This is an archive of past discussions about 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.
Is it just me, or does the donation seem to go a bit slow, compared to the previous years? I don't know how much the green level represents and I don't know what kind of expectations they have, but unless the tube has not been updated in a day or so, the donations haven't even ten percent on the scale of expectations. If the donations are being slow compared with previous years, does anyone have an idea why that may be the case? What could have dissapointed so many donators to not donate so much this year? I have my own explanation, but I'm not sure how accurate it could be, so I'll listen to what others have to say first. --Thus Spake Anittas01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The pace of donations is the highest we have ever seen! Anittas, I have no idea what you are looking at or talking about. One thing that might be confusing to you: the bar this time is different than in the past... it counts the total number of donations, not the total amount of donations. That's because the focus of this years progress bar is participation, not total dollars. We have always taken pride in how broad our support is, and we wanted to have a progress bar that indicates that we think even small donations are important. Of course total dollar amount is important too, and I am happy to report that so far, so good: the pace of donations in dollars is also the highest we have ever seen.--Jimbo Wales12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't see the amount of money donated. Where is the page showing that? I'm glad that the funding goes well. I'm not against that. I've donated in the previous years and intend to donate this year, also. --Thus Spake Anittas14:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Because donations often follow Zipf's Law and hence the Pareto principle applies, we shouldn't expect to see a clear relationship between the number of donors so far and the amount of the donations. Perhaps a 2-bar system might be better if both are thought important to track. On the other hand, perhaps simply tracking donors, which on average will be expected to lag significantly behind donations at any given moment during the campaign, might encourage more people to step forward. --Shirahadasha13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it showing donations over a single day, each day? Or is it over a week or something? Surely it can't be all-time donations because it was less than 500 a few days ago? Lradrama14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It shows total number of (not amount of) donations (not people) since the beginning of this year's fund raising drive which began October 22 and is to end December 22, 2007. WAS 4.25017:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Of all the contributions to Wikipedia, yours was the greatest and most influential of all: the creation of Wikipedia. Great idea, Jimbo! Mr. Carbunkle21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
And for the record, I think the block on Miltopia was perfectly reasonable. Few if any of his contributions were at all constructive. Mr. Carbunkle21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
hello
hello,
how are you? thanks for creating wikipedia and your editing of Canadian neo-Nazis!
"I also suggest removing those crazy closeups of Jimbo's eyeballs from the video. Creepy!!!" [1] I second that. I could not believe I was watching anything other than some some sort of mistake or sabotage. Also, much, but not all, looks like I'm seeing the top left one-fourth of the intended screen. Also all that blinking makes you look like, ummm, ah, untrustworthy. Who is responsible for this? WAS 4.25004:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he looks nervous because he is nervous. It's not easy to ask people to give $201,000 for a non-profit Board of Directors to do the job that they're already allocating over $600,000 to the Executive Director and staff to do. I thought non-profit Boards are typically not compensated for their time? Yes, I would be blinking and wringing my hands nervously, too. Dennab Resu15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
See this and this. The money is needed so WikiMedia can manage and employ people to partner up with other organizations for various projects that advance the WikiMedia mission. Can you sme-e-e-e-e-llll the synergies ! WAS 4.25020:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, it's likely that the $201,000 for the Board is mostly absorbed by travel costs, lodging, food, telephone and other expenses accrued on WMF business. I suspect most multinational non-profits have a budget item like that (though I just poked through several sites and couldn't find budgets on them). Tony Fox(arf!)16:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A Truth. Money is needed to do many great things at this project, as well as, at the other sites mentioned. As soon as the WP structure and hierarchy is changed so as to no longer foster the idea that teens and young adults can be wise and responsible enough to hold the tiller of this project, WP will become more of a colossal enclave, and donations to WP will increase as happens in a log scale. The algorithm of donations will look like this place is just starting. Without ever changing articles and each article possessing the ability to default to the mean and mediocre, WP could become the next Google. Once and Forever16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that if we donate we should leave a note to not spend anymore money on the board or Jimbo and divert the funds going to them back into the project. This would give more money for the encyclopedia and would prevent a funding campaign every couple of months. 70.124.0.4716:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be pages where everyone would be able to give their opinions on how the money should be spent. A.Z.16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably we argue a lot on issues which are well settled under the legal framework of most of the countries. Everyone knows that "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a non-profitcharitable organization based in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, and organized under the laws of the state of Florida. Its existence was officially announced by Jimmy Wales, who was running Wikipedia within his company Bomis, on 20 June 2003. Its approval by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, by letter in April 2005, as an educational foundation in the category "Adult, Continuing Education" means all contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation are tax deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes." Now, there are Federal Tax and Revenue authorities to take care of the matter of the style in which the Foundation plans to spend donors' money. In my most humble opinion and without malice towards anyone, it is better to concentrate on building the encyclopedia (if one really believes in building the same) instead of assuming the role of auditors and accountants of the funds collected by the Foundation. There are constitutional authorities to take care of these aspects. Cheers. --Bhadani (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I by no means meant to imply that someone may be stealing money from the Foundation. I was just suggesting that, the same way the encyclopedic content is decided collaboratively, how the money is spent could also be. I interpreted 70.124.0.47's post to mean that they think the board is not as important to the project as other areas in which the money is spent. A.Z.18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To allow the community to decide how to spend the money sounds like a really bad idea, and certainly would make me lose faith in the project like nothing else, SqueakBox18:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A.Z., I do respect your views though I am not sure of utility of collaboration in this field. In fact, I was trying to convince 70.124.0.47 that a system of checks and balances exist to govern the expenditure of non-profit charitable organization, and in any case, the Board and other functionaries require money to function. I am sure that they don't waste money. An example: when Jimmy last came to India on 25th February, he didn't spend any money but stayed as a guest in a small apartment of the lead organizer of an event: Hosting Jimbo 'Wikipedia' Wales !. --Bhadani (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
*****************************************************************************************
* *
* *** A word of advice to potential vandals:*** *
* ****This page is watched by many, many editors!**** *
* **** Vandalism to this page will be short-lived **** *
* ** and will be quickly reverted (usually within seconds). ** *
* ** In addition, it may even result in a block! ** *
* *
* Although the same policy applies to all pages, *
* a special warning is placed here because Jimbo is such an attractive target. *
* (and we probably mean dashing) :p *
* *
* So please think twice! *
* And try to relax a little, OK? *
* We are a charitable effort to try to do something useful for the world. *
* Consider helping, it is more fun. Honestly, no joke. :) *
* *
*****************************************************************************************
It's quite good isn't it? I wonder though, how many vandals it does actually detract because his userpage still gets vandalised a lot. But it's probably better there than not, and it'd be good if we had them on most articles instead of the extreme minority I've come across one on an article. Just a thought... Lradrama11:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, now that IS a good idea! We've had a few of them over on the Daniel Radcliffe article, and it has really worked! When the semi-protection is on, we don't have to constantly keep an eye out for the vandalism on that page only. Good suggestion. :-) Lradrama19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Miltopia
Hello Jimbo, I wonder if you would mind revisiting your decision to block Miltopia indefinitely? I have had a little to do with this user over the last few weeks and haven't found him to be any more abrasive or disruptive than the best of us when matters get heated.
I wouldn't like to abandon belief that his intentions, and contributions are of good faith. If we consider the concept of usefulness / value on the wiki, derived from diffs over the last 6 months or so, I think we can see that Miltopia really is a valuable contributor to a healthy wiki culture. I hope you'll concur.
Much kudos to you. I agree fully with your sentiments expressed in WP:ANI on this topic. There is too much time spent here on firefighting vandals which could be more usefully spent on improving or creating articles, or working on the substantial backlogs. Sometimes I think we are far too lenient with obvious and recidivist vandals. If only page semi-protection & short-term blocking of anon IP vandals were available to registered editors with perhaps minimum editcount/length of service criteria, admins could be dealing with more complex issues like edit warring. Look forward to hearing your comments. At least you have the luxury of time off, but I'm here 12+ hours a day, because, sadly, WP is my life. Regards. PS I grabbed an amazing email address. Try it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't think either you or Zscout should leave wikipedia and hope that things work out so he will be resysopped in a week as he has always been a good admin in the years I have known him on the project, SqueakBox20:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just bloody concerned there was a desysoping to begin with. Sure, the sysop access can return in a week, but then again a knife injury can heal in a week. And bullying a dissident when you're the king is bound to lead you to criticism. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This is also being discussed in the admin's IRC channel, in case you were interested in joining that discussion as well. Mr.Z-man21:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of principle I do not use IRC. My actions on Wikipedia are recorded and available for public scrutiny. I should be grateful, Mr.Z-man, if you could request those debating this matter on the admin channel to report any conclusions/suggestion or major points to one of the public forums. For the record, I do not believe that my principles should be any indication that I disapprove of anyone else using that means of communication - its just something I won't do. LessHeard vanU21:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Question about Wiarthurhu affair
Today I was looking at the whole Wiarthurhu affair of late 2006, just to reminisce, and I came upon something interesting: I found that on the sockpuppet's page the block notice said that you were involved in the ruling. This piqued my interest, and now I would like to know if the problem really became so major that you became involved in it? I knew it was large, but it is astounding to me that you may have been involved and fully aware of the situation.--LWF03:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's a generic template, and I am listed there as "and/or". In this particular case, to my recollection, I was not involved.--Jimbo Wales19:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, not surprising, I don't recall having seen that template before, of course I've only been involved directly in one case where sockpuppetry presented itself, and that was the one. Thanks forthe reply.--LWF20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hi Jimbo Wales:
According to the history, your edit of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents a few minutes ago removed my recent question in the section User:Whig.
I'm wondering if this was on purpose or through some system glitch, which I suspect.
my name is drinitol por favor, amigo quiero colaborara enn wikipedia no doy mas por favor dejare de hacer títeres ya por favor--190.137.48.22722:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC) plis,traduction this page
Your video!
Wow, your video was quite inspiring! It made me want to edit Wikipedia. You did a great job in it. However, I never imagined your voice would sound like that - I imagined you'd have a deeper voice like a deep voiced guy... Anyway, I haven't donated and have no intention of doing so (Hey, I'm poor!), but I hope my contributions to the site is payment enough and at least helps a bit. Cheers, :) Spawn Man02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous? I think discussion about this is much better than simply letting the dispute fester. I have not taken a position yet, but I certainly think talking is a good idea. 1 != 222:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not ridiculous at all. Many people question whether he should have so much power. I personally think it was a terrible decision of him to use his technical abilities to remove sysop status for an unblock, and people who often misuse the tools like that shouldn't have them. What I think ridiculous if for people to think that, just because he's the founder, he has any inherent power. The founder is the one who founds, just that. I think we don't need a dictator, and the community and Wikipedia could survive without one. A.Z.23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
While Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales is indeed ridiculous to many for a variety of reasons, he most definitely is not the rules. His relationship with the English language Wikipedia is far more nuanced and less powerful than that. He is currently accepted as the community's leader by the community; but this is a very democratic-minded community. We have leaders, not dictators. He knows that and would not want it any other way. WAS 4.25023:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Because he sometimes makes mistakes. The community is telling him very clearly that it was a mistake to personally desyop someone he had a clash with rather than ask someone else to do it. WAS 4.25001:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope he recognizes his mistakes. I think the appropriate thing would be to ask for the community to desysop them, as in a Request for De-Adminship, which should fail, in this case, in my opinion. A.Z.01:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
He has not made a mistake. It was an excellent move, one that should send a clear signal to admins who disrupt the project and misuse their tools. Harassers and their enablers will not be tolerated. Crum37513:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(e/c)Meh, if nothing came of it I would have deleted it myself and that's where it looked like it was heading (I was away when it was deleted). FT2's section on ANI effectively summarizes the point of the RFC. Mr.Z-man00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure! Your criticism is silly and transparently trolling. I am not a huge fan of the video myself, for a variety of reasons, but your criticism is that it makes it seem like I am a nice guy and will make me more popular, wow. Well, sorry. Next time I suppose the Foundation could have a video of me being mean to kittens or something. :-) --Jimbo Wales01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
My criticism is that you're using the work of others for self-promotion, without asking their permission. I wouldn't complain if the communities had accepted the video, but nobody asked us. I only mentioned that the video makes you seem like a nice guy because, if it didn't, then it wouldn't be self-promotion. A.Z.01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has to ask the community to release a video, because the community doesn't function that way. And Wales' image relates to Wiki's image: they go hand in hand. It's how it's supposed to be. --Thus Spake Anittas01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you think they shouldn't ask the community, and I think they should ask the community. We disagree on that. If they did ask the community, I would say no, because I think it's unfair to associate Jimbo's image with the image of Wikipedia like that, and for him to become popular at the expense of the contributors, who are the ones who do all the work. A.Z.02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Why should they ask the community, in the first place? And the community doesn't have the means to give its opinion on a matter such as this one. How would we go about to find out what the community thinks? Hold a massive vote for a video? Jimbo's job holds the duty of a PR-manager and it is up to him to make the best of his job. If a company hires someone for a PR position, they don't ask the stockholders to decide what kind of message to go out with. You could say that one should consider what the community wants and doesn't want, but I don't see how anything which Jimbo said in the video goes against the voice of the community at large. --Thus Spake Anittas03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
They should have used a professional actor. The entire modern economy is built on 'specialization'. Jimbo sticks to his specialization in running Wikipedia and he hires a professional actor whose specialization is in rigorous use of the voice to communicate, physicalisation of a role in order to create a believable character, and the use of gesture to convince people to open their wallets and give generously.
Jimbo's delivery was fine (except for the two times when he pressed his eyes right up to the camera like in 'The Blair Witch Project') but he is not a professional actor. But, having Jimbo himself travel around the world gives the appearance that travelling around the world is what the funds will be spent on, whereas if a professional actor travels around the world, no one cares, because that's what actors do. When 'Wikipedia: The Motion Picture' is finally made, I would like to see Chris Elliott in the starring role.'Jimbo Wales Asks: "Please Give Generously to Wikipedia"'Uncle uncle uncle05:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that I have called you a dictator, Jimbo Wales. I disagree with things you have done, but I shouldn't have labeled you like that. A.Z.03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
We could talk about those disagreements. Sometimes it is easier to get to the bottom of disagreements in private email, so that neither party feels the pressure of an audience watching. Feel free to email me with questions or comments.--Jimbo Wales14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps while your there you could address some of the points on the list brought up by WAS 4.250 here. It would be nice if you could clarify your views on some of the issues brought up during the whole debacle. You have proposed something of a shift in our policies, but as of yet we have no standard implementation method of these (as yet undefined) policies. Your attempt at an implementation has been harshly criticized (probably) because of its unprecedented and unexpected nature, so clarification and/or a centralized discussion area for these policies would be appreciated. —Cronholm14415:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo, you may want to read on what. I saw something about a lawsuit and it could get expensive. You may have to sell your Ferrari and stuff. Oh, and let me know when you master the art of reading and replying to emails. --Thus Spake Anittas08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Just in case Anittas' argument above was taken for granted by anyone: There is actually no lawsuit implicating wikipedia. The issue is serious because of credibility issues it projects on wikipedia, and because of the partisanship involved in editing the two articles in question. Dahn08:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: as we stand, the article on enwiki does not have any significant problems, largely due to the fact that reliable sources have been added, placing the various claims in context and specifying suspicions of bias (and more are about to be added). The problem I see with this version is that it is still tagged for NPOV and OR, and, IMO, no source-based rationale for that was ever provided - I have since asked other editors to mediate. There are major problems of a more radical nature with the rowiki article. That said, while I do not object to the original comment being moved to the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard, I am not sure if this falls within the scope of that article (although the rowiki article should become the subject of ample discussion on an equivalent board there).
The core issue in my original comment referred to the fact that, at some point between the revisions, Tismăneanu mentioned past versions of wikipedia articles as platforms for disseminating rumors and endorsing attacks on him. This, I argue, is connected to the fact that a series of problematic edits on enwiki can be traced back to two sources nominated for their biased and potentially libelous discourse by Tismăneanu himself (an assessment backed by various mainstream and third-party reliable sources leading up to The Washington Post), and that one of those sources is fringe to say the least. As I have shown, one of those sources, referencing the other one, has actually edited the enwiki article. I do believe that mention of this, especially given the importance and implications of the scandal, is a relevant information for all people involved in this-here project.
I will respect the decision taken and will not add any more comments on this page in reference to the subject at hand. I just realized that I needed to place stress on some issues, in order to clarify my meaning. Dahn11:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
On reflection I've restored the RfC. There's no better mechanism in place for editors to express themselves in an orderly fashion. However I think that perhaps the title should be changed to address the whole incident rather than just one of the participants. ·:· Will Beback·:·06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Elonka...with all due respect...can you show me some evidence that you tried to resolve this situation with Jimbo? I looked and maybe I missed it, but I don't see much if any effort.[3]--MONGO07:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia and politics
I have had this idea for quite long and haven't found the right person to help me implement my idea...
my idea originally came from a lack Wikipedia has of keeping a selective collection of key articles would only focus on the major issues each country in this world is facing.
I am a big believer in Wikipedia and I think that Wikipedia has the power to fight all the dirty politicians and governments world wide by letting the people form highly objective articles specific for each country about the top important issues each country is facing. I myself would love to see such articles being built about the land which I am originally from Israel which is currently facing a lot of uncertainties about the future and unfortunately, due to a lack of good decent, visionary, strong, truthful politicians, the people do not trust any of the politicians any more.
I would also want oppressive governments of the world such as China, Russia and North Korea and many of the Arab countries such as Iraq and Iran to be criticized by their own people through such a medium in hope of forming a better opinions and ideas of the actions which should be taken for a better future.
I just noticed (if you look in the details link) that Google is actually running these in several countries, including the US, so WikiMedia could do it directly as well. Still, I reckon that this would be helpful to other chapters as well. Confusing Manifestation02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
HELP ME!
Do you know what my password is? I just logged out by accident and now I can't my other password back. I'm Rory666's IP address and I'd like to know what the password for Rory666 is so I can log back in. I need your help. It's URGENT!--220.101.18.5020:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Afraid there's not much that can be done.... MediaWiki seems to store the password encrypted in the enwikiToken cookie, which is destroyed upon logout. I would keep guessing, and if you have no luck with that, consider creating a new account and doing something like this. — xDanielxT/C06:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You can create a new account for yourself. Click on 'Sign in / create account' at the top right of this page, and follow it from there. :-) Lradrama09:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Three minor suggestions may help wikipedia much better
Hi Jimbo,
1) Your database should not accept if anyone edits any form of unfeasible words. For eg. I noticed that some mad guys keep on creating article with simply typing inappropriate words) I recommend a new bot system should have an eye on newly created subjects.
2) Search results must be displayed with all sort of words associated with wikipedia. For eg. If I search for: “deletion tool” the results comes with some thing else, “No page with that title exists” and “You can create this page or request it”. Instead of those, two separate pages have to be displayed with that ‘something else’ and all other pages related to the words say about ‘deletion tools’ in wikipedia.
3) Under help page a new text area may be displayed. In that area should have the option of new user can post his/her doubts (like in MS word help)
I have lots of suggestions after all closely working with wikipedia, and I would love to share it with you. But not now at this point of time. The rest in next based on how you acknowledge.
I am expecting Jimbo Wales himself has to comment. Not from any other admins / users.
I'm not Jimbo, but this is a wiki, and attempting to limit a discussion to just one person is next to impossible. :)
In response to item #1, there are indeed bots that check pages for bad edits. However, blanketly banning certain words just won't work; there are times when certain "bad words" are perfectly acceptable (I can't imagine the articles on shit or fucknot using those words, for example). EVula// talk // ☯ //19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention all the other silliness that usually comes from "bad words" filters, like blocking all mention of the British town of Scunthorpe because there's a 4-letter obscenity buried within it. *Dan T.*22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, there are several other ways I can think of that I've seen be used (and have used myself) to get around such filters. Generally speaking, such filters are more trouble than they are worth; I know I'd rather see the real obscenity than some obscure variant (such as "$hit" and the like). EVula// talk // ☯ //03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Then what about simply banging the keyboard (non useful wordings, for eg. dfasdkfhasdjkfh or asdfsdfhjks) the database should not accepted that. That is what I meant. I am also not convinced with item No. 3 & 4.--Avinesh Jose05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I recommend such type of nonsense wordings should not be listed in new page creation, rather to a separate 'junk area' for inspecting by some experts. --Avinesh Jose04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The real problem with what you are trying to suggest is that, well, for example: I make comics in Flash and throw them together using ActionScript. It takes precisely one hour and eight minutes to program and finalize the animation (not including drawing them). My first VisualBasic program, which was a hangman game, took about three days. On TI-83 Plus graphing calculators which use the TI-Basic programming language (either an ASCII or BASIC language variant, I think), it takes me about three hours to program in a scientific function, and the program has a final size of 1148 bytes. Now, regex, which would be the best choice for programming this sort of thing, is very complex. It could take months, even years to compile the database necessary for this sort of thing. Also, you would have to constantly update it, just as you update your OS or anti-virus, because there are always ways around it. And I don't think Wikipedia is ready to switch over to Newspeak yet. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 06:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: The reason why I say it could take so long is that you would have to program it to, say, pick up "wpera9uf4380uyrg09nyupiofgprwaiufgpo" and not "qwerty" or "qwertyuiop", which might be used in articles pertaining to a keyboard. Also, chemical equations can look a lot like gibberish too, for example:
Hi, Jimbo. There is a very interesting conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370#A misunderstanding over the role of Jimbo on the suggestion that Jimbo "split himself into two accounts. One account would have the same permissions as a normal admin, should be treated like a normal admin (albeit a highly respected one), etc. The other account should be reserved for only those instances in which Jimbo is operating in a formal role as board member-- issuing instructions or taking actions on that basis". Actually I would suggest five accounts:
Keep your current account for when you want us to guess. Guessing can be fun. :) Also the other four user and user talk pages can redirect to this one for centralization. WAS 4.25022:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The same effect (save for the fourth one) could be achieved by an semi-automatic edit summary that includes a flag to identify the type of edit it is, plus an extra one for those rare occasions when he gets to make a plain old contribution (like an article about an African deli). Confusing Manifestation23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't creating multiple accounts make things worse? Other then being inconveinent for Jimbo, there is also the problem of people treating Jimbo's normal account as they treat his trustee/community leader account as they respect and trust him.--Sunny910910(talk|Contributions)23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wromg with "people treating Jimbo's normal account as they treat his trustee/community leader account as they respect and trust him". The problem arises when Jimbo expects the admins to respond one way and the admins expect that Jimbo expects them to behave another way. There needs to be greater clarity somehow someway. WAS 4.25000:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about Jimbo thinking through and choosing how he expects admins to react before he acts rather than after he acts. If he isn't clear in his own mind before hand, how is it sensible to assume admins will, every one of them, know how to react afterwords? Playing "Guess how I will react?" can be interesting; and only Jimbo can decide if that's the relationship he chooses to have with the Wikipedia community, rather than doing something to add clarity. WAS 4.25005:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni di Stefano
Yesterday you undid my reversal of Fred Bauder's edits on Giovanni di Stefano (history here) because of BLP concerns. What I do not get is what these concerns are, as the disputed content in question is sourced and true. As you know this has been a longstanding problem, as either the subject of the article himself, or his friends have been objecting to Wikipedia's coverage of him, notably his conviction for fraud, a conviction only disputed by di Stefano himself. As said, this conviction is sourced and was widely reported in the UK press, and it has been widely reported that this conviction is of di Stefano, even if he himself denies it. My understanding of BLP is that sourced facts like these, even if negative, should be kept in the article. Am I missing something? --Martin Wisse14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, I see a bunch of people asking you for your opinion on several subjects, yet you remain silent. I hope you get the time to address some of their concerns. I hope you won't turn into one of those Hollywood celebrity. It would be awful, especially with your acting skills. Haha! And never forget that a small part of your success is due to the hard work invested by the good editors of Wikipedia. --Thus Spake Anittas16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo is a very busy man, he rarely checks his talk page, but if you email him "at the address specified on his userpage" and its a legitimate question he will always give you a response. Just to let you know thanks. The sunder king16:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Found this interesting and perhaps you will too. A blogger is looking for some "theory of disorganization" and ends up on Wikipedia looking at slacker. He doesn't find what he wants so "[a]dhering to the slacker principium, I found it easier to forge the results I was looking for than to invest time into researching the matter." Looking in the edit history for the article for the same date as the blog entry, voila, we find this series of edits. OR inclusion complete and complete to this day, 2-1/2 years later. --JustaHulk16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Almost the entire article is original research. Its a lot easier to sneak in OR when all of it is OR. I would remove the OR, but then we'd be left with no content whatsoever, which would almost be better than what we have, which is just a random collection of possible facts. Mr.Z-man17:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Every edition of Wikipedia is part of WMF. That "especially" bit is a little odd, but I think he's just point out a specific language edition, rather than singling it out for any reason. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I have a doubt:
I am of Wikipédia in Portuguese. I do not obtain to make one upload of images with corporight, as screenshots of games, logotipos, and others. Already I asked in the Wikipédia in Portuguese because of they had said that is me that these uploads that I desired to make were made because the Wikipedia in Portuguese is without Fair-Use . I and many colleagues mine of the Wikipedia in Portuguese desejariamos the ativamento of Fair-Use in the Wikipedia in Portuguese. I can count on its aid in this mission? I ask this because I know of its extreme importance in the Wikipedia. I will be grateful its reply. Antensiosamente User: Vhg msn of the Wikipédia in Portuguese. 201.5.1.5300:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Each project can choose whether or not to allow fair use, the English Wikipedia allows it (too much in my opinion) but many others do not. Mr.Z-man00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Expert Wikipedians
Hi Jimbo! Thanks for helping give birth to Wikipedia, and Wikia. I love those sites.
I've been pushing for a new conception of "experts" on Wikipedia in an effort to make it more appealing for real, scientific experts to join the project. I've just read your userpage comments about Wikipedia, specifically the part where you said: 2. There must be no cabal, no elites, no hierarchy, etc....
I'm not sure if my idea runs counter to your principal of welcomeness, so I'm asking for your thoughts on this issue. I think a group of Wikipedians can be formed to label other Wikipedians as "experts", but not real world experts. The first tier of experts should be the most general: basically, all those editors who have helped push any number of articles to FA status. With such a group of editors, I imagine they would feel it appropriate to select, from among their group, specialized experts in biology, geology, and maybe even certain regional histories if the community decides such a specialist can be confirmed to the community's own standards.
You would've noticed now that the latest addition to conflicts between some of the wikipedians is claims of harassing emails sent by one another and some of the admins taking it seriously. I understand some of these issues may be genuine and some may be really made up. But the fact remains emails could be faked very easily. Have you thought of any solution for this problem? I have a great idea if you are interested. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks19:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's much that Wikipedia can do to prevent people from spoofing emails; it's completely out of their hands. EVula// talk // ☯ //19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am a software engineer so trust me I know what I am talking about. Wikimedia can do a very simple thing to avoid these issues. The emails sent through wikipedia are always going through the wikimedia servers, so what we can do is to introduce a security key to each user who enables email. Every time an email is sent to some other user this security key could be embedded in the email (like a signature) in an encrypted form. The admin or bureaucrats can be provided with a tool that would verify this signature against the users actual security key. Very simple solution isn't it. I can further elaborate on this if Jimbo is interested in implementing this. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, imagine this situation: ‘A’ sent a mail to ‘B’ through wikimedia server. Later A received a reply (keep in mind that now A knows B’s mail id). After again A is sending a harassing emails to B without help of wikimedia. What you can do in such situation?... thus I think the suggestion you said will not workout in such situation, right?... --Avinesh Jose07:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well wikipedia cannot do anything about such incidents. But the authenticity of the initial email sent through the wikimedia servers could be verified in the way I have suggested. Off wiki emails (or harassment emails) shouldn't be policed by wikipedia, I think its not what the project is for. I dont know whether there is a policy regarding these issues but if it is not there its high time we create one. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks06:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your actions have shocked me. You are to me running this website as if it is somekind of game and your little amusement park where you can do whatever you want and mess with people as if they were toys. If anyone questions your authority and has anything to say about this website you ban them and take away any rights they have. I've even seen this kind of behaviour about banning in online video interviews and numerous press reports which are tearing wikipedia apart because of your dictating decisions. Wikipedia is now under decline and 2007 has promised nothing but trouble for this website. Generally I think you should allow your editors to have a say in what you do and reguardless as the founder you should allow everything to be run by agreement and concensus instead of you dictating everything and keeping people quiet. Wikipedia won't last must longer unless you get things sorted out. 86.145.106.17414:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A benevolent one. :-). More seriously, take a look at the "questions for the candidate" of the 20 or so candidates for arbcom. They've all been asked specifically about this. Their answers vary in the degree of disapproval, but they all, at least somewhat, disapprove of the desysopping, and are quite glad it was quickly reversed. These 20 people include a good sample of the most respected editors on the Wikipedia, and I think they phrase the feeling of the community as a whole quite well. We respect him a lot -- we wouldn't have this project without him -- so when we disagree, we do try to do it nicely. We're not going to march on the Bastille. :-) What's more, he usually does make the right decisions. But he is human, he does make mistakes. We don't agree with everything he does, and when we don't agree, we do say so. That respect we feel for him is not the same thing as fear. And he usually listens. Not always - he doesn't fear us either. But he does respect the community in return. It mostly works. --AnonEMouse(squeak)00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So based on a few actions by Jimbo, regardless of the other millions of edits by thousands of other editors, you can claim that Wikipedia is doomed? Mr.Z-man00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A cordial invitation
Jimmy, things are starting to break. One need look no further than at how slowly this year's fundraising drive is going compared with last. At this rate, come 2009 we will all be looking back on 07 as the good old days. I know you regard me as a crank and a troll and I have expressed some equally unflattering opinions of you. For this I sincerely aplogize and cordially invite you to join us here for a calm and reasoned discussion of the big issues of the project and community. Let us put aside our differences, AGF and work towards those noble goals in which we all believe. It is still not too late to turn things around. Evolution or revolution, you still have the choice.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)15:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
On " Fair Use " in the Wkipedia in Portuguese
Mr. Wales, I have a doubt:
I am of Wikipédia in Portuguese. I do not obtain to make one upload of images with corporight, as screenshots of games, logotipos, and others. Already I asked in the Wikipédia in Portuguese because of they had said that is me that these uploads that I desired to make were made because the Wikipedia in Portuguese is without Fair-Use . I and many colleagues mine of the Wikipedia in Portuguese desejariamos the ativamento of Fair-Use in the Wikipedia in Portuguese. I can count on its aid in this mission? I ask this because I know of its extreme importance in the Wikipedia. I will be grateful its reply. Antensiosamente User: Vhg msn of the Wikipédia in Portuguese. 201.5.1.5300:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Each project can choose whether or not to allow fair use, the English Wikipedia allows it (too much in my opinion) but many others do not. Mr.Z-man00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Expert Wikipedians
Hi Jimbo! Thanks for helping give birth to Wikipedia, and Wikia. I love those sites.
I've been pushing for a new conception of "experts" on Wikipedia in an effort to make it more appealing for real, scientific experts to join the project. I've just read your userpage comments about Wikipedia, specifically the part where you said: 2. There must be no cabal, no elites, no hierarchy, etc....
I'm not sure if my idea runs counter to your principal of welcomeness, so I'm asking for your thoughts on this issue. I think a group of Wikipedians can be formed to label other Wikipedians as "experts", but not real world experts. The first tier of experts should be the most general: basically, all those editors who have helped push any number of articles to FA status. With such a group of editors, I imagine they would feel it appropriate to select, from among their group, specialized experts in biology, geology, and maybe even certain regional histories if the community decides such a specialist can be confirmed to the community's own standards.
I'm about to be banned from wikipedia and just want to exit by saying that I fully appreciate everything you have done here and that you have honestly change the way I see the world and interact with different cultures and societies for the better. I'm greatly in debt to you for the knowledge and experience I've gain from working with everyone around the world and this would've never been possible had you not put and held this project together like you have. I'm not asking for you to comment on my ban and hope you can put the issue aside as I just want to give you an honest thanks for everything you have done here. Thanks again, and hopefully our paths will across again doing good work in the physical world. --User formely known as User:I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.191.233 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"
Thank you for being such an amazing part to the Wikipedian and Wikimedian revolution. Wikipedia IS the internet. A lot of people I know do not seem to understand just how amazing Wikipedia really is. They always say it's not reliable, but it continuously refines itself. I have seen enough examples of fine commitment, teamwork and overall progress between complete strangers on Wikipedia to know that it is awesome! My school's headmaster is actually a huge fan, and gives speeches to the entire school about the power of knowledge shared by all. I love this free encyclopedia, and it is by far the most important and democratic thing online.
Wikitank04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that's what I call ironic!
Contrast:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." - Wikipedia front page.
I would expand on the above: Anyone can edit, absolutely. But those who do so abusively, disruptively, editors who go against policy, especially repeatedly after warnings and temporary blocks, risk losing their inherent right to edit. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. Ariel♥Gold12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"Anyone can edit" means "no imposed pre-requirements on editing" that while "[Wikipedia] is not a place where people have the inherent right to edit" means "we are not going to pay your internet access bill so you can edit, we are not going to allow IP addresses that vandalize edit, we are not going to allow edits from people who are trying to destroy us, and we will temporarily block people and IP addresses after evidence they are temporarily making edits that hurt the processes of creating an encyclopedia". Further since anyone can edit anonymously, people per se are not banned so much as specific personas; act different and wikipedia won't even know its you! This complaint boils down to complaining that Wikipedia won't let you edit an encyclopedia in a way that you have been told is not helpful to creating an encyclopedia. Poor baby. WAS 4.25019:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is a privilege granted by a not for profit organization funded by the public displaying content supplied by the public and operating under tax rules that specify that it behave in the public interest. It is we as a society that grant that privilege through the mechanism of the foundation which in turn uses the mechanism of the steward-admins structure that varies according to project. WAS 4.25020:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha, Sunny910910 got to it before I did, but I was also thinking about adapting the "driving is a privilege not a right" line from my old California DMV study guide. I think the analogy can be taken in some humorous directions. --Bobak02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find this for my variations of "two drunk drivers accident only two cars in town" in Google. Thought I remembered a story like this in which the first two cars in some place hit each other. No idea anymore sorry. -Susanlesch23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's childish the explanation[11] that Escarlati has kicked me out to be a sockpuppet of Mastegot and the same time do not justify me why was kicked Mastegot out. What kind of crime did he make to deserve the maxim penalty? All is a blind alley. The reason is that there is no reason, only censorship. Mastegot was executed and murdered and now i have been executed and murdered too.
Please ask for proves not words but proves. Don't belive in what it can not be proved. I deserve to be judged only by my acts[12]. Share IP address and points of view is not reason enough to do anything against me.
Before all of this, i had been blocked incredebly by Kordas[13] for a week to report and prove publicly the imposture of Escarlati, his reasonings were not supported by his sources, twice (amoral and dishonest behaviour). [14][15].
Escarlati blocked my account[16], "my IP address" [17]) and my user talk page[18](!) to censor the contents and to avoid the appealing of the block (non-democratic practice).
I created a new account (sentoff[19]) to ask for a revision but administrator Petronas[20] did not want to help me[21] and then Kordas blocked me again[22] and Escarlati blocked my user talk page again[23](!!) with absolute impunity (i am the only sockpuppet with the user talk page blocked in all the spanish wikipedia [24]. incredible!)
The aragonese Escarlati do not respect the neutral point of view on the majority articles about the history of Aragon and Catalonia. He has catalanophobia.
Only three examples, Ramon Berenguer IV, count of Barcelona, was the ruling prince, sovereign Aragon in Britannica encyclopaedia[25] but in the spanish wikipedia is degraded to "primus inter pares" (first between equals)[26]Nobody can edit in this article, Escarlati undo all the users contributions and now it has been blocked with the Escarlati's truth [27][28][29][30]
No one prestigious historician stands by this "joke".
In the article Flag of Catalonia [31] Escarlati, with an edit war, won a content dispute through brute force and the article was blocked with his "truth". (it keeps blocked since more than a year ago). Compare what is said about the origin in the wikipedia article and on this medieval armory page Vermadois (years 1285 to 1300) [32]"These are the arms of the Counts of Barcelona"
I have been talking Escarlati over here [34] here [35] and on my discuss page (now censored) [36]. Escarlati ignore that "administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute" despite of the leading members of the spanish wikipedia help theirselves so he would no have any problem to find a helper[37].
Finally, if you decide i am guilty and a danger for the wikipedia i will think it is very unfair but i will accept it but, please, unblock the iP address[38] is not my IP home, it is public IP and i would not like prejudice other users that share this IP address.
thanks.
also erstmal: dieses Wiki ist das Beste das ich je in meinen Leben gesehen habe. Ich hab eine Frage an dich:
Also, ich wollte in meinem Portal etwas Schönes gestalten, doch habe ich es versagt. Nämlich, ich wollte bunte Felder erstellen, wo dort die Infos über die populärsten Charaktere von [frogger14.acc.de/Spiderwiki Marvel] drinstehen sollte.
Aber das Problem ist: Ich habe ziemliche Problem damit. Zum einen kann ich die Überschrift von dem Feld nicht bunt markieren, zum anderen stehen dort keine Kategorieseiten, obwohl ich sie eingefügt habe. Und kannst du mir auch ein paar Tipps geben, denn ich stufe mir nur als Fortgeschritten.--Looter18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
so at first: Your Wikia is the best, what I see. I have a question to you: So I was able to statures my Spiderwikia-Portal, but I fail. Cause I was able to made my fields colored where that was the Infos about the most popular characters by Marvel in Spiderwiki. But I have problems with them. I don´t can flag gaid the headline and I don´t can make in the fields categories, although I had dovetail the categories. And can you give me some tipps for me. I´m not a expert for Wikias.--84.56.105.4817:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde?
This question might better be suited for the help desk, where they would have told you that it was probably taken out at some point by someone when they were editing the different files. Does it really matter? 128.118.226.8803:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...that and several other policies. I've determined to just leave the guy alone. I just thought I'd let Jimbo know his name was being kicked around as having "told" a person to vandalize Wikipedia. --SmashvilleBONK!22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you just decide to retire all of a sudden? Is there a term limit or will we stay with Anthere until she's decided she's had quite enough of us? FinalWish01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Not "all of a sudden" and not recently. Anthere has been chair for about a year now! I have no clue how long Anthere will remain chair, but presumably for quite some time. :-)--Jimbo Wales14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the fact that Jimmy Wales runs the English Wikipedia, despite the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation Board should be running it. He is determining what content can and cannot appear on Wikipedia's pages. See also his incredibly inane edits of BonziBUDDY, which removes reliably sourced facts and replaces them with his own original research. This will become even more interesting when someone finally challenges the Wikimedia Foundation and they run for cover under the Section 230 protections, but the litigant will show (quite easily, it seems) that Jimmy Wales is actually the publisher of this encyclopedia, and not merely an Internet service provider of the information contained within. I would recommend that the tireless editors of this project who actually care about this thing called "truth" and "facts" simply revert these mysterious edits by Wales that always seem to demand that editors "contact him privately" before trying to disseminate the truth. It's frightening, isn't it, everyone? -- Venusboat04:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, pish posh. If you want to help with the work on that article, email me, don't troll about it. It is absolutely not true that I added any original research there, nor is it true that I ask that people "contact me privately before trying to disseminate the truth." It is true, however, that I edit openly under my own name instead of trolling from a single purpose troll account.--Jimbo Wales14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
But Jimbo, if you ever did commit trolling (hypothetically, of course ...), nobody would dare block you as a troll :-). Anyway, "Venusboat" is mistaken on the Section 230 law implication. Immunity is not lost when someone in charge makes changes in response to a complaint (disclaimer: IANAL). Thinking otherwise is a myth that comes out of pre-section-230 situations. Note I am not taking a position here on Wikipedia and that issue - I'm saying whatever it is, edits by someone "in charge" in response to a complaint don't change it -- Seth Finkelstein21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Seth, not to troll, but the editing by Jimbo that this Venusboat referred to above was not (disclaimer:AFAIK) in response to a complaint. In fact, decently-cited, referenced descriptions of BonziBUDDY were removed by Jimbo, and he replaced them with un-cited, non-referenced imaginations that seem to reflect his personal opinion of the BonziBUDDY software. Agree 100% that responding to a legitimate complaint does not threaten the encyclopedia's standing behind Section 230, but methinks we're not looking at a response to a legitimate complaint. --Stoodwiped05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it was indeed in response to a (private) complaint - note the edit summary "Please contact me by email for further discussions. I am open to editing the article, but great care is warranted". I'd take that to mean it wasn't a full-fledged legal matter, but someone raised issues about it. Myself, I don't see any point in making any drama about his actions there. If it was a complaint, either he'll bounce it back to them saying something like "I took action, but you have to realize Wikipedia is community-oriented, blah, blah, blah", or it'll escalate to be a WP:OFFICE, which is the trump card. In neither case is his action itself worth a fuss IMHO (though if they do escalate it, that might be an issue, but it would be a threatened-Wikipedia issue). You could ask that he be more transparent, worth going through the motions, I guess, but I think that's sort of futile. If Jimbo starts blocking/desysoping people for edit-warring with him on the topic, that would be more drama-worthy, but it hasn't happened (yet? :-)). All that's happened now is that complaints to the right person get edits done, which is not something higher-ups like to advertise in certain ways, but not exactly a big scandal either. -- Seth Finkelstein08:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ping
Jimbo, I know you get swamped with email, but I just replied to the email you sent me, so I thought I'd give you a heads up to check your inbox. Thanks. AKRadeckiSpeaketh00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
For a comprehensive overview of the founding of Wikipedia, see the article on the history of Wikipedia. According to that article, the concept was an offshoot of an effort to produce a peer-reviewed encyclopedia called Nupedia. Feel free to consult the articles I've linked here, or to ask questions at the reference desk. Those routes might provide you with quicker service than asking the question here. --Ssbohio23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Angel David (talk·contribs) hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wikipedia tendency towards christianity claims - why!
Dear Jimbo Wales!
I recently stumbled over a BC notice in an artikle and changed it into BCE, which i would recommend for wikipedia because of a general "neutral point of view - policy", which should include also faith.
I then stumbled over a 12th century BC and changed it into a 12th century BCE and was pleased, because of its blue hue. Then I reasoned: it could might be that this system of "... century BC" would eventually be institutionalised into wikipedia for diverse christianity related reasons... and it was!
This was a drawback for me because i was used to this typ of "primate", which i have found in the german wikipedia, but not in english one.
Could you please exlain me why this is done in wikipedia and where one can discuss this system of "... century BC" because it is not an artikle and more direct under the autorship of wikidia-stuards and bureaucrats, i guess, and they might be in majority of christian faith. Why arent there neutral point of view algorithms including faith-related topics and systems of notation?
P.S. You might mind, that the aera of the messiah (=christ) is object to christian faith alone and BCE /CE could be read as beforeChristianEra/christianEra or beforeCommonEra/commonEra.
We accept both BC+AD and CE+BCE, but it is arbitrary across wikipedia, the general policy is to just leave dates the way they were when they were initially added to the article and not to change them wholesale in the articles you encounter, despite how you might feel.—Cronholm14422:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well - this is fine. I love the potentialities and feasibilities in wikipedia a lot. But your short reply dissatifyses me - I think: Your policy should make it even easier to imprint a primat of faith - against a culture of modernism and enlightenment. Arent your wikipedia-guidelines (or- practices) of notation in regard to dates/eras/centuries preformatted in christian manner, not seldom to bestow a favour on faith? This is offending, will and could offend people of non-faith or different religions. Why shouldnt guidelines of neutrality rather than guidelines of indeference be established in regard to christian dominance ( Leitkultur , de:Sendungsbewusstsein ) which has its arguments in faith and in the propagation of faith alone. This should fit to all people - and would offend none - especially in a world of wikipedia. Why then is this tendency evident in wikipedia which is eventually nearly to be recognised as a proclamation of faith rather than as an editing-culture or a personal state of affect? 87.160.210.15523:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also custom and practice, many encyclopedia (and other information sources) use the BC terminology and this is transferred onto the online versions. Also, many (if not most) of the references used by the English language Wikipedia will have the old system and an article should have conformity with its cited sources. LessHeard vanU13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How would correcting usage to BCE/CE contradict cited sources? As long as you have a source giving the actual numbers, it would make no difference. Just as we often gives length measurements in both metric and imperial even when the source only gives one or the other. MartinMcCann16:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"Correcting"? Excuse me? This might be some indication of the problem (if I might use so grand a title) - using the abbreviations BC and AD is not a mistake, it is a choice (even if one that may be made out of ignorance). I wouldn't support anyone "correcting" BCE/CE, and I don't support the "correction" of BC/AD. To quote the Manual of Style
Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.
The problem with BC/AD is that it runs counter to NPOV. "In the year of our lord" is hardly an appropriate description of dates on a worldwide source of information when it refers to the beliefs of a minority of the world's population. Which supercedes which - the MoS or NPOV?MartinMcCann22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
MoS was written within the edict of NPOV; arbitrarily removing BC/AD is also POV, therefore both are allowed - as is both American and British (and other English speaking cultures variations) spellings of various words, but not in the same article. Also, no matter which version is used it is still dated from the supposed birth of Jesus, so the underlying systemic bias continues to exist - whether referred to directly or not. LessHeard vanU22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How is CE/BCE more POV than BC/AD? The former states that it is measuring time around the believed birth year of the central figure of the Christian religion. The latter states that it is measuring time around the birth of God. A subtle difference, but an important one. The existence of various forms of English is empirical fact - the status of Jesus as God is a POV limited to Christianity. MartinMcCann22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Using only CE/BCE is POV because it denies those who believe that Jesus both existed and was also a deity (or son of, or aspect, or whatever) - and a minority view does not mean that it should be disregarded - and therefore the literal meaning of the abbreviations is true, and also ignores the cultural history of the use of the terms in the Western world. Finally, although practicing (certainly fundamental) Christianity may be in the minority I would suggest that the majority of English speaking cultures are most familiar with the BC/AD usage. Please note that, in which case, I would not agree that BCE/CE should be removed.
You've got one - I'm Roman Catholic myself, I simply believe that a worldwide source of information such as Wikipedia should not be biased in favour of any religion. The BCE/CE arrangement makes no statement about the divinity of Jesus - it merely states the date of his birth. The BC/AD arrangement does make a statement about his divinity, and in doing expouses a Christian point of view - in violation of NPOV. MartinMcCann23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If we shouldn't be biased in favor of any religion, then we shouldn't be using the Christian numbering of years, no matter what name it's called. Perhaps we should use the Mayan long count, or my personal favorite, AUC. --Carnildo02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
While that would be the optimum solution (though a more recent start date, such as the signing of Magna Carta would probably be a better point of reference) the ubiquitous nature of the Christian calender means that we need you use numbers that are recogniseable, and converting the actual dates would probably count as OR. That doesn't mean we can't describe the system in an NPOV manner. MartinMcCann08:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
AUC, there is no need of a Straw man argument. No one is saying that we should stop using the Gregorian calendar and switch to a "NPOV" one. Switching to BCE/CE is hardly a extreme idea. The fact that some people are offending by AD/BC and no one is offended by BCE/CE is for me enough of a reason to switch. But I also don't really care that much, any normal person can read either one just fine. It is not as if someone sees a date that says 40 AD and says "OMG, it says it was 40 years after the birth of God! Wikipedia says Christianity is right - I'm converting now". Calm don't, it's just dates. Jon51314:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jon513, I can assure you that some people are offended by BCE/CE, just like people are offended by the opposite. You can check Talk:Common Era for a recent example. Fram13:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether people are offended by whichever version is used is irrelevent - what matters is which version is NPOV. BC/AD makes a statement about the divinity of Jesus and thus represents a Christian POV. BCE/CE makes no such statement, one way or the other, and is thus NPOV - which means that it is the version that must be used in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. MartinMcCann14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, NPOV does not mean that - it means that all verifiable variations and differences must be represented in a neutral manner, with no emphasis given to any one viewpoint; thus removing the ability to use the BC/AD abbreviations is POV = not permitted by Wikipedia. Only the use of both (but not in the same article) is NPOV - not choosing one or the other. WP:NPOV states, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader..." By removing either dating system shows bias. LessHeard vanU21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Then why isn't every article required to have the date stated in BC/AD, BCE/CE, AUC, Mayan long count, calender of the French revolution, and every other dating system that's ever existed. Using BC/AD is stating "this date is measured from the birth date of the Son of God". Using BCE/CE states "this date is measured from the believed birth date of Jesus - the central figure of the Christian religion". The latter does not exclude the former, as it does not state that Jesus was not the Son of God, while the former excludes all religious beliefs except Christianity. MartinMcCann22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Per the guidance when there are conflicts between American, British or other variants of English; you stick with the original choice. I think I'm right that some of the articles on Dynasties of/Ancient Civilisations use the dating system from that epoch, with a translation to one or other English versions, as do some articles regarding Islamic or Jewish related subjects, for the benefit of readers.
Please, us debating the subject in English does not exclude the acknowledgment that there are other languages (or even alphabets or writing systems) that are equally as capable of allowing written communication - using an abbreviation of a Latin phrase does not deny any other religion has its own sovereignty of belief.
This time I really am going to walk away from this discussion, you and I will not agree and scarcely anyone else is interested. While countering bias is a worthy ideal it must be recognised that intergration should be the object, not removal. LessHeard vanU23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actualy BCE says "we belive that western culture is the only one worth worrying about and what we consider common is common". Personaly I prefer BVE or BEV.Geni00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, we need to think of something that people of all religions can think of as correct, but it's not going to be easy, I can tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceberg2229 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because someone is offended doesn't mean the material in question is biased. However, the notations of BC/AD reflect specific religious and cultural biases, namely Christianity and Western culture whereas BCE/CE only reflect a general bias, an international secular frame of reference over one particular religion/culture's bias. The use of BC/AD can be seen as the support of religious and colonial imperialism, whereas BCE/CE has no such loaded context. Phyesalis06:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
Hi Mr. Wales!
Just want to congratulate you on creating an entirely new internet paradigm! It's a really new and refreshing outlook on the world actually; as a college student I find myself constantly penned in by professors and their appeals to ethos. Apparently they're stuck in some hierarchical view of the world where they have more merit because of their years of intense study... little do they know that they're just holding information hostage! I hope that through your visionary spirit and the efforts of our fine Wikipedians we can finally move into an era where someone like Noam Chomsky can't bully Joe from Atlanta into believing in generative grammar.
I think you have misunderstood what wikipedia is about. NPOV is not against hierarchy and in favour of its opposite, etc. Thanks, SqueakBox04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit and hierarchy are anything but mutually exclusive, and anyone can edit but staying within the rules. Otherwise it would be anarchy and that would not work. Thanks, SqueakBox21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ohh, I think I understand. Mr. Wales, I have a new respect for you. As the "de-facto leader" of Wikipedia, you effectively determine what's what around here. Logically then, you have the most credibility of any man in the world...an expert amongst experts. How does one obtain your autograph??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo does not determine what is what around here, with over 2 million articles he simply hasn't the time, and there are many more prolific editors than him. Thanks, SqueakBox23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It is editors who make policy, I have never seen Jimbo involve himself in this in the last 3 years though I believe he did before. Admins police the system but they do not have any extra policy making powers, they are more like interpreting policy in the real world of wikipedia conflicts. Thanks, SqueakBox00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Mhm. So Prima and Secunda are edit warring and despite best efforts they still want to kill each other. Arbitration Committee is brought in... and I do believe they are voted for but that "Jimbo does not consider himself bound by the results of the elections," making him King. I don't see how you wouldn't have a top to a hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure but I have heard A LOT of administrators speaking badly about the state of RFA. I am thinking if 5-10 editor's got together with you and the arbitration committee (seeing that the RFA'S are a very big concern). I think it would be a great idea if we could find out what all the editor's (Like a big debate) feel about it, and have them plus the arbitration committe come up with new policies for the RFA to make things better based on feedback from the community. I don't know much about it. However I have seen LOT's of people saying it is not good, and people proposing policies all the time that get declined. I just had the idea of getting first the opinion of each and every person that disliked the RFA and deciding what problems where relevant and what problems were not. Then basing the writing of policy for RFA on that research. --businessman33221101:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"I just had the idea of getting first the opinion of each and every person that disliked the RFA". Please make sure youalso get the opinion of those that like the RfA, or at least feel that it is better than all proposals they have seen so far. Only listening to those who are unhappy may give a false impression. Fram09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't personally have any "concerns". I have just seen A LOT of people saying they don't like the RFA and it's damaged beyond repair and lot's more. I have seen this everywhere. I have also seen where atleast 3-4 proposals went in and failed, and one had even been speedy deleted because mulitple others within that month were attempted. Maybe it's nothing, but I was suspecting if that many people have said stuff about it. I am the type of person it stand on the sidelines getting involved in current issues. THe 2 things in this english wikipedia I have really noticed a majority of people speaking out again are "RFA, and ga, and fa". Those 3 I have heard a lot of controversy in those 3. I think those are people's top issues. My top issues are backlog. I have been knocking out hundreds of ones that need cleaning but they never stop. I want to get them caught up to this month, and get them all cleaned but it's almost impossible, catch up is slow and by the time one month is cleaned in backlog another 300 are added for the newer months. So my main focus is backlog, everything else is me monitoring other issues for long periods of time and then trying to find a solution. Through some watching I did fa, and ga were taking care of themselves slowly. Especially some "feud" I heard about is goign good. THe other issue was RFA which I didn't see getting better. Only because so many people are making off handed comments about RFA and other stuff just leads me to believe there is some issue (even if I don't know what it is) and a solution is not underway (ONLY) based on what I heard. I didn't even know that discussion was there, but then the people who are saying it's damaged beyond repair must not know about that. What do peoepl "dislike about it"and are we working on changing it or do more people like it than dislike it? --businessman33221115:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose your right. I have seen those IN the rfa themselves so that's probably why. Thanks for those links, especially wp:lame that is going to be very interesting. --businessman33221115:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Civility
I was encouraged to read your comment "Many good admins have lamented to me lately that there is a real problem with civility in Wikipedia". I have been disappointed in the amount of incivility I have seen (even occasionally by admins). My question is what can I do about it? I could write something on a user's talk page but would it do any good? Will there be any kind of organized campaign to encourage all users to be civil and to warn offenders? Sbowers303:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The best thing that I can suggest is for you to talk to users that you find are incivil. We're all equal here, and should all behave responsibly to other members of the project. Dropa note to users that you feel are being incivil and explain exactly why you think that - it can help, sometimes people don't know they're not being civil until someone mentions it to them. If that fails, take it to WP:AN/I where admins can review it. Hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Rejoyce
Joy
Angel David (talk·contribs) hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wikipedia tendency towards christianity claims - why!
Dear Jimbo Wales!
I recently stumbled over a BC notice in an artikle and changed it into BCE, which i would recommend for wikipedia because of a general "neutral point of view - policy", which should include also faith.
I then stumbled over a 12th century BC and changed it into a 12th century BCE and was pleased, because of its blue hue. Then I reasoned: it could might be that this system of "... century BC" would eventually be institutionalised into wikipedia for diverse christianity related reasons... and it was!
This was a drawback for me because i was used to this typ of "primate", which i have found in the german wikipedia, but not in english one.
Could you please exlain me why this is done in wikipedia and where one can discuss this system of "... century BC" because it is not an artikle and more direct under the autorship of wikidia-stuards and bureaucrats, i guess, and they might be in majority of christian faith. Why arent there neutral point of view algorithms including faith-related topics and systems of notation?
P.S. You might mind, that the aera of the messiah (=christ) is object to christian faith alone and BCE /CE could be read as beforeChristianEra/christianEra or beforeCommonEra/commonEra.
We accept both BC+AD and CE+BCE, but it is arbitrary across wikipedia, the general policy is to just leave dates the way they were when they were initially added to the article and not to change them wholesale in the articles you encounter, despite how you might feel.—Cronholm14422:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well - this is fine. I love the potentialities and feasibilities in wikipedia a lot. But your short reply dissatifyses me - I think: Your policy should make it even easier to imprint a primat of faith - against a culture of modernism and enlightenment. Arent your wikipedia-guidelines (or- practices) of notation in regard to dates/eras/centuries preformatted in christian manner, not seldom to bestow a favour on faith? This is offending, will and could offend people of non-faith or different religions. Why shouldnt guidelines of neutrality rather than guidelines of indeference be established in regard to christian dominance ( Leitkultur , de:Sendungsbewusstsein ) which has its arguments in faith and in the propagation of faith alone. This should fit to all people - and would offend none - especially in a world of wikipedia. Why then is this tendency evident in wikipedia which is eventually nearly to be recognised as a proclamation of faith rather than as an editing-culture or a personal state of affect? 87.160.210.15523:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also custom and practice, many encyclopedia (and other information sources) use the BC terminology and this is transferred onto the online versions. Also, many (if not most) of the references used by the English language Wikipedia will have the old system and an article should have conformity with its cited sources. LessHeard vanU13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How would correcting usage to BCE/CE contradict cited sources? As long as you have a source giving the actual numbers, it would make no difference. Just as we often gives length measurements in both metric and imperial even when the source only gives one or the other. MartinMcCann16:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"Correcting"? Excuse me? This might be some indication of the problem (if I might use so grand a title) - using the abbreviations BC and AD is not a mistake, it is a choice (even if one that may be made out of ignorance). I wouldn't support anyone "correcting" BCE/CE, and I don't support the "correction" of BC/AD. To quote the Manual of Style
Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.
The problem with BC/AD is that it runs counter to NPOV. "In the year of our lord" is hardly an appropriate description of dates on a worldwide source of information when it refers to the beliefs of a minority of the world's population. Which supercedes which - the MoS or NPOV?MartinMcCann22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
MoS was written within the edict of NPOV; arbitrarily removing BC/AD is also POV, therefore both are allowed - as is both American and British (and other English speaking cultures variations) spellings of various words, but not in the same article. Also, no matter which version is used it is still dated from the supposed birth of Jesus, so the underlying systemic bias continues to exist - whether referred to directly or not. LessHeard vanU22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How is CE/BCE more POV than BC/AD? The former states that it is measuring time around the believed birth year of the central figure of the Christian religion. The latter states that it is measuring time around the birth of God. A subtle difference, but an important one. The existence of various forms of English is empirical fact - the status of Jesus as God is a POV limited to Christianity. MartinMcCann22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Using only CE/BCE is POV because it denies those who believe that Jesus both existed and was also a deity (or son of, or aspect, or whatever) - and a minority view does not mean that it should be disregarded - and therefore the literal meaning of the abbreviations is true, and also ignores the cultural history of the use of the terms in the Western world. Finally, although practicing (certainly fundamental) Christianity may be in the minority I would suggest that the majority of English speaking cultures are most familiar with the BC/AD usage. Please note that, in which case, I would not agree that BCE/CE should be removed.
You've got one - I'm Roman Catholic myself, I simply believe that a worldwide source of information such as Wikipedia should not be biased in favour of any religion. The BCE/CE arrangement makes no statement about the divinity of Jesus - it merely states the date of his birth. The BC/AD arrangement does make a statement about his divinity, and in doing expouses a Christian point of view - in violation of NPOV. MartinMcCann23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If we shouldn't be biased in favor of any religion, then we shouldn't be using the Christian numbering of years, no matter what name it's called. Perhaps we should use the Mayan long count, or my personal favorite, AUC. --Carnildo02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
While that would be the optimum solution (though a more recent start date, such as the signing of Magna Carta would probably be a better point of reference) the ubiquitous nature of the Christian calender means that we need you use numbers that are recogniseable, and converting the actual dates would probably count as OR. That doesn't mean we can't describe the system in an NPOV manner. MartinMcCann08:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
AUC, there is no need of a Straw man argument. No one is saying that we should stop using the Gregorian calendar and switch to a "NPOV" one. Switching to BCE/CE is hardly a extreme idea. The fact that some people are offending by AD/BC and no one is offended by BCE/CE is for me enough of a reason to switch. But I also don't really care that much, any normal person can read either one just fine. It is not as if someone sees a date that says 40 AD and says "OMG, it says it was 40 years after the birth of God! Wikipedia says Christianity is right - I'm converting now". Calm don't, it's just dates. Jon51314:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jon513, I can assure you that some people are offended by BCE/CE, just like people are offended by the opposite. You can check Talk:Common Era for a recent example. Fram13:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether people are offended by whichever version is used is irrelevent - what matters is which version is NPOV. BC/AD makes a statement about the divinity of Jesus and thus represents a Christian POV. BCE/CE makes no such statement, one way or the other, and is thus NPOV - which means that it is the version that must be used in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. MartinMcCann14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, NPOV does not mean that - it means that all verifiable variations and differences must be represented in a neutral manner, with no emphasis given to any one viewpoint; thus removing the ability to use the BC/AD abbreviations is POV = not permitted by Wikipedia. Only the use of both (but not in the same article) is NPOV - not choosing one or the other. WP:NPOV states, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader..." By removing either dating system shows bias. LessHeard vanU21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Then why isn't every article required to have the date stated in BC/AD, BCE/CE, AUC, Mayan long count, calender of the French revolution, and every other dating system that's ever existed. Using BC/AD is stating "this date is measured from the birth date of the Son of God". Using BCE/CE states "this date is measured from the believed birth date of Jesus - the central figure of the Christian religion". The latter does not exclude the former, as it does not state that Jesus was not the Son of God, while the former excludes all religious beliefs except Christianity. MartinMcCann22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Per the guidance when there are conflicts between American, British or other variants of English; you stick with the original choice. I think I'm right that some of the articles on Dynasties of/Ancient Civilisations use the dating system from that epoch, with a translation to one or other English versions, as do some articles regarding Islamic or Jewish related subjects, for the benefit of readers.
Please, us debating the subject in English does not exclude the acknowledgment that there are other languages (or even alphabets or writing systems) that are equally as capable of allowing written communication - using an abbreviation of a Latin phrase does not deny any other religion has its own sovereignty of belief.
This time I really am going to walk away from this discussion, you and I will not agree and scarcely anyone else is interested. While countering bias is a worthy ideal it must be recognised that intergration should be the object, not removal. LessHeard vanU23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actualy BCE says "we belive that western culture is the only one worth worrying about and what we consider common is common". Personaly I prefer BVE or BEV.Geni00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, we need to think of something that people of all religions can think of as correct, but it's not going to be easy, I can tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceberg2229 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because someone is offended doesn't mean the material in question is biased. However, the notations of BC/AD reflect specific religious and cultural biases, namely Christianity and Western culture whereas BCE/CE only reflect a general bias, an international secular frame of reference over one particular religion/culture's bias. The use of BC/AD can be seen as the support of religious and colonial imperialism, whereas BCE/CE has no such loaded context. Phyesalis06:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
Hi Mr. Wales!
Just want to congratulate you on creating an entirely new internet paradigm! It's a really new and refreshing outlook on the world actually; as a college student I find myself constantly penned in by professors and their appeals to ethos. Apparently they're stuck in some hierarchical view of the world where they have more merit because of their years of intense study... little do they know that they're just holding information hostage! I hope that through your visionary spirit and the efforts of our fine Wikipedians we can finally move into an era where someone like Noam Chomsky can't bully Joe from Atlanta into believing in generative grammar.
I think you have misunderstood what wikipedia is about. NPOV is not against hierarchy and in favour of its opposite, etc. Thanks, SqueakBox04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit and hierarchy are anything but mutually exclusive, and anyone can edit but staying within the rules. Otherwise it would be anarchy and that would not work. Thanks, SqueakBox21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ohh, I think I understand. Mr. Wales, I have a new respect for you. As the "de-facto leader" of Wikipedia, you effectively determine what's what around here. Logically then, you have the most credibility of any man in the world...an expert amongst experts. How does one obtain your autograph??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo does not determine what is what around here, with over 2 million articles he simply hasn't the time, and there are many more prolific editors than him. Thanks, SqueakBox23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It is editors who make policy, I have never seen Jimbo involve himself in this in the last 3 years though I believe he did before. Admins police the system but they do not have any extra policy making powers, they are more like interpreting policy in the real world of wikipedia conflicts. Thanks, SqueakBox00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Mhm. So Prima and Secunda are edit warring and despite best efforts they still want to kill each other. Arbitration Committee is brought in... and I do believe they are voted for but that "Jimbo does not consider himself bound by the results of the elections," making him King. I don't see how you wouldn't have a top to a hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure but I have heard A LOT of administrators speaking badly about the state of RFA. I am thinking if 5-10 editor's got together with you and the arbitration committee (seeing that the RFA'S are a very big concern). I think it would be a great idea if we could find out what all the editor's (Like a big debate) feel about it, and have them plus the arbitration committe come up with new policies for the RFA to make things better based on feedback from the community. I don't know much about it. However I have seen LOT's of people saying it is not good, and people proposing policies all the time that get declined. I just had the idea of getting first the opinion of each and every person that disliked the RFA and deciding what problems where relevant and what problems were not. Then basing the writing of policy for RFA on that research. --businessman33221101:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"I just had the idea of getting first the opinion of each and every person that disliked the RFA". Please make sure youalso get the opinion of those that like the RfA, or at least feel that it is better than all proposals they have seen so far. Only listening to those who are unhappy may give a false impression. Fram09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't personally have any "concerns". I have just seen A LOT of people saying they don't like the RFA and it's damaged beyond repair and lot's more. I have seen this everywhere. I have also seen where atleast 3-4 proposals went in and failed, and one had even been speedy deleted because mulitple others within that month were attempted. Maybe it's nothing, but I was suspecting if that many people have said stuff about it. I am the type of person it stand on the sidelines getting involved in current issues. THe 2 things in this english wikipedia I have really noticed a majority of people speaking out again are "RFA, and ga, and fa". Those 3 I have heard a lot of controversy in those 3. I think those are people's top issues. My top issues are backlog. I have been knocking out hundreds of ones that need cleaning but they never stop. I want to get them caught up to this month, and get them all cleaned but it's almost impossible, catch up is slow and by the time one month is cleaned in backlog another 300 are added for the newer months. So my main focus is backlog, everything else is me monitoring other issues for long periods of time and then trying to find a solution. Through some watching I did fa, and ga were taking care of themselves slowly. Especially some "feud" I heard about is goign good. THe other issue was RFA which I didn't see getting better. Only because so many people are making off handed comments about RFA and other stuff just leads me to believe there is some issue (even if I don't know what it is) and a solution is not underway (ONLY) based on what I heard. I didn't even know that discussion was there, but then the people who are saying it's damaged beyond repair must not know about that. What do peoepl "dislike about it"and are we working on changing it or do more people like it than dislike it? --businessman33221115:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose your right. I have seen those IN the rfa themselves so that's probably why. Thanks for those links, especially wp:lame that is going to be very interesting. --businessman33221115:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate banner
I was reading the Michael Jordan article when I noticed a banner that said "Give us your fucking money". Last week, I considered making a donation, but after seeing this banner, I have decided not to. Even if Wikipedia desperately needs money, it should not resort to inappropriate and profane banners/advertising campaigns to solicit donations. Seeing obscene images in relevant articles is one thing; seeing a profane banner all over Wikipedia is another. As the founder of Wikipedia, I think you could do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A little bird (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if it's a (gasp) out of process deletion, I think Image:Giveit.png and Image:Giveit.jpg perhaps ought to be speedy-deleted, since - as per the AN/I discussion above - they seem to be being used for quite a bit of vandalism, and have no encyclopaedic value. — iridescent17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I was encouraged to read your comment "Many good admins have lamented to me lately that there is a real problem with civility in Wikipedia". I have been disappointed in the amount of incivility I have seen (even occasionally by admins). My question is what can I do about it? I could write something on a user's talk page but would it do any good? Will there be any kind of organized campaign to encourage all users to be civil and to warn offenders? Sbowers303:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The best thing that I can suggest is for you to talk to users that you find are incivil. We're all equal here, and should all behave responsibly to other members of the project. Dropa note to users that you feel are being incivil and explain exactly why you think that - it can help, sometimes people don't know they're not being civil until someone mentions it to them. If that fails, take it to WP:AN/I where admins can review it. Hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It's possible to move things outside of the article. It takes a bit of knowlege of CSS, but it's not too difficult. --Carnildo20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear mr.Wales, what an honor and emotion to write to you. Finally I can "meet" you and first I would to say my congratulations for your "internet revolution"... I can't imagine another project genial as this one (these nine) of your Foundation... For that reason I would show to you a problem who's growin'up month by month on Wikipedia in italian version. So I know that only you have the power to supervise and to stop the silent "Golpe of admins" on it.wikipedia, the only version (for what I know) with these kind of problems in these greater form. There are several users, or simply ip(s), who lament the draconian despotism of that people. The number of cases of abuses is too great to show 'em one by one, and I'm not the only one (i've also seen some blogs talkin'about this problem) who lament this. So there are lot of not-italians users, workin on their versions and collaborating to italian one (suddenly on geographic-historical projects) who lament these problems. We've got the fear that it.' is becoming a despotic government, with the cult of personality of admis (the only templars of truht and justice), with patrollers who roles as a militia. It's only for my respect to your genial idea that I've decided, finally, to disturb you directly for this problem... There are 252 free encyclopedias, the one in my language is free to host a democratic confrontation as it could be possible in North Korea or in Italy during the period 1922-1945. Please, only you could control these violations and give order where it isn't. I try to show you what are the problems in some points:
1-Falses elections of admins: It's almost by two years that the admins are always same people. They decide by themselves and they votes always by themselves in growin'up restrictive laws of votation. Political campaings look like the ones in South America, with a large use of threats, never punished. Are sysops and their gorillas up the laws of Wikipedia ? Hmmm, i don't thing so. With this system of election they could have always votes to be re-elected, always the same group, saving the forms of democracy but not the facts.
2-Patrolling as militia: Lot of patrollers talks about draconian laws as a requested new powers to control and abuse of their power.
3-Abuse of infinite ban: Lot of people are rightly banned as vandal-only users. Sometimes there are cases of persecutions to users whom fault is to declare the cult of personality of chiefs. They are continuely banned (with threats to whom don't votes for infinite) for months. Finally, when the ban finishes, they are harrassed directly by sysops. The reaction of them give to sysops the Casus belli to ban'em for ever (and sometimes they continue offending them). Than, these users have NO ONE POSSIBILTY to give contributions to Wikipedia as ipS. Not vandalisms or flames, only contributions. Version goodly enlarged disappears, new voices perfectly encyclopedics are deleted, and the normal reader of encyclopedia, the target, don't find more some infos. It could be a law for blocked users but is a strange law. Two months ago, an italian famous vandal (called LpL) wroten to sysops at the bar. He also listed his serious contributions , and today these contributions are always on WP, not rollbacked or deleted. Why the serious voices of a massive vandal could remain and the one of these blocked users againist the machine not ? Law is not the same for all ? Cause it's a personal revenge of sysops to people who doesn't want to submit to these dictatorial way. Finally, I could IMHO consider that sysops with these rb or deletions are vandalizing Wikipedia. The target is to write an encyclopedia, is the knowledge, is the reader, not personal wars or revenges.
4-Abuse of "history" (the camp after "edit this page", not the History). Some histories are deleted, expecially into village pump (in it is Wikipedia:Bar). It is used to alterate the truth version of simple users. They erases his/her talks and so, they continue the discussion adding falses versions. Suddenly nobody sees a rollbacked version and takes as truth the comments of sysops or patrollers. There is not possibility of confrontation, they re-write discussions deleting comments who they don't like, also adding answers showing that they are poor victims (an answer presumes a question...). They are using the possibility to change and rollback as the psycopolice in 1984 by George Orwell... A new history...
5-Political (and sometimes religious) prejudice for politics of deletions (of articles)and treatment of new users. This prejudice could change sysop by sysop.
6-Good Faith is rarely used by an old user for voices of newbies. They are considered vandals only because they are new. It useless to discuss showing the policies or the rules of Wikipedia. They thing as a bot, they are right, and new user are rapidly marked as vandals.
7-Abuse of user page: User pages of sysops are looking like more to a jacket of a colonel of Army that an user page. Suddenly they are also largerly used for political, religious, or social offences to other ideas. In last year i've seen lot of these one offending jewish Shoah, homosexuals, muslims, africans... User page is personal, I know, but it is a WP page as helps, guides, templates and categories. Where is the neutrality ?
8-Abuse od discussions pages: Discussion of articles are a disgusting meltin'pot of threats, offences, racism, anathemas and so on... I'ven't found this in other versions. And sysops are not interested to delete these...
9-Respect for nobody and nothing: A thing who sysops and their gorillas respect is themselves, their power, their government. Other things, people, are nothing. If, for exemple, the grammar form or an interlink of a template is normally corrected, you're not helping the project, you're harrassing the "unfailability" of "supreme goveronrs".
Sorry if i've tired you, my j'accuse would to be a way to show that problem directly to Wikipedia's founder. I would advise you of what they are doing of your gift, trasformin'it in a military regimen. Believe me, i'm not the only one who feels that risk shown in these words. I don't feel myself as a newbie and I can consider the project, for a little bit, also mine; for the contributions I gaven in these years and also for donations, and I would the project rules might be respected also in italian version, as other 252. It's completely useless to talk of this with it.admins, they could only delete a discussion as these one blocking the user as a vandal. I trust in your wisdom, mr.Wales, and I hope for your intervention, before it.wikipedia destroys itself.
A bit of a sh*tstorm is brewing on AN/I about the re-indef-banning of Anittas. Normally I wouldn't bother you with such a trifle, but given that you were the one who indef-banned him the first time I thought I'd let you know in case you have anything to add to the discussions. Best, K. Lásztocska13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Because of the extent of this problem, is there any chance you could alert the foundation about this publishers spam campaign?--Hu1223:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Age concerns in the Arbitration Committee elections
Jimbo, some people are expressing concerns on the Arbitration Committee elections talk page about minors running for the committee. It is agreed that minors cannot have access to the checkuser or oversight tools except by resolution of the Foundation, but some people are suggesting that since the committee members do have access to private data (just not private data goverened by the access to non-public data policy) that all members of the committee should be over 18. As the final decision on who to appoint is yours, I thought I'd alert you to the discussion here. No reply is necessary. Thanks. --Deskana(talk)12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. A few days ago, you raised referencing concerns on this article's talk page. There's been a lot of activity since then aimed at addressing your concerns - would you mind taking a look at the article to see if it now meets your requirements? If so, you may want to consider commending User:Benjiboi, who has done the bulk of the work. Thanks. SP-KP18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Fake Article
Sorry to bother you, Mr. Wales. This seems to be a complete fabrication, or at least as far as I can tell. The links don't work. Only one person ever edited it. I can't find any evidence for its existence anywhere online -- including Wikipedia, itself. The image looks like a Microsoft Paint job The problem is that I have no idea how to nominate an article for deletion. Could you do so for me? --Is this fact...?10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you were trying to establish that BonziBUDDY is recognized just about everywhere as an adware software, not "spyware". Some editors and even an admin are undoing all of your hard work on the article. It is even more confrontational than it was before you tried to soften and NPOV it. - Havecloud04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just trying to make the article neutral. I may have misread some of the sources. The article needs to be neutral, accurate, fair, true. I think there is some controversy about whether nor the software was spyware, and so therefore, Wikipedia itself should not take a stand on that issue, but should rather "go meta" and simply report on what the controversy is. Not sure who you are referring to but I have been exchanging good emails about it with some people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maxim -- not sure who he is, what his nationality is, his socio-political agenda whatever, but he deleted images without consulting anyone on the page, he also made a mess by allowing for the article to be out of lines and format, making whole mess of the article after deleting the image for no apparent reason.
Image:Hkov.jpg
Image:Hrm.jpg
were removed without leaving the note on the page about removing these images, to me this can only appear as vandalism, if that be the case, I think he should be removed from the admin position. If he removed images because he has some other agenda, than he should be removed from Wiki asp, Wiki idea is good, for everyone to have access to free information and data about world we live in.
BTW I didn't uploaded images in question, but I am fully aware that Croatian MOD has approved these images for educational use by Wiki and other online encyclopedias. After all images are used to describe armed forces of Croatia.
Seriously Considering Leaving wiki
I am seriously considering leaving wikipedia, because admins will do nothing to help. Why is it that admins allow sock puppets and allow good editors to be harassed by sock puppets. I am referring to the case of Tony360X (talk·contribs) and their various sock puppets. Despite numerous attempts to stop Tony360X (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X,
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Franky210,
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X (second) &
Here), with strong evidence for the case of a sock puppet and vandalism/harassment. Tony360X is still able to create new accounts, harass me and cause general disruption to wikipedia. I have contributed many good encyclopaedic articles and reported Tony360X via proper channels, supported by strong diffs, yet the admins just won’t do anything. This is wrong and I cannot put up with it much longer. --Bryson06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Serious POV problem on :ko wiki
Currunt korean government is democratic
these are president election period
Best candidate ko:이명박 is consevative. poll result is about 40 %
In this article, ko:이명박, section number 2. "비판" is most quantity
"비판" means "Negative"
I say that "it is serious NPOV" to comunity tslk page and admins request page.
All says nothing. Silence gives consent to that article.
Sorry, but Ill reply to this as Jimbo is too busy to reply to most comments. Jimbo's userpage is, unfortunately, the target of regular vandalism. The page is rarely protected, due to him wanting it to be open to anyone to improve it, however some users abuse this feauture. Regards, Qst19:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a marketing reasearcher at Hec Paris (http://www.hec.edu/) and I want to conduct a 2-3 week survey on Wikipedia starting this Monday. It deals with how often Wikipedians contribute to the site. All I am asking you is to tell me where I can post this link so that some contributors complete it(it takes 2 minutes..). http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=U6THkoMvVVIpKi7wmmmlUA_3d_3d .
I don't want to spam site so I want to know who can I procced. At the end of this survey, I will post the results so that everyone sees them.
It would be great if you could share some more of your presentations and lectures at meta:Presentations/en. I see we have a couple from December 2004, but I'm sure things have progressed a lot since them. This request is on behalf of meta:Wikimedia New York City volunteers, who would like to possibly give a series of educational Wikipedia/Wikimedia lectures to various groups in their city. Presentations intended for a more general audience would be especially appreciated. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. A few days ago, you raised referencing concerns on this article's talk page. There's been a lot of activity since then aimed at addressing your concerns - would you mind taking a look at the article to see if it now meets your requirements? If so, you may want to consider commending User:Benjiboi, who has done the bulk of the work. Thanks. SP-KP18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes your comment was very helpful and indeed has inspired the transformation of a poor article into a good one. Thanks, SqueakBox19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, Mr. W, what do you think of Uncyclopedia? Do you think it's funny, insulting, or both? And have you ever considered being an editor there in your spare time? I read once that you visited the parody site often but I wasn't given a proper source. ;u) --Is this fact...?11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You do know that Uncyclopedia is the exact opposite of Wikipedia. The edits we do in Wikipedia is considered vandalism in Uncyclopedia. --Antonio Lopez (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is like Jurassik Park movie. Life finds the way. Wow! What a eloquent quote from that movie. In that movie, in the end dinosaurs rule island and the scientist watch it in disbelief and run away. Likewise Spam finds the way. Spam will rule wikipedia park and Jimbo Wales will run away from this wikipedia park. sharara20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
My post may sound like trolling, but spam, advertisements written in mywikibiz style to give look of encyclopedia article, people posting bio citing bizzarre websites, video games, music albums. While patrolling new pages I am seeing 50% spam articles hacking in. I went to admin and admin don't answer how much time we should allow to the author to provide reliable source. Lot of problems there. sharara20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, good to see you taking an active part in this; but it is still unclear what should be done in these sort of circumstances, and especially when the Foundation offices may be closed. Perhaps someone should draft a policy rather than an essay? It's a weakness we could live without. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Stubs... stubs... and even more stubs!
Hello Jimbo, my name is Javascap and I have a small question for you. Wikipedia has recently broken 2,000,000 articles, but only 3,000 or so are rated B (Which translates to a good article) or better. As the grand high duke of Wikipedia, how do you plan to adress those 1,970,000 articles that almost count as spam?
Hello so I received your Autograph by email by Sannse today and just wanted to thank you for allowing me to have your autograph. We thanks again, H*bad (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Shahara. Does this help? These are the covers I can see now (four different editions). Sorry for the excessive citations, but I was not sure what you need. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Per the ANI discussion, I was wondering if you were interested in establishing a threshold for where to send stuff in to OFFICE for foundation response when there are apparent threats made.
I think that most admins (myself included, and I wrote the current WP:SUICIDE) think that there are things that might be threats, but were not credible or specific enough to rise to the level of calling the police in.
I'm perfectly happy to move my threshold for that further over, if you want, but it would help if you can help more specifically say where you think the line is on this. This one on the Battle of Bunker Hill being on the "report it" side of the line helps, but doesn't really clarify for incidents that don't match the details on this one well.
I think it is a very difficult judgment call. I have no really firm idea of how to specifically write up or establish a threshold for it. I am interested, but not sure how to do it. The risks are pretty obvious... in both directions. Too lax a policy, and we run the risk that a real threat is ignored. Too strict a policy, and we end up with a great tool for trolls to use. It's worth a serious discussion with a lot of minds working on it...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say if the threat is specific enough for any actual action to be taken, we should probably do something. If someone says "I'm going to kill John Doe" - that might be a threat. If someone just says "I'm going to kill someone" - that is not a very credible threat, and probably not enough for the authorities to act on. Mr.Z-man17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have concerns about the uniformity of such a policy. It really depends where somebody is located, in the UK or US it is easy to find the number of the local police to ring, in poor, third world countries, and where the language used is not English, it is almost impossible to inform the correct authorities, and I feel this difference should probably be addressed, we must certainly not assume only people in first world English countries make or receive threats, or are deservin g of our protection. How quickly could wikipedia, for instance, find an Arabic or Persian speaker, or find the correct authorities in a small town in Colombia. Thanks, SqueakBox17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. There are projects in every major language. With IRC, the mailing lists, and talk pages on different projects, I can't imagine it would take that long to find someone in a specific country. Mr.Z-man03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I know one user who was blocked indefinetly for edit warring. After that the administrator picked one of user's post which was follow-up to earlier posts, twisted its meaning and went on saying that the user made death threat. As the user was blocked, user had no alternative except signing up with different username. Once he asked that administrator where exactly user had made death threat, the user was immediately blocked by that administrator. And after blocking, that administrator called user's post as 'rant'. This is provoking to that user to keep creating sockpuppets. If he speak truth, he will be blocked immediately even if he has no single edit. If he lie, he is free to contribute on wikipedia.
Not in all jurisdictions, I believe a report like such and such user made a death threat and BTW he is a Falung Gong member would be cated upon in China, if not because of the first part, but because of the second. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe whether he/she want to report threats to the authorities should be an individual concisions decision by a user, who might take into the account the whole history of the interaction with a user, not a strict guideline that can be easily gamed Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Se my earlier comment and really how credible is it for wikipedia to make a report to a local Chinese police force. Thanks, SqueakBox03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
ich bin ein user in der deutschen wikipedia version. ich möchte dich in kenntnis setzen, dass es seit dieser woche in der deutschen wikipedia auf basis der [[39]] verboten ist Jan Matejko Bilder zu nutzen. Alle Jan Matejko Bilder wurden aus der deutschen Wikipedia entfernt (!), siehe z. B. hier [[40]] oder auch hier [[41]] Ist das ok? Warum ist die Nutzung von Jan Matjeko Bildern in der englischen, französischen, polnischen Wikipedia erlaubt, aber in der deutschen plötzlich verboten? Ich hatte hier [[42]] versucht einen Ausgelich zu finden, komme aber mit meiner Argumentation bedingt durch die Solidarisierung der Admins untereinander nicht mehr durch, hoffe dass du ein Machtwort sprechen kannst--Interrex (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
He's answered this before. He lives in a cave in an undisclosed location with Osama bin Laden. They watch DVDs of Lost with Jimmy Hoffa. :DWODUP07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I read the NYTimes article and I've detected delightful echoes of Colbert, et al. in Jimbo's answers. I'm guessing they punched it up for him over several email communiques before he handed it over to the Times.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
From The New York Times: I collect books, and not only that, I do something unbelievably geeky with them, which is, I put little labels on the spines with Library of Congress numbers, and keep all the books in Library of Congress order. Oddly, I have never computerized the collection. - I started my own book classification system as a child for my little library. Perhaps that is why we love encyclopedias, eh? They are the ultimate reflection of the desire for ordered knowledge. Awadewit | talk20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
ich bin ein user in der deutschen wikipedia version. ich möchte dich in kenntnis setzen, dass es seit dieser woche in der deutschen wikipedia auf basis der [[44]] verboten ist Jan Matejko Bilder zu nutzen. Alle Jan Matejko Bilder wurden aus der deutschen Wikipedia entfernt (!), siehe z. B. hier [[45]] oder auch hier [[46]] Ist das ok? Warum ist die Nutzung von Jan Matjeko Bildern in der englischen, französischen, polnischen Wikipedia erlaubt, aber in der deutschen plötzlich verboten? Ich hatte hier [[47]] versucht einen Ausgelich zu finden, komme aber mit meiner Argumentation bedingt durch die Solidarisierung der Admins untereinander nicht mehr durch, hoffe dass du ein Machtwort sprechen kannst--Interrex (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reported to google to exclude wiki userpages, user talk pages from search results two weeks ago. Keywords 'Rama Arrow' shows wikipedia user:Rama's Arrow on top of first result page which leads to talk page of user showing pictures of wrestler instead of info about Lord Rama. I reported this on WP:ANI, but all admins dismissed my request to delete, redirect those pages. I asked them if keywords 'Jesus second coming' leads to pictures of wrestler on wikipedia, will you tolerate that? Then, without giving hint, I created account Jesus's Second Coming.. Another admin Merope, who has no idea about WP:ANI discussion, blocked it in few minutes. I asked why Rama's Arrow username allowed but Jesus's Second Coming is not. Merope came up with strange arguments on User talk:Abhih. In the end, Merope said that he will not allow usernames like 'Tenth incarnation of Vishnu'. Before I answer that, I was blocked. Otherwise I would have told that Kalki is would-be 'Tenth incarnation of Vishnu' and you have allowed username User:Kalki.
This is just one incident of admins irrationality, religious bias, abuse of powers. I have many. But I am also not interested in wikipedia. If this post is removed and I am blocked, no surprise. After blocking me, if admin call it rant and other users openly call me 'crank' on WP:ANI, no surprise. That is the way wikipedia works. Thanks and Goodbye. sharara12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. We have a policy on inappropriate usernames (WP:U) which is enforced (too harshly, some argue) which includes a section on religious names. If the policy is not being enforced, you can bring attention to usernames you don't like at various different fora, including WP:AIV for really egregiously offensive names. Or you can raise problems with the policy if you don't think it's strong enough, at WT:U. Finally, Google's methods aren't our problem. They're not entirely happy with them themselves, as revealed with the whole "Google the word 'Jew' fiasco" (it brings up a hate site prominently in the list) but on the whole they think it works OK. --Dweller (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If you people are thinking that I am religious and my religious sentiments are hurt then you are plain wrong. In one of first edits on wikipedia I described my thinking. I am just trying to say that Jesus Christ get more importance than Rama or Buddha. My following history is proof of that. Admins were seeing username 'Siddhartha Gautama' when I was tagging pages. But nobody blocked me for using name of 'Buddha'. I was blocked for other reason, at my choice.
I tell you my story in short. According to WP:SOCK, I created accounts 'Viran', 'Flight Of The Phoenix', 'Flight Of The neo' to see how wikipedia community treats newbie, how vandalism is handled, how strict new page patrolling is. New page patrolling turned out to be very loose. I succeeded in creating false pages. And I disclosed it alongwith other accounts. My intention was to use just one account User:Neo. and other account User:N e o as dopple danger.
But my over-honesty boomranged. Ryulong tracked these accounts and blocked them. I got angry and drama is still going on.
If I was blocked for vandalism, then I protected wikipedia from garbage using accounts 'TRIRASH', 'Abhih', 'Siddhartha Gautama'. Why I am termed as vandal? I had made it absolute clearly that I can post on wikipedia if I do not disclose my past. Then why keep blocking me once I declare that I am user:viran? You can watch me and if I again do mistake, you are free to block me. But logic do work before corrupt powers.
Anyway admin SQL called my this post as 'rant' which was insulting. So once again returned to prove how irrational their blocking spree is.
I request to unblock User:Neo.. If not, please do not remove this post and please do not make any comment to flame me. I will not come back.
So you are new page patroller. Do you really think that this user and this user are not sockpuppets? Look, how professionally they have written first edits.
You need to patrol new pages carefully, kid.
My mistake is that every time I speak truth. Those who don't tell truth are free to contribute on wikipedia using sockpuppets.
I have requested my ISP to deactivate my account. I may be cut off from internet any moment. It doesn't matter what you or anyone think about me. Was Oskar Schindler bad person only because he was member of Nazi Party for sometime?
Wikipedia is #1!
"Wikipedia 4 Life" - I coined that, but who cares...Wikipdeia you can have it
Info:
Hi am Mr. Crouse the owner of the account: NRC Admin on Wikipedia and i just wanted to tell you all i am leavin' Wikipedia as a Registed user and i may come back just 2 comment ppl...so if u see this sig - GC, its me
Site:
NRC inc.
aka: NEED FOR SPEED RACING CIRCUT | "NRC 4 LIFE"
Jim, Wikinews is being called into question here on Wikipedia. You are aware that Wikinews has been conducting interviews with notable politicians, religious leaders, musicians, artists, actors, et. al. We have talked to Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback; the Dalai Lama's Representative about Tibet-China and religious issues; an eminent psychoanalyst, Dr. Joseph Merlino about psychological and paraphilia topics; Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA, about animal rights; Michael Musto about celebrity journalism; Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU about civil liberties; Evan Wolfson, the founder of the gay marriage movement; and acclaimed journalists Gay Talese and Craig Unger about journalism and political topics. One editor, User:Cool Hand Luke, with whom I have had constant battles with, is now raising the question whether interviews, which are primary sources since they are done directly with the people involved in issues or well-known journalists, should be used at all. This will weaken not only Wikinews, but Wikipedia, since we sit down, record and transcribe what these people think or have researched. Quotes are attributed to them and point back to the Wikinews interviews. There are multiple instances where these people have linked to the interviews we have published (showing they stand by them) and I have e-mails that also verify that for all people. This issue, since it involves two Wikimedia projects, could stand your attention and consideration here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews_redux. We aren't interviewing "small time" people, but major newsmakers. Indeed, tomorrow I have interview with Al Sharpton. --DavidShankbone22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a Wikinews issue so much as an issue about the reliability of using interviews to comment on third-party subjects. I think they should be considered as self-published sources and only used to comment on the interviewees themselves, unless other reliable sources have picked up on the comments.
So what Luke is saying is that my interview with Tashi Wangdi, the representative to the Dalai Lama, should only be used to discuss Tashi Wangdi and that it can't be used to discuss the whereabouts of the 11th Panchen Lama and what the Tibetan people think about the Chinese government's appointed Panchen Lama. That's a real example that exists. This policy change would be disastrous for the goals of our project. --DavidShankbone23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
First, like any interview, Wikinews interviews can only be evidence for what some person said. That's just simple enough. Next, As to the relative weight to give Wikinews interviews as a source, versus other interviews, I think that depends on whether or not we trust the process of Wikinews accreditation. If that is considered good, then yay, all is well. If people have specific concerns about it, they should voice them, and Wikinewsies should try to respond in good faith if possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What are your thoughts if "what some person said" involves claims (or opinions) about third parties, specifically if that third party is a living person? - Crockspot (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling we are discussing a specific case but I don't know what the case is. But like, if well-known person A is interviewed and says something... possibly something negative, just to make our example fun.... about well-known person B, then that quote might or might not be relevant and important for either A or B's Wikipedia article, or perhaps for an article which in some way touches on the relationship between A or B. Depending on the nature of the statement, Wikipedia itself should almost certainly distance itself from the factual claim being made.
"In an Wikinews interview, Abraham Lincoln suggested that he might run for office again, saying 'Never say never.'" is generally preferable to "Abraham Lincoln might run for office again."
But this is just about good encyclopedic coverage of any interview, not about wikinews in particular.
The only wikinews related question I can think of here is whether wikinews interviews are of high quality. I would recommend that wikinewsies follow the best possible practices, for example recording interviews, having multiple people check the transcript, and indeed publishing the audio of the transcript on commons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually did not have a specific interview in mind. Concern was expressed to me by email about the relationship between Wikinews and WP, that interviews may be conducted with the express purpose of creating sources to put into WP, ie., manufacturing sources, for lack of a better term. I always thought of Wikinews as more or less a self-published source, as opposed to the New York Times, which has professional editorial oversight. Beyond the issues connected with any interview, it just seems like Wikinews interviews would be a particularly dense minefield. - Crockspot (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot's question is a good question, because we have a lot of things like that on Wikipedia:
Scooter Libby: According to Jackson Hogan, Libby's roommate at Yale University, as quoted in the already-cited U.S. News & World Report article by Walsh, "'He is intensely partisan...in that if he is your counsel, he'll embrace your case and try to figure a way out of whatever noose you are ensnared in.'"
Dick Cheney: The conservative Insight magazine reported on February 27, 2006 that "senior GOP sources" had said Cheney was expected to resign after the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006; however, only Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left office following the elections.
Al Sharpton: In April 2007, the New York Post wrote that tension exists between Sharpton and Barack Obama. According to Post political reporter Frederick U. Dicker, "Sharpton has launched a 'big-time' effort to tear down Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate for president."
Most of Michael Moore controversies are allegations made about Moore by third parties, e.g.: [[On March 12, 2007, Canadian filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine appeared on MSNBC's Tucker to talk about their documentary Manufacturing Dissent, which investigates Michael Moore. They reported to have found that Moore talked with General Motors Chairman Roger Smith at a company shareholders' meeting, and that this interview was cut from Roger & Me.[1][2] However, the actual encounter was not captured on camera by Moore, and occurred before he became a filmmaker.[3] Moore told the Associated Press that had he met face-to-face with Roger Smith during production and tried to keep the footage secret, General Motors would have made it known through the media to discredit him.
My quoting a journalist, Craig Unger, in an interview about about research he conducted reviewing government documents and interviewing high-level government employees barely touches on some of these examples. --DavidShankbone05:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
oOoo please, please please if you are willing autographing this page will make my day! I only have two signatures :-( I will send you a thanksgiving card after I have written the code! (its a bit late but nvm lol) PhilB ~ T/C23:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure it does, if it contributes to a collegial atmosphere of friendliness. Snapping at people who are just being friendly doesn't improve the encyclopedia at all, as far as I can tell. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Not snapping at all, just pointing out that there are a significant amount of people who disagree with the concept of autograph books (as evidenced by the MfD a few months ago on it). ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
“
You keep asking how they help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly.
Hi Jimbo. Im a new user to this excellent site. Can you give me any advice on what to do, or any wiki programs I should get involved in? Sincerely, --Memphiseditor22 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
User:SuggestBot can suggest some articles for you. Also, consider clicking "Random Article" until you see something you can improve? Or join a Wikiproject in your area of interest, there are probably hundreds of them. Consider looking up an article in your area of interest, click on the categories at the bottom, and edit similar articles within that category? For instance, if you were interested in, say, Bobby Bowden, you could click on the categories at the bottom to see a list of other college football head coaches you could edit on. Your name suggests you are from Memphis. (I'm assuming Tennessee). Maybe look at the Graceland article, or write something about notable locations in the Memphis area? ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender00:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Im really excited the join the project, but I dont think I'll be able to start editing for another week cause Im going on vacation. Thanks though, Im really excited. --Memphiseditor22 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Jimbo, Listen to me - It took months for me to know that you are founder of Wikipedia, you have userpage, talkpage. This user created account on 22:38, directly jumped on your talk page at 22:39. I still don't know how to use userboxes on userpage. This editor put userbox on userpage at 22:43.
And at 22:42, he made his first edit on talk page of article Memphis, Tennessee, the article which is semiprotected from banned users.
Sorry Jimbo. But nobody listen me. Even my ISP. They told me to wait for 24 hours for deactivation of account. 4 hours remaining.
When this user will come back from vacation, he will be able to edit semiprotected pages. If you are assuming good faith, why nobody assumed good faith in me. Thanks. -neo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.200 (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I've been reading some of your recent comments on the Wiki, and I must say I'm not happy with their direction. I really think you should consider the question: Who is more likely to know and care for the encyclopedia, and who is more likely to be telling you the truth? Is it the editors who have been writing the actual encyclopedia articles for years, or is it the ever-changing "inner" circle of Wiki defenders who see a troll behind every bush, frequently quote or claim to quote your words as gospel, and vehemently support every action you ever make, even when you yourself realize it was grayish?
I realize it's easier to trust people you have more contact with, but I think you should realize that the group of people who present themselves to you as the "inner core" of Wikipedia is entirely self-selected. Zocky | picture popups05:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. Can you give me a specific quote of something I have said on the wiki that you think suggests someone is not telling me the truth?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
User !! discusses something you said recently which I think relates to what Zocky is talking about above [48]. The related comment comes in the second to last paragraph of his statement on Durova's recent actions. Of course, if I misunderstand what Zocky is talking about I hope he'll correct me. Cla68 (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The current Durova-blocking controversy is being seen or framed by some as a values conflict between those who mostly write articles and those who mostly do vandalism tasks; feeling that !!'s and Giano II's work at article writing is undervalued compared to Durova's editor-blocking efforts. This feeling appears based on the perceived ease of forgiveness of Durova and the quickness to threaten blocks/bans on people who are widely regarded as prolific writers of Wikipedia articles. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
WAS's comment is well spoken. Us content-concentrating editors often avoid policy, Wikien, and other "insider" forums and may have the perception that because we aren't as visible as certain "sleuthing" admins or policy-debating admins that we're not as trusted or appreciated by the Foundation leadership. Cla68 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. I value most highly those who work together in harmony to create content. Content creation, however, does not excuse bad behavior... for the simple reason that bad behavior (drama mongering) drives away content creators. We want people who work quietly and peacefully with others in a spirit of harmony to create content. There are users who do create content, yes, but who also engage in persistent drama all over the wiki. That's got to stop, and if we lose a few people who are driving away others, then so much the better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been heavily involved in content creation on Wikipedia for about two years now, and I haven't noticed any other heavy content editors (i.e. Featured Article or Good Article editors) who have, in my opinion, engaged in persistent drama all over the wiki. I have, however, seen this from some who mainly engage in admin and policy debates. I propose to you that content creators are less likely to engage in unnecessary drama, because our ultimate aim is to preserve Wikipedia in the long term because we want the articles that we've spent so many hours suffering over to be around for awhile. I don't have the same confidence in editors/admins that try to prove themselves by exposing malicious sockpuppets behind every corner. In my opinion, those type of personalities appear to have a different agenda behind their participation in this project. Cla68 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, "content creators are less likely to engage in unnecessary darama". What made you suppose I would disagree with that? But if you are driving to drive a wedge between "admins" versus "content creators" I think you are making an error. Drama can come from anywhere, and there are people who really do cause a lot more trouble than they are worth, whether we look at their contributions in terms of content or in terms of admin work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a complex project building wikipedia and it needs both types of people you allude to; without admins working hard in the background the project wont grow either, and certainly would not have grown to where it is. And sockpuppetry is a real problem that does threaten the integrity of the site. Thanks, SqueakBox16:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope, though, that Jimbo follows his own views (that good works don't excuse bad behavior) in a consistent manner, meaning that the troll-fighting admins need to be held to a standard of civility just like the content-creating people. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, I understand the nature of your comments, but I strongly hope that you are not considering any unilateral actions relating to any aspect of this matter. There has been concern expressed to me that a comment you made yesterday on the ANI subpage was hinting in that direction. A unilateral action in this matter would, among other problematic effects, be likely to increase the level of distracting drama manyfold. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
"If we lose a few people who are driving away others, then so much the better." A quote from you Jimmy and a truth, for certain. I pray the Arbcom case does just what you are saying. The University of Minnesota study is quite clear, from a math standpoint...WP needs content editors that are good contributors of same. The project has a future as long as the main content editors stay here. Lose the great content people and the project suffers. The sleuth and private cabal type approach is what must be stopped. My first post and you can call me a "student driver." Nice (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think what Zocky may be referring to is that, from your comments, you seem to be 'taking sides'. I don't think it is any secret that this latest round of 'Wikipedia Review Whac-A-Mole' was kicked off by your block of Miltopia, and you've obviously been keeping involved in the issue. There have been repeated claims that 'the opposition' is acting in bad faith. They are Wikipedia Review agents. They just want to create drama. They are "troll enablers". They (and this one is particularly ironic) fail to assume good faith. You have echoed some of those statements.
IMO the truth is that anyone who spends nearly all their time arguing policy, behaviour issues, politics, or indeed any contentious topic inevitably falls into a downward spiral. Frustration and annoyance seldom lead to harmony. People become more and more entrenched in their positions, more and more prone to kneejerk reactions and assumption of bad faith by those who disagree with them, more and more incivil, et cetera. Yes, we obviously saw that with Miltopia and some others opposing 'BADSITES' and related concepts, but it is also self-evident in the behaviour of JzG, Durova, and (lately in any case) even yourself for that matter. You're annoyed with the situation, sunshine and roses do not result.
Do you think that Durova and company were 'assuming good faith' or 'trying to find the best in people' when they decided to investigate !!? A long term content contributor with very little involvement in Wikipedia's contentious debates... other than a few stray comments disagreeing with them? The fact that Durova's analysis was mistaken is, as you say, a fairly minor issue. The fact that she and a group of other users are conducting these 'investigations' in the first place? Going after good users on no more solid basis than the bad faith assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is probably here to harm the project? That's not a little thing. That's poisonous.
People are upset and 'making a stink' because these wide ranging 'anti Wikipedia Review' campaigns are themselves harmful to the project... drive away content contributors... fail to assume good faith... et cetera. When the reaction to that is more nasty accusations against the people complaining we get back into that 'downward spiral' issue. Durova and company are investigating people who disagree with them. Good users like !! who there was no valid reason to be looking into at all. People are upset about that... and they should be. Unless we are to become a collection of warring camps, always looking to 'dig up dirt' to get 'the enemy' blocked, this kind of thing should have no place at Wikipedia. --CBD18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for being unavailable so long to clarify my comment. I see that some others have in the meantime provided mostly correct explanations. But let me explain myself.
The first issue that I'm referring to is the blocking of ZScout and the consequent discussion. I have no strong opinion on your actions in that case either way, but your definition of a "wheelwar" is unworkable. Beside the instruction creep and the bureaucracy it would introduce, it would give massive advantage to bad blockers and bad deleters. Almost everybody in the discussion said what I'm saying now, apart from several of the so-called "inner core", who supported your position. I'm not sure how that ended, but I think your opinion remained unchanged. Since your word is in practical terms gospel on Wikipedia, now admins are exposed to prosecution for doing regular, uncontroversial admin work.
The second issue is your involvement in the !! case. The case is pretty clear - Durova did something extremely stupid and refused to come clean about the details when asked. The mere outrageousness of the supposed "evidence" naturally upset a great number of people. What caused additional outrage was the attempt to suppress the debate, which consisted of the moving of the discussion, the protection of the page, the constant demands to close the discussion, and the claim that the discussion was an "attack page" or a "witch hunt". This was perpetrated by roughly the same group of "inner core" admins. Then, you arrived to the debate, and prognosticated short future on Wikipedia for Giano, who as one of our best and most prolific writers is one of our greatest assets. Yeah, I know he has a foul mouth and once aroused he's not easily placated, but calling him a troll? Don't you think he, as someone who has put in endless hours into research and writing of the articles, has the best interest of the project at his heart? Don't you think that after years of working on the project and dealing with other users and admins (he's still an ordinary user), he can be trusted to have a good idea of what's good for the project and what isn't?
This of course isn't about writers vs. admins. There are many admins who do great work and are widely respected, yet never display the cliquish behaviour and never try to suppress discussions of their actions, and never treat other users as enemies. It's becoming clear that this "inner core", which from what I can tell, became that by hanging out on the right pages of Wikipedia, the right mailing lists, and in the right IRC channels, and always agreeing with everything you say, is doing far more harm than good to Wikipedia with their endless "war on trolls", and the even worst war on transparency. It's distressing to see you jump in to support them when they get into a fight with other established editors, who are at least just as worthy of your trust and support. The only logical reason I can see for that is your greater familiarity with the first group.
But you see, Zocky, your description of the situation bears very little relation to my own experience. I don't know who you think is the "inner core" but certainly the people you mention do not come immediately to my mind as the inner core of anything. Second, I did not block ZScout! He was temporarily deadminned, and we talked about it and reached what seems to me a perfectly fine resolution. Miltopia needed banning a long time ago. I haven't seen any arguments to the contrary. There were some discussions about process and procedure, mostly not really up to speed on our traditions, and those are welcome. Yes, attempts to suppress discussion are always wrong... but I didn't do that, I don't condone it, and in fact I strongly oppose it. The main thing I advise, with respect to "wheel war" is far from unworkable, it is absolutely necessary and always has been: talk to people. Someone being blocked from editing Wikipedia for a weekend... or 75 minutes... is far from a great tragedy, and it is better to proceed slowly with careful discussion rather than reverting. We have a very real problem with civility which has been made much worse by a culture in which blocking some absolutely unbearable people has become nearly impossible for most ordinary admins.
Regarding Giano: he is a great content contributor, and I admire that. We all do. But even his strongest supporters will say things like what you have said: "he has a foul mouth and once aroused he's not easily placated"... well that is just not acceptable... he's a super intelligent and thoughtful grownup and he needs to be nice to people. Period.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, glad to hear you don't consider those people the inner core of anything. That is as it should be.
"Block" was a lapsus lingue on my part. I meant the desysopping, and as I say, I have no strong feelings on it either way. After all, you're the godking, and he reverted your block. I still think that having a discussion on a talk or project page before undoing every admin action is unnecessary and too bureaucratic. We have edit and log summaries for a reason. Even if two or more admins revert each other's actions multiple times without a special page to discuss it, I don't see a big problem, as long as they're communicating decently and meaningfully through summaries.
About a block not being a big thing... I'm not sure. I'm generally thick skinned, and I like to think that I wouldn't blow a fuse if it happened to me. Then again, not everybody is me, so I don't take blocks that lightly. If a user is in the middle of doing some content work, or actively involved in a discussion, it's natural that they will get upset if they are blocked. Further escalation is common. Calling somebody a sockpuppet when they aren't tends to upset people. The excited protestations of accused sockpuppets are routinely met with protection of their talk page with more berating in a form of a template. Also, discussions in places like AN/I get archived after just a day or two, so being blocked for a weekend can effectively disqualify somebody from a discussion that they care about. The fact that people probably shouldn't get upset over being briefly blocked can't really trump the fact that they regularly do. It's just human nature, and we should take that into account when considering and discussing blocks.
Of course, in Durova's case (the 75 minute block), it's not the block itself that's the problem, so its duration and any psychological impact is irrelevant. The controversy and the drama is about the massive assumption of bad faith manifested in the "sleuthing", the sock-puppet paranoia, the secrecy, and the attempt to present it all as a trivial matter and suppress the discussion. The case has finally gone to ArbCom, so hopefully we can let them deal with it and go on with our lives now.
Regarding Giano: I don't really know him that well, my impression of him is based mainly on his involvement in a number of policy and arbitration debates which I read or participated in. "Not easily placated" was intended to mean "doesn't give up when told to shut up", not "is unreasonable", and I don't think we should hold that against him. Sometimes bad things do happen on Wikipedia, and sometimes "oops, sorry" isn't enough to remedy them. We all like peace and quiet more than drama, but drama is sometimes necessary to restore sanity. If we weren't willing to go through the drama, we would still be putting up with Esperanza.
The other thing, having a foul mouth certainly seems to be acceptable, as demonstrated by the Wiki careers of Mongo, David Gerard and JamesF, to name just a few with far fouler mouths than Giano's. While I wouldn't mind it if that tone were unacceptable, it's actually very widespread, so it's unfair to treat Giano's outbursts as particularly excessive or as a good indication of his character. If nothing else, it's impossible to tell whether he would be using the same tone in a different environment.
It really all boils down to what somebody said above - your involvement in this case gave the appearance of you supporting one side in the dispute, and the prevailing sentiment seems to be that this is the side that was in the wrong. I realize that that may not have been your intention, but certainly many people interpreted your actions and words that way. Perhaps you should simply be more careful and ask for opinions on wiki before acting, rather than coming in with a seemingly already formed opinion, which just causes people to wonder about where and with whose help it was formed. Zocky | picture popups02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: A thing that hadn't occurred to me while I wrote the above. I've never been blocked on Wikipedia, but I was once kickbanned from #wikipedia. It worked out fine practically in seconds - I rushed into #wikimedia, demanded blood and was duely obliged with deopping of the kickbanning op (thanks, JamesF), so it wasn't that much of an incident. I do remember a distinct feeling of outrage though, veins throbbing and all. And that was about a somewhat silly IRC channel, not Wikipedia itself. Zocky | picture popups02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
ZScout is where I began paying attention. Honestly, it was like watching Noah Webster show up on your neighbour's lawn and start berating him. I tried to comment then, but the thread was locked down before I could save it. That's the same thread where !! foretold his own death. Let's listen!
No doubt we shall find out in due course who is on the hit list to be liquidated, but I can think of a number of prominent "silly sausages" who would benefit from some forceful encouragement to be more civil. Even greater use of block buttons by admins is bound to achieve that end.
Now, where was that encyclopedia were were writing?
ZScout unblocked without consensus to do so and should have known that if Jimbo did a block, it was done for good reasons. Giano is definitely one of our best writers, and I completely understand why he would be extremely upset about Durova's block on User:!!, who is also another excellent contributor...but, posting the emails was unacceptable, and Giano knows this, yet argued repeatedly about it. The way to "be clean" is to go about things in the right way...Giano knows how to go about things in the right way...and I hope he and User:!! state their case calmly and without too much melodrama and I expect that their concerns will be addressed.--MONGO (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo, in my case I'd probably still have my head down, churning out articles and mainly avoiding policy, admin, and ArbCom discussion pages if an admin hadn't blatently lied in an RfA that I was undergoing, apparently without fear of accountability, and was supported in doing so by several other admins whose names appear frequently in visible process forums throughout the project. That's part of what we're talking about here. If content editors take time out from their article editing to make some noise about some unfair or unethical issues that we perceive as taking place in this project, then we're not "trolling" or "creating unnecessary drama". Instead, we're hoping someone will hear us and help address the issues that we raise and not sweep them under a rug. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
random edit point 01
I am not entirely sure what this thread is about but it seems like a pattern I rather find familiar. This comment is not aimed at any specific user or group and instead is a general remark.
There are two kinds of people on wikipedia:
The first kind is the ones that just love to pick fights and thats practically all they do. Sometimes they are labeled as trolls and dealt with accordingly and sometimes they are even given "medals". They are well known as they participate in any fight they can find. To simply put they are here simply and only to win arguments. They care not of this "great encyclopedia" thing.
The second kind is the ones that dedicate their time in helping us write an encyclopedia by writing articles, cleaning them up and etc. These people are often not well known since they generally avoid community wide discussions. Their contribution is hardly ever recognised and they do not really seek such a recognition anyways. To simply put such people are only here for "great encyclopedia".
It is critical to distinguish these two types of users. Lately I feel there is an increase in the first kind users I mentioned above. And the boundary between the two types of users is now more obscure than it has ever been. This area needs an urgent and serious amount of work if wikipedia community wishes to stay together. All past projects on the web have failed for inadequately addressing this problem.
Hi Jimbo. There has been a great deal of discussion at WT:RS about redirecting the page to the relevant section of Verifiability. User:Jossi and I have been pushing it forward and comments are largely in favour. The relevant links are this thread and surrounding, and this at the Village pump. This will be some what redundant with those two, but to summarize again:
That we use reliable sources is a matter of policy and thus should be described on a policy page. RS has never been policy and has never been stable, logical or well-written enough to become one. One of the great secrets of the P&Gs is that RS sucks (the content not the concept); people link to it, but nobody quotes from it because it has never produced canonical wording. It started out a sloppy and meandering fork, remained that way for a year-and-a-half, was forked again, and has been skeletal for the last twelve months, with little non-redundant material. There’s basically nothing to it at the moment, and as User:Askari Mark observed we’d be putting it out of its misery.
Duplicate descriptions of critical concepts are at best pointless and at worst dangerous. Why not have two canonical descriptions of reliable sources? If it’s word-for-word redundancy it’s just silly; if it’s different wording, it can lead to serious policy disagreements and confusion. For example, as of two weeks ago V listed mainstream newspapers as reliable sources, while RS suggested that they were of varying reliability and prone to error. Divergence of this sort is in no way healthy.
For Wikipedia’s purposes, verifiability cannot be defined without defining reliable sources. You have argued that reliable sources is "arguably a subset of verifiability." I would put it this way: while you might define reliable sources without mentioning verifiability, you cannot define verifiability without mentioning reliable sources. As one editor put it, what is verifiability but the state of being confirmed by reliable sources?
This is not a redoing of ATT. The central feature of that proposal was the merger of V and NOR and the rename. That’s not happening and RS is a different animal—again, not a policy and not created through official channels.
V is a good page: to-the-point, logical, and well-written. Making it clear that its section on sources is the primary one on Wikipedia will strengthen the policy. Of course, we don’t just rely on V. We might start a short FAQ based on some old RS material ("can I use this YouTube link?" etc.) and all of NOR, NPOV, and BLP further describe how reliable sources relate to their concepts.
Given what happened with ATT it’s obviously best to have you in the loop. People will be surprised to see the redirect but with a good rationale provided in advance, I think it will go down well; I realize that you might be leery of this given your ATT comments but I'm not sure if you're aware of how disfunctional the actual RS page is. It's had two-and-a-half years to produce good instruction, but hasn't. Will this simply move instability to V from RS? I don’t think so. It’s revert first and ask questions later on the main policies. As a last point, the two editors who have far and away made the most edits to RS—User:SlimVirgin and Jossi—are both strongly in favour of the redirect. That the people who work on the guideline don’t like it, is telling. Best, Marskell (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that Marskell said what a poor guideline RS has always been, I'd like to stress that I have lots of edits to it only in the interests of stopping it from getting even worse. :-) And yes, I do very much agree that we need the sourcing policy on one page, not spread over two, with RS sometimes saying the same as V (and yet just a guideline, whereas V is policy, even with the same content) and sometimes contradicting it. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to redirecting the page and losing the guideline page. It has been highly useful (for me and others) as a guideline. When I revert edits where people use dubious (or no sources), I will tell them "... source is not a reliable source" and point them to that page. Most people know what "reliable" means and don't even have to look at the page to understand why their changes were reverted. But, they can look at the page and understand what we mean by reliable sources, why it's important (with links to relevant policies), guidelines on what is a reliable source, link to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (where questions can be asked). This is not all appropriate on the policy page. I believe the concept of reliable sources is so important for Wikipedia that I cannot understand not having a page (a guideline) about it. --Aude (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This is probably for the best: a supporter and an opposer. I will only add what has been said to Aude already: everyone will still be perfectly free to type "... source is not a reliable source." We're not scrapping the redirect, obviously. What's good is that you'll be able to add "...because it is policy." No more of this needless schism. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The noticeboard is now linked from V. I'm worried about over-burdening Jimbo with so many comments... The redirects can easily be handled. Marskell (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Would like to suggest a need to distinguish policy, which needs to contain hard-and-fast rules applicable to all or nearly all situations, from guidelines, which contains rule that are usually true but admit occassional exceptions and require application to particular situations. I would suggest the 80-20 rule as a model for handling the distinction. Suggest thinking of policy as the 20% of rules that cover 80% of situations, guidelines help address the remainder. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Examples: As the debate over including sourcing in WP:NOR has illustrated, practices and even basic vocabulary vary widely from field to field and require care: in the sciences a "primary source" is a published paper in technical journal where scientists describe for the first time the inferences they have drawn from data, while in history a primary source is a document used by historians as input, and published papers containing historians' inferences are called "secondary sources". Some religions like Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism have individuals or groups generally regarded as authorities on key elements of doctrine and practice; other religions are much more decentralized and have much greater variety in commentators' opinions. Sources in technical fields are often written in inpenetrable jargon and writing for an general-interest encyclopedia involves translating into more language an ordinary user has a chance of understanding, but any translation is technically a synthesis. Sourcing requirements vary widely in different fields and many vital fields have special needs and special situations. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, In reply to your question, the reference was generally to the air of intrigue and over-excitement that we currently have in parts of the project, without any very specific references to persons. I should say I was completely unaware of all this at the time, and know nothing of your relations with Durova. Anyway, since metaphors from court life seem to come naturally to those discussing these matters - "god-king", "star-chamber" - "cabal" and so on, and our coverage of the historical topics is exceptionally poor (other than in biographies), I shall be plugging away on courtier, and similar topics like Alexandre Bontemps. I am not sure you have quite completed your transition to a Bicycle monarchy, but best luck in your efforts. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There is some discussion at Wikiquote over whether a quote attributed to you at Wikiquote:Nupedia can be verified. Can you confirm (and source) the quote on that page? (Note that the page itself is likely to be deleted, but the quote, if sourced, should be in your Wikiquote entry). Cheers! bd2412T23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I predict that as time goes by, the neutrality in articles with a constituency will decrease. I have been watching several. I believe more and more groups are organizing off-wiki to POV-push. I could give several examples, but I believe that you can easily find them. Articles on the historical accuracy of major religions, current US presidential candidates -- compare their neutrality with a few years ago, you'll see. What can be done about it? 77.249.7.132 (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See Tagging/deleting below. It complains about deleting an article about a commercial product that lacks independent sources. Deleting and tagging are among our responses to NPOV issues. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Software question
Were you the one to create the Wikipedia software, or did you simply supervise the creation of it?
Some backstory on this situation is that 99.131.128.52(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) made this edit [51]. It stated that he wanted to kill others and himself with a bomb. It was reported on AN/I and I took it upon myself to report it to authorities in the area of where the IP originated from in Richardson, Texas. After I reported it, I closed the discussion and it was archived a couple a days later.
I just now heard back from authorities and it appeared that the editor was using a network hub to edit from Chicago, Illinois. The resident of Chicago was contacted by the FBI, the issue was addressed and cleared.
I just wanted to know your position if it was proper or nessecary to go through this method when these kind of edits appear. Thank you. — Save_Us_22906:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
hi
I'd like yo uto know that after 4 years of contributing articles to wikipedia, ive given up. Why ? because of the over zealous deleting and reverting of others.
I went to a LOT of trouble to obtain for wikipedia previously unreleased images, some from the early 1850's of steam and oil engines. I tracked down a guy who owned the entire archive from a major UK engineering company that traded from 1840 to 1990. he gave me images that i placed in an article, and what happened? They all got deleted because wikipedia is now so paranoid about copyright its self destructing regarding images. The guy , who was the owner of the images, gave them to me with the words 'heres some you can use as you want', but despite my assertions, they were all deleted by the WP Copyright Police.
Well im done. I went to a lot of trouble to help wikipedia, just to have it throw away for nothing. there was no problem with the 8 images I obtained, but there most certainly is a problem with wikipedia when it turns its nose up at unreleased free images.
I'm sorry you have been emotionally wounded. Wikipedia wants images that are free to be copied, modified and sold by anyone for any purpose. That is what we mean by "free", as in a "free encyclopedia". Radical idea, huh? Well, that's what we are doing here. You can print out copies of pages of wikipedia and sell them if you wish. Cool, eh? Did the image owner give permission for anyone in the world to make copies and sell those images? I doubt it. So deleting those images was probably correct. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted here back in July, telling you that I would be having my advanced English-as-a-foreign-language students from ITESM Campus Toluca work on Wikipedia as the focus of the course. Well, that course has ended and it went pretty well. Well enough that 1/3 of my students has 20-point gains or more in their pre and post TOEFL scores. Not too shabby! You can see a list of articles that they contributed at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca. Add to that list Toluca and State of Mexico which were much improved over the course of the semester.
Guess what.... they want me to do a similar course in the spring, but this time with teachers what work here at ITESM. Im already begging for "mentors" to help with this new batch of possble WP hatchlings....Thelmadatter (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
About an article
Im not one to complain alot but one article Black humor has been having alot of controversy about the name and alot of us want to like vote to have the name changed to dark humor so can you help me. The Panther (click to talk)
It used to be that people obtained status by writing articles. That's now turned around and people compete for most deletions. Comments you might consider here:
See the "prediction" section above. It complains about POV pushing. Deleting and tagging are among our responses to NPOV issues. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither of these was considered a violation of NPOV. The first (a user designed game, not a commercial product) was deleted as not notable, though it is on Wikia now and the second is a historical article. See also Grue_(monster) which is likely be deleted. Keith Henson (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I type really really fast. ;-) (This is a joke which means that I did not create much of anything. I just got a lot of wonderful people excited, and they created it all...) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Typing fast without typos really is an achievement! And getting people to do things for you is the art of good management, indeed your talent has been to get so many people to work voluntarily on building the project. Thanks, SqueakBox20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Stir-fried wikipedia on menu in Beijing
Just in case a thousand people haven't already mentioned this here:
I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you founder of the project. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales thank you for the kind words. If you would like to take a look at the resolution which mentions Wikipedia you may see it here: Press Releases. I was wondering if this is the first time that a government honors a person for his work in Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no expertise to be able to properly judge the matter. It does sound like there is a problem, though. Whether closure is the right solution, or a splitting into multiple wikipedias for the different languages or dialects, I do not know. I am generally opposed to excessive creation of "dialect" wikipedias. Please ask Frieda to take a look, as she lives in Northern Italy and is a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation. Her opinion would mean a lot to me.--Jimbo Wales18:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Jimmy. I used to see you on the alt.philosophy.objectivism group years ago, liked your independence then, and am of course happy for all your success with Wikipedia and your other projects.
I've done minor edits here for years, but I have just been going through admin hell here for the first time and have found it very frustrating - lots of rule quoting, rule-making-up, and pettiness - and it must go on thousands of times a day. It really made me wonder, given what I know about your intellect - do you ever worry that you may have helped start the world's largest subjectivst committee meeting? I really am curious - all the best. LeeStranahan20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this the kind of article that Wikipedia should be having?
A young woman whos only 'notability' is that she's most likely been murdered. So much for do no harm, what possible benefit is this to an encyclopedia?
Just because the media choose to focus on the fact that whilst at college she did some nude modelling, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should do so too. Even the police say her modelling isn't connected to her death, give the deceased some dignity and let's not victimise her all over again.
Admin notice - without getting involved in this debate, I would just like to remind people that it is bad form to delete someone else's comments without their consent. Disagree by all means, but play fair regardless. Manning02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Manning for restoring my comments, this article is just something I feel strongly about. RMHED03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that RHMED. But in all fairness, appealing to Jimbo is a *bit* 'over the top'. I restored your comments because it is bad form to delete the comments of someone else. However in my opinion, you might want to consider deleting the whole thing, as it really isn't a good look. But keep your chin up. Cheers Manning03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
