pieces of
fried chicken promote
WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the
WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{ subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{ subst:MunchChicken}}!!
I'm posting this here because I know that damn near everybody who's anybody has this page on their watchlist, and because I know that the Biography of Living Persons Policy is something close to Jimmy's heart.
Check this out: Sol Wachtler
What's wrong you say? Sol Wachtler is the guy who very famously said that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich. If you can find that quote anywhere on this page, I'll email you a cookie.
Furthermore, he's apparently trying to edit his own page, and I don't blame him. Someone - perhaps multiple someones - is very obviously trying to play up his downfall. Mr. Wachtler was both a lawyer and judge, and I'm sure did his job at least well enough to create some enemies. It takes one to find their way to the internet and try to get some payback.
The poor guy is 79 frippin' years old. If anybody is left here, please help him out and get some balance.
Also, please don't tell me to do it myself. I'm actually a writer for dough now, and don't have the time or, frankly, the inclination. I'm proud of my dasy and nights here, but I look back them and realize that I somehow managed to wade into one shit-storm of editor/admin conflict after another from pretty much day one. I don't blame exactly Wikipedia for that, but after a few years of personal growth (in spite of myself), I've simply lost the taste for the drama and ego, as well as what it did to me personally.
On a more general note, I'm very sorry to say that I'm using Wikipedia less and less as even a reference in my own online writing. This saddens me greatly as both a former editorial contributor and a current financial contributor (not trying to puff myself, we're talking like 10 bucks here and there).
For example, I recently had to call bullshit on the M. Scott Peck page because I used the Wikipedia link to try to introduce someone online to his writing. As I usually do, I just trusted that Wikipedia would at the very least get the basic facts right, which I consider to be impressive for Mr. Peck. It turns out that page was (probably still is) completely jacked (to point out the Encyclopedic problems with this page would take me a loong time), and contained a totally unsourced and untrue statement about him being secretly homophobic, when in fact it's exactly the opposite.
Just writing this much makes me feel guilty and shitty because I really DON'T have the time. For friends who see this and have left messages on my discussion page, use my email. Just call me the Alice who decided to side-step the rabbit hole.
-- NinaOdell | Talk 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
As a jurist, I'm sure Mr.
Hello, my King ... Saw you pass through ANI today, where it appears I may soon lose the right to post more than 100 words with no formatting allowed—the price of extraordinary measures in service of BLP NPOV. (I.E., For this complex message, it is either now or never, hence tonight.)
No request for a touch of your all-powerful hand in this matter, but will ask of those all-knowledgeable who stand watch on your page to inform me if appealing such things is possible, or preventable, however much a bad idea that usually is.
Before I go, I will mention another good knight who says he is leaving—sufficiently abused by that tribalism which so often can unbalance human affairs.
Knights know this realm is not a system of justice, but being impaled by a travesty of it is quite unpleasant. :)
A report from the front ... and perhaps my last greater-than-100-word formatted communication. I close with half of something I composed and submitted when Signpost asked for "opinion" pieces.
Two Wikipedia [English] sonnets linked by the theme of civility (1 of 2)
{WPO.001.01} ____ PRETEND "
IGNORE ALL RULES" somewhere applied. |
To those honorable souls who watch this page: I hope you will indulge this gesture briefly because I have cleaned at least one bit of trash from 5,000 pages of the project. And again, if there is an answer regarding any path of appeal, however quixotic and usually to be avoided, please let me know (here, or on my talk).
(the fallen knight salutes and withdraws) Proofreader77 ( talk) 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Have some dignity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.43.123 ( talk) 13:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Since I have been acused of appealing to Jimbo (rather than what I actually did, which was be too wussy to actually ask), I will get down off the horse and kneel ... and ask the founder's extraordinary release from pissant 100-word-limit prison. Such an act of grace will spare the community endless hours of suffering from my whining about it. Dear Mr. Wales, please release me. I will never do that again. (As many sonnets in your honor as you wish.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake,
Ignore all rules applies
in one place where I'd never think it would.
Where social judgment, not clear rules, surmise
the crime and punishment. Frame bad and good.
Just ask Hannah Arendt what this portends:
"The social" overriding facts and fair.
Dismissing difs for BS from their friends.
Protest or ask a question? Don't you dare!
Submit. Shut up. Or we will block you out.
Don't wikilawyer us. For that we'll ban.
No truth but accusations that we spout.
Don't think that outcasts can defy the clan.
ButThereIsNotOneTribe at ANI.
SomeSayTheySpeakForAll. But that's a lie. # # # Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I recently stumbled upon Wikipedia:JIMBODOESNTCARE. Some of it seemed a little brash, particularly the 'Summary' .. do you agree with this page? -- œ ™ 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the page at all. It seriously misstates my position. It is very good to let people know that I can't make them sysop, but the idea that I don't care is just absurd. And certainly "you're just another number" is insulting to both me and the reader. The page could be renamed to "Jimbo would love to help you, but often can't" with an explanation about why I can't make people sysops, why I generally decline to get involved directly in content disputes, etc. This would be more welcoming to the user who is trying to solve a problem, and not insulting to me personally. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I think a good idea would be to implement a technology like Google Wave. Wikipedia would be more flexible.
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you are one of the owners of Wikia, how do you feel about allowing people to link to articles there? Since the deletionists have succeeded in mass destruction of almost every character page their rampaging hordes have ever come across, as well as many episodes, weapons list, and other valid content, how about we add a link to the bottom of every Wikipedia article to a valid entry at Wikia, where the information was copied over to preserve it? People get their basic information at the Wikipedia, and if they want more detailed information, they know where they can find it at. As it is now, whenever a link to the Wikia is added, it is almost always deleted by someone. Its often the same information that was considered acceptable on Wikipedia for years, before a small group decided to change the notability guidelines, and use that as an excuse to mass destroy all that they did not like. By this simple compromise, everyone can have what they want. Dream Focus 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! That strategy worked pretty well for Digimon (which had the good fortune to not have anyone remove those links).-- Twilight Helryx 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This article really needs urgent intervention, because as far as I can see, none of the users editing it are adhering to a NPOV and it wouldn't surprise me if their all sockpuppets. As a result this article is completely untrustworthy. (Posted here to gain max attention) -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 12:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
89.207.160.254~ an IP belonging to Wolseley PLC, I just sent the company an Email telling them about the vandalism from one of their computers hoping they can take action. I'm fully capable of sending professional Emails required for this, so I was pretty confident. Hmmm I hope this was ok... -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimmy, care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Werlé? Grsz 11 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
When I put the term in this header in the search button I get sent to this non-existent wikimedia page rather than to the article Species - The Awakening which is what i was looking for. This is entirely inappropriate as the show is displayed in various listings from the UK press association as Species: The Awakening but to be honest I don't even have any idea of where exactly would be the place to air this issue which for all I know affects a number of search terms. What I would like to do and would normally do is to set up a redirect tot he article but I cannot because of this automatic redirect to a non-existent wikimedia page. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be another successful season of fund-raising. I have renewed my support by donating $100 today. I see this as an excellent investment because wikipedia provides me an excellent platform for reading others' ideas and sharing my own ideas. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I know that we haven't yet adopted a policy or guideline on paid editing, but you have said "I will personally block any cases that I am shown". User Chaser has identified one such case involving Jsamuel430 ( talk · contribs) and the article for The Grief Recovery Institute. I suggest that a checkuser on the account would be prudent, in case this user has been editing with other accounts as well. Thanks and regards. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:49, 19 November 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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
Apparently, Wikimedia moved to San Francisco quite some time ago, but the servers are still in Florida. With that, where are you exactly? San Francisco? What about the developers? Do they even show up? 67.180.161.183 ( talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a global nomad. Having said that, I'm based in Florida and spend a lot of time in New York City.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You will be aware of the "undertow/Law/Casliber/etc." matter, and of the East European Mailing List. I think it is time for you to make one last unilateral policy decision, and impose a method by which admins, and arbs and 'crats, can be made accountable to the community and have their accesses removed if found to be in breach of their responsibilities. Something needs to be done to re-establish the trust the community should have in its enhanced privilege endowed members, and a method to quickly remove people from positions of trust where it can be demonstrated it has been lost. I will work with you on this, if you wish, and I can direct you to people who have expressed these concerns previously and have put in place procedures and proposals that can be adapted. Whatever system or procedure that may arise will likely be messy and time consuming and open to undue influence - but we have that at the moment, and it does not appear to solve the problems being discussed presently. I hope that you will consider this request, for the future interests of Wikipedia and its community. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to assist with the formulation, implementation, and enforcement of policies leading to a greater degree of responsibility and trust at all levels of Wikipedia. But why should this one thing be the "last" thing I do, my friend? I'm not going anywhere. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Which image? A long-running debate - but the answer is blindingly obvious. See Talk:Human#New_Lead_Image. :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is time for Wikipedia to be bold to make the information complete.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it .....Mahatma Gandhi.
For this, you will need both the pen and the mind, Gandhi had.-- Gaunkars of Goa ( talk) 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you chose to remove a complaint Jimbo. It may have been ranty, but that sometimes happens with people who are frustrated. I haven't looked into the issues raised, so I don't know if they have merit, but simply removing a statement like that without addressing the concerns raised seems very bitey and strikes me as being in exceptionally bad form for Wikipedia's figurehead. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Read it through, and look into the details. If you think it merits my attention, please let me know. I didn't remove it because it was a complaint - I moved it because it was a long and tedious rant full of more editorializing than actual details. When I looked into the details, what I found wasn't particularly interesting. If you think I overlooked something important, by all means, I would like the opportunity to address it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Jimmy,
Just to let you know that all is not well on wikipedia. Almost all senior editors have started acting like autocrats and dictators. Many genuine facts are just not being considered for discussion, and are unreasonably termed as 'soapbox' or POV, and deleted. This is definitely killing the spirit of wikipedians and the credibility of wikipedia. This needs urgent attention! -- Gaunkars of Goa ( talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
*N.B. Gaunkars of Goa has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptively making inappropriate use of talk page space, soapboxing, using this project as a personal forum, and making threats against other users.
I also have a complaint about administrators.
I have a problem with some administrators at Wikipedia who seem to think that verifiable facts should not appear on the site if they contradict majority opinion.
A simple and clear example of this is the entry on Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. A New York Times article from 1919 refers to the former German chancellor as “of Jewish descent.” The entire PDF of that New York Times article is visible online and I provided a link to it to support the claim in the Wikipedia article, but yesterday future_perfect_at_sunrise deleted the information because of what he perceived as the agenda behind it.
This is a clear example of emotion overriding reason on the part of a Wikipedia administrator, and I am afraid the three other administrators who handled the appeal of my account suspension were no better in that regard.
Not one of them gave any indication of having checked whether any specific facts that I presented were true or false.
My username is Hadding. I would appreciate it if you would consider lifting the suspension and also have a talk with your administrators about allowing verifiable facts to be posted on Wikipedia even when they contradict what “everybody knows.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.151.114 ( talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to reason with one of the administrators, jpgordon, but this was impossible. The man's arrogance goes so far that not only does he feel no need to consider arguments, he also feels no need to maintain the appearance of civility. In his response to my appeal he declared, "This is bullshit!" and then when I posted a topic on his personal talk page his response was, "Fuck you!" and without at any point showing any sign of considering my arguments, proclaimed me a "lying sack of shit." He subsequently deleted the whole topic, but I happened to have saved it, so here is an account of one of your "hive mind administrators" in all his glory.
He drew my special attention because he had posted a comment on my user talk page and subsequently locked it, which I thought was unfair. He had posted this on my talk page:
"Here is a good refutation of the fraud this editor has been trying to perpetuate. It's an old denier argument: pretend the language doesn't mean what it always meant. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"
I went to jpgordon's own Wikipedia talk page and posted this:
__________
About Hadding
Don't you think it's a little unfair to continue making comments on my personal talk page when I can't respond?
By the way, that link that you posted there doesn't prove anything. We can all take it for granted that The Holocaust History Project claims that Ausrottung never means anything but killing. The dispute was precisely over whether they are right or wrong. I say that they are wrong.
You talk about "saying that words don't mean what they have always meant" but this shows that you are very naive on the subject of language, which happens to be my professional specialty. The meanings of words do change over time; that's one of the factors that makes Shakespeare hard to read. It's also why words don't mean the same in legalese as in colloquial English.
I can show some older German-English dictionaries that give some very different meanings for ausrotten and Ausrottung, and indeed I did include such a reference in my edit (subsequently deleted by future_perfect_before_sunrise) of the Posen Speeches article.
William Dwight Whitney's A Compendious German and English Dictionary (Henry Holt and Co., New York 1877) defines ausrotten as follows:
aus-rotten, tr. root out, ERADICATE, EXTIRPATE, exterminate, destroy.
"Eradicate" is simply Latin for "root out." "Exterminate," in older dictionaries like the 1910 edition of Webster's Practical Dictionary, has the primary meaning of to place outside (ex) the border (terminus).
So there it is.
By the way, I play bluegrass too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.151.114 (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
[Note that I was only trying to persuade jpgordon that the German word ausrotten in the past had more than one meaning, which is a demonstrable fact. I did not proclaimed myself a "Nazi" and I was not "denying the Holocaust" as such.]
Nice manners, jpgordon! And so rational!
Was I rude to you? Not one bit. Have I done anything other than try to reason with you?
I can add this to the portfolio that I am building to demonstrate what is so seriously wrong with Wikipedia's administrative staff.--Hadding
He banned my IP to try to prevent any response, but all I had to do was unplug and replug my modem to get around that, so then there was this:
Because some people actually can read and reason about what they have read, and it will be glaringly obvious to any rational person who reads the way you respond to my arguments that you are not rational. And they'll say, What the hell are people like this doing in charge of a so-called encyclopedia? --Hadding
Yawn. Go away and bother someone else. Your arguments aren't worth wasting time with. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's clear that you don't waste any time considering anybody's arguments. --Hadding
___________
jpgordon subsequently deleted this entire exchange.
So tell me, Jimbo, who here represents your ideal of the rational community objectively exchanging information? The Wikipedia administrators with whom I've been dealing are highly questionable in that regard.
I think Wikipedia is suffering from a problem that Plato noted in the Republic, that the people who have the greatest desire to wield authority are often precisely the ones who should not have it. Wikipedia needs a better vetting process for administrators, assuming that it has one at all.
--Hadding
Wikidemon, you are mistaken. One of the admins locked my userpage. I can't do anything except what I am doing. --Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.6.75 ( talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly know the holocaust happened. However, after looking into this myself, I believe jpgordon really handled this wrongly. It doesn't matter what this guy or gal believes it doesn't give jpgordon any right to say the things he said or handle the situation the way he did. I have encountered other people on the net that have had similar issues with jpgordon, i.e. rudness, foul language, and the sorts. I wish to remain anonymous in order to keep from feeling the wrath of jp. I am sure that wrath will come in an ip block. He is pretty good at shutting people up that disagree with him. I truly believe someone needs to tone down jp. 76.177.38.8 ( talk) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
http://lurkmore.ru/User:Jimbo_Wales — you? Dharma Station ( talk) 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of it. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I considered posting the anecdote you mentioned the other day about the feedback you got from a company on their experience with their article, but thought it might be better if you placed it somewhere on the page yourself. I am starting the ball rolling on this one to see what ideas can arise. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
Jimbo, if you could be so kind, I've a curious little editing question I could use some expert input on. (Somebody told me, I forget where, that you had been around Wikipedia for a while and sort of knew its ways.) My quandary, sir, is this. I moved a Wikipedia contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: " Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up is simply lacking. Would you happen to have an opinion as to whether a better name for it might even be " Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? As this, after all, is the name of the legal disagreement receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, per the link here. Btw, Jimbo, I've already started a discussion thread at the BLP Noticeboard, here --> WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn_Beck's dispute with Eiland-Hall over EH's use of Beck's name in a "parody" domain name . . . too. ↜Just M E here , now 00:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You know those fellow anonymous Wikipedians? Well, I would like to be one. But, I would like a userpage. Other IPs have it, why can't I? I even have a signature. I did consult two others before, but three recommend I counsult you. Cheers, --
67.180.161.183
(talk)
WHY SO SΣRIOUS?
01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator care to join us? — Ched : ? 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Jimbo Wales But why would anyone want to take away your tools? Except for one or two blocks of those you found uncivil (and you've already resigned your block button, as far as I know, unless you use "alternate account"s?). You seem relatively restrained and open to discussion and collegial collaboration as far as I'm concerned, but you know what they say about opinions and everybody being a critic.
Is it a coup? Will you invoke marshal law? Is it part of a conspiracy to consolidate power and tighten the reins?
Tune in next time for more of as the Wiki turns... ChildofMidnight ( talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
Wiki is definitely in the tank for Left-Wing personalities and biased against Conservative American commentators on Wiki. Mark Levin deserves better than the treatment shown and displayed here. His popularity and defense of American liberties and freedoms are commendable, have been deservedly recognized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.40.10 ( talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, I tried to have an article published on Wikipedia about a year and a half ago about an experimental and highly active band called In the labyrinth, but for some reason it never stuck and I never got an explanation why. Today I decided it's time to make a second attempt and once again my article was hastily deleted without any further hint of what was wrong. Maybe you've seen my contribuion somewhere or did I enter it in an unapropriate way, missing out on some esssential features? I would be glad to know because I do not have the time needed to sit all day attempting to get it right through trial and error. I've read all Wikipedia's instructions on how and what is needed, so please let me know how to improve or alter my work!
Not happy with this anonymous treatment I get at your website so far, Kdkwinana ( talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/October
Ok, so three CD releases having a world wide spread isn't enough if they didn't sell gold or gained price winning awards or something similar? So then I see!
However, I'm sure some of your readers or researchers will be missing out on something really interesting and innovative this way.
Maybe you need me to supply a bunch of noteworthy reviews with attached links and also references to various websites where music journalists have written about this act? Then you could see for yourselves what In the labyrinth is about!
But OK, if this is inadequate too, thanks anyway for your quick response!
Kdkwinana (
talk)
16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009
Then I will see what I can do as soon as I get some spare time on my hands.
However, I will only make one attempt hoping it's in line with what Wikipedia is expecting of me.
Tecnically I'm not sure I've grasped it all in detail, how to go about writing an article to meet the standards but I'll sure try!
Kdkwinana (
talk)
16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009
Thanks! But how do I get hold of an experienced editor? I haven't noticed any functions where one can choose who to talk to.
But maybe I just don't understand all the instructions presented on your website. After all, I am Swedish and needless to say, cannot comprehend every single syllable as well as most Anglo-Saxon speeking viewers would.
Also thanks a lot for mentioning to me how to initiate my article. That will come in handy once I go ahead with it.
Kdkwinana (
talk)
17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009
Yes but you didn't answer to my question on how to go about finding, as you expressed it, an experienced editor! Kdkwinana ( talk) 17:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten
Ta! You have been most helpful! Kdkwinana ( talk) 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten
Any chance you could contact some language schools and colleges to help practice their language skills by translating from Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki? For this to be a success we need numbers. Publicizing that we need translators in any language I think is an important step to make. Have you browsed French, Spanish and Italian and German wikis for instance? There are several million articles which we could benefit from having them translated into english... Himalayan 09:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, you may recall this discussion of last week? Well, I have drafted this rough page advancing a reasoning on why and how a policy for removing administrator privileges might be proposed. At the bottom of the page is links to two very good pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator and User:Tony1/AdminReview, which I think deserve far greater attention than my ramblings - if only for the numbers and calibre of the contributors. As it seems that there is now some part of the community that feels such a policy and process is needed, I consider that your traditional role may be of some benefit in building up the momentum that is required these days to get major policy changes (or new policies) adopted. Alternatively, if you hate the idea it is better that it is known now. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The main concern to me is that administrators should not take action against edits and editors based on their own personal feeling. Presently this is done not even in a subtle way but with blatant promotion of a point of view. They don't even try to disguise it.
The administrator future_perfect_at_sunrise who suspended my account INDEFINITELY, and later locked my user talk page so that I can't even complain through legitimate channels, complained about what he perceived as my "agenda." Well, I notice that he has a barnstar from the "Rouge Admin Cabal." Does that not represent an agenda? Indeed, it seems to be a proud proclamation of an agenda.
The first admin to receive and turn down my appeal, Fuhghettaboutit, says that my agenda (as he perceives it) makes him "nauseous": how is his personal feeling even slightly relevant to what is supposed to be a matter of verifiable fact? Fuhghettaboutit's justification for rejecting my appeal was that I used "cherry picked factoids to spin articles": if that's the case then let Fuhghettaboutit or somebody else post some equally verifiable "factoids" for balance. I don't see censoring the truth as a valid way to achieve "balance." Let them add their own truth.
Wikipedia is teeming with people who have one agenda or another, but I don't see that as a legitimate criticism as long no one agenda among the admins is allowed to stifle expression of its opposite.
In the mean time I would appreciate the restoration of my account or at least the unlocking of my personal user talk page so that I can continue appealing my indefinite suspension until I hit upon an admin who is able to see beyond his own point of view. I am sure that there must be a few.
--Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.150.90 ( talk) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know if you would permit a person to rejoin Wikipedia who had formerly been User:ESCStudent774441 and User:LonelyKnightRider. I feel he has alot to offer Wikipedia even if others don't. There's alot of articles that former user would like to work on, especially articles about various radio stations and broadcasting related topics. 68.236.155.30 ( talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales, I'm CristianCantoro and I'm mostly active on italian wikipedia, I'm also a member of Wikimedia Italia. I know that sunday, 18th october you will be in Bergamo for a conference on Wikipedia @ BergamoScienza. Now, we promote as WMI a project called " Wiki@Home" (on the italian version of Wikinews) and we wanted to make an interview with you. I've already contacted the press office of BergamoScienza, but they said that they'll only organise a press conference. I was wondering if you may give us some time for a "private" interview. The interview will take about 20 minutes, I guess. Thank you in advance. -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy to do it. Can you contact me by email for logistical details?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, sorry to interupt you. You are probably not the main brain in these things today but I have to say, I had a look at something on Wikia and had a few things to edit. There is a new format going on over there. I can't think of better words. There is a free 3D editor app called Blender 3D and it is to commercial 3D as Linux is to Windows. 3D is that bit more complicated than simple paint and draw. Paint and draw is a one handed operation but when it comes to 3D or even simple typing, you need two hands because by the time you have used the mouse on all the little pictures and stuff you forgot your place or something. I admit, the new input method has a few bugs but I still think that the editing method I am using right now is only complicated when you get into templates and stuff. I am writing here because as they say if you see something in America you will see it here in a few years. Sure, you could tweak the templates and the appearance but as for the bulk of it it shouldn't be to difficult as is for anyone capable of making the words. Couple of equals and a few apostophes, it's perfect. All best ~ R. T. G 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
How can I join wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.150.155 ( talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, We're going to organize meetup for the first time in a Pakistani city Karachi for users of the wiki projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Where we, take high tea and chat about Wikimedia projects. I would like to have your comments and thoughts on this. I would appreciate if you've some words for those, going to join Wikimeetup Karachi. Thank you! Saqib talk 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo
Three-year terms have been the norm for appointments to the Committee, but are starting to look decidedly long. I have the distinct impression that the community would be pleased, on balance, if the norm for new appointments were two years.
At issue, I guess, is whether a term-length (i) is sufficient in relation to new arbs' learning curve, and (ii) is sufficient to reap the benefits of staggered terms, where the experienced pass on their skills to newer arbs. This year's appointees seem to have been well prepared for the task and, where necessary, to have gained the required skills and experience rather quickly. I am optimistic that the electoral process is likely to continue to recommend highly skilled candidates.
Are you amenable to the idea of two-year terms (with the opportunity, as now, to stand for re-election)? I'm unsure of the opinions of the current arbs, although they may well be supportive. I wonder whether you might consider sounding them out on this matter. Tony (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
First Maurice Jarre now Rush Limbaugh, how much longer until WP:BLP is going to be taken seriously by Wikimedia? Wikiquotes is an unmonitored landmind; it needs to be scrapped, full-protected or merge it with WP, or at least get some freaking policies enacted over there (there is no BLP policy to speak of on WQ, and relatively few active admins). This is getting out of hand and permanently scarring whatever reputation Wikimedia has left. Please, address this break in the dam before it washes WP down the drain of the internet annals. -- 207.206.137.79 ( talk) 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for spotting the Strohviol – Stroh violin fork. These pages were indeed dealing with the same class of instruments, as far as I can tell. I've redirected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool idea no? Do it!!! I would buy one. Even though I'm rubbish at puzzles... -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 16:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, First meetup between Wikipedians in Karachi was a success. We mostly focused on development and publicity of Urdu edition of Wikipedia. You can see post-meetup media coverage and a detailed report however in Urdu. We're working on making English version of reports and send it to you as soon as earlier for your attentions. I was expecting just 3 attendees however I found total 6 including me at the venue. So sorry that I could not take photographs cause you know well about Muslim society is so conservative about that. Thank you. Saqib talk 11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
The following is a part reply to my Unblock request; .....The opinion of the various uninvolved administrators who have reviewed your block and declined to lift it is that any benefits you have brought to the project are heavily outweighed by the disruption. This seems to be a reasonable assessment and there is therefore no obvious reason, at this moment, for ArbCom to intervene.....
One of the administrators said that wikipedia works on consensus. So does it mean that if the editors are not well informed, any content will simply be termed as POV, soapbox, original research, vandalism, or disruption? Also I am damn sure editors do not take any effort to verify sources provided, if so, they should not have any right for accusations. Kindly scrutinize my case and decide in the best interest of wikipedia.
A suggestion: Pull up your socks on wikipedia policies, before this pulls wikipedia down. User:Gaunkars of Goa -- 59.95.15.49 ( talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks so much for wikipedia. Its impact on society is huge and still growing. Would appreciate your thoughts about removing artificial encyclopedia boundary and making it more of a knowledge base. Please comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Why_is_it_so_in_the_first_place...
Thanks!
Daniel.Cardenas (
talk)
19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings.
I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles. It is my opinion that Presidency of Barack Obama has violated this policy, by not including relevant info that is critical of the subject. When I added this negative info to balance out the article, other editors erased it. Now they want me permanently banned from editing all political articles.
I trust your judgement. I would appreciate it if you would read the discussion of my proposed ban here, and offer your opinion on it. If you support the ban, I will respect your wishes.
I am sure you are aware of the media attention that was given to past bias in the John Edwards article, regarding the exclusion of info on his extramarital affair. I hope you don't want the same thing to happen to Presidency of Barack Obama.
I am aware that you normally don't get involved in content disputes. However, the attempt to ban me is a serious threat to the NPOV policy that wikipedia is based on, so I hope you will consider getting involved.
Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Just wanted to know, if you consider making a bot, do you have to be an admin to do so? Plus, if a user has been blocked directly, or has been mistakenly auto/blocked, will this affect the number of votes on an RfA? Cheers,-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Good morning, Jimbo. We've (belatedly) started the process of setting up this year's Arbcom Election, and there is some discussion about the length of terms for the newly elected arbitrators. From last year's election discussion ( WT:ACE2008), the Arbcom RFC (at WP:ARBCOMRFC), and discussion for this year's election, there appears to be some interest in switching to a two-tranche system with staggered 2 year terms, rather than the current 3 year terms. Functionally, this would give us 9 arbs per tranche, with some elected this year to a 1 year rump term with Alpha, and others getting a full 2 years that would match Beta. There are arguments both ways; from a procedural standpoint, it won't impact how we run the election, but it might influence who runs. I'd invite your thoughts on the matter at WT:ACE2009#Vacancies, if you get the chance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Jimbo. I'm curious about your take on the discussions regarding the David Shankbone article. If the article is kept at the AfD will you support deletion if there is later a media controversy involving the subject? Can people opt in or out at any time depending on how the news cycle treats them?
I ask because, as you might recall, I've been critical about the appearance of nepotism, double standards, censorship, and bias on Wikipedia where editors are treated differently than other article subjects. And as far as an "informal" policy of letting persons with marginal notability opt out of having BLPs on them, unless we post this somewhere and notify COI editors instead of blocking and banning them when they try to alter their articles, it seems like another example of Wikipedia policy being made to benefit those with insider knowledge. Can the opt out be invoked at any time? Is it appropriate to grant special treament to those with membership in the Wiki-Club? Or do you have a different take? Should the David Boothroyd article be recreated? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, you have a bully pulpit. Use it. Start commenting in AfDs of BLPs so that your voice actually is heard directly there, arguing for opt out and for default to delete on marginally notable. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am disgusted by the antiitalianism behind the decision to delete Maltese Italians. The "usual" trick of accusing an Italian of sockpuppetry has obtained the usual result of erasing an article that has been 1) changed totally from the initial version;2) changed the name (the last name was "Pro-Italian Maltese");3) two or three times times requested to move or delete. Wikipedia needs articles showing all the areas of encyclopedia knowledge, not only those contrary to the Italian people in their historical/geographical Italian region. Indeed there were plenty of valid and useful references in the article just erased. The wikipedian who masterminded the vote against the article, showed HATE even toward his own people, only because they wanted to unite Malta to Italy. He even forced to retire a Maltese Italian who wanted to save the article (see user:Maltalia). Do you believe this is a fair attitude? I am sure you think that an encyclopedia can't be one-sided. And finally allow me to write that Wikipedia should not be in the hands of groups that do meatpuppetry: they accuse even a simple wife of a banned user, like me, of doing sockpuppetry in order to get unfair advantage and erase the articles they don't like. Sincerely.-- Mrs.Maria ( talk) 23:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello User talk:Jimbo Wales - I have pasted the following conversation below which can also be found on my talk page User talk:Classicfilms. Regards, - Classicfilms ( talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
How is it that a WWI battle gets a couple of sentences, but a minor video game character gets an extensive article? Presumably this is not based on relative importance, and perhaps is more down to the interests of the prevailing demographics in Wikipedia. Perhaps more needs to be done to get a bit more balance in those demographics, so that Wikipedia doesn't add to the perceived (by some) dumbing down of humanity and is, in turn, taken a bit more seriously by those that whose interests may not be the same as the people who write the video game articles. What do you think Jimbo? JasonBeales ( talk) 00:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering, if you can make a list of Wikipedians that left Wikipedia in the past 3 months, since Neurolysis' departure. It seems that a number of editors leave Wikipedia in a single week.
On a completely unrelated note, can you explain WHY are our trusted Wikipedians are leaving?-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1)When I feel that the project is no longer fun to me (see WP:GTFO} 2)Considering too much failed RfAs 3)When I'm OLD 4)Any other reasons, other than that of "the same stuff repeated".
Any inquires? Contact me on my email (dave.gregory96@gmail.com) or leave a note on my talk page!-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo Wales
The lest year a don’t have a work, so I went in http://yi.wikisource.org/ , and I have buildet it. I put already almost 2000 texts of Yiddish. And that is my question
I want to purchase a program that converts PDF documents to Word documents, in Hebrew. I have quite a few books in Yiddish in the PDF format and have to change them to Word. That way we'll be able to expand the web site with hundreds of texts. If we don't add them, they won't be used by the general public because these books are no longer printed. They were published from 50 to 100 years ago in Europe before the war and are studied in universities. They can't be bought anywhere and can only be photocopied at the university. The program that converts the PDF costs $700 here in Israel.
--
Israel.s (
talk)
10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
How much do you think it costs in Indonesia?-- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you Mr. Wales.
You direct me to many options which can help me, when the simplest thing would be that I'll have this SW and can work with it without being dependent on otheres.
Since Wikimedia doesn't have the sum to fund this, I will try to collect money from my friends, which will probably take a few month. Then I will but the SW and will be able to add many hunderes of texts to Yiddish wikitext. --
Israel.s (
talk)
08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jimbo Wales. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Has Become the Source of Disinformation - A Public Forum To Mislead and Con the Public
Wikipedia is a free forum, unregulated, confusing and irresponsible.
Now, criminals use this forum to post lies.
Wikipedia is being used as an authoritative and trusted source of pseudo-encyclopedic information to mislead people and steal money. Wikipedia is being used to convince unknowing users to accept lies about professional requirements, to promote social agendas, and to influence public opinion - not to educate. Even scams are being perpetrated. Confidence-game practitioners and sales departments of companies are scheming through Wikipedia articles to influence busy decision-makers. This encyclopedia is used to deceive people into enrolling in education seminars or worse. People purchasing professional services are being mislead about many different legally regulated activities. The purpose of misinformation is to alter the beliefs of the targeted victim; as used in Wikipedia, its purpose is to get money from people or to trap them.
As nice an idea as it is for a completely public contributor based encyclopedia, this source of information is gradually being polluted by dishonest people who have a selfish agenda, not an interest in providing accurate and informative information. Wikipedia is now, by consent, contributing to this disinformation.
If Wikipedia doesn't do something to control the editing process so as to eliminate these misleading and inaccurate postings, and malicious deletions, two things will happen.
First, Wikipedia will become a joke and the last place that anyone will go to get an explanation.
Second, Wikipedia will get sued in a Federal or State Court for contributing to fraud and violations of many State and Federal laws.
Wikipedia has to take responsibility for what it is aiding to do, deceive the public.
ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho ( talk • contribs)
Funny thing is that a lot of articles are checked by the media wanting to drum up the "Wikipedia is wrong" story, and most of the time they are surprised by how accurate Wikipedia is. And WP can't be "sued...for contributing to fraud" for simply being inaccurate. Darrenhusted ( talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No one can tell exactly what ArchitectBoiseIdaho is actually complaining about. There is no reason to speculate about it or to respond. — Finell (Talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If User:ArchitectBoiseIdaho is complaining Wikipedia's notability, or the latter of any accuracy on Wikipedia, this only requires the response of Wikipedia heights. I think he feels that Wikipedia is just not as fun as it was then. If he feels so, please, ask him to leave.- Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been ordered to create an account:
As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs [4] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement [5] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion [6] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [7] which interestingly may have produced this response [8] to my edit here: [9]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage: [10] as a stub without references. This was my work: [11]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.
As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute [12] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed [13] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here [14] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. A previous discussion here on this page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history [15] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here [16]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time.|- 99.135.174.186 ( talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ich habe soeben als Administrator kandidiert. Ich will in der Deutschen Wikipedia Administrator werden.
Es waren 24 Administratoren gegen mich. Diese 24 Administratoren haben ihr Meinungsbild basierend auf komplett falschen Informationen abgegeben. Diese 24 Administratoren haben einzig die Edits berücksichtigt. Ich habe wenige Edits. Ich bin aber ein Sichter.
Sollte ich ein Administrator in der Deutschen Wikipedia werden?
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Me too I did not have all information. Now I got a deeper understanding. Thank you.
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
At least I gained some more edits. Also I gained some new experiences. You only win, a creative participation is all. :-)
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 06:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo Wales, T3h 1337 b0y has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ms dos mode ( talk) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the smile. Wikipedia is a great place to get in touch with several cultures, for instance German or English. Let's go on and smile.
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 06:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy. fyi, there is an RFC about the structure of Arbcom 2010: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. Your unique perspective/views would be a valuable addition to the RFC. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to check out Andrew Dalby's book The World and Wikipedia? Is it any good? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what I'm worried about. I've seen this on their [[Special:Contributions]] page and find that they were indefinitely blocked! Any guidelines referring to this matter?-- One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, can I ask users to add the number of colons?-- One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Juliancolton may have retired. You need to do what any pusher worth his salt would do. Go over there and get high with him on Wikipedia again. Before the say-no-to-Wiki folks succeed in performing an intervention with him and he gets too high a count on his days of Wiki sobriety. ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Does Jimbo edit wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IWantToSayNo ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
He awakens to learn:
Is this acceptable? It isn't only that they are on a highly dangerous drug, but that they are also editing while on it really bothers me, especially when they have ops. Is there any applicable guideline, standard, or tradition regarding this? Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I've done some of my best coding while stoned, it is actually quite relaxing. Munchies are a problem though, as chip crumbs are a bitch to get out of a keyboard. Then there's the issues with memory, um...what were we talking about? Tarc ( talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that counts should be the editing output, not the mental state of the editor. If the editor does bad edits, we can revert/block/ban him regardless of his mental state. For what I know, you may all well be a Chinese room or a Boltzmann brain , but that's irrelevant. -- Cyclopia talk 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it silly season so soon? This is the most goofball non-issue on Wikipedia all day. November 1 must be the new April 1. If this is a joke, I think we've got it. If not, the thread is just a personal attack on Chillum and ought to be drawn to a close. On Wikipedia everyone is judged on the strength of their edits, not what they do in the privacy of their home, or what process their brain has been through to produce those edits. Indignation that somewhere a Wikipedian is doing something illegal, or that drug-taking Wikipedians are a threat to the project, is too farfetched to be worth any serious response. It may be unwise and undignified at a personal level, by some standards of decorum, to announce or joke about one's own drug-taking. But in other circles it's just fine, and we're not in any position to judge. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Remember to Keep cool during discussions. Overheated machinery tends to break down. :)
Unfortunately i was out of dove's, so i guess a cool drink will have to do for now. The temperature is a bit hot around here, so take a good glass of lemonade with a few ice cubes to cool down, and then resume talking. Nothing better then a cool resfreshment to cool down a heated discussion!. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the title of this section is not entirely appropriate. I suggest a pole (not sure whether it should be a North or South pole) to decide between the following two alternative titles:
Any preferences? Hans Adler 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer that all users, not just admins, conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism at all times. Certain kinds of references to illegal drug use would not be appropriate in any normal workplace, and are therefore similarly are not appropriate for Wikipedia. At the same time, I see no need to get too up in arms about a joke, an error, or similar. If there's an ongoing pattern of behavior which appears to be disruptive or which would tend to reflect negatively on the project, then it could be addressed - preferably with a minimum of drama and hand-wringing. But based on my experience with hundreds of Wikipedians all around the world, we are in no danger of being overrun by drug fiends or anything. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(←)Whatever, O. You keep climbing that Reichstag, kiddo. :) Crafty ( talk) 04:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A look at Chillum's contribs indicates he did not edit while high on LSD other than to his talk page once. So in no way can his actions be considered inappropriate - professionalism means not working in an altered state, and Chillum has indeed acted to this high professional standard. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Would an admin who was a member of the Native American Church be required to refrain from the use of psychotropics even when not editing? ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, please see my comment here. As a concerned member of the community I think this is something you could do to help. Jehochman Talk 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy, please do yourself a favour and ignore all of the above section, unless of course you'd like to get a needless headache. RMHED ( talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Y'all realize Wales probably has a headache with the orange bar sticking on every few minutes... The reason for "Y'all" is that this page is practically not Jimbo's anymore :P Zoo Fari 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I was always wondering why editors do this (posting their "dirty laundry stuff" here). Still don't get it. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Check out this listing posted at my local section of Craigslist. What!? ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh just ignore it. This is hardly the first time paid editing has come up. Prodego talk 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kawaii is the Japanese word for cute! Silly person! see this educational video- [26] -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'm writing to inform you of a complaint against an administrator for wikihounding, disruptive editing, and improper tagging of good faith edits as vandalism. I'm concerned about getting fair review and fair resolution of this matter, given that the editor in question, Arthur Rubin, is also an administrator and has a long history, according to his current and archived talk pages, of engaging in reversion practices that have upset a very long list of people and yet there has been no action taken in the past. The case is ongoing here. The problem began after I made a simple addition of a book to a reading list on a controversial page that I had never edited in the past. Within the next 9 minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors. Even after making it clear my edits weren't vandalism, he continued to revert all of my edits to all pages, and he'll make successive excuses as to the reasons why. I'm seeing initial evidence that some people reviewing this may be trying to reduce this matter to being a case of him labelling things as vandalism rather than taking the time to write out a genuine reason for reverting. That's not the issue here, in my opinion. I feel bullied and hounded, and it's intimidating coming from an administrator. Thank-you. MeSoStupid ( talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales, First of all deep thanks for this incredible chain-link library you created, there are few men who believed in sharing information,sharing power. Without being too long I would like to suggest you to create a link in between Wikipedia pages in different language. I will try to explain myself better with an example: If I'm looking for "Income Approach" the english page will turn up. NOW if I want to know what is its corresponding result in Italian for instance?Or German? Since I'm sure there are their corresponding pages in different languages it will take only few second to create even an ultimate tool for translation. It sounds to me a great idea, and it will only take a few to reserve a small buttons section for languages. That will make the difference to something that already seems perfect. Hope to hear from you soon
Roberto S. <Email redacted; it is not necessary to provide personal contact information> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.186.137 ( talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit remained in your BLP for almost 14 hours even though over 800 accounts have the article watchlisted (I'm not one of them). Note that this happened in spite of the article being semi-protected. Perhaps you might have a personal stake in trying to expedite the implementation of a strict version of flagged revisions? Cla68 ( talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an opinion on this ANI?
Admins don't like wikipedia policies. When will this end? -- 91.130.188.8 ( talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support and rejuvenate the enwiki community. I'm looking to get a handful of people to get it off the ground, so what are your thoughts on this? Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Supporting volunteers" is, naturally, an idea that no-one will oppose. If anyone has concrete ideas on how we can do that, then everyone should be open to them. I'm just less convinced that a new group or project is the way to go. Two reasons: 1) Good ideas are good ideas, organisations and governments generally set up special groups when they have a lack of any ideas. If people have good ideas, there are currently lots of avenues open to them to propose and develop them. So I don't see what good the project does (although it may otherwise be perfectly harmless). 2) The ESP experience was not only negative because it was obsessed with its own structures, it was also negative in that it create a feeling that there were a self-appointed group of moral guardians running about rudely telling people to be civil - which certainly did not aid in creating a supportive environment (granted, most of them were well-meaning).
I suspect I'm also suspicious of moves that begin with vaguely pointing at current dramas and tensions and suggesting that they are evidence of some new deterioration and that things would be better if we could rewind to some golden age. Are things worse? What's the evidence of that? I remember far more drama in the past, and far more incivility. What is really needed to kick off any reform is a more sophisticated identification of what the problem is that one is trying to tackle. People are people, rudeness is rudeness; it has always been that way. If anyone can mitigate against some of that - good luck to them, but until there's some specifics there's nothing much to discuss.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales:
This letter is an alert, and a request for action in relation to disruption on Wikipedia that discourages good faith editors.
I am a well-credentialed contributor to WP under the user name Brews ohare, a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Laboratories, a former Editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, a professor of EE at the University of Arizona, and the author of technical books and articles. I don't think WP wishes to loose such editors. I have however grown such a distaste for interaction with the WP environment that I have decided to withdraw for the time being.
There are two major problems: one is lack of control of incivility, and the other is Administrators run amok.
As for the first, talk-page guidelines such as WP:Civil WP:NPA WP:Talk WP:Poll and others are flaunted. These violations are ignored by administrators, who even make violations themselves. The use of bans, and threats to ban, are applied unequally by administrators to sway the balance of talk-page discussion, making them bullying participants rather than administrators. The disruptions by uncivil editors and the interference by administrators make open discussion on talk-pages difficult or impossible , and these unwarranted activities encourage intolerance of even sourced mainstream opinion.
As for the second, administrators have lost sight of their roles. Administrators must be reminded that they don't run WP, they moderate it. Their role is to catalyze open discussion of sourced material, the backbone of WP, not to intrude their own preferences. Whether administrators are simply inept or subject to la folie des grandeurs, it is inexcusable for administrators to be unreflective, belligerent, and cavalier about WP welfare. A mutual admiration society is not healthy. I have proposed some sensible guidelines for administrators .
This matter has reached a point where careful review of administrators' actions is mandatory to avoid destruction of WP. It is insufficient to simply repeat to administrators their responsibilities. Some direct action is needed, and some administrators must be removed from their positions to underline the seriousness of these duties. Perhaps a committee can initiate review, which will take some time. A simpler, and possibly effective action, would add an additional approach for administrator recall to those presently under review, an approach allowing easier removal of administrators who fail to execute their duties impartially, and do not observe and enforce guidelines .
These matters are serious, and a letter cannot explain them adequately. Upon request, I'd be delighted to augment my description of the intolerance to open discussion outlined above with details from recent discussion at WP:NOR and from the Case/Speed of light. Although this particular case was completely mishandled, I wish to emphasize that I have little interest in overturning the remedies imposed there. I am highlighting this case, with which I am very familiar, simply as a blatant example of biased and uncomprehending lack of judgment on the part of administrators, where their laxity in enforcing guidelines led to a complete circus on Talk: Speed of light, and indeed, in the conduct of the case itself.
I hope action will be taken that restores a cooperative editing atmosphere on WP. I wish for WP's ultimate success in achieving a healthy editing environment, but prompt and decisive action is needed.
Regards,
John R Brews
Brews ohare ( talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Check out my sandbox! Maildiver ( talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've made a new script instead of tags <ref> in "scientific" style (but compatible with it and any other markup). It's simpler than tags "ref", for this example:
[Greenwood, 1997|p.1202] in a body of the article, and
[*Greenwood, 1997] and description of a book - in the "Bibliography" section.
Working sample, based on article zinc (it is not my article, I chose it at random), I've placed here: http://ru.great.wikia.com/wiki/Zinc Source code of script is here. X-romix ( talk) 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The two most common types of referencing systems used are:
- author-date systems—such as the Harvard system, APA and MLA
- numerical systems—such as Chicago or Turabian, Vancouver and Footnote [27]
It is possible to adjust showing reference (author-date or numerical) system in the personal user settings. X-romix ( talk) 18:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Aloha Jimbo.. Just wondering if you can help me out.. I wanted to add my website link to [28] as I have the biggest and most up to date "V" website on the net.. Just wondering if you can please add it to the external link section, as when I do, it gets removed, and my last membership was banned for spam etc, when all I did was add a link, and changed it a couple of times trying to get it looking right..
My website is The V Files and can be found at [29].. Thank you for your time and patience.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VGooderV ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).
Can you explain..
Aloha.> Well just wondering if you can explain why others can link then.. There is an unofficial forum there that has nothing to do with the show officially.. Being this:
[30] They are not affiliated with the show, at least I have backing from Jace Hall and Scott Rosenbaum, executive producers.. Also how is [31] official? Site has nothing to do with the show only a review so why can they? So why can others be allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VGooderV ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hi my name is Jerem Jurey and i lived in Sidney,Iowa. Is it possible to embed by url or upload by url, as i have a bunch of Park Ridge Transit Photos that i would like to place in the article, and am wondering it that is possible,
User talk:Matt037291 13:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
...that whenever I see a racist comment on any page, I plan to remove it, and I will likely block the contributor. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds completely appropriate to me. Be sure to carefully follow policy and of course don't over-interpret remarks. But yes, racist commentary has no place in Wikipedia.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I hope you're going to participate in this important event. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ruwiki checkuser ru:user:Ilya Voyager published the IP address of a user which he obtained using his checkuser privileges. Please check if this type of behavior is in agreement with Wikipedia privacy policy. That's the link to his edit in which he disclosed the IP address. SA ru ( talk) 21:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not following drame on ru-wikipedia, but the IP made the same spam edits on the same article as the both accounts in the report see e.g. [33] none needs checkuser to guess that the accounts are connected. I think ru:user:Ilya Voyager would better not to mention the IP in the sock report whether he guessed the connection using the checkuser tools or not but I personally see no crime here. AFAIK ru:user:Lvova was under checkuser investigations because she been quite a trusted wikipedian (a member of OTRS, an admin on ru-wikipedia and a spokesperson for Russian Wikichapter) has shared her IP with a notorious sockpuppeeter GSB. Nobody as far as I can tell was interested in her love life. I am a proponent of creation a sort of interproject conflict investigation team to act when serious allegations against a project arbcom but I am not sure there are anything interesting in this incident Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see this thread on it. Your input, and hopefully, action concerning the matter would be greatly appreciated.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I know that I shouldn't engage in general chat in Wikipedia (I like to keep discussions related to Wikipedia), but I must do this. I came here to say how fantastic it is to see that a founder of such a big organizaion/company as Wikipedia is, creates pages and edits like everyone else, when I am sure that you have alot of other things to do. I must say that I admire you very greatly. Ilyushka88 talk 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Jimbo, I never expected to be able to talk to the founder of Wikipedia, but now I do! Wow. Do you ever realize how helpful Wikipedia is to the entire world? For example, everyone I know uses Wikipedia for something (myself being the only active editor). Anyway, I just have always wanted to thank you for creating the most amazing tool on the Internet. Whenever I type something in on Google, Wikipedia comes up first the majority of the time. But WP:GOOGLEHITS tells us that it is not a guideline for notability, right? Well, in this case, I think it is. Thanks again! The Arbiter ★★★ 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The Arbiter has given you a fresh piece of
fried chicken! Pieces of
fried chicken promote
WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the
WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{ subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{ subst:MunchChicken}}!!
I'm posting this here because I know that damn near everybody who's anybody has this page on their watchlist, and because I know that the Biography of Living Persons Policy is something close to Jimmy's heart.
Check this out: Sol Wachtler
What's wrong you say? Sol Wachtler is the guy who very famously said that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich. If you can find that quote anywhere on this page, I'll email you a cookie.
Furthermore, he's apparently trying to edit his own page, and I don't blame him. Someone - perhaps multiple someones - is very obviously trying to play up his downfall. Mr. Wachtler was both a lawyer and judge, and I'm sure did his job at least well enough to create some enemies. It takes one to find their way to the internet and try to get some payback.
The poor guy is 79 frippin' years old. If anybody is left here, please help him out and get some balance.
Also, please don't tell me to do it myself. I'm actually a writer for dough now, and don't have the time or, frankly, the inclination. I'm proud of my dasy and nights here, but I look back them and realize that I somehow managed to wade into one shit-storm of editor/admin conflict after another from pretty much day one. I don't blame exactly Wikipedia for that, but after a few years of personal growth (in spite of myself), I've simply lost the taste for the drama and ego, as well as what it did to me personally.
On a more general note, I'm very sorry to say that I'm using Wikipedia less and less as even a reference in my own online writing. This saddens me greatly as both a former editorial contributor and a current financial contributor (not trying to puff myself, we're talking like 10 bucks here and there).
For example, I recently had to call bullshit on the M. Scott Peck page because I used the Wikipedia link to try to introduce someone online to his writing. As I usually do, I just trusted that Wikipedia would at the very least get the basic facts right, which I consider to be impressive for Mr. Peck. It turns out that page was (probably still is) completely jacked (to point out the Encyclopedic problems with this page would take me a loong time), and contained a totally unsourced and untrue statement about him being secretly homophobic, when in fact it's exactly the opposite.
Just writing this much makes me feel guilty and shitty because I really DON'T have the time. For friends who see this and have left messages on my discussion page, use my email. Just call me the Alice who decided to side-step the rabbit hole.
-- NinaOdell | Talk 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
As a jurist, I'm sure Mr.
Hello, my King ... Saw you pass through ANI today, where it appears I may soon lose the right to post more than 100 words with no formatting allowed—the price of extraordinary measures in service of BLP NPOV. (I.E., For this complex message, it is either now or never, hence tonight.)
No request for a touch of your all-powerful hand in this matter, but will ask of those all-knowledgeable who stand watch on your page to inform me if appealing such things is possible, or preventable, however much a bad idea that usually is.
Before I go, I will mention another good knight who says he is leaving—sufficiently abused by that tribalism which so often can unbalance human affairs.
Knights know this realm is not a system of justice, but being impaled by a travesty of it is quite unpleasant. :)
A report from the front ... and perhaps my last greater-than-100-word formatted communication. I close with half of something I composed and submitted when Signpost asked for "opinion" pieces.
Two Wikipedia [English] sonnets linked by the theme of civility (1 of 2)
{WPO.001.01} ____ PRETEND "
IGNORE ALL RULES" somewhere applied. |
To those honorable souls who watch this page: I hope you will indulge this gesture briefly because I have cleaned at least one bit of trash from 5,000 pages of the project. And again, if there is an answer regarding any path of appeal, however quixotic and usually to be avoided, please let me know (here, or on my talk).
(the fallen knight salutes and withdraws) Proofreader77 ( talk) 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Have some dignity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.43.123 ( talk) 13:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Since I have been acused of appealing to Jimbo (rather than what I actually did, which was be too wussy to actually ask), I will get down off the horse and kneel ... and ask the founder's extraordinary release from pissant 100-word-limit prison. Such an act of grace will spare the community endless hours of suffering from my whining about it. Dear Mr. Wales, please release me. I will never do that again. (As many sonnets in your honor as you wish.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake,
Ignore all rules applies
in one place where I'd never think it would.
Where social judgment, not clear rules, surmise
the crime and punishment. Frame bad and good.
Just ask Hannah Arendt what this portends:
"The social" overriding facts and fair.
Dismissing difs for BS from their friends.
Protest or ask a question? Don't you dare!
Submit. Shut up. Or we will block you out.
Don't wikilawyer us. For that we'll ban.
No truth but accusations that we spout.
Don't think that outcasts can defy the clan.
ButThereIsNotOneTribe at ANI.
SomeSayTheySpeakForAll. But that's a lie. # # # Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I recently stumbled upon Wikipedia:JIMBODOESNTCARE. Some of it seemed a little brash, particularly the 'Summary' .. do you agree with this page? -- œ ™ 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the page at all. It seriously misstates my position. It is very good to let people know that I can't make them sysop, but the idea that I don't care is just absurd. And certainly "you're just another number" is insulting to both me and the reader. The page could be renamed to "Jimbo would love to help you, but often can't" with an explanation about why I can't make people sysops, why I generally decline to get involved directly in content disputes, etc. This would be more welcoming to the user who is trying to solve a problem, and not insulting to me personally. :-) -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I think a good idea would be to implement a technology like Google Wave. Wikipedia would be more flexible.
-- Urs.Waefler ( talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you are one of the owners of Wikia, how do you feel about allowing people to link to articles there? Since the deletionists have succeeded in mass destruction of almost every character page their rampaging hordes have ever come across, as well as many episodes, weapons list, and other valid content, how about we add a link to the bottom of every Wikipedia article to a valid entry at Wikia, where the information was copied over to preserve it? People get their basic information at the Wikipedia, and if they want more detailed information, they know where they can find it at. As it is now, whenever a link to the Wikia is added, it is almost always deleted by someone. Its often the same information that was considered acceptable on Wikipedia for years, before a small group decided to change the notability guidelines, and use that as an excuse to mass destroy all that they did not like. By this simple compromise, everyone can have what they want. Dream Focus 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! That strategy worked pretty well for Digimon (which had the good fortune to not have anyone remove those links).-- Twilight Helryx 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This article really needs urgent intervention, because as far as I can see, none of the users editing it are adhering to a NPOV and it wouldn't surprise me if their all sockpuppets. As a result this article is completely untrustworthy. (Posted here to gain max attention) -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 12:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
89.207.160.254~ an IP belonging to Wolseley PLC, I just sent the company an Email telling them about the vandalism from one of their computers hoping they can take action. I'm fully capable of sending professional Emails required for this, so I was pretty confident. Hmmm I hope this was ok... -- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jimmy, care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Werlé? Grsz 11 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
When I put the term in this header in the search button I get sent to this non-existent wikimedia page rather than to the article Species - The Awakening which is what i was looking for. This is entirely inappropriate as the show is displayed in various listings from the UK press association as Species: The Awakening but to be honest I don't even have any idea of where exactly would be the place to air this issue which for all I know affects a number of search terms. What I would like to do and would normally do is to set up a redirect tot he article but I cannot because of this automatic redirect to a non-existent wikimedia page. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be another successful season of fund-raising. I have renewed my support by donating $100 today. I see this as an excellent investment because wikipedia provides me an excellent platform for reading others' ideas and sharing my own ideas. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I know that we haven't yet adopted a policy or guideline on paid editing, but you have said "I will personally block any cases that I am shown". User Chaser has identified one such case involving Jsamuel430 ( talk · contribs) and the article for The Grief Recovery Institute. I suggest that a checkuser on the account would be prudent, in case this user has been editing with other accounts as well. Thanks and regards. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)