Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Not too happy

Jimbo, what's the deal with "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person" (courtesy delete as part of negotiation with individual admins, you know where to find this if you need it)"

What individual admins? I have been tracking this person since day one, and its been a headache. I'm not very happy to be out of the loop. I also don't have a place to post new articles attacked, which is important. My email is enabled if you want to tell me what the heck is going on.

He's made fools of admins in the past. I don't know if this guy is mesmerizing or what, but I would assume that nothing he says is necessarily true. Whatever kind of deal you've go going down, I am sure that it will only work if backed by meatspace force.

Remember, this guy has vowed to track me down and destroy me. This guy has posted on his web site a method of exploiting a flaw in Wikipedia's software to do serious damage to Wikipedia. This guy has made legal threats. This guy has caused a lot of headaches generally. How much "courtesy" does this guy deserve? There is no personal information on this person contained on the page you deleted. Herostratus 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo: I wish you luck in negotiating with this difficult person. Ultimately it would help us if he would just stop the vandalism, malicious personal attacks, and threats. He reserves his most violent personal attacks for those who have tried to reason with him gently, which is ... interesting. Yet: do what is right for Wikipedia. I paraphrase Sun Tzu, "the highest form of victory is to accomplish your aim without fighting." Good luck to you, and let me know if I can help. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Per your reply - Ah, I see, OK then. Best of luck. Herostratus 01:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


In the news

My first authentic Jimbo message. Delightful :)

Anyway, thought I'd give you a heads up about this straw poll which concerns a possible name change for "In the news." There's been a bit of ongoing harrumping over what ITN is for, particularly with reference to the Encyclopedia/Newsticker divide (the most recent flare up concerned the World Cup), and while thankfully it hasn't become any kind of a major brushfire, it's been mooted a few times that a section rename might be a good proactive step to clear the air for the next time. A rename might more accurately encapsulate how the section has evolved to operate and better rationalize why exactly an encyclopedia has something that looks cursorily like a newsticker from Google or something.

Needless to say, if you cared to weight in your feedback would be greatly appreciated. The Tom 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-governing community based on consensus

.. doesn't work Jimbo. In my comment above, I noted that there are no effective measures that would prevent the admins from misusing their powers, no "internal investigation". Moreover, you cannot expect the community to stick toghether, if there is a sub-group that has more power. This sub-group will stick together, it would in any environment. This doesn't get to its extremes here, because it is a virtual community and most people don't see the sense of their lifes in wikipedia, and the effects of "fighting for power" are therefore mitigated. In a real community based on this model, disputes would lead to estabilishment of parties, which would fight for power and the leaders of the winning party would eventually become dictators of this previously consensus-driven community. My point is, consensus might be a good way to resolve content disputes of the articles, it is, however, not a good way to govern a community. 85.70.5.66 08:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm thinking of Lord of the Flies. Or as Yeats said
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
--Eggman64 09:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Or as Leonard Cohen said,
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in...
— Jul. 8, '06 [14:05] <freak|talk>

Lord of the flies it ain't. More like Skull and Bones, Adolf Hitler's takeover of the German Nazi party or Joseph Stalin all rolled into one. Anarchy, real anarchy or at least a transparant government is what we need here. 66.218.22.4 07:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help me

This person: user:improv keeps on changing my atricle on Samrat Upadhyay. Is he an editor? Please tell me how can I improve and maintain the wiki standard. I want to be a proper contributor. Give me an idea about what to include and what not to.--Nepal avish 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Brians Peppers

Why did you delete all the pages on Brian Peppers? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepdog tx (talk • contribs) 15:06, July 4, 2006

His family requested it. They were upset by the satyrical fame their son had achieved on the internet.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that is not the reason. The reason is that the page was properly deleted by a proper AfD, and then brought back multiple times, resulting in what looked to me like a brewing war over it. I decided that it was really quite unimportant as a topic, and that the principle that AfD should be respected was more important. --Jimbo Wales 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy, that makes sence in itself, but the sentiment of respecting Brian Peppers family is a much more important one as far as humanitarianism is concerned. Old friend 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you make it into a links page to Brian Peppers articles on other wikis. DyslexicEditor 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you leave it the way it is: {{deletedpage}}. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's images like this Image:Toby-peppers.png on wikipedia. This one looks 9 months old. DyslexicEditor 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Until quite recently, unfortunately, the Peppers thing was kept alive on the talk page. I deleted the talk page and this was then taken to Deletion review. The deletion was supported in the review. So we really do as a community agree with Jimbo's action. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of the article's AfD, I only knew of its most recent deletion. Sorry about the incorrect response.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Administrators abusing with article Angel Rada

Many venezuelans and Southamerican knew the work of the ethnosonics and electronic musicians, vanguard musicians doesn`t work at the normal celebrity of music , they art is another sphere or atges , please do a revision of Angel Rada Bio , try to do with neutrality it you want some data write me to transmillenium@gmx.net or avrmusic@yahoo.com his record label --200.8.35.108 15:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Anittas

Thanks for taking the time to fully explain this situation on my usertalk page. All I said in my comment on User:Xed's page was that I thought something weird was going on... meaning something needing further explanation. Like I said above, thanks for taking the time to exlain it. Whatever problems I think Wikipedia might have, I deffinitely do agree with your overall goals, and obviously think thet you have wikipedia's best interest at heart. Easter rising 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, WP:NOT, and Real time strategy games

Hello Jimbo. I feel funny barging in here like this, but I have a question about WP:NOT and its implications to some pages I wrote as they pertain to gaming. On Wikipedia it is not uncommon to find article dealing with games, and most games have extra pages covering characters and equipment and such. Overall, the pages do not seem to bump up against policy here, so I decided to be bold and overhauled a bunch of paes relating to the real-time strategy game Command & Conquer and one of its off shoots, Command & Conquer: Generals. Among other things I created a listing of all the units that appeared in the games, but I was careful to omit the cost, prerequists, and specific uses of the units so that anyone reading up on the material would have to go elsewhere to find that information (its usually presented in a game guide, which we are not allowed to have here). Since then however admins have listed the material on AFD, claiming that the info presented is a violation of WP:NOT by presenting a game manual and a how to guide. I take offense to that for two reasons: first, I have not told anybody how to do anything. There are no strategy guides, no walkthroughs, nothing of that nature on the pages. Secondly, the information is encyclopedic, as it cover the evolution of the units and strucutres throughout the series. In the case of the units other contributers have even added real to life inspirations for such vehicals.

Ordinarly I would not bother you about this, but I do feel that the pages have encyclopedic value here. I am also concerned about the presedent that this raises, as the admins have vowed to begin a mass deletion campaign against article in the Warcraft and StarCraft universe when these article are finished. I am not asking you to vote on the AFD (although if you want to that would be awesome), but I would like your two cents on the matter. Since you founded the site, I figure that you understand better than anyone what should and should not be allowed here. TomStar81 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The real standard in question here concerns the inclusion of minutia from fictional worlds. It seems to me that many people have a bias against the kinds of fictional worlds found in most games, where characters, places, and objects have a kind of auto-generated feel to them rather than a human touch (take World of Warcraft for an example). The fact is that lots of this stuff -- for very complex reasons contemplated only by bleeding-edge literary critics and their ilk -- develops meaning for thousands of not millions of people, whether or not they exhibit much authorial care in their origins. It is almost certainly material of concern to only a subculture, but it would be injudicious to hold that against games and not other subjects. --Apantomimehorse 03:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


The Psychology Wiki

Hi Jim,

I started using Wikipedia about 18 months ago, mainly because I am a poor Psychology Student and couldn't afford all the textbooks for my course. I've since started editing wikipedia and am now an Admin on the Psychology Wiki. I don't know if you are aware of us or not, we are the 5th largest Wikia by size/content, but we really need more contributors. Was hoping you could check us out, see what you think, and maybe mention us.

I completely agree with your vision of free knowledge, as does the founder of the Psychology Wiki: Lifeartist. Spreading the knowledge of Psychology and making it an integrated science, for free, to improve society is our goal.

Here is the post I put on the featured wikia nominations page today:

The Psychology Wiki.

I feel that the Psychology Wiki is in need of some promotion. We are a large wiki in terms of content but small in terms of contributors. We have various plans to promote ourselves through wikipedia, and through psychology on and off the internet, but some more promotion amongst people already familiar with Wiki editing would be very advantageous.

I think that we are perhaps a more serious and knowledge orientated Wiki in comparison with the many fan based Wikis here. Not that I'm knocking those wikis though; the Muppet Wiki rocks!

The Psychology Wiki differs from Wikipedia psychology articles in that:

  • 1) It is intended to contain all of the discipline of psychology, like a giant meta-textbook, rather than an Encyclopedia.
  • 2) It will therefore go into much greater technical detail than one would have in an encyclopedia. It will have full academic referencing.
  • 3) It will have user experiences relating to psychology issues on seperate user pages, protected by admins, allowing POV to be expressed on these pages only. The rest of the wiki is NPOV, but expression of personal experience is nessesary and desireable on our wiki.
  • 4) It will have course content pages from academic and clinical courses with links to internal wiki articles.
  • 5) It will be a place for researchers to discuss latest papers etc...

We just need more contributors to make it work! Mostly Zen 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PS All wiki editors should be aware of the psychological phenomena of Social Loafing. It effects new Wikis with few contributors especially.

Wikia.com should not be spammed on Wikipedia. Wikia is for profit. Wikipedia is not for profit. Please don't compromise the legal standing of Wikipedia as a nonprofit charity organization. WAS 4.250 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


As the a few of the posts here demonstrate...

The current 'entry points' for new readers/editors are in disarray. In particular, the necessary materials for learning mediawiki (beyond the basics, at least) is scattered across media.wikimedia.org, www.mediawiki.org, and the various wikis. I think some executive butt-kicking (or massaging, perhaps) is needed in this area. For starters, I would say there needs to be a clear seperation between learning:

  • policy, guildlines, practices, organization
  • mediawiki wikitext

In particular, these two sections need to be both distinctly split into material for new/casual editors and for dedicated editors. While lots of material already reflects this division, there's too many random entry and exit points to and from these materials. What's really needed is more narrative cohesion for (and delineation between) these use cases:

  • 'I want to learn just enough to get started and make heads and tails of this thing.'
  • 'I want to get involved in the community and make contact; how do Wikipedeans communicate?'
  • 'I want to read and discuss the community guildlines, policies, and practices.'
  • 'I want to learn everything about mediawiki so I understand everything I look at, and so I can use best-practices, markup-wise.'

(Perhaps you can think of another.) As it is, the help material is too ad hoc.

Currently, I'm working on a video which teaches complete mediwiki because I think video an easier to digest medium compared to text. Still, I'd also like to work on the Help pages myself, except the root Help materials are edit blocked. Whom should I talk to about these intro materials? Thanks. --Apantomimehorse 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Find a page that you think is relevant to your concerns and discuss your concerns on its talk page. WAS 4.250 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose Help Talk is more appropriate than here (and seems I was wrong about Help being protected), so I'll take this up there, but my general point is that the whole of the Help system is quite out of whack, and I think it needs special executive-level (or perhaps cabal-level) attention, for the learning curve of mediawiki and the wikipedia has steepened. Spiderweb graphs of information are a fine way to present the whole of everything (as an encylopedia does), but they're not fun to encounter for people trying to learn a whole subject matter. Such information needs to be quite rigoursly hierarchical with a strong avoidance of redundancies. --Apantomimehorse 05:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Disguating

After 2 month of deliberation anyone looking for Apartheid in Wikipedia is refred to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_%28disambiguation%29

This page still refer people to various accusations that are used by political propeganda distributors who took advantage of Wikipedia popularity to propegante their message of political terms such as "Islamic Apartheid" and "Israeli Apartheid".

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the only apartheid known so far is the one in South Africa. Zeq 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms you mention are used by people in the world and therefore are legitimate (short) articles, e.g. "Israeli Apartheid is a term used by critics of Israel to refer to the situation of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict." Maybe the terms don't justify the length of even a short article, though. Still, if I entered 'Israeli Apartheid' into Wikipedia search, I'd want to find out what it means. --Apantomimehorse 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a big difference between explaning "what it is" and "who use it for what" and the blant turning of wikipedia to what it is wp:not. The violation of wp:not is what disgusting. Zeq 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment that was originally placed '

There is a cabal, the blocks issued by admins are often punitive, not preventive, and are not issued for disruptions of the main article space, but merely for offensive behavior in talkpages, which is only subjectively perceived and could easily be ignored. The blocks are usually not reverted because the admins stick together. Either the ArbCom shloud work better, or the community should be given the rights to desysop the admin and the policy for desysopping should be more strict. This concept of community where all are equal doesn't work, because you have the cops here (admins), who are more equal, they have their own "admin" community, but you have no functioning "internal investigation department" i.e. cophunters, who would pursue the admins for misuse of their powers, and the editors are not able to deal with the admin cabal. 85.70.5.66 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Please don't consider this vandalism. I have placed an argument here, I know it will be deleted, but the owner of the page already stated that we may edit his page.
Dear 85.70.5.66, Here Here! You are 100% right on, totally correct. Excellent observation. If only Wikipedia had a transparent government with no bullshit going on. If only this really was the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'. The internet might be a better place for it. Then it would be something that does make the internet not suck. But as it is, it only adds to the suckiness of the internet. It only adds to the tons of propagandistic, demeaning, mind controlling advertisement-oriented crap that the world wide web has become.

And if we don't fight against it..

It will only get worse. And worse. And worse. 66.218.22.10 06:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ps This is also a constructive criticism made by a person who once loved Wikipedia and would like to be able to love it again. 66.218.22.10 06:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly anons! Everybody knows there's a cabal! You can find it here and here. --Banana04131 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Is 67.119.194.1 your IP Address?

I just saw in the history section of Jimmy Wales that 67.119.194.1 was appearing the most. Is that your IP when you're not logged in? --Pronoun 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's really funny. No, of course that is not me. That is the ip number of a banned user who has been harassing me.--Jimbo Wales 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable username

Just came across an account by the name of Nropsevolselawobmij (i.e. 'Jimbo Wales loves porn', spelled backwards); this looks to me to be against the username policy, but seeing as it's your name I'll leave it to you to decide whether to act on that. --Calair 04:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How Can I Find OUt If An Article I Started Got Deleted?

The heading says it all? Can anyone help me . . . if so could you post it on my user talk page . . ? Thanks! --Josh, user:POLLUX 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC) -reply on talk page --Banana04131 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


A compliment

I think I have just been paid a compliment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ste4k&diff=prev&oldid=63508109

Ste4k 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Xed

Since you've twice unblocked this user ("he asked nicely") I was wondering whether you had any objection to an indefinite block in light of his (recently removed) trolling on this very page. Thanks. — Jul. 7, '06 [14:09] <freak|talk>

I would prefer that if this were to be done, it be done through the ArbCom rather than unilaterally. I don't need protection from him. In my opinion, his rhetoric is transparently trolling and therefore it is best to let him speak as much as he likes... he proves a better point left free to harass me than if blocked. If he is abusing other people, then that is a different matter of course. But I am not concerned about Xed.

I am also a hopeless romantic. I imagine that someday he will realize that there is a better way to address some of his legitimate concerns (systemic bias, etc.) than to go around making preposterous and transparently silly arguments about my alleged corruption. --Jimbo Wales 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it looked like this Xed chap just gets too carried away with what he describes as legitimate critisim and comments. It's a wiki and there's no tolerance for trollish behavior such as that. I recommend forebearance and, if the block log gets too cluttered with such offenses, just quietly block them indefinitely with an summary such as "Exhausted the communities patience through idiotic trolling and is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia." -Randall Brackett 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, he has already exhausted the patience of everyone except for me, I am afraid. This has been going on for years. I do not think it really makes sense to call his behavior "just getting too carried away". He posts things which are really outrageous and based on falsehood, things that he knows (or has had every opportunity to know) are falsehoods, with the express purpose, as far as I can tell, of getting himself banned so that he can cry about the injustive of it all. Of late, he has been repeating the same tired story over and over, a story which is not true. Here is my summary of the situation: [1]--Jimbo Wales 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to the blocking policy, "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process." I'm sure you're aware of this. The growing support for this community block is located here. Just thought you should know, if you already didn't. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I support this block. This editor states blatent lies, defamation of character and consistently violates his arbcom ruling. We should not have to tolerate this nonsense. He's an obvious indefinite block canidate. This is a good block.-Randall Brackett 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just say that Xed is a annoying personality with delusions of grandeur. I do not think he will ever contribute positively to the encyclopedia, he is just a strange person that seems to get pleasure by attempting to push other people's button and then accuse them of being a part of a grand conspiracy against him. I understand that Jimbo unblocked him to underscore the silliness of Xed's accusations against him in particular, but I think it was the wrong thing to do on Jimbo's part since Xed's "campaign" against Mr. Wales was only one miniscule part of the years of negative behavior.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't he already contributed positively? Everyking 08:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he has made a couple of okay contributions, but this is canceled out many fold by his other actions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Jimbo Power

When you made the notice about the SMS.ac article. There was a frenzy to improve it. You must be a pretty well know Wikipedian :) Nookdog 03:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I should be nicer to the people doing it. I am on a bit of a tear lately about improving the quality of such articles.--Jimbo Wales 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you don't want a powerful company to get "Upset" ;) Nookdog 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (wow I got to talk with Jimbo:)
What powerful company?--Jimbo Wales 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, SMS.ac Inc. Nookdog 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I just joined Campaigns Wikia. It seems to suite my interests very nicely, and I hope to be a part of it. Nookdog 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am not worried about SMS.ac. What I care about is quality. I treat all complaints the same way.--Jimbo Wales 03:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Nookdog 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo Wales! Kind of new here so i'm just dropping by.--ThanosMadTitan23 06:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brandy Alexandre real name and edit

I understand your point, and won't contest it. I'll plead we had good intentions, but know what road is paved with those. :-) I apologize, and will try to be more careful in the future.

However, if you will take a look at the diff of your revert edit, I think you will see that you didn't do what you probably wanted. The edit did 4 things:

  1. restored a now out-of-context comment
  2. removed her date of birth from the box (while leaving it in the article text, and, as far as I understand, it is not controversial)
  3. removed her Forest Lawn experience (which is reported in several of the cited reference sources)
  4. restored a now out-of-context link to Amazon policy

All this did not affect her real name, which, presumably you wanted to remove. The name wasn't on the page when you edited; when it became an issue, it was not put back.

I'm asking to avoid getting in more trouble. Am I correct that you did not intend to do those things? AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I just went back to her last version, which I assumed was fine with hers... I did not study it closely. Probably you can do a much better job that I did. :) --Jimbo Wales 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed. Will try to avoid further trouble for at least the next five minutes. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims?

You may want to be aware that some editors are now selecting portals for possible deletion on the grounds that a portal has not been given prior approval: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thinking. Concern has been raised that this portal approval process does not have the wide consensus it appears to claim. The self-appointed group make users wait a week for their approval. SilkTork 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

was this comment on my talk page directed towards me?

Is this comment [2] directed towards me? If so, I'm confused. I've made maximum effort to source all new material added to the article SMS.ac. Themindset 07:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I will pay closer attention. Since this IP is commonly making white-wash edits (as well as blanking pages, adding bad-faith speedy tags, etc.) I have not always given its edits the fullest attention. I apologize for my sloppiness. Themindset 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If I haven't been clear, I was reverting the IPs edits, I did not write the content you were asking me about (but I reaffirm my intention to pay closer attention when I perform such actions). Themindset 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Anti-Credentialism

Mr. Wales: I have read about your ideas about anti-credentialism, and how you feel that anyone should be able to contribute knowledge, etc. I agree that Wikipedia is a wonderful idea. It is commendable to want to allow everyone access to the sum of all human knowledge. However, until the words of certified experts are acknowledged and encouraged, I don't know if this great experiment will be truly successful. To often I see people with the correct knowledge have their edits reverted because of a clique didn't want the article to say it or it didn't follow "consensus." Sometimes the group is simply wrong. I really enjoy the site and participating, but until these issues are addressed, I refuse to use this site for anything besides keeping up whats happening on my favorite TV shows and Comic Books. If I am incorrect about any aspect of your philsophy regarding Wikipedia, please correct me. Thanks.--Wakefencer 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Stifle's unilateral indef block

Jimbo,

I need your opinion. The result of Arbcom's examination into Jason Gastrich's behavior was a 1 year ban. However, User:Stifle has taken it upon himself to extend that to an indef block. I find this very odd and even inappropriate.

Here is the link that he cited, in his defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive39#Jason_Gastrich . Please examine the situation and give your input. An indef block is VERY serious and it seems that Stifle has taken it upon himself to perform one, after Arbcom made an alternate ruling.

Regards, Martian Man4 08:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Stifle put his indef block up for review on AN/I, where it was unanimously endorsed. Powers 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Admins love idefinite blocks. Not 10 years, not 100, not 10000000000000000, but for eternity!!! An indefinite block is like saying to a user, "Make a new account," and they do. DyslexicEditor 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgent - For Your Eyes, Sir

Dear Jimbo Wales. I think that “this” Proposed Guidelines for Editing Freemasonry Related Articles must come direct to you – as Admin seen unwilling to look objectively at it. If you want to “Block” me as a “Sock” as well, then go ahead, but I think the issue stands on its own. Thanks for your time, in good faith for the Wiki project, My 42 is in (Base 13) 22:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for help from 14 year old user

I think this goes beyond admin responsibility and needs to be looked at by OFFICE. The following is copied from Administrators Noticeboard. Tyrenius 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, I have a suggestion

While on Wikipedia, I have noticed, due to technical resctrictions, that articles starting with lowercase letters must be changed to start with capitals. Now, I am sure someone else has suggested this, can't you simply have that word not the beggining of the title? For example, you may IPod to Apple iPod, and Imac to Apple iMac. You can have EBay as WWW.eBay.COM, or something even. -Ravi 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm...why not change the Wikimedia Software so it lets you have lowercase titles? Wouldn't that be a better solution? --67.142.130.46 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In your biography, you have a spelling error in this line:

"In 1994, Wales went on to became the Research Director at"

"became" should be "become".


A short little question

Hey Jimbo. Before I say I say anything, this is one fine website you got here. :) Okay, the question. Well, on your infobox, you have three userboxes. I thought it would be a good idea to put some userboxes in my infobox. However, when I did get around to doing it, all of my ID box content was shifted up, so it wasn't centered, and it created a thick grey line between the info and ID content. Can you tell me why? And, if it's not to much trouble, can you tell me how to fix it so the ID content is centered? Because right now, it looks less than fabulous. Check out my userpage so you can see what I'm talking about. [3] Thanx for reading, Jimbo. Scrumshus 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry if I have seemed harsh.

The quote I took the line from was "At least a handful of consumers, however, have complained on the Internet and in the mainstream press that SMS.ac has charged them for services they never asked for, making that billing relationship into potentially its greatest liability", which is in the cited article, and I added the statement "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." Perhaps the words "supposedly 'free'" were not the best choice here; if some other part of my edit was what you are referring to, please tell me.
The current wording (revision 63682487) is better still. As you know, it is only by working on the article that we will get it to the best version. However, as I have already erred enough to provoke two callings-on-the-carpet from yourself, as of now I will cease to edit that article entirely. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice how very different the two lines are. "A handful of customers" complaining becomes "Phone users are often billed"... this makes at least two errors... one of numbers, and one of accepting the allegations of a few customers as fact. Another major error, which you have identified yourself, is that somehow "charged for services they never asked for" becomes an implication that the services were "supposedly free". It is this kind of reaching beyond what the source tells us, in order to reach a POV conclusion, that should never happen.--Jimbo Wales 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've stopped editing the article because I am unable to maintain neutrality on it due to my own strong POV, and this is preferable to any other outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


You know

.. you should actually sometimes create some other nick, try editing some pages with a newbie/not so NPOV style and you will see how you'll get bitten. After you get bitten, go to some WP talkpage and propose a new, maybe a little bit stupid policy, for instance, strip admins of some of their priviledges. You will be lucky if you don't get blocked. Azmoc 14:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SMS.ac

You wrote "The site allows members to easily send spam SMS and email messages." That is an extremely bold claim which, if false, could subject you to legal action for libel. You may want to consider making a claim that you know 100% to be true and defensible in court. I would recommend something like "The site allows members to easily send SMS and email messages that some ciritics have characterized as 'spam'. (exact reference, exact reference, etc.)"--Jimbo Wales 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Jimbo left me a message. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Err... anyway, yes, it was not exactly safe. How's this? Stifle (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stifle,

This edit is one I would like you to study, and then discuss with me. I went to the source article to try to find direct textual support for the claim that "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." I did not find that evidence, because the article nowhere makes that claim. I did find evidence that the edit by the SMS.ac ip number was accurate and fair, i.e., it was a direct quote of the core negative statement on that matter in the article.

This is exactly the sort of sloppiness that I think Wikipedians should avoid. (The edit in question is someone else reverting to your version, but if I read the history correctly, you are the one who wrote it in the first place.) --Jimbo Wales 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote I took the line from was "At least a handful of consumers, however, have complained on the Internet and in the mainstream press that SMS.ac has charged them for services they never asked for, making that billing relationship into potentially its greatest liability", which is in the cited article, and I added the statement "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." Perhaps the words "supposedly 'free'" were not the best choice here; if some other part of my edit was what you are referring to, please tell me.
The current wording (revision 63682487) is better still. As you know, it is only by working on the article that we will get it to the best version. However, as I have already erred enough to provoke two callings-on-the-carpet from yourself, as of now I will cease to edit that article entirely. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Was removed as "unsourced vitriol". Cheers!--Kchase T 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Sanyo MM7500

I'm impressed with the quality of the photos you've been able to get out of a 1.3 megapixel camera phone. I have a similar camera on my HTC Apache, but the quality that I'm getting is nowhere near what you've posted on your flickr site. What's your secret? :-) —Viriditas | Talk 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I try to delete the crappy ones. Second, light light light. The camera performs poorly in the dark. For example. My phone has a little "flash" on it... really just a sort of bright LED that somewhat sucks but is better than nothing. I use this pretty much all the time unless I am really in broad daylight or the subject is too far away for it to matter.--Jimbo Wales 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'm looking forward to seeing more of your photos. Your comment about broad daylight seems to have hit home, as that is the main problem that I'm having. —Viriditas | Talk 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


C-class bios

Well, you may want to contact WikiProject Biography, as they're the ones who made the assessment. Also, it was assessed by the WikiProject using this scale, which uses a distributed rating system to help push things along for the mythical 1.0... Titoxd(?!?) 20:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Foodsnacks

I've got some extra foodsnacks, and I was wondering if they'd be any use to WikiMedia foundation. Take it easy! --Steve-o 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Fan Mail

I think wikipedia is great and I thank you for creating it and holding well to the standards. It is sort of a miracle and makes me pleased to acknowledge that I am in the same species as so many other human beings -- even those I do not agree with. Thanks again. --Blue Tie 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


9th archive

Hi Jimbo! I created a 9th archive for your talk page. Just letting you know. —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear Sir

Dear Sir,

I would like to bring to your attention what I consider heavy handedness on the part of an administrator. Please reference the discussion in relationship to myself and SCEhardT The dispute relates to my uploading an image, a mistake I admit but as I explained to the administrator a light-hearted yet admittedly misguided attempt to add some levity to a topic others were becoming too serious and combative about. In response I received an aggressive message on my talk page threatening me with blocking and the direction not to remove said message. I went ahead and did so as I believed a more civil response was approriate and made this clear to said admin. But again I received an even more aggressive uncivil message. It is unacceptable for Administrators to act in this way. Their intentions may be good but their arrogant attitude is ridiculous. I do not want to be blocked merely on the whim of an administrator who decided to take an overly aggressive response to my actions. Thank-you for your time.

AntonioBu 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


stuff copied to my talk page

Thx, I had already read it over on Nagle's page. Was there something you wanted me to come away with? I invite you to watch the ongoing article over at SMS.AC, basically all the wikipedians are contributing, but the IP address is rephrasing absolutely everything to suit his/her own desires. I'm doing my best to write absolutely sourced neutral info, but the IP is constantly distorting the criticism section so it doesn't even seem like criticism at all... it's frustrating. Themindset 07:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mission Statement for Psychology Wiki

Gil suggested we write this and I thought you might like to read it. Our Vision

Mostly Zen 18:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

It appears not. At least one of your administrators, ChrisO, categorically rejects the opinions of those who edit under an IP code only, as though they're second class users (regardless of the fact that most 'registered' users are entirely anonymous to us all).

In fact I support the comment up this page that you have anarchy here, largely because editors/administrators on the broad Left have an extremely clear agenda, however much they try to dress it up.

Look at the catalogue of well-known UK traditional conservatives who have been deleted in a concerted campaign: Dr.Mark Mayall, Andrew V R Smith, Stuart Millson, Sam Swerling, Anthony Murphy, to name but a few. Every imaginable excuse has been raised by 'the gang' in this campaign. What hope for a balanced set of biograpies right across the political spectrum on Wikipedia. I think the very least you could do is to place a template on the Wikipedia Home Page telling editors not to waste their time researching and writing articles which The Left are opposed to because they will he deleted. Is there any real control or is Wikipedia firmly in the hands of The Left? 81.131.11.32 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not controlled by any single point of view. The information it contains is based on the knowledge and interests of those who are motivated to contribute. Some might be motivated from "leftist" type motivations like those Christ promoted - love, share, forgive. Others might be paid by sponsors (CIA, GM, anyone with money who sees wikipedia as just another propaganda opportunity). This might provide a rightwing slant as the rightwing is the group with money. Some might just like to show off what they know. Some might get an emotional high from sharing knowledge. Some might get off pushing others around. Some might be here to find friends (but we are not myspace). We are simply too open to be controlled by any one faction. WAS 4.250 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
But small spaces can be controlled by a group of "meat puppets". I think that is the accusation here. --Blue Tie 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The solution is to broaden the franchise then, via RfC or other appeals to neutral editors. Of course, there have been equal complaints that a consortium of right-wing editors have been censoring negative material relating to their own. This indicates that there is probably an overall balance, but localised problems. Tyrenius 08:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

An lengthy examination of numerous articles (including those now deleted) will show determined efforts by User:HOTR to demonise and/or delete UK right-wing conservative profiles/articles, several of which were seriously well-researched and sourced by people in the UK. It is slightly barmy to suggest that someone has been paid to write up these various articles on the UK Tory Right. It was a gap in Wikipedia which needed to be filled, was researched and written up. People are spending hours of their private time and work to see it destroyed by him and a handful of others whose comments have clearly displayed their absolute bias. So I for one cannot agree with your analysis. Maybe its just a bit of wishful thinking. 213.122.27.106 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This is not the whole story here. The vast majority of articles on these allegedly prominant right wing activists contained information which could only have been known to the subjects themselves. The main content of these articles was devoted to letters which they had had published in the Daily Telegraph or other such newspapers over the past 20 years, dinner invitations they had recieved, name-dropping (one article pointed out that that the subject had once sat next to Jeffrey Archer in a church service) and pointless genological details describing 'distinguished' members of their ancestry in great and tedious detail. On one occassion Mike Keith Smith, who had his article deleted on the grounds of non-notability, started going on administrators talkpages begging to have it put back on - hardly a ringing endorsement of his fame! Most seriously of all the article on Gregory Lauder Frost contained a glaring inaccuracy, a blatent lie, in that it stated that Mr Lauder Frost had been cleared of a theft charge when in fact he had been found guilty and jailed for two years. Lauder Frost is now attempting to sue both Wikipedia and myself for correcting this anomaly claiming that we are in breach of his human rights--Edchilvers 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone above said, "Others might be paid by sponsors (CIA, GM, anyone with money who sees wikipedia as just another propaganda opportunity)." I have proof of this, particulary people from the CIA, including an administrator. Unfortunately, I cannot give proof here because that would be naming names and the people involved would twist it into a personal attack. So basically, I'm not citing anyone, I'm just saying there are people (including admins) who are paid people from organizations. It should not be surprising either. If anyone is picky about this post for me saying who it is upon ask, basically I won't name them on my talk page if asked. So I'm not naming anyone. I'm just saying that I know of many people who are paid to put propaganda including admins (mostly I know of ones from the US Government). To paid people, please don't remove this, I will not tell who you are. Miosncgioa 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that people look at my comments at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson 2, which I note the complainant has avoided linking to. The vast majority of the "keep" votes in the original vote came from newly registered and anonymous users, and there was evidence that partisans of both sides were using their respective bulletin boards to "get out the vote" on related articles. It should go without saying that votes for deletion should be based on the Wikipedia deletion policy, not on partisan identification. AFD has enough problems without it being manipulated by meatpuppets. See WP:SOCK#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets for policy on the issue.

I should also point out that there were serious problems with several of the articles in question. This resulted in community decisions to delete them ([4], [5], [6]). In particular, the anonymous proponents of these articles have consistently failed to demonstrate that the subjects are notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They've also failed to apply the verifiability guidelines, adding a lot of information that is both trivial and apparently based on personal knowledge (such as who had dinner with whom and when). The whining about "left-wing conspiracies" is misplaced - if articles don't meet Wikipedia's basic standards for inclusion then they shouldn't be included, whichever side of the political spectrum they relate to. -- ChrisO 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs

I noticed that you recently PROD'd Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. I ask this as a straightforward and not as a rhetorical question: what is the best location to collect and organize all userboxes, if not Wikipedia:Userboxes? My understanding of GUS was that now that we're not cluttering template space, those of us who think that userboxes are necessary to NPOV would be allowed to maintain an organized userbox library, as we were before. (P.S. If Cyde or someone other than Jimbo who knows what (s)he's talking about wants to reply, that's fine. I don't need an answer from Jimbo per se, I just need an official answer so that I can go about my business knowing that the debate is over and done with).--M@rēino 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Userboxes are necessary to NPOV"? That's an extremely bizarre notion. More like "Userboxes are a very strong indicator that the person wearing them as badges of pride have no interest in, nor understanding of, NPOV." Well, that is a matter for a different argument.

The main thing is that these absurdities have to be removed as soon as is peacefully possible completely out of any and all official namespaces. The most important thing is to send a strong signal that this kind of divisive, factionalistic behavior is tolerated in the name of diversity and kindness, but in no way approved of or encouraged by the real community of Wikipedians, as opposed to random "myspacers".--Jimbo Wales 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I appreciate getting the official opinion from you, and I'll respect it.

I am quite aware that my views on userboxes are out of the mainstream, so to explain (without really hoping to convince anyone; that ship has sailed): I believe that a person can only be neutral and dispassionate after first accepting and admitting his biases and passions. Failing to flag my biases would, in my mind, be fooling myself. For example, I get very hotheaded when discussing race, so I keep the "racial equality" userbox on my page to remind myself (and others) that most people don't take these matters as personally as I do. Hopefully, it reminds me to calm down and accept others, and warns others that they might be dealing with a passionate person. I also have opinions on, say, sports teams and foreign languages, but I usually don't post those userboxes because my views on those matters are trivial and don't affect my work on articles.

On the other hand, I'm quite aware that some Wikipedians have been abusing userboxes as a way to encourage divisiveness, as well as do silly things like use Wikipedia as a free webhost. So if the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs page is going to die as a result, I understand that the debate on that one is over. If it's OK, though, I might create a page like User:Mareino/Userboxes/Beliefs so that I or anyone else who's interested can keep a organized library of all userboxes of a given genre, rather than just listing only the userboxes that match my own beliefs.--M@rēino 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm concerned by the implications of your writing above. I'd like to think I'm an adequate editor overall. Yet, paradoxically, I believe userboxes aren't "absurdities" creating "divisive, factionalistic behavior," but rather neutral tools, usable toward either good ends or bad. Further, I believe that all of the ills that you & others claim flow from userboxes actually flow from problem users themselves, and will continue by other means, even if userboxes were to be banished. I've consistently heard that, on Wikipedia, an editor's worth is based on the quality of his edits, not on ancillary factors. Now, I find that, as far as you are concerned, I can never be counted among the "real community of Wikipedians," because I oppose the destructive solution to the putative userbox problem. I apologize for not being a "real Wikipedian," but my judgement in this matter has been arrived at with every bit as much good faith as yours. It troubles me that this is so. --Ssbohio 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


The Use/Abuse of Wikipedia to Promote Propaganda and Defamation

Hi. I'm sorry to be disturbing you, but this is rather important. Wikipedia is being exploited as a 'soap box' for promoting anti-Islamic views.The problem is faily extensive amongst articles dealing with Islam, Islamic history, prominent Muslims and Muslim organizations. While policies and guidelines are supposed to prevent such abuses, they are widely being ignored by editors and are not enforced by administrators. I have tried remedying the problem by participating in articles being contested, but to little avail. A case regarding myself has been files with Arbcomm. I've made many mistakes in that I have taken the problem personally (I happen to be from a Muslim family) and expressed myself in a way less than approved by Wikipedia. I don't wish to bother you with that. What I would bother you with is the abuse of Wikipedia as a platform to promote hateful propaganda though the selective and biased collection and misinterpretation of publications by abusive editors. I would only suggest that you review this particular Arbcomm case because I have expressed in it, in some detail, the problem that has become widespread amongst Islam-related articles. I strongly suggest you look over this particular case. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence

Please compare the articles noted at the top of my 'evidences' section to similar articles in more conventional encyclopedias. His Excellency... 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What hate speech? --mboverload@ 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not examined this case yet, but agree that in the midst of a world war the questions raised are significant. I will certainly do my best to consider them. Fred Bauder 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy in Berlin!

File:JimmyinBerlin.jpg
All hail!

Made for WP:NCR and my Main man Jimmsy. I love you mate. Dfrg.msc 10:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Illegal Danish?

Stephanie Addams

You might want to re-review Stephanie Adams in light of a new blog-only (IE, WP:BLP violating) sourced allegation that she's suing someone for something. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

User:Nandesuka keeps removing the URL http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stallman_supports_voluntary_pedophilia Richard_Stallman_supports_voluntary_pedophilia as vandalism without consensus. 65.95.60.170 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone's running a smear campaign. No need to link to it. --Carnildo 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't need to censor it just cause you don't like it. Nemoser 03:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is, the more outrageous the claim, the better the source needs to be. The claim is pretty far out there in terms of outrageousness, and the source is a random blog. So no, it's not censorship, it's not being idiotic about sources and claims about living people who could be harmed by libel. Mak (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
ha ha, actully the source is Richard Stallman's own blog. He's just quoting Richard Stallman. Here's Richard Stallman's exact words "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children." Nemoser 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Being skeptical of a reason that is brought forward to oppose the concept is hardly the same as endorsing the concept itself.213.46.128.161 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be less POV & better-sourced to link directly to Stallman's web journal entry? --Ssbohio 09:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Swap Tab

This is a great idea I have. Instead of swapping pages the old way, what if there's a swap tab that takes you to a page where you swap it with an existing article? This would eliminate A to C B to A C to B delete C snd would be easier to non-administrative users. This optoin would only be available to registered users, like me and anyone else with a login. Would it be possible? Pronoun 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The place to discuss a proposal like this is probably over at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)—but I suspect it probably won't happen. How often is it necessary to swap the contents of two pages? (I can think of perhaps one instance in the last couple of years where I've even considered that such a swap would be appropriate; are you involved in some sort of project where swaps are frequently necessary?) I fear that the only individuals who would use such a feature on anything approaching a regular basis are vandals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be reverted, I've done a swap several times, like the full name redirects to an abbreviation, or its plural, or a redirect and a disambiguation. Pronoun 09:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fan club

I have started a Jimbo fan club at Wikipedia:Jimbo Wales Unofficial Fan Club. What do you think? Scienceman123 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And the vote for deletion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Jimbo Wales Unofficial Fan Club. The vote is 17 delete and 0 keep so it seems not long for this world even in BJAODN. --Banana04131 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

I do apologize for calling you on your cell phone while you were eating dinner with your parents. I promise not to call you again. I didn't know you had a talk page. I didn't know I had a talk page. I would just like to make five suggestions.

1. There should be a Wikipedia FAQ that new Wikipedia users can't miss. In other words there should be a flashing hypertext link to it in a very large font all in a box on Wikipedia's home page. This FAQ should explain everything about Wikipedia. It should explain the Wikipedia process. It should tell users about advocates, mediators, and arbitrators. This would save everyone a lot of grief.

2. Some editors revert anything a new contributor adds to an entry. They do this unceremoniously without comment. They do this even if the contributor substantiates their claims on the article talk page. This appears to be against stated Wikipedia policy. New editors are often patronized, berated, insulted and sanctioned simply because they do not understand the Wikipedia process. New editors should have some simple recourse to hostile treatment, and this information should be included in the FAQ.

3. No one should be allowed to edit an article unless they have registered with Wikipedia and sign in with a password. Their email address should be confirmed. This would lessen vandalism and free up administrators to do more constructive things.

4. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from a web site map. Wikipedia is a labyrinth.

5. I am sure there is a fifth suggestion I would like to make, but I just can't think of one now.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

PS. If you ever find yourself in Miami and need any kind assistance please feel free to call on me.

croatia again?

  • u have in plans 2 visit croatia or other near countries in the near future?
  • btw, r u the only person who created wikipedia or there were some other people included 2?
  • Respond soon, m8.
  • West Brom 4ever

My article

Why did you delete all Bobby's articles? Sorry, if I made funny articles. I made those up because I made a story about Math Genius who lived in Math (state). I created Math (state) article. Did I put that Math Genius lived in Math (state)? If you can, could you recreate it?

smile dude

RainbowSprinkles has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for all u do

Sockpuppets and their Masters

Hello, this is Armando341. I have placed some blocks on users who I know are definitely vandals, including sockpuppets of user:1028 and user:guns'nroseslover. These two, however, are not in any way related. Hope you don't mind.-Armando341

Maybe it's a good idea

25 June 2006 21:11 Ste4k wrote: Hi Jimbo! I had an idea that is useless to me but might be something for you, let's see. I've only been around here for about a week, so if it sounds silly, please just ignore it. I think that television shows should not be considered factually worth an article until they have actually completed the season written about. This would reduce the edit warring caused by particular people whom are actually only acting as newscasters and producing O.R. It would end the bickering between them, end the sensationalism they add, end the problems with writing one day in future tense and the next day in past. And when it's all said and done for that season, they ignore those articles leaving a big mess for everyone else to clean up. If only completed programs were considered facts, then the only people writing about them would be the people interested. :) BTW, this is not a request. It's just an idea that's useless to me. :(

nice touch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#User:Prometheuspan

he even used an ad hominem AS THE JUSTIFICATION for the block.

above stuff unsigned and likely done by Prome-something

Really need to look into.

I got a message from 24.192.44.141 which really scared me. I believe that this user is a predater and needs to be blocked immediately. Karrmann 07:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The best of intentions in asking to meet a fourteen year old boy? A case of AGF gone awry - air on the side of caution, here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to ignore a request for protection from a 14 year old who has received an inappropriate message. It is not usual for blatant requests for meetings to to be posted on wikipedia. 24.192.44.141 could see that Karrmann was 14 as it states it on his user page, where the message was also posted, not on the talk page. At the bottom of the message was the request "Please delete after you read this." The user did say, "I know where you live", to be precise: "I live near you (Detroit area)". It is no wonder that Karrmann is frightened. The user who posted this message either has untoward intentions or is incredibly naive. Whichever way round, such a message is inappropriate, and would be interpreted with great suspicion by most people. It would certainly not look good if it got wider publicity (which is not unlikely with wiki watching sites) and could be very damaging for wikipedia. I suggest the block is reinstated and also the abuse report. This has to be taken seriously. The euphemism mention does not help, and, if Karrmann's (understandable) fears that he has been contacted by a predator are true, it is hardly likely that a predator would announce his intentions blatantly. The edit summary for this invitation to meet is "Vandal hunting". It is also the user's only edit. Tyrenius 02:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Vandal hunting" is the name of the section that he edited. --Chris (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard complaints in the past that pedophiles like to edit articles to make them pro-pedophilia and it's a problem. I haven't looked into it so I don't know how accurate it is, but the pedo problem doesn't seem as bad on wikipedia as most of the internet (especially anime posting boards). DyslexicEditor 17:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I'm alone in seeing the concern over this as a rather panicky overreaction. For the record, I'll state that I'm uninvolved in this situation, other than as an observer & commentator. Alex Bakharev has already acted immediately to block the user until the situation could be investigated. After he gathered the facts, he unblocked the user, even before I finished inquiring about the block. The user said nothing other than that they lived in the same metro area (them and about 1 million other people) and that his car, pictured on Karrmann's userpage, was available if Karrman wanted to see it. On that page, Karrman states once that his age is 14, and several times that he drives one car or another. At the least, Karrman's talkpage gave mutiple messages about his age. However, without there having been a specifically inappropriate message, I'm not sure how much the age matters. The comment could be interpreted badly, but I really see this as a classic example of the need to assume good faith not only in article edits.
The discussion of this issue has bounced from WP:AN to WP:AR to Alex Bakharev with a sidetrip into User talk:24.192.44.141. We are building a fear-fueled Chinese wall between adults & youth, both here in the project & in society as a whole. Growing up, I knew nearly every adult in my neighborhood, spent time with some of them, even visited their houses unescorted. I emerged unscarred & unmolested. Karrman & Alex Bakharev both exercised extreme caution in this situation. However, the situation has been considered in several fora, investigated by the blocking admin, and resolved. Where is the remaining issue? And why isn't it an issue of dispute resolution, if there is some dispute with respect to this action, rather than (another) discussion in Jimbo Wales' talk page? --Ssbohio 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The first thing Karrmann says on his user page extremely prominently is that he is 14. It is at best a bad lapse of judgement for an adult to contact a 14 year old in this way and to suggest meeting. At the very least he should have asked Karrmann to let his parents know. Instead the user ends the message "Please delete after you read this." It is the first and only edit from that IP address, and the user has not come forward to offer a public explanation to reassure us or Karrmann. Karrmann has obviously been badly frightened by this, and it is a duty of care towards him to show that we are taking this seriously. I don't think this is something that admins were chosen to deal with and it at least needs to be known about at a higher level of the Foundation. This is not building a fear-fuelled wall between adults and youth. That already exists in society when an adult stranger suggests meeting a youth in this way, and also wishing to hide evidence of that suggestion. The fact is that Karrmann is seeking the help of adults he trusts, in order to protect him and make him feel safe over one he doesn't. He is entitled to know that he can do this, and it will be taken seriously, not trivialised as "a rather panicky overreaction". I'm not panicking: I am exercising caution and due diligence. Tyrenius 01:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's break this down:
  • Karrmann does tell us he is 14. He also tells us that he owns or drives serveral models of cars, which is inconsistent with being 14. Additionally, there's no guarantee that the blocked user actually read Karrmann's age on his userpage. While ignorance is no excuse, regardless of what the user read or thought, the message boiled down to: "if you want to see the car pictured on your userpage, you can." The implication of something improper doesn't seem to lie in what was said, though it's easy to see how that conclusion could be drawn from it. Karrmann was right to share his concern & have it taken seriously.
  • Why the user suggested deleting the message isn't explicitly answered, so the assumption of nefarious purpose is easy to understand. Since the suggestion to delete comes immediately after an apology for putting this on his userpage, an innocent reason exists in the text.
  • The user's comments are interpretable in a way that justifies Karrman's fear, and, if anything, we should encourage such a cautious approach on the part of a 14-year-old. Karrman rightly notified an admin, Alex Bakharev, who rightly blocked the user while asking for an emailed explanation of his actions. With the edit history you cited, the user doesn't seem to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia, so his lack of public comment is (to me) understandable. While blocked, the user explained himself to the blocking admin, who removed both the block & the warning.
Karrman sought the help of the admins, and an admin acted to protect him (& the community) from potential harm. The admin investigated & made a determination. The "overreaction" comment was about how this looks in hindsight, since without context, the user's comment on Karrman's userpage is questionable, and it's safer to react strongly than to underreact. --Ssbohio 10:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you all for your concern. REblock the user, and that will be good. I also have my page protected. I am also with assuming good faith, because to see the Edsel userbox, he would have missed where I told my age. Karrmann 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with regard to this user, Karrman, and I can see why his comment would have troubled you. I trust Alex Bakharev when he says that the user understands how what he said caused you concern, so I'm not sure continuing to block him would change anything. From what's been previously discussed about this situation, it looks like a case of a user who didn't think out all the implications of what he was saying, rather than a case of actual harmful intent. None of that changes your actions. You did the right thing in reporting this. Thanks for taking action in this situation, and for your work here as an editor. --Ssbohio 10:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

At the moment there is a debate on whether spoiler warnings in articles about works of fiction should be deleted, on basis that they are not present in Britannica and other general encyclopedias, or kept, on basis they extend selection of readers to include ones intending to read, watch or play the work.

As arguments regularly involve interpretations of your ideas, I'd like to know what your actual opinion on this subject is, at least in a yes/no way. --CP/M 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I have never commented on this specific issue, but as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think.--Jimbo Wales 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the misunderstanding originated from your quote noting: "Our goal is to get to Britannica quality, or better." ---Jimbo Wales December 2005
I would conclude the intent of the quote was in reference to Britannica's quality to research, compose and generally view all their material as equivilent in value to the view of an encyclopedia. I really think Britannica's habbit to forgo spoiler tags is not merely based upon the content they posess, but the fact that its a silly ideal obtained from that of social networking websites and the like that do not consider themselves or their data encyclopediac. Its simply nonsense to warn readers of content when an encyclopedia operates with the intent to share all of its subjects as equal and knowledgeable as any other.
I endorse this paticular quote as I feel it describes our goal to keep the spirit of an excellent encyclopedia intact while expanding the amount of subjects not usually located in an encyclopedia. I don't see why, as an encyclopedia, simply because of our acceptance of various media articles we should treat them any differently than our mainstream subjects. All information at wikipedia is shared with the intent to inform those who seek it. It is utterly ridculous to allow those who endorse the concept of ignorance to operate the construction of an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a new and different thing. Britannica did not publish detailed articles on movies while they were still in theatres. Get used to the idea that Wikipedia is redefining the word "encyclopedia". The issue is not how can we be like Britannica. The issue is how we can be the best Wikipedia we can be. Further, Wikipedia is changing, so what works best at one point in time may not be best at another. The encyclopedia that improves at the speed of technology. It's enough to make you dizzy. WAS 4.250 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You have totally bypased the point of my comment. My view doesn't endorse the similarities we share with Britannica. It adresses the view that we are an encyclopedia and I don't paticularly care how much we break the mold, the definition and our goals haven't changed. I don't think we're redefining the definition of an encyclopedia and I do percieve, from my time as an editor that we are using the capcity and resources of the internet to expand upon what an original encyclopedia could hold.
In this, I don't see how any of that would be relevant. Spoiler tags were once useful, I think, when wikipedia was still growing as a website and we had not expanded our base of material yet. We've passed this point and its time to throw away the pacificer for the consumerist readers who are acustomed to usenet and other social networking sites. We're here to build an encyclopedia and provide knowledge to those who seek it. Not play silly games with people who wish to introduce their fictional fears of learning something new. Such actions go against the encyclopedia and the point of wikipedia. -Randall Brackett 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
As a consumer of information, I find spoiler warnings very useful. I like know that if I am reading ArticleA and I follow a link to a book or movie or the like, I'll get enough informaiton tounderstand why that book or movie was mentioned in ArticleA, but not so much as to spoil my experience if I ever read/watch the book/movie. If you don't like them or don't care, then they are easy enough to skip over as you read. Johntex\talk 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


I support the use of warning people about spoilers. To anyone who believes we should remove the spoiler warnings, how about once we know the secret to the next Harry Potter book (or whatever spoiler), let's put the spoiler at the top of the article (with no warning) and feature that article on the front of wikipedia so everyone gets spoiled by it? Would anyone really be okay with it? DyslexicEditor 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just now noticing this discussion here, unfortunately. I think there's a common misconception at work here that courtesies regarding hypothetical scenarios (whether they really occur or not) are more important than the site's policies, integrity and the concept of making an encyclopedia, which is built on a few core concepts, including neutrality and no censorship. We don't censor images of naked women, we dno't censor images of humans being tortured and we shouldn't warn people away form spoiler information either when it's all considered as relevant as the other information and is supposed to be treated the same.
It's really a horrible double-standard that Wikipedia's been allowing ever since the spoiler tag was implemented, and this matter isn't about how it looks or some such thing, so you can't just "gloss over them" as you look at the pages. This is about the integrity of the project itself, which has been diminishing more and more as time has gone on, with events such as a template that would warn people of images of human torture being rejected on the grounds of Wikipedia not being censored, while this blasphemous spoiler template has held free reign on the grounds that it's "useful."
There are many useful things in existance, but we don't include them here. Warnings about pornography or images of torture would probably be useful too, as would a phone book listing every phone number in the world, but they have no place here, and -- in principle -- neither should the spoiler tags. They're a warning to readers to dissuade them from learning some specifically selected information on the basis of an editor's own opinions and assumptions about what's best for the readers, things which should not be allowed to influence an article or a readers' absorption of its contents.
In any event, of late it's been proposed that we see if it's possible to set the default presentation of the encyclopedia to "spoiler tags: off," while allowing an option to users to turn them on at their own discretion, in which case they will be choosing to censor themselves rather than editors choosing to do so. While I still find this compromise unsavory, given that it's likely to be the only thing that will allow us to get the unobjective spoiler warnings (and, really, the concept of a warning itself implies that someone's passed their own personal judgement on something and passed that on to who is reading the warning) off of the default presentation of the site without inciting a riot, I'm inclined to support it reluctantly but wisely, I think. Now very strongly opposed to this concept. For the reasons, please see below or this discussion.
It's still baffling to me how a template warning people of images of humans torturing one another gets shot down soundly on the basis of no censorship, but that a template that serves as an intellectual (the concept of warning someone) and visual (it displaces text by an inch) obstacle to information that's supposed to be treated as impartially as the information around it gets endorsed on the basis that it "helps preserve the quality of media products for people." I still believe -- and always will, I imagine -- that the concept and princicples of an encyclopedia should come before subjective courtesies, but if these recent developments can get spoiler warnings off of the default version of the site, then we can at least be making a move to preserve the encyclopedia's integrity. At least until people begin asking for measures for a "pornography free" and "torture free" version, in which case we'll have to comply to prevent holding to a double-standard once again.
Honestly, I think these things should be gone, but I can live with them being here so long as they're only seen if the readers force themselves to see them by clicking on a "Show me the spoiler tags!" link or something. Ryu Kaze 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence for this one. I think that a lack of spoiler tags will display that this is not a fictional trivia site (and thus keep excess details away) and put emphasis on the fact that we're here to describe the works. Spoiler tags do show that we are fine with displaying "spoilers" in plot synopses, but at the same time, we're encouraging people to include every detail. Honestly, I think having a heading called "plot synopsis" or "story" (like most articles already have) should be warning enough....— Deckiller 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How about wrapping lots of things (like spoilers/nudity/etc) in some span/div, and provide client-side scripting to hide undesirable elements? People who don't want nudity don't have to see it; poeple could hide spoiler warnings; or hide the spoiler content itself. I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but we could at least give people the tools to hide things they don't want to see without removing content and features that others want. (It would make me feel more comfortable browsing Wikipedia with my parents in the room.) --Chris (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a terrible suggestion, but I'm not sure if we should make that decision now, or just ask that the new technical tool be designed so that further content could be added in the future. In any event, it's something we'll need to consider. Now very strongly opposed to this concept. For the reasons, please see below or this discussion. Ryu Kaze 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm now retracting all previous support for the proposed compromise mentioned earlier. I'm doing so on the grounds that it would not only create grounds for others to ask for similar masks for pornography and images of human torture, but that it would create the opportunity for people to attempt hiding some information behind cleverly-placed spoiler tags. While these would probably be caught by other editors, the fact of the matter is, we shouldn't be allowing such a possibility in the first place. Furthermore, we're an encyclopedia. We shouldn't even ever stop to think about ways to censor information. Ryu Kaze 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said, we would not be censoring Wikipedia, but we would allow each individual to censor his own view of the information. (It would default to hiding nothing, of course.) Censoring Wikipedia, and providing people with an option to hide objectionable information are two entirely different things. Wikipedia is not paper, and as such can be dynamic. (Editors would be strongly encouraged to leave all filters off, only engaging them when browsing.) --Chris (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I also did specifically note "nudity" as a potential category of filterable material. --Chris (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There's too much room for potential misuse of this and too much that would have to also be implemented in order to prevent double-standards from taking place once again. I should never have even suggested this and apologize to everyone for doing so. Creating a means of censorship (whether chosen or not) isn't part of our purpose here. The Wikipedia policies page says that our one and only goal is to be an encyclopedia and nothing more. We're not here to babysit or protect people from information. In my quest to establish a compromise on this matter, I created a hole in that and left room for people to actually begin trying to censor things that they simply wanted hidden as much as possible.
Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia. That's it. As Jimbo himself said, if people are scared of plot details, they shouldn't be coming to an encyclopedia. And to quote AMHR285 as I have done so often of late, "Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to be a slightly less disruptive version of everyforum.com. It should attempt to be an encyclopedia, and everything else be damned." That's what we're here to do, even as the policies say. We're not here to even consider censorship, self-imiposed or otherwise. We're here to provide information, not mask it from people who are afraid of knowledge. Hypothetical courtesies are not more important than this project's goal and the principles on which that goal is based. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia. Everything else be damned. Ryu Kaze 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I came up with this idea apart from your suggestion, so I'm not running with a torch that you lit. (Though it may be correct to say that we built identical torches.) At any rate, I don't see anything you need to apologize for. --Chris (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the use of the word "censorship" is way out of place here. First of all, that word generally (not always) applies to some authority forcing someone to do something. Even in the case of nude images, if we decide to take them all out it would be our decision, not some censorship issue. With respect to a spoiler tag, information is not even be removed. To call that "censorship" is very inaccurate. Johntex\talk 01:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Censorship is the unstandarized regulation of information, which can be imposed by an authority (but doesn't have to be) and may include outright exclusion of information (but doesn't need to). Spoiler warnings have been a violation of our policies of neutrality (their purpose is to warn people away from information on the basis of an editor having passed their judgement on that information, and then passing it on to the readers in an attempt to impede their straightforward learning process) and no censorship (this unstandardized regulation is -- obviously -- targed to specific information selected at the editors' discretion, and is then obstructed by way of the intellectual barrier of the warning and the visual impediment of the 1-inch displacement of the text; all intentionally) since day one. They don't contribute to our purpose. They don't aid it in any way. They're just there to suggest that we're not 100% devoted to the neutral, comprehensive sharing of information, and this new concept that I regrettably conceived would involve us actively seeking to find a means to aid in censorship. I truly regret having thought of it and suggested it. I'm sorry to the whole of Wikipedia for doing so. May the concept go to hell. Ryu Kaze 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't follow most of what you have written. But your suggestion that somehow having to scroll a few lines down the page constitutes censorship is just a perversion of the definition of censorship. Johntex\talk 19:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If that were the entire foundation of my argument, I'd have to agree with you. Given that that was merely an add-on to the rest (the intellectual persuasion, the fact that an editor is passing their own personal judgement and sending it on to the readers in a deliberate attempt to persuade them from reading specifically selected information chosen by the editor theirself based on that editor's opinion of what might be unsuitable for the readers and the fact that other such tags for pornography and images of torture have been shot down on the basis of our policies), I can't see why you're suggesting it's the crux of the matter. Ryu Kaze 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In order for there to be censorship, something has to be censored. Therefore, it absolutely is the foundation of your argument. If the user having to scroll down a few lines is not censorship, then nothing was censored. Johntex\talk 19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, John, the foundation of my argument was not that the displacement of text by one inch is the be all-end all of this matter. That was just icing on the cake. Ryu Kaze 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Either way, the tags are labels, not censorship. Johntex\talk 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In your opinion, of course. Seems we won't agree. Ryu Kaze 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Talk:Brandy Alexandre

I replied to your talk page note, with the substance of which I concur but which I think to have been gratuitiously discourteous in tenor. I understand, though, that you've to deal with such taxing and time-consuming issues daily, such that you may understandably be perturbed when issues that were ostensibly settled and are of tangential encyclopedic value are once more raised, such that you must expend more time on them, so I certainly appreciate the impulse toward terse castigation, but I—not having been involved in the Amazon/credit card situation—a different tone might more civilly have conveyed your message. At least I didn't bust out with an {{npa2}} or {{civil1}}... :) Joe 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank you very kindly for having taken time to reply to me, and I readily understand why you think the individuals whose behvaior you think to have been inappropriate ought to feel shame (with which thought I might well concur). It is not, though, at least to my mind, appropriate for any editor qua editor or editor qua admin (or qua Jimbo, even) to undertake to chastise another for his/her on-Wiki actions in the context of a broader morality; such chastising, by its very nature, is of contributors themselves rather than of their contributions, contra the spirit that underlies WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, viz., that the success of the project depends on the continued ability of users to collaborate collegially and rationally/logically (cf., interpersonally/emotionally). Plainly, I don't see that your comments furthered any particular encyclopedic purpose more than would some more subdued comments, those that focused on the actions you saw as contrary to policy, rather than those that focused on how contributors ought to feel. It is not for anyone here to shame another user, and your particular distaste for the (probably) unseemly behavior of certain editors ought not to be raised; to the extent that the edits were unseemly (or otherwise improper), they should be criticized. In any event, thanks for your reply; at the very least, I can forever memorialize my encounter with Jimbo. :) Joe 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


you need to encourage Wiktionary participation more

Currently I think most people are ignoring it because they think it's just something one transwikis dicdefs into. I think most also overlook its multilingual capacity for everything from inflection to utility in Chinese grammar. I think wiktionary needs a PR touch. John Riemann Soong 23:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Country Woods

I created this account for security purposes (usually used when I'm away from home; like at school). --Bigtop (tk||cb|em|ea) 07:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Flash

Flameviper is making a flash for Newgrounds which includes you fighting WoW and WiC on the front page, then being attacked by a massive swarm of anon IPs. Just thought I would let you know. 69.81.50.252 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WTVT's "Your Turn"

Hey, I see you will be featured on WTVT's "Your Turn" today, I'll be watching! --CFIF (talk to me) 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I found that you weren't on "Your Turn", but someone else (Brad Patrick) was, but one of my articles that I created (Kathy Fountain), along with the WTVT, George W. Bush, Kenneth Lay, Andrea Yates, Lebanon, and MTV articles were also shown! --CFIF (talk to me) 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WTVT's "Your Turn"

Hey, I see you will be featured on WTVT's "Your Turn" today, I'll be watching! --CFIF (talk to me) 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I found that you weren't on "Your Turn", but someone else (Brad Patrick) was, but one of my articles that I created (Kathy Fountain), along with the WTVT, George W. Bush, Kenneth Lay, Andrea Yates, Lebanon, and MTV articles were also shown! --CFIF (talk to me) 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales

Dear Mr Wales- On the cover of the newspaper today I read about a person on wikipedia who is working on his father's municipal campaign and deleting information from related articles. I am concerned that the information he is removing or making flowery can give an inaccurate picture about Vaughan to people reading wikipedia. The article is here: http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/yr4/YR_News/Newscentre/Citizen/story/3604822p-4167021c.html The user is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pm_shef

In my view, he should be removed from wikipedia. Please help. Cashary

This sort of complaint belongs on WP:AN/I. NeonMerlin 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you take it there? 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi

Hi. Nice encyclopedia. Comes up on Google a lot. Winona Gone Shopping 12:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC for spoiler tags

I thought you might like an update on the status of the spoiler tag discussion. It's been moved to this RfC. Take care. Ryu Kaze 13:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back again, 'cause there's something I have to say. Please hear me out. This is probably out of place — maybe even out of line — but I have to put it out there. I really feel like you should read some of the stuff in this discussion, even if you don't have time to read it all and even if it changes nothing.
Having been part of this discussion for as long as I have, obviously I'm tired. Obviously I want to see a conclusion. And obviously, I don't think there's going to be one. I don't want to see a conclusion just because I want the matter to be over with for my own sake; I want a conclusion because discussions like this are nothing new. This one has evolved further than others on the matter and new points have been presented opposing spoiler tags, but this issue itself isn't new and I don't think it's going to end now. It'll just happen again sometime down the road.
Really, I feel like nothing's changed even now, even after all this talk. I believe the spoiler tags are more than likely going to survive this discussion, that the last month or so spent discussing the matter will amount to no change from the status quo, and that Wikipedia will remain the cauldron of hypocrisy that it already is. There, I said it. I love the place. I really do. I love the mission and the practice. I really mean that. I've loved it. But if it's going to be an encyclopedia, I want it to be an encyclopedia. Could you please read this and this? Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from. Maybe you already do but don't want to take action for reasons that I've guessed (see what I linked to for those guesses). Maybe you actually can't for some reason or another that I'm not aware. But I think you should read this and — just in case you don't already — see what the issue at stake here really is. This has been a wonderful project, and I've loved being part of it. I'd like to continue to do so, and will, whatever happens. But I think that it's failing.
By the way, this isn't a request for intervention. I just want you to be aware of what's going on and what it means. Whatever you choose to do (or not to do) is, of course, up to you. If nothing else, thanks for your time. Have a good one. Ryu Kaze 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ryu said "I want to see a conclusion... I don't think there's going to be one... I believe the spoiler tags are more than likely going to survive this discussion..." I think what Ryu is really saying is that he may find himself in the minority and that the community is in favor of keeping the spoiler tags he dreads so much. Reaching a conclusion that Ryu disagrees with is not the same as failure to reach a conclusion. Johntex\talk 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think what Ryu is really saying is exactly what Ryu said: that this is just going to be another episode in a program that's been running for a couple of years. Somebody needs to step in and say either "Spoiler tags will be here forever, they're going to become a part of policy and to hell with everything else" or "Spoiler tags are not going to be here, we're going to focus strictly on the mission and everything else be damned".
And I think it's worth pointing out that there was a compromise we'd all supposedly agreed on and that would be the basis for us moving on to RfC — conveniently pushed to the side and demonized when things got that far — so it's not like there wasn't the inference of an actual development emerging from this.
Basically, while I would like to see Wikipedia's intended purpose as an encyclopedia upheld in both spirit and letter — though I had been willing to go along with the compromise of spoiler tags turned off by default, but accessible at a reader's own discretion — if it's going to become a fansite, I think that should be set in stone under black and white terms. Ryu Kaze 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
But what you said above is, "I want to see a conclusion... I don't think there's going to be one... I believe the spoiler tags are more than likely going to survive this discussion..." Surviving the discussion is a conclusion, unless you or someone else chose not to accept that conclusion and bring the matter up again later. Johntex\talk 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And the status quo remaining what it has been means there won't be a conclusion. Thus, why this has been an ongoing thing. Thus why I made reference to it being an ongoing thing, going back at least to 2004. A change of some kind (like the "agreed upon" compromise that was suddenly mowed down in a hail of "oppose" bullets from left field) would have at least presented the possibility for a conclusion. As things stand, we've just contributed the largest verse yet to "The Song That Never Ends II". Be proud, brother. Be proud. Ryu Kaze 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Before you began the RfC, the spoiler tag guideline was marked as a guideline and was accepted by consensus of editors to be a guideline. Assuming that consensus doesn't change through the process of the RfC, then the conclusion would be that we still have a guideline. That is a conclusion. Johntex\talk 18:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
A conclusion is an ending. Meaning something is over and done with, never to arise again and not have been concluded.
And actually, there never was a consensus on those things being a guideline. There's been opposition to their inclusion for years and somebody just threw the label on them one day. Interestingly enough, they were never included in the Manual of Style, where style guidelines generally go. Ryu Kaze 02:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is ever "over and done" on a wiki - any decision can be revisited. Johntex\talk 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I rather doubt we'll ever be addressing whether or not the verifiability, neutrality or no censorship policies should be removed. Ryu Kaze 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but tweaks to the wording happen all the time still. Johntex\talk 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Amazing

Hey just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia is probably the greatest thing I have ever come across on the internet. It's helped out alot with different things I research and I just wanted to let you know how incredible it is. Thanks, Mertens21 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Essay: The Overuse of Anonymity at Wikipedia and a Proposal

The essay has been moved to its own page as suggested by wangi. Click here:

Wikipedia:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal

--Ben Houston 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Brandt's as a valid source

Jimbo: I recently noticed that you you declared Daniel Brandt not to be a valid source. Gee, I find that he is a pretty good source about birthdays. I mean, he got your birthday right on his hive2.html page, did he not? Even NNDB was messed up on that for a little while. If only they had checked with Danny... Want do you want? Only an officially embossed birth certificate with do for you? Be reasonable. -- 67.119.194.222 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo does not assert that he decides who is and who is not a valid source for Wikipedia articles. He does have opinions about lots of stuff; just like I do and just like you do. You and I feel free to share our opinions. Why shouldn't he? WAS 4.250 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

His opinion is obviously taken as Commandments by some. 70.48.249.56 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. Anomo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to summarize what Jimmy had to say in the Daniel Brandt biography. Jimmy's opinion of Brandt as "not a valid source" is not relevant, and, in my opinion, regrettable. Since this is Jimmy's web site, I will not ask to to actually express any regrets. -- 64.175.41.205 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny:Series of tubes 70.48.249.56 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gross! How embarassing. -- 75.28.166.70 08:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BTX (motherboard) article

I was wondering whether the BTX article at BTX_(computers) should be moved to BTX_motherboard. Having %28 and %29 looks messy imho. I also think the article should be entitled BTX Motherboards rather than BTX Computers. Id appreciate your thoughts on this proposal. -- RND  T  C  19:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is really far too busy to consider matters like this. For general questions about editing on Wikipedia, try the village pump; lots of kind folks hang out there. You may also be interested in the IRC channels for quick online advice. JRM · Talk 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Onion

"All our lives, we are taught about the achievements of Washington, Jefferson, and FAG, but we seldom consider the factors and conditions that led them to risk everything for a republican cause," Wales said. 71.132.129.39 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope, Jimbo, that you will take today's Onion parody as a very serious warning. The open-access policy you have stubbornly defended is producing a situation in which Wikipedia is becoming an object of ridicule. This is very sad, because once Wikipedia comes to be seen as a joke it will be very hard to rebuild its reputation as a serious information source - even assuming the underlying policy issue is dealt with. If this happens, it will be entirely your fault: we would not be in this position if the necessary administrative changes had been made in time. Adam 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious onion piece! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is not its hilarity, the point is its deadly accuracy. There are far too many Wikipedia articles which read very like that one. Wikipedia likes to boast that it has more than a million articles. The more important fact is that not one of them is completed, and not one has been subjected to the kind of peer review that real encyclopaedias employ. Wikipedia would be much better off if it had a quarter of the number of articles, and a quarter of the number of editors, but some system in place for ensuring that both articles and editors meet some standard of quality. Sooner or later this will have to be done, or Wikipedia will die a slow death as serious editors depart for more rigorously managed projects, and the cranks and illiterates are left to take over the asylum. Adam 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not think wikipedia is going to do that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And I, for one, don't think there's the depth of problem the Onion alludes to. The Onion is a parody. It draws caricatures, exaggerating the comical elements of its subjects. In the classic Wikipedia form, I'll tell you to be bold and act to improve the quality of the articles. How often do you check Recent Changes to see whether an edit needs reverted, or a user needs reported? How often do you use Random Article to fact-check, or use any of the Categories for articles needing cleanup, references, etc. to find articles in need of improvement? In the largest sense possible, we are all Wikipedia. It lives or dies on our backs. Its problems are ours to solve. No amount of "dear Jimbo" letters will change any of that. Only the strength of our community can work any lasting change. --Ssbohio 21:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the truth is in the middle. We do have an accuracy problem if only in the sense that we are not as accurate as we aim to be. The parody of us wouldn't be funny if it weren't built on a kernel of truth. That is how parody works - you take an existing attribute and play it up to an extreme. On the other hand, they don't bother parodying people/things that aren't worth parodying. We are only an object of parody because we have done well enough that many people do rely on us. If that were not the case, they would not bother writing a parody of us. Johntex\talk 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that being parodied by The Onion is in a sense flattering, because it shows that Wikipedia has reached the point where enough people know what it is to recognise what is being parodied. But that is also why the parody is so damaging. Wikipedia has now reached a point where it could break through into the mainstream as the first choice of large numbers of people who want information. But if those people form a negative opinion of Wikipedia, if they decide it is run by crazies, they will not use it, not recommend it, and not cite it. And they will form a negative opinion while so many articles are the playthings of POV-pushers and cranks, and while Talk pages full of abuse and crazy rants are available to the public, and while anonymous vandals can write ERIC IS A FAG in the middle of articles (which they do). What teacher would currently recommend Wikipedia to students? What parent to children? What undergrad would cite Wikipedia as a reference for an essay? What journalist would rely on a fact from Wikipedia for a story? Answer at present: none. And the sad thing is that all these problems could be fixed fairly simply, by four or five administrative changes. But I agree with those above who say that these changes will never happen, because Wikipedia is controlled by a clique of self-centered activists who are not essentially interested in what readers think, or even whether Wikipedia has any readers. That is why I am increasingly pessimistic. Sooner or later someone will start a rival online encyclopaedia with proper standards, and when that happens I and many other Wikipedians will defect to it. Wikipedia will then die a slow death. Adam 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, If only, if only we had some REAL system of peer review, then we won't be ridiculed by the Onion. Frosty ('sup?) 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We do, it's the little tab that says "edit this page". It may not be formal (of course we have a few of those, too) but it is very real. Teachers, parents, and journalists recommend and use Wikipedia all the time; why would anyone think that they don't? Wikipedia has even been cited in U.S. Court of Appeals decisions. This idea that we are not, in general, self correcting, is an absurd delusion. An occasional vandal is the price we pay for the ease with which experts and novices alike can improve the articles. On balance, we improve, we always have, and there is not a single shred of evidence produced by any detractor, from Adam Carr to Daniel Brandt, that we will not continue to do so. 71.132.129.39 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, on balance we do not improve. We continue to expand, but that is not the same thing. The majority of articles, on non-controversial subjects, are written and then remain much the same for ever. Articles on controversial subjects improve and decline on a cyclical basis as waves of editors come and go. Adam 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me say it this way, if I give students an assignment, I caution them to use wikipedia, because it is not reliable enough. For the natural sciences, it is reasonable, but my neighbor, a historian, just villifies wikipedia because the history stuff is so bad. The Nature review was primarily non-controversial stuff, try the more controversial stuff, and you find complete distortions of the main stream opinion just because a group of editors had a different opinion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Many many people use wikipedia to push propaganda. Usually the people are in groups. Anomo 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to agree that many Wikipedia articles on non-controversial subjects are excellent. If my interests were butterflies or astrophysics I would not be commenting. But my interests are history and politics, and on these Wikipedia is utterly unreliable. Some articles are good, some are very bad, most are mediocre. Some are good one day and bad the next, and vice versa. It is impossible to recommend any article, because tomorrow it could be rewritten into nonsense or have ERIC IS A FAG in the middle. This will not change by the methods User:71.132.129.39 suggests. Believe me, I have tried. It will only change when cranks and vandals are prevented from editing and when articles are subject to serious quality controls. Adam 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it is for me a reason to limit my contributions to wikipedia, I can be more productive at other places. Even on less controversial topics, it is sometimes difficult to get the most up to date information in the article. I think it is beyond wikipedia to solve these issues, the model is setup with a certain goal, and that goal is ok, as long as it is relised that that the method has its limitation, which the onion article exposed very well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} 71.132.129.39 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, do not insult my intelligence by telling me to "go fix it." I have made more than 25,000 edits to Wikipedia, and written several hundred articles. I'm prepared to bet I have a 100-times better record on "fixing" Wikipedia than you do. But some aspects of Wikipedia cannot be "fixed" by individual editors, no matter how obsessive. Wikipedia has deep structural problems that can only be fixed by those running the show, of which I am not one. Adam 06:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you be so smart and so capable and still not see the simple statistics of what is going on? I've read your User:Adam Carr/proposal and thought about every single point you list. I think your suggestion is completly nuts, for one simple reason:

Useful edits outnumber vandalism edits by more than 35-to-1

(That's a very conservative figure, by the way; an editor as experienced as you knows to ask Tony S. or Raul for the up-to-date statistics from a wide range of articles -- not just George W. Bush and other oft-protected articles.)

So, mainly, your proposals would slow useful edits to a trickle, and maybe if you're lucky cut vandalism in half as a proportion of all edits (it's easy to get a temporary email address from all sorts of different providers.) That's completely unacceptable.

Why do you think that article protection as it is currently implemented does not address your concerns?

Do you think that people don't know to look for {{POV}} and {{disputed}} tags, and check the talk page to get an idea of the areas of controversy? Even beginning Wikipedia users see those signs plain as day. Don't sell the average person short. There is a reason that Wikipedia's page views continue to increase in popularity with each passing day. You might be a great political scientist, but you are no statistician. 71.132.129.39 07:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem a lot of people who want to alter process have, in fact. Perhaps we should limit the editing of the wikipedia: guidelines to registered users who can show proof that they have passed university level statistics and maths exams. ;-) Kim Bruning 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:71's comment is very revealing. It shows that like many Wikipedians, s/he is more interested in process than in product, and really doesn't care what readers see when they open a Wikipedia article, or what impression it makes on them. When people open the Britannica or Colliers, they don't find warnings that the content of a particular article is "disputed" or "not neutral." They don't find pages where the editors abuse and ridicule each other. They don't find ERIC IS A FAG in the middle of articles. They don't find articles written by members of the LaRouche cult, or people who think that Gdansk has always been part of Poland, or people who can't construct an English sentence. They do find all these things at Wikipedia, and quite rightly they don't like them. At the Britannica or Colliers, they find a completed, professional encyclopaedia written by people who know what they are writing about and edited by people who can spell and punctuate - although not nearly as flexible, up-to-date or interlinked as Wikipedia is. That is what Wikipedia is competing with. If the online Britannica was free, we wouldn't compete with it for a second, although I concede we do have many more articles on trivia, pop-culture and computer games etc etc. Adam 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia methods have up-sides and down-sides. Britannica methods also have up-sides and down-sides. Your proposal would create a different entity, with yet another set of up-sides and down-sides.
Wikipedia has one set of properties, Britannica has another.
The properties of the new system are as yet unknown, and it is unknown to me if the rules you propose would actually confer the properties you desire. This is a somewhat non-trivial problem to solve.
The idea is to design a process that will create content with the desired properties for our readers and other users. (How) have you gone about that? Kim Bruning 21:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Your input (if you have time)

Small question on Wikipedia policy for biographies. --kizzle 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Times op/ed

Bernard Haisch wrote a rather scathing review of Wikipedia and the people who can edit it in Friday's Times. I don't know if you had a chance to read it. It's on page 19A if you can still get a copy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, apparently it was in the LA Times first, and got to St. Pete a whole four days late. In any case, I read it and thought it was tripe. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How are you not depressed?

If this were my talkpage... I would be really sad. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were the sort of person who could be made sad by anything in cyberspace as opposed to my actual flesh and blood real life, then I would find that sad. (said by someone with actual real health problems) WAS 4.250 23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nasdijj

Hi Jimbo - Is there any special reason for thinking that the Nasdijj article has any problems? I've watched in awe as Robertissimo has created a scrupulously well-sourced article that gets across all the facts of this sad case and provides links to Nasdijj/Tim Barrus' blog so that the reader can get both sides of the story. And now it's been blanked and blocked, apparently on your order. I really don't understand why this has been blocked? Cheers! Vizjim 13:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, if there is an WP:OFFICE action here, please confirm (or have Danny confirm) ASAP. Regards Rich Farmbrough 22:14 29 July 2006 (GMT).
WP:OFFICE is a policy which does not apply to things that I do. It is a way for Danny or Brad to notify that they are doing something that I would normally be the only person to do, due to a legal/customer service/etc situation of some sort, and usually because I am not available to take the heat personally. My action in this particular case is the sort of action that any ordinary editor might make, and should make in similar cases. The article has not been "blocked", it has been "semi-protected", which will keep anons from editing it while we, including Robertissimo of course, sort out all the details. If the article is as good as you say, and I have no current reason for thinking that it is not, then Robertissimo and other editors should have no problem building it back up line by line carefully. This is an action of "whoa, this article makes some very strong claims, let's make 100% certain it is right".--Jimbo Wales 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I was under the impression it was based on a complaint by the subject. I'm copying your note (and this reply) to the article talk page to let (encourage) the experts to re-build the article. I guess we can restore history safely. Rich Farmbrough 14:02 30 July 2006 (GMT).


BLP

Thank you. : - ) [7] Your unwavering, visible support helps. Take care, FloNight talk 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for your itinary

i saw your itineries and voyages and found them to be too western and restricted to europe and americas. i suggest you to come to India once.

here u can see the most amazing engineering wonder of the world (qualitatively). here, there is a iron pillar, that has not rusted for 2000 years and its composition is said to be 98%wrought iron. its simply outstanding because it is 7metres high and made in one go, (without joints), and we still dont have blast furnaces to make such a pillar,even of steel iron. do tell me if and when u r comin. u can expect all kinds of courtesies from me.


nids 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

thanx for ur kind reply. i couldnt find ur tentative itinerary for future trips. if it is clandestine, i wont ask for it. But if it is not secret, i would love to have a link on it.

thanks again.

nids 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Oops

Dear Mr.Wales. On this website i saw you user name in every article an picture of "reposesseed". i'm sorry that i all revert this pages. or is this vandalism from another user? greetings.. 81.165.25.147 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw it too, must be an imposter —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Tag Removal

I heard wikipedia has a debate and/or is getting rid of spoiler tags so then would user names with spoilers in them be acceptable? Anomo 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an ongoing debate on every subject at all times on the talk pages of the relevant articles (and I sometimes wonder if in 100 years that will be more valuable than the articles, but I digress). There is no indication we are getting rid of spoiler warnings cause mostly people like 'em. User names should be useful in helping us build an encyclopedia, there is no other criteria. WAS 4.250 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So can I change my user name to User:Darth Vader is Luke's Father or not? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If I can have User:Santa Has Failed To Exist. :-P Evercat 23:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Or someone will make a name that spoils the next Harry Potter book and then run a bunch of scripts that clean up vandalism and spelling errors so they get seen by everyone. Anomo 02:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
First, they would be visible only to editors. Second, people with skills to write a script aren't usually interested in such petty jokes, and bots are only given to well-established users. Finally, we don't intend to be absolutely spoiler-free, just to give people readers an option to reduce spoilage. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_9&oldid=1124545944"