User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. 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 225

←

Archive 230

Abuse of the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE

Sometimes it makes me want to scream how many people seem so mistaken as to NPOV policy when it comes to what is WP:FRINGE. When we have a poll saying as high as 74% of the population believe something is true (including hundreds of very prominent people), you would think this would be an easy case. This is but one instance, sadly it isn't an isolated one. It seems like a lot of people treat WP:FRINGE as "If I think it is reasonable point of view then it is not fringe," but if "I don't believe it to be true at all it is therefore fringe." It really shouldn't matter what any WP editor thinks of the topic, it should be purely based on how many people hold this view. Also, another variant you see on questions of fact often on WP is "How does a majority of RS handle this fact? We must have the article follow the RS in expressing this like the RS do." I mean really? If ANY RS expresses a contrary view, this should be a red light that this is opinion and not fact and we shouldn't be following how most of the RS express it. Sadly that seems to escape a lot of editors. Makes me sad, but thank you for being here for me to vent to. -Obsidi (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A vague jeremiad on this page with no links to actual discussions... see WP:YOULOSE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The context is at Talk:Deep_state_in_the_United_States#Requested_move_16_October_2018. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It really isn't though, that may be an instance, but I am talking more about the broader concept. It isn't really WP:YOULOSE because I'm not complaining about any instance of situation in which consensus was against me. Just annoyed that a lot of editors seem to either not know the policies, not care about what they are, or interpret them vastly differently than I do. Big time sink to have to explain what should be basic NPOV policy. -Obsidi (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hum... Maybe some kind of addition to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ or an essay on the subject is in order. At least then I could just refer them to that and not have to repeat myself. -Obsidi (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of FRINGE. A similar proportion of population believes in horoscopes, and many RS do nothing to discourage this belief and even publish them, yet this all shouldn't preclude us from qualifying astrology in Wikipedia articles as anything but absolute bunk. FRINGE exists to veto such numbers-based validation of statements and theories. Daß Wölf 02:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Well look at how we actually treat astrology. Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events....Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems. It isn't until the end of the WP:LEAD that we say things like "has been shown to have no scientific validity" and "astrology is now recognized as pseudoscience." How many people would you say don't think astrology is a pseudoscience? Can you name any prominent living person who has the view that it is a science and not a pseudoscience? (I doubt it.) It is true in some ways that pure surveys cannot answer these questions, but that is also why we have the qualifier for prominent people, and even then it can be phrased in a neutral manner as to what is generally recognized (which even many of the people who disagree would say is true). -Obsidi (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How many people would you say don't think astrology is a pseudoscience? According to a 2012 survey by the National Science Foundation, 32% of Americans said astrology was "sort of scientific" and 10% said it was "very scientific." So somewhere between a third and a half of Americans believe that astrology has at least some scientific basis, which can reasonably be interpreted as meaning they "don't think astrology is a pseudoscience." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those believers must be mostly Aries, Pisces or Aquarius, who tend to believe in astrology more... Just kidding. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

One problem with this is the % of people who confuse astrology with astronomy. For instance in this EU survey they ask people to rate how scientific something is, and 41% say astrology is scientific, but only 13% say horoscopes are scientific. You can read more about these common errors here. -Obsidi (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, most of the doubters will be Scorpio, as they rely more heavily on personal experience. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You write: "If ANY RS expresses a contrary view, this should be a red light that this is opinion and not fact and we shouldn't be following how most of the RS express it."

Actually that is exactly what we are supposed to do. It's called WP:DUEWEIGHT. We are supposed to give more weight to "how most of the RS express it".

BTW, the fact that something is in a RS has no bearing on whether it's opinion or fact. Both appear in RS, and we document both.

You also express some frustration with fellow editors: "Just annoyed that a lot of editors seem to either not know the policies, not care about what they are, or interpret them vastly differently than I do." (1) AGF that we DO "know the policies". (2) Yes, many "interpret them vastly differently than [you] do." (3) You might do well to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. (Heck, we're all learning here!)

You believe in Trump's "deep state" conspiracy theory. That itself indicates something wrong with your thinking. That usually comes from getting ideas from unreliable sources. Stop sucking on that teat. Just because Trump pushes a conspiracy theory does not make it a fact. Don't believe it. The fact he says something should be a big red flag that it's likely untrue. Just because he fools lots of people does not make it true, or make those people anything less than fringe believers in his conspiracy theories.

Never forget that deception can become the dominant factor in a society, and the majority will believe lies. At the risk of triggering Godwin's law, look at history to see how this works. Autocrats, Pied Pipers, and Pinocchios can push unreliable and fringe sources until they end up dominating RS. Truth can (temporarily) lose out.

At Wikipedia we strongly resist this trend. Trump's war on RS must be resisted and not affect us. Unfortunately we have many editors who believe RS are fake news, and they get that idea from Trump. Being a diehard Trump supporter has serious consequences for editing here. It creates a serious CIR problem. If an editor can't vet sources, or they believe what Trump says about RS, they fail one of the most basic qualifications for editing here. Such fringe editors should stay away from controversial topics and just perform gnomish work on other articles. That way they won't create disruption and will still do some good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) Please don't say "something is wrong with your thinking" about another editor, those are a WP:Personal Attack.

(2) Yes, we do give more weight to opinions based on the proportion of weight given to that view in the RS (and by weight I mean space in the article, amount of detail). But we do not follow even most of the RS in WP voice if another RS disagrees, we explain both positions as opinions giving more weight (space/detail) to the more widely held view (even if it is about facts). Per WP:WikiVoice If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Really we need like a flow chart or something to make this easier for people.

(3) So you think "unreliable and fringe sources" are "dominating RS"? Really? Look there are a variety of publications out there that I wouldn't trust that WP considers reliable sources. Hell, I've been published in Time Magazine, and I still wouldn't trust it. It doesn't matter what I think is reliable because I know what WP considers reliable. So that means not removing a Time Magazine reference just because I think it is unreliable because I know what WP considers reliable. -Obsidi (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think, and didn't write, that "unreliable and fringe sources" are "dominating RS". I wrote that they "can...end up dominating RS", if we're not careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It really shouldn't matter what any WP editor thinks of the topic, it should be purely based on how many people hold this view. If you think that, you fundamentally misunderstand WP:NPOV. Not sure how many times WP:NPOV has to state "reliable sources" for people to get that FRINGEness as with everything is determined by "a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.". Maybe we do need a flow chart. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to the sentence before that "If I think it is reasonable point of view then it is not fringe," but if "I don't believe it to be true at all it is therefore fringe." As I noted above, we do also have the qualifier then that such a non-fringe view (ie not a view only held by an extremely small number of people) should then easily be able to name prominent people that hold that view. And of course that view must be published in a reliable source for inclusion. But as long as a reliable source publishes such a view (not held by an extremely small number of people) by such a prominent individual, that is a minority viewpoint and not fringe. Now that view might be given very little weight if it is a small minority view compared to a much more prominent in RS majority view, but it is still not fringe then. -Obsidi (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the sources often make it clear if they're being "reliable". I mean, look in a newspaper and you'll find a horoscope, but it will be under an "entertainment" section, probably with a disclaimer. The number of publications in scientific journals will be low. That said, there have been indications that, for example, the time of year a person is born has some effect on lifespan, possibly due to nutritional factors. Never take rationality to such excess that it becomes irrational intolerant superstition. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Jamal Khashoggi

From his just published last column

"There was a time when journalists believed the Internet would liberate information from the censorship and control associated with print media. But these governments, whose very existence relies on the control of information, have aggressively blocked the Internet."

Jimbo, what presence does Wikipedia have in Saudi Arabia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, on 11 July 2006 the Saudi government blocked access to Wikipedia officially. Unoffically let me introduce you to NordVPN, ExpressVPN, VyprVPN, and PrivateVPN. Shhh, don't tell Saudi Arabia. -Obsidi (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The Tor Browser also works great for reading Wikipedia, and costs $0. I use it when I am working in China -- I do engineering for a major US toy company, and often find myself connecting to the Internet through a Chinese corporate LAN that I don't trust, so I use TAILS booted from a live CD. TAILS includes the tor browser, or you can download and run the tor browser on Windows, Android, Linux, or macOS. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So basically people can read but not edit, even experienced and trusted users. We could do better by ending Wikipedia's obsession with knowing the ip address of every edit, supporting oppressive regimes in censoring wikipedia. Big fail. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting an IP address block exemption would allow someone to edit even through a proxy. Living in someplace which has blocked WP like Saudi Arabia would seem to me to be good cause. The only question would be if we could trust that person not to abuse it. Maybe something like the {{Template:2nd chance}} protocol would garner sufficient trust in the short term (while people examine your history in the long term). -Obsidi (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

All admins have the IP block exempt flag, see Special:ListGroupRights. Some other people have asked for it and been granted the exemption, and as Obsidi just said, are able to edit through proxies or Tor. —Kusma (t·c) 11:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The Tor project FAQ says that China detects Tor, so you have to use a Tor bridge, but they detect a Tor bridge, so you have to use Obfsproxy. [2] If that works. Note that Russia and China are actively cracking down on Tor and VPNs. Also, I would be curious whether a Chinese citizen is treated the same way as a foreigner at a lucrative factory. It seems conceivable that a not at all blind eye might be turned toward a Westerner in country, especially if they have other ways of spying on him ... after all, you don't learn marketable information by making people think they're being watched. Wnt (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I am indeed privileged compared to Chinese citizens. I am 100% open about my use or TAILS and Tor, and if anyone (either the government or the corporate LAN) blocked them I would simply go home and let them try to find someone else who can get a couple of thousand workers back on the job. I am not very political, but if I was I wouldn't do anything from China that I know the government disproves of. (Besides, everyone over there is talking about Trump, not Xi Jinping -- and I don't mean Donald. There is a strong interest in Melania and Ivanka in China.)

That being said, both Tor and VPNs are in an arms race with governments that wish to detect and block them. I haven't seen anyone make a case for either always being better.

There seems to be some misinformation here. To my knowledge, Wikipedia is not blocked in Saudi Arabia at the present time. As reported above, it may have been blocked for a bit back in 2006 - I don't know at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me, as that sort of thing happens. However, at the present time I do not think Wikipedia is blocked. We have well respected community members there, such as Osama Khaled, and I expect he is likely happy to answer questions. Obviously, I think it would be unwise to ask him particularly pointed questions about the political situation there - as a fellow Wikipedian, I'm sure there are many things he would like to see change, but it may not be wise for him to speak about it.

The Wikimedia Foundation does not have a presence there, and there is no chance of us pursuing a presence there, as you can imagine. This was true even before recent events.

In my work relating to human rights and freedom of expression (Jimmy Wales Foundation) I have met with Saudi officials and spoken with the permission of and at the request of his wife on behalf of Raif Badawi. I will continue to pursue that as best I can, but I declined a trip to Saudi Arabia just this week in no small part due to recent events. (I don't think I would be in danger, but I have been too upset by what appears to have happened to be able to go there right now.)

The Crown Prince was widely considered to be a genuine reformer - that reputation is currently in tatters. The 'pathological optimist' in me hopes that he will now see the need to pursue genuine and dramatic reforms to help rebuild the momentum he appeared to have before this event. Only time will tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my mistake. I don't live in Saudi Arabia, so my information comes from news sources (why I preference my statement with "As far as I know"). I went to the Censorship in Saudi Arabia page, and it notes that "On 11 July 2006 the Saudi government blocked access to Wikipedia" with no note of unblocking and a link to this that seemed to confirm it. And I saw this article from earlier this month that said "Wikipedia, which is currently censored in over ten countries including Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Russia and Turkey." But upon closer inspection it seems I was wrong. They do currently censor WP, but specific pages not blocking all of WP anymore. Of course with https, such page level censorship doesn't work. [3]. I'll go update the Censorship in Saudi Arabia page so other people don't make the same mistake. -Obsidi (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Pathological optimism might be what's needed now. Could be the old guard is the culprit here. I thought I saw a glimpse of naivety and "in over my head" in the prince's eyes as he sat down with Pompeo. I also see in our BLP of him that at least there may have been rational motives for some of the events which have been reported as irrational. And I certainly don't buy into the theories that people like him and Putin are the decision makers for every evil deed committed by their underlings. It would be great if you can keep trying to help Badawi get out of jail or at least avoid the remaining 950 lashings; its too late for Khashoggi but not for the young Badawi, hopefully. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

False flag

After thinking about Jimbo's(your) comments I am now wondering whether this entire event has been a False flag operation; exactly fitting our first sentence in our False flag article: A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

Its almost impossible to ever prove a false flag but they are often similar in their makeup. One of the similarities is often "timing", in this case it might be this.

Since I'm so old, I have seen a number of these powerful false flags which often relate directly to President Eisenhower's farewell address, here in video, warning to Americans about the danger of having created a Military–industrial complex after WW2.

One specific example of the many beneficiaries of wars and conflicts might be addressed in this Village Voice article, written less than a month after 9/11.

A more recent example of the Military–industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned us about, flexing its muscles, could be the immediate and fierce resistance that exploded when Trump began talking about making friends with Russia, and the whole "Russian collusion" theory might possibly be a false flag created to protect the status quo political and financial benefits and profits flowing to some who want an adversarial/"enemy" relationship to continue between the West and Russia.

This immediate and current horrible event might be almost a reuse of the same template...seeing a trend away from an adversarial relationship between Saudi Arabia and the West, the evil establishment monsters, on the Saudi side, who thrive on political and military, and in this case, religious, conflict, simply came up with a creative way to throw a huge monkey wrench into the progress Jimbo alludes to.

In other words, the bad guys' objective was/is exactly what has occurred. The objective was to get caught, knowing (it would not take a rocket scientist) what the ramifications of getting caught would be..exactly what is happening right now.

One thing is a fact, an undeniable and universally agreed upon fact, there is a hellova lot of money and power accumulated by many people, especially insiders, from military and political conflict and animosity. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Hi Jimmy. I know your views on biographies, it's my understanding that the core of WP:BLP applies across all projects, mandated by the Foundation, am I right on this? I have a concern over random lists of attacks as "quotes about" in Wikiquote. I don't think this is appropriate for any politician, regardless of party affiliation. Spiteful commentary by people like Assange, who openly admits to hating her, does not seem to be appropriate, certainly not unless others have identified it as a notable statement. What's your view please? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know the only cross-wiki requirements are the Terms of Use, including Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation or With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate. -Obsidi (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparing with unusual hurricanes

Hurricane Sandy landfall, at New Jersey, 29 Oct 2012, with hurricane winds offshore southeast[4] lower winds (50%) fading winds (13%) hurricane force[5] (25%)
Hurricane Ike (2008), hurricane force core, at Galveston, 13 Sep 2008
Hurricane Michael (2018), hurricane force core, at Mexico Beach, FL, 10 Oct 2018	Hurricane Andrew (1992), hurricane core, at Homestead AFB, Florida, 24 Aug 1992[1].

When comparing sizes of hurricanes, there are some rare special cases, such as the fading Hurricane Sandy at New Jersey landfall on October 29, 2012, at 8:00pm EDT.[6] As noted by other editors, the shore winds of Hurricane Sandy were mostly tropical-storm force, but the southeast sector came ashore with windspeed 80 mph (130 km/h; 70 kn) around Atlantic City after 9 p.m. EDT, as technically bringing some sustained hurricane-force winds ashore during those hours. However that half-circle Sandy is very different from typical hurricanes where the hurricane-force winds come ashore hours before landfall with the eye of the storm. Hence, in the case of Superstorm Sandy, some people would have been able to evacuate in the lower winds, such as traveling north, for hours before landfall occurred in New Jersey, perhaps to avoid the shore storm tide of about 13.3 feet (4.1 m) that night.[7]

Hurricane Andrew re-formed in 2 days: Another rare storm was Hurricane Andrew, of late August 1992, which had weakened then re-intensified to Category 5 near Homestead AFB, Florida, on 24 Aug 1992 at 5:05 a.m. landfall, as almost no time to evacuate unless size is considered. A simulation of Andrew's eyewall noted:[8]

"According to the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale (Simpson 1974), Andrew only took 36 hours to develop from a tropical storm to a near-category 5 hurricane.

"After reaching its maximum intensity, Hurricane Andrew experienced a temporary weakening, probably through a process of concentric eyewall contraction (Willoughby and Black 1996). It reintensified to 922 hPa with a maximum surface wind of 67 m s−1 [67 m/s (150 mph; 240 km/h)] just before landfall when it moved over the warm straits of Florida. (Landfall windspeed post-analysis: 165 mph (266 km/h).)

However, in many cases the size of a storm should be noted when making hurricane preparations. Perhaps WP pages could include circle-width graphs for each landfall location of a strong storm. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist changes

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207472

I don't know where to ask this, so am asking here. What happened to the marker buttons on my watchlist? A while ago somebody changed the color coding I so appreciated to a solid or blank button. But now there's just a little dot in front of each entry and I can't tell which I've viewed and which I haven't. The top of the page announces, "Changes to pages since you last visited them are shown with solid markers," but that's not so on my watchlist. YoPienso (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yopienso: WP:ITSTHURSDAY, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_problem? for more information. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. YoPienso (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness! I thought it was just me. PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It makes me very happy that there is a redirect WP:ITSTHURSDAY. I had not seen that before, it amuses me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You can thank Izno for that. Graham87 06:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The rotten core of MEDRS and the myth of a magic reliable source

One of the more aggressively promoted pieces of text on Wikipedia is WP:MEDRS, whereby medical articles are supposed to reflect only a very narrow range of accepted recent opinion. At the very core of that range are the Cochrane Reviews, a special super-correct source so reliable it has special exemptions, including from the usual arbitrary five year cutoff, built right in to the policy. And right at the center of the Cochrane reviews? Yup. We have a co-founder being expelled, which he says is because he was insufficiently friendly to the vaccine industry. Now mind, we're not talking about somebody pushing nonsense about autism and jade vaginal eggs, we're talking about someone who published a sensible critique in the British Medical Journal. Six board members voted to expel him, five against. Then four resigned in protest, issuing this statement.

I don't think we can stop the medical lobbyists from deleting inconvenient information around here under color of policy any more than we can keep a blatant ad from showing up on the Main Page every other day, but encyclopedists should stand advised that there is no magic source you can always trust ... ever. Wnt (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It is nowhere near that simple. I've eaten dinner with Gøtzsche, he is a very ethical man but he has a real bee in his bonnet on a couple of topics and in this case he was pushing a personal agenda under the imprimatur of Nordic Cochrane. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

When one binds ones' self to a very specific definition of the good (IE when one is very ethical) getting bees in the bonnet is something of an occupational hazard. Because a strong position on what is good demands a strong reaction to that which is not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but in this case it led him into a crusade against certain classes of psychiatric drugs (probably justified) and a crusade against HPV vaccine on the basis of "industry sponsored research", which pretty clearly was not justified, as all credible reviews of the data and literature find HPV vaccine to be very safe. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

When someone says something idiotic on the Internet in general, or on Wikipedia specifically, there's always a tension between ignoring the idiocy (to starve it of oxygen) or responding to it (because unchallenged idiocy is inherently harmful). When does a piece of nonsense become sufficiently pernicious to warrant a response? Wnt's comment straddles that invisible line so adroitly that I'm at a loss. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

In describing Gøtzsche, Allen Frances, chair of the department of psychiatry at Duke University, wrote, "He consistently expresses the most extreme views in the most dramatic and misleading way." That reminds me of Jimbo's phrase "lunatic charlatan". Perhaps that assessment is a bit harsh considering his other accomplishments, but it sure looks like this fellow has spiralled down to some very disruptive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see how a publication like [9] (2013) could be dismissed as "lunatic charlatanry". After all, some basic truths like that are not something a lobbyist wants to dwell on. Now as for the recent contested study, I note that a third of the Cochrane board resigned over Gotzsche's firing, which makes me think something smells. I am not a proper authority for reading the cochrane response versus the BMJ article, but to me the response seems like it is blowing smoke. Looking to the root of the exclusion of 20 of 46 studies that didn't post data, they say only that they missed five studies which they say didn't change their finding, and didn't know why the others didn't post data. But the whole point made in the original paper was that the impression was given that there were not many missing studies or participants at all. Because pharma companies publish favorable results and hide unfavorable results until the patent is about to run out, that's a pretty big loophole, isn't it? I am similarly less than persuaded by some of the other arguments... and there are things I don't see "refuted" at all, such as the bizarrity of using meta-regression to detect the effect of company funding on results when they are all company funded.

As I said above, I don't really think it is possible for me to stop industry lobbyists from having the formal power to dictate truth to Wikipedia, but we might as well share the news while we're still able. I'm not even against this HPV vaccine -- neither is Gotzsche, so far as I could see -- but I am for his right to assess whether the reviews are as honest as advertised, and if the answer is censorship, I would certainly assume they are not. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

la la land. on so many levels, I can't even begin. OK I will try, with two basic ones. 1) Who is going to pay for discovering and developing drugs (one of the riskiest endeavors on the planet) if not the private sector? I sure as hell don't want the government gambling tax dollars on such risky things. Hell we can't even get people to pay enough taxes to do mundane, unrisky things like fix bridges and pay teachers. So bitching about industry-funded clinical trials is la-la land. 2) The medical literature is full of ... stuff. There is some absolute shit in it from predatory publishers, and there is absolute shit published by NEJM and even BMJ. MEDRS is like a compass to get through it. I don't think anybody is going to come up with something better than "a) high quality recent reviews, and b) statements by major medical and scientific bodies" as a place to find accepted knowledge in the field of health and medicine. So yeah. la la land. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
and by the way, some cochrane reviews are ludicrous. They do all kinds of quackademic ones (e.g this), and Tom Jefferson has completely FRINGE views (he thinks we should do placebo-controlled flu vaccine trials - see also here) but is all over infectious disease stuff. for pete's sake. But lots of them are great and the organization does important work. Painting things so black and white is also la la land. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Clinical medicine is not an exact science. Even the more statistically rigorous work often has hidden assumptions. The consensus changes--it has changed even in the last 50 years very sharply in some fields, and can be expected to change just as much in the next 50. Some of it will be new discoveries and new methods, but a great deal of it is interpretation and the use of more careful statistical analysis. In particular, as pertains to the individual, there's a difference between what a rational person would want to do forthemself, and what it is cost-effective to do for a population. I'm not going to list specific areas--there are altogether too may of them , and most of those I am aware of are those that have some effect on myself and my family. We have I think been far too ready to declare orthodoxy in this area--I ascribe at least some of it to the still-esxisting inclination of physicians to try to simplify things for the layman. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is we, as a society, are too afraid of risk. Everything is a risk. When someone is dying from cancer, each extra day without a treatment is a step closer to death. So time itself is a risk. In medicine, people will die. Sometimes death will be a known risk factor. With more experimental treatment it may also be an unknown risk. The focus needs to be on properly informing patients of what the risks are and the level of knowledge concerning potential risks and then allowing the patient to choose their own level of risk. Not all physicians will agree with the consensus, and that is a good thing, it allows patients to have a meaningful choice in physicians. Those that want to wait for a placebo-controlled study for a flu vaccine can do so (although I doubt there will be many such people, or people willing to spend that kind of money for things that most people don't care about). Establishing basic safety (through things like Phase I trials) is important. But after that, let patents choose the risk of a drug that may not work as long as they are properly informed of that. Focus on what we know, and for most things we don't know everything, so we should explain the source of the information we do have and how that is viewed by the medical community. Some of this obviously pertains to the current regulatory system we have that is beyond WP. But some of it is also the foundation of NPOV when there are multiple viewpoints. (And yes, I know MEDRS raises the bar on what qualifies as a RS.) -Obsidi (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

People are not good at evaluating the danger from risky behavior. To use the classical examples, they greatly over-estimate the possible danger from rare but dramatic possibilities such as airplane accidents and lightening strikes, and undramatic but omnipresent dangers like automobile accidents and global warming. In health behavior, they overestimate the danger from rare drug interactions, and ignore the real hazards of drinking alcohol and smoking. This affects healthcare workers also: they are much more concerned about rare catastrophes than routine sub-optimal results. (this isn't wholly perverse--some of the real risks have associated pleasure, or very costly solutions. People panic. It's not just that they adopt unproven remedies, they adopt remedies giving a minute possibility of a total cure, over standard ones that will actually prolong and help their life. (And, again, many physicians have very similar bias, for professional status and personal satisfaction.)And sometimes they do guess right, as in the unexpected dramatic success of cancer immunotherapy. Therefore, this affects the encycopedia in other fields also. I lay part of the blame on the pseudoscience arb cases, which in effect endorsed summary labelling of complicated situations.

There is no reason to think people more rational when dealing with their health than in dealing with their money, or personal relationships, or political choices. All previous encyclopedias had implicit (or in some cases explicit) biases. Our crowdsourcing offered a approach to minimize it, But it does not offer a way to control it. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, people are not always entirely rational (at least in terms of mathematical rationality of probabilities). What you are describing is Prospect theory and the Identifiable victim effect. These are some of the biases that all humans tend to have. Doctors and well as patents. Doctors also have a variety of other biases that impact their decisionmaking like malpractice concerns or profit motives. This is why you see $210 billion worth of unnecessary services (according to the Institute of Medicine). But if people want to not entirely be rational with how they make choices, we should let them (otherwise are we going to ban lottery tickets, etc.?) -Obsidi (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I should point out that WP:MEDRS says simply "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window." (the 5-year window referring to the fact that a medical review article older than five years has probably been superseded). If individual editors are elevating Cochrane to some divine level of authority, then take the issue up with them. I must admit to being seriously disappointed with Cochrane on my own special interest topic, where the authors of their review were not experts in the field and made some quite naive and over simplified conclusions based on inadequate understanding of the problem domain. But that review (repeated with the same mistakes some years later by the same team) is just one example, and that of course isn't evidence of any fundamental issue, just makes one wise to the fact that it isn't perfect by any means. I do think some editors here over promote and over use review articles simply because they have internet access to them. They often are very narrowly focussed on treatment efficacy and neglect to read sufficiently widely and deeply on their topic to actually understand what they are writing about. As for the title of this section, well that's just trolling b******t of a Daily Mail level of unintelligent flatulence. -- Colin°^Talk 07:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've said this quite a few times before here, the way medical science is practiced makes it unsuitable to address issues that don't refer to very specific pathological problems. So, if you have some disease X and the question is whether cure Y is effective, then there is usually no big problem and stiking to MEDRS is the right thing to do. But when it comes to a question like whether healthy people taking measure Y will improve their long term health, medical science is extremely unreliable due to factional infighting, massive COI from the food and drugs industries, poor research methods etc. etc. At the very least MEDRS should itself recognize this bad situation in the medical sciences that makes it less reliable to address general health issues. A symptom of this is that when new rigorously conducted study results come in on lifestyle factors, they quite often totally contradict old results that made it all the way through tertiary reviews and were made into guidelines for medical practitioners.

Take e.g. a news story that came out just today about exercise and health that totally contradicts what were supposed to be well established medical guidelines. For the first time researches got the brilliant idea that relying on self-reporting of their exercise intensity and duration might not be a good idea, so they used a different, more reliable method. The results: "Comparing those with a sedentary lifestyle to the top exercise performers, he said, the risk associated with death is "500% higher."

"If you compare the risk of sitting versus the highest performing on the exercise test, the risk is about three times higher than smoking," Jaber explained." ""People who do not perform very well on a treadmill test," Jaber said, "have almost double the risk of people with kidney failure on dialysis.""

Another recent result that totally contradicts medical guidelines is that fat in the recommended quantities in the diet is extremely bad for health. This is not a result that reasonably could not have been anticipated a long time ago, to the contrary as it was well known that indigenous population who eat a (by our standards) a very low fat diet, have almost zero rates of cardiovascular disease, see e.g. here. We can read here: "In conjunction with findings from other parts of the world in the 1950s, we concluded that the blood cholesterol levels in ‘successful’ modern civilizations were biologically abnormal, i.e. detrimental to health, and were apparently an essential precondition for coronary heart disease to become endemic in a population. Although a raised blood cholesterol level did not necessarily cause thrombosis, it undoubtedly predisposed to it."

Then these sorts of very solid results were effectively pushed aside, the guidelines we have today don't argue for getting less than 20% of your calories from fat. The current guidelines are based on comparing different sorts of diets but each of these give rise to significant levels of cardiovascular diseases (e.g. sticking to the Mediterranean diet instead of a conventional Western-style diet will reduce our risk by 30%, certainly not by a factor of 5 or more). If we then start over again and attempt to reproduce the old results from Uganda, we face the problem that today the people there eat like we do in the West. If we try to get data from indigenous populations who still eat a low fat diet, then we're faced with the problem that they live in areas were there are no hospitals, therefore there are no reliable hospital records that can tell something about the incidence of cardiovascular disease there.

Fortunately, modern technology can come to the rescue, we now have mobile CT scanners so we can bring them into the jungle and measure the levels of plaque in the coronary arteries of people who live there. The results of a recent study using such methods: "...the Tsimane, a forager-horticulturalist population of the Bolivian Amazon with few coronary artery disease risk factors, have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population recorded to date." The diet of the Tsimane is quite similar of the Ugandans in the 1950s, like the Ugandans of the 1950s, they also get about 20% of their calories from fat and they are also very physically active.

The problem we then have here at Wikipedia, is that the food industry funds a lot of research, and such results which answer different questions (e.g. if olive oil is better than butter) tends to cloud out results about the diets that truly reduce heart disease risk to almost zero. The most solid results that demonstrate how you can virtually eliminate heart disease risks then gets almost zero weight in the tertiary reviews, per MEDRS, Wikipedia will then end up not giving the proper weight to such results that they should get based on a purely scientific evaluation.

So, I would suggest to only use MEDRS for medical treatments. If the questions whether a bypass operation is better than angioplasty comes up, stick to the systematic reviews, instead of a primary article. But in case of how much exercise is good, how much fat or carbs in the diet is best etc. etc., MEDRS guidelines will cause industry sponsored propaganda being given a higher weight over and above solid research results. Count Iblis (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

some of this is partly what I meant. But it's not just a matter of industry vs. dispassionate science--there are a great many industries involved, not just in prevention, but treatment, -- the firms selling angioplasty devices or various other therapeutic or prosthetic or diagnostic hardware are as interested in results supporting their products as the food industry. And the pharmaceutical industry is even more important, influential, and oriented towards monetary results. And it's not just industry--the various pressure groups and patient lobbies have their own interests, and can be just as biased, and even more likely to try to use WP. The medical consensus changes--there are in many medical fields several different groups giving different ones, and the consensus on prevention, treatment, or anything else can be very different in different countries. WP is worldwide, and it cannot be assumed that the US or UK consensus is the ultimate standard. There is no basis for assuming anything in particular is actually correct, no matter how much we may want it to be.There is no basis for a assuming the any current research is correct. Whatever the present understanding for anything practical or theoretical or experimental, it's overwhelmingly probable that any existing consensus is not the one it will be ten or twenty or fifty years from now.

WP needs to present all the possibilities. It does need to indicate the nature of the evidence. But it also needs not to draw conclusions. The premise of free knowledge is that knowledge empowers people to evaluate the evidence. Some of science is complicated, but usually the aspects that affect people can be explained and understood. It takes some skill, of course, to do write it appropriately. That skill too can be learned. People writing about science in WP should learn not just the science, but how to explain it. They also need to know how to avoid conscious and unconscious bias. As I look at Wikipedia, that seems even harder. It is not just learning--you need to be willing to actually to it. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We're number one

According to these folks. The accolades are nice but the important sentence is "We live in a moment when few people seem to agree on a shared reality." Wikipedia getting it right is more important than ever, now that the post-truth era has dawned. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The more prominent a "neutral" mechanism becomes in politics, the more rapidly it is likely to be subverted. See "Bugan wei tianxia xian 不敢為天下先". Wnt (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Congrats to all editors and especially to Jimbo. It's Gizmodo saying that Wikipedia is #1 of "the most significant websites of all time." (whatever that means exactly) But other have been saying similar things for awhile now. The editors above are correct, it just gets more difficult (and more important) now to get it right. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Jimbo Wales:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Prince Charles' marriage

With all seven Reference desks and the talk page protected virtually continuously for the whole of October I have not been able to comment. Here's the discussion - what's your view?

In a same-sex marriage, who is the husband and who is the wife?

As we congratulate the royal newlyweds and wish them all happiness we still have the problem that Camilla and Charles are not married, for reasons explained here Special:Permalink/840529430#Repealing a repeal. Plans are being made for the first same-sex royal marriage. If the Camilla/Charles marriage were valid we might at some point see the Sovereign (who is Supreme Governor of the Church of England) give his or her wedding vows in a Roman Catholic church. We might also have a king and queen who are both of the same sex. If they are both female, would the partner of the one who was regnant have to be satisfied with the title "Prince Consort"? Note that before 1829 the only way Roman Catholics could lawfully marry was in Protestant churches. See "The King and the Catholics" by Antonia Fraser [10]. 92.8.223.143 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't a troll question, in a same-sex marriage, if both partners identify as male than they are both husbands, and if they both identify as female then they are both wives. I suppose there are also other possibilities (due to the fluid nature of gender) but if you went around asking which partner in a same-sex couple was the man and which was the woman that would be extremely offensive at the very least. Anyway, Charles and Camilla are married no matter what legal wonkery you can come up with, and as things currently stand you'll have at least two more plain old boring Anglican heterosexual kings, and the other questions are unanswerable for now. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a serious question (not trolling). I don’t think you’re right about the husband/wife thing. A woman in a lesbian relationship referred to her partner as my husband. In a same-sex relationship does not one partner play the role of the man (husband) and the other that of the woman (wife) in a conventional marriage? See [11]. If you’re wrong about this couldn’t you be wrong about the Camilla/Charles thing as well?

On the subject of legal wonkery, see [12]. The county court said the bakers were guilty of discrimination, and so did the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court said they were not. During those four years people may have said "Amy and Daniel McArthur are guilty of discrimination no matter what legal wonkery you can come up with" but they have been proved wrong. Can you cite a judgment (of any court) which says Camilla and Charles are married? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.53.164 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

In this case the law is not even ambiguous. As of 31 December 1949 nobody suggested that Camilla and Charles (had they been of full age and not two years old) could have lawfully married in a register office. Prior to 1837, members of the royal family could only marry in Anglican churches. Under the 1836 Marriage Act they could still only marry in Anglican churches. S.24 made the position clear:

And be it Enacted that this Act shall extend only to England, and shall not extend to the Marriage of any of the Royal Family.

As of 1 January 1950 the position was exactly the same - s.24 was bolstered by the Marriage Act 1949, s.79(5) which reads "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family." Just to remove any lingering doubt, in October 1955 Viscount Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, confirmed:

Marriages of members of the royal family are still not in the same position as marriages of other persons, for such marriages have always been expressly excluded from the statutes about marriage in England and Wales and marriage abroad and are therefore governed by the common law.

This means that in England and Wales, such a marriage can be validly celebrated only by a clergyman of the Church of England.

So are you suggesting the law has been changed, and if so what is the title of the relevant Act and when did it come into force? 92.23.53.164 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The Supreme Court recently ruled that legislation on civil partnerships was in breach of human rights. It did not rule that that fact made the legislation void. The only way to change the law is to pass another law. In the case of civil partnerships, the Government has said that that is what it is going to do, but until it does that a civil partnership between a man and a woman is void. In precisely the same way, register offices marriages by members of the royal family are void - and the government is not going to pass a law to legalise them. It did propose this in 2005 prior to the "marriage" of Camilla and Charles, but the Queen indicated her opposition and the proposal was dropped after a crisis meeting at Buckingham Palace between her and Dame Juliet Wheldon, head of the Government Legal Service. No Court has ruled that this marriage is legal - it is open to any interested party to make an application for the purpose.

The High Court is currently considering the legality of the Brexit referendum in a case brought by "UK in EU Challenge" [13]. In Scotland, the Inner House of the Court of Session has referred an application for a "declarator" to the European Court of Justice. Any proceedings in the High Court relating to the "marriage" would be brought by an application for a Declaration. Another group, Fair Vote, is crowdfunding a judicial review into Theresa May's refusal to hold a public inquiry on the referendum.

The only way that Camilla and Charles can marry in England is in a Church of England ceremony after the passing of Camilla's former husband. The royal website recently removed a statement that Camilla can be no more than Princess Consort. If the ceremony went ahead this would boost the economy and tourism. It would make it more likely that Camilla would eventually be crowned Queen. 92.23.53.243 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.230.249 (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for founding Wikipedia for you and me! =) Huff slush7264 talk 21:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiTribune restructures around community following editorial exodus

"WikiTribune, the ambitious community-driven newsbrand backed by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, has restructured after confirming to The Drum the departure of its original 13 journalists. The title’s co-founder, Orit Kopel, has said that it will extend its pilot period while it hunts for a more 'community oriented' editorial team that will better work with contributors."[14]

I wouldn't read too much into this. Startups often make these sort of corrections as they discover what works and what doesn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But did the 13 journalists "depart" from the company or did Wales lay 12 of them off (with the exception being Peter Bale, who left this past April)? IntoThinAir (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what you're asking here. I laid them off, and they departed. And the number isn't really correct, as a few had moved on, some were freelance/contractors, etc. This letter explains it all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It just seemed like one source was saying they "departed", implying that they left voluntarily/quit, while the other source was saying that they were fired, and I thought that that was a contradiction, but never mind. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Google is paying PR companies to write articles about their employees

Jimbo, I came across this edit where an editor is declaring their conflict of interest. They are claiming to be hired by Google to write an article about a Google employee. What do you think of this? Peacock (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There are many things that can be said about this, but I've got nothing very original.

First we should thank User:A+o Kommunikation for following our rules and declaring their paid editor status. Actually they didn't do this formally in the correct way, but in substance they did.
Of course the user name is against policy since it is the name of a company.
Perhaps I'm just a worry-wort, but how do we really know that they represent Google? Maybe they are just trying to embarrass Google. (Is this an original thought?)
After giving the draft a quick read:
- The subject looks to be at least borderline notable
- The refs look real and there are enough of them, but are not top quality (e.g. not the NY Times)
- the PR firm seems to be trying not to write in a PR style, but ultimately fails, e.g. "Ana has a penchant for fashion and the arts and is active in supporting these industries." (why not just give some specific details that would tell the reader what they are talking about?) and the next sentence "Ana has a history of supporting STEM education for young girls." (same criticism) . "Ana", of course, should be replaced by her last name "Corrales"

They should not have written "If we should adjust or change something in the draft, please let us know" as it implies article ownership. See [15]
I suppose @PCock: is really interested in whether Google should be doing this. Our rules apply to everybody, so it's difficult to single out Google. OTOH, their size and influence and donations to WMF do raise some interesting questions - but I'll let others address those. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's strange they can't afford someone who writes decent English! Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to say that the article is well written, but the language is better than in the usual article written by a PR firm. My theory on why PR firms can't write a good article is that they have to train themselves to ignore the usual standards to satisfy their clients. They just lose the ability to write well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for paid editors not to use bold in section headers, and to create reference sections? I'm exceedingly skeptical that "Google LLC" did anything (as Google is not an LLC), though it's very likely their PR agency doing the work. The current version is drowning in promotional language to the point that I can't easily evaluate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You may be right on the notability issue. My evaluation above was based on a quick read. Bolding in section headers is just a newby mistake however. This really is a better article than 95% of those I've seen written by a PR firm. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, our article does say "Google LLC". Google was "Inc." before Sep 2017 but was restructured into an LLC. Regards So Why 15:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
That is stupid and should be illegal, but I stand corrected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I remain strongly opposed to paid editing of this type and think that accounts like this should be banned on sight and that the PR firms who do this should be pariahs in their industry for supporting what is basically a fundamentally corrupt practice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of what went down in the paid editing RFC, and like I said back then, we should discourage paid editing of any sort as monetary gain should not be the motivation for contributing to Wikipedia (too many COI and NPOV issues). Although that's just my opinion, I'm sure plenty will agree with my sentiments.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jimmy and @Mythdon: that this type of article should be against our rules. But currently it is not. In fact it is one of the better written of the drafts submitted by PR firms. It was submitted as a draft - not as an article - and the paid status of the editor was revealed. I'm almost certain that if this draft were ever submitted to an administrator or ArbCom it would not be deleted by them, and the editor would only receive a mild reprimand and encouragement to learn our rules about user names, COI, WP:NOADS, etc.

Probably the best statement IMHO that is against this type of editing is WP:Deceptive advertising (an essay that I mostly wrote). Following standard definitions and the US FTC rules, the draft would almost certainly be violating US laws if it were to be placed as an article.

The real problem, however, is that admins and the ArbCom do not enforce our rules against paid editing. One egregious example of this was a private case I submitted to ArbCom in July. An administrator had added PR text to the article about his employer. The text was sourced to a Press Release (I doubt a footnote would meet the FTC's disclosure requirements, nor WP:PAID). The reason the case was private was that I discovered the admin's identity on sources he had posted off-Wiki, one of which was linked to on-Wiki. ArbCom decided that the case was not paid editing, and that the admin did not even need to declare a COI. Not much else was explained to me about their decision. The admin did finally declare a COI a week ago, three months after I filed the case. If that's the type of enforcement we get, it's no wonder we are swamped with paid-for garbage articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This editor may be good at "women encouragement" for all I know, but apparently was unaware of past work on the ROLI article, instead making only a direct HTML link to the company site when saying Draft:Ana Corrales was "an advisor to Roli, a company inventing new tools that extend the joy of music-making to everyone." That article has quite a complete product list... Wnt (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Complicated situation in Macedonia and Wiki

Hi Jimbo, today I observed Balkan news and find maybe interesting matter for Wiki users/admins. relating to situation in Macedonia [16], namely Macedonian Parliament will vote for Constitutional amendments with two-thirds majority. What was stunning for me is that despite of the unanimous call of US and EU leaders it seams that Members of Macedonian Parliament will probably not reach 80 votes necessary for passage of amendments and the number of them is exactly as predicted by user Operahome two weeks ago, i.e. aprox. 75 Members of Macedonian Parliament. Looks Operahome arguments were relevant after all.Алфа БК (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Predictions of the future are seldom relevant for Wikipedia, however insightful they may be. It is not for us to speculate or try to influence events, it is for us to record what reliable sources have said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo for your prompt answer. I agree with your opinion completely. Still, under circumstances, I would strongly recommend that someone create BLP for I.J., since it appears to be crucially relevant person who actually decisively influence the political situation in Macedonia and by saying that I mean broader European and US affairs in Balkans. Sometimes, as you may agree, absence of any action can influence (historical) events too.Алфа БК (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm, change of Constitution will go in 3 phases. First, decision to change Constitution with two-thirds majority, than vote for amendments with the simple majority, then third phase is final adoption of amendments again with two-thirds majority. As I was informed minutes ago Parliament voted with two-thirds majority, and this is a major victory for prime-minister Zoran Zaev. But, as was explained 2 weeks ago by prof. I.J. or his assistant here ( I assume user:Operahome) there is a long way to an end the process of Constitutional change because finally the President of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov will never sign the adopted of amendments, and again agreement between Macedonia and Greece will not enter into force..178.223.41.197 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes there are three steps, and the third is an adoption of amendments with 2/3 majority, with 80 or perhaps 81 vote. If its needed 81 vote, than they will have to vote with a different majority on the final adoption and that would be apparent blatant embarrassment, because either they were wrong first time when voted with 80, or second time (81) i.e. or both times with only 80 lawmakers majority.Алфа БК (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I will not give further comments on victory of Zaev. It was reached with 80 Members of Parliament and all international community is celebrating that. When I spoke with prof. I.J. who actually participated in writing / creating of the first Macedonian Constitution he told me that unlike some other Constitutions, Macedonian constitutional procedures requires NOT 80, but 81 votes of the all lawmakers! Than I found similar information on several places including Macedonian Wikipedia https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Собрание_на_Република_Македонија were they use text from Rules and procedures: "двотретинско или квалификувано значи дека за одреден закон е потребно позитивно да се изјаснат две третини од вкупниот број пратеници во Собранието. Ова значи дека законот е донесен кога за неговото донесување гласале 81 пратеници.", that mean 81 Members of Parliament. Now I really don't know. But I noticed that in previous discussion user Operahome uses "81 MP's"[17]. Is it possible that lawmakers, some of them students of Janev didn't knew what was legal meaning of term: two-thirds majority. If its mean 81 vote, than Zaev has lost the procedure. I then consulted with two more teachers of Constitutional Law from Macedonia and surprisingly they were "not sure" about majority!! I am puzzled!Алфа БК (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Our article supermajority assumes that precisely two-thirds will work in most parliaments. The Macedonian article is uncited. However, searching for articles that use "81" I find [18] and [19]. But the AP article says it was passed by 69 votes last summer -- the 81 applied to removing president Ivanov, if he wouldn't ratify the bill. The Guardian article says a "constitutional amendment" passed by 80 votes, a bare 2/3 majority. It is conceivable that a different standard applies for amending the constitution vs removing the president? Wnt (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear Wnt, same rule applies for removing the president Ivanov, and Zaev one month ago had sent threats to Macedonian president, and Ivanov have replied to Zaev: "try it"!. As for 2/3 majority, if prof. Игор Јанев (prohibited person I.J. here on Eng. wiki) contacted oppositional block or VMRO-DPMNE or vice versa, they (VMRO) will not later than on Monday react to that fact, when (or before) it is expected US State Department envoy M. Palmer to arrive in Macedonia and try to calm present war-like situation. As for The Guardian, I would conclude that it is not reliable source, because even professors of Constitutional law cannot unanimously interpret what represent 2/3 majority under Constitutional order in Macedonia. Now you may ask yourself "What kind of country is Macedonia" if no academic authority can interpret what legally represent 2/3 majority under Macedonian Constitution.Алфа БК (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now a couple minutes ago from pro-VMRO-DPMNE portal "Infomax" there is a first unofficial reaction by the VMRO that states "Decision was null and void" and have "no legal effect" [20]. Comment was given by a Constitutional law professor at State University in Skopje Tanja Karakamisheva, chief advisor to the Hristijan Mickoski president of the party VMRO-DPMNE. That is certainly more relevant statement than the statement by prof. Игор Јанев (related here at Wiki to user:Operahome), who is currently professor of International law and basically work most of the time in Belgrade (Serbia). Maybe, one should not take these statement(s) too seriously because prof. T. Karakamisheva is a college of prof. I. Janev, who is well-known extreme nationalist and probably bias. (By saying that, it does not mean that I suggest that he is not expert on Constitutional Law or International law.)Алфа БК (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a useful source, in that it shows text, I assume from the constitution ... with a few iterations of searching I was able to get to the plaintext "Одлуката за пристапување кон измена на Уставот, Собранието ја донесува со двотретинско мнозинство гласови од вкупниот број пратеници." That's all Greek to me (sorry, couldn't help myself!) but presumably it sheds light on the issue. (the above links were an experiment, but it appears Wiktionary is very incomplete where Macedonian is concerned, sorry) Note though that 117 of the 120 apparently voted, so this is also a question about how the abstentions (?) are counted. I still say they should have called it Paeonia or Macedonia Salutaris ;) Wnt (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Every nation has a right to choose and right on opinion, even a wrong one, and no one has an exclusivity on the interpretation of History, and neither wrongful interpretation of history affect any international right of Greece. Take the present new description in the areement "North" as a "Republic of North Macedonia", and that even doesn't solve any aspect of historical so called "dispute" with Greece. So present addition to the state name "North" will do exactly nothing explanatory even if Greece had legitimate concerns, but in fact Greece don't have any such concerns. If even finalized in Greek parliament agreement will not last long. You can not with international agreement regulate how people feel and think, their nationality, language, identity, because its impossible and impermissible to regulate with the international treaty national identity as such.178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wnt, thanks for your understanding and patience. As for results were: abstentions=0, against=0, yes=80, and total=117, believe me no one understand that mathematics or logic, except some Macedonians and perhaps especially those Macedonians from the ruling party SDSM. Regards!Алфа БК (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So do you know who the missing three people are? How do they describe their votes and their current status within the assembly? For example, is there some way to not abstain but just plain not vote available? (I mean, if abstaining is equivalent to "no", maybe not-abstaining is equivalent to "yes"???) Wnt (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wnt, "abstention" under Mac. Const. order means not voting or not present and not voting, and its not equivalent to "yes" or "no". Thanks for asking.178.223.41.197 (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Great job, Wnt, even Алфа БК didn't saw monitor in the Parliament. Thanks!178.223.37.146 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

That Agreement violates basic Human Rights, by restricting Freedoms of speech and opinion, including historical and social science, archeology and broad areas of media and all levels of "education", where no one should have "different opinion" and use term "Macedonia" in any "official communication", since all "Hellenic heritage" belongs "exclusively" (under agreement) to Greece. For instance all National institutions such as Parliament and Supreme Court (more than 100 institutions) including the name VMRO will have to be changed. Or History text books, even by private editors, will have to be written and studied again, or further there will be certain restrictions on what you can say on public or private media (TV, etc.). And, besides Human Rights restrictions contained in that agreement, contrary to the modern international standards, stipulates that final approval of Macedonian Constitutional change will rest on foreign parliament! i.e. Greek one, because they will act as a last superior instance (like sort of Superior Parliament) where all amendments related to the agreement and Constitution will have to be approved! The question is if Macedonian Parliament even make such changes to its Constitution, that even violate international standards, and the Government in Greece fall/change or the Parliament in Greece do not finally approve Agreement (in their Parliament), what will happened with Macedonian system, because its not easy if even possible to undone Constitutional changes? This changes itself are in violation of international Human Rights standards, and especially its apparent by direct restricting of Media, Education and Culture, meaning controlling and policing them by government and even (joint) Greek Commissions, and by degrading democracy Macedonia will stil not be ready for EU admission (standards).178.223.41.197 (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

One of obligation in the agreement is for Macedonia to inform all UN member nations on the new state name Republic of North Macedonia, and by doing so delegitimate recognition of present Constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. If Macedonia pass all amendments and delegitimate itself in UN, and than nothing pass in Greece Parliament, Macedonia will still remain delegitimized with new name, and it cannot be undone. Not in a short period.178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Later, the government corrected statement and said in media that MP's who voted against were 39 (against=39) and with yes =80, and that still doesn't work since 39+80 is 119, and it is not 117 total! But since international community already congratulated victory to Zaev, what can I say? Welcome to Macedonian Parliament! This is the place on the planet Earth where everything is possible.Алфа БК (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

At photo here https://mia.mk/2018/10/parliament-endorses-decision-to-initiate-constitutional-revision/?lang=en you see that oppositional MPs were not on their seats, but were staying beside the wall and boycotting the vote, so there were no even one voting AGAINST! To say 39 is a hoax.178.223.32.253 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I read that all members of VMRO, except 7 (and plus one from the Socijalist party) where not in the Macedonian Parliament, but government still reported that 39 voted against[21][22]. And still 39+80 = 119, not total=117. VMRO said that 8 Members of Parliament were bribed with approximately 1 milion US dollars from Greeks shadow funds for secret ops. where total sum reached 50 milion. I also learned from a person close to well informed people that in all what happened there in Macedonia VMRO-DPMNE was also perhaps not innocent, and that for example one Member of Parliament (VMRO) who was in jail by SDSM was released from the prison (by SDSM) only for a purpose to vote Yes, and than he suddenly survived deadly hart attack (Mr. MP Krsto Mukoski) [23] and after some medical help in Skopje hospital (urgent div.), sent back to Parliament to vote: Yes. To conclude this boring discussion about Macedonia, in all that developments in Macedonia, there were no good or bad people. Basically they (regardless VMRO or SDSM or anyone else) all are bad, but like in life everywhere else some are worse than the others. So personally I don't feel sorry for anyone. God help them.Алфа БК (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Алфа БК, you may believe it or not, its up to you! MP Krsto Mukoski was one of the three MPs all from VMRO, arrested on 27 of april last year and placed for some period in jail by court, but their status as a Member of Parliament was, surprisingly, not removed! And in Friday 19. Oct. all three MPs were promised freedom by a Secret Police (UBK) if they vote YES for Constitutional change. After they were released from the jail(Mukoski was released in Friday, and other two previous day(s)) , all three MPs have voted in the Parliament, to create 80 votes.178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be stupid to engage myself (any)more in discussion here about Macedonian problems. Thank you Wnt, Jimbo and all of you who followed this debate and I could say idiotic stuff and show some interest in this generally stupid issue. All for all of you who finished elementary school, I guess you could apply to become a Head of Mathematics Department at Skopje University in Macedonia. Or even to be lawmaker(s) in Macedonian Parliament under condition previously to learn Macedonian language. As for Russia, I just saw news that they have refused to recognize decision of Macedonian Parliament [24] and will continue to call country Republic of Macedonia. Thanks guys!Алфа БК (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There are/were many procedural issues even when starting Constitutional procedure. According to art. 52 of the Constitution, bill previously had to be pub. in Official Gazette of R. Macedonia, and that could not happened because it was not signed by the President. Than, According general principles enshrined in the art. 51. of Constitution, Int. agreement must be in accordance with Constitution. Namely, system in Macedonia is based od so called "dual theory" (describing relation between Int. and Const. law, see about that theory in Wiki, same is in US and Germany)[[25]]. So, shortly, there were many issues about even the beginning of the Constitutional procedures of amending highest legal act.91.150.96.228 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and Prespa agreement was ratified, but have not been signed by the President, and didn't become the law of the land/state!!, so there were no preconditions and legal basis for the Decision to change the Constitution delivered on Friday. Decision to open the Constitution taken on 19. October is void and null. All this process was a hoax!

See art. 118. of the Constitution (Член 118. Меѓународните договори што се ратификувани во согласност со Уставот се дел од внатрешниот правен поредок и не можат да се менуваат со закон.), were only "international treaties ratified in accordance with the Constitution are part of the internal legal order, and they can not be changed by law".178.222.115.231 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

178.222.115.231 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just in case, Any attempt to remove the President of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov will only lead to the arrest of Prime Minster Zoran Zaev.178.223.41.197 (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, they never resolve such things in Parliament, but rather old fashion way were someone has to die. And keep in mind that police in Macedonia is heavily armed and stronger than the army. As for his advisor from Belgrade, this people always somehow survive, and that may not be the case for their commanders-in-chief.

178.223.37.146 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

:I would not bet on the police or secret police in case of war against the Army. Half of hour before 22.20 local time when voting took place, police that was providing security left the building of Parliament, and if they were late only 10 minutes from the moment of voting (22.20 local time + 10), like around 22.35 local time, its unclear what would happened.178.223.32.253 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Today Mukoski is free MP and his debts were paid by a State, around 10 milion dinars or 165 000 EU[26].178.223.37.146 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

see http://mn.mk/aktuelno/15429-Mnozinstvo-potrebno-za-donesuvanje-na-zakoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.247.65 (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! And according to Macedonian Constitution [27] all contracts and agreements "must be in accordance with the Constitution", International Law standards, including International jus cogens norms and principles! (meaning not contrary to Constitution, as it is case with that act), so in the process of contracting and approval of that Agreement, there where flagrant Constitutional violations and breaches, both on procedural and material substantive level, beginning from the moment of the signing of the Agreement by two ministers (in Prespa).178.223.41.197 (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition, see article of Macedonian Constitution where it is provided that such political agreements with other countries can be signed and concluded only by the President of Republic of Macedonia, and that is not the case now (Agreement was signed and concluded by the Minister of Foreign affairs, not the President)!178.223.41.197 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

According art. 119. of Macedonian Constitution its crime. MFA was not entitled to do so. (Меѓународните договори во името на Република Македонија ги склучува претседателот на Република Македонија.)178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How we got here? And where is the link to Wiki? 10 years ago 99% of Macedonians were pro-EU and pro-Western, and in 2004. US had recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. Today, situation is 180 degrees opposite and more than 90% of ethnic Macedonians are Anti-western and Anti-NATO. Why? The reason for that is the speeding of US to bring the country in NATO and attempt to forcefully change the identity of nation, and that was seen in Macedonia as siding with Greece. As for Wiki, admins here apparently pissed off I.J. who had some influence in Macedonian opposition and on crucial politicians[28], where he explained games over his name as some political agenda.109.93.70.99 (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If Agreement of Prespa fails in Greece Parliament, Macedonia cannot restore back some Constitutional changes because of the Robert Badinter principle of "double majority" that requires also "majority given by ethic group" such as ethnic Albanians to approve changes in "ethnic sensitive Law(s)" and Constitution, so for Macedonia it is "one way process" for Constitutional changes with irrecoverable damage. That's makes political situation even worse. As for prof. I.J. his contribution to the legal theory is that he apparently discovered principle that "no one can externally regulate national identity", by an Int. agreement or a resolution, such as UNSC Res. 817 (1993). I agree with it.91.150.96.228 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of Macedonian Constitution were young and inexperience students of Law then (1991, 1992), and, perhaps, the huge omission was not to provide legal powers in the Constitution for the President to dissolve the Parliament, like it was provided in several other Constitutional systems (e.g. Italy). (P.S. some of them even with the poor knowledge of English.).178.222.115.231 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on bias and NPOV.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

"What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[29][30]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I will fight to the death to defend Lysenkoism!!! I mean not really... Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon - Clipped and saved. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Does it follow then, that...

We are biased against the Ancient Greeks and Romans who foolishly believed in gods like Zeus, Apollo, Jupiter, told ridiculous tales of fiction like the Odyssey and Iliad, created Greek tragedy rather than stick to falsifiable facts, and created intellectual giants like Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, who had crackpot theories that have since been debunked, and

We are biased in favor of current technology that created the Atom bomb, global warming, water contamination, air pollution, deforestation, caused mass extinction of wildlife species, and taken genocide to new levels of efficiency?

--David Tornheim (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And what was the average life expectancy then vs. now? How about the infant death rate? Food availability? An encyclopedia anyone can edit? Prevalence of slavery? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Trofim Lysenko, as described by our competitor, was a proponent of Michurinism; we yet have a redirect Lysenko-Michurinism though it appears the article itself at this time has nothing to say about it. Although "Michurinism" also redirects to Lysenko, it is named after Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, who developed many actual varieties of fruits and vegetables using a method called graft hybridization, in which a scion is spliced to a rootstock in order to acquire heritable characteristics from it. Some of those strains remain in use to this day, despite the doctrinal impossibility of their creation. Recently, it has been recognized that graft hybridization has a basis in transfer of nucleic acids -- which, of course, has led to it being retroactively credited to Darwin under his general idea of pangenesis. That article details transfer of plasmids. Transfer of RNAi (which could change levels of miRNAs, for example, with potentially profound effects is also possible, which could lead to heritable changes in epigenetic state. Of course, none of this reaches to Lysenko's most unscientific proposal that one could simply expose seed to cold conditions over several generations in order to teach the plant to adapt. This was denounced by Darwinians as clearly and unmistakeably opposed to genetic dogma ... nonetheless, it actually happens to be true with benefits into the third generation.

In short, the unscientific claims of Lysenko find substantial backing in actual experiment, should one choose to do it -- though this was rejected by Western geneticists for dogmatic reasons. I do not wish to endorse the political enforcement of Lysenkoism, of course, but I should note the experiments did in fact reach to core principles of communism and capitalism, since it was the Soviets' belief that exposing peasants of poor birth and dull mind to nutrition, culture, and opportunity would bring about their advancement (along "The Bell Curve", you might say) from generation to generation, while Western Spencerists came to believe that only the extermination of undesirable genes could serve the goals of the human race, as expressed in the Eugenics in the United States and elsewhere. Conversely, exposing the populace to substances such as nicotine can have undesirable effects lasting generations. [31] To be sure, epigenetics is not so predictable as anyone would hope (even the Soviets) - it provides no blanket assurance that any stimulus, even one with no present effect, will not cause harmful effects in future generations, nor can it say that a "positive" stimulus in this generation will have positive results in future generations. But it was never right to ignore it.

Who knows what is science and what is pseudoscience? Nothing is impossible in biology, a science that knows no theory and rewards only those willing to test each question by experiment. Wnt (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should say biology has multiple competing theories, lest we make some biologists cringe. For example, active matter physics is rather advanced, with swarm behaviour in flocks of birds. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: Alright, it's true, biology knows theory ... except, there's almost always an exception. Like, sexual reproduction is a biological necessity that species all over the world undergo great trials and hardships to make happen ... except bdelloid rotifers, which are perfectly happy without it. Genes that interfere with reproduction are removed from the gene pool ... except homosexuality. Arthropods are incapable of growing to large sizes due to their internal organization and the square-cube law ... except Jaekelopterus. There's always some living thing wandering around that hasn't read the textbook. Wnt (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, turn over a rock and find an un-ironic supporter of Lysenkoism. It's a mad, mad world. Simonm223 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Read up for yourself. To be clear, I'm not saying that Lysenko was the ultimate truth in biology -- only that the phenomena he described have since been shown to be real. Before he became a scientific bureaucrat overseeing a wretched imposition of truth from above (though we should compare what was being done in the name of eugenics in the West during much of that time before we get carried away in condemnation), he listened to Russian peasant farmers and believed what they had to say ... and never mind whether prevailing theories agreed with it. That first attitude was a good one, reminiscent of Wikipedian attitudes, just as the imposition of truth from above was a bad one, and nowadays remains no sane way to fight "Lysenkoism" or anything else. Mendelian genetics is a great theory that applies to a lot of situations ... but not everything, because epigenetics -- a field whose development was stunted historically due to fear of association with "the wrong people" and even because of its ideological implications. Wnt (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion re RfC

(Redacted) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice job misquoting the RfC and rephrasing the question in such a way as to get your desired response.

The RfC question is...

"Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable""

...which you changed to...

"is it perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors?"

Knowing full well that the emerging consensus is that

[A] It is always uncivil but not everything that is uncivil is sanctionable.

[B] Is depends on the context. Saying it out of the blue on an article talk page is one thing. Saying on your own talk page in response to hounding is quite another.

So far, the consensus at the RfC is against you. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see a significant difference between the RfC question and mine. It is my assumption uncivil behavior can, in general, be sanctioned. Every organization I have ever belong to, that has been the case. If it cannot, I think we have a problem: If we declare it is off-limits to sanction a behavior we all agree is uncivil, we are effectively giving people a green light to editors to be uncivil. Is that the goal here, to permit incivility? I consider incivility to be a significant problem here and a major reason we have so few new editors and lose so many long-term editors.

I was at the WikiConference 2018, and it was a theme of the conference. I think there is a reason for that. I believe those who organized the conference and spoke at those sessions about it also thought we have a civility problem.

I am shocked that this discussion even has to take place. I think it is a grave embarrassment to the project. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies (specifically, Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility) do not agree with your personal opinions about the way things should be.

Yet again you twist the words of others. Your practice of stuffing words in other people's mouths is a grave embarrassment to the project. Nobody has disputed the claim that we have a civility problem. The question is what to do about it.

Your argument boils down to "something has to be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done." :Again, the consensus at the RfC is against you. Do you have a theory as to why that might be? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility. In sum it says, do not immediately block someone for incivility, especially on its first occurrence. Take other steps to cool down the parties in a dispute first. I strongly agree with that, including warning an editor first about incivility (possibly more than once) before stronger steps such as blocking. The policy I read says that a long-term pattern of incivility can be sanctioned. I believe the policy is in agreement with what I have said. I consider long-term incivility to be "disruptive." Perhaps the wiki-word "sanction" means something other than the common meaning for sanction, "a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule."

Do you know how many times I told other editors to "fuck off"? Zero. Do you how many times I intend to tell editors to "fuck off"? Zero.

Nobody has disputed the claim that we have a civility problem. I am glad we agree on that.

Your argument boils down to "something has to be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done." No. I said no such thing. What do you think I feel must be done? I honestly think that the need to have that RfC is a joke. I do not believe that RfC is going to solve our civility problem no matter what the outcome is. That the answer to that question is not obvious and nearly unanimous simply shows how serious the civility problem is. This first step to solving a problem is recognizing it.

Again, the consensus at the RfC is against you. Do you have a theory as to why that might be? Yes. For all the reasons Snow Rise articulated here.

The question is what to do about it. What would you do about it? I'm open to ideas. I agree with Snow Rise's statement here. You seem to as well. I think one step is holding long-term editors accountable for incivility, rather than looking the other way. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that people wanting an automatic sanction against bad words offer no accompanying solution regarding civil POV pushers or other plainly misguided contributors. In fact, rather than a solution, the suggestion appears to be that indefinite discussion is wonderful so long as no bad words are used. Tain't so. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

[ec] David Tornheim, could you give me an example of "holding someone accountable" for incivility that does not involve a block or a ban (keeping in mind that it is Wikipedia policy that not all incivility should result in a block or ban)? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrator note Header refactored to a generic placeholder name and original post redacted as blatant campaigning, per AN/I report. Swarm talk 09:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, they are talking about this RfC: Wikipedia talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck_off" – sanctionable or not! It's not canvassing to link a RfC on Jimbo Wales' talkpage per se, so linking it here to give context to this thread without a further comment on the issue. --Pudeo (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interests / Vandalism (Paid Advocacy)

Hi, I was just going through Some of Indian Films Articles, I just noticed about Tu Maza Jeev The page is written and portrayed in Advertising format, I was thinking to put Advert Tag but before out of curiosity thought to check logs, after scanning it, I have noticed User Tiven2240 is more concerned and interested in editing and keeping this article as he wrote! Looking at its edit pattern & logs, Its noticed that the Image had been deleted by 'CommonsDelinker Bot' previously, also this page has been Nominated for deletion twice . Also this page has been marked for {Notability},{POV},{Advert}, which has been reverted or deleted without explanation by Same user. It seems he have Rollback Rights and he is misusing same. After doing detailed research about film and IMDB link given in page I found, that his name is included in credits social media marketing manager. I have seen his edits, pages he working on, I think this user deserve to be Ban Immediately for Vandalism & such commercial interests and this page should be removed on top priority. I think it need to be verified and take action.(ErGopalVerma (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC))

Methinks the editor doth protest too much. Posting this on eight different usertalkpages? When there is no real problem with the four-sentence article, other than you personally want it deleted? And this is apparently what you created this Wikipedia account for? Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Tiven2240, you're being discussed here and at seven other user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you for notifying me about this. As read above this is another vandalism/personal attack made on me. This counts another one and I am facing a series of it on meta as well as on my home Wikipedia which is Marathi Wikipedia. This all comes connected to This SPI. The sockmaster is the director of Sorry (2017 film) and uses Wikipedia for his self promotion. You can even find his page Yogesh Gosavi on wiki. Whereas I have been stopping his motives on English as well as on Marathi Wikipedia. I even had deleted his promotional non notable film article on Marathi Wikipedia for which he seems to vandalise again here. He has been abusing me a lot since then and using IP addresses to abuse me. The editing pattern and many more gives me a feel that this is another sock of the sockmaster. DMacks and Bbb23 have always blocked these socks. This users accounts are even globally blocked by Stewards. Now the user is using ImDb for his vandalism. I will even notify Imdb about it. I have no connection with film industry and I am not even interested in it. As you can see the article history of the maza jeev I had created it well far before when I was a newcomer on English Wikipedia. Now I am well experienced enough and even members of global groups. This is a pure vandalism by sock and I am fed up by it. Jimbo I support your mission towards making a world where information is free and I have volunteered my best to fight vandalism on it and I will continue it. There may be many of them who make such allegations and I am now used to it. But I believe that all will be fine as you have been my inspiration. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Addshore, Worm That Turned, 28bytes, Cyberpower678, and Courcelles:@Kingturtle: as their talkpage too has the same messages. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for the report, Tiven2240. Two notes: Bbb23 does not get notifications of pings, because he turned them off, so if you need to communicate with him you'll need to do it directly. Also, if this issue gets more complex or is unresolved, you may need to take it to WP:ANI. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: This is the second time you've said that. I have not turned pings off. I don't know what makes you think so.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh OK; I must be thinking of someone else.... Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Material Scientist.

—usernamekiran(talk) 22:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't think it's him; I've known for years he doesn't get pings. I think it may be RHawarth. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

MS doesnt get pings, or has he turned them off? Dont know about pings and RHawarth. I dont think he would need to turn them off, as he wouldnt get much of them anyway. Most of the communication takes place on his talkpage, mostly under "why did you delete that page?". This dude speedy deletes stuff like he has "speed".

—usernamekiran(talk) 23:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

MS turned his off. I was certain that another admin had done that as well. It might be RHaworth (or maybe he just complained/noted once that he failed to receive a ping[s] that was done?), or I could just be flat wrong; in any case I misremembered Bbb23's reluctance to reply to his wiki emails except on-wiki as him having turned off his pings. Softlavender (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I will see to it. Thank you for your kind words :) . --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 11:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked User:ErGopalVerma as an obvious sock of User:Ivan Disouza (via User:Diego Rogger). A checkuser can tie it up if they feel it's needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and hi User:Tiven2240. I remember you from when you created that article - glad to see you're still around. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Heya @Boing! said Zebedee: I am here only because of your encouraging words, Thank you for this blocks. Yeah user:Diego Rogger is too a vandaliser on mrwp, all socks for vandalism :( --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 12:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock's gonna sock, socks gonna get blocked. For the record, socks in this drawer should get globally locked as part of their long-standing cross-wiki behavior (they often continue on another site even after getting blocked on one). DMacks (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Prince Charles' marriage

Previous discussion: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#Prince Charles' marriage

In 2005 the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Prince of Wales' website included the following:

Will the Duchess become Queen when The Prince becomes King?

The answer (which on examination will be seen to be a non-answer) was:

As was explained at the time of their wedding in April 2005, it is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

The question and answer were removed a few years ago and on 8 March (International Women's Day) a Clarence House spokeswoman insisted that the statement "has not changed". Press reports at the time suggested that Princes William and Harry may not allow Charles to make Camilla his Queen. This source [32] says "Camilla will effectively be Queen after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne." This source [33] confirms that only legislation will stop Camilla becoming Queen and reports that Prince Charles' office insists that "Our position has always been that you become queen only by convention, not by statute, not by law." This led the Labour backbencher Andrew Mackinley to tell the Evening Standard:

The royals knew she would become queen but they wanted people to think that she wouldn't. Now the truth is finally out.

Prince Charles misled the country about the succession but did he also mislead the country about the validity of the marriage? David Pannick QC (as he then was), who went on to defeat the Government over Brexit in the Supreme Court, delivered this statement:

Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act added that nothing in that legislation "shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family." The whole of the 1836 Act was then repealed by the Registration Services Act 1953. The problem is that there was in 1949 a custom (based on previous law) of members of the Royal Family only marrying in church. It is very doubtful that this custom has ceased to exist, and so Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act still prevents a civil ceremony. To avoid a royal flush of embarrassment, the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles need to find an archbishop or a vicar, who is available at short notice.

A Parliamentary report cites a story in The Times of 22 February 2005 headed "Camilla calls a couple of justices and says, Let's oust him." In later editions this was replaced by a story that former Attorney-General Sir Nicholas Lyell said on the BBC programme PM that emergency legislation may be needed, otherwise the couple may have to marry in Scotland. On 27 February the Daily Telegraph reported that Downing Street had admitted that "no one could pronounce with any certainty on the likely outcome of any legal challenge". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.230.249 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This looks stale and incoherent, and like the other discussion doesn't cover the intriguing question of their religions and the Act of Settlement 1701 which could make the whole thing moot, or cause an entertaining constitutional upheaval. Didn't know Chas was Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland but doubt that makes much difference. . dave souza, talk 19:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear why this involves Jimbo and there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL. In March 2017, The Guardian published plans that exist for the death of the Queen [34] and says that "Under common law, Camilla will become queen — the title always given to the wives of kings. There is no alternative. “She is queen whatever she is called,” as one scholar put it. “If she is called Princess Consort there is an implication that she is not quite up to it. It’s a problem.” There are plans to clarify this situation before the Queen dies, but King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1." But we'll wait and see.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not really WP:CRYSTAL. If you read the plain and natural meaning of words you usually come up with the correct answer. Princess Anne was Lord High Commissioner recently, but I don't see that her brother has taken on the role. The constitutional issues are nicely set out in this source: [35]. Since the briefing was prepared there have been developments. Camilla was married in a Roman Catholic ceremony in 1973 although she herself is a baptised Anglican. Although the 1688 Bill of Rights forbids the monarch marrying a Catholic, that was abrogated by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Furthermore, under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 the Prince could, if he so chose, marry another man. The point is that ministers of religion do not conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, and therefore the requirement for any marriage by the Prince to be solemnised in the Church of England prevents this (what some would say undesirable) situation arising. Although Camilla's children have been brought up as Catholics and the Coronation Oath requires the upholding of the Protestant religion, in the event of (1) a marriage and (2) the Prince succeeding to the throne there is no requirement on Camilla either to be crowned or to take the Coronation Oath. The Act of Settlement 1700 confirmed the bar on the Sovereign marrying a Catholic, but, as mentioned, this provision is no longer in force. There is one slight error in Ianmacm's link (apart from the obvious one that, if Charles were to accede tomorrow, Camilla as an unmarried woman would be neither Queen nor Princess Consort). Victoria did not die at the age of 82. She was born on 24 May 1819 (later observed as Empire Day and then Commonwealth Day) and she died on 22 January 1901.

There is one further point which, as far as I am aware, nobody has brought up. Camilla was an Anglican married to a Catholic in a Catholic church. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognise divorce. Notwithstanding, Andrew Parker Bowles remarried in 1996 (in a register office). Does the Catholic Church consider he is still married to Camilla? Does it matter? 92.5.230.249 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You've described Camilla as "an unmarried woman." Is this in the view of the Church of England, in the view of the Roman Catholic Church or just in your personal view? Which of these views is required to be respected in terms of the constitutional law? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This is beyond me (and quite possibly Jimbo too). The Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles in April 2005 was a civil ceremony (ie not in a church) and there have been some questions asked about how this fits in with constitutional law in the UK. If any controversy did arise after the accession of King Charles III, there might have to be an Act of Parliament to sort it out. But we're not there yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting but unpersuasive. I think there are really a few different questions here. The most important question is what title she will be granted by the monarch, and as far as I know, that's 100% up to him. Certainly the idea that "Princes William and Harry may not allow Charles to make Camilla his Queen" has no legal basis. I mean, they might sulk at the dinner table, but they have no legal right of veto on that. He'll do some letters patent and she'll be called the Princess Consort, and that's that.

Another question, less important only because it is so far fetched, is the notion that on some technicality from historical laws and customs, the right of Charles to the throne would be invalid on the basis of his civil marriage to Camilla. Even if a court did rule that, Parliament could remedy it quite easily, and I see no reason to think that they wouldn't. Charles isn't nearly as popular as his mother, but there's certainly no mass movement by the public to skip him in the line of succession, so Parliament would really have no incentive to do anything other than correct some minor technical deficiency - if one exists, which I am not at all convinced is the case.

A separate question is whether in some sense she will actually be Queen Consort, no matter what Charles says about it. I fail to see why this is even remotely interesting, to be honest. If he does the Letters Patent as has been promised, then presumably the boys will be happy enough about that, even if (extremely unproven) they even care about the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A traditional solution would of course be that the princes get an army in Scotland or France or somewhere and start a civil war. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Who needs them Jocks or Frogs, we just need someone from Huntingdon... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Djanogly is your man! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

True there is no mass movement. But this source, quoting a 2015 Skypoll, says that, even though over half of Brits think that William should be the next King, this is legally not possible. If you want to risk dipping your toe into last year's tabloid press you'll discover that The Sun says that just 22% want Charles. Martinevans123 (talk)

I'm not a Brit, and I'd like to know: Why does the King's previously divorced wife get to automatically be a Queen, but Elizabeth's fair and square and royal husband only got to be a Prince (or was it Prince Consort) [and even that was only after some doing, if I'm remembering The Crown correctly?]? Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Like, tradition. The wife of a king is almost always called a queen, it does not necessarily imply ruler. But if you call someone a king (rex or whatever), it is assumed they are the one calling the shots, so a "ruling" queen can't have a king, in this tradition of monarchy. I think there was a queen who was titled "king of Poland" because the concept of a ruling queen had not come up before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Convention, perhaps constitutional convention in the unwritten British sense. Technically, the wife is 'queen consort', except when she is the reigning 'queen', such as Mary I of England, Mary II of England. The 'king' developed as the reigning rank (probably the same way as many things in language referring to men became the standard and since most in history were men - Elizabeth I reportedly said: “I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.”), so in this sense a reigning queen is a female king, thus, rarely, as in the examples above, has the reigning queen also been married to a king. The general rareness of women monarchs in history means that when Queen Victoria (see also, Anne, Queen of Great Britain) had a husband, they were not going to call him 'king'. And if it was good enough for Victoria and Albert, well 'tradition' . . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And countries like Sweden go "well, if it's good enough for the Brits..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The same thing happened in Denmark. Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark was very annoyed about not being king, but that's the way it works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I never knew that.[36] I don't expect to hear anything similar from Prince Daniel, but who knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans' link mentions Madge Martin, wife of the vicar of St Michael and All Angels, Summertown, Oxford. We knew him well - we worshipped at his church and his Deaconess visited occasionally. He was unexpectedly replaced by the Rev. L B Fosdike - nobody knew why but there was talk of a motor repair business in the nearby Banbury Road. I didn't realise till today that there is a place in London called Summerstown, close to the All England Club. Trevor Jones, vicar of St Mary, Stowmarket, where I also worshipped, was jailed in 2000. The curate at St Michael's, the Rev. Dr Susanna Snyder, previously served at St Mary, Stoke Newington, which I have attended. Small world. Unusually, when the population increase at Stoke Newington made the construction of a larger church necessary the small Elizabethan church was not demolished and a new church was built across the road.

On the precedent of Henry VIII and Edward VIII I don't think that Charles' succession right is at risk. However, I can see the accession procedures descending into farce. Things will be bad enough then without the added complication. Unless Jimbo demurs I will change Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall#Second marriage as follows:

In the first paragraph remove "the Queen,[90] the government,[91] and the Church of England, the couple were able to wed." and replace it with "the Queen[90] and the government [91] the couple went ahead."

Add new subsection as follows:

Legal opinion

A senior Law Lord, Lord Pannick, who has a track record of being right when he disagrees with the Government, has stated that Camilla is not Duchess of Cornwall:

Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act added that nothing in that legislation "shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family." The whole of the 1836 Act was then repealed by the Registration Services Act 1953. The problem is that there was in 1949 a custom (based on previous law) of members of the Royal Family only marrying in church. It is very doubtful that this custom has ceased to exist, and so Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act still prevents a civil ceremony. To avoid a royal flush of embarrassment, the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles need to find an archbishop or a vicar, who is available at short notice.

He has been seconded by Stephen Cretney QC, Emeritus Fellow in Legal History at Oxford University, who said the situation could become

that although there has been a ceremony and that has led to public rejoicing the Prince of Wales is not married and the ... Mrs Parker Bowles is not his wife. And that would be a very, very serious matter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.230.249 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2018‎ (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between substantive titles and derivative titles. The wife of a prince or king is called Princess or Queen by courtesy, just as Mr. Smith's wife is called Mrs. Smith. What the Duchess of Cornwall will be called after the ascent of the Prince of Wales to the throne is his decision to make, just as Smith's wife is not necessarily called Mrs. Smith. In answer to Softlavender, the husband of a titled woman does not assume his wife's title, just as when Mr. Smith marries Miss Jones, he does not become Mr. Jones. It was unclear what the Duke of Edinburgh should be called (see "WELL.... IS IT CORRECT TO SAY PRINCE PHILIP?",1957), and he was given the title of Prince. TFD (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's still in the realms of WP:CRYSTAL because none of this has happened yet, and the law could be changed if there was a controversy over Camilla's title. Claims that Charles and Camilla were not married properly in 2005 because it was a civil ceremony were rejected at the time by the government's legal advisers, but some people are still raising this objection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL refers to "unverifiable speculation" about the future, not future events in general. We are able for example to mention the November 2018 U.S. midterm elections, even though they have not been held yet, because reliable source say they will occur. In this case, Clarence House says that the Duchess of Cornwall will not become queen, while some sources say she will. No policy or guidelines prohibit mention of that. TFD (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

After reading that newspaper article, I looked at the wiki article on Prince Albert, and in it there is an uncited passing mention that young Albert and his brothers were "princes". I've flagged it up and opened a talkpage discussion. Could you folks help out there? See Talk:Albert, Prince Consort#"Like many other German princes, Albert attended the University of Bonn". Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the marriage was registered by the Queen's registrar of marriages and then blessed in the Church of England (which certainly sounds like a kind of approval), and even were they not "truly" married in the sense some claim to see, that line of dancing on a pin thinking, would apparently make her the 'royal mistress' and titles for royal mistresses are up to the king by tradition, nor have they been an impediment to the king claiming the crown or been "very serious". At any rate, it is all in the future, except the titles that she has currently, have been approved by the current Queen, and to follow on TDF, nor at least in the past would she be known as, 'Queen Charles of the United Kingdom', a la, Princess Michael of Kent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

We are supposed to have moved on from Camilla being a wicked witch, evil stepmother and marriage wrecker. Attempts to portray her in this way after the accession of King Charles III would suggest that old grudges have not been forgotten and old scores are being settled.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Would that it were, sadly, some never move on from the bee in their bonnet, the more trivial or long ago the better, you see. At any rate, when a republican parliament is close to getting elected, then we can talk about 'serous' though. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I propose that if Charles accedes to the throne that Camilla be called The Royal Mistress. Softlavender (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

Technology report: Bots galore!

Special report: NPP needs you

Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

In focus: Alexa

Gallery: Out of this world!

Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

Humour: Talk page humour

Opinion: Strickland incident

From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thita Manitkul Rangsitpol

She is a real person yesterday I was writing her page . Suddenly,the new account appeared . The new account thought I was her and wrote the thought down .I even have to write my Royal License Number down.

Please Check if the person who use N Deleted in Wikisource and Wikipedia is the same person.

Wiki data have 7 languages .and She is Thai .I believe that administrator who tried to delete the bio of the person who contributed to our people should not be the administrator .If the article l redirect is not good enough the administrator should help me correct it not delete it.What do you think ?สุขุมวิท39 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what happened, but nobody at Wikipedia should be asking for your Royal License Number. Be careful you are not being tricked by some hacker. Can you tell us who asked for that information? Wnt (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Thita Manitkul is still there and seems to be the same person as Thita Manitkul Rangsitpol. There have been a couple of editors blocked for sockpuppetry by @BU Rob13:. The article is not obviously a hoax or non-notable, but the sources are very difficult to evaluate at first glance. Many are in Thai (not a problem theoretically, but in practice it's difficult). Also the authors are not citing the usual types of sources - they are citing Thai military (?) sources, Wikisource, etc. (this may be just a newby thing, or just that I don't know the available Thai sources). In short this complaint seems to deserve a good look, but it will be difficult to evaluate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

s:th:พันโทหญิง ฐิฏา รังสิตพล มานิตกุล,th:ฐิฏา รังสิตพล มานิตกุล

The Thai Wikisource and Thai Wikipedia is the one that is having problems now . สุขุมวิท39 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for misleading

I meant the article in Thai that was marked {{delete}} s:th:พันโทหญิง ฐิฏา รังสิตพล มานิตกุล,th:ฐิฏา รังสิตพล มานิตกุล

They seem to be same person .To Bad one of them is the administrator.สุขุมวิท39 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This part seems most concerning at first glance, to someone who speaks no Thai anyway. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am the one who wrote it and was the one who wrote my Royal License Number down .

I was blocked and that is for sure th:ฐิฏา รังสิตพล มานิตกุล and s:th:พันโทหญิงฐิฏา รังสิตพล มานิตกุล was put to delete by the same person110.171.96.213 (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes

The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles. You can read the report.
The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar. You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images. It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published. [37]

Let's work together

The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Flickr is about to die

I've never asked you anything, but this time I think I have to.

Flickr will start deleting photos in February 2019.

I assume you know, but Commons is incredibly dependent on Flickr. Because there is no social (media) aspect to Commons (any personal images, educational value or not, are typically deleted), things like photos of notable people very often come from Flickr. Many government agencies also use Flickr, they probably don't always have Pro accounts.

To the point: it's probably a given that Archive Team will pick this up. But given how huge Flickr is, I suspect they need bandwidth. Lots of bandwidth. And storage. And this probably needs to happen quite fast - you can't back up Flickr in a week. So I hope you can set some wheels in motion to make sure Archive Team will have access to the resources they will need (possibly in part through Commons). For 500px 90,167 photos were recently imported (with the help of Archive Team) to Commons when they ended their Creative Commons licensing. 90,167 photos is something I could store on a large USB flash drive. I estimate 500px to be roughly one grain of sand compared to a beach named Flickr. You should also know that Flickr2Commons, by far the most widely used tool to import photos from Flickr, does not currently have any active maintainer. - Alexis Jazz 23:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Trump identified as a "white nationalist"?

Could somebody else review what's happening at Birthright citizenship in the United States? I'm withdrawing from editing it because I feel conflicted. It just bothers me to no end to in effect say the our President is identified as a "white nationalist." BTW he stated in an interview on video that he would revoke birthright citizenship in the United States by means of an executive order. See, e.g. CNN.

The paragraph most at issue is: "The aspect of birthright citizenship conferred by jus soli (Latin: right of the soil) is regarded as controversial by some U.S. political figures, particularly those associated with white nationalism"

The next paragraph talks about Trump and the video complete with refs.

Trump identifies himself as a "nationalist". Others, e.g. in Pittsburgh, identify him as a "white nationalist." I'm tending to the 2nd POV now. Part of my conflict, I suppose, is that I was born to 2 then non-citizen parents in the US. I'm as American (and as WASP) as anybody. But I'm having difficulty handling this. Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the article in question, but I think it is completely wrong to identify Trump as a "white nationalist". Very oversimplified. My personal dislike of the man is well-known, so I can hardly be accused of being sympathetic, but a claim like that is an inappropriate stretch.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I just went and read what Trump said (just yesterday) about his intention to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order. He may or may not be a "white nationalist" (I stand by what I wrote above on that) but I just wanted to say that he is a complete Humpty Dumpty regarding the Constitution. I will enjoy (in a sad way, though) seeing the elements on the right twist themselves into contortions to support him, while at the same time continuing to allegedly support the idea of an original intent reading of the Constitution. "“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’" - Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not saying he's a racist. I'm simply saying the racists believe he's a racist". Guy (Help!) 14:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

While that second sentence can be supported with sources, it probably doesn't fit that particular article, per coatrack. Jonathunder (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We have this article Racial views of Donald Trump. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And see Pandering (politics). William Avery (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not calling Trump a white nationalist to say that he has adopted a position promoted by white nationalists. TFD (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall suggesting it be added. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's still a stretch of "guilt by association". Lots of people (not just Trump) have reasons to argue for a change to US immigration law. As many have pointed out, the US policy of automatic citizenship for anyone born in the US is actually fairly unusual (it doesn't exist in most or all of Europe for example), so the mere fact that white nationalists favor it doesn't make it fair to draw that comparison. You might as well say "The German government under Angela Merkel, in common with German white nationalists, doesn't support the idea of birthright citizenship". I think it's weak writing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thought I'd chime in here. My understanding is that it did exist, at least for a time, in the Republic of Ireland, with the wording chosen specifically to entitle anyone born on the island of Ireland to citizenship; it was meant, in the pre-Celtic Tiger era when Ireland had almost no immigration, to allow Catholics (etc.) in Northern Ireland to claim citizenship of the republic if they so chose, and was (I believe?) amended later because a growing number of people were going to Ireland with the intention of getting free Irish (European) citizenship for their children. I can imagine EU member states not generally appreciating when other member states have such a policy, given the free-movement standards within Europe, and so there would be mutual pressure to change such policies where they exist. (That last sentence is pure speculation on my part, though.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy, Thanks for the responses but you are convincing me in the other direction. Just for context, I added the paragraph about the video as the first edit to the article in weeks. Next came a bunch of anons making "pending edits" and I approved the one replacing "nationalism" with "white nationalism". I definitely have mixed feelings on this. I was thinking of the Letter to President Trump from Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders from yesterday saying "President Trump, you are not welcome in Pittsburgh until you fully denounce white nationalism." This letter was mentioned in the Washington Post and other sources [38] I do think that qualifies him as a "U.S. political figure ... associated with white nationalism." There are certainly other articles that make that connection same day, different aspect, and the Atlantic in August on "the administration’s constant embrace of bigotry from white-supremacist and far-right groups." There is much more along these lines, especially after the Charlottesville murder last year.

I checked the OED definition

white nationalism

NOUN

mass noun

Advocacy of or support for the political interests of white people regarded as a nation, especially to the exclusion or detriment of others.

(example of usage)‘critics have accused him of stoking white nationalism, racism, and anti-Semitism during his tenure’

I doubt the OED made up that example today but it certainly fits Trump. The only 2 questions I have on whether this definition applies to Trumps is the part "white people regarded as a nation" (which I believe in American English means "ethnic group") and whether he is doing it intentionally. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump is pushing for a redefinition of gender as being determined at birth by genes and immutable. This was the position in the last century - out of interest are there many countries which retain this view? 51.140.123.26 (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How many countries are prone to stupid pointless wars and set up for a draft for "men" but not "women"? Just because someone seems silly doesn't mean he doesn't have a plan... Wnt (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hell is empty and all the devils are here.--MONGO (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Birthright Citizenship" is not uncommon at all in the Americas, or countries with legal systems based on common law and a history of colonialism. Canada, Mexico, most of South America all have "Birthright citizenship". 138.115.53.126 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but misleading without context. Countries that used to have birthright citizenship but don’t anymore include France, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and the Dominican Republic. Ireland's decision is largely because of Man Levette Chen, a Chinese national who traveled to Northern Ireland so that her daughter would be born an Irish citizen. The UK Home Office rejected the application for citizenship, and the European Court of Justice overturned that decision.[39] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what laws other countries have, the the campaign in the U.S. today to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is led by FAIR, which the SPLC describes as an anti-immigrant hate group, and their allies. What's a common view in one country may not be in another. If Merkel came out against universal health care, she would be considered an extremist, yet that is the mainstream position in the U.S. Similarly, in the U.S., it would be considered extreme to turn state funded education and health care over to the Catholic Church as in Ireland or to advocate for monarchy as in Australia and New Zealand. TFD (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim "the campaign in the U.S. today to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is led by FAIR"? certainly FAIR lobbies for that, but "led by"? I would think that the Center for Immigration Studies would be a better "led by" target than the Federation for American Immigration Reform -- especially since CIS analyst Jon Feere joined the Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Trump administration. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I said "and their allies." The CIS is also listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the SPLC.[40] The two are the best known groups on the list. TFD (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

France, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia still have a restricted version of jus soli though. For example for Australia "a person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parent's citizenship status". More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli Lucleon (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump is white. And he unironically self-identified as a nationalist. So he is a "white nationalist." Check mate, WP debate club!!! Duskbrannigan (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You should send that to Trump's speech-writers. They may be able to use it.

Trump tweeted a Willie Horton-style video ad today. You can compare the Trump ad and the Willie Horton ad here

Politico today reported Trump saying “You know the word ‘racist’ is used about every Republican that’s winning,” he told Christian Broadcasting Network’s Jenna Browder en route to a campaign rally in Florida. “Anytime a Republican is leading, they take out the ‘R’ word, the ‘racist’ word. And I’m not anti-immigrant at all.”

This reminds me of one of Dashiell Hammett's characters seeing a sign in a 1920s bar in Tijuana "'Only genuine, pre-war American whiskey served here'

"I read the sign and counted the lies contained in that one sentence. I had reached five, with a promise of a sixth, when . . ." (approx.)

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There is something too glib and altogether deaf in dismissing Trump's appeal as "white nationalism". Have a read of the Asia Bibi blasphemy case article that has been linked from our In The News section for the past several days. To be sure, this article was great news, an amazingly good outcome to come out of Pakistan -- because the woman, after spending over a year in jail for daring to defend her belief in Christianity, was actually acquitted by their Supreme Court based on the non-agreement of the slanders against her. Then the court agreed that she wouldn't actually be released pending a "final review", and even if she was, she'd be banned from ever leaving the country ("because you have to get something to give something") which means she's sure to die anyway. Her lawyer has already fled Pakistan. The awesome three-delegate power of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan demands it; they have called for the Supreme Court judges to be killed, like Salmaan Taseer's elite bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri killed that governor for speaking up about her innocence. Our article says that 10 million Pakistanis have offered to kill Asia Bibi at the first opportunity.

While Americans find themselves un-hireable because a decade ago they said 140 characters of alleged racism/sexism/being strange on Twitter, the Silicon Valley companies and even the manufacturers making the flu vaccine you're taking are importing these workers from Pakistan on H1B visas to displace better paid Americans. The so-called "Muslim ban" (Executive Order 13780) says nothing about Pakistan. In a situation like that, it is hard to make a case that Trump is some kind of extremist for whites; to the contrary, he is being vastly more lenient than most Americans would probably prefer if they thought about whether they want these people on their airplanes or in their country.

That said, I still think this is a sideshow compared to the continuing deregulation of the banks and the gutting of Obamacare. In the end, the next crash, the wiping out of trillions of assets that have been looted by a few rich men and the subsequent mandatory taxpayer bailout of most of them, is going to affect the former middle class worse than any terrorists, no matter how brazen they become. Wnt (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wnt: I agree that following mainstream news (and especially watching "alternative" "news") that is the impression that we in the West are likely to make, but I think in reality it is a very, very pessimistic assessment.

Firstly, the people who emigrate are by and large different from the people who choose not to. Those who want to take four wives and stone Christians are more likely to stay where they are and take advantage of their most likely advantageous local social status. Secondly, the impact of all these migrations is very much played up by the media. Here in Croatia, in 2015 we had a major parliamental upset caused by the supposed incoming wave of millions of Syrian migrants and our politicians' desire to go for humanitarian points. Both of our major parties lost the elections, which hasn't happened before or since. Yet despite the fact we didn't close our borders (not to degree that e.g. Hungary did), we weren't overran by job seekers, terrorists and murderers. In 2018, one can occasionally run into Syrians in city streets, and there certainly is a refugee humanitarian crisis brewing underground, but the average Croatian is entirely unaffected by it. If anything, our unemployment and crime rates are actually dropping.

USA is a huge country of over 300 million people, 75 times more populous than Croatia, so I believe that even if there was a migration of all kinds of people (and not just H1B-qualified educated professionals), they would hardly make a dent in US demographics. Unfortunately, one probably has to undergo the effects of such a migration before one realises they had fallen victim to an echo chamber. Daß Wölf 03:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources which explicitly state that Trump is not a white nationalist?

Can someone please outline the evidence suggesting Trump isn't a white nationalist? Our Racial views of Donald Trump article states:

During the 2016 campaign, Trump used his political platform to spread disparaging messages against various racial groups. Trump claimed, "the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics,"[67] that "there's killings on an hourly basis virtually in places like Baltimore and Chicago and many other places,"[68] that "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson. The crime numbers are worse. Seriously," and retweeted a false claim by White nationalists that 81% of White murder victims were killed by Black people.[69] During the campaign Trump was found to have retweeted the main influencers of the #WhiteGenocide movement over 75 times, including twice that he retweeted a user with the handle @WhiteGenocideTM.[70] Trump also falsely claimed that, "African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever,"[71] that "You go into the inner cities and you see it's 45 percent poverty, African Americans now 45 percent poverty in the inner cities,"[72] and that "African Americans and Hispanics are living in hell. You walk down the street and you get shot."[73]

Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio was pardoned by Trump for contempt of court baring racial profiling.[41] He used the term "very fine people" to describe white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and various militias who had formed a homicidal mob in Charlottesville.

Jimbo, do you agree with Henry Cadbury, that, "By hating Hitler and trying to fight back, Jews [were in 1934] only increasing the severity of his policies against them"?[42] 73.222.1.26 (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your talk page is being edited

Are you aware your talk page is being edited? A couple days ago I attempted to post a personal message to you about an idea I have for a possible new project, and requesting any comments you might have about it, but it was summarily deleted by User: Guy Macon before you could have a chance to read it. I posted the same idea on Larry Sanger's talk page with a similar result. I was accused of soapboxing for sending you an idea and requesting comments on it. Subsequently I've been threatened with a block, called a liar on my talk page, ridiculed on my talk page, an MfD nomination was filed to delete my sandbox, where my idea was placed for further refinement, a WP:BLP violation was proposed against me, somebody else was recruited to file an ANI complaint against me, and numerous insults were posted on my talk page. Yet no article was edited or created. I assumed edits to my proposal, if implemented, would have to be consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and I have been stalked all over Wikipedia by this editor, who has left disparaging remarks everywhere I have left a message (including on the talk pages of Elonka and Coppertwig and others). I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia, including several Good Articles and many new articles, but I was driven out of Wikipedia ten years ago by an administrator who outed me--for the second time--and initiated uninvited contact with me via email at my place of employment> This was my first post returning to Wikipedia. So far, I can only surmise things have gotten worse, not better. So, before I leave again, I thought you should be informed about this incident. My initial message was sent to you and Sanger because the proposal is a large one, requiring a lot of time and editors to work on it, if it was accepted. I have no hope of that now, no hope of any productive editing on Wikipedia. Anyway, you should know somebody is deleting messages from your talk page before you can read them. Check the diffs. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was already explained to you? This page is archived both automatically and manually, especially if there are no replies to some solicitation for support. This is perfectly normal and Jimmy can hardly fail to be aware of it. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Mervyn Emrys is talking about this:[43][44][45][46][47]

I believe that it was Alexis Jazz who was talking about early archiving. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect definitions and references throughout Wikipedia of/to various countries and territories

I have found a widespread problem on Wikipedia that I think should be addressed. The official definition of the United States is obviously the fifty states and D.C., yet in the first sentence in the article on United States, it says the country is also composed of its territories. The total population of the US is defined as the fifty states and D.C. There are also endless instances in US law and elsewhere of phrases similar to "the US and/or US territories" showing that the US and its territories are different. There is not one official US government definition including US territories as part of the country, it is only the 50 states and D.C. The much bigger problem is that it is not only in the United States article, it is in various other related articles, and there are articles of other countries, other countries' territories, and related articles throughout Wikipedia that have definitions and references that differ from the official definitions from the respective governments. There was a mediation discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/United_States which resulted in the opinions of some participants overruling official definitions. But, as I said, I am posting here because the problem is much more widespread than just one popular article. Led8000 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait until after the U S. election: Thank you for taking time to research this widespread problem. The fix, at this point, might be to start another wp:RfC to get a new, informed consensus. Part of the problem might be the election political parties which, for decades, have included the U.S. territories, such as Guam or Puerto Rico, when voting to select the party nominees for the next general election. Consequently, it might be difficult, during a U.S. election period, to get active Wikipedians to reject those territories as not within the U.S., as evidenced by no U.S. senators in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Not our problem. The US Government's own page starts "Geographically, and as a general reference, the United States (short form of the official name, United States of America) includes all areas considered under the sovereignty of the United States, but does not include leased areas", but then provides three definitions none of which cover some well known areas considered under the sovereignty of the United State but not leased. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

        Someone absentmindedly editing a webpage with no reference to an official decision does not overrule the rest of the government. That person probably did  not even realize that their definition included territories. Led8000 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, wouldn't it be for the best to make a Wikipedia policy concerning the official definitions of any and all countries? Led8000 (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a deeply terrible idea. We have a working mechanism for handling this, it's called "local consensus" and it does a really good job. --JBL (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is extremely odd that you do not cite any sources for your apparently baseless assertions. For example, the law of the United States provides this definition in 8 U.S Code § 1101(a)(38): "The term “United States” . . . when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands."[48]. That belies your assertions. Even assuming, as is likely, one who bothers to look at sources will find many ways to define the 'United States' in different contexts, by policy, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we cover the entirety of a topic, and we would not just use the "official" government line anyway (we are not the government). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Alan, you obviously are not a lawyer or knowledgeable about law. Those are definitions for use within a certain text of law, so the parameters do not have to be stated every time the term is stated. Here are some examples of this in the same law - the term - “parent” does not include the natural father of the child if the father has disappeared or abandoned or deserted the child or if the father has in writing irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption. - and - apparently the definition of the word "child" should be changed also, according to you, referring either to age or "someone's child" - The term “child” means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age - (in the same law)https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapI-sec1101.htm Led8000 (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And you're not an authority on anything by policy. So, don't pretend to know what I am or am not. As for your claims, like your previous statement, it is spurious ipsa dixit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Led8000: Why is this discussion here instead of at Talk:United States. The contents of articles is supposed to be discussed on article talk pages, and not on random, out-of-the way corners like this user talk page. Admittedly, Jimbo is a pretty famous user, but he has zero special powers to "fix" any problems you have with that one article. It's a complete waste of your time to have this argument here; all you're going to do is idly, and to no important result at all, argue with the randos that hang out on Jimbo's talk page. Last time I checked, the most recent discussion on Jimbo's talk page that resulted in anything useful happening at Wikipedia, anywhere was... hold on... lemme check the archives... Never. The last time was never. So, why not head over to Talk:United States, raise your concerns there, and see what other users come to a consensus over. Present your evidence, let others present there evidence, and see what shakes out... --Jayron 32 23:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It might benefit from more precise clarification, but not removal. Some of those territories confer US citizenship at birth, so we can't just delete it. But why is this being discussed here instead of on the article talk page? Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Saving assets

Jimbo - what would it hurt if, instead of indef blocking or site banning a longterm quality editor - one of GA/FA/DYK caliber - over a behavioral issue, the acting admin gives them the choice to serve 6 mos (or whatever #) helping reduce the backlogs at WP:NPP and WP:AfC (unless the dispute is in those areas), or some other reassignment in an effort to retain that editor? Does it sound foolish to you? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors are not assets, they're people. And this is not a penal colony, it's an encyclopedia. I find this completely unworkable in every form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A penal colony doesn't give choices, and why do you think volunteering at NPP or AfC is punishment? That alone speaks volumes. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Complying with a Hobson's choice of a forced reassignment reminds me of the Eastern Bloc usage of the word "volunteering". Daß Wölf 03:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

They can suggest areas they're most comfortable working in as long as it separates them from the issues that caused the problem in the first place, so it is a choice between continuing to work as a volunteer, or they can sit it out per the indef and try to appeal later. I like how Alexis termed it below..."corvee"! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm dismayed at the notion that AfC and NPP, both places where we are specifically trying to help new contributors, are suitable places to confine editors with behavioural issues. Brad v 02:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a given that each case must be judged on the merits, Bradv, but any editor who has been volunteering here for any length of time knows AN/I is broken and that imperfections in the system do exist. Do you believe otherwise? I would think a longterm editor who has GA/FA/DYK promotions to their credit deserves some consideration, and hopefully it doesn't automatically mean they can never return to WP (we do have an appeal process) or if they are allowed to return, they are labeled for life because of a mistake they made and regret (we actually do have PAGs that protect against such treatment). As you probably know, we have had editors with -0- blocks bite newbies. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If the editor in question would be judged as capable of that, some form of corvee (it's not punishment, it's corvee!), getting out of their comfort zone and deal with newbies may actually help with their behavioral issues. - Alexis Jazz 15:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It would certainly help to separate those intending to enhance WP from those who are here for other purposes. petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanking the first group and blocking the second would certainly separate them. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess to some, editors are not unlike working with algorithms. If something goes wrong, out with the old and in with the new, and introduce updates every so often. 😉 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

In the early-ish days of Wikipedia, it was fairly typical for problematic users to be ordered to work at Wikiversity or Commons for six months before being allowed back on en-wiki. Ask anyone who was around back then—particularly who was around on Wikiversity or Commons—how well it worked for a relatively small community to be flooded with surly editors who didn't want to be there and didn't share their values, but felt they needed to participate to earn back their ability to edit Wikipedia. And consider why we don't do that any more. Reeducation-through-work rarely, if ever, has much benefit for any of the three parties involved, other than as a way to push problems a little further down the road. ‑ Iridescent 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Open door policy

This is just something I noted. You have an open door policy, which I find admirable. It's however not very practical when it you combine it with both regular wikibreaks (at least not editing) up to two weeks and a talk page archiver setting of just one single day. The door is open but the office often empty, except for some WikiJaguars luring in the corners, waiting for prey.

Just an idea: appoint one or more active users to moderate your talk page. Let them put {{subst:DNAU}} on items they think you should at least skim over. - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo has one of those "life" things you sometimes read about. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I know, and that's fine. But you can't effectively have both a life and an open door policy. It gives the illusion that Jimbo will actually listen if you ask something here, which doesn't seem to be the case. I know there are also people asking irrelevant questions on this page, but ArchiverBot doesn't discriminate. Guy Macon said "Also, Jimbo is well aware of how toe read an archive page", which I have no doubt about. But is Jimbo really going to read the archives? I doubt I would. And he doesn't have to. But if he doesn't, maybe it's time to end the open door policy. Or at least clarify he's often not actually behind that door. Putting a clerk in front of that door to filter messages that will actually affect Wikimedia may be more effective. The door could still be open to others, but without any guarantee Jimbo will actually read them. This open door policy in its current state appears to be deceptive. Wikipedia should be the last place for deception. If Jimbo actually does read every message, I apologize. In that case though, it would help to clarify that fact. - Alexis Jazz 07:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it very rare that I miss anything. I read the page every day. Of course with a 24 hour expiry, I might miss something, but remember that things only expire if someone posts and no one responds within 24 hours, which happens quite rarely. So, I pretty much do read every message here, and so I accept your apology. :-)

Now, the question of whether I should answer more often is a good one. I think I answer pretty often, but I don't have stats on that. Often I don't answer because someone else has already answered a question effectively. Other times I don't answer because I see a discussion with multiple sides making reasonable points and I like to let reasonable people think together - I learn more that way than popping in to offer my own views, especially if I don't yet have a really firm view.

Many discussions turn on (at least) two different things: the facts in the specific case, and the principles. The principles are the thing I feel I have a good handle on - I've been doing this a long time and I've seen a lot of things happen, and I think my views are pretty reasonable and seasoned by experience. But the specific facts in any given case can vary widely, particularly when people come here to convince me of the wrongness of someone else. So I try to be slow about that sort of thing, and not comment unless and until I feel that I've got the measure of the facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you feel about a three day expiry with seven threads minimum? I feel like people who don't want your input on questions asked of you specifically know they can just start new threads to keep you from answering. When is the last time you retrieved anything from your own archives? 73.222.1.26 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to hear you do read (almost) everything.

I would suggest adding that information to the open door notice. Something like "I can't respond to every message, but I read the new messages on this page (almost) every day". There are a few types of messages nobody responds to. Those that are simply not interesting, but also those that are crystal clear and don't ask for any opinion. Without anything confusing, nobody needs to ask for clarification and there is nothing to discuss. In the Flickr case, the discussion is already on Commons. Little point in having the same discussion here.

"I think I answer pretty often, but I don't have stats on that."

That can be arranged..

Very pretty daily edit count (Minesweeper on nightmare difficulty)

Jimbo editcount

Day	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31
April 2001		1		1								2						1	1						1
May 2001									1		1
June 2001				1
July 2001																1
August 2001																													1	2
September 2001		1				1					3	2													1			2		2
October 2001	2	1	1	8	1		1		9	5	2	1	1		3	2	3	1	2	2						5	4	1	1
November 2001		1			2				1					3						1							3	2	9	5
December 2001				5	1	6	32	27		20	23	5	3	1					7		2			3						21
January 2002	1			1	1			1																2		1					1
February 2002			2																						1
March 2002
April 2002														1
May 2002									1
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002																									7
December 2002			1
January 2003																	1			1				2			1
February 2003						1		13					9	13	1		1					3						2
March 2003		1	1							1	2	1
April 2003																														5
May 2003																							3
June 2003																									2
July 2003								2		14	3	2												1
August 2003																				8	2				2				3	5
September 2003		1									1
October 2003															2													1
November 2003												3	2	1
December 2003	2	2																									1
January 2004						1		1	1	2		1								1									1
February 2004					10				2				2			4	1	1					1		2
March 2004			1	3		1										1	1	2	1			2	1	2	1			1
April 2004			2	14	4		5	1	5	5	3	6	2		5		4	4	5	2	3	7					2		9
May 2004	7		6		4	3	3	2				2	2	3			1		2	8	1		1		2	9		11	2	2
June 2004	15			4	2	2			2				1				4
July 2004			1					2		1		1	2		3		6		5	1
August 2004		3		1	1		1	1	3	2	4	4			1	1	2	1	7	5		1	2	1	20	2		4	3
September 2004				2	2	3	7		10	7	1	4		2	4			4	18		2				4		1		4	2
October 2004	4	4	5	2	5		1	3			1	3		1	1	3	1		4	2	1			1	3		6	5	1	16
November 2004	1	3	3	1				2		7			2	15	4	1	5		20	1	3	4	7	9	3	2	2			7
December 2004			5				1	3		3			1	5		7	1	1	9		12	2	1	13			4	4
January 2005			5														2				1		2	1		1	1	1
February 2005			1		1				1		1		13				1						1
March 2005	1	1		4	1		2			4	2	18	1	8		4			1			1									1
April 2005		1					3	2				1				1														3
May 2005																		1				1	2		1
June 2005						2							3				10							1		4
July 2005	1				1				5	1						5						1		1	2			2			14
August 2005	2	6	6			2	1				5		1		2	7		1		2	2		13	1	2	5		2	1	1	6
September 2005	1		4	6	4	5		3					4	1	8	1	18	43	4		10	7	3			1	2	2	1
October 2005			15	9			1	1		4	1				1	1		1		7	3			20	14	1		6	2
November 2005	1							1	3	2			1		3						1		2	1	3				11	1
December 2005	9	15			11	10	1	4	7	4	1	2	1	11	19	3	1	5	1	4	3	1	4					8	3	4	5
January 2006			2		15	14		1	5	1	1	3	3		16	3	4		30	15	33	5	21		2		24	1	1	9	10
February 2006	14		5	11		26	2	3		2	3			5			2	6		1			5	22	7	3		2
March 2006	2	1		1				3	1	3	1	4			1		3					3			4			3		2	1
April 2006	1					2					1	4	6	6					3	6	5					2			1
May 2006	2	6		2	3						6	2		1	3	1			1		2	3	2	15	8	19	1	4			4
June 2006		11		5	3	3	2	2				2				3		2			1	4								1
July 2006	1	5	4		2		6	5	4		12	11	23	7		2		1			4		5					1	1	8	5
August 2006	2	7							8		4			2	1				5	18	8						1	1		6
September 2006			5				7	4	8	2	2	3							2	4				4					4	6
October 2006	2	1		13	19	4		10	5	1		4	8	4	2	16								2	3	4	2	1		4	1
November 2006	2		9	16				3	2	1	3	3	2										1		3	4	7	1	2	6
December 2006			2	1		4		2		2	5	8		5	2	5	2	3		10	2	1	5	3		6		7	2	5	3
January 2007	36	14	8			3		5			15	6		1	2		1	5				2	1				1		5	10
February 2007		1		1				3			1	6	4	1	6	1			3	3	1	3	3
March 2007	1		1	9	3	5	8	24	2	1					2	25	1		3	28	11	4	3		5	2	2		4
April 2007	1		4			1			1					4			1	1		1	1		2	1				1		4
May 2007			6			3	13	5	1	2		5	3		2		1	1			5		2		1		1	2	3	1
June 2007		13		2			2		2	5				1		7		3						2	5		3	2	9
July 2007	3	3		7	6	10	4	8	5	5	5		2	9		9	2	1				2		3	4		5		2	8	2
August 2007			4			2	1	7	6	3				1				4	2	1	7	1			2	2		6	6		3
September 2007	2								2					3			4		2	9	3							1	1	2
October 2007		1		1	5	2	1	2	1	1									1	2	2	3			13	1		5	10		3
November 2007	1	1				3	1	2	1		1		1	1			1			5	1	2	2	7	7	4			1	4
December 2007				8	14		4	2	4	10	3	4	5	6	1		1	3	2	2	2	2	3	2	2	3	2	4	8		1
January 2008	3	8	2	6	4	11			1	1	12	4	5	8	3	4			1		2					2
February 2008		1			5	4	11	4	1		7	1		6	7	2	2		2		2			2	3	2	2
March 2008		3	2				4	3	1		2			1					3	2	2	1		2	5			1			1
April 2008	5			2	2	1		1	1	1	1	1		6					2	8	3		1	2		1		2	3	9
May 2008			1						1	1	1	2			1		3	10		4	2		1	2	1	2	3	3	6	1	3
June 2008	6	2	1	2	6	3		1		1	1	2	1				1						1	1	3	1	1	5	4	4
July 2008	1		1	2	5		3	5		1				1		1					2		2	2		3	4	2
August 2008	4			2	7		3	1		5			2					2	1		1	1	1	1		5		2			1
September 2008	1				1	1	2		7	1	1			3	1	4	2		2				2
October 2008	1	5		1	2	2						3			1		1	4	1	4	2		1	1	1		3
November 2008			3	1			4	2			2		1				14	4	3			2	1		1					1
December 2008	9	3	4	2	7	11	4	3	2		1	3	1	2	2		1	5	2	8	3	1	2	1		2	5	4	1	8	1
January 2009	1	3	9	6	3		4	4	2	11	7	2	10	5	3	4	3	8	1	4	4	4	9	4	1	2	5	2		1
February 2009		1	1	2	2	5	3	13	13	3	6	4	4		4	1	1	2	2		2	4		10	4	5
March 2009		3	3	1	1		6		2	2		10	2	1		2	4				3						1	4	1	1	1
April 2009	1			1	1	1	1	4	2	4	1	1		1	2	2		14	18	3		4	1	2	1	3		2
May 2009		1			3			4	1	2			2		1					3		9		3		1			1	2	1
June 2009	1	3	1			4	2	10	4	15	3	3	4	3	6	2		3	2	1	1	3	1	2	2		1	7	6	12
July 2009	15	4	3	15	5	2	2	3	1	2	1	5	4	1	1		8	9		2	3	18	2	2	5				3	3
August 2009	3		3							1		1	1	2	1		5	7	1			1		2	3	6	1	1	2	7	4
September 2009	1	1	2		2			2							1		2	1	2	1			1	1		1		13	1
October 2009		3		5	2				2				1	3		1	1			1			2		1				1		2
November 2009	2		1	1	1		1	1	1	2			4		2	1				2	2	1		2	3	1	4	1		1
December 2009	3	2	5	1	4	4	3									2	2		1	3	5			12	5	3	1	1	1	2
January 2010	1	9	1	1	1	2				1	1				2			1			3		3	1	3	1	3				1
February 2010			2		1	1		1	6	1	3	2		2		3	6			1	3	2	1	1
March 2010		5	9	1		3			7	6	1		1	2	2	25	1	5		2	3		1			2	4	2			3
April 2010	8	6	3	2	12	2				5	4	5	1	13	6	1		2	2	12	5	3	1				8	4	3	4
May 2010	11	6	1	1	13	3	3	1	9	9	5	3	16	2	15	16	15		5			3			4	2		7	19	6	7
June 2010	4		1	5	2		6	2		12	22	6	15	6	7	24	6	4	17	25	9	17	4	5	5	12	12	8	16	27
July 2010	5	2	20	13	19	25	15	15	11	8	8		6	3	12				2	4	9	7	23	11	8	15	14	7	8	4	11
August 2010	18	9			3	1	4	9	5	1	24	8		3	13	14	4	14	5		13			1	4	1	6				14
September 2010	36	15		3	2	2	5		15	21	16	9	10	4	2	6	14	14	11	9	10	15	1		3	2	9	4	19	5
October 2010	16	9	1	4	4	4		4	5	4	2	2		2	3	6				2	1	1	30	16	5	2	2	4	4	3	6
November 2010		4	2		7	29	7	3	1		1	4	2	7	9	5	1	8	11		3	5	8	6	3	1	2	1	5	15
December 2010	12	3	10	15	3		5	1		3	5	3	4	5	2	12	6	3	4	4		2	4	7	2	2	4		1	3	11
January 2011	2	2	1	5	5	6	8	20	10	10	12	4		1	5		4	4	11	9	7	2	19	8	4		5		2	7	8
February 2011	5	10	2	1	4	7	13	14	2	2	2	9	6	5	11	9	5	8	12	2	4	4		12	4	8	2	12
March 2011	3	2	2	11	5	4	1	2	6	6	7	6	19		1	8	19	4	4	9	7	17	25	18	38	4		1	4	7	8
April 2011	1	5	2	3	6	12	14	3	3	1	7	29	17	5		1		2	8	1		1	6	16	6	4	7		12	4
May 2011	10	8	10	4	11	3	3	10	5	6	4	2	3	3	10	1	1		3	3			1	2		3	3		7	1	4
June 2011	7	1	6	9	19	17	10	3	5				8	9	6	4	2	19	10	15		8		4	7	13	14	3	4	9
July 2011	10	1	5	6	13	23	13	4	1	5	17	3	10		1	3	2	5	5		1	1	1		2	10	3	3	6		4
August 2011	9	1			4	6	5	1	2	4	1	5	4		3	1	9	9	7		2	14	9	7	33	3		10	18	10	25
September 2011	17	4	9	10	15	8	6	4	1	10	6	10	7	2	6	6			1	1	11	14		2	2			4	14	6
October 2011	6		9	3	6	4	3	7		10	2	4	7	1	11		8	5	2		3		11	16	3	4	10	16		4	24
November 2011	3		3	9	8	2	1	4	10	7		1	5	27	5	3	3			1	2	1	1		2	4	2	8	11	9
December 2011	11			1	10	5	5	7	9	6	4	16	7	3	4	20	6	1		2		3	6					2	3	2
January 2012	2	4	3	4	3	10	12	4	5	12	4	3	13		7	18	7		6	1	3	18	10			3		3	2	2	13
February 2012	8	6	4	7	2	11	9	5	2	16	15	21	5		5	2		1	1	1		2	8	6	1	5	2
March 2012		1		2	1	10	13	2	6		1	6	21	8	12	6	1	5	1	13	4	13	1			3	1	4	1	7	11
April 2012		18	9	8	7				2		3		3	2	2	4	2	7	4	17	1	4	1	9	2	12	1	8	1	3
May 2012	6	2	8	6				43	24	11	11	2			3	5		5	1		2			2	11		2
June 2012		2			5		11	1				7	3	3	1			1	3	3	2	12			6	19	1	4	2
July 2012	3	8	1	4	1	2		1	4	4	4	1	6		20	18	3		3	4	3	2	2	3		1	3		1	5
August 2012		1				1	1			3				2	6		1			1		2						3	1	2
September 2012	1			1	5	1					4	1	2				3	1			1			6	19	3	10		4
October 2012	4		1	3	1	1		1		1				1		1					1			5	3	7	2			1
November 2012			1		5	2	4	1	4		2	3	5	5	7	3	1		5		3	1	10	1		1	4	3	4	3
December 2012	1		7	2	2	6	7		1	2	4	1			11		2	6	2	1	21	2	8	4	1		1	5	3
January 2013		2	5	2	1		6	2	2	9	3	5	2	4		3	2	1	2						2	2	3	1		3	4
February 2013	1	2		1	1	1	1	1	6	1	3	2	2			1		2		2			13	4	3	2	1	5
March 2013	3			5	2	2					3	3		3	1	1	1	1	2	5	7				5		4	1
April 2013	5	1	2		1	3	1	8	9		1	8	1			2		2	10			1	2	1	5	3	1	4	2
May 2013			2			2	3	5			1		2			1	3		3	2	1			3		3
June 2013				1	13	2	3			1			3	1	7	1			3	2	2			1	23	4	3	1	6
July 2013	1	1	2																			6	14		2	11			18	2	5
August 2013	2	1			1		3		3	2		6	2		2	2	2	2	2	6	2	2	6	4	5	2	11	2	7	3	22
September 2013	10	15	8	1	3	6			1	4	2	7	20	2	1	3	10	2		4		1		1	1	6		1		3
October 2013		1						5	2	6				1	3					3	1	1	1	11	13	4	3		3	23
November 2013	1	1	1	1	1		2	2	5	9		7	3	7	6	11			7	14	5	1			5	1		3	3	4
December 2013	2	6	1	1	6	1	1		3				5			1	2	4	3	1			8	6	1		2	2		5	11
January 2014	8	6	3	2		5	10	1	1	4	1	1	4	8	8	4	4	2	1		14			5	1	3	1	2			8
February 2014	3	4	6	11	10	1				1	3	1	3						5	3	4	3		12	3	1	3
March 2014		2	4	5	2	4	2	1	15	2	3		4	5		1	1		3	1	1				1	7	4	1		2	2
April 2014	1	3			4		4	7	2	1	2	5			2	1		1	2	3			3	8	13	6	1	2	6	7
May 2014	2	3			1	5	9	5	3			2	5	2			1	2	3	9	2		1		8	4	1		1	3	7
June 2014		3	1	4	1					3	2	2				3			1	2			2	2		4		3
July 2014	1	5	2		2	1		1		4				2			6				4	4	4	2	3				8	2	5
August 2014	13			4	1	1	5			4								1			2		2			4	3	29	21	1
September 2014	2	8	2	18	7		3	2	2	1	4	2	4	6		1	1					6		3	1	3	8	10	7	4
October 2014	4		1	2	2	3	7	4		1			2	41	1	2	2	2	3	2	6	3		7		2	2	7	7		4
November 2014			3										2			5	1				3			2	6	2
December 2014	8	2		1	5	26		7	1	1	1		2	6	4	4	7		1			6		1
January 2015					2		3					1		3	5	2	2	2	2	3	2			2	3
February 2015		2		2		3	3			1	1	4					4	1	2		10		3	6	2	1	1
March 2015			1			1		1		6		2	3		2	6	1	1						2	3		4				2
April 2015	3	1			1	2	4	5					6	1						2		2				2	1
May 2015	1			3	1	1	1	1			6	1							2			2			2		1
June 2015	1				1	1		1			1	1		1				1		4	6	2	2							1
July 2015			2	1	3	4	2	2		5	1	1		3	1	3	5		2					2
August 2015			1	1		1	3						1	2		2	1	1	2	2			1				1				4
September 2015	3		6			3	4	2		1	2	4	2	2	3		9			10		6		1				3		2
October 2015				2			2	6	2	1	1	3		1		1	2						1		3		4	2			1
November 2015		1		1			2	1			4			1			2		1	4				1	2	3	3	1	1
December 2015		1			2		2	1	3				1	4	1	1	4	1	1			5		1	5		10	3	7	11
January 2016			6		5	1		14	4			1	7	5			4	3			1				7	3	5	4	6	5
February 2016	3	2	9	3	1	2	2	9	3	4	4				9		6	8	1	14	6	1		1		6	4	3	4
March 2016			2	1				2	2						2	2			4		8	3	1		6			1
April 2016	4			3	3	7	2	8		3	2	6	2	1	1			2	1			2	4		2	3	10
May 2016				5	8	2		2		2	4			2	1	2	4		1					5
June 2016		4	6			1		3	2							6	2	1	2	4	1	2					1	1
July 2016		4				2	1					1		2	2	3		3	3			1	1		5			4
August 2016	6		2		1		4	2	3	1		7	1	1	5	3	3	1	2	1	1					3					3
September 2016		2				1		2				1				1							1			1
October 2016				1							8	2				1	4		1	4	1						1				1
November 2016	1		3								16	1	4	3				1			4		2				1
December 2016		5										2	1		1		4	2
January 2017				1		1		4		2	1	5	6			1					2			1	2						1
February 2017	1	1	2	2		1	1		5					3	2	2	2		4	1			1				1	1
March 2017		1	4		3	6		3	4						1	1			2	3	1							2
April 2017					1	4	1	2			3			1				2	4		1	2	1	1	2	2	4	1		3
May 2017				4	1	1			1		2			1	3	2			1		1			5							1
June 2017		4				2		2	5								2		1	2			2
July 2017			2		2								1		5			1	1	3								1
August 2017													2	4							1	1	1
September 2017			2		1			1	2			2		5	2							18	1			2	1	3
October 2017			2	4									1			2		2		2							2			2	1
November 2017			1			1		2								2	1	6	1	2		1	1						2
December 2017					4	4							1						1	1	1	2									2
January 2018			2		1		1	2	1	1	2			2		1	2						4		2			1		8
February 2018														3	1				2			1		1		1		3
March 2018					1				1							2						1		1			1		1	1
April 2018											1		2					1	1				1	1		2				1
May 2018							2					1						2	5			2							5	4
June 2018	2	2		6	10	2	2					1		2				5	6						3	1	3	6	2
July 2018			4	5	6	2							3					3		2				1	1
August 2018							1	4					1		6	3	1					1	8	1				6	3		6
September 2018				2														2						2			1
October 2018		2						1		2	1				1			1	2					3		1				3
November 2018						1	1		2

80% of your edits are done on this page (which is very consistent over time, at least since 2014, didn't check before that). And over the last 6 years, your edit count is slowly but surely dropping. But then there was the boost in 2010-2012, so who knows. - Alexis Jazz 05:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I use the "thank" feature to let an editor know I got the message, but I have nothing to add. That might be useful here as well. - Alexis Jazz 03:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the current archiving is way too fast (it didn't use to be that fast, in my recollection). Many good threads now disappear before the participants have concluded their conversation. I agree with the suggestion above of a three day expiry with seven threads minimum left on the page. I don't think Jimbo should be expected to participate in threads, but I do think that this page serves as a sort-of water cooler for the entire community, where topics which do not fit on any noticeboard can be brought here to discuss or chat about. Or as we say here in Hawaiian Pidgin, "talk story" (chitchat). Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC
I think you're missing the issue: This talk page is for discussing matters of interest to Jimbo directly. If Jimbo doesn't comment, perhaps this should have been discussed elsewhere. I suspect some ridiculous majority of the issues on this page are stuff that Jimbo has no reason to comment on; those should be rapidly archived. Most of the content of this page is rightly discussed elsewhere; Jimbo's user talk page is mostly used as a substitute for WP:VPM or WP:ANI where people wrongly believe that Jimbo has the authority or desire to intervene in Wikipedia issues that don't directly involve him. He doesn't. If, after 24 hours, he's ignored a topic here, that's because it doesn't involve him and that's a good indication that it is a discussion that shouldn't have been held here in the first place. Look, how many discussions on this page have zero input from Jimbo. I'd estimate something in excess of 4 in 5 (80 %) have no input from Jimbo. That should be a sign to those who were participating in said discussion that it's the wrong venue. Too much of the discussions here consist of people who falsely believe that Jimbo has either the power or desire to intervene in their own niche concern in contravention of what the greater Wikipedia community has already reached consensus on. He clearly doesn't. A 1-day archive is fine. If Jimbo doesn't care, why would we want to keep a discussion in this venue? --Jayron 32 04:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've changed it to 2 days and 3 threads remaining for now. We'll see what that looks like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated.

How do you feel about adding a note to the notice at the top to say you read (almost) everything but won't always respond? It may be obvious to you, but I don't think it's obvious for everybody. If a thread gets archived without any responses and you didn't make any edits while the thread was here (as can be seen in the Minesweeper stats, you often make no edits for 5+ days), there is no way to tell if the bot archived it before you could see it or if you read it and didn't have anything to add. A notice to say that you do read this page almost daily would help, I think. - Alexis Jazz 03:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

MIT study on persistent Wikipedia disputes

"... a novel study by MIT researchers finds debilitating factors — such as excessive bickering and poorly worded arguments — have led to about one-third of RfCs going unresolved...“It was surprising to see a full third of the discussions were not closed,” says Amy X. Zhang, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and co-author on the paper, which is being presented at this week’s ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing." Source: [49] This seems reminiscent of the pattern identified in the field of behavior genetics in the excellent book Misbehaving Science: basically, the same disputes keep being re-litigated and brought up and debated over and over again, and we never seem to get closer to a satisfactory answer. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Separating complex RfC issues into simple parts: Perhaps the biggest problem, which can thwart wp:RfC consensus, is to debate complex issues as an intertwined, multi-faceted set of choices, rather than seek agreement on each separate, simple portion of the entire topic. For example when debating rules for talk-page signatures, rather than request consensus for a one-line policy on signatures, instead, note the separate factors, "A signature is restricted by font-size, image-size, white-out colors, off-site links, strobe blink, and video" (etc.). Then, debate the limits of each separate factor, such as what range of font-sizes the users could display, or what combinations of invisible, white-out colors must be avoided, rather than seek consensus on a one-line phrase which defines all restrictions at once. If the users would split a compound RfC suggestion into simpler parts, then each part of the RfC could reach consensus much faster. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct. It's the very reason I kept the scope of No longer allow GFDL for some new uploads limited. But you also need disrupters to resolve issues. People who are willing to be what some Wikipedians extremely annoyingly call "POINTy". Usage of that word drops your credibility rating instantly to zero for me. This place is nowhere without people making points. I could write a lengthy comment about how that works, but I already have: c:Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point (you've been warned: this is an essay I wrote, so it's pure filth). What I know about enwiki is that User:MjolnirPants, my favorite deity, just left and you've banned Slowking4. I hope that wasn't your whole supply.. - Alexis Jazz 08:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You're all spending too much time among the trees to see the forest. The biggest problem with failure to resolve disputes is too many people are interested in using Wikipedia to promote something (a view point, a business, themselves) and too little are interested in writing a quality encyclopedia. Unresolved RFCs are mainly due to people who are using Wikipedia for their own purposes and not for its own purpose. You get enough people on one side trying to use Wikipedia for themselves, especially in a niche area, and the RFC ends up unresolved. --Jayron 32 03:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the entire point of an RfC is to resolve competing points of view, if there is broad consensus that something is good then an RfC is not needed. The worst ones are like bad AfDs: flooded with canvassed voted from people who like a thing. We have had a ton of this around quack medical topics. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I also don't disagree, but you may be spending too much time looking at the forest to see the continent it's in. Yes, there are people who want to promote some point of view. The issue is, they have nowhere else to go. Wikipedia clones consistently fail or are left abandoned after a while. Wikia provides alternatives in some cases, but not always. In the market for online general encyclopedias, Wikipedia is the largest player in an oligopoly. That is the real problem, imho. - Alexis Jazz 02:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's not play fast and loose with economic terms here. Wikipedia is not an oligopoly for at least 2 reasons 1) it does not sell its product, both reading the articles and copying the articles are free 2) it's not part of an industry group (with follow-the-leader pricing) - we operate independently of other online encyclopedias - they can do exactly what they want. There are (or were in many cases) lots of online encyclopedias, some just copy Wikipedia and then try to add in other articles (that they want to promote). Their problem is that nobody wants to read a version of Wikipedia with adverts added. Some charge for their content, e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica . Their problem is whether their content is good enough to attract Wikipedia's readers. Some take on a restricted topic, e.g. the Encyclopedia of Alabama, which take tax dollars and hire writers. Saying that POV pushers and advertisers "have no place else to go" is just silly. They can go wherever they want on the web, produce whatever content the want, using whatever resources they have, and they can even take all of Wikipedia's content. What they can't do is force readers to read garbage, or people to write garbage (for free). They can't force Wikipedians to abandon our rules and accept garbage into Wikipedia. IMHO there would be a whole lot less arguing if we just made it clear that we have rules that everybody must accept. Otherwise they are free to go elsewhere. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

About Flickr

Maybe the bot just took it away before you could respond. I don't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=866850610#Flickr_is_about_to_die.

I think this is pretty important. As you do have an open door policy, a simple "ack" would go a long way, even if you think Wikimedia can't or shouldn't have a role in this. I'd just like to know you got the message. - Alexis Jazz 08:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposal is Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit. I'm not sure if this counts as a major tragedy, given the large number of dubious quality and dubiously licensed images that have been imported from Flickr to Commons over the years and the time that has had to be spent on sorting it out. In practice, it would affect only free Flickr users who had uploaded more than 1000 images. Overall, it is best for CC images to be uploaded to Commons directly rather than taking a detour via Flickr.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

~~Bye~~ Glad you decided to stay Jennifer!

~~Bye~~ Glad you decided to stay Morgan!

File:Drake at the Velvet Underground - 2017 (35986086223) (cropped).jpg

~~Bye~~ Glad you decided to stay Drake!

At least Flickr's The Commons (selected Flickr accounts with historical public domain images, not to be confused with Wikimedia Commons or Creative Commons) appears to be exempted. But we will still be losing a massive amount of images. And not just crappy ones. For example, these three are used in infoboxes. - Alexis Jazz 19:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Since ArchiverBot is extremely aggressive here, would it be acceptable to put {{DNAU}} on this? I'm perfectly happy with Jimbo deciding to archive this himself, all I'm really asking for is that he knows about the issue. Which doesn't happen if ArchiverBot throws it away unread. - Alexis Jazz 23:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the once hugely popular ImageShack and Photobucket no longer offer any free accounts. Flickr would have caused uproar if it had done this, but it has moved towards a freemium model similar to Google Drive and other cloud storage services. It isn't realistic for Flickr to offer unlimited free hosting, and nor is it realistic for Commons to be a mirror of Flickr.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that the key takeaway here is that we cannot expect any for-profit web hosting to stay up indefinitely. Megaupload. GeoCities. Quantum Link. All dead. If a commercial site has content that is [A] valuable to Wikipedia and [B] is licensed under a compatible license, we should copy it to commons, wikidata, wikibooks, etc. now, before it disappears. -- Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ianmacm, Overall, it is best for CC images to be uploaded to Commons directly rather than taking a detour via Flickr is great in theory. Unfortunately, since Commons doesn't permit batch-uploading from mobile devices, that's not practical. If I'm writing about a military cemetery, then between general look-and-feel shots to illustrate the article on the cemetery, photographs of the architecture of the cemetery chapel(s) and individual shots of potentially noteworthy graves I can easily take upwards of a hundred photos of that cemetery (example). In such a case my options are:

Upload each file individually to Commons from the device used to take the photo, manually completing the upload form each time;
Come home, plug the device into a computer, manually transfer the relevant files from the device to my hard drive, and use Commons:Upload Wizard to upload the files in batches of 50 which is all it can cope with;
Upload the files direct from the mobile device to Flickr (perhaps 10 seconds work), and once on Flickr use Flickr2Commons to transfer the batch to Commons (perhaps 30 seconds work)
Shove everything into Google Drive at low resolution, and manually upload files as and when I need them for a particular purpose.

In the past, option (3) means they're available for anyone else working on related topics to use. Unless Commons starts allowing batch uploads from their mobile app, from now on it will be (4), which means that they'll only be available to use on articles which I'm writing and not for the use of anyone else, and only available at the low resolution supported by Google. If Commons wants me to be uploading directly to Commons, Commons needs to make it possible for me to do so. ‑ Iridescent 08:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Good news: Flickr promises it won’t delete Creative Commons photos when it limits free storage.

Still, users who are over the limit will have to delete photos themselves or get Pro to upload new photos. But the massive train wreck that was about to happen has been averted.

Jimbo: a direct and somewhat related question. The most widely used tool to import photos from Flickr is c:Commons:Flickr2Commons. The duplicate detection in this tool has been broken for months now. This causes a lot of work and frustration for uploaders, users and admins on an ongoing basis. The maintainer doesn't respond to anything. Admins don't know what to do. Uploaders go crazy.

My very direct question: could you please ask a WMF programmer to fix the duplicate detection issue? We're out of options. - Alexis Jazz 07:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Google Drive, but the article says you can upload at "original resolution" if you go into the 15GB free limit. That may be tiny by the former Flickr standard but it is still a useful batch of photos. The question is, can someone at Wikipedia write a tool whereby a user provides the program access to both their Google Drive account and their Commons account and it batch uploads all the photos for them (and, presumably, can be set to delete them after confirmation of upload to regenerate the storage)?

The more general question concerns why photo storage space seems to suddenly have gotten very expensive. Are these companies being pressured to go through collections and censor out "politically incorrect" images, and that's why they can't afford to do free storage any more? Is Wikipedia being pressured either to delete images or to pay higher fees to host its Commons data? How feasible is it to have a massive expansion of the Commons storehouse of Creative Commons images to suck up all that information from Flickr before the photographers feel compelled to delete it so they can show off their newest work? (I doubt that really delays the deadline much anyway, just makes it harder to see) Wnt (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What seems to have happened is that social media sites like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram can offer more or less unlimited photo storage for free, but they are not aimed at the serious photography buffs who want to share their images at full resolution. This takes up a lot of server space and bandwidth, and the revenue from advertising probably does not cover the costs. It's now a long time since the average person uploaded to ImageShack or Photobucket and shared the image via a HTML link or BBCode. This is still possible, but it has largely fallen off the map.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In the specific case of Flickr, what I'd think is more likely is that Yahoo ran it as a loss-leader to try to encourage other users into their ecosystem, and hopefully discover other services they'd be willing to pay for (or find themselves at HuffPo where Yahoo could show them paid ads). Now it's been sold to SmugMug, who make their money from paid image hosting so have no incentive to give away for free what they previously charged for.

Google Drive is adequate for personal image hosting, but isn't really a viable replacement for Flickr. Because its albums aren't visible to third parties, and aren't CC-licensed, it's not much use to Wikip(m)edia. The strength of Flickr was that it was a win-win situation for both professional photographers and ourselves; we had a pool of free images, often on topics which we struggle to illustrate, and the photographers got free advertising in the form of links in the image credits.

Sucking up all the information from Flickr isn't really viable. 99% of the content there is holiday snaps, selfies, and amateur porn, and Commons aren't going to thank us for dumping a few million unencyclopedic images on them and expecting them to sort the wheat from the chaff. ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: looking at our articles for ImageShack and Photobucket, it seems like neither one is usable for free-hosting images that others can see. Yet provided the photos are not accessible to the web, it looks (to my first glance at those articles) like they didn't care about the cost of storage. That would seem consistent with either a bandwidth or a censorship cost explanation, but why did bandwidth get expensive for everyone? I did some very trivial research and found the new Flickr topping a list of free photo servers, though they also discussed a http://www.irista.com/ that looks at first glance to be an alternate site for minor storage. They also mention unlimited storage and sharing in connection with an Amazon Prime membership; given the company's emerging importance as the American tax-subsidized monopoly commerce store with strong financial verification, I might speculate that to be an exemption for having an "internet ID" for those willing to take on responsibility for self-censorship, since I imagine the disruption of being TOSsed off Amazon is probably significant. But I should be the last person to be talking about this stuff; photography is not my life. Can any pro photographers put more companies and news onto this table? Wnt (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The free user accounts offered by ImageShack and Photobucket were never all that good, which is why the photography buffs preferred Flickr. They were similar to TinyPic (which still exists) and is aimed mainly at people who want to give a link to an image or embed it on another website. TinyPic is chock-a-block full of adverts and doesn't promise to keep the images forever, but at least it is free.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A mystery...

Why is someone from the House of Commons vandalizing pages related to a California congressional election?[50][51] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it vandalism though? Our article at the time said the election had not yet been called, and that she still hasn't been elected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In California, mail votes only have to be post-marked, so it leaves several races hanging, including Kim - lots of mail to count (along with provisional ballots).[52]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Those look like perfectly valid edits to me. The race has still not been called for Kim as Alan points out. Not everything someone from a parliament computer does is harmful per se. Regards So Why 20:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that I saw a report that Kim had won, but looking it it the vote counting elves say it might take the full 30 days they are allowed before certifying the election. My mistake. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo request petition - please sign

I have written up a petition to TASS and RIAN Novosti asking them to release specific photos under a Wikimedia-friendly license. Please do sign it, and spread the word. Most of the photos are portraits of cosmonauts, famous pilots, deceased persons, and major historic events (like the first spacewalk). It's on Russian Wikipedia since the photos are from Russia, the link is here. Having these images under creative commons licences would really help the development of Soviet-related content, since some of the most major topics lack photographs. Since you are the founder of Wikipedia, please don't be afraid to reword the petition or add some photo item requests to the list. Thank you, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you spoken to people at Wikimedia Russia?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I've had been floating the idea for a while, and writing the draft on and off, but then I started collecting signatures. Now it has over 40 signatures, mostly Russian Wikipedians. And the launch of the petition is featured in Russian Wikinews here. But Commons is a centralized project, so I hope to get signatures from people from various different wikis. I've contacted lots of Russian and English Wikipedians, plus editors from Spanish, Portugese, French, and Polish, wikis about the petition, with positive responses.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello, respected Jimbo Wales! I ask you, please allow us, we want to open Wikipedia companies in Tajikistan. A branch of this company we really need to supplement information about Tajikistan, Tajiks and others. Respect, Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

You probably mean "a chapter" rather than "companies" since the WMF is a non-profit. I'll suggest contacting @Wolliff (WMF): - if she doesn't handle new chapters, then she will know who does. It might be quite challenging to open a chapter in Tajikistan. You should think about what you want to accomplish and how you will accomplish your goals. Are you (informally) affiliated with any universities or other cultural institutions? If so you might do some GLAM projects. Perhaps Wiki Loves Monuments - the annual photo competition - would be of interest. Do you have connections with other chapters in Central Asia? Maybe the Russian chapter would be interested in helping you get started, or is there an Iranian chapter?

I doubt Jimbo would get directly involved in helping organize a chapter, but I'm certain he'd love to see a well-organized chapter get started. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a wikipedia in the Tajik language? In another variety of Persian understandable by people in Tajikistan?

Related question: When I looked at www.wikipedia.org (note the www.* instead of en.*) I saw languages such as ქართული. မြန်မာဘာသာ, and 日本語 listed. Is there a list of wikipedias that an English-speaker can understand somewhere? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

see https://tg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тоҷикистон . Tajik uses Cyrillic script, Persian looks something like Arabic script (to me). So it's a question of whether the spoken language is mutually understandable - I'd guess not. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I often need a list of wikipedias - while I guess I could bookmark the page, I typically click on the globe to get to the main page, then scroll to bottom and click on Complete list of Wikipedias, which bring me here. Does that help? S Philbrick (Talk) 00:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Just what I was looking for! From that page, I also found this Table of Wikimedia projects, which gives the same information for Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage.

Yes, we do have a Tajik language Wikipedia: [53] Jaloliddin Madaminov should work on expanding it and recruiting other locals to expand it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, Thank you very much for the answer, I have been working for 2.5 years at the Tajik Wikipedia, for the development of the country of Tajikistan and the participation of young people in general, we need this website or a free encyclopedia Wikipedia. Respect, Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

Guy Macon, Of course, we are moving to Wikipedia, but we need to solve problems on Wikipedia is very necessary. Respect, Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

Yet Another Wikimedia Commons Discussion

There is a deletion discussion at Commons which, in my opinion, has ramifications for thousands of images. (I am purposely not expressing any opinion here on whether that would be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing). The discussion is here:[54] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that "fair use" does not have universal applicability as a rationale. Thus there might be legal ramifications in some places which are not contemplated by the US copyright principles on en-wiki. Copyright laws are in a major state of flux. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Would not the copyright laws of the US apply to a US product such as Microsoft MS-DOS? See the list of images below. Is it not true of every one of them that "there might be legal ramifications in some places which are not contemplated by the US copyright principles"? I am just saying that a deletion rationale that applies to a large fraction of the images on commons should be discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I've never had something I did brought to Jimbo before. I feel honored! @Guy Macon: on COMMONS, fair use images are not permitted and never has been. That discussion has nothing to do with fair use on the English Wikipedia, which continues to be allowed, within reason. Any images that meet our fair use policy can be moved here. --B (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. If commons doesn't allow fair use, that's their decision. Do you agree with my conclusion that this pretty much prohibits any image of any commercial product? I believe that the same deletion rationale ("Derivative work of the copyrighted box cover designs") would apply to:

..and thousands of other images of commercial products with copyrights on the packaging design. Am I wrong? If so, how do you decide which copyrighted packaging is allowed?

Of course we all know that in the real world, Johnson & Johnson has no objection to someone showing an image of a Tylenol package (but would have a big problem if somebody started selling acetaminophen pills with that label on them). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The rule was always that fair use could be uploaded to Wikipedia, with a rationale specific to use, and Commons is for 100% royalty free images. To take on fair use in Commons is a substantial change in mission. From the Welcome page: Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone (emphasis added). Deleting these files from commons is not a problem because they can be transwikid back to the projects that use them, where fair use is fine. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Any of those where the packaging is not {{PD-ineligible}} should be deleted. This is not new. --B (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons follows here a WMF policy regarding licensing according to which all WMF projects must “host only content which is under a Free Content License”. However, individual projects may have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). A prominent example is en:wp where Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is an EDP which permits fair use under certain requirements. But Commons is not allowed to have such an EDP (see point 2 of the WMF resolution). Hence, we have no choice but need to delete fair use material at Commons. Please feel free to submit deletion requests if more such material is found at Commons in violation of c:COM:L. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder 2019 Wishlist Survey

Just FYI reminder, as 3 days left for new proposals:

meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Once again, the massive 2018 U.S. mid-term elections have likely overshadowed the WMF 2019 Wishlist proposals, while many U.S. 50-50% recounts are still being planned. This WMF schedule of overlapping the Wishlist survey with the U.S. elections+recounts is very poor timing for those Wikipedians who work with setup of precinct voting machines, or storage, or recount issues. Hence, remind users of 3-day cutoff for new proposals this weekend. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

New proposals end on 11 Nov 2018: And then voting begins about the list. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Proposals ended & voting begins 16 Nov 2018: I was mistaken in thinking the new proposals would be accepted until midnight, 23:59, 11 Nov 2018, but we can now discuss complex U.S. election recounts below. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, waited so long on proposals: I did not even re-submit a proposal to "Auto-merge wp:edit-conflicts" but someone did submit a related proposal to "Allow partial reverts [skip conflict-sections] for edits" to offer the user a semi-edit attempt, where the edit-conflict section(s) would auto-skip to save only the non-conflicted parts of an edit-preview (see: "meta:Community_Wishlist Survey_2019/Editing#Allow partial reverts for edits"). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Modification of edit-summary text denied: I had submitted a Wishlist proposal to allow a user to update/redact the edit-summary line of their prior saved revision, but again this year, that feature is being denied as "problematic" or "open to abuse" in harassment, and so any major MediaWiki improvements are likely to be limited this year. This denial seems a case of "blame-the-tool fallacy" as if hammers, nails and screwdrivers would be denied because some angry users might use them to threaten another user. Very frustrating. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest WMF email

Hey Jimbo. Don't know if you'll be interested in my two cents, but here they are:

I've been a registered editor since 2010, and an anon since 2006. I am nothing but excited about the project. I tell all my friends about what a great experience being part of the Wikipedia community has been for me, and how much I've strengthened my editing and communication skills in the year I've been here.

That said, the WMF donation request emails are getting out of hand. They're getting increasingly needy (and honestly a little manipulative with the subject lines). I get that Wikipedia needs donations to survive, I really do. I donate a few hours every day to this project. And it's starting to bother me that the groveling is the public face of the project I am a part of. [NAME] - I'll be honest: I can't afford it is a subject straight out of phishing spam. Or how about: [NAME] - Deleting Wikipedia? Manipulative.

I'm not saying stop asking for donations. That's a totally normal part of a non-profit. But can we act like the adults we are? More and more, when I tell people I'm an editor, I hear about how much they hate the tone of our donation ads. Is this the face we want to be projecting? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Noswaith dda @Cymru.lass:. (See your based in US but as a welshman I couldn't help acknowledge your username.)

For some time we have been trying to find an alternative subject line to -/This is a little awkward/-. That line works and works very well but we have found it very difficult to effectively translate and adapt into other languages, and despite our best efforts have struggled to find an alternative.

We first tested -/Deleting Wikipedia?/- as a subject line a couple of weeks ago and it was the only winning variant in hundreds of tests. We retested in case it was a statistical fluke and continued to see it perform well. The effectiveness of this subject line for the most part does not come from its apparent clickbaiting. The change in the number of people opening the emails was relatively small and unsubscribes remained extremely low. The big driver in terms of its success was from a significant increase in those people who opened AND read our email appeal. We posed a question and donors were motivated to donate when presented with the idea of imagining a world without Wikipedia.

Our motivation behind this sort of subject line is the fact that in three countries today it is already as if Wikipedia does not exist. The risk that this could happen in more countries is greater now that it ever has been. Censorship, impediments to free speech and over regulation of copyright are threats that Wikipedia, Wikimedia and its communities face every single day and it is with that context that we want to lead.

Any email that included this subject line came with at least some context to flesh out the idea, i.e., “If Wikipedia were deleted, it would be a great loss to the world,”, but going forward it is our full intention to make even clearer that we intend for the donor to imagine a world without Wikipedia and the threats it faces every day, not threaten that it is going away.

Our plan is to continue to testing on this theme, exploring censorship and copyright restrictions as well as our increasing role as the backbone of knowledge on the internet, and help donors see that knowledge can and is threatened all the time. We are definitely and eagerly open to any feedback, suggestions and ideas you might have.

Best,

Seddon (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Our motivation behind this sort of subject line is the fact that in three countries today it is already as if Wikipedia does not exist. The risk that this could happen in more countries is greater now that it ever has been", giving the WMF more money will help this problem...how? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's for sharing that essay, Guy Macon. I remember reading it several years ago, before I had really started editing Wikipedia, and it stuck with me. The topic recently came up in a discussion I was having, and I remembered the idea, but didn't remember where to find it. Benjamin (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the things that we discussed at the most recent board meeting is that we should increase our public policy capabilities. One of the things that we know is that in many of the policy conversations that will impact us directly and indirectly, we don't have a seat at the table to talk with legislators simply because our public policy work is underfunded and understaffed.

I have personal knowledge, because I got involved, of what happened in Europe in the most recent European Copyright Directive vote, which we lost badly. Our tiny team there made a valiant and solid effort, but I heard from MEPs directly that the place was crawling with lobbyists from the music industry and the "big tech" industry (Google mostly), and that they felt like they hadn't heard from us. Many were surprised to hear that we didn't think the explicit exemption for Wikipedia was good enough. This is something that is directly correlated with staffing and funding.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What you say, Jimbo is certainly correct. However I wonder if the proposed strategy, i.e. be more competitive with the lobbying is the best or only strategy, particularly because our access to money for our public policy work will never be able to keep up with the big tech companies' access to money, imo.

I'm thinking that the best, and maybe the only, strategy for winning this ongoing fight is to become more direct in applying our public policy capabilities.

I'm thinking we (our board) should consider entering the political arena directly by finding and promoting candidates, perhaps even from in-house, who support our public policy positions and getting them elected. We have an enormous potential in terms of block voting by our editors and, even more so, our readers.

I realize this might be completely contrary to all or part of our original mission definition and/or collective mentality, but desperate times does require desperate measures, and the high tech predators particularly won't quit until they put free educational and information sources in legislated graves.

I think, could be wrong, its too late to try to defend our project with indirect, nice guy cooperative influence. We have to take off the gloves, get down in the trenches (and be thankful its not WW1 type trenches) and kick the shit out of the big tech sneaky and crooked bastards by becoming the politicians that they constantly bribe and influence; and then we, and probably other promoters of free education and information, will be in a position to just tell them to "fuck off"...and yes, they are as or more sneaky and crooked than any corporate entities in the history of capitalism, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Our access to money for our public policy work will never be able to keep up with the big tech companies' access to money", there is another side to that particular coin. The big spenders easily get int diminishing returns territory, wheres if we spend a little more we get a lot out of it. I am with Jimbo on this. I think that what he proposed is a good use of our money (I still advocate lower overall spending, but IMO we could benefit from a few more lobbyists and a few less Wikimanias and a few less grants to chapters which are really looking a lot like organizations specifically designed to attract our grants.)

The problem with owning a few politicians is that sometimes they don't stay bought. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting owning any politicians, just creating and/or supporting some with similar points of view. There is nothing to lose by trying the increased lobbying approach and since Jimbo has obviously thought about this and spent a lot of time on this and got involved in the European Copyright Directive vote, I'll certainly also support the increased lobbying approach.

However, Jimbo's reference to "the place was crawling with lobbyists" tells me that our money might better be spent trying to become the people the lobbyists are trying to influence.

We often forget that democracies are open to people like most of us to serve in political office even if/when we never considered it before.

I also disagree, Guy, with assuming that Big Tech cares at all about traditional business principles like diminishing returns. Control and market share is what they want; as much and as soon as possible.

What I'd really like to see, as a second front in addition to the lobbying effort, is an organised effort to recruit Wikipedians to become MEPs and, if possible, support their campaigns in all of the traditional ways. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I never assumed anything one way or the other about whether "Big Tech cares at all about traditional business principles like diminishing returns" I asserted that Big Tech is subject to the law of diminishing returns, and that this gives the WMF a comparative advantage. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Yes, I stand corrected now that I re-read what you said. I should have known or even assumed :) you would not be making such an assumption. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes - if you're only concerned about the immediate click rate, your reputation and long-term brand value will decline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi! SirBlueStar (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Award!

File:Rubber Duck (8374802487).jpg	A duck!
	Hi! SirBlueStar (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians face tedious U.S. election recounts

Wikipedians are finding complex issues among the 20+ recounts in the 2018 U.S. mid-term elections, although some contests have been resolved by counting mail-in ballots, other recounts are tedious, such as Florida for Senator, Governor and Florida Agriculture Commissioner (1 of 3 cabinet positions). The wp:RS reliable sources, for detailed recounts, have been difficult to find, but local TV transcripts in each region of Florida seem to provide the best details; for example CBSMiami.com with "Sen. Nelson Wants Gov. Scott To Recuse Himself From Recount Process" (12 Nov 2018), after Florida court rejected Governor Scott's lawsuit to impound ballots and tabulating machines before the recount was finished. For the Senate contest, the other recount antics appear to be 2000 Florida recount all over again, just with different lawsuits and protests. For example, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections was met with jeers of "Lock her up" because some vote counts were late in her county. Bags of mail-in votes (Opa-locka) were rejected in Miami-Dade County because those ballots were delayed when the recent pipe-bomber caused a shutdown of some Florida post offices, where packages of explosive devices had been shipped to Democrats, as also causing delays for (majority-Democrat) mail-in ballots, and a perfect excuse to reject allowing those post-marked Democrat votes as "too late" to be counted. All Florida precincts now are required to use pen-marked ballots (no more "hanging chad" of the prior push-pin ballots), but a curious vote tally occurred in Broward County, where nearly 25,000 ballots had no vote for Senator while showing few votes omitted for lower offices, as the reverse of the typical trend where the highest office has the most total votes, compared to lesser offices skipped by busy voters. Perhaps Wikipedians will have more time to write about such events after the recounts are finished. As typical, many areas of enwiki are updated by mere skeleton crews of editors who have limited time to write about recount-delay antics. More sources later. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:30/18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Higher lawsuits to stop recounts... perhaps Supreme Court: A judge for Palm Beach County, Florida has suspended (extended) the vote-filing deadline (of 18 Nov 2018) because Sen. Nelson contended there were not enough tabulation machines to run all 4 recounts around West Palm Beach, including the U.S. Representative recount (source: "Judge suspends some Florida recount deadlines" WCTV.tv, 14 Nov 2018). And, of course, the judge's ruling has been contested by Republicans at the next-higher federal court. Meanwhile, Senator Nelson's attorneys have filed a federal suit to extend all 67 Florida county vote-filing deadlines, with the argument that all counties would have equal time to recount carefully (and avoid lawsuits where some counties had unfair extra recount time). All this one-upmanship might reach the U.S. Supreme Court, as in the Gore/Bush 2000 Florida recount, with a growing pyramid of lawsuit/appeal actions. Again all these events might be difficult for our new Wikipedians to cover. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a simple solution: outlaw gerrymandering and voter suppression, and introduce independent districting and electoral commissions. Having a candidate's family or supporters, or, much worse, the candidate themselves, in charge of an election and its oversight, is so obviously inappropriate that one wonders when people decided that they could get away with it so the hell with it. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the gerrymandering has continued for about 200 years (since 1812). However, another crucial problem, detected by recounts, has been the effect of confused ballot design, such as the rejected write-in votes for "Al Gore" in the 2000 Florida recount, when people punched the chad for Al Gore but also, for emphasis, put Gore's name in the write-in slot, and the machine count opposed both votes. Now, some voters had punched+written in George Bush, but Gore had thousands more overvotes, and if the ballot were redesigned to favor write-in names as overriding the punch vote, then Gore would have won the initial Florida vote, as certified. The extra votes would have put Gore ahead by ~1,500, not Bush by 537. Hence, even if the recount were halted by the Supreme Court, then the candidate with most votes, Gore, would have won the Presidency. Other ballot-design problems have ruined other elections, such as the "butterfly ballot". Perhaps call the general problem "ballotmandering". -Wikid77 (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Florida hand-recount until 18 Nov 2018: The prior machine-recount has confirmed the close vote, and now Florida has a statewide hand-recount for Senator and Florida Agriculture Commissioner, in all 67 counties, to finish by midday on Sunday, 18 Nov 2018, for all rejected ballots (undervotes or overvotes) during this 3-day, hand-recount period. With all the tedious lawsuits, the myriad details are being written into each office-race page, such as "United States Senate election in Florida, 2018#Nov 7 to the 14th" between Senator Bill Nelson and Gov. Rick Scott, and has been updated for events through 15 Nov 2018. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Broward County 25,000 Senator votes maybe blank: Another hypothesis has arisen, about the 25,000 undervotes for U.S. Senator on ballots in Broward County, FL, for how those might truly be blank votes at the bottom of page 1, where the U.S. Senator vote was at the bottom of column 1 instructions, while the Florida Gov. selection was at top of column 2, as seeming to be the major office, and perhaps voters got "voter fatigue" selecting local officials+referendums, and they forgot to hunt back for the U.S. Senator vote below the ballot instructions. This issue was just speculation, and so sources don't yet report actual blanks for the 25,000 undevote ballots in Broward. Details about the 25,000 have been questioned all week and will likely be reported tomorrow afternoon, with overall hand-count totals. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sen. Nelson conceded as 10,000 lower in manual recount: As soon as the manual recounts were totaled, Senator Bill Nelson conceded after gaining only 2,500 more votes above the difference behind Gov. Rick Scott, who had spent $60 million (see WFTV Orlando: [55]) while flooding TV with negative attack ads against Nelson. The final 2 recounts: Bill Nelson: 4,089,472 manual votes above 4,085,086 machine recount, as only 4386 votes gained manually. The election office had retro-approved the 2-minute-late (3:02 pm) Broward county recount which had lowered Nelson's total by nearly 1,000 after a stack of ~2,000 ballots were damaged and omitted in machine recount. Logically, the missing 25,000 Broward votes did not add much, because only ~6,000 votes were gained by manual recount. No source yet on what-up with those 25,000 undervotes. Rick Scott, as a half-billionaire, is expected to be the richest U.S. Senator in January 2019. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A general request for advice

I have a friend who is clearly notable and should be covered in Wikipedia. Because I have a COI (this is a friend) I want to take great pains to do everything the right way. Because of my position, I don't even think I should write a draft, although I do have sufficient links to share. Of course I have some additional concerns that at least some negative people may wish to excessively object just to pick a fight with me - I'm not interested in fighting anyone. Or that my participation may bring negative people to want to come in and troll by trying to dig up dirt or writing the article in a negative way.

All of that argues for simply doing something quiet - asking trustworthy people in an off-wiki way to take a look and see if they want to write an article. But I actually think it would be much nicer if I had community guidance on how to do this transparently.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If you weren't the founder or the "Queen of England" or whatever people use to describe your position now, then there wouldn't be a problem here. Just write a draft or submit something to AfC.

But you are the founder and I don't think you can avoid the trolls (in a transparent way). Hopefully though some folks (plural) here can keep an eye on the article.

I'll suggest you just write an intro paragraph and dump it, together with the links, onto a user page. I'll do a basic Google search, read your links, ignore your intro (after finding out why the person is notable) and write a very boring short basic article and post it if I think it is notable. At that point others can come along and add anything that might be controversial in any way, or that might make the BLP interesting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Due to the hastle posed by trolls, an off-wiki email to a user would be a fine way to go. If you're going to be transparent, then there's not much point in not writing a draft, since it won't make any difference, I don't think, to prospective trolls. The page has some significance to you, that's going to be enough to make it a target. Go big or go home. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As we all know, it's not "Queen Jimbo", it's Duchess of Cornwallshire. He's better off writing anonymously. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Write it in Draft space and see what happens, I reckon. It'#s what we advise everyone else. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki contact would seem opaque and could, justly, be criticised as a conspiratorial and autocratic approach. It also has pretty poor optics if the founder of Wikipedia will not abide by the Five Pillars and participate in the collaborative editing process. Given your Conflict of Interest you also should not draft this yourself, much less post it to mainspace (And, yes, that is a higher bar because you are who you are.). As I see it, the only clean way to approach this is to post a redlink accompanied by a couple of central cites to start from here, along with a request that interested talk page watchers both develop an article and keep an eye on it afterwards.

As for the trolls, do you really think an article associated with you is the only one that would be subjected to unconstructive editing? If Wikipedia cannot cope with that on an article that gets extra special attention because it was suggested by Jimbo, what hope does it have of dealing with the same for other subjects of interest to various stripes of trolls? There is a long list of ArbCom cases that reflect the number of outside groups that have an interest in pursuing their aims through Wikipedia, some of them far better organised, resourced, and motivated than your personal haters. And though you are a very visible target with effectively celebrity status, with all that that entails, for some of the categories of unconstructive editors there are regular editors here who are much more desired targets (and I've seen the discussions of outing and off-wiki coordination, and the relative adequacies of our policies to deal with them, discussed on this page, so I presume I don't have to give examples).

However, the good news here is that with that sort of approach, combined with the general irreverence for "The Founder™" on display here, I think Wikipedia is very well equipped to both avoid bias in any such article, and to let community processes (like a notability challenge at AfD) work unhindered by any misplaced loyalty. I would be sceptical of you participating directly in any such discussions (as in, making arguments or interpretations, versus merely providing a link or supplying a fact) because we're hardly immune to such influence (much as we like to imagine otherwise), but absent that my assertion is that our processes are robust enough to handle it.

I see your fears, and they are justified, but I think the only alternative to complete openness is to not act at all. If your fears of undeserved negative attention are justified, and from the perspective of a friend, it may simply be preferable for this person to not have a Wikipedia article at all. From Wikipedia's perspective, of course, if the person is notable, it is always preferable that we have an article on them, even if primarily negative (if that's what the sources support): but you really aren't acting as a part of the project here, you're acting primarily as a friend. For a friend, a good consideration to take is whether a certain kind of exposure will, on balance, be a net good or net negative for the person. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand the need for a song and dance (not you, Xover, just generally) when it's a simple affair concerning a COI—and our SOP is to allow the editor to write their article, and simply submit to WP:AFC. Having, of course, disclosed their COI on the talk page. It would have the added bonus of allowing the founder to experience what it's like for a new editor. Something, in fact, that a lot of us could do with being reminded of.... ——SerialNumber54129 10:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please, I don't want an article. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo will never actually experience what it's like for a new editor (except in the most technical sense) without resorting to socking, is kinda the point. On the CoI issue, my assertion is that he needs to meet a higher bar than any other given editor, by the simple fact of who he is and his role relative to the project. But then, I don't think that's the issue that's his primary concern here: we're discussing the details of ways and means only as a consequence of the main concern (and for that issue, see my last para above). No approach to creating this article in an actually transparent and fair way will address that concern. --Xover (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That suggestion was of the tongue-in-cheek variety :) But if the fundamental concern is that an article JW writes is immediately going to be trolled, here they are. Looking at the last five (including a BLP), I think concerns that JW's article's are intrinsically targeted...are perhaps overestimated.

*Mike Brown (transport executive)—50 edits since creation in 2017.*The Lazarus Effect (2010 film)—50 edits since 2010.*Sonny Lester—50 edits since 2009.*Mzoli's—50 edits since 2011.*Breaking Home Ties—50 edits since 2007.

Anyway, you get the drift. The way I see it, I'm sure there's plenty of people who would love to "pick a fight" with JW—they're just not doing it in articlespace! ——SerialNumber54129 11:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I do concede that my perspective may be hypersensitive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering that 40% of those articles were nominated for deletion, I'm not sure that your sensitivity is unwarranted. Deli nk (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I think Jimbo, of all people, should be allowed at least one sock, not to avoid scrutiny but to avoid cofounderist trolls. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Celebrities have same rights as community

Looking at the ethics, any celebrity has the same rights, as anyone, to have a separate pseudonym username, and then submit a draft page to wp:AfC for any topic except relatives or business partners. A secret pseudonym cannot be outed; however, per wp:SOCK, a username should not used for evasion, but could be used for a topic-area, such as have 3 usernames for different topics, with one to edit some wp:BLP pages, another for general edits, and yet another for editing nuclear physics or some other limited specialty. The point is to ethically answer, "Why did you use that username?" ... "To edit biopages, or physics" (etc.).

By having multiple other usernames, then evasion would not be a foregone conclusion as when only one pseudonym. Meanwhile, the danger of editing with other usernames is the problem of same-page editing via sock names, and hence, the easiest method is to focus on a main other-username for most pseudonym editing, then rarely use the additional usernames as only for extremely limited topics, such as submitting AfC drafts. As for "friends" in a sense, then any editor could imagine a one-way friendship as fan of a celebrity, or secret mentor to assist a notable person, and hence I do not think submitting a draft for a notable occasional friend as if an unethical COI problem, not in the sense of writing about a notable family member, company investment or co-worker sharing corporate success. Perhaps an essay, "wp:Celebrity status" could explain how celebrities could edit same as anyone else, but beware promotional text. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Celebrities have the same right to self-promotion and concealed COI as everyone else. Which is to say, none at all. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to dodge trolls with respect to a prospective new article, this is probably the worst play that could have been made. But here's the answer: you can write an article about your friend in mainspace, assuming you have no financial connection to them. It is nice, but not essential, to make a pro forma declaration of your relationship on the talk page. Do NOT submit anything to the dysfunctional circus that is AFC. When you are done with the piece, ask a trusted Wikipedian who is not your friend, such as Cullen328, to have a look at the piece and make any corrections or amendments they deem necessary. Having advertised all this here only paves the way for a dramafest. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Although I have had a couple of disagreements with you, Jimbo, I am not the type to hold a grudge and would be happy to offer you my frank assessment of any such article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding favortism or multi-year stalking: If the issue is to deter a powerplay based on personal identity, then using a pseudonym is likely the best option, then create a mainspace stub, if not wanting to face an wp:AfC backlog, but also tag the new page to get community consensus, such as top-tag "{{notability|date=...}}" to let other users decide if the page actually meets wp:Notability, without favoritism to the person who created the page. Then no one can claim, "Jimbo created a page for you but not for me" as if gaining favoritism by username as an implicit stamp of approval. As for stalking, it can be vicious, as when I copy-edited a page, but the author at least warned me, "You mangled my page, so I got one of yours" and I think "my" own page had been created 2 years prior, but of course it had my username, so revenge was easy. Life in the fishbowl, life in the snakepit. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Horrors of a POV-fork page

Continue at: "#How to mention political groups in a page". -Wikid77 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, over 10 years ago, you had warned us how a wp:POV_fork page could be major trouble, but I didn't really understand the severe problems until I found the 2017-2018 page "Irish slaves myth" (real page, not a joke). I have concluded how the page first should be renamed as "Irish slavery debate" for the balanced title used in various broader sources. Meanwhile, let me describe the horrors of the POV fork. Well Jimbo, you probably already knew, as I did not, that captive Irish forced labourers have been called Irish "slaves" for centuries,[56] possibly even by those same Irish men, women, and children themselves, while they lived out their "myth" of capture, forced transport, being re-sold, whipped,[57] or having their indentured servitude" doubled by their masters, from average 4-9 years[58] as 8-18 years in bondage with hard labour. My first frustration, when I tried Google Search about the "myth" was the discovery that all search-results kept reinforcing the slave-myth viewpoint, in dozens of sources, as a Google confirmation bias enslaved (pun intended) to the POV-fork's title phrase, with "myth" as a word rarely used in broader sources. Finally, I realized the term "debate" as in "Irish slavery debate" had become the neutral phrase to discuss historical sources, versus "blarney" and then Google with "debate" found scholarly sources comparing forms of forced slavery. The second horror was trying to add facts into the page, as to refute the "myth" viewpoint, but those phrases were removed as off-topic from the myth meme.

Then the 3rd horror was checking the page revision-history where 2 years of objections had been edit-warred into the page, but often by IP users (who tend to be WP's secret experts), but of course cannot be contacted to ask follow-up sources because rotating IP-address users live with temporary IP usernames. Anyway, I regret such a page, as "Irish slaves myth" has festered on enwiki for 2 years, but I intend to write an essay about fork problems, as a real-life example of how a POV-fork can promote a radical viewpoint for years, despite hundreds of years of (written) facts to the contrary, not a "myth" invented in the 1990s to bolster internet racism. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What next? Flat Earth debate? Casein theory of lunar geology debate? Numerous migrant worker populations were shamelessly exploited, but there is an important technical distinction between that and slavery, and the entire "Irish slavery" thing right now is driven by racists seeking to undermine the Civil Rights Act. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, we could cover "Flat earth medieval debate" to explain the related topics which were controversial in the 1400s. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greeks knew the Earth to be round by the 3rd Century BCE, Bede wrote of the world as an orb in the 7th Century CE, this was settled among people of learning from a very early stage and flat earthism only held due to ignorance. The Irish slave myth is a trope deliberately fostered by racists. There is a difference. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The two sources you cite go to great lengths to distinguish African slavery from "myth" or "meme", including the one one using "debate", saying: "In recent years, right-wing whites have inundated social media and cyberspace with the lie that Irish ‘slavery’ was worse than that suffered by Africans." It goes on to say, "In contrast to those of African descent, the Irish were never legally nor systematically subjected to lifelong, heritable slavery in the colonies." "Lie" and "never" are quite definitive. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So, the page could be expanded for issues of "lifelong" (versus old-age manumission or coartaciòn or black indentured servants for release of slaves). Also count how many slave children were born to those slaves as a hereditary problem. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hereditary problem? What do you mean? And what don't you get about, "never legally nor systematically"? It's not good form for you to argue against the sources you cite, it looks like POV pushing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the Irish slaves were captured and sold ("contracted"), systematically, along with their children and grandchildren, as Irish slavery was instantly "hereditary". Also, I check everything in a source, plus check the sources they cite; and when sources refute ever more phrases in a wp:POV_fork, then I search more sources to de-myth the "myth" and write the truth about the actual details as documented for centuries. When people claim the truth as a myth, then they often overreach and claim every aspect as a myth, per "The lady doth protest too much" or where there's smoke there's fire, as when the de-mything finds 7 true aspects called "myth" then there are likely dozens more aspects also not myths, such as the false claim that the term "Irish slaves" was invented in 1990s when actually written for centuries. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What? So, you admit you are a POV-pusher, arguing against your own source, because you 'can't handle the truth', as they say. What you "believe" does not matter, what matters is the source you cited says, "In contrast to those of African descent, the Irish were never legally nor systematically subjected to lifelong, heritable slavery in the colonies." It is you, who protests too much. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the "myth" part comes from presenting this issue as a false dichotomy -- in today's age of actual respect for human life, the abuses heaped on all immigrant populations of that time are so horrible and unimaginable that emotionally they appear the same to us, despite the material fact that Africans had it much worse than others. Daß Wölf 03:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedians now can compare the living conditions for black slaves versus Irish slaves, and count how many were in Barbados during each decade 1620-1780. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Britain treated Ireland very poorly and you could even call it genocide or ethnic cleansing, but the "slaves" were largely prisoners of war and other people captured during the course of war. Irish people brought to America were assimilated into the culture within a generation - their children did not become slaves. No doubt Irish people were treated poorly at times, but there's just no comparison at all and there's not a serious debate about the subject - just people trying to minimize our ill treatment of African Americans. --B (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, check the facts of imagined "ill treatment" of African Americans, who actually often lived in the master's house, or had private rooms in the servant quarters of the mansion, or whose children played alongside the owner family, blacks with white children, or were given manumission liberty when the master died, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

...imagined "ill treatment" of African Americans... OK, now I know that you are one of those. Thanks for identifying yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am an ill-treated "Africanized" American. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that is an interesting choice of words. Perhaps you just randomly picked that phrase -- I cannot read your mind and must assume good faith -- but it is a phrase often used by Neo-nazis and other racists to convey the idea that "the blacks are taking over this city and rejecting our white European culture". If you didn't pick up that phrase from The Daily Stormer, you might want to stop using it because it gives people the wrong impression. Then again, seeing as how you already said that you believe that blacks enjoyed being slaves, perhaps you are giving people the right impression. As I said, I cannot read your mind. Perhaps this is all in my imagination. Feel free to make an unambiguous statement that removes all doubt. Purely optional, of course; you certainly are not required to answer to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. As the very source you relied on at the beginning, here, says: "In recent years, right-wing whites have inundated social media and cyberspace with the lie that Irish ‘slavery’ was worse than that suffered by Africans." Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77, I'd encourage you to read Up From Slavery, Booker T. Washington's autobiography, specifically the first few chapters where he discusses his childhood as a slave in the decade before the Civil War. If that's not ill treatment to you, I shudder to think what is. Daß Wölf 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that link about Booker T. Washington, and there are other slave narratives of various slaves whipped, but remember the reports of adventures, joy, and slaves moving back to their owner families in the broader Slave Narrative Collection (from 1937). Life in the U.S. has been hard for many, as even I was whipped and beaten when young because I was slow to read. My brother was stabbed in the head with a screwdriver, but survived. When I was car-jacked by 3 black teenagers in Texas, they kept punching my head, demanding more money, but an elderly black gentleman came to his doorway to yell, "You boys leave that man alone" so they left, then I grabbed my broken eyeglasses from the back seat, and a black girl came to the window and said, "want you to know we're not all like that". Life is hard in the U.S. The 2018 murder rate in Chicago has been 8 per day, but ill-treatment has been relatively rare. Be thankful for the black slaves who worked to protect the Confederacy and kept other towns from being burnt like Atlanta. Those slaves should not be viewed as pitiful but rather heroes who saved the Confederacy, kept books from being burnt until Lincoln died, and then returned to Dixie to rebuild from the ruins and mourn their owner families, most who had died after 1863 in Lincoln's prison camps. Rejoice in the remarkable lives of those 4 million black slaves who became homeless, plus the Northern slaves who faced segregation in chaos. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking about all of this. I only have a couple of potentially useful thoughts so far. First, let's imagine a hypothetical position that someone might have. "Because this group is using the plight of people A in order to minimize the plight of people B, we should minimize the plight of people A." This is clearly wrong. Let me make the relevant substitutions here, "Because modern racists are using the plight of Irish people to minimize what happened to Africans, we should minimize what happened to Irish people in order to deprive them of that rhetorical move." I think it is obvious why that is wrong. (I don't think anyone has actually taken that position, but surely you can see that some of the discussion here comes perilously close to that.)

The only thing that matters in describing the situation of these Irish people is... the situation of those Irish people. In particular, what matters is what reliable sources, both historical and contemporary, say about the matter, quite independently of the debate about the misuse by racists.

Now, as it turns out, I think that - as far as I am aware to date - the idea that Irish people were slaves in America actually is a myth. So my point is NOT to say "Oh, but the racists have a point" - I doubt very much if they do. My point is - my position (our position) on the historical matter should be wholly independent of what racists think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think historians refer to Irish slaves in the British American colonies circa 1640-1660, whereas the term "America" has become synonymous with "U.S." (1780s) as after the generations of Irish slaves were gone, many dying young due to sickness, such as yellow fever or malaria, while black slaves with sickle cell trait or African immunities magically had not died from such diseases. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, no, they mainly refer to it as indentured servitude, which is different. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the cultural relevance of a myth/meme,[59] [60] [61]. If one wants to further explore Irish indentured servitude or penal transport, it make sense to look at those linked articles. It perhaps says something that we don't have 'English indentured servitude'; 'Scottish indentured servitude'; 'French indentured servitude', etc., etc., articles, but presumably the persons who started these articles found people (Irish nationalists and others [62]) have written about the Irish. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Closed discussion about racists

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unfortunately, you are letting this particular racist enjoy a large soapbox by allowing him to continue posting here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies in advance, because this just looks weird, but who is the "particular racist' in this one? Arkon (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

When a discussion devolves into name-calling, then it would turn Jimbo's page into a wp:Attack page, and so it is probably best to close discussion on this thread, and switch to a new related thread. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's always amusing to watch someone who dismissed hundreds of years of brutal violence, murder, and rape try to claim the moral high ground. Gamaliel (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Continue discussion at: "#How to mention political groups in a page". -Wikid77 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

All the best to you and your family. I hope you have a nice dinner with turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes and gravy, and/or sweet potatoes, green bean casserole (with crispy fried onions on top), squash, and of course pumpkin pie.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello to the founder!

@Jimbo Wales: I just wanted to say hello to the founder! Thanks for such an amazing creation :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Jimbo, why do you invite me to edit your user page?

It's generally improper to edit someone else's user page, and besides, there's not really anything I could do to improve it anyway.

Benjamin (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyrights in Europe

I am reaching out to you Jimbo about the need for the Wikimedia to keep the free knowledge movement in Europe strong. Already Project Gutenberg have blocked access to their site in Germany after a court there ordered them to block access to 18 public domain works. (PD in USA, but not in Germany) [63] [64]. It is important that European governments do not censor Wikipedia over copyright when enacting the provisions of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market which as you must know, will be passed into law individually by each European country. The legislatures have the ability to alter the overall terms and make it easier for people in European countries to restrict free knowledge. It is important that we do not think the battle is over and become complacent in fighting for free knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complet Idiot (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet per WP:SOCKSTRIKE IntoThinAir (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'll do what I can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Airports

Hi Jimbo, long time no see, hope you are well and that you had a nice thanksgiving!

Listen, there is a thing going on at Talk:Sofia Airport which you, and all ladies and gentleman here, may want to know because it raises some interessting aspects. Let me put you into context of what I find important there, cause it ends up not being about some peripherical European airport, but about the approach we have as a project.

The article Sofia Airport is a typical article just as all articles of airports of that and bigger size are. The article structure and content are the norm present in, I dare to say, over 95% of our airport articles. This article had nothing special, till recently, when it was nominated for Featured Article. A series of editors uninvolved with airports or aviation came wanting firmly to remove the Sofia_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations table. The few Bulgarian editors that worked on improving the article thought it was extremelly unfair since all other airport articles have such a table. Obviously, WP:OTHER applies, but the problem are the reasons provided for the removal of the table. As all can see, the issue dominates the latest threads at Talk:Sofia Airport. The main arguments are WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTDIR, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTTRAVEL, ammong others. The thing is that the problem of the Airlines and destinations table present in all airport articles with active schedulled flights, was already discussed at least at:

At WP:Airports, project most directly related, the same concerns were expressed, and the result was to keep the tables while at Village pump the result was to delete. I didn´t participated in any of those discussions, I only got recently aware of the issue, and my intention is not to lobbie for any of the sides, I understand both. I have been defending the side that votes for keeping the table because of several reasons, but I brought the issue here because the issue itself opens way for analising the road our project is taking and how is Wikipedia positioning itself in the vast world of the internet. Depending on the perspective and interpretation, both sides can be right.

Allow me to make a minor introduction so the aspect of the question I am refering to becomes fully visible. I am an only child, and as such, I spent much time alone. At certain age the encyclopedias became my brothers and sisters. Not only I literally eat everything about the issues I was interested in, but I even grabbed encyclopedias opening random pages and reading what was there. I was fascinated by the encyclopedias because of all they included and they could take me pretty much everywhere. Afterwords many things happened in my life, but when I discouvered Wikipedia, that encyclopedic wonderfull feeling came back! Not only the joy of swimming in knolledge, but this was even better, I could activelly participate. Even as a child I dreamed about being able to correct or complete information in encyclopedias, and now I was able to contribute and improve it. We have pictures, multimedia, links, we can even upload stuff! When young, since I had numerous encyclopedias in different languages and sizes, some quite old, some new, I always found interesting to compare content. I often noticed how the view over different subjects changed in time or language. I found curious the aspect of the impossibility of updating encyclopedias, what was written there was eternal, even if a year after being published, events occured or discouveries were made that totally changed the perspective. Our project here is fascinating preciselly because it is dynamic in that sense, our content is being addapted continuously to any new reality, and even the old versions are available to see.

This opened way for Wikipedia to be much more than an encyclopedia in its classical sense, and opened way for content to be included which didn´t made sense in a static written encyclopedia. I see that happening right here in the case of airports. What would one include in an article of an airport in a classical encyclopedia? Obviously its history, evolution, its structure, important events, and available statistics and data. One could write about the airlines that were based in it and used it as its hub, write about the main airlines and most succesfull routes, etc. But our encyclopedia being dynamic opens way for us to give complete, ever updated, data. This is an advantage quite usefull for a reader. This aaspect didn´t made much sense in the past, but now, in this form, it does. People travel more than ever before, and will travel even more, and can use us now effectivelly. I mean, not just in the old sense of using an encyclopedia for basic information, but actually getting live information for planning a trip. Me, my family, my friends, we used preciselly our lists here at the airports for information to travel. And the best thing is that we have enough enthusiastic editors involved in mantaining those lists complete and updated. Me, for instance, despite being an airlines enthusiast, I never ever recall having added or removed a company or destination in those lists, I contribute in the prose, specially historic parts, of airports and airline companies. But I am very glad to see that there are people who mantain those tables perfect.

So, this decition of keeping or removing the tables, actually has to do with much more than the airport of Sofia itself. It has to do with the approach our project will have for this cases where the advantage of being dynamic, in comparison to static written encyclopedias, can be taken. I personally think we should take those advantages. I already sugested that recentism is solved by expanding the other sections of the article, and not by removing content. Also, the tables, as such, absolutelly solve the problem of WP:PROMO because they include all airline companies and destinations whithout making distinction or favouring any. The proposal of the opponents goes in the line of mentioning in prose the most important companies and routes, but how can they not see the problem of PROMO that would create? They claim the table creates instability in the article (yes, editors are constantly updating the table, that is a good thing) but how can they not predict the instability that would be ceated by mentioning only some companies and routes and not others? What criterium would be applied? The top 5 routes? Why not 7? ... The table has them all equally represented without favouring any, and, besides, our project has to take advantage of this situations for the reasons I explained. What you think? FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is highly inconsistent when it comes to recentism. The proper point of view, in my opinion, is that encyclopedic material should always remain so. If you write an article about a hurricane and say its track was predicted to pass over Florida, and then it hits Cuba instead, if you do it right, you should only have to add the part about it hitting Cuba, without taking out the sources that said it would hit Florida, because they're still reliable sources, still relevant, still important. They just happened to be wrong as viewed with 20/20 hindsight.

Unfortunately, in practice this is often not done. People change the map on Syrian civil war (File:Syrian Civil War map.svg to match whatever the current situation is, without the faintest notion that the article should be written as a military history in which the history is actually important. We don't have regularly or relevantly spaced revisions, we don't display them in the article anyway. Ditto Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) and every other article I recall seeing on ongoing hostilities. I think it is routine to take out "outdated" information on the hurricane articles. I even recall seeing some discussion about trying to better set off updated content at the markup level, though I forget the specifics. The result of this is that the table seems either totally within or totally outside of normal policy. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I also noteced the problem you are exposing, and, although a bit different than the airports table one I am into, its also in same latitude. I fully back up your point. Each time updates occur (be it a simple map or logo, or info in prose) we should add the updates but keep the previous valid info while obviously adapting it to the new context. You are absolutelly right in calling up the atention here about the bad habit of updating files instead of creating new separate ones. I noteced that as well, it occurs with maps, but also in cases of logos, coats of arms, etc. We, as an encycopedia, we should tell the story, not just the current situation, and this means saving all previous info, just adapting it to the new context.

However, the case with airports is different. The table itself should inevitably include just as updated as possible data. Everything else should go to the prose. My view is that in one airport article, we should have included both. The prose should contain all important past events, while the table should reflect updated info usefull for the reader. As I mentioned in the discussions at the Talk:Sofia Airport, I favour both: having an updated airlines and destinations list, and also having as expanded as possible, prose about past situations. The problem resumes to the fact that some ediors think that there are too many policies that favour the removal of the updated airlines and destinations table, wanting to have just prose mentioning selectivelly just the airlines and routes which were and are somehow important to the article. I actually favour having such prose, but I disagree with the dismissal of the table dealing with current situation. I think we win by having complete and updated information, instead of having a classical kind of encyclopedic article which would hardly tell you anything besides just history and general data. If the table gets deleted on grounds of recentism, all others in other airport articles will, and then it will become a strong argument for other kind of up-to-date-sort of tables, to be deleted. Notece that I am all in favour of having the prose about past events expanded as possible, it is just that I think both can live side-by-side. Both aspects should be expanded. Wikipedia should not disregard its capability static encyclopedias don´t have, which is having this extras of being capable of providing updated complete info, which in case of airports, it may bring quite a number of visitors finding it usefull because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Saw you at the grocery

You were stocking bread. Financial problems?

No, seriously, he did look a lot like you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How to mention political groups in a page

Tangent from: "#Horrors of a POV-fork page"

On the subject of Irish slavery, the issue was noted how sources about indentured servitude referred to "racist" groups, and that linkage seemed to slant coverage away from wp:NPOV neutral text as if saying the topic were a "favorite subject of wife-beaters" or such. In other words, the problem becomes a form of "begging the question" when describing a viewpoint. How else could Wikipedia mention various political groups, tied to a viewpoint, without writing an intrinsic connection between one particular political group as the only people polled about the viewpoint? Should a page limit the mention of both supporters or opponents, of an idea, into a separate section of the page, and include the time periods when the polling was done? -Wikid77 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Beware ad hominem text: Jimbo, I know you are busy, so this is just FYI. WP does cover the problem of quoting racist websites, as the issue of "Association fallacy" (Guilt by association), also as the section in page Ad hominem. Hence, to follow scholarly discourse and avoid poor form with argumentum ad hominem, then WP should remove mentions toward racists, or reverse-racists or such, when describing the aspects of a topic. It would be very difficult to describe issues, in an objective coverage, when including where "many racists" agree with scholars who note the term "Irish slaves" has been used for centuries about Irish captives of 1640-1670 etc. In general, WP should avoid descriptions connecting to obvious insulting or derogatory terms, which could sour the viewpoints of readers. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point I can't decide if you are incompetent or trolling. The sources are absolutely clear that the principal motivation for pushing the Irish slaves meme is white nationalism. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Othering

Somehow, in trying to understand this concern and the discussion thereof, I found myself at Other (philosophy) and specifically this:

"The term Othering describes the reductive action of labeling a person as someone who belongs to a subordinate social category defined as the Other. The practice of Othering is the exclusion of persons who do not fit the norm of the social group, which is a version of the Self.[7]"

Which (Othering) I am feeling might be the most important and consistent social problem which can and should be addressed and thought about. However, it is much more difficult to address than any one specific example of othering, imo. For example, I was at least once called a "Ni___Lover" as a child and I remember that I immediately felt like the "other" (outside of my group of pals) for a moment. I don't think I've ever been called a racist, but I suppose I could be because I like the old confederate monuments. I was also never called a "Commie" or "Dirty Commie" (as far as I know), as many Americans were back in the 50s. I hear there is some "othering" going on these days regarding red-heads, calling us "gingers" but now that my hair is white or gone no one can tell I used to be a red-head, but although I was called "Red" by my school bus driver, it was not with a negative connotation.

What is being called "tribalism" re: USA politics might also be a form of "othering". It is interesting that in Wikid77's sharing, the woman said something like "We're not all like that" which reflects, I think, an acceptance by that woman of being in the "other" grouping...i.e., an acceptance of the "othering".Here we have the weirdest example of a recognition and/or paranoia of economic status "othering" that I've seen.

I think Othering is a real obstacle to any substantive advancement of humanity. Its nothing new but may be getting more prevalent. Its also a really intellectually lazy and or stupid way of thinking, imo, and has no place in Wikipedia editing or discussions that I can think of right now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting issue, where "othering" could also be used to insinuate a viewpoint was a peculiar fringe view, beyond an obvious ad hominem attack which links a topic to a radical or hate-group. As for the monuments, even President Grant stated how the world thought the North had mistreated the Confederacy, where General Lee and Stonewall Jackson had become "demigods" to the people (see Pres. Grant, 1878 p.385), while the North was viewed as wrong for hiring mercenaries (or Hessians) to overwhelm the struggling Confederacy, who only sought to defend their way of life. The next step is to trace how the revisionist history has twisted the beloved Confederacy into a hate-group target, rather than the honorable Rebels who were supported by millions in the North. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we should be mindful of othering to avoid alienating our readers. That's why we try to write from a neutral POV, without the self-indulgent mocking of RationalWiki nor the theocratic sycophancy of Conservapedia. Nevertheless, we should never go as far as sacrificing clarity and facts, or we would cease being an encyclopedia.

Othering does have some useful purposes. For example, by othering kids in school who don't learn, we ensure that others do. Today, we might argue that even that othering is contraproductive -- maybe kids can be allowed to choose not to learn and still learn, maybe people can be allowed to nurse all their political opinions without public scorn and still get along. Still, if we want to stop othering altogether and keep our progress too, we'll absolutely have to come up very soon with a (less jarring) alternative to entice people to learn and contribute to the society, and especially to stop doing the othering themselves.

To illustrate by example: Wikid77 has above come one step short of defending the "peculiar institution". I appreciate his continued contributions in 60,000 edits on Wikipedia and, based on his user page, even happen to share interests with him, and don't want to alienate him, both out of human compassion, and respect for Wikipedia's interests. But I also feel that to attract readers and contributors, we must not alienate black readers either, whom Wikid77 others by his apologetic description of an institution that went to war to uphold human slavery and black slavery in particular; and that to maintain Wikipedia's objectivity and self-objectivity, the readers (including Wikid77) should understand that Wikid77's claims about Irish indentured servitude in the previous discussion didn't conform to the sources he cited. How to handle this with tact? Daß Wölf 01:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

To handle this with tact, simply read what a person has written, and not over-imagine what they have "come one step short" of writing. As Jimbo has advised, talk to a person about specifics. To imagine what a person might say, and then draw conclusions, is a form of straw man fallacy, as arguing from a false premise. I perhaps came one step short of saying how Robert E. Lee and his wife, Mary Randolf Curtis, were both antislavery, and Lee knew the difficulty of emancipation because he had worked for years to free his wife's family slaves in a gradual manner, to reduce disruption in her father's two estates where those slaves lived. The Union went to war as blockades against Confederate shipping ports. You also claimed an institution went to war to "uphold human slavery" but that's not what the sources reveal, as they state they were protecting slaves, as people, in a Christian concern, in those Southern states, where the overarching cause was a 40-year political sectionalism, with the Northern states promoting high import duties ("bounties" or tariffs; see 1861: "Morrill Tariff"), while the transatlantic shippers had less money to buy cotton (etc.) for the return journeys overseas. Federal tax money was spent more on navigation and lighthouses in the North than the South. Even the churches split North/South, such as the Southern Baptists. There were more slave states in the North, plus slave territories per the 1857 Dred Scott decision. The problem was a North/South schism, more than slavery. Don't just imagine, but read the constitutions of each seceded state, and the Confederate Constitution, where they forbid the African slave trade and limit their president to one 6-year term. The Confederacy's apathy to the Corwin amendment (slavery amendment) shows the issue was not slavery per se, but rather the lives of slaves and others in the Confederacy, as protection against Northern aggression. Dont imagine, just read what the sources actually state, and avoid people speculating "one step short" of something else. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting details which I never heard of. One other detail that sticks with me is that there was a man who financed John Brown, founded the Republican Party, predicted the Civil War well in advance and trained young men to be ready to lead the Union Army, and was so altruistic and concerned about the downtrodden as to found the benevolent Skull and Bones society of peacemakers, and yet few people ever heard of him. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Another related aspect is the wide ranges of subjectivity and relativity involved with the othering, and I have a great personal example. After growing up in segregated and, by any definition, racist, Georgia, I came to live in Toronto and had the luck to attend a sociology course given by Wilson A. Head. He asserted absolutely one day that there was a lot of racism in Toronto to which I quickly replied openly in class that he was wrong and that I knew what racism really was because I grew up in Georgia and there was none in Toronto. Only much later did I discover he also grew up in Georgia, so case closed; He was right and I was wrong, right?

And yet, when my son, born in Toronto, was in Grade 1, he had a best friend who was very black and the only non-white in the class. About half way through the school year, just for my own curiosity, I asked my son if he noticed anything different about his best friend. My son thought hard and then said; "he's taller than everyone else". Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are there 52 words (with bar-barous "phenomenology" in pride of place) in the lead line of that Wikipedia entry? The first line of Alterity does its dialectical dua|el hoopdancing with much greater economy. Seeing oneself painted other can indeed be a bona fide Jes Grew experience. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How is the Wiki hierarchy supposed to work?

The lower parts I get: edits by IP-editors and newbies are checked by trusted users. Administrators check those trusted users. But who checks the administrators? As I found out, "bureaucrats" is not the answer. But what is? On a small wiki, there are usually no problems with admins that can't be overcome. But as a wiki grows, new structures are formed. Conflicts arise within groups. When you have 100+ admins, that is bound to happen.

And what if administrators would change the rules so they can't be removed from office with less than 75% support for that? And how can it be guaranteed that administrators feel free to voice their concerns about another administrator? Or even, how can it be guaranteed that simple users can voice their concerns?

I admit this case isn't entirely hypothetical - but what I'm curious about here is how it was all supposed to work in your mind. Because I can't really see that right now. - Alexis Jazz 20:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration Committee has the authority to remove administrators. Also see Wikipedia:Administration. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks, but Commons doesn't have Arbcom afaik.. - Alexis Jazz 20:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Arbitration shows a failed proposal. Unlike Wikipedia there is no link to the discussion where it was rejected. If I could find that, I might be able to find what at least some people on commons think should be done when there is a dispute between admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The most profitable business in the world

Here is a trivia question for you: what is the most profitable business in the world?

Free clue: it is an industry who's very existence makes it much harder for us to create high-quality encyclopedia pages.

Answer

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure Apple makes more... Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing revenue with profit. Step hen 23:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Apple doesn't have a particularly high profit margin. Five years ago, Apple's profit margin ranked 40th among companies in the S&P 500. Now the company stands 113th. (Source: Bloomberg)

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about residence

Do you still live in Tampa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.49.67 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Misbehaving sysop "Pablo Escobar", piracy, and permanent ban at the EO Wiktionary

Hello

My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there.

There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary.

Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

"Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
"Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not att all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.

An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there, Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to you. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it.

It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. 2 "instances" have sent me to you with the issue. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI, please. Here is not the place to complain. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither is AN/I. The en.wiki community has no jurisdiction over any other wiki. Do not take it there. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: "Do not take it there" -> Feel free to suggest a more suitable place. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there is a better forum than here, as nowhere else does en.wiki have any jurisdiction on any other wiki. The only other forum I can think of is meta:wiki (which handles cross-wiki issues... I think.) and I have near zero participation over there. This is effectively an appeal to Jimbo. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems this editor has exhausted all other venues and been trying to do something elsewhere, anywhere that will listen, for 2 months now, perhaps longer. If nobody else can assist, the buck stops somewhere... hence them being here. While I cannot read the language of the wiki concerned and cannot seem to translate the interface into English, the main page claim checks out. Nobody else has edited it for a good while bar the problematic admin named above in the original post. -- Longhair\^talk 14:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thar she blows!

If you've never seen a financial bubble pop you should check out bitcoin now. Quick, before it disappears completely. The price is now about $3,735 down over 80% since last December (from about $19,500), down almost 60% (from about $9,000) on Feb.14 when I said it would go to $0, down over 40% (from about $6,500) in the last 2 weeks, down 17% in the last 3 days.

Why is the bubble bursting now? Actually, nothing much new, but the NY Times gives a pretty good summary at 5 Reasons Cryptocurrency Prices Are Plunging Again. The main reason is, as everybody should have known for several years, is that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless (according to The Economist). Most cryptocurrencies are also crooked as a dog's hind leg. Professor Nouriel Roubini of NYU says "Bitcoin is the ‘mother of all scams’ and blockchain is most hyped tech ever" . Eight Nobel laureates in economics have long ago said that bitcoin is a bubble. Google, Twitter, Facebook, Bing and half-a-dozen other large websites have banned their ads. China, which accounted for the majority of bitcoin transactions in 2017, has banned individual trading in bitcoin, bitcoin exchanges, and transaction processing ("mining").

But I'm not here just to say "I told you so." Wikipedia has a major problem dealing with financial scams. I've been trying to edit the Bitcoin article for months and found the ownership by bitcoin "fans" impossible to deal with. I did have some initial success putting in the above facts in the article, but they all got pushed to the bottom. You'd think when 8 Nobel laureates say that the bitcoin market is a bubble, that would be important enough to put into the article's lede. Sorry, but that can't be done on Wikipedia. And it must have cost our readers $10 million this year at a minimum.

tldr; the bitcoin bubble has popped, Wikipedia has trouble with financial scam articles, I told you so.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Got a date for that prediction that it it will go to $0? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd think one call saying the price would fall from $9,000 to today's bubble burst (now $3,665) would be good enough for you. But yes I did say $0.00. I don't expect you'll ever see quotes of $0.00 in the Wall Street Journal, but I'll say it's close to worthless now, and that will become apparent by New Year's Day (please remind me then). The problem for the small punter is that they can't get their money out even once they've sold. This has been reported on Reddit for about a month now for the Bitfinex exchange (parent of the infamous tether). Bitfinex/tether's problem is that they can't find a banker who'll deal with them for more than a few months. Money laundering regulations are too difficult to deal with (that's the nice way of saying it). This problem will spread to any other questionable exchanges as the small punter tries to leave the market in droves. It'll work something like a bank run. Nobody is going to be betting that bitcoin's price will be going up, and that's the only reason to buy bitcoin - you can't do anything else with it.

The big "investors", the so-called whales, have a different problem. Say one was worth $100 million last December when the bitcoin price was $20,000. When the price goes down more than 80% ($4,000), they are still worth on paper $20 million but there's no point in driving the quoted market price down to $2,000 with heavy selling or to $1,000 or $100. They won't find many buyers in any case. They'll just wait for the odd small punter to come in and sell to him at the higher price. Probably they'll do some wash trades (essentially trading with yourself) to record phoney prices. In other words, after the initial burst of volume, there will be very few trades, but at artificially high prices.

There's another huge problem - with the trade processors, the so-called miners. They burn a huge amount of electricity, are paid in bitcoin, and most of the big ones are located in China where they will soon be forced out of business by the government. If enough miners go out of business, folks might not even be able to have their trades processed. But it is worse than that. If one group of miners controls 51% of the computing power used for trade processing, they are able to dictate whatever trades (and prices) get processed. And who gets the bitcoins. There are only about 7 major groups of miners left now. Even before it gets down to 2 miners, the possibility of collusion among miners will drive away any trust in trade processing.

In short, there's no reason for anybody to buy, you can't get your money from a real bank if you sell, you can't trust the exchanges, you can't trust the trade processors. I forgot to mention that the regulators and FBI will be prosecuting more people. It'll be a real mess, but you might as well say that a bitcoin is worthless now, or soon will be. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 07:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, article space isn't the place for financial predictions or advice (even by Nobel laureates), but Jimbo-talk might be. I've had a price target of $2000/coin on Bitcoin for the past 2 years (from when it was at $700 to when it was at $20k), I expect we'll drop below that level in the next 6 months. Some of the other crypto-currencies (affectionately known by their detractors as "shitcoins") are very likely to go to 0. That's where the real shilling is; Cardano (platform) and Nxt are at AfD again and Justin Sun's TRON was deleted months ago. KodakCoin appears likely to never exist at all apart from the minds of some securities manipulators. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, I have disagreed with you in the past and probably will in the future. Always with respect. In this case, you were both correct and brave. I perceived things the way you did, but stepped back from involvement with articles about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. I have a close friend who is heavily involved and I feared to rock the boat. Thank you for doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the term "Dunning-Krugerrands" nicely covers it. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is substantial risk to partisan editing, and non-partisan editing can be intensely frustrating: when nearly all the sources are wrong, what do you do? And when Bitcoin was headed for $20,000, certainly there were many, many positive articles about it! So many that most of us knew not to touch it with an eleven foot pole, I would say. Frustratingly, sometimes an encyclopedia has to just parrot the nonsense of the age, and the only release for the enlightened editor is to try to shoehorn in a few "fringe" opinions (even if they come from Nobel laureates). Which is why it's important not to let policies get established that would try to exclude such opinions - it is better to err on the side of open-mindedness and allow a certain fraction of drivel into many articles than to exclude one good note of dissent.

I am still surprised that there has not been governmental action in the U.S. to impose civil forfeiture on Bitcoins that can be traced by the blockchain back to ransomware (even when the fraction is very small due to bitcoin "mixing"). Wnt (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You've identified a couple of key areas in the bitcoin article problem, but have a few misconceptions. First, there have been criminal prosecutions seizing bitcoins and regulatory actions with serious fines in the US and other countries. They've been a bit harder to do because of the blockchain's pseudonymity but once the criminal's public key (account number) gets exposed to the real world (and its hard to do transactions without telling people your account number) the blockchain actually makes it easier to track down the criminals. Like many other things with cryptocurrencies, mixers don't always work as advertised. Silk Road folks, ransomware hackers, and inside crypto-exchange thefts have all been prosecuted using the blockchain. Just this week a teenage bomb threat extortionist was convicted because he took his cash in bitcoin. But this type of stuff doesn't often make it into our articles, not because of our policies, but because of article ownership by seemingly interested parties.

The case "when nearly all the sources are wrong" is the very basic problem, but generally, if you stick to reliable sources, they get the story right most of the time. There is a deluge of propaganda - fake news - from the cryptocurrency press, but they are in no way reliable sources by our standards. The best sources e.g. Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Reuters, the New York Times, Washington Post (usually), get it right 90% of the time. The cable networks are all over the place but do have some accurate stories. But again, the choice of what's considered reliable sources gets limited by article ownership. For example, who ever said that Nobel laureates were fringe sources? Certainly our policies don't say that, though the article owners say that they are biased and I can't get them into the lede of the article. But it is not just Nobel laureates that are excluded as sources (when the are quoted in reliable sources). Financial industry leaders, e.g. Warren Buffett, George Soros, John Bogle, Jamie Dimon, etc. can't be used because (I can't even remember the stupid reasons the article owners give, maybe WP:WEIGHT?), websites that ban cryptocurrency ads (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Bing) - oh, they can be mentioned briefly way down in the article, warnings by regulators - ditto (sometimes). So actually, we have to realize that the sources I've listed above are the mainstream reliable sources and the crypto-friendly crap used by the article owners are the fringe opinions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed a persuasive response. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Thanks for making the most important site on the internet for research, useful for seeing information and great with its sources. WhatShouldBeDoneHmm (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)