User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 124

Archive 120

←

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

→

Archive 130

A community loss

Hello Mr. Wales. Our community has diminished by the untimely loss of Aaron Swartz, internet activist for free knowledge, co-creator of RSS, and Wikipedia User:AaronSw. It would seem proper that you should know, and we. See the Wikimedia blog --My76Strat (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)(add condolences)

Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Awareness of depression and prison blues: As always, Wikipedia could cover more topics to explain issues of clinical depression, or ways to cope with prison life (with prison blues), because perhaps people think prisons are as repressive as city jails, but often a penitentiary can allow greater freedom because the prisoners become a major part of the trustee workforce, allowed to move across the compound. Not everyone will be assigned to a "chain gang" or "hoe squad" and we could write more about coping strategies, such as using the time to read many books from the prison library, as explained by celebrities or other authors writing about their prison experiences. If Nelson Mandela can cope with 27 years in prison, then there are issues to know there. Note: There are also other missing topics, as redlinks this day: "first time offender" and "reduction in sentencing". However we have article "Fear mongering" and then "Plea bargaining in the United States" which could report more cases where years of prison time were avoided. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:08/03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broadening coverage of suicide: Many related articles can be expanded, as from the navbox below. Aaron has already been added to "List of suicides". More discussion after navbox; see Template:suicide2.

Many articles from the above navbox {suicide2} even need simple copy-edit work for commas and spacing, plus any small expansions will help improve coverage. Because Aaron Swartz joined at age 16, in 2003, I think teenagers should know that Wikipedia might provide some answers to many of their concerns, or help explain methods of intervention. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me that counting him on a so-called "list of suicides" seems to offend proper BLP (BRDP) (as may the list itself), because we don't know he was a suicide. The sources for the most part carefully call it an "apparent" suicide. After all, probably most murders are committed by idiots, and the rest are accidents or suicides. While Swartz might have had much to lose in a trial, it is also possible that some well-heeled interests would lose a lot of money if some principle established in the case or appeal made copyright law more difficult to enforce. I don't want to push a so-called "conspiracy theory", but I think we should keep an open mind about the cause at least until the coroner returns a final report. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe too soon to conclude suicide, but reports said his uncle confirmed the scene, and a prior girlfriend noted their talks about suicide,[1] plus factor in depression, with claims of "35 years" in U.S. federal prison (with limited parole; see: Bernie Madoff, 150 years). So, without notice of re-investigation by CSIs, it all seems a sad reality of what WP must write. Men facing years in prison tend to be severely depressed, perhaps because they project prior jail confinements as unbearable, not knowing prisons are easier. So we need to write "prison blues". -Wikid77 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Created "Warning signs of suicide" today: I have created that missing article (4 sources), to fill another puzzling void among the dozens of prior suicide sub-articles. Hopefully, more people will realize how "talk about suicide plans" is rarely just sophisticated musing. Other missing-article voids happen in numerous areas of Wikipedia, and perhaps "Warning signs of suicide" was overlooked in the clutter in the sea of dozens of suicide-related articles. We had a similar void at "Tornado preparedness" which I wrote in April 2011, to warn how a tornado sounds like a growing wind or freight train, getting ever louder as it approaches, so run to a (spacious) saferoom closet (which has food supplies & medical kit). Also, I think we need a general article about "damage by hurricanes" to emphasize the typical dangers of storm surge funneled at high tides+waves to flood 10 feet (3 m) higher than many people expect, plus the danger of many weakened tree limbs falling months later in strong thunderstorms. Anyway, my next plan is to address "reduction in sentencing" and "prison life" to reduce fears of incarceration for first time offenders in victimless crimes, who haven't bilked a massive Ponzi scheme. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that article is going to last very long. It boils down to "Signs of suicide: any behavior." There's no simple list that encompasses warning signs, and even the article itself is contradictory ("too much sleep or too little"). Not to mention that many common occurrences (rewriting a will) get thrown in. The trick is that there's no absolutes when it comes to suicide, so any article is going to be inherently flawed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the wording could be adjusted to emphasize "sudden changes in behavior" but the list reflects what multiple sources have stated. In particular, the Mayo Clinic noted to beware actions with "no other explanation" and that covers activities such as writing farewell letters to friends, or visiting relatives to see them "one last time" as opposed to farewell before moving to a new home. I think the most alarming issue is giving away prized possessions "out of the blue" or to relative strangers, such as to another student who they hardly knew. However, people need to understand the warning signs in advance, for there might be little time to react, and then the final act might occur elsewhere, such as when visiting a relative out of town. A similar danger occurs with tornadoes: when hearing a loud wind intensify, growing louder and louder, it is not the time to go look outside but rather, go instantly to the saferoom or bathtub (with pillows) and secure the door, because in some cases, the door has been ripped away from the saferoom. In fact, a stormceller away from a house can be safer, if the house will collapse and trap people inside the saferoom, but that requires time to move to the stormceller, as when hearing a storm siren or newsflash. The sound of a growing wind might be a matter of only 15-30 seconds, by comparison, so the saferoom should have food/water for a few days. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

April Fool's Day - an opportunity about to be squandered again

Note from Jimbo: Wow this blew up quickly. I see a lot of opportunity here. Look, here's what I think: a big debate about whether people are being too prudish or too provocative is traditional, so we should have that this year as we have had it for many years. But what I'd like to see as well is a new angle taken on it: the problem with putting naughty words on the front page on April Fool's Day is that it's just... been done. Lame. Boring. We are the smartest people on the Intarwebs, no? So let's do something more clever. Many years ago I suggested (and I think I was the first to suggest it, though I'd be happy to be corrected if I"m wrong) what has become a core part of the tradition: everything on the front page on April Fool's Day has to be true, has to be real, even if it looks like it isn't. I'd like to suggest that for bonus points, we should try to do it more intelligently than ever, which means without (obvious) naughty words.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Sue Gardner has thoughtfully commented on the culture of Wikipedia's community on her blog (eg [2] & [3]). To make a generalization, the Wikipedia community has a tendency to act like a group of teenage boys. As Sue has noted, this has the result of driving away some editors, especially women. In what has become an annual tradition, the DYK nominations for this year's April Fool's Day appear to the usual excuse for putting naughty words on the front page. Some examples:

• ... that John le Fucker's name probably didn't mean what you might think it means?
• ... that Shitterton (old sign pictured) has been on the Shitter for a thousand years?
• ... that Elvis' Greatest Shit was dropped in 1982?
• ... that Christina Aguilera had "Sex for Breakfast" with "slow jam" and "honey dip"?

It is well past time for us to retire this tradition in favour of clever wordplay and truly surprising facts. It is not too late to address this, but it soon will be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that the featured article proposed to run on April Fool's Day is about a penis museum. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, I'm a Proper Young Lady and I think they're quite amusing. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Got shut down on your pron crusade, so onto new things to whine about, eh DC? I mean, god forbid we have a little fun. Resolute 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a "pron crusade" and I'm neither humourless nor a prude, Resolute, but thanks for that thoughtful comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on and admit it DC, you have had a crusade against prawns for some time. You never could stand those little crustaceans.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel compelled to make a "God Hates Shrimp" quip here, but ... Nevermind. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you just have a problem when people don't do exactly what you want, exactly when you want it. I'm personally not one for sophomoric humour (though the Elvis one cracked me up), but harmless fun is harmless. We're still three months away from April 1. My suggestion? IF you want a higher class of humour, then write a couple DYK entries that promote a higher class of humour. Resolute 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Resolute, I think that it is unlikely that my post here will change anything, but I would rather make the attempt than simply throw my hands up at the situation. I'll keep chipping away at it until I lose all hope of change or get tired of attitudes like yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find the "teenage boy" attitude around here to be one of the most annoying aspects of Wikipedia and I'm certain that this feeling is common among other women. The complete childishness of the proposed April Fool's Day front page is a perfect example of that attitude. This will do nothing but reinforce the common public perception that Wikipedia is a playground for young male geeks. Deli nk (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• DC, you dilute the things that are of actual importance (Gibraltarpedia, Fae, Commons' being used as a spank bank, etc...) by whining about piddly stuff like this. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not piddly stuff. Do you really think it's likely to attract mature adults to participate in the project when months of planning go into turning its main page into something even most 12-year-olds would find childish? Would it not be more likely to attract the kind of editor who feels that childishness in articles is something to treasure? Risker (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So in your mind, mature adults cannot create or appreciate immature humor? Tarc (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There's something to be said for that position, though overall my opinion runs against it. The April Fools' nominations are not extensive, and some of them are a bit marginal (naming le Fucker just to name him, or altering Shiter to Shitter based on an OED argument). It's clear that at some point, if the number or quality of nominations is low enough, you might have to give up or somehow circumscribe the April Fools' motif rather than make a stage for a comedy that isn't funny enough. It's all a question of what the volunteers are able and willing to do, and how demanding our standards are. I wouldn't be as disappointed by its loss as I would be about the decision not to feature the photo of the infant with smallpox because the world we could quite possibly be living in next year is too disturbing for people to look at. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Replace them all with a simple one: Wikipedia announces that its articles are now officially infallible. That should end some of this <g>. Collect (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as one of those elusive female types, I think you're underestimating women's ability to both use and appreciate dirty or giggle-inducing language, DC. If you want to start closing the gender gap, your anti-porn-images agenda is probably a better drum to beat (though I can't say that a fair number of women aren't interested in Commons's photos of - hopefully legal - penises, and I'd put "reducing the level of aggression editors go at each other with" as far more important than either penises or dirty jokes when it comes to retaining us delicate-sensibilities type female beings). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps this would be a good time to point out again that legally, educational institutions in the UK are required to filter Internet content for students under 14 (which effectively means the majority of schools). Such filters will typically scan pages and block any that contains words such as "fuck", "shit" or "cunt" (and I'm pretty sure that a lot of parental filter software will do this too). When I pointed this out last time it happened (when Gropecunt Lane, excellent article as it is, was TFA), I was roundly abused by a collection of people who I instantly lost any respect for, who shouted "OMG NOTCENSORED!!!111!!", forgetting that this is an encyclopedia and educational resource, not a playground for people who appear to believe that Beavis and Butthead is the height of sophisticated humour. Article about a penis museum on the Main Page? Yeah, fine. Using April 1st to insert needless profanity that will actually stop people from viewing the main page? No. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Our decision should be based on our own integrity, not external pressures. We should not ban all use of these terms on the Main Page simply because some schools put censorship before education. We do the broader community a service by reminding them every once in a while that they are doing something foolhardy by doing so. That said, as surely as we should not avoid the words simply to avoid them, we shouldn't say them simply to say them. If they are educational, or now and then if they are funny, that is one thing, but simply stuffing the Main Page with vulgarity for the sake of it would be something else. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Schools do not choose this, they are legally obliged to do so - it's not censorship. However, you did at least pick my other point up - no, we should not avoid certain words if they are educational, but using them purely to make puerile jokes makes Wikipedia look, well, puerile. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

About 40% of the time I hear people who say that censorship isn't censorship if it's not legally mandated, and 20% of the time they say it's not censorship if it is legally mandated. I'm afraid I don't have much patience for either of these definitions. Wnt (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. That software implements censorship, and it was ruled a violation of the first amendment (freedom or speech). One when the US government tried to apply it to libraries. And again when trying to apply it to the whole Internet. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand why educational institutions are legally mandated to prevent children (and we're talking ages 4-13 here) from viewing unsuitable sites whilst the children are in their care then I can't really help you, although it does go some way to helping me understand why Commons is the cesspit that it is. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember hearing more than a few choice vulgarities in elementary school from the other kids. It won't kill anybody if they see a few scholarly or sophomoric references in the text of our Main Page. In any case, a school censorship scheme for Wikipedia (which as you well know contains damn near everything ranging from genital articles to however many pedophiles there are that don't choose to post their affiliations in userboxes) that decides whether to block or to allow the entire site based solely on whether there is a "Gropecunt" on the front page... well, I don't think it's going to help anybody. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If the arguments are so low that we can't see them anymore, then we look down, see some kids and found a new argument... I must remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers any kind of topic and hopefully without any kind of prejudice. Knowing that you will have to assume (as parent or teacher, ..) that some or even most articles will not be suitable for all ages, religions, ... , then you should also not assume that you can put a child in front of a computer, let it read the "damn" articles, calling it proper education, while having the right to blame an general encyclopedia or image archive to contain content not suitable for every age. Last week i had a nice conversation with my Indian friend and teacher Ganesh. He insisted that children should not use Wikipedia for several reasons, but his main argument was, that it is the duty of a teacher to gather the important knowledge and to represent it a way that it is suited for the audience. While he himself uses Wikipedia as one of many sources, he clearly said that letting kids browse Wikipedia would just be a waste of their time. But we could easily agree that Wikipedia is a great source for knowledge and that it should cover any topic in some way, because everyone has different interests and opinions, even if he does not want to express them openly. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind the profanity problems. Christina Aguilera is a living person, albeit a celebrity, and making double entendres about anyone, even a celebrity, should be inappropriate. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On that point I will agree. (Aside, if "Gropecunt Lane" was blocked by webfilters, that is a fault with the filter, not Wikipedia.) Resolute 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This argument actually revives a previous discussion when i asked why editors with the usernames vulva, scrotum, and testicle get blocked, but ear", "finger" or "foot" are perfectly fine. I think it does indicate prudishness. Pass a Method talk 20:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it's not prudishness, but experience with trolls. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You need more work on your sarcasm DC. Pass a Method talk 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree that "Gropecunt Lane" shouldn't have been picked up (Scunthorpe problem) and having checked today, at least for our filters, it no longer is. Ditto Shitterton. "Elvis's Greatest Shit", unsurprisingly, still triggers it. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also a good time to point out a few facts here, as I'm the author of three of the articles mentioned here:

• We don't have to speculate about what women think of the Icelandic Phallological Museum - we know; the majority of its visitors are actually women. Frankly, anyone who thinks women are unlikely to be interested in penises has been living a very sheltered life. In any case, as the author of the article, I'm not keen on running it on April Fools' Day and have nominated it for a non-specific day instead. Other articles are under consideration for that day so my feeling is that it will probably not run then, regardless of Raul654's preferences.
• John le Fucker actually raises a really interesting philological issue: when did the word fuck enter the English language? I had always thought it was an Anglo-Saxon expression but apparently not - it seems to be late 15th century. Le Fucker is of interest because he has been, apparently erroneously, identified as the first appearance of the word in written English.
• Shitterton's hook is still under discussion; I've just proposed an alternative (which I suppose Tarc would be justified in calling "piddly stuff"... [4]) It's likewise of philological interest, as the origins of its place name are unique in the UK. In other words, both articles are of genuine scholarly interest and their subjects are discussed in genuine scholarly works.
• WTF are we doing talking about this in mid-January? April Fools' Day is still two and a half months away and we only have four proposed DYKs so far, out of potentially 21-28 that will run during the day. If we had 28 DYKs which someone thought objectionable there might be reason for concern, but four? Overreaction somewhat? Prioryman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that Wikipedia puerility might make some people reduce their opinions about Wikipedia as actually being an encyclopedia? Collect (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is unquestionably an encyclopedia, why would anyone think it is not? Prioryman (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as a respectable lady of extremely mature age, I will throw my weight [wham! earthquake!] in with ms Fluffernutter above. My puerile young socks are probably already planning some April Fool's inappropriateness. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
• Since we routinely push the bounds of editorial discretion, featuring all manner of puerility as a matter of course, under an educational guise; wouldn't it be far more astonishing (in keeping with the April fool's mantra) for us to impose censorship on that single day, as a joke unexpected? --My76Strat (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• DC. Learn to live a little and have fun. There is nothing wrong with a few jokes as long as it doesn't, well...uh...delete the main page or disrupt the article space as was agreed upon last year. My userspace and signature, are programmed with april fools content to fool people with when it's April Fools day. So again, you have to live a little, not be Mr. Serious.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Following on from what Prioryman said, and re DC's comment right near the start of this discussion that "I neglected to mention that the featured article proposed to run on April Fool's Day is about a penis museum." - err, no. Anyone clicking that link will see that support for the penis museum consists of (at the time of writing) precisely one person (with several comments in opposition on the grounds that we can do better than penis jokes for the 1st April TFA). At least four people are supporting another suggestion (by me, as it happens) of Toledo War and others are coming up with yet further ideas of articles that could be used or even improved to FA standard between now and then. Insofar as DC's comment was implying that the penis museum was the only TFA proposed, or that it is the TFA that is going to be run, the comment is wrong. Bencherlite^Talk 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, the whole thing is just an overreaction by Delicious carbuncle? Well, damn, there is nothing here to be properly indignant about.... --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• So what you're saying, Enric, is that the discussion of the penis museum is just based on a phallacy? I'll get my coat... Prioryman (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I could live without the joke AfD's. None of them are funny, and they actually disrupt the deletion process as bots treat them like real AfD's, etc. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 23:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, have I missed something here? What joke AfDs are you referring to? I thought we were talking about DYKs here? Prioryman (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Earth (6th nomination) (!) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • He's pretty much noting that juvenile DYKs are the least of Wikipedia's April 1 problems. Resolute 00:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any point in suggesting that we consider the "mission" of Wikipedia to be the same on April 1 as it is on any other day, and leave the April Fool's Day celebrations to web sites that are not encyclopedias? Or at least, that we restrict the festivities to talk pages and project space, and away from articles and especially from the main page? Or is that too radical an idea to even merit discussion? Neutron (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because some Wikipedians can't avoid making poop and penis jokes doesn't mean we have to ban funny time on April 1st altogether. I move that anyone who suggests such a thing again be set upon by a trout-wielding gang of midget clowns.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I plan on celebrating the holiday by speedy closing joke AfD's within minutes of their creation. That would be the funniest result I could imagine. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 05:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You're just mad because your bot got blocked last year.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think that's a bit harsh...I don't even participate in the joke stuff, I just find it hilarious to read after the fact. It's once a year for 24 hours that Wikipedians get to let down their hair, so to speak, and enjoy these behind-the-scenes pranks (other than the main page). Why not just take a 24 hour wikibreak on April 1st instead of ruining the fun for everyone else? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it his whole issue with them can be easily addressed by not including the AfD category on a joke nomination.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is that they're stupid, not funny, and simultaneously disruptive. There's no chance that everyone will remember/realize that they need to leave the AfD out of the AfD category to prevent disruption. And there's really no reason why we need to pause work on the project so that people can make unfunny jokes. ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you prefer than a separate AfD log be created on April 1 of each year to be solely used for the joke AfDs? I can imagine that they might actually be a lot of fun for some editors, and as long as they are kept out of the way and don't cause disruption, everyone should be happy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Neutron. Actually we've been fairly effective at keeping the jokes away from mainspace since at least 2009 - each year there are a handful of edits that leak into mainspace but they are quickly reverted. (Disclosure - I was the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination) in 2009, but followed the April Fools day convention of not templating the article). The Mainpage has a long tradition of strange but true nominations, they may be sometimes be puerile and even unfunny but they are not genuine April Fools. My hope for that is that in three years time we can celebrate the 800 years since the proclamation of King Louis of England. As for the teenage stereotype, haven't you all yet noticed the greying of the pedia? As the teenagers come and go but the silver surfers who join us stick around so the average age of the community is going up rather faster than a year per year, especially as editing Wikipedia is no longer as cool a teenage hobby as it once was. ϢereSpielChequers 06:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Independent of all the talk about tact and swearing on the main page, etc, I'd like to humbly make my own suggestion. Perhaps it would be humorous to, well, "reorganize" the main page. Put sections where they're not supposed to go, flip the Wikipedia logo upside down, and/or put sections in different languages (DYK entirely in Chinese, ITN in German, etc, for example). I don't know if other people would find this funny or just obnoxious, but I felt like throwing this in there anyway. Greengreengreenred 08:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is pretty strong precedent that if April Fool jokes get into mainspace they will be treated as vandalism. That said if you can get a featured picture of a circus clown I think It would be a great day for it to be featured picture of the day. ϢereSpielChequers 10:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In reference to my grumble about school filtering above, I've just realised that 1st April is Easter Monday this year, so schools in many countries won't be open anyway (not that this detracts from the argument in any way). So all I'd say is, if you're going to insist in infesting the 'pedia with silly jokes can I make a request? At least make them funny this year. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2018, April 1st will be April Fools and Easter.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 23:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion is ridiculous. We are writing an encyclopedia. Anyone who tries to pull one of these pranks on April 1 ought to be blocked, just as they should any other day. Everyking (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case

Since I started this thread, two additions have been made to the April Fool's Day nominations:

• ... that Cornwall has a 1,375-foot-high Brown Willy (pictured) that is prone to the Brown Willy effect and is supposedly full of holy energy?
• ... that Siemens is in Püssi?

The discussion above suggests that I am not alone in thinking that this is the reflection of a larger problem within the community. I did not intend for my remarks to be taken as a comment on women's likes or dislikes - I was simply referencing what many others have observed in regard to the makeup of the community. I have a very healthy sense of humour. I have no problem with the nature of the DYK jokes, just the context. Perhaps the April Fool's Day DYKs are just a reminder that much of what happens on Wikipedia is to gratify the editors, not to serve the readers. It would be nice to see Jimbo or Sue weigh in on this, but I get the impression that the more I say about this, the more puerile DYKs will be created, so I will just drop it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's original point is that these are boring and "done before". That's the point. Broadening it to "this is the reflection of a larger problem within the community" may or may not be true - but delving into that seems to stall the immediate problem being fixed: another potentially crap April foolsday mainpage. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually did not notice that Jimbo had commented (possibly because he put it at the top). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember when we had George Washington (the inventor!) as today's featured article on April 1st? We need to do stuff like that again. That was actually genuinely amusing. --Conti|✉ 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I will reiterate my challenge to you, DC. Instead of simply crying for attention, produce an April fools DYK that involves a higher class of humour. Show us your 'healthy sense of humour'. In fact, that is a challenge I make to everyone reading. Resolute 14:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair. "crying for attention" is an unnecessarily dismissive phrase. I agree with DC on the fundamental issue - "naughty words" is a pretty sad excuse for an April Fool's triumph. And yet, although I think I have a good sense of humor (people often enjoy my jokes when I give speeches, etc.) I am not able for a variety of reasons to produce a DKY that involves a "higher class of humour". SOFIXIT is rarely a valid response to people who raise concerns, as they may not be well positioned for a variety of reasons to fix it themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that argument would have more weight if we were talking about GA or FA content, as not everybody can write higher quality material (for a variety of reasons, including time constraints). But a DYK entry does not require much work at all (at least from scratch). There is the added challenge of applying a proper pun or incongruity to the nomination (such as the George Washington inventor article), but truthfully, I think you or DC or anyone could do it if you put your mind to it, and without a great deal of difficulty. At the very least, I'm sure people could come up with topics that would make sense and list them in the hope that other users could make the necessary expansion. Resolute 18:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is necessarily expecting a "higher quality of humour", just a few quirky DYK noms would be good, that don't make the Main Page look like it's run by a collection of 13 year old boys who have problems talking to girls. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you want us to to lie? :) Tarc (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Shhhh!! :) Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolute, I'm not going to take up your challenge. If I had any hope that clever DYKs would displace the juvenile ones, I might make the attempt, but the problem isn't that there is a lack of DYKs, it is that people are deliberately creating and promoting puerile DYKs and there is no effort made to discourage it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously some women have to join the committee. Where is it? I want to see clever wordplay and truly surprising facts about Circle jerks. Come on, you guys can do it! CarolMooreDC 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I could write that joke, no problem... A band called the Circle Jerks (named after gay group sex) and a guitarist named Hetson... Not that we should be running anything like that on the main page mind you, but the point is not well taken... Carrite (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh c'mon Carrite, don't take the "jerk" part too literally, mutual masturbation isn't exclusively gay. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lowest common denominator being what it is, jokes related to penises, vaginas and curse words are always easier to make. But clever DYKs can only replace juvenile ones if clever ones are written. I offered you a suggestion on how to deal with the issue you you have, and your entire statement only proves my argument. You aren't here to improve Wikipedia, you are merely here to cry for attention. Resolute 14:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I could do with a lot less attention, actually. I would prefer that people focus on the substance of what I am trying to say than on attacking me for saying it. If people are allowed and encouraged to put dick jokes on the front page, they will make dick jokes. If it's up to me to replace the dick jokes with clever wordplay, I guess I have only myself to blame for what happens on April Fool's Day. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but in the absence of cleverness, if we're left with only the recycled puerile, is the default action acceptance? Similar to what I said above, why can't we have clever puerility? The notion that the same dick and fart jokes every year is getting ho-hum does have merit; simple jokes can be a source of great amusement, but they shouldn't be ordinary. To me, being ordinary is a far greater sin than being offensive. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I am trying to think of some articles within the scope of hockey or Canadiana that might be good for better DYKs. I may or may not come up with something, but at least I am thinking on it. That, at least, is something more than making a grand complaint then expecting everyone else to deal with it. It is a shame that I've already done DYKs on Rainy Drinkwater and the guy traded for a bus. Resolute 23:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You founded wikipedia! Da Ultimate Bass Booster (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A Small Request

How are you doing Your Majesty Mr. Wales? Now that Wikivoyage is around the corner, I'd like to "venture" to invite you to Zh-Wikivoyage to give us an inscription of your own hand, OK? Please note that we're going to display your inscription to the people all over the world, with the circular logo of Wikivoyage on the top and your words at the bottom. If you're interested in this, leave me a note at my talk page, will you? Looking forward to co-authoring with you. Super Wang welcomes you (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz day

Jimbo - I recognize there are many awkward politics surrounding Aaron Swartz's involvement with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. I will not pretend to understand all of it or the impact it had on the folks involved - especially in regards to how they felt about one another. However, I think it is very hard to argue that Aaron's work did not contribute to making Wikimedia projects what they are today. If not through his Wikimedia related work - then certainly through his broader work on copyleft media and the underlying values of the Internet that make Wikimedia projects able to function as "freely" as we do today. I also agree that you could certainly argue other people have done far more in each of those areas. But at the end of the day, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding his tragic death are inspiring many people to become more engaged in issues which will continue to make Wikimedia projects function in the manner we have all grown accustom to - namely able to use free content and free of government censorship. He has become a martyr for those causes - and while I always feel awkward promoting any martyr as we need more activists than martyrs - I believe there is value in continuing to raise awareness of and celebrate his life. All of this ranting is building up to a request that you ponder and post any thoughts you may be willing to share regarding proclaiming an Aaron Swartz day on enWP. Thank you, as always, for your consideration and time. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That should be "accustomed to". Please see User:Wavelength/About English/D-dropping.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Aaron Swartz Day would be a member of Category:Wikipedia holidays.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a different idea, but I don't know if anyone thinks this way, and of course, I couldn't do it on my own. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Given that JSTOR kindly donated access to wikipedia editors, perhaps celebrating someone who was systematically siphoning off their entire database would not be the most politic thing to do eh? Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think showing favoritism to an outside entity sets a dangerous precedent. There are many reasons someone could argue against an Aaron Swartz day - I would be very disappointed if this is the one which swayed people. Additionally, I think JSTOR's own statements on Aaron indicates they recognize the significance of his work and regarding the legal circumstance, it was something they "regretted being drawn into from the outset". --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 23:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not showing favoritism to avoid pissing off someone who is giving you something valuable for free. It would be very difficult for any not-for-profit to justify to their board continuing a relationship with a group of people who basically advocate theft of their property. I would say its naive to believe what an organisation in their situation says to the press and the public is how they actually feel. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's naive to believe that every nonprofit board would see it that way. I also think it is naive to presume that I do not know that there are differences - especially since my IRL job right now literally is doing public communications for a large nonprofit organization.  :) Please refrain from making it personal - it can go both ways. JSTOR has a relationship with many entities which have done tributes to Aaron. Unless you speak for JSTOR, I see no reason to be swayed by this argument. As I said before, there are many reasons to object to this idea, saying that it might upset JSTOR seems like a poor one to focus on. I think saying that Wikimedia may not want to be seen as endorsing any kind of digital theft is a stronger argument to make. While I do not personally believe that is an accurate interpretation of what happened, it is a far more compelling argument than "we do not want to upset people giving us free things." --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As a moral argument perhaps. In the real world in practice? No. You dont punch the gift horse in the mouth. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you find material provided by JSTOR to be of importance in your day-to-day editing of Wikipedia articles, though? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making any statement towards the discussion above, but in regards to JSTOR, I find it very important in my day-to-day editing of Wikipedia articles. It's my most used source (that said, I'm not receiving it from Wikipedia, I'm receiving it from my school). Ryan Vesey 00:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

My question was for "Only in death", whose contributions to English Wikipedia articles total a few dozen edits. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you took the time to look into this usernames edit history when you could have spent it doing something useful. I dont personally find JSTOR useful as most of my article edits are done while logged out (mainly because I find it a bother to log in when I travel a lot) and because I generally edit in areas that are not of JSTOR interest. Perhaps you should ask one of the people who are taking advantage of the JSTOR membership through wikipedia if they would like to keep it? Either way thats my last comment on this.Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR declined to press charges, just for information. Formerip (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just so. It's more than disingenuous to suggest that anyone would be, even metaphorically, punching anyone else in the mouth. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Or looking even Jebus989^✰ 10:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first request for this that I have received. I am working on it and agree that quiet discussions with various parties is a good idea. I am very busy next week, so don't expect progress soon. I take this kind of ceremonial role seriously and appreciate the importance of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I trust that you will do what you feel is best for WM at large. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 12:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• 'A day of remembrance to reassess: I would see it as a remembrance of a long-term Wikipedian who joined as a teenager, was a helpful contributor, but did not know the way forward in his life. It would be a time to reflect on clarifying information to help people understand the consequences of their actions. I have had to emphasize to people that the laws are real, not a game, and people who break those real laws might go to jail for a really long time. Also, it would be a time to consider if Wikipedia could provide more information, then perhaps many people would have done things differently. Currently, there is a significant gap in coverage: first time offender, reduction in sentencing, prison culture, celebrity prison, preparing for a police visit, coping with imprisonment, January suicide, etc. Yet, we have made progress in other areas, such as: clinical depression, or suicide prevention. In general, more information could help reduce many frustrations. A day of remembrance would be a time to reassess our progress in helping people. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's use of the term "Notability"

Hi. In my day to day endeavors here at Wikipedia, I work with a lot of new editors. I have noticed (especially if I encounter the new editor at either AfC or AfD) that the way we use the term "notability" is problematic. Why do we artificially assign a word with a common usage to a specific definition on Wikipedia? When we say "notability", we mean "Wikipedia's standard for inclusion". When you are dealing with newer editors, that causes problems. It gets them up on their defenses as they think we are saying something qualitative about the subject of the article. When I talk to a new editor about either an article for creation or an article for deletion, I am always careful to explain to them that when we say "notability", we are not saying anything about a person's (or company or...) fame or skills or worth. We are simply talking about there merits viz. our standard for inclusion. So my point is, since "Notability" is our standard for inclusion, why not just call it "the standards for inclusion" rather than "notability", which can cause confusion and bad will among those who don't understand about it? Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Includability or Acceptability might be better terms: Instead of "notability" perhaps the term could have been "includability" or such, but remember that a topic is what is wp:notable, not an article by itself. There can be several articles about a wp:notable topic (or none at all), and other factors must be considered as well. Many areas of Wikipedia somewhat "oozed" into existence; for example, when wp:template pages were first introduced into Wikipedia, they had no parameters (if you can imagine that in the 21st century), and even up to January 2008, all template contents, even noinclude'd markup or documentation, were included into a formatted page, in terms of counting bytes against page-size limits. Some pages were crashing due to too many noinclude'd category links in some templates used many times per article, but in 2008, WP installed a recursive descent parser, to omit unused/false branches of markup and truly not include the noinclude'd markup. Over the past 12(?) years, Jimbo has offered much advice to jumpstart progress, but numerous people have resisted, and improvements have been somewhat slow in those areas. For example, Jimbo has advised people to be stopped for trollish behavior (baiting to inflame disputes, or mudslinging insults as cyber-fun), but admins allow outrageous levels of unfounded insults and dogpiling. The broader concept for adding text/data into Wikipedia is explained in essay "wp:Acceptability" based on Jimbo's explanation about editorial judgment and exclusion of unsuitable text, even if wildly reported and all the rage in the world at large. Perhaps you might like to expand on the notions of "wp:acceptability" and help to broaden the full understanding of what pages in Wikipedia should contain. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have long thought that what Wikipedia really needs is a complete restart of its processes. Move the entire Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk spaces to a different wiki, but keep the old users, user privileges, user space and of course the articles. Take our body of written and unwritten rules, reorganise it hierarchically and replace confusing technical terms (notability, reliability, primary/secondary/tertiary sources etc.) by other terms that describe more precisely what they are about. (See Napoleonic code.) Make sure that every single rule is proofed against misreading by editors who are too literal-minded. Implement a mechanism so that we will never again get competing policies that regulate the same thing in inconsistent ways (WP:V vs. WP:OR) with no chance to merge them.

  Wikipedia may need a legislative body consisting of people like Newyorkbrad. (Not just lawyers. Throw some other people in as well, as a safeguard against legalese.) Their most important job would be to evaluate the emerging consensus of the community and turn it into proposed policy changes that could then be voted on. Normal people could still write essays, but they would not have write access to policies and guidelines.

  As to changing the word "notability" to something like "inclusion standards": I think there is no chance of getting anything like that done without going through (or causing!) a much wider revolution. Many editors would reject it as vehemently as if the new term were a real, unpractical monstrosity, such as the kilometre, which of course can in no way serve the same purposes that the mile is currently serving in the US and UK. (Sarcasm warning.) Hans Adler 11:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's worthwhile noting that Wikipedia:Notability (people) started off as Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. I still use the original name. However …

  We give specific meanings to many common words. "verifiability" is another that has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. So too, does "point of view" which on Wikipedia we use, often initialized to "POV", to mean what outwith Wikipedia is normally called "bias". (A "POV edit" is a biased edit, not a "point of view edit".) We have a whole Wikipedia:Glossary full of these. It is overstating things to say that this is a Wikipedia problem. We are not the only collective endeavour in the world to have developed an occupational jargon, and this is not the only instance where occupational jargon has proven difficult for novices. Moreover …

  Are you going to tackle the widespread in-Wikipedia mis-uses of "point of view", "administrator", and "bureaucrat", too? Novices get far more confused by the fact that "administrators"/"sysops" don't run an administration and aren't system operators than they do about "notability" and "verifiability", which are at least close to their general meanings outwith the encyclopaedia writing project. (I've several times pointed out that we "administrators" are more like trusties, in that we are simply like everyone else except entrusted with some of the more powerful tools of MediaWiki.)

  You could do something a lot more worthwhile by getting rid of the "dirty -istas", whose use has never improved a discussion, which are only ever employed by editors to call other people names, and which were never genuine philosophies or valid analyses of Wikipedia editors in the first place. On the subject of occupational jargon, you can find Wikipedia's Answer to Godwin's Law at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron#Statement by Uncle G in another pretty coloured box.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, Uncle. But verifiability and POV don't really raise an emotional hair with most people. The only difference in our use of POV and general usage is we have made a noun out of it. And although many people don't understand the WP:RS portion of verifiability, it still doesn't seem to say anything about the subject of the article. A bigger issue might be the subjects new editors choose for their first article. I wish I could just stick a message on the article creation wizard and an edit note on the starting page for an AfC saying. "Are you really really sure you want to write about a person? You have chosen to start swimming in the deep end of the shark tank if you do!" Lol. Happy editing. I really didn't expect this would go anywhere, basically it was just a vent. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No I, We are have a problem !

Please !!...78.183.218.42 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You can post this, just don't spam it. Prodego ^talk 05:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This really does seem like something that needs to be looked into, if the admins on Turkish Wikipedia are indeed banning anyone that disagrees with them or supports any sort of action against them. And, unfortunately, it's not something the Turkish Wikipedia community can fix, since...well, the admins there would just ban them if they tried. Someone from the Foundation needs to step in here. Silverseren^C 10:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What Seren said. I have no real way of knowing what's going on over there, but something obviously needs to be done. Who it needs to be done to is what needs to be worked out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Wikipedia have too problems, this is Real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.183.44.37 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a cursory glance at this page shows a wide consensus that there is a problem that can and will effectively shut down Turkish Wikipedia. A group of sysops have essentially written a manifesto and hijacked the Wiki. You have not contributed, Jimbo. Please do so. This is important, and needs to be resolved. If it is reposted 100 times, it will not be spam. 174.51.31.120 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Man, I don't read Turkish, but if Google Translate is to be trusted, there is some awful shit going on over there. I still don't think it's been properly summarized in English, though. I haven't been able to find the aforementioned "manifesto", for example. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem sensible to me for us to ask the Turkish Wikipedians to come here and comment. Over the years, I have heard similar claims about many languages - claims which, upon deeper investigation, turn out to be not true. (Experienced English language Wikipedians can surely imagine what some banned users might say - claiming that "admins on English Wikipedia are banning anyone that disagrees with them". At the same time, if people I trust (Silver seren) have looked into it and found something to be concerned about, then I think it's worth having a closer look, so I shall do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've looked into it, and yes, this looks like a real problem. Reminds me vaguely of some internal wars in other wikis in the past. I'm going to keep studying this and will try to reach some people by email for private conversation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to The Devil's Advocate for finding these links. This edit appears to be the one where an official statement was made by the five admins that were a part of the "Manifesto". (Maybe this edit is that?) Either way, it seems to be the official comment from the five of them on why they blocked several users that had openly criticized them for blocking the other two users (Regarding the two original users, one (User:Nazif Ilbek) appears to have been blocked because he had been doing outreach with universities in Turkey and presented himself as a representative of the Turkish Wikipedia to try and get more people to edit and had put links on his userpage to represent this and the admins in question felt this was self-promotional, so they blocked him. And the other (User:seksen) appears to have been blocked because he angrily questioned the, apparently normal, process on Turkish Wikipedia where RFAs and RFBs can only be voted in by admins and not the general community.)

As for the official statement itself, at least from what I can understand from Google's pretty bad translation of Turkish, it seems very...pontificating to me. I would almost call it backpedaling and trying to cover one's tracks if not for the air of they can do no wrong. From what is said there, it appears three further users (Users Bermanya, Stultiwikia, and Rapsar) were blocked for criticizing the blocks of the two I just discussed. The blocking reason for them was "trolling", whereupon I guess criticism of admin actions is trolling? Yeah, I think there's problems here. Silverseren^C 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It also appears that Asaf Bartov of the WMF made a response regarding the user blocked for self-promotion, saying that they had been working together and that it was all proper, above-board outreach efforts with universities. You can read his statement here. Silverseren^C 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• It is wonderful to see people who are really reading relevant posts in the archive of trwp village pump, thank you Silver. It is not relevant but I need to mention about that I was one of the organizators of Jimmy meeting in Istanbul. Maybe you can remember my efforts to arrange this meeting. (See the picture of the day, me at the very left) And I have to add these lines about my blocking: it is very disturbing after all good things which I did. Allegations to me contain defamatory statements. Asaf Bartov who was with me about one week of outreachs is available to explain every thing better than me in English. It is very hard to defend myself in English also in Turkish -which is I am one of the natives- because people are thinking against to me. From the very beginning there is a prejudice against me. I hope incorrect thoughts about me give place to the truth as soon as possible. n a z i f i l b e k ✍ 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be the community discussion of Seksen's block, where a number of users questioned the appropriateness of the permanent banning. Of those users, Bermanya, Stultiwikia, and Rapsar were among the commenters and, after this discussion, they were blocked for "trolling" about five hours after that discussion, which is when the five admins gave the big response. Silverseren^C 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am gonna have to correct you on what you are saying. User:Seksen was objecting to a page that discussed the voting at RfA-type processes. That is, the sysops responsible for determining the outcome of said process discuss the voting to determine whether it passes or does not. What was criticized is that only admins could weigh in on this discussion, as enforced through page protection. Seksen appears to have created an additional discussion page as a sub-page of the page-protected discussion of the voting process to object to non-admins being unable to participate in that discussion. The community there still votes on adminship.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this really acceptable? No sysop can overrule the block of another. No "ordinary" user cannot participate in discussions on RfBs. Wikis aren't meant to be ruled by sysops or b'crats. Sysops and b'crats are there strictly to comply with community consensus as well as keep checks and balances on each other. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not acceptable; but it's good to remain accurate when what's true is bad enough. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are going on about. The discussion page we are talking about appeared to be devoted solely to discussing whether a given RfA/B had enough votes to pass. As far as I can tell it consisted of sysops going back and forth on whether the amount of votes on the actual RfA/B page met x voting threshold deemed necessary for approving the nomination. Not sure what allowing participation from regular editors would achieve if my assessment is correct. I can certainly see how Seksen's conduct would be seen as disruptive and thus worthy of a block. Whether an indef was overkill or not would depend on any history of misconduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but sysops do not get such a special privilege on any other wiki. Everyone should be welcome to comment on RfBs not just sysops. Wikis are meant to be consensus driven. Reality006 himself is currently indefinitely blocked for enforcing the very RFC mentioned on this thread. If a sysop or five or ten feels that a users conduct is disruptive, the matter should be discussed with the community as a whole (unless it is something obvious like vandalism or spamming). In the case of Seksen that did not happen.

Furthermore, I honestly do not see how Seksen's conduct is remotely disruptive. I'd like to ask you to elaborate on that. If you see a problem in an article, a vote or a discussion you are supposed to take the matter to the talk page or sub page for discussion. Seksen wasn't vandalizing pages, revert warring or any other such acts of disruption. He wasn't warned either and had no prior blocks - ever. Also he was blocked with no avenues of appeal. hardcore vandals on en.wikipedia get better treatment.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No editors were kept from discussing the RfB, the actual discussion page for that RfB is a red link. What we are talking about was a discussion page where sysops discussed the votes and whether a given process passed or not. I don't know of any case where other wikis have sysops openly discussing how they are weighing arguments and votes in real time on any matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel the indefinite block/ban without warning and without a community discussion of any kind was justified. We regularly read comments of disgruntled users on ANB and ANB/I, we do not indefinite block people for it. Imagine an RfB on en.wikipedia failing at the threshold, it would spew tons of drama. This is natural on wikis. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jimbo. Peace left in the Turkish Wikipedia. I can low speak English but Everything became clear. :) --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have victim but friends the priority. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

These barriers are disturbed community in by Turkish Wikipedia. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Because of changes to these simple Username: İncelemeelemani denied! --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Silver seren made a good explanation about the situation. We (Turkish Wikipedia community) tried to make a discussion on Meta, but none of these admins joined that. I think vote of confidence is the best way to bring justice to Turkish Wikipedia.--Rapsar (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• The vote of confidence not support I have. Will repeat the same things. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 15:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is some awful stuff going on over there. I would say an emergency desysop would be in order of the blocking admins pending further investigation. How did that Wikipedia even come to that?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Cyber. An emergency desysop will be needed. We cannot afford to have a Coup d'état on the Turkish Wikipedia. Any steward or Jimbo himself should perform this as soon as possible as a preventative measure before more unjustified blocks are issued. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made many contributions to Turkish Wikipedia years ago. It was nearly five years ago and the same group of admins were also behaving editors like dictators that time. I have opened a discussion about if we would make a policy about vote of confidence or something like that. I told everyone that it is impossible to do anything if Dr. Jekyll becomes an admin on Turkish wikipedia and then returns into Mr Hide. Guess what? I was a troll in a moment. They blocked me infinitely. Not only me but hundreds of really talented and hardworking users were blocked whenever they talked on the same issue. We were guilty because we started a discussion about if the adminship would be for life time or not. Then i supported Ansiklopedika which is a website built by some friends who were protesting the dictators of Turkish Wikipedia. And also not hard to guess but they put the name of ansiklopedika.org on spam link of Turkish wikipedia. Its forbidden now to show Ansiklopedika.org as a source on Turkish Wikipedia. Why? Because these dictators dislike the new project. Any spamming history? Definetely not. The head of the gang is now user:Kibele who uses the name of the god kybele as her username. By the way using a god's name is against policies in Turkish Wikipedia but who cares? She and her team is over policy. Well there are millions of words here to write but no time and we need no more headache. I want you to believe that theres really a big big big problem in Turkish Wikipedia for years. 5-6 people are modern dictators. They did not let anyone to be an admin for the recent years. People that have interest on Turkish Wikipedia are unhappy. I have seen hundreds of them leaving the project saying that i will contribute on English Wikipedia but never step on Turkish Wiki once again. Pls help Turkish Wikipedia and protect your project. Thank you.Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Confidence rating is no longer disabled. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 20:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism was even the cause of obstacles! --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 20:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, what's the next step?

Has there been any response from the people you tried to contact yet? I would suggest that Asaf Bartov be one of those people, as he was directly involved and should be able to give the Foundation some better insight on what occurred. But, clearly, something needs to be done soon before Turkish Wikipedia gets overrun completely, if that hasn't happened already. Silverseren^C 07:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, my user name is Hedda Gabler (my ex-account) from Turkish Wikipedia. Firstly, My english not well but I want to say something about this case: You can see summary here and here. This is a very serious problem on Turkish Wikipedia. Admins don't talk about this case. They never answer if we ask a question [about this]. They talk with each other not on wiki, they talk on out of Wikipedia [via e-mails] and after they talked, they came on Wikipedia for blocking users or made other decisions which taken out of Wikipedia. We know that Wikipedia is transparent but on Turkish wikipedia, this's not exist. and please look here too. Thanks. --88.252.163.69 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• And a message from steward PeterSymonds. --88.252.163.69 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your plan. Mr. Jimbo. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 21:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I want to say something about the issue. That is my fourth request for adminship which a user made for me in 2 June 2012. Kibele, one of these five admins that mentioned above supported me in this page (then took back that support). If I was a troll, why she/he supported me first? It make no sense to me.--Rapsar (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Remark from A Certain White Cat

While there is no emergency to resolve the matter overnight, the issue has remained as an unresolved problem since last July (June if you count the Turkic Wikimedia Conference case). First off, despite everything that has happened I still do not want to take sides. Blocked users may indeed need to be blocked or unblocked depending on long overdue community discussion and decision. I feel we should still avoid any kind of mass action (mass blocking, mass unblocking, mass desysoping etc.). The RfC at the moment has overwhelming support for the unblocking of the four users. Other related blocks (including the recent block of a Sysop that attempted to enforce the already linked RfC) have indeed happened since but weren't discussed at the RFC yet. Also RfC wants to hold a vote of confidence for the existing sysops which I think would be fair.

The actual problem I observe is the absence of due process. People are being blocked for non-routine reasons such as trolling without an adequate discussion or presented evidence. With unacceptable rules such as "only the blocking sysop can unblock users" it is very hard to have any kind of oversight as it defeats the entire point of having multiple sysops, checkusers and oversights to check up on each other. I tried to take initiative in the Turkic Wikimedia Conference case but it did not generate the level of discussion I had hoped. I think facilitating such discussions would be more than helpful provided participants aren't blocked essentially for participating.

One other problem I observe is Steward disinterest in looking into the matter. I am broadly oversimplifying the actual communication to give the overall feel of things. Some (not all) stewards feel interfering with such incidents aren't part of stewards tasks - some stewards I had contacted have directed me towards WMF board/staff whom in turn have directed me back to stewards and/or board of trusties. As a future idea beyond this particular dispute, in all my communications with stewards and WMF staff there has been a general agreement that a body is needed to handle such matters - perhaps a separate committee or sub-committee.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

If desysop operations will be made then everyone's infinite block in the Turkish wikipedia should be removed. Because everyone disagreed with them were called a troll and was blocked infinitely in the past years to date. Thanks.95.10.220.167 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird things going on with the Ansiklopedika.org article on English Wikipedia

This might be some kind of a spillover from that controversy here. There was, until recently an article on the Ansiklopedika.org, which, as best as I can tell, was some kind of an alternative wiki that was set up as an alternative to Turkish Wikipedia after the above controversy. Apparently the original page was speedy deleted in 2011 [5]. It was restored by long time admin User:DGG. I've had it on my watch list for like the past three days, after noticing it being mentioned here, so I don't know the whole story. There was a couple of sketchy accounts which kept adding the speedy deletion tag to it, other users (legitimately, or so it seemed to me) contested the speedy. Rather than going through an AfD, the page was just speedy deleted again by User:Amatulic, [6]. Now, like I said, I've only been watching this for the past few days or so, but the situation definitely raises a lot of red flags. Looks like there's some folks really intent on having this deleted, it's related to the controversy on Turkish Wikipedia and the latest speedy deletion was clearly done against policy (formerly deleted pages are recreated all the time when people dig up new sources). It does look like something that should definitely be looked into.Volunteer Marek 00:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we deal with one dispute at a time please? :/ -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I put the G11 speedy tag after seeing it linked here because it seemed to be an article that was created to promote a non-notable site. The individual who created the article tried to remove the tag and a bot restored the tag. Some IP jumped in to delete the tag and there was some edit-warring over that until GregJackP restored the tag. Then DGG deleted the article as a copy-vio, before realizing it was actually not a copy-vio (it was basically a copy-paste job of an English version of the official page that was released under a compatible license) and then rejected the CSD as being "informational" and not "promotional" only to have a steward restore the tag. I was going to add the "previously deleted article criterion" onto the tag when you removed it and so I went ahead and added it after you removed the previous tag because the G4 was a different criterion that was just as valid. Sorry, Marek, no big conspiracy here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Ansiklopedika had a lynch campaign since it's name was introduced here. Instant robotic and organic attacks have been made and now having several attacs and the main page has been broken :(ç Also it's article was on Wikipedia since august 2012 but is now speedy deleted just after an adminstrator removed the speedy deletion tag. Turkish Wikipedia is destroying itself eachday and also see Ansiklopedika as hostile. Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't say Turkish Wikipedia see Ansiklopedika as hostile because Turkish Wikipedia is not a person. A community makes Turkish Wikipedia. And all of these user can't have the same idea. Ansiklopedika is considered for deletion several times and it was deleted. It is not a reliable source also, and there is no point to give a connection to that website. Please stop saying that all the time, please stop "spamming".--Rapsar (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the article Ansiklopedikaq *should* be deleted or not - that would probably take a good knowledge of Turkish and Turkish sources. But whether or not it's a reliable source is irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted. I can't check the detailed history of the page from the last day or so, but last I remember, the page was restored by a long time admin, User:DGG, who was also one of the people who removed the inappropriate speedy tag. Then all of sudden it was gone. It does seem like an AfD would be much more appropriate, especially given the above controversy.Volunteer Marek 20:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps we should wait a while until this dispute is handled first. Otherwise we may have drama that could serve to distract us. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Waits

I'm not going to let this get archived until we all know what the next step is. Otherwise, this issue will end up just sitting for months more. Silverseren^C 17:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do? I added my comments to text about me above. n a z i f i l b e k ✍ 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You explaining things above is helpful. But, in the end, this is something that's going to require Steward/Foundation action. Silverseren^C 05:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're waiting. We want you to solve this problem/case. We don't want admin oligarchy on Turkish Wikipedia. Thank you. --Cemallamec (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer resolving the problem using tweezers rather than ICBMs. I do not see an oligarchy on tr.wikipedia. I do feel sysops are meaning well despite everything. I feel the problem is more cultural in nature. At the moment culture of tr.wikipedia unfortunately isn't community consensus driven - at least not as much as it should be. I think addressing this should take priority. Simply "overthrowing" the sysops would merely replace the actors but maintain the exact same problem. Due process in non-trivial (vandalism/spam etc) blocks would be the first cultural change I'd propose. What do I mean by due process? Consider a problematic user whom is not engaged in obvious disruptive behavior, there should be a number of steps between now and indefinite block. For instance topic bans, mentoring, mediation and even discussion. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, if you took away their ability to block anyone they dislike, that would fix 90% of the problem. Silverseren^C 19:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind that I have been the person complaining about the blocks since day one. In fact I was the first person to complain about Seksen's block and also was the person that filed the RfC. I am not trying to defend or attack anyone. Community may decide to desysop users and/or maintain the indefinite blocks or come up with even a more different consensus. I think we want to avoid any extreme that would end up harming the wiki as their ability to block is what prevents vandals and spammers going amok. We need to be more pragmatic. The problem is systematic in nature and the solution should be systematic in nature. If the sysops are willing to work with a modified/newer system, there wouldn't be much of a problem. I would have wished that the tr.wikipedia sysops to be more willing in dialog rather than effectively isolating themselves from one altogether. I think many smaller actions would be far more effective and less disruptive of the site rather than one big action. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Five of sysops (Kibele-Vito Genovese-Eldarion-Elmacenderesi-Mskyrider) took a decision. They didn't consult other online sysops other community. Also they blocked some of the pro-unblocking users (Including a sysop User:Reality006). All of five of sysops made discussion with four blocking users in past. I'm waiting about 6 months for solution of this issue. Turkish Wikipedia community agreed about unblocking, I think Wikipedia is not fight area and we cannot tolerate actions like Coup d'état. Respects... PM: My English is not well.. --Bermanya (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe it was just the 5 sysops. Other sysops mostly agreed. Its more systematic. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So, again, what's the next step here then? Just letting it sit is not an option. Silverseren^C 07:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposals (including mine) was voted on the RfC which concluded in a variety of ways. Some conclusions cannot be enacted overnight while others can be right away. For instance:

• Unblock of the 4 users - a local sysop (Reality006) preforming that has been indefinitely blocked and the unblock was overturned
• Hold a vote of confidence - this does not require steward or even sysop rights but as above incident shows, anyone but stewards enacting it will probably be indefinitely blocked

It is imperative that any on-wiki discussion on the matter (such as the vote of confidence) be block-fear-free. A problem then is possible trolling but I think this can be achieved.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree A Certain White Cat's opinions.

1. I think non-consensus blocks muts be removed. Blocked users: tr:User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş, tr:Kullanıcı:Stultiwikia, tr:Kullanıcı:Bermanya, tr:Kullanıcı:Reality006.
2. "Vote of confidence"! It must be held for every admin on TR Wikipedia.
3. Resignation of related adminis on TR Wikipedia. (Name of them). If he/she reject his/her resignation, it will be subjected to a vote of confidence of the comunity and lose the rights to request adminship for five years. The voting for him/her will be held here on Meta. --Cemallamec (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think a resignation is needed, sysops failing to reach a vote of confidence would be loosing the sysop flag anyways. They can run for a sysop flag again whenever they like but community would unlikely change their views overnight. Also I think the vote should be held at tr.wikipedia. I'd also extend unblocks to Reality006 as he was blocked for enforcing the RfC, ie unblocking the said four users. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I want to show a very significant and obvious example which explains how admins on tr.wikipedia continuously disregard community consensus, discuss issues, policies, blocking procedures etc. by private means. They also bring policies from other Wikipedia editions without community discussion. Here is the proof, and it's obvious that admins' attitude has always been the same since deployment of tr.wiki whether the actors change or not (the problem is systematic in nature as A Certain White Cat commented): [7]

In this page I asked where the articles of these blocking policy had been discussed and Dbl20120 said "On the official IRC channel of Wikipedia, any other questions?" (Vikipedi resmi IRC kanalında tartışıldı. Başka sorun?). This sentence is itself enough to prove that by admins, Wikipedia community is always seen as ignorant, slow to take decisions etc. See Kubra's comment back then: "Niye IRC kanalında? Vikipedi'de en basit şeyin tartışması aylar alıyor, daha önce silme kriterlerinde bu görüldü". (Why on IRC channel? Even the simplest discussions take months to complete, we have seen this before in deletion criteria). Surely, almost anyone could agree that this is not a valid excuse for private discussions on policy making procedures. There is the same thing with user blocking procedure where they haven't sought community discussion.Alperen (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

IRC discussions are fine but they are meant to be unofficial in nature. We should not discourage IRC and instead promote it more. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

IRC discussions held without informing the community is not an appropriate means to discuss policy changes I think. That's not a community discussion. What's emphasized here is the attitude: "We admins discussed these stuff in IRC and you guys don't need to get in". This particular policy discussion [8] took months (Nov 2010 to May 2011), though it has been hard to apply, nobody said "guys we discussed it on IRC and it's over". I had also personally been accused of being a troll. What I mean to stress is the same "the lack of due process", and it's not confined to these blockings". --Alperen (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're missing, A Certain White Cat, is that he is saying that the rules the admins are blocking over aren't written down anywhere on policy pages. The admins in question are just discussing it on IRC and then blocking the people via rules that no one else in the community knows about because they were never discussed or made into real policy. Silverseren^C 23:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, a "per IRC" as the block rationale without providing any other reason is utterly and totally unacceptable. However, I think the IRC angle is a distraction. Dbl hasn't been active in over two years. Turkish IRC channel hasn't had decent activity in over two-three years or more. IRC is a public source and IRC based block decisions for routine incidents isn't unheard of. It is actually quite common even on en.wikipedia. More recently the inter-sysop communication on tr.wikipedia is through far more private means such as email or phone/skype calls. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren: Exactly. If they made discussion with Turkish Wikipedia community about indefinite blocks of four users, ı think community wouldn't accept; because community dont see us as troll, and many users want to unblocking of four users (User:Reality006 blocked later). But five of sysops (Elmacenderesi-Kibele-Eldarion-Mksyrider and Vito Genovese) ignored it. Respects. --Bermanya (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay if...

I post on this talk page just to say hi? TehPlaneFreak (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Concise wikipedia

More or less, as per my comments here, I'm wondering what if anything gets done about this proposal now. I figure you probably know more about this sort of thing than I do. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost 1.000.000!

Dear Jimbo,

Italian language Wikipedia community has been waiting for last couple of weeks with great trepidation for the achievement of an important goal, that is meaningful to the huge work done by all of us in these years: it.wiki is reaching 1.000.000 voices, and just now there are only 484 more to go!
On behalf of it.wiki's wikipedians' community I take the liberty to invite you in the Italian language's Bar to share your view with us this rousing moment. If you prefer you can post a new discussion on the Italian Village pump here.
In accordance with our estimations, the goal will be obtained within about one day and half.
I believe to express everybody's wish saying to you that it would be an honour for us to have you here. Bye and good wiki! ;) --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see "it:Separatore decimale" and "en:Decimal mark". Where Italian uses full stops (periods) in numbers, English uses commas (in Italian, virgole), so "one million" is represented as "1,000,000". Also, the Italian word "voce" means (at least) two different things, for which English has different words, "voice" and "article" (it:wikt:voce, it:wikt:voice, it:wikt:article, wikt:voce, wikt:voice, wikt:article). Italian Wikipedia (it:) is near to having 1,000,000 articles (in italiano, "1.000.000 voci").

—Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'll give you another barnstar if you edit or tag Donghak Peasant Revolution. Seonookim (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy article and the parody of Neutral point of view

I always wanted to ask you how is it possible that controversial articles like homeopathy make neutral point of view looks like parody? What is wrong and how it can be corrected - I have no idea - I have no ....conflict of interest but I did and do have good intentions. For a curious editor, it would take 15 min to understand the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Heavily_Biased_article. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been a problem for many years. The basic problem with the homeopathy article is that it attracts extremists from both sides: Practising homeopaths who want to present Hahnemann's Gospel as the truth, and enthusiastic members of the "skeptic" community who don't appear to understand science. It's the latter category that really shocked me when I first went to the article under the expectation that I would have to help taking the pseudoscientific garbage out. I had no idea that there is such a thing as hooligan followers of science, and as they bring 'my' side into disrepute I am more annoyed at them than at the homeopathy supporters.

In this environment it is actually rather hard to give sensible, neutral information about the history and practices of homeopathy. Nobody seems interested in that. Everything is considered under one aspect only: "Does it help 'us' or the 'enemy'?"

The Citizendium article, not unlike homeopathy articles in many established encyclopedias, is a disgrace because it is too openly pro-homeopathy. (At least it was last time I looked.) But our article goes too far in the other direction. Consider the current last two sentences of the first lead section:

"Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery."

The first sentence says everything there is to know. The second sentence adds nothing but insult, and even with weak sourcing that does not seem to remotely meet the high standard of WP:RS/AC. It also flies in the face of surprisingly large numbers of regular doctors worldwide who administer homeopathy in one way or another. (The number differs a lot from country to country, but is quite high in Germany and probably still in the UK.) Most likely they use it as a placebo, but I doubt that they think of themselves as quacks. That is not to say that there is no quackery among homeopaths, quite possibly more than among regular doctors.

Our readers have come to expect from Wikipedia an excessively neutral and dispassionate tone. This article, however, shouts right into the reader's face: If you believe in homeopathy there is no need to read on, as we are going to try to teach you otherwise. A neutrally written article will teach such a reader otherwise, and it will not prevent them from reading by using poorly supported insults.

Disclaimer: I have been mostly inactive for almost a year and didn't look at the homeopathy article or its talk page even longer. But my quick research showed that nothing much seems to have changed. Hans Adler 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The characterization of homeopathy as quackery has in the past been overwhelmingly supported by MEDRS secondary sources, so perhaps the talk page archives and/or article history needs to be examined to find them. It is not an insult any more than characterizing anti-vaccination activists as presenting a danger to public health is an insult. Stark terms are called for when failing to include them is likely to cause harm or even fail to prevent harm. 71.212.238.208 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. There are several other high quality sources which depart from this point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, those are a WP:PRIMARY source (of which at 5% are expected to be significant at the p<0.05 or better level), and an opinion letter to the editor. Neither are the WP:SECONDARY sources to which I was referring and which continue to overwhelmingly characterize homeopathy as quackery to this day as they have for decades. Please read WP:PSTS and WP:RS. 71.212.238.208 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources I have produced are all secondary and meta analyses or reviews published in first rate sources. The letter to the Lancet is from the authors whose views have been cited and distorted in wikipedia that Homeopathy =placebo= quackery ; they sent this letter to the lancet saying that homeopathy is NOT proven but it is NOT only placebo and they cite their own research (the research the homeopathy article is misrepresenting) to support that.

It has been explained on the Homeopathy talk page why these reviews are not included. And the Lancet letter does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy has effects over placebo: the only direct statement about homoeopathy in it is that its authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." It makes specific criticisms of the methodology of a particular review that concluded that its findings were compatible with homoeopathy beng placebo, but to use this to support a statement that the authors of the letter have concluded that it has effects over placebo would be a clear violation of WP:SYN. We've been over this ad nauseam on the talk page as well. Brunton (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats a lie: LInde Jonas in their letter to the Lancet state that " If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), and they cite their own meta analysis to support that. They state that homeopathy has NOT be proven but also state clearly The Lancet should be embarrassed by the Editorial5 that accompanied the study. The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. Now wikipedia falsely states that linde and jonas basically agree and the consensus among researchers is that homeopathy = placebo. If any good faith reader reads what the authors state above he will immediately see how absurd is to say that the major researchers agree that homeopathy = only placebo (as the article falsely states). This is the reason you have excluded this source. --Motorola12 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not state that homoeopathy works, even for some conditions; it says that there is some evidence that homoeopathy works for some conditions but not for others. That is not the same as a statement that homoeopathy works, and neither are the criticisms of the Lancet's editorial. The article states that some trials report positive results but that the evidence as a whole is that homoeopathy doesn't work; it does not attribute any specific opinion on efficacy to Linde and Jonas. As I said before, we have gone through all this already on the talk page of the appropriate article, and this user talk page is probably not an appropriate venue for rehashing it. Oh, and please at least try to assume good faith. Brunton (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says that all authors who studied and published systematic reviews on high quality sources agree that Homeopathy = ONLY placebo while in fact only one review stated that. other authors disagree with the statement Homeopathy = Only placebo - and also they DO NOT say it is proven. The article says that everybody agrees homeopathy = placebo. Thats is a lie. False if you prefer this word. Whoever reads the sources can verify that. --Motorola12 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Shows need for fringe content-forks: There have been many controversial subjects, with POV-edit-wars, in trying to force a single article page to represent each side's concept of "neutrality". The best solution, while balancing wp:SOAPBOX concerns of wp:GRANDSTANDing in a major, heavily-viewed article, is to create a valid, sourced but fringe-level subarticle (wp:Content fork) where questionable ideas can be explained without tainting the top-level article with too much fringe text as "top-billed" hokum. For example, in a murder article, suppose there were many experts who concluded the major suspects might be innocent, but some other person, acting alone, was the real culprit (as documented by reliable sources); in such a case, there could be a sub-article "Murder of X lone-wolf theory" which could explain the unusual (but heavily-sourced) viewpoint that one guy, acting alone, committed the murder and clean-up, as returning to the scene of the crime to see "did that person really die" and then performed extra clean-up when confirming the death was real. By having such fringe-level sub-articles, then sourced, "minority report" opinions can be explained without flooding the major article with all the details needed to clarify how such a fringe concept actually fits the many facts as a plausible explanation. Overall, it is a balancing act, to provide a voice for credible fringe concepts, but not wp:GRANDSTAND those ideas with "top billing" at the search-results level of a major article. In later years, as a fringe concept becomes more mainstream, then the fringe sub-article could be summarized with a greater presence in the main article, but until then, each subarticle is dedicated to a specific (sourced) concept which ensures full details without (as many) edit-warriors trying to slant the text to emphasize some other viewpoints. That tactic really seems to work, as edit-warriors seem more obsessed with slanting the main article, then the less-read subarticles. Albert Einstein (translated in Out of My Later Years) advised a similar tactic in world politics: to have a confederation of different cultures, each as a sub-page of world culture, but acting together as united nations where each could maintain a different culture supported by a minority group, yet all loosely joined in the overall confederation. His idea made me think of the Swiss university, the "Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule" (the Swiss Federal Polytechnic) as a conferation of different university departments, each a minority to the others. After years of analysis, I really think the tactic of "confederated subarticles" is a good solution (whether Einstein liked it or not!). Anyway, Hans, welcome back, and I think other areas here have improved during the past year. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hell no - the last thing Wikipedia needs to do is become a platform for fringe theories. Our articles should represent the balance of consensus of material from mainstream reliable sources. Permitting 'fringe-forking' is a guaranteed way of giving such material more credibility than it deserves. All articles must conform to Wikipedia standards regarding NPOV, weight etc - to act otherwise is totally contrary to the encyclopaedic objectives of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've concluded that where science conflicts with a belief set, the compromise should be to present the science in a calm way without making a point of bashing the belief set. A more common place for this is religion. I've run into the same situation as Hans Adler. I'm a scientific atheist, but I often butt heads with folks at articles that have my same RW POV / are of scientific bent because they often want to turn articles on those topics into nasty attack pieces that make a point of bashing the belief set. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiikipedia supposes to reflect the scientific consensus or any uncertainty or controversy as long as it appears in a reliable source.

According to the NPOV, the weight of every review is NOT judged by the wikipedia contributors evaluating if their content is "correct" or not, but by typically and better, solely by the significance and importance of the journal.

For instance, whatever review or information has been published in the Lancet or the Annals of internal medicine about the X subject ( Homeopathy for instance ) not matter how pro and anti homeopathy the conclusions or the information are , HAS to be reported. In the latest dispute, the group of the editors who control the article while finally accepted ( at least some of them ) that there are several high quality mainstream sources which don't say that Homeopathy = only placebo= quackery, they refused to report their findings because they are NOT consistent with what THEY believe is the scientific consensus.

This the perfect parody of Np of view. The current homeopathy article is a graphic example of what a wikipedia editor should NOT be doing and how should NOT be behaving. --Motorola12 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

With only 1 page about the topic, then edit-warring can be intense. There were similar edit-war problems in 2006 with article "Search engine" which was often severely trimmed to omit Internet search concepts (as considered irrelevant), until the article was forked, and then subarticle "Web search engine" was expanded to contain numerous details about each type of Internet "search engine" database. The result of subarticles, after years of struggle, was almost like magic to reduce edit-warring and broaden details. It's just the rules of "[p]article physics" to reduce conflicts. In some cases, a disambiguation page can also promote similar branched articles, rather than continue conflicts. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77, you seem to be under a misapprehension as to what Wikipedia is for. Forking articles might possibly reduce edit-warring (though I see no particular reason that it should), but if it is done with this objective in mind, at the expense of violating WP:NPOV within particular articles, it is contrary to the objectives of the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is here to provide neutral and balanced material to our readership, and violating this principle for the convenience of contributors is just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, content forks do not mean NPOV; there is no slanting to write "Web search engine" as a type of "search engine" where someday people might write more about "intranet search engine" or such. I wish I could find the words to better explain why subarticles work so well, and why edit-wars are reduced so sharply. Use of wp:content_forks is truly amazing. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS, we don't allow contributors to cherry-pick a few random primary case studies to 'disprove' overwhelming scientific consensus - have you any evidence that this consensus has changed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. (And this just in: Earth still not flat!) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See: "Flat Earth" or "Cardiff Giant" as examples of how Wikipedia handles fringe topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You could have read more carefully what I wrote - There are NOT primary case studies but reviews and meta analyses published in first rate journals - see above ( The Lancet, Annals of Interval Medicine and more) . There is not clear consensus among the researchers - Several reviews published in first rate journals contradict each other. Can you justify why you don 't want to apply the NPOV principle "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers". Why don't you w ant readers to know for instance about these ? --Motorola12 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's great to see Hans commenting again. "Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery" is wrong because, as Hans points out, lots of doctors don't think it's quackery, sadly. Within the medical community homeopathy is considered by most to be quackery. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern medicine has made great advances since Hahnemann's time, when homeopathy was actually more successful than regular medicine simply by feeding patients well, keeping hygiene (medical doctors didn't believe in it) and not poisoning them. However, it still has its limitations, it has some problems with quackery both in practice and in science (in a famous 2012 Nature study, 47 of 53 cancer studies were not reproducible, and some authors new about this! [9]), and it totally neglects patients' spiritual needs in a way that many providers of alternative and complementary medicine such as homeopathy don't. Therefore they provide a useful service even if they are obviously worthless by medical efficacy standards. Some doctors know this, others are just naive, and the same applies to lots of nurses and midwives. All part of the medical community. But even the scientific medical community chooses its words carefully. Scientists, when making official statements, use understatement, not swearwords.

"Quackery" in the homeopathy lead was once sourced to a polemic article in a Nigerian journal that only discussed the situation in Nigeria, because there was nothing better. The present sourcing appears better than that but still quite poor.

The word "quackery" doesn't even appear in Christian Science. (Nor anything like it last time I had a closer look.)

A judge in Berlin decided that referring to the Catholic church as "the child fucker sect" is fair commentary. Do we find this in the lead of the Catholic Church article? No. There is only a one-paragraph section on sex-abuse cases right at the end of the article, mentioning in general that the church "was criticised". Following someone's argument a bit further above, we would need a lot more space for this topic because being Catholic can ruin one's children's lives in the same way that believing in homeopathy can ruin one's health. If you happen to deal with a priest who doesn't have his sex drive under control, or with a homeopath who doesn't understand the limitations of his faith.

It appears to me that for certain editors putting strongly worded statements about quackery in the homeopathy article functions like capturing and desecrating the opposing team's flag. (Some of the same editors jealously protect the Stephen Barrett article against any and all criticism and everything that might undermine the notion that he is an ultra-reliable medical science expert.) Hans Adler 18:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Hans and Hans but please allow me to underline the most important issue here. It is not only a matter of elegance , style and kindness. Wikipedia supposes to report the scientific literature about Homeopathy including controversies and uncertainties . Even if the NPOV didn;t require that, which it does, we had to add it in its definition. The criterion for reporting is solely the weight and the importance of the journal the info is reported ; NOT whether we personally believe that the information is worth reporting or not. If there is no clear consensus or there are several conflicting views in first rate journals, one should report exactly that and not to edit out whatever it does not comply with his her preconceptions. Otherwise the NPOV becomes a parody, the way it is in the homeopathy article. --Motorola12 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Motorola12's comments here are a demonstration of the problem caused by an article whose tone is (in the first paragraph, which is the only thing many readers read) seriously non-neutral. One homeopathy fan after another will notice the problem, realise that it is so bad that Wikipedia will ultimately do something about it, and will believe that in the process the article will also be 'corrected' in the sense of, for want of better words, 'teaching the controversy'. Even though that last goal is totally unrealistic, reality-oriented editors will have to support them in part, and this will get their hopes up. Hans Adler 22:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And of course I would not even think of suggesting to include controversies and uncertainties if they were not so strongly apparent in first rate journals. I just got inspired by reading the definition of NPOV in wikipedia. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For various reasons which the medical community does not seem to be addressing, all kinds of extremely poor studies get published in medical journals -- even in the best medical journals. That's one reason Wikipedia has WP:MEDRS, which stresses that whenever possible one needs to use high quality reviews of studies rather than infividual studies. As I mentioned further up, one study reported that about 94% of the important cancer studies they tried to reproduce were highly misleading. I don't remember the details, but I do remember that such metastudies exist for homeopathy and that the result is that it simply doesn't work better than placebo.

I am not saying that homeopathy has no value. But any value of homeopathy apparently cannot be proved by double-blind studies. (Or theoretically it could be restricted to some very specific patients and/or conditions.) It becomes clear that this is an important distinction if you consider operation such as amputating a limb. Its efficacy after a snake bite can't be proved in a double-blind study any more than its efficacy as a measure against the common cold. Hans Adler 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The interpretation of meta analyses varies and depends on the authors point of view. There are reviews they have found homeopathy = placebo and they have been criticized by other authors in high quality journals and reviews which arrive in different conclusions. Click to see yourself. But you are right - homeopaths say that the individual character of the method cannot be properly tested with the standard methods. The main question is why the contributors of this article refused to report this information not as the truth but as a part of the discussion in the scientific community. ?--Motorola12 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You already presented all these sources in Talk:Homeopathy#Heavily_Biased_article and they were all rejected for several reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not put on airs - we're no better than medical journals. If something gets published there, we should cover it here, "MEDRS" be damned. Though we should, of course, be clear about the limited nature of such evidence. Contradictions are good, because they tell the reader where there is interesting reading to be done. We should not allow snap prejudice to get in our way when a little creativity quickly reveals we can't be so sure - for example, it is possible that Zicam is not the only manufacturer ever to slip an effective (and/or dangerous) remedy past the medical cartel by labeling it "homeopathic". Perhaps some of the studies that found an effect were positive for this reason, or for some other reason we haven't thought of. We are here to direct the reader to the sources he wants, not to herd him. Wnt (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As a request : I think it is reasonable and fair as long there is a dispute on the neutrality of this article to be tagged - [pov-check] or something similar. Can an uninvolved admin add it if it is appropriate ? I tried to do it myself and it was reverted as vandalism (sic) --Motorola12 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In the last weeks, Motorola12 has been cherrypicking sources for positive statements on the scientific basis of homeopathy. He has failed to show anything. The balance of the article seems to reflect the balance in the sources and Motorola12 still has to show otherwise. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the typical editing mode in the homeopathy article = instead of replying with reasonable and good faith arguments and reliable sources, one can try to spread inaccurate info about someone who happens to disagree with the current bias. In fact I advocated ONLY for the inclusion of all sources if they appear in a high quality sources and NOT to prove that Homeopathy works or not. What you are writing is really embarrassing - certainly not for me. --Motorola12 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has established standards for dealing with medical sources, see WP:MEDRS. There is no chance that, based on these standards and the current state of the research literature, Wikipedia will pretend there is a chance that homeopathy works anything like the way homeopaths think it should. The fact that most fans of homeopathy who see the skewed article try to push it way too far in the other direction is precisely why it's still in that sorry state. Hans Adler 11:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, we cannot possibly include "all sources if they appear in a high quality sources"; there simply isn't room in any article for this. We have to be to some extent selective. The inclusion/non-inclusion of particular sources should be discussed on the appropriate article's talk page. Brunton (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't........ room? That;s funny Brunton. --Motorola12 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans, I don 't care what homeopaths or fans of homeopathy want - I m NOT one of them and you should not reduce my views to this kind of stereotype. I never said that the article should report that homeopathy is proven - I did advocate for neutral reporting of the scientific literature. And please don;t tell me to see WP:MEDRS ; I have seen it and they don't say if there is no consensus in the literature just pretend that it exists one and report it. The article reports that all literature is in agreement that H= only placebo and this is a false. Some reviews found H= placebo , others depart from this view, others heavily criticize the point of view the article has adopted. These are published in high quality secondary sources and to say that there is no controversy or uncertainty among the researchers who have published on the evidence in Homeopathy is at least ludicrous. The real question is why the editors in an encyclopedia do NOT want the readers to know what generally the literature says about an X subject but they want to show only the part which they agree with But maybe this a rhetorical question. --Motorola12 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

My point was that there is consensus among the highest-quality sources that homeopathy does not work as it claims to. Evaluating medical studies is extremely tricky because they involve only a small number of patients. Repeat the same study a few times, and you will get results that contradict each other. Then publish only those whose results you like. Pharmaceutical companies have writing services that anonymously write scientific articles which well known researchers only need to sign to get another publication on their CV. This, and even worse things (see Joachim Boldt for an example), are actually being done. That's why even meta-studies can be problematic. But in the case of homeopathy the basic question of whether it works as it claims to do is not open at all because (1) the idea is sheer lunacy once you look at the fine print so would need very strong evidence, (2) only few of the meta-studies indicate anything approaching efficacy, and (3) even Edzard Ernst, holder of the only chair specifically on alternative medicine and a former homeopath has come around to that position. [10] Hans Adler 21:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: I just found this link in Ernst's article in the Guardian Science blog. That's a direction for which I actually advocated on the homeopathy talk page for some time (probably even before they started that study). The way they deal with their patients is a key point that homeopaths are typically doing better, and our article needs to reflect this fact and the possibility that this leads to real efficacy that cannot be measured in a double blind study because it's an improved placebo effect. That's one thing that has a plausible mechanism and has not been discredited yet. Hans Adler 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans your approach is very personal and I would be happy to reply but this is not the real question. The problem though is that wikipedia supposes to report the scientific consensus, if any, as it appears in high quality sources and NOT personal opinions about the sources and the subject. As you can see above the meta analyses conclusions differ significantly depending on the authors point of view and the current article reports only the part the editors agree with. This is the real issue and this is what WP:MEDRS. dictates and it is very clear. As a reader I would NOT trust an encyclopedia which reports only one sided information in order to make me believe that there is no real disagreement on the efficacy of homeopathy among the researchers who publish on the subject. Would you ? This is the value of the neutral point of view if the words and the principles we purport to defend have any real meaning.--Motorola12 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we have a disagreement on whether there is a scientific consensus in the highest quality sources. That's the kind of dispute that must be settled by a consensus of editors, not an appeal to policies. And among editors there is a consensus on this, whether you agree with it or not. (For Wikipedia, consensus does not mean that everybody agrees, but that after appropriate discussion there is a robust majority that is unlikely to change without new data. Or something like that.) You are welcome to try swaying this consensus, but you are unlikely to be successful. There is also a consensus that the homeopathy article must insult homeopathy by cherry picking sources that contain strong words. This consensus is more likely to change because it is not in line with how things work elsewhere. (E.g. you won't find anything about 'negro presidents' [11] in the Barack Obama article, and quite correctly.) Hans Adler 10:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The high quality sources I produced shows such as strong evidence of a scientific disagreement ( prominent authors object that H= only Placebo in the Lancet citing their work ) that it seems a breach in wikipedia policy to say it is not and decide to not report it - that's why I decided to ask Jimbo. I hope he is curious to investigate and comment. The evidence is here. --Motorola12 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS isn't actually written to be that terrible a policy, but it is vague, and in practice it is more often than not an overbearing policy used by overbearing people who act as if it is morally wrong to explain that there are two sides to an argument when they know that one is right and to give any credence to the other would put lives in danger; or to fight the horrors of "false hope", that terrible phenomenon that can result when laymen are aware of what cures scientists are trying to develop. No, editors should not take a good review article, say, "but wait, it's wrong, because I went out and found a primary source that appears to contradict it, so let's explain why I think it is wrong". But editors should explain the chief arguments of homeopathy supporters (and of course those of proponents of more plausible but unproven theories), even if they do not have the kind of scientific prominence as the opponents. This is because the purpose of the article is to let people understand the phenomenon and hear the arguments each side makes, not to decide for them whether it is good or bad. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kitty wants to help edit your page!

Sannybear (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kerry & Kay Danes

As you asked about information on this topic, you might be interested in this Jimbo http://issuu.com/tn21/docs/briefing

Maybe a good look at some of the wiki issues mentioned in that might document be a good idea. 158.255.208.121 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Development of Wikipedia and Projects

This is the first time I have hjad the pleasure of sending you a message. I hope you enjoy reading it. My first question is about the evolution of wikipedia and wikimedia. Why did all of the content not just stay centeralised on wikipedia rather than creating multiple other projects e.g. Wiktionary and Wikibooks. Why were more namespaces not created on the main wikipedia site to encompas the expanded infomation? I personally have neve looked back at when the first project was spawned after wikipedia was first created but would love you know your opinions regarding the above. All other comments are of course welcome. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Simple answer is scope of encyclopedia articles, full answer would take days: Before Wikipedia, there was Nupedia, and the scope was to provide text in the form of encyclopedia articles, rather than in the form of dictionary entries, booklets, or a map atlas, etc. Jimbo installed a wiki software package to collect text, in a collaborative manner, from multiple editors, and the article count grew faster by wiki-style editing than by submission to Nupedia's 7-level approval process. The word "Wikipedia" was a natural follow-on to "Nupedia". See article "Wikipedia" for more details, in particular the following paragraph:

Sister projects – Wikimedia
Wikipedia has also spawned several sister projects, which are also wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation: "In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki," created in October 2002, detailed the September 11 attacks; Wiktionary, a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002; Wikiquote, a collection of quotations, created a week after Wikimedia launched, and Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively written free textbooks and annotated texts. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects, including: Wikimedia Commons, a site devoted to free-knowledge multimedia; Wikinews, for citizen journalism; and Wikiversity, a project for the creation of free learning materials and the provision of online learning activities. Of these, only Commons has had success comparable to that of Wikipedia. Another sister project of Wikipedia, Wikispecies, is a catalogue of species.

The separation of Wikimedia Commons allowed images to be shared among any of the other-language wikipedias. Now we have project Wikidata also. A fuller answer would take days to explain, so read each of the wikilinked topics (such as "Wikinews") for the history of each sister project. However, the simple answer is to note the scope of data format covered by each project, and how they were separated depending on limitations in the scope of each format. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Addshore, good question. I suspect it was because creating extra wikis for Wiktionary and similar projects was easier to do in the short term than to create Wiktionary, Wikisource and so forth as extra namespaces in a wiki for each language. We are now paying the price for that in many ways including the lack of global watchlists and that it is much more effort to migrate a dictionary definition from Wikipedia to Wiktionary than it would be if they were separate namespaces in the same wiki. But chiefly we are hitting the problem that the wisdom of crowds is dissipated if you have an ever more subdivided crowd. There have been a couple of suggestions on meta and Strategy to migrate to a single wiki for each language, but they tend to run into the sand, partly because it would take a bit of consolidation as some editors have different userpages on different projects and some template names have been used for different templates, and partly because the existing system whereby each permutation of language and project gets its own wiki has acquired a certain inertia. ϢereSpielChequers 16:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing you have read or know where to find these discussions and trying to have single wikis per language, Is there any chance you could throw me a link or two? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

meta:Wikimedia.org was one of them, though that started as a specific suggestion to consolidate the multilingual wikis. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Separated because plain wikilinks should connect same-format pages: The separation of dictionary entries into a separate wiki is due to the need for most plain wikilinks to link directly to some other dictionary entries, rather than booklets or articles. For example, in a dictionary, a simple wikilink to "vertigo" should not include a film by Alfred Hitchcock, or a link to "distribution" should not list articles about probability and film distribution, but instead both of those wikilinks should connect to the basic definitions of those words. Similarly, on Wikisource, a link to "Hamlet" should connect to source documents, not to a summary article about plot, reception and cultural influences, nor to an entry about pronouncing "ham·let". In general, the mainspace of a wiki should wikilink to pages of a similar data format, while the rare wikilinks can use namespace prefixes such as "Talk:" or "Help:" or "Template:" or "Module:" (Lua script) or "File:" etc. The separation of wikis allows the main namespace (of each) to contain pages of similar format and purpose, all interconnected by plain wikilinks of form "[[page]]". However, the use of a hypothetical "reset-default-namespace" attribute could cause all plain wikilinks to default to the current namespace, so once inside a "wikt:" namespace, then all wikilinked words would connect to wikt-namespace entries, and article wikilinks would then need prefixes, such as colon "[[:article]]" to link back to the mainspace, from a reset-default namespace. As I noted above, this discussion could take days to address all the issues as to why various wikis are separated from each other (why Wikivoyage?) and discuss the proposed or rejected features for default "pathnames" for wikilinks, and the ability to specify a default "path" sequence of lookup rules, where a wikilink might search into other namespaces until a match was found, but not confuse readers when uncreated articles show the dictionary definition instead, perhaps by a hypothetical change-namespace banner which could notify the reader, such as by, "No article found, showing dictionary entry [or talk-page] instead". Currently, millions of plain wikilinks connect only to the main namespace in each wiki, and a merge would require a massive change to wikilinks. There are many issues to consider. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:50/13:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you have just hit the nail on the head in a number of ways. "all plain wikilinks to default to the current namespace, so once inside a "wikt:" namespace, then all wikilinked words would connect to wikt-namespace entries," is sort of what I had in my mind, but as you said going from where we are now to that system would be one massive change. I have spent a few days looking around and I do see good things developing such as the use of WikiDat, to start with for interwiki links but hopfully in the future allot more. Also developments on the Mediawiki side such as expanding on the current SUL and having a for of GlobaUser area hopfully including user pages talk pages watch list and preferences. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The design would indeed be a little different, and there would be a substantial but bot based migration required. Similarly where there are templates which need renaming because the same name has been used for templates on two different wikis. But this is all straight forward stuff for bots to resolve. The difficult thing comes in merging userrights across wikis, especially when you have an admin on one who isn't an admin on others, or indeed whenyou have a valuable editor on one wiki who has been banned or blocked from another. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I had not thought about the blocked user side of things, as for Userrights I am sure something could be changed so that sysops would only have 'jurisdiction' haha, I mean be able to perform their actions in the regular namespaces (File, template e.t.c) and one other language (en). I guess this could also work for blocks, you could be blocked from editing individual namespaces. Of course the more this is thought about the messier it gets! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, though the complications are mostly about the migration. Possibly the biggest problem is that some small communities would fear that wikipedia would swamp them in succh an integration. My belief is that it would be better to start this amongst smaller language communities, perhaps including ones that are otherwise struggling for viability and would welcome the larger community it would bring. EN Wikipedia and the other big projects should only be integrated once we've ironed out migration bugs and established that it works better than the current arrngements in practice as well as theory. ϢereSpielChequers 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying the best idea would be to pick a small language which has a few instances of projects and then merge the projects together for that one language providing a central location for that one language. After this any problems would have been noticed and the process improved upon before moving to the next language up in the list? I guess this could also be performed as a test on a NON Live site to get a feel of the look and how it would work. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo

I've signed your guestbook and trough that I know you. But I'm curious about something. And my question is Did you became administrator in normal way? I mean did you became admin like others in RFA? Please answer me. And I would like to work with you in future. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo was an admin before our current "normal way" was invented - he was a founder of the site! Actually, there are still a few people with admin rights who became admins back in the days when the process to become an admin was "email Jimbo and ask". For example, one current admin, User:Lee Daniel Crocker, requested adminship via this email. Take a look at some early Wikipedia admin history at User:NoSeptember/Early admins (20 Sept 2002). – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo should get to appoint Admins, sorta like how the British monarch gets to appoint people to the House of Lords. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Except she doesn't really - she just rubber-stamps the list she's given by the government. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Me getting involved in appointing admins would not speed up the process, but slow it down, unless we transferred actual decision-making power to me, which is not a good idea for a variety of reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales is invariably modest. Ah well.... I guess I'm on a one man campaign to have Jimbo recognized as king of WP. NickCT (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We could go all ancient Roman and raise him to the level of god.....but I don't think he'd approve of that. Being a deity is much harder work...miracles can take a lot out of you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Raising Jimbo to deity status might be a bit too much. NickCT (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. No goat sacrifice then.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? I'd better strike that off my to-do list. I've also been elbows-deep in chicken entrails since moon-up trying to find the best way to resolve a current ANI dispute. Hmmph. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No amount of animal sacrifice will bring peace to ANI. Not even the hand of Jimbo can act to quell the turmoil. NickCT (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh....for AN/I you don't sacrifice a chicken. How silly. Everyone knows that for AN/I you sacrifice two badgers and a squirrel.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is help for editors if the majority of editors is somewhat biased?

Sounds arrogant, but is mainly not for me, but other editors. Let me explain:

A strong point of Wikipedia is the diversity of opinions related to an article/statement. Normally this results in an overall acceptable message. IMHO you had this in mind when you created Wikipedia, and by the way thank you for that.

But in those many years i have been editing Wikipedia i found cases, where this is malfunctioning: When the majority of editors here has some not fully realistic opinion about a topic and there are much less editors stating the contrary: I currently given up correcting some opinions about article messages relating for example to religions or countries: A revert of hours of writing neutral text can be done in seconds, and at any time: Wasting mine.

Currently facing some issues [12] on technology (aircraft, mainly Boeing 787 Dreamliner) articles. Neutral help would be welcome.

Its difficult to improve the situation in general, for editors with other (for example religious) believes, other countries related statements and else, but imho it will be worthful. I am thinking about an idea of templates:

• An inline template: {{minority statement}} or so. Should direct to a page which lists min. 2 requirements: Editors must state on the article talk page, why they think they are a minority, and second: Give the facts. Somehow trying to motivate others to dig deeper for reasons and probably change, which is often not preferred.

Also there are Dispute resolution noticeboard or something, this does often not really help: A majority often reverts a minority into oblivion or to ANI, before something like that could be started. IMHO Wikipedia articles would loose some of the (already low, i like Wikipedia) remaining bias. But: I am not sure if it will work.

• An additional template for the ANI page, like: "This user asks that his case is analyzed deeply to understand his reasons." Probably a variant for the user-talk page, if he got blocked without having any chance to answer, as i got lately, and already 2 times for edit war: My reason: WP:Ignore all rules.

The templates are just my 2 cents, a draft, and i am not sure if it will work. Some comments? Thank you very much in advance. Tagremover (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Minority viewpoints tend to get trampled but check wp:VPIL: There would need to be a higher-level empowerment to protect minority viewpoints, as in courtroom proceedings, where an official "minority report" would get filed for future consideration, rather than laughed away as the hounded group of "losers" would be driven away to find support somewhere else. Meanwhile, Jimbo is expecting a busy week, but might offer some suggestions later. The general concept, to request deeper analysis of minority opinions, sounds like a good idea, to perhaps "champion" a little-noticed viewpoint to become a future breakthrough in overall understanding. Finding a wp:Mentor might be a possible avenue to seek support. In general, the topic of minority-viewpoint analysis could be discussed at the wp:VPIL lab [the WP:Village pump (idea lab)], where other editors might have already made some progress to support that approach. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This certainly IS a problem, and a widespread one, and it goes beyond content determination. If the tyrannical majority in a walled-garden venue is nasty and wiki-savvy, the wiki-system/environment makes it too easy to conduct gang-warfare against the person to silence them and also use their majority in that venue to override policies and guidelines. More protection mechanisms are needed, but they shouldn't be to blindly protect a minority viewpoint just because it is minority....instead they should assure that a good process is used to resolve the dispute instead of the current situation where the majority in that little venue can use such to over-ride policies, guidelines and sound arguments. One element of the answer is to simply identify & recognize the problem which would ten t help the situation. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The essay WP:CRUSH has some bearing on the issues discussed above. Deicas (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I didn´t noticed wp:VPIL, thanks, but: New ideas seem to disappear there after a few weeks, probably before they got appropriate notice. Probably the page should include for example 200 ideas, but be split in several pages like Categories, with the newest entries first. Of course this is an idea for the wp:VPIL (talk?) page. Haven´t read WP:CRUSH due to an edit conflict, will do so: Interesting.

Regarding my proposal of {{minority statement}} inline tags, i forgotten the most important thing: It should give some clearly, but clearly limited power for the minority. Summary:

• It should be seen as disruptive for normal users to remove especially the protected, related statement from the article, if NOT ALL requirements were fulfilled:

1.The editor using minority rights must previously have talked clearly (in the talk page) about his proposed statement or concerns, and minimum several times detailed/answered his reasons and others comments or tried to if ignored.

2.The editor must have tried minimum once to establish his statement in the article (or including Wikipedia pages?) and got reverted/removed: Active editors are meant.

3.The editor must previously posted on the related talk page:

1. his reasons, why he thinks he is a minority or the article is related to the protected statement biased. If these are OBVIOUSLY wrong or by an informal voting rejected: No protection. Probably there should be an appropriate minimum time to discuss: 3 days?
2. reasons about the protected statement, including facts or references, if needed. If these are OBVIOUSLY wrong or by an informal voting rejected, in a hopefully constructive, detailed discussion: No protection. Probably there should be an appropriate minimum time to discuss: 3 days?

4.It should be CLEARLY or mainly no personal attack, vandalism or else.

This tag and the related statement/change could be removed anytime by admins not involved in this conflict. And:

• This quite high protection should be protected for abuse: It should be regarded as disruptive, if the editor used the tag knowingly or clearly wrong, included repeated placement: Could be placed only once per user and all related article statements.
• The {{minority statement}} inline tag should place two links, somehow similar to the tag: First an information page listing also all requirements, and second a link to the related talk page, which could be directed to the related subsection in this probably heavily discussed article.

Additionally an ANI tag, because editors are probably taken to ANI very quickly, like: "This user asks that his case is analyzed deeply to understand his reasons." Abuse should be only punished in very clear cases. Users should be informed about the existence of this tag at the top of ANI.

A third tag for the user talk page, if the user got blocked without being heard or just thinks the decision needs to be removed requiring a much deeper analysis. Abuse shouldn´t be punished: its his own user talk page.

As usual, all tags should add a (hidden) category. Sockpuppets imho mostly have a WP:POINT or WP:AGENDA and identify themselves hereby quickly.

Some details, summarized. Sorry for the lengthy posting. The word: "Minority statement" is just a proposal, important is its function. {{Protected statement}} is probably better. Again, Thanks. Tagremover (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes

Now, tried everything a Wikipedian can do: tried to talk to Jimmy Wales and opened a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: 95% chance to get a really good block. [13] But: No risk, no neutral Wikipedia. Tagremover (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Ball

Hello,

I have created a new page called WP:Rolling Ball. It shall be a friendly place where experienced as well as new editors can freely discuss topics on Wiki. Everyone is invited and welcome to join the Group. You presence shall also be much appreciated.

You may join by adding your name to the list here. We are currently trying to hold all discussions on the Hang Out Zone. We would love to have some feedback from you at the talk page. Should you join, please also watchlist/keep an eye on the Hang Out Zone, so you can be aware of all the discussions that are going on.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Provides a bulletin board to link other discussions: It seems a good idea, as another page to alert users to various ongoing talks, to re-focus interest into many directions. Perhaps there could be a shortcut "WP:Hoz" or such to get there (WP:Rolling_Ball/Hang_Out_Zone). I am not sure if the Village Pump wp:PUMP or wp:VPM, for the wp:Village pump (miscellaneous), seems too restrictive or not for some users. I'll ask in the Zone. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1,000,000 articles on it:wiki!

Good morning Jimbo! Italian Wikipedia reaches one million articles today, come party with us and leave here a message to support our community! Have a nice day! :-) --Patafisik (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reached 1,000,000 itwiki articles on 22 January 2013: On the Italian Wikipedia, the count rose to over 1,000,063 articles from 999,850 (for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} on Tuesday, so it appears the typical article creations increased greatly for the day. Congratulations to all. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo, for your "gift" to all of us in Italy. Italian Wikipedia has now more than one million articles and we wish you at our "party"....Your gift called wikipedia is now on the main Italian newspapers (that are celebrating the "million" articles reached today). Ciao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.105.82 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A Norwegian commando and purge from google search results

The topic about commando Bjørn Sagvolden has previously been deleted from Norwegian wikipedia, alongside the topic of Ben Griffin (British Army soldier). Maybe we should have another try at the first topic.

(The Norwegian article about Ben Griffin was repeatedly deleted until the last round of deletion discussions, which was the first time that a Norwegian administrator found Griffin notable. (Administrators Jebland and Keanu were a minority of (two) administrators against the vote of five administrators in the aggregate discussion.

Maybe it is enough to say that Norwegian wikipedia has their practices--and few if any policies regarding soldier biographies--and we have ours. (Everyone of Norway's dead soldiers in Afghanistan each have their article in Norwegian, in addition to their mention on this wiki memorial wall. Our wikipedia does things differently. Perhaps the Norwegian site's administrators are unsympathetic to soldiers who criticize NATO (i.e. Griffin) and soldiers who sue Norway (i.e. Sagvolden).

Dagbladets 2010 article about Sagvolden's medical record and doctor, has apparently been "filtered out" from google search results. So until someone at google does an un-snafu, one will need this URL [14] or a link from a source without "filtering" similar to Google's.

Our article about the U.S. soldier and his process to abtain a copy of his medical records from military service, was kept after its deletion discussion. Maybe that type of notability is part of the notability of Bjorn Sagvolden.

He was a pioneer of special operating force FSK (Forsvarets Spesialkommando). (He was headhunted[15] to the force in 1982, two years before the force became operational in 1984[16].)

As a plaintiff he lost a courtcase against the Ministry of Defence in 2009.

A 13 November 2009 article in Dagbladet said that a letter from the ministry (dated 25 August 2009) said that regarding his military medical records, the ministry could not locate those "because doctor [Svein] Eidsvik has died, therefore the ministry can not examine the matter any further". In the article the doctor's wife stated that the doctor was alive and well [17]. The article quoted Sagvolden, "I interpret the letter as visible evidence that the ministry did not want Eidsvik to witness in my lawsuit (against the ministry). And they are trying to keep me away from the truth by claiming that the key witness and diving mentor [https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svein_Eidsvik Svein Eidsvik] is dead".

This article on French wikipedia has mentioned Sagvolden, with references since 2011. Maybe that article needs to hide revisions at the same rate that we hide revisions in ouR article. I am quite certain that french wikipedia will be purged before this week has passed.

--Barnstar candidate school (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

An article was created at 10:23, 22 January 2013‎. Six minutes later it was nominated for speedy deletion. Would it be appropriate for me to ask that the article gets a normal deletion discussion? I have found this article, User:Torbjorn Jaktlykt/Bjørn Sagvolden on public domain, thru google. It is my inspiration for the article, and I find it highly unlikely that that article has previously been discussed in a deletion discussion. (And how would a non-administrator be able to compare a deleted article from 2008, with my current article? It seems like my article has been targeted simly because of the title—Bjørn Sagvolden. The title of an article that was deleted in 2008. My article has references and text that can not have been written before 2009.) --Barnstar candidate school (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is subject to CSD G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and CSD G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users) - 4ing (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on the inclusion of an image under Fair-Use on Execution of Rizana Nafeek

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales,

I request your opinion whether we could include the image of the letter on the executed Rizana Nafeek's page since that has her finger thumb impression with the following excerpts on the letter;

“ In these circumstances, I under duress placed my signature on the written paper they gave to me. They took me to another place and asked a question, As I was virtually in a state with loss of memory and in fear and frightened mood, I had happened to tell them that I strangled the infant. In the name of Allah, I swear and aver that I never strangled the infant.

I hereby place my signature after having read this statement.

”

We had a lengthy discussion on the subject and on the images' talk page and other pages, but still I believe the image has some encyclopedic value.

This is my final attempt on this subject and request your opinion since you are the founder of this project and this project too could be instrumental for an another Arab Spring on unjustifiable executions.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, "this project too could be instrumental for an another Arab Spring" ? If you're using this project as a platform from which to foment revolution then you're really not here for the right reasons, and should be blocked and forgotten swiftly, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The basic gist of this is that there's no way the letter is going to be PD. Anything from the letter that's important enough to be included in the article will be referenced in reliable sources. Ryan Vesey 13:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it isn't going to be PD, but that wasn't the question asked. The question is whether or not it would quality as "fair use" - and clearly the answer is "yes". While I agree with Tarc that using Wikipedia to "foment revolution" isn't appropriate, I didn't take HudsonBreeze to be arguing against NPOV, but rather to be making the rather mundane but also rather true point that if Wikipedia presents the truth (and no one appears to be denying the factuality here) in a compelling way, then the truth can be a powerful force for good in the world. What I haven't seen yet (but I haven't been to the talk page discussion) is any valid arguments against inclusion. An illustration of the facts explained in the article and backed by reliable sources is a great way to improve the experience of the reader.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I read this one poorly. Prior to making this statement, HudsonBreeze had been arguing that it was PD at the deletion discussion and on the talk page of the file. Ryan Vesey 23:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the burden of evidence falls that way, though, does it? I had thought that if an image is not free, the onus is on the inclusionist-to-be to justify it. So the question to ask is "is an image of the piece of paper critical to the reader's understanding of the subject matter?" Obviously the event itself, that a confession was coerced/forced by authorities, is central to the narrative. But do we need to see the written word on the page to understand what happened? Tarc (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly to Ryan, Tarc et al., I'm not sure how this image meets the non-free content criteria, particularly criterion #8. I understand that it'd be nice to have in the article, and if it was a free image (it was originally tagged public domain, and arguments were put forward at the FfD to that effect), I would support having the image. But I can't really say that "its omission would be detrimental to [the reader's] understanding" of the topic; its contents can be summarized effectively by text, since it in itself is just text. Points have been made that looking at the handwriting, one might be able to hazard guesses about her emotional state, education, etc., but those guesses would be better made in the text of the article, with reliable sources backing them (where they cease to become guesses). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It certainly meets [[WP:COMMONSENSE]], which trumps the rote application of NFCC via WP:IAR. I mean really, how does it serve the mission of Wikipedia or the interests of its readers or the public to exclude this image even if that were the letter of the policy / guideline? We're here to create a free encyclopedia, and by all rational standards that photo is free. It may be freely copied for any purpose without fear of litigation, or stepping on anybody's toes. The girl either owned the copyright or not as of the moment of the letter's creation, and it either got inherited by her parents or more likely escheated to the state, all depending on the copyright and inheritance laws of Saudi Arabia (!). Do you really thing the girl's parents or the government of Saudi Arabia are going to claim infringement here? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Writ on this. Most images of people places etc, can be excluded and not be detrimental to [the reader's] understanding of the subject with a desription in prose. A written document being used under Fair Use has more encyclopedic value than a simple picture of the person themselves and cannot be replaced with a description without losing huge amounts of information or doing it in a manner that will not do it justice. I have always hated the way criterion #8 was written. Sounds like an argument can be made against any image with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

1. 8 sucks, I've had plenty of images I'd like to include not be allowed due to #8, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. Ryan Vesey 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think WP:IAR applies to copyright questions. That's not something you can just "ignore all rules" on, since it's not really up to you.Volunteer Marek 20:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see a rational explanation of how a picture of this hand-written document is of any importance to the article. I'd wager that 99.9% of the readers are unable to read it, so it isn't being used to convey actual information. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain your reasoning to exclude it?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered that this is the english Wikipedia and we want to include a photograph of a letter written in Tamil? Wouldn't a much better solution be to include a link to an English translation of the letter in the external links? Ryan Vesey 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia? Could have foold me. Wow. Maybe we should link to the English version of File:MagrittePipe.jpg as well? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just being the English Wikipedia does not mean we exclude non english images. LOL! Even our policy states that we can use non English sources when no other source of equal validity exists. You cannot sub out a translation of the original document and that is what this is. An original document. It has encyclopedic value for that reason alone (if not more). This image cannot be replaced by a free image. This image has direct context to the article's subject. Regardless of the image being written in another language, does not mean it does not have encyclopedic use on the English Wikipedia. There are no copyright issues when Fair Use is used properly and the last part of criteria 8 is a Wikipedia policy and guideline, it is not a part of Fair Use case law. There really is no actual Fair Use law. Fair Use pertains to a number of decisions not an actual current US copyright law. Fair Use allows images as part of critical commentary. Why wouldn't we include the image and a link to a translation?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, my purely personal opinion is that I don't want to mess around with copyright, so I don't think there's really any circumstance where I'd ignore the copyright rules. (I'm completely boring about rules, it's true.) Second, you're right about nobody claiming infringement in practice of course; they have more important things to worry about than what we do here, and probably wouldn't be able to file a claim even if they wanted to. But I could see them objecting to the distribution of their daughter's letter in a book made for profit. I can't find the links right now, but there are people scraping Wikipedia and selling the articles as books on Amazon, which is permitted by our license. I wish I could find the links, so that I could see what they do with the fair-use material; they might take it out, I don't know. But I could see the copyright holders--whether it's her parents or the government, really--objecting to that. I always thought that was kind of the spirit of the NFCC, that we try to use non-free content as little as possible, and this is in accord with that spirit because, as much as we'd like to have the image, it's not necessary to the article. Useful, definitely, but not necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

IAR does not mean circumventing rules or violating copyright, it means using your head to reach the right result instead of following rules where they don't apply. Jimbo was being playful and idiosyncratic, or perhaps pedagogical, by phrasing it that way. He could have been more legalistic about it and said something like "when interpreting what any rule means or whether it applies to a given situation, the results of various interpretations should be measured against those of other rules and principals, and where there is a contradiction the most sensible outcome should apply." I'm kinda sorry I brought this up, because people's understanding of IAR is quite a tangent. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I totally agree with you, but let me just point out this one thing: sometimes the right result isn't the result that we like best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As in this case. I don't like that image and I'm not sure I would want it in the encyclopedia. I haven't edited that subject area and have little interest in it. My comments are mostly about Wikipedia's copyright policy and how it's applied, and sometimes misapplied. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need reasons to exclude it, under the foundations mission statement you need reasons to include it that comply with the fair use statement. WP:IAR never applies to copyright issues , Wiki foundation position on copyright is a Wikipedia:Legal_policies position - see it here http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy - Wikipedia:Non-free_content - to quote - Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases (for example, in some situations where acquiring a freely licensed image for a particular subject is not possible), but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use, and in accordance with Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria as set out below. The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law. - if you want to use the pic you should make a case for it using a rationale that allows usage via the content guidelines outlined under Wikipedia:Non-free_content - Youreallycan 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you need a reason for removing an image. If you just removed one and said "I don't have a reason for removing it", it would be quickly replaced. Your reason would be that it fails copyright policy, and the reason to keep it would be that it does not. The rule that IAR does not apply to copyright situations can also be safely ignored here, because this image is clearly not a copyright problem for the encyclopedia. I'm well aware of the Foundation's statement and the whole history of the policy, and it was not intended to cover this situation. You probably could make a fine case for the image under NFCC but it's a moot angels dancing on pinheads exercise. All the arguments I see for excluding the image are arguments for following the rules just for the sake of following the rules, I haven't heard a single argument that removing the image actually serves Wikipedia's mission. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Following the rules" is the reason, and it's not a bad one when it comes to copyright issues. We have NFCC for a reason; it's not "we can use a non-free image when it meets NFCC or alternately we can just ignore NFCC and use it if we really want to." If you think that the image is essential to the article, then that's fine, and the image meets NFCC, and there's no problem. You should start (or rather, continue, you've already started it) talking about why it's essential, and give up the "ignore NFCC" angle. If you don't think it's essential, then there's no good reason for ignoring NFCC and including it anway. Put another way, NFCC already is our IAR response to our policy of only using freely-licensed content, in a way; it's just that it has now been codified. So, yeah, that's my 2 cents. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just after the correct result, and that's what I'm doing by pointing out that NFCC is somewhat beside the point. Not ignoring it at all, saying it doesn't reasonably apply here. It definitely doesn't apply on Jimbo's talk page, which has become a community forum of sorts for meta-talk about Wikipedia. If we want to have a deletion discussion there's a page for that. I won't say there's anything particularly wrong with following rules for their own sake, that's what keeps the trains on time in some parts. But there's also nothing wrong with looking beyond the rules to what they mean, that's what got the trains (and Wikipedia) built in the first place. Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand Writkeeper's argument. The image, in this case does apear to be essential in an understanding of the subject. We do not use only free images so the point is moot. As long as it stands up to NFCC (which it does) then it can be included. This case is far clearer than most. Cartoon characters with a true registered copyright have more wiggle room with editors than a controversial political document. Hilarious. At least the Wonder Woman article has lots of pretty pictures. Too bad its a horrible missuse of our Fair Use policy...but then it seems NFCC IS being ignored there.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that it's just text. We can describe pretty accurately what is in the text without having to show it. It's much easier to provide a summary of a text without needing reproducing it than it is to generate a mental picture of an image (like Wonder Woman, I guess) with words. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, which is why we would have an image of Wonder Woman in that article. (Fair warning: I haven't actually read that article.) But in this case, the picture is still just words, so I don't really see how not having it would significantly detract from the reader's understanding of what's going on, especially since the letter is not directly the subject of the article. If it was, then that would probably be a different story. But it isn't an article about the letter she wrote, it's an article about the whole situation, and given that, I'm just not sure that including a picture of a written letter adds much to the understanding of the events in the article. The relative importance of the letter in this image in Wonder Woman is neither in doubt nor the point. I just don't see how not including a picture of words on a page, in an article that could easily summarize the contents of the letter without needing the picture, would detract from a reader's understanding of the execution and what happened. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually get where you are coming from on this. I just disagree strongly. Fair use, in this case, is clearly applicable. What you are arguing is the use of an image of text that you cannot read means that it has no value or less value. That seems to mean that we, as English speaking and reading users of Wikipedia, are limited in our understanding of the situations being summarized if they are not clearly all English. No. That is shortsighted. The document has direct context to the subject. It contains more information as an image then just text and is the document used by this government. Regardless of its language it has as much context and value as any document, regardless of the written language.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I haven't argued anywhere about whether or not it's acceptable because it's not in English. I think Ryan brought that up, but it's a non-issue to me; I'd say the same were it in English. It's just that it's not illustrating anything, since it's just text. A freely-made summary would, in my mind, serve just as well, because I don't really see the value in looking at a picture of the original document here. I just don't see what it offers the article in terms of new information or understanding.

All that aside, though, this is something upon which reasonable people can differ, so the FfD will take its course, and if it's decided to be kept, well, that's totally fine. My only objection is that I don't think a fair-use claim on it is valid according to NFCC; if everyone thinks that it is valid under fair use, well, nothing wrong with that. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what it being "just" text has to do with the fair use issue. Some have argued that the actual writing gives some understanding into the woman's state of mind or education. I don't necessarily agree with this, so I can understand others' disagreement. But, the text itself is relevant to understanding the issue. So in order to get equal understanding of the issue without the image, it would be necessary to copy the text, not just summarize it. But copying the text would be subject to the same fair use issues as the image. So whether the image is "just" text or not, we have thesame fair use issue. Rlendog (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Discussions like this only reinforce the reason why I am so disdainful and dismissive of image deletion discussions; the area is simply infested with "I like it" and other insipid rationales. One editor keeps saying that it "appears to be essential in an understanding of the subject" without any rational explanation of how. Another editor is "just after the correct result", meaning that he has already made him his mind that the image should be in the article and looks to back-fill the argument to support that conclusion. I'm not the learned man that some are around here, but I'm pretty sure that is a basic logical fallacy. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that little effort is being made on my part to give a rationale, but mainly becuase this is not my argument. I just happened to see the discussion. But I should explain why I feel it is essential. This is the document that she is signing to claim she was coerced into a confession. It has relevance to the subject which is the execution of the person the letter was written by. Kurt Cobain's supposed suicide letter is less legible and is in English and is on the BLP of the subject [18]. This is clearly a valid inclusion due to the controversy, even if we can't read it. The same applies to the Nafeek letter.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And for my part, I disdain nonfree content issues because it's infested with misguided zealots with a persecution complex who know nothing of copyright law or the free content movement, and think they're on a thankless drone mission to spread the word of the Foundation, often flanked by administrators and unapproved bots, by eradicating all traces of human-created images and other profane media, which they scorn as unnecessary "decoration", from a text-only encyclopedia. Present company excluded of course, I enjoy working with Tarc in other ignoramus-invested quarters of the encyclopedia :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, nice ad hominem. When you throw WP:ILIKEIT accusations around, the last refuge of the editor who can't come up with a substantive rebuttal, it could be useful to check whether your target does in fact like it and seek that result. Check my comments above. I have no dog in this race, as they say. My comment about the correct result is exactly that. I didn't choose an outcome before reasoning through things, I looked at the our copyright policy and why we have it, and reached an outcome that it is simply not meant to exclude historically important noncommercial documents like this from the purview of the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The foundations position is that free content is what it is all about - non free is to be avoided as much as possible - Is this writing cited in WP:RS ? if it is then use them to comment about it in a free way - avoid the worthless addition of non free content - because it looks pretty - Youreallycan 23:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Absolutely not. If the foundation felt the way you just commented then we would not be able to use non free content. Did everyone already forget why we had a blackout last year? If the foundation really felt this way we would not have had such a demonstration. Wikipedia relies heavily on Fair Use. Images and text. When used within our policy this is more than acceptable, it is standard practice. Yes, we should be using free content as much as possible but we have never abandoned the use of nonfree content. I have no idea what you are stating in regards to WP:RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't it acceptable to provide a link to an English version of the note and describe any important aspects of the note that are referenced in reliable sources in text? Ryan Vesey 23:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We can provide a translation without an off wiki link, but any discussion of the letter itself would require secondary sourcing to verify the claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I was through all this with File:Innocence of Muslims.png, which was one frame from an Egyptian TV broadcast on YouTube that was hosted in-frame by the New York Times presumably without the then-unknown filmmaker's permission. After endless arguments, it was deleted as "not in use", simply by sufficiently insistent removals. But then again, for that matter, it remains absolutely impermissible (despite repeated attempts) for Innocence of Muslims to link in any way to Ya`fūr, period, or vice versa, despite the animal being named in the film and numerous reports - or indeed, for the article to contain any discussion of the film's content outside the narrow permitted dialogue of describing it as bad, puerile, racist, and detailing the full criminal history of the author. Such is NPOV on Wikipedia. It simply is not worth the time to try to argue an NFCC with a political opposition, because there are an unlimited number of invalid objections. If you care enough to write about such things, write your own article, all rights reserved. Wnt (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey should not have commented here that - "She either killed a kid or allowed one to die in her care". Then all his arguments quoting various policies are based on ill-motivation on the subject.

It was revealed that the Dawdami police failed to take the dead infant for a postmortem to determine for certain the cause of its death. And we are not the God to prevent the death when someone in our care. Then many thousands of doctors are at this time either lost their jobs or executed.123.231.89.36 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, please close this thread. It is starting to become an Argumentum ad Jimbonem issue. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Was someone misquoting Jimbo?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Stefan2, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:Writ Keeper voted Delete at Rizana's Image Deletion, now deleting important analysis under Copy-Vio. The content was not deleted for more than 4 Hours but after my response, it was deleted immediately by User:Writ Keeper within 2 Minutes. User:Stefan2 and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise are following him to revert once his Two reverts are over removing the content as Copy-vio and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has warned me for Edit War, possibly to use his Admin tool to block me.61.245.165.22 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is, in fact, a copyright violation; unlike the image, which I'll be the first to admit has some subjectivity and room for interpretation in it, the material you copied was unambiguously a copyright violation, which is a problem no matter what namespace it's posted in. The link to the article is still there, so I'm not even sure what you're worried about; anyone can still read it. You just need to refrain from copying and pasting the article into Wikipedia.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation may be an issue, but the timing of your revert as I mentioned above raises doubts on your credibility and on others too.61.245.165.22 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, but it's entirely coincidental; I removed it when I saw it. I had no nefarious intent, and indeed, I'm not sure what the point would been if I had; the link to the article you were using is still there, so it's not like your point is made any less strongly. (An argument could be made that it's better for you not to copy and paste such a long article into your argument regardless of copyright, since making such a long post can cause people to not read it.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning to 61.245.*.*. Stop adding or removing meaningless spaces [19][20][21] in order to trick archiving bot into believing this thread is still active! -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:RFA#New RfC

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not make everyone admins. That would solve all our problems. :D Of it wold create many more. Mwhahaha >D—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

:). No one has responded I have only two comments so far (both supports) at WT:RFA My suggestion now has some support at WT:RFA, which is particularly promising given that everything that even smells like an RfC there usually gets enough opposition to snow-close it. so the lack of response is promising). . I'd like to write a news item on this for the Signpost, but I don't want to say "Jimmy said so-and-so a month ago" ... do you have any update for me before I write something, Jimmy? - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It has what at WP:RFA? Clearly not support (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Added "some". - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A simpler request, if you'd prefer this, Jimmy: At WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC (or here), if you'd be willing to indicate that you plan to suggest our next step if we can't get consensus, that alone would probably be enough to get more people to participate, on the theory that something different is going to happen this time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dank, why not be patient? I've been working on an RFA Reform that included clerks, and the exact roles. However, having seen Jimbo's comments, I put all of my work on hold. Clerks ... process ... both go together. In my belief, we could add admin performance review and desysop into the mix, but those don't always go well in one great package. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, once every four years doesn't strike me as "impatient" :) Your stuff looks really good to me. What I'm suggesting is that you're going to be much happier with the discussion you get on your proposal if we can find a way to keep 75% of the voters from opposing it for (perfectly valid) reasons unrelated to the actual proposal, and if we can attract a lot of discussion. Jimbo's proposal to make suggestions, combined with low rate of promotions last year, an apparent groundswell of interest in discussing all aspects of RfA reform, and my suggested ground rules for the RfC, may be the way to generate just the kind of discussion you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delay SNOW-close of RfAs to discuss Opposes: While Jimbo is busy this week, we could discuss options for avoiding a too-quick wp:SNOW-close of an RfA, so that the Oppose !votes could be refuted if people know the fallacies (or faulty arguments) in some hollow Oppose opinions. Often a prior half-baked discussion is touted as "evidence" of prior trouble, when intelligent people can clearly see it as prior badgering based on rumor-mongering with unfounded personal attacks or similar "begging the question" of false claims, where others with detailed knowledge could easily refute the dastardly claims by mud-slinging haters, if only there were a few more days for normal people to schedule time to reply. BTW, the Code of Hammurabi enacted boomerang punishments for those making false claims, with the retribution amplified and multiplied, severely, for those who falsely attacked people of high standing in the community. I think the result was far fewer false attacks, especially after the reverse punishments were enacted to silence the typical insulting culprits. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We may have to look at tools differently and maybe bebundle some of them away from sysops to use in the general community like rollback and reviewer etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Everybody, please welcome the newest member of the Wikipedia community

Is Wikipedia a perfect place for people with increasingly obsessive behaviour? At least one judge thinks so: "Wikipedia is perfect for people like Carl’, explained the judge, who had been concerned to learn of the defendant’s increasingly obsessive behaviour." And the judge continues: "That’s what’s so wonderful about user generated content sites; it keeps all those fixated males at home with their computers, instead of having them out and about, freaking out the rest of us." 76.126.142.118 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, that "story" has been floating around the internet for awhile now, it is fake. Either this newsbiscuit place is playing an Onion-like joke, or they just got played themselves. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Newsbiscuit is an onion competitor. However, it's obviously true anyway. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wait till all those obsessive judges get hooked... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean get hooked on Wikipedia? 76.126.142.118 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Both. haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh come now, there are many successful and distinguished Wikipedia editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good thing we dont care about Truthiness, we only care about what the references say. So "news" outlets reporting this makes it "true". :)97.85.211.124 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to actually refute that article... Prioryman (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to actually refute not that article itself, but some points stated in that article, in particular could anyone to actually refute that Wikipedia is the right place for "a slightly creepy loner who has been frightening women in his neighbourhood by hanging around their houses and trying to talk to them about military history and Star Wars" and who suffers from "increasingly obsessive behaviour". 76.126.142.118 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Joke's on you! The women in my neighbourhood loves Star Wars! Resolute 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare and contrast:

The usual spat over which Wikipedia contributor said what about some other contributor: [22]

A Wikipedia article falsely accuses a named individual of being a convicted sexual offender: [23]

And yes, I may well end up being held responsible for another of the former for something I said in the latter - but haven't we got our priorities thoroughly screwed up here? Commit what I suspect that anyone but a close follower of Wikipedia rules might very well see as gross libel against a non-Wikipedian, and hardly anyone takes any notice. Engage in name-calling amongst ourselves, and everyone piles in. Are we really so concerned with the inner workings of this loony-bin that self-abuse (lol!) is somehow more important to us than preventing the abuse of others in far more fundamental ways? Frankly, if there is one thing that disheartens me more than any other about Wikipedia, it is this gross hypocrisy - be civil to yourselves, and don't give a fuck about anyone else... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've only sort of watched the second case, so while the overall pattern of editing may need looking at (RFCU?), people do tend not to get up in arms when someone says "Uhh, I screwed up. I apologize, how do we fix this?" It kind of deflates the torch and pitchfork crowd, for the most part. The other thread involves a long-term troublesome editor throwing a boomerang. That is always going to draw a crowd. Resolute 02:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've actually confirmed my point there. Of course AnkhMorpork apologised (well, he would, wouldn't he [24]), and said he wouldn't do it again - case closed, apparently. YRC does the same thing, and everyone carries on with the pitchforks and torches... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are playing fast and loose with context. YRC only apologized and promised not to do it again after he was on the verge of a site ban. And not many people believe the sincerity of this apology and promise to change because the last several have been insincere. My understanding is that AnkMorpork brought their error up themselves. As brutal as that error was, they didn't require the threat of a ban to show contrition. Resolute 03:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding is false. AnkhMorpork 'brought up the error' [25] at 18:53, after I'd made it perfectly clear that I was going to do so as soon as the name had been redacted - at 18:37 (see the timestamp here. [26] I can't give the diff as the original post has been redacted). He evidently hoped to preempt me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I stand corrected. You identified a mistake, and they immediately accepted it was so, apologized and offered the explanation you demanded. The focus of my point stands. Resolute 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You think so? I beg to differ. This seems to me to provide clear evidence that Wikipedia is overly-concerned with internal squabbles, and lacks the means to actually handle broader issues. I have no doubt whatsoever that if WP:NPOV policy was properly applied, AnkhMorpork wouldn't have made the error in the first place - he would have been blocked as the self-evident promoter of sensationalist anti-Muslim tabloid hype he clearly is, and editing would be left to editors more concerned with accuracy, and less concerned with producing propaganda. Do we need an article on the 'Derby sex gang' at all? Frankly I doubt it, per WP:NOTNEWS - but we certainly didn't need one rushed out in such a hurry that it committed a gross libel against an uninvolved individual. SPAs aren't merely problematic because they skew content - they are also problematic because few of them give a damn about the accuracy of content in the first place. But is anyone prepared to address this issue? No, not really. We are too busy fighting over trivia that has no bearing on article content. Priorities are wrong, and they need fixing. Fundamentally... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember recently during the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that the mass media came out and identified the wrong person as the gunman, talking about his psychological records and otherwise denigrating him, until at last ... oops... they identified the wrong shooter. We're not out of line with the ethics of the mainstream media we use as our sources on this one. You can say that's bad, may be right, but Wikipedia is not on some elevated plane far above the sources it uses, it is a denizen of the Vale of Tears along with everybody else. According to [27] maybe 1300 people saw the wrong version. Sure, it's terrible, but it's probably less than the range of a Usenet post. Besides, Wikipedia is not so hypocritical as you say, alas - I can think of a certain editor whose account, under his real name, is still plastered with a "pedophilia-related disruption" block notice on his talk page, even though it was known that that account was blocked when he was 17. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"We're not out of line with the ethics of the mainstream media" - I expect us to be above the ethics of the mainstream media. And certainly better than "the range of a Usenet post". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost by definition, we can't be above our sources. At any rate, Andy has a problem with Ankh. That's understandable. Andy thinks there are long term problems with Ankh, that is also understandable. Perhaps Andy should compile his evidence and start an RFCU? He continually repeats his argument, but it is invalid given he is trying to compare a long-term disruptive user against one who was previously unknown to most. The problematic content has been removed from that article. What to do with Ankh, if anything, is the very same internal politics than the question of what to do with YRC was. Resolute 15:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of internal politics, just checked back in on the ANI thread and it appears that Ankh is about to get topic banned. Resolute 15:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting hairs on something of a tangent here, but we can take a more careful approach than our sources in some cases. So for example if four reliable sources decide to name a person accused of a crime, but two don't, we can still take the decision not to name them. We don't just slavishly parrot decisions made by the media. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, actually, and have very recently put that principle into practice at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd. But I was thinking more of a situation like Pat Burns, who was widely reported as having died about a year before his actual death. I'm actually the one who listed him at the recent deaths article, only to find out shortly after that the entire Canadian media F'ed up. In that case, I/we were faulty because our sources were. Resolute 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What was the nature of this disruption? Was it something that would have been innocuous because of his age, or was it something that would have been bad even for a 17 year old? Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that (WnT gave me the link to the discussion on my talk page) it does sound like Wikipedia was out of line here. Regardless of any technicalities about what that actually means, the average person who reads that will think it means the user is a pedophile and was banned for that.

(Although someone who uses a Japanese name, comes from the US, and is an anime fan is almost certainly using the Japanese name because of his interest in anime, so it's unlikely to be his real name.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

View from within Zuffa

Hi Jimbo Wales,

Do you know that view inside Zuffa that this whole site is just one big joke and it is all about what some rednecks think is "important" and not what is to genuine UFC fans.

As the guy who runs this site, if you care about its reputation, then you need to put a stop to this craziness.

--ExUFCStaffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExUFCStaffer (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably taking the troll bait by even responding to this, but starting off your comment by insulting the Wikipedia community probably won't do a lot of good. But I can imagine Jimbo Wales going to YouTube and watching one of Dana White's incoherent and profane tirades and suddenly not caring that Zuffa thinks Wikipedia is a joke. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what "Zuffa" means. I'll have to worry about a few other things first.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I googled it and found it's a PR company specialised on "MMA". This abbreviation makes no sense out of context, either, but these blokes are so self-centered that they keep using it on Wikipedia without setting the context. It's about 'mixed martial arts'.

Maybe ExUFCStaffer wanted to alert the community to paid PR editing by that company? Maybe Wikipedia has become a battleground of competing 'MMA' PR companies? I guess that would explain some recent events. Hans Adler 10:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And we actually have an article about them. Lectonar (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The average quality of the sources of that article is extremely poor. Better sources may exist, but if not, then the company does not seem notable to me. Hans Adler 10:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to say this letter is almost certainly a troll, and not from anyone involved in the business of MMA or even a fan of MMA (insulting Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia is quite counterproductive to Wikipedians who edit MMA articles, and any Wikipedia MMA editor with half a brain should be able to see that). On behalf of actual MMA fans who are also Wikipedians I urge you to disregard this silliness and am sorry that someone saw fit to waste your time. I also sincerely doubt that Zuffa LLC (the company that runs the UFC, the world's largest MMA promoter) has any "paid editors", and even if by some negligible chance they did (just saying for argument's sake), I'd think a professional paid editor would be the opposite of this guy. Beansy (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The view from many within Wikipedia is that many MMA fans hold their "sport" to be more important than others, and that the rules and policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them. Those that try to hold the yardsticks of notability to MMA one-off events and unknown "athletes" are usually met with hostility and attacks. The cage-match mentality of MMA bleeds over into Wikipedia editing, meaning we're left with fancruft, bruised and bloody editors, all because a belief in self-importance. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think this is the place to get into an argument about MMA editing, and I don't think a blanket attack on MMA article editors would accomplish much anywhere. "ExUFCStaffer" strikes me as a false flag troll, and either way I really don't think Jimbo Wales' talk page is the place for this. Beansy (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Either a false flag troll, or a sock of a blocked/banned editor. Either way, safely disregarded. Resolute 15:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I'm giving this to you in appreciation of your best idea ever: Wikipedia! DrAndrewWinters (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That missing reporter in Kazakhstan

I was asked on my talk page to look into this and I just remembered that some who follow this page may be wondering about what happened.

Here is the report of Reporters without Borders about what happened. In sum - it was a hoax. The reporter did not go missing except of his own accord as a (misguided) stunt to call attention to the plight of journalists there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: 1,000,000 articles in it:wiki

Tomorrow the special logo created for this achievement will be almost surely replaced by the standard one, in the main page.

The contributors of it:wiki were waiting for a (benevolent?) comment by you, but times goes by... Since previous reminders are in an archived part of your talk page, maybe you could miss this nice piece of news --Fioravante Patrone (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, hooray! I'll join the celebrations when the logo goes up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The logo is already up :D — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish I was the one who made the above comment :D Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Update on Turkish Wikipedia situation?

I was just wondering if you, Jimbo, or anyone else had an update on what steps are currently being taken with the issue of Turkish Wikipedia? I didn't notice any final resolution on the issue, but I admittedly could have missed a response. Silverseren^C 21:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, we're waiting for decisions which are about Turkish Wikipedia? --Cemallamec (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your hands-off approach is appreciated, but in this case... something... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Jimbo, I contributed Turkish Wikipedia for 2,5 years. I wrote articles, corrected somethings.. And I want to continue. But I blocked with other three active users (Seksen iki yüz kırk beş-Rapsar-Stultiwikia). Five sysops said troll about us, but Turkish Wikipedia community didnt agree with them. Meanwhile one of five sysops blocked pro-unblocking user and a sysop User:Reality006. PM: My English is not well. --Bermanya (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been in correspondence with a few people to try to better understand the situation. It is not easy. But I think that a positive resolution will be reached soon enough. Other than occasional news updates, I'm pretty sure that my talk page in English Wikipedia is not the most useful place for constructive dialog.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Should I be posting on the talk page of the Meta page? Or is the conversation about this happening somewhere else? Silverseren^C 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried the Turkish Wikipedia? Do you speak Turkish? What are your goals here? (That information will help me to understand what sort of recommendation you are seeking.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Turkish Wikipedia's tried everything. Conclusion: The Obstacle.78.183.57.103 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Wikipedia community tried to discuss this issue in the local village pump, but none of these admins joined these discussions. I can show you these discussions if you want. What I'm trying to saying that there is no point to discuss the issue in Turkish Wikipedia.--Rapsar (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to discuss the issue before lead to blocks. Only then issue was discussed at the meta RfC of which some shorter termed blocks were issued at tr.wikipedia over the comments on meta. The meta RfC was ignored by vast majority of tr.wikipedia sysops. A tr.wikipedia sysop after months of discussion at the RfC decided to enforce the RfC for which he was indefinitely blocked w/o discussion. For a local discussion to happen, people should not be intimidated by the prospect of blocks for merely speaking their mind out. Hence I agree with Rapsar's comment given the listed issues. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help fix an issue that is disrupting an entire language Wikipedia. That's my goal. And, no, I don't speak Turkish, so I don't know how useful it would be for me to comment directly at Turkish Wikipedia. Though it would be rather amusing if they blocked me for trying. However, none of us here really have the ability to change anything there. You're the one with the speaking power and the direct connection to the Foundation and the Stewards that can fix this mess. That's why i'm asking what steps the Foundation is taking to fix this, what exactly is the plan? Silverseren^C 07:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is unlikely (though not impossible) that the best way forward is for the Foundation and Stewards to intervene. It will be best for a thoughtful and kind conversation to take place in an atmosphere of forgiveness on all sides.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This blocking by Vito Genovese is considered as "an improper blocking established user(s)". So the administrator permission of Vito Genovese has to be removed by stewards and/or User:Jimbo Wales per Emergency. & I think we'd better continue dialog not in this page but in meta. Takabeg (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I second Takabeg and Rapsar. Unfortunatley any atmosphere of forgiveness has already been destroyed by admins. There's a dead-end and the issue is open for months.--Alperen (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I too believe Stewards is the correct first step. Very few times in my near 8 years working with various Wikimedia projects have I seen sysops take collective inaction by ignoring an RfC that discusses their conduct. Local sysops have demonstrated a complete disinterest in unblocking or even discussion on the matter. The RfC had simple to implement conclusions... Unblock of the 4 users + Reality006 (whom was blocked for unblocking the 4 users as per the RfC) and then holding a vote of confidence (which would ideally be a local vote provided participants aren't blocked or intimidated). Every other conclusion (such as establishment of a tr.wikipedia ArbCom) in the RfC can be only implemented with time. I do not wish to see a mass desysoping, the RfC had no consensus to that end either. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate: If you continue this way you can not solve the problems. Turkish Wikipedia loses 6-7 months.

Original : Eğer bu şekilde sorunları çözmemeye devam ederseniz Türkçe vikipedi bir 6-7 ay daha kaybeder. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 10:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see

Just because i'm interested in what kind of response i'll get, i've opened a discussion here on Turkish Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that's the right place for it, but I couldn't find any Administrator's Noticeboard or the like. I think it might just be because Google Chrome sucks at translating Turkish. Silverseren^C 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no administrators noticeboard. You have used village pump which is where actual discussion happens. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand the response i'm getting. I've had the same sort of response when members of other language Wikipedias come here and try to force their way. I suppose it's better just to remind them about the RfC, which does involve members of Turkish Wikipedia. Since they have a requirement to have to respond to the concerns of members of their community. Silverseren^C 12:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that'll make them care is for stewards to set an ultimatum for each admin: if you don't respond to the RfC by [date] you will be desysopped. That'd be fair. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they have responded - weren't they blocking editors who commented at meta? I saw at least one, I thought. Sorry to say, I think we're past that point. I'm starting to wonder why the other editors don't just fork the project. In the absence of action from outside the tr.wiki, I don't know what other option would exist. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

en:Sysops didn't respond about five blocks (Rapsar-Seksen iki yüz kırk beş-Bermanya-Stultiwikia and Reality006) yet. Especially block of Reality006 was intimidation. Five sysops didn't consult other active sysops and community.. And four of five sysops (Elmacenderesi-Eldarion-Vito Genovese-Mskyrider) were not so active until July 2012 (Time of blocks). They decided with private communication. I think, if Silver Seren ask these, they cannot more defend.. Respects.

tr: Hizmetliler beş engelleme (Rapsar-Seksen iki yüz kırk beş-Bermanya-Stultiwikia and Reality006) hakkında hala cevap vermedi. Özellikle Reality006'nın engeli bir gözdağıydı. Beş hizmetli diğer aktif hizmetlilere veya topluluğa danışmadı. Engellerin verildiği Temmuz 2012'ye kadar beş hizmetliden dördü (Elmacenderesi-Eldarion-Vito Genovese-Mskyrider) pek aktif değildi. Gizli iletişim yoluyla karar verdiler. Bence, Silver Seren bunları da sorgularsa daha fazla savunamayacaklarını düşünüyorum. Saygılarımla. Yanlış anlamaları önlemek için Türkçe'sini de yazdım. --Bermanya (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of my point - if their only response has been to block people who disagree with the first blocks, then I can't see any response they could make NOW that would be satisfactory to the editors calling for them to be de-sysopped. Honestly, if the blocking admins posted today and said something like "You know what, you guys are right, we're unblocking everyone we blocked, let's move on.", would that solve everything? I'm betting the answer is no. It's a bigger issue now - and if there is not a willingness to act outside of tr.wiki, then the only real option I can see would be to fork the Turkish wikipedia and start over with an admin corps (or Turkish-speaking pinch-hitters from other projects) who could set up processes that would avoid this issue in the future. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• We saw that "tr-sysops don't answer about this case." Sysop User:Khutuck said that "First of all, I'm quite displeased from all the interference to Turkish Wikipedia's internal affairs, and find this inappropriate" (and "over 20 users participated in the discussion" but he's unaware more than 20 users made comments on meta). And Sysop User:Kibele agreed with him. They only talked about User:Nazif İLBEK not the case on meta! In my opinion this problem can't solve on TR-Wiki. --Cemallamec (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cemallamec. They responding about just Nazif İlbek, they ignore blocks of five users. Very interesting. --Bermanya (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion should continue here. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 15:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've left a question there for someone to answer. Silverseren^C 07:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• This debate does not show that there are problems, Jimbo? 1 2 --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Is Getting Worse As It Gets Better

"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit." How true that is! And there's an easy way to fix it.71.198.249.0 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The full paper is available here (free). Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of comments I made in April 2010. I may not have gotten much traction at the time, but I haven't changed my mind since. Now that we have this publication to cite that argues these automatic template warnings are indeed harmful to Wikipedia, I think we should seriously consider a mass TfD of every template linked from Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. If you want to yell at people, yell at them - don't send out a damn robot to do it for you. However, I will admit that reading the paper [28], I don't actually see proof of something beyond correlation, and this is also only a small portion of the territory the paper covers. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To follow up, I've started Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Uw-npov3, which I intend as a sort of trial balloon to see if people are willing to consider ditching at least the harsher levels of the user templating system. Wnt (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me that is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Suggesting that it is not is wrong. Experienced editors do not want to spend time talking to and explaining to new editors the troubles with their edits. Maybe they shouldn't. A "Golden Editor" as mentioned in the paper, should be resourceful and persistent to find out how to create an improvement that will stick. The suggestion that we remove automated reverts and messages so we can spend volunteer time to buy more volunteers can end up counter-productive. That said, The warning messages could include links to discussion boards or notice boards where people who really want to contribute can find a real person to talk to. Also better policing of warning message use could be productive in ensuring new contributor do not get bitten. I myself am guilty of biting, but I got called on it and I am more careful about it. Another thing to attract more editors is a better interface. That is in the works. Also keep in mind that any volunteer organization believes it doesn't have enough volunteers. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that any successful non-profit organization does everything it can to attract and retain volunteers? Walking around with an attitude that <we have the best thing so people should adapt to us> doesn't work, and being so arrogant is not a good idea if we want Wikipedia to continue to grow. You are certainly right about the need for a better interface, and less biting of newcomers, but we ultimately need a welcoming atmosphere as well. Quite honestly, I stopped contributing to the English Wikipedia because I wouldn't even want to work here, never mind volunteer... and quite a few people leave all the time for the same reason. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quite wrong you know. Open Source has managed quite well for years on the expectation that all users will have read every article in Linux World, and the collected thoughts of Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond, and the result has been the creation of a 40 year old operating system, and a new mp3 and ogv player. So it is hardly unreasonable that before a new user presses the "Save Page" button they have familiarized themselves with the collected decisions and judgements of ArbCom and the 1001 essays that are acronym'd. After all we are intent on recreating something not from 40 years ago but from 250 years ago. John lilburne (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference with Open Source and Wikipedia is that the former appeals to programmers and those already knowledgeable of the kind of work that needs to be done. Wikipedia needs a wide range of volunteers, many of whom would not be able or willing to deal with many of the intricacies that the wiki world has developed. This is one reason why we have started outreach programs such as GLAM and Wikipedia in Education, to get people with lacking skills and knowledge past the initial barriers to participation. Sorry, but for most casual users, the biggest barrier is have no idea how to start the transition to editing. Most dont even see the edit button! How about some kind of eye catching banner on main page that says "Interested in editing? Go Here!" and send them to the Tea Room.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• It has some interesting points, but it also makes some fairly basic mistakes. For starters there is little point blaming bots for rapid deletion of new articles, OK we have a bot to find copyvio, but newpage patrolling is more of a semi automated affair than an automated one. Of course they are right that we have problems there and we lose potential new contributors, but their diagnosis is at least partially wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more points are made here: "“Wikipedia is free, and often you get what you pay for,” he said. “Consumer beware.”" 76.126.174.99 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo

Hello, mr. Wales. I am a Greek wikipedian who looks up you but he has many many questions for you. 1) Why did you make wikipedia? 2) Why Wikipedia's rules are too strict? 3) And finally, what do you think that say bad thinks (ok, my english aren't so good) about Wikipedia??--Γκριζούλα(ς) (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I will leave it for others to answer 1, 2 and 4, but to be blunt, 3 is no one's business but Jimbo's--ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry i didn't want be rude...--Γκριζούλα(ς) (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a cultural taboo in US about asking how much money you have. In Italy (where I come from) it's considered much less impolite (even if not really normal to ask), and I guess in Greece it's the same. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's US culture, let's deal with it --Cyclopia^talk 17:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not just the US, we Brits are the same.--ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Most counties will find this an odd question - would love to see someone ask the Sicilian Mafia members what they make (not sure the assumption its not impolite anywhere or to all is right).Moxy (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Do not bite the newcomers. WP:BITE. This could be a young person, so cultural background would be irrelevent.Irondome (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not a problem that Wikipedia rules are strict. A problem is that often Wikipedia rules are enforced by idiots. 76.126.174.99 (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll hazard my guesses as to Jimbo's answers

1. Wikipedia was made as a feeder to Nupedia. The idea being that allowing anyone to edit in an informal way might create something useful for a bunch of people who were writing an encyclopaedia. So far it looks like it may have worked out better than expected.
2. That depends on your perspective and the rules in question. Some of them like our rules on notability and verifiability are because though we'd like to trust everyone there are a bunch of people out there who will try and add spam, copyvio and hoaxes to the pedia. Strict rules about reliable sourcing are a reaction to that and they wouldn't be so necessary if those problems were hypothetical rather than real.
3. There are 7000 million people in the world, I'm sure somewhere among them are people who say Jimbo is as rich (or otherwise) as he is.
4. Sometimes bad things happen involving Wikipedia, if the press find out then they usually want a comment from Jimbo. Sadly the press are less interested in good news and consequently relying on them can give you a warped sense of reality.

Good questions. Hope that helps! If you have a specific example of a bad thing you consider that Jimbo has said about the pedia or of a rule that you consider too strict then maybe we can give more specific responses. ϢereSpielChequers 12:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are my answers:

1. I wanted to live in a world where everyone in the world could have free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
2. I think some of the rules are too strict, yes. And some are too lax.
3. I answered this question recently on another site, you may find my answer there interesting Is Jimmy Wales rich?
4. I think some criticisms of Wikipedia are valid; we should take those seriously. Others are not, and we should take those in good spirits, but ignore them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please provide an example or two of Wikipedia criticisms that aren't valid in your opinion? 76.126.174.99 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, i understood but, i want to inform you that there, at the Greek Wikipedia many users have

an illnes called... deletmania. We delete and delete articles that's why we have only a frew articles written. Also, there are users called...hmmm... policemen who check articles and suggest them for delete. If you don't believe me, there are many things to mention for example: Imagine that you wrote an article about an athlete and after three minutes you see a notice on it which says that it should be delete. But, here, in your wikipedia things aren't the same that's why you have over 1.000.000 articles.

Thanks for reading...

Γκριζούλα(ς) Grizoula(s)

...I Cannot sign up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.84.206 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kittens

Aotearoa (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)