User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

ZimZalaBim should stop the wikilibel

ZimZalaBim repeatedly hassles and harrasses good editors who make positive contributions. This user returns to my talk often and writes wikilibelous wikiallegations.

I expect this to stop wikimmediately.

Thank yu --Ghetteaux 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You should try our dispute resolution process. Jimbo rarely intervenes in personal disputes nowadays. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this case he already did [1]. --Derlay 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use images pollcy

Mr. Wales,

I feel that Fair Use imiages pollcy part #9 to be un-fair as it does not allow Fair Use to be used on Templates & Userpages.

Thank You Very Much, Cocoaguy 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think it's unfair? All fair-use images on Wikipedia are, after all, other people's work. Being able to use them without paying is a privilege granted by law and Wikipedia policy, not a right. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza

I was a member of Esperanza and I believe due to inactivity of my account for several months that I was removed. I was wondering if you could add my name back on the member list. I feel quite silly having the green e on my username without having membership anymore. -- Damien Vryce 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Jimbo or an Esperanzian, but I expect you could just add yourself back again. "Joining Esperanza is simple. Just add your name to the members list below" surely applies to returning Wikipedians too. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done by NoSeptember. As Sam Blanning said, all you have to do is to add your name to the list!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics and youtube

I have never actually turned to you, Mr. Wales, for anything before but I know that you are a stickler for copyright infringement. So I would like to ask: Are lyrics to a song from a show covered under fair use? and How do you feel about Youtube links of said shows? Gdo01 04:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When was the song created? I think there should be some limits as to the year of publishing.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please get rid of the filth that is on this page!

I have tried everything! And, the thing is still on there! Bearly541 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Reflist was vandalised. I've fixed it and protected it so that it can't happen again. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Judith A. Reisman

I noticed your stubbing the article (which I had on my watchlist) may I inquire if there were any details in particular that were objected to by Reisman or someone connected to her? (I'm trying to source content now)JoshuaZ 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion - I'm going to work on some proposed revamped sections + propose additional sources and put them on the talk page sometime soon. JoshuaZ 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Change in policy for admin conduct?

Jimbo, what on earth is this all about? Your name has been invoked by arbcom members in stating (in a manner that seems to a number of us admins abrupt) that arbcom should be able to sanction admins without an existing case. This has rubbed people the wrong way (reasonably, I think) and requires clarification. Chick Bowen 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a change of policy in any way. It has traditionally been possible for the ArbCom to rule in cases that I refer to them directly, and this fits neatly under that umbrella. If you would like, you can consider that I am taking Admin civility to each other (esp. regarding wheel warring and other sorts of "conduct unbecoming") quite seriously. We need to treat each other with deep respect and kindness, and when I see that not happening, I fear for the example we set for newbies. Therefore, I am very likely to refer any sort of wheel warring case brought to my attention by the arbcom itself back to the arbcom under existing tradition.--Jimbo Wales 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So technically, the user bringing the case is you. Would you be happy to be named as the person bringing the case in cases like this? Or do you think it is appropriate for one of the arbitrators to be named as the person bringing the case? Carcharoth 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, Jimbo, which is helpful. Yes, you've referred such cases directly to Arbcom before, as in the February wheel war--I don't think anyone has a problem with that. I just wanted to make sure that you were not eliminating the possibility of admins solving wheel wars of our own accord--we take admin civility seriously too. Chick Bowen 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election

Since you requested that candidates who had withdrawn for not being in the top-N reconsider this, I have reopened my voting page. I would like to have your input on how to proceed. Should anything else be done, such as keeping the page open a few days longer at the end? Or is this an unwise move on my part best avoided? At any rate it would likely be beneficial to make a clear rule on this for future proceedings. (Radiant) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, recognizing that your decision might depend to some extent on how many candidates do well in the election, could you possibly provide greater clarity concerning a range for the number of new arbitrators who might be appointed? This might be useful to some voters in determining how many candidates they wish to vote for. See discussion regarding your comment on the ArbCom voting talkpage for more. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps, a link: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote#Expansion. Hang on. You started that section... Well, I'll save this anyway, in case it helps! :-) Carcharoth 00:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's policy towards using of Chinese characters in title

I'm recently working on Chinese surname articles. Here is the fact, completely different surnames might have exactly the same pronunciation and romanization, but on the other hand, many same surnames of China origin have found and extensively used in other East Asian countries with different pronunciations and romanizations. Chinese character to Roman is not a relation of one-to-one or one-to-more, but more-to-more. The relation is too complex to figure out what the surname actually be only by its romanizations. There is no way to organize each surname under one single article title unless we use Chinese characters in title to disambiguate (only for disambiguation purpose). I'm propose to use "Pinyin (Chinese) (surname)" form of title for surname articles, this can be read and edit (but not create) by both people who can or cannot speak Chinese, no matter if he/she has installed Chinese font. As a IT/computing expert, I see no technical problem by using Chinese characters at Wikipedia. But it seems this is difficult to be accepted by the community. Could you please have a look at this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname). Yao Ziyuan 08:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First, a rant, and then some limited support for your proposal. :)

I am deeply, deeply opposed to the use of ALL non-English characters in the titles of articles in English Wikipedia in most cases. This is already a horrible problem in such cases as Stanisław Lem. Look closely at that... it contains the character "ł", which is not an English character. Therefore, it is wrong as a title for an article in the English Wikipedia. Because of the nature of English as a mongrel language with no official academy or spelling rules, there can be rare exceptions where some special non-English characters are extremely well known as part of a proper name. I accept this. So be it. But this is not license to play it deuces-wild and dispense with the entire English spelling system.

The correct name of Munich, in English, is Munich. This despite the fact that it could be written as the Germans write it: München, or perhaps even Anglicized as Muenchen. The correct English name for the capital of Japan is Tokyo. It would be deeply wrong to write that "The capital of 日本 is 東京." It would be also wrong to say "The capital of Nippon is Tōkyō... or any other variant. In English the name is "Tokyo".

Now, having given that rant, I find that I must take what might seem to some a contradictory position. In the case you are considering... purely for disambiguation purposes, the subject of the page is, in a sense, the character itself. I find this to be an interesting proposal, and I promise not to blow a gasket about it. It is not for me to decide of course.

(And notice that although I think the community has made a deeply wrong decision in the case of Stanisław Lem, I keep mostly quiet about that, too.)

--Jimbo Wales 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to take the conversation off on a tangent here, and I hope I am not breaching wikiquette by asking in this location, but: Where might someone like me find out more about this issue of using non-English characters in articles (and especially article titles)? Where, for example, is the discussion in which the "community" made this "deeply wrong decision" to allow the use of "ł" in a title? (I am not even sure what that is, I just copied-and-pasted it from the usage above.) Is there a policy on this that I have never come across? I cannot imagine what the justification for such a thing would be. I hate to be parochial here, but English is English. We do not have slashes through letters or umlauts or tildes or any of those things. Nothing against languages that do, but this particular Wikipedia isn't written in any of them, it's written in English. Well, mostly in English, as I have now learned. 6SJ7 03:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few English words borrowed from foreign languages that often keep their diacritical marks, like café and piñata, and they are preserved in the Wikipedia articles on them as well. *Dan T.* 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am one of the participants in the debate whether to use Chinese characters in page names and I would like to thank you for your input. I think it is wrong to draw a parallel between the use of diacritics in Latin-based names and Chinese characters.

First, it is hard to draw the line where diacritics should be considered non-English or not. Not long ago, it was considered proper English to write: coöperation, reënactment, rôle and archæology, etc.

Furthermore, in case diacritics are used, it is very easy to create disambiguation pages that will lead user to the "correct" page. Type Stanisław Lem or Stanislaw Lem and you get directed to the same page.

However, when it comes to the use of Chinese characters in page names, we are potentially raising a barrier to many users, at least as long as we can assume the majority of English Wikipedia's cannot type Chinese. If we set a precent for this, there is nothing that prevents us from creating pages with Arabic, Hindi, Hebrew, Cyrillic texts, which may make parts of Wikipedia inaccessible for many user.

Just my two cents.--Niohe 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is still correct to use the diaeresis in such words as "coöperate" and its kin, to use accents in rôle and récipé, and both in naïvété. Such usage is, in fact, the editorial style standard at The New Yorker. Just because that usage is relatively uncommon outside academia in the US, however, does not make it "incorrect", it just makes it uncommon outside academia in the US. That said, "ł" is never used in any words borrowed into English from Polish, primarily, I suspect, because any borrowings which contained "ł" instead of "l" were simply spelled, from the outset, in English with the "l" because "l" was the closest approximation English typesetters could muster. Diaëreses, I imagine, were much easer to come by, and more practical simply because of their use in words borrowed from more "familiar" languages such as French and German. Today, façade is still spelled, by the majority of people, I dare say even those without benefit of a day of French lessons, with a cedilla—at least in formal writing. I realize I'm pontificating here just a little bit, but I think a far more eggregious situation is in play with respect to the similarly off-topic matter of article naming using a preference for "native language names" such as the insane battle fought over Wojsko Polskie and in the case of the complete disarray that is transliteration-of-words-from-other-languages-as-article-names, specifically, I'm thinking of Hebrew, where academic transliteration has been completely discarded in favor of whatever whoëver writes the article comes up with. Basically, it's descended into a free-for-all where the "winner" is determined by "who writes the article first" (which is why, e.g., why Kapparos isn't at Kapparoth), and first runner-up is "whoëver pushes their mistaken opinions most vociferously" (which is, e.g., why Poseq is now a redirect to the Ashkenazi Posek and Qaddish is now a redirect to the equally Ashkenazi [and incorrect! ;-)] Kaddish). Anyhoo, before I go on too much longer than too long, I just wanted to point out that redirects cover a multitude of "sins" in this department, and to register my unsolicited opinion that there's little harm done in using unconventional characters, as long as the reader is made immediately aware that they're not "lost" when they encounter them. If this were simple:, I would probably argue against using any kind of diacritics, to avoid confusing people...but this isn't :simple, it's en:, the "muttest" language on the planet today (indeed, well over half the vocabulary of English is, or at one time was, "foreign"), and I doubt any actual harm is done to readers, nor [by extension] to the Project, by a reasonable and rational leniency regarding "non-English" in article titles. OK, shutting up now.  :-) Tomer^talk 08:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Today is moving day and German Teacher and de wiki Administrator Rax has worked his bollocks of to get rid of evidences for a failed vote

The vote of no confidence against User WR failed. Because of this personal disaster for Administrator Rax he nearly worked a complete nightshift to outsource any vita signs of WR ( White Rose ) Weiße Rose to places where you cannot follow the complete hunting process against she or her. I never regret beeing a German because of our terrible past but if I see how they behave in DE wiki I feel ashamed for carrying around a German passport. This is lynch law not more and not less.--Ekkenekepen 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) The voting jury in even all Pseudo Democratic Sytems is not allowed to talk about the case with other members of the jury. In DE wiki they are telephoning and working with IRC to plan their collective ambushes and attacks to finish the prosecuted victim. ( and I said victim on purpose ) Kind regards and panem et circensis for DE wiki [2] --Ekkenekepen 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: If I see the working hours at DE wiki of German administrator Rax I am only interested at what times he is educating his students  ;-)

Removing information from unsourced articles in their entirety

At WP:ANI#Ron_Jeremy, where a user has removed all unsourced information from a BLP - that is, the entire page - and all hell has rather predictably broken loose.

You've stubbed such pages in the past, but then, you're Jimbo. I would hope that other Wikipedians could do the same, and force editors of an article to source it rather than just reverting them and reporting them to WP:AIV (which is what they did, I was the one who removed the report on sight). But currently that's not what's coming out of the discussion, which is starting to focus on whether it's suspicious that the account is a few days old yet understands WP:BLP. I find it more disturbing that older accounts don't understand WP:BLP, myself - but as you have moral authority, I think this could really use your input over how far we should go in insisting on WP:V, and I don't ask that lightly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi. Thanks for a great web project! I just wish it were just as easy to attain adminship. Some will point to my brief dalliance with the application process today as evidence of sour grapes, others rejoice because of what I write on my user page. As an Ivy League computer science graduate with over 1600 edits on this site and not a warning, however, I wish some people would really take to heart the fact that adminship should not be a big deal. I have written enough applications in real life. Xiner 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for an official socket puppet to place an adequate counterstatement belonging De wiki user ekkenekepen aka Olaf Klenke

Dear Mr. Wales Taking it the Shakespeare way. Most humbly on my knees I beg to be allowed to open a socket puppet under the Name Olaf Klenke in english spoken wikipedia Why ???

Olaf Klenke is a banned user on de wiki and he ain't no rebell without a cause. He worked without any problems for nearly one year without troubling anyone. After that time he did the terrible mistake to interfere in some political critical articles The way his words have been twisted on purpose, drove him absolutely berserk and he really behaved not the way he should have done. To find a way to get rid of Olaf Klenke, "famous" De wiki Administress Bdk started a collection of his comments [3] ( By the way not all of them are his as well ). All this comments have been put out of the discussion context for the sake of discrediting his reputation and vitae in the world wide web as an ultimate warning for all wikipedia "offenders". Motto: We Administrators statuate ( make ) an example. Many watched IRC corrospondences between administrators could evidence that. German Administrator Markus Schweiß at least tried to offer the possibility of a counterstatement. He failed with this attempt. Because they blackmailed him ( Olaf Klenke and user ekkenekepen are of course synonymous ) with this entrance with the obvious target that he should bugger of from De wikipedia he went even more stubborn. [4],[5].

Because google is a robotic search engine ( well some programming administrators even know how to manipulate this one ) he would like to place a counterstatement under the name Olaf Klenke in the english wikipedia. This gives him a good chance to be placed possibly even before Bdks "famous" blackmailing entrance.[6]. It is well known that normally it is not allowed but this seems to be a special case and a precedent as well.

Looking forward reading from you in the hopefully not so distant future. Yours sincerely --Ekkenekepen 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Taking it the Shakespeare way"??? --Deskana talk 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh blah blah. His comment looks like vandalism to me, and I can hardly read it, since it is similiar to randomly placed sentences. Yuser31415 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot hardly read it why are you not asking him on his page ??? The answer probably has something to do with a yellow kid who is only interested to provoke. But as I said only probably--Ekkenekepen 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How to start an ArbCom on a language of Wikipedia?

Hello Jimbo. I would like to know what must be done in order to start an ArbCom for a language of Wikipedia which does not have one? I have gone through all the ArbCom policies I can find but they mentioned nothing on STARTING one. Many thanks. --Computor 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We'd like to hear from you

Hey, Jimbo. There is a current discussion on your article that the page be moved from "Jimmy Wales" to "Jimbo Wales". [link]. We'd like to hear your comments. --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 09:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Any official position on the mess at the Citizendium talk page?

There's a rather involved discussion at Talk:Citizendium regarding an NPOV position on whether or not to call Larry Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia. Someone just had to post a link from a smear site I won't name, and I was interested to know if you had an opinion of how to proceed constructively on the issue. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"A smear site I won't name"; hmmm, one can only wonder what site that is that you so tantalizingly avoid naming. But here's one, if this isn't it: you can even look at real IRC logs of what the Supreme Flounder has to say about this situation: [7]. Happy reading. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust those people to tell me the sky was blue. But thanks for completely ignoring the point of the question in favor of trolling. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Physics article

Hi, Mr, Wales and Wikipedia community. The article about physics needs attention. It is undergoing a seemingly endless review which started in August 2006 but didn't end yet. Currently, there are two versions of the article: physics and physics/wip. If a reader wanted to cite the article which version will he use? Can anyone do something about it? (I sent this message here because I know that this page is monitored by a large number of users as I want to raise this issue.) Thank you.

--Meno25 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:VP? --Deskana talk 13:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A typicall German problem

[8]

This is typicall for De wiki

First they are provoking this actions and then they are wondering why trouble occurs. ( If I put a stick in a hornet nest I know in advance that the insects really will not like it )

Then they want to solve the selfmade problem over a SQL solution.

A better way is courtesy against people with a slight different opinion --Ekkenekepen 14:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Happy Christmas-Happy hollydays to you
Must^TC 14:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal comments

Hi Jimbo,

I have briefly responded to your comment on the proposal on the talk page that you posted them. Click here to see the response.

Cedars 22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

merry Winterval(s)!!!!

Oh, the weather outside is frightful!... But I hope wherever you you are, that it's warm and delightful! : ) —Randfan!!

File:FireplaceWithFire.jpg

Dear Jimbo Wales/Archive 15, I wish you a very, very merry Winterval! And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate! :) —Randfan!!

God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! —¡Randfan!^{Sign here?} 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! —¡Randfan!^{Sign here?} 20:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Second is still good. Right? :) —¡Randfan!^{Sign here?} 20:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ich wünsche dir fröhliche, glückliche und friedliche Weihnachten :). --DaB. 15:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Though frankly I'm not sure people who get to celebrate Christmas in temperatures of 22 degrees C deserve well-wishing on top of that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. So much for deliberate blanking. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Felíz Navidad y felíz año nuevo!

I give you these Noche Buenas-- er, Poinsettias in honor of Christmas! Be happy you have these, Poinsettias are really popular, especially down here in Laredo and Mexico!

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

...Or whatever holiday you celebrate:

• Happy Kwanza!
• Happy Hanukkah!
• Happy Winter Solstice! (not a holiday but it's on the calender!)

Shall I say something else?

Happy Holidays!

Have any comments? Ask on my talk page at User talk:Tohru Honda13! Have a nice one, Jimbo.--Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD that might need your attention

Hi sir,

You might want to review this deletion situation. It's for a page/noticeboard that is specifically designed to campaign against articles and content of one specific, particular political branch in the United States... you had mentioned before that you were strongly opposed I think to the existence of pages here to campaign against people or things like this. It looks like maybe meatpuppets are trying to sway this? I'm not sure. Thanks! Moscatanix 18:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible new Wikimedia project

Dear Jimbo, I am contacting you in regards to the AFD on Football League Championship results August 2006 and a corresponding discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. A previous AFD related to this topic was held here. The issue is whether results and statistics of individual sports matches should be included on Wikipedia. During the discussions, the idea of a new wikimedia project was raised: WikiStat. As far as I can tell, this does not yet exist, although there is a Wikistat which provides the statistics for the wikimedia Foundation. The project could include the results of individual athletes, sports matches and tournaments, but it could extend to election results (by party, by politician, by year, by country, by constituency), census results, etcetera. I understand that you are busy with the ArbCom elections at the moment, but I would like to know from you or one of your wiki-elves ;) whether the concept of WikiStat is viable and if so, what it would take to get this off the ground. Merry Christmas, Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, merry christmas Jimmy. Secondly, on the topic of this, I was initially tabling a draft about this a month or so ago, however I never finished the draft for one reason or another. I would like to indicate my extreme interest and willingness to partipate in setting up and creating a statistics Wikipedia, given I have a great interest in such topics (and contribute often on English Wiki, when appropriate eg. FIFA World Cup hat-tricks). I'd be happy to assist in any way needed if you do wish to establish this WMF project, and I believe it has much potential. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for new projects have a place: m:Proposals for new projects. But I can't see how this one fits in to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission. Sports stats are awfully commercial. Wikia would be a great place to do that. - Taxman ^Talk 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't just cover sports stats, it would extend to census results, election results, interest rates, etc. etc. etc. Source material that has no place on Wikisource. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Archivists should note talk page blanking

Just a note for whoever archives this page (seems to be Werdnabot) that the page was blanked by Jimbo to put up the above announcement that he will be announcing the ArbCom election results on Sunday (is that today already?), but the blanked talk page sections should still be archived somehow. Maybe the blanking will be reverted later by Jimbo, with the blanked sections re-added above the sections added since the blanking? Carcharoth 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Just another editor

Would you be interested in this edit on my Talk page? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this explains it, SqueakBox 05:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to comment on this question.

And Merry Christmas!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard_%282nd_mfd%29 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Question about Just another editor (talk · contribs)

Hey Jimbo. I found Just another editor (talk · contribs) making an edit to the David Brandt page that seemed a bit odd, and looking at his contributions revealed this. Could you chime in and indicate who this individual is? Thanks and Merry Christmas! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Colin, Danny has confirmed that Just another editor is not Brandt. [9] [10] I don't think Danny or Jimbo will "indicate who this individual is" since everyone on Wikipedia has a right to privacy and anonymity. Sarah 07:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See above where the issue has already been dealt with. Same user made a ridiculous accusation against me here because he couldnt be bothered to check the diffs here. Please stop wasting people's time, Colin, SqueakBox 07:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all!!! 209.244.16.221 14:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and my best wishes for 2007. --Frank Schulenburg 16:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You're doing a wiki-based search engine?

The rumors sound very interesting, good luck with it. What I'm wondering is how it's going to deal with the inevitable botnets that will be set up for the sole purpose of spamming results pages? Noclip 20:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How would that work? --WikiSlasher 13:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Cooperative

Slim Virgin and JPgordon keep deleting a page simply because they don't like the organization's founder - me. This is an article worth having on wikipedia - see www.politicalcooperative.org and please add the article or the stub for further expansion. I am tired of dealing with these petty people who attacked me and deleted the article because they did not agree with what I was trying to change on [zionism]. They put unsourced pov statements on the zionism page because they are biased. Here is what Noam Chomsky said about wikipedia on "Zionism" when I told him that your article says "Most jewish organizations support zionism" and zionism receives worldwise support (no citations).

"That's far from the only absurdity in Wikipedia. I once noticed that a quote I had given from Dayan, citing the scholarly record of Israeli cabinet meetings, was given as "source unverified." Only with regard to Israel would such dishonesty and stupidity be allowed." - Noam

There are a few people who make it their job to delete anything they don't like from that article and if you happen to debate an issue, then they attack you in any way they can, such as they did with the article I had posted on a totally sepearate issue. The people who voted to delete the page are all the same people who protect the Zionism article from criticisms of zionism.

The [Political Cooperative] article was accepted as notable, but then deleted only after these users deleted my comments about zionism on the talk page as well as in the article, and they said I could not post the article because I was in the PCO. Weeks later, someone not involved in the PCO organization posted a similar article, and they deleted it again. When an organization has notable people such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, John Perkins, Cynthia McKinney involved for a notable purpose in U.S. politics, it is worthy of inclusion.

Thanks - Darrow Boggiano, Founder Political Cooperative

http://www.politicalcooperative.org/data/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=22

71.135.36.250 08:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim Virgin and JPgordon keep deleting a page simply because they don't like the organization's founder - me. Or so we read. I wonder where that notion came from. The reason for deletion seems more likely to have been re-creation of an article previously deleted for lack of evidence; see AfD/Political Cooperative. At this stage, "Political Cooperative" seems less an organization, more an idea for an organization. If/when an actual organization of this name exists and has some impact (other than merely in blogs and so forth), it will deserve an article. -- Hoary 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There were numerous citations to news sites who discussed the organization. If the article keeps being deleted by people in a pro-zionism cliche, then no one can view them. I will post the article on my user talk page for review, because the "lack of evidence" you mention was a result of the fact that the "team" of zionists first deleted all the content and then held the vote among themselves. Pco 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You can spare us the conspiracy theories. if an article on that subject is needed, then leave it to others to decide if so. See WP:AUTO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is no "theory" to say that all the people who edit Zionism with POV content are also the ones who deleted Political Cooperative Pco 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No one questioned the PC article until they started attacking me for Zionism edits. The PC article had already passed the test of notability and was posted for weeks before this group of editors decided to all jump on the article because I had contributed it. When someone else contributed it, they deleted it again, so the bias of the article coming from me was not the issue and the notability was not the issue. It was only their desire to get me off of wikipedia. Pco 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not quite true. I noticed your edits to Nancy Pelosi, and objected to them, before I saw Political Cooperative, and before you edited Zionism at all. Half a dozen other editors had the same objection, and reverted the same changes, on Nancy Pelosi. So at least part of your theory is not accurate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All of my edits to Pelosi were eventually added and are still there because it was not POV. That is not the point I was making, anyway - compare users deleting PCO with users editing Zionism and maybe my point will sink in. Pco 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever. Jimbo can read article histories (for example, [11]) as well as anyone else. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I cannot say I see exactly eye to eye with User:Jpgordon. However, I appreciate having him - and therefore his associate - arround to protect Wikipedia against such an organization as the above.

I only came here because I put Jpgordon on my watchlist. He has criticised me for at least overlinking (in a user/talk page), which in his opinion, affects my credibility.

As a result, I am now here - curious about him.

But now I dound the mission statement of the above organization, and here it is:

  Political Cooperative - Mission Statement on: Aug 23, 2006 [22:04] Article image
  
  The PCO has been founded at a time when for many of us, it seems that the U.S. government
  cannot get any worse. The truth of the corruption and killing for profit in the Bush
  Administration has been exposed to many who never knew what our corrupt CIA and DOD have been
  doing worldwide. Many of us were honestly so frightened by the blatant acts by Congress
  to allow criminal activity that we did not dare vote for anyone other than a Democrat in the
  midterm elections of 2006.

This is paranoid (excuse me Jpgordan, for linking, but I want to use that term precisely) ranting of the worse kind. It is no different than the "trash" contained in the Protocols of Zion about which I like to write for Wikipedia. The only difference here is the OBJECT or FOCUS of the ranting. We "corruption" used twice in the same paragraph. It is the typical ranting of the extreme left which typically vilifies every action of the government of the United States. And I am so appreciative that Jpgordan is around to DELETE the garbage that such entities produce as "scholarship" - like holocaust-denial (sorry, Jp...).

We definitely need what I, affectionately like to call, the Wikipolice -- no linking her, JP!!

And if anything, I would say Jp deserves at least a Barnstar for it (is "Barnstar" Red, Jp? It shouldn't be, in my opinion - I value it more than the Nobel - except for the money!)!

Now a comment about Noam Chomsky. Being, myself, of the same ethnic background, as well as trained in Philosophy, he is an enigma to be studied! I find it extremely fascinating that a man of his opinions subscribes to the views that he does. He, I think, is not the common extreme left (or extreme right wing) fanatic. Also, I have always found his political views extremely difficult to pin down, except that he finds so much that is wrong with the "US/American Way."

Because Chomsky has the recognized world-class reputation in the field of linguistics, his advocacy of views consistent with the extreme left, makes him an authority to be used delighfully by the left. Howard Zimm is another authority, with authentic credentials, but I'm not at all familiar with his recent views. However, the mere fact that he is respected, and honored, by this organization, makes me suspecious that he has joined Chomsky's club in bashing the United States. I am greatly surprised that we have no Article on Howard Zimm. He is an important American historian, "revisionist," and/or "new left," and I own his book on the subject - though I confess I have never had the time to read him thoroughly. Maybe I will dig him up (his book, rather), and write him up for WP!!!

There are many faults I can find in my country. But as it is said, "among the blind, the one-eyed man is king." I do not thing there is any other country better for me, than the good old USA!!! As bad as it is here - it is worse everywhere else.

Now let us morn the passing of a grean America, the Genius, and Incredible Talent, James Brown!!!

PS: Forgive the typos --Ludvikus 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of typos -- just as an aside here, while Wikipedia does not have an article on Howard Zimm (assuming such a person exists), it does have one on Howard Zinn, who from reading his article is almost definitely the person in question. I found the Zinn article (I had never heard of him before) the first time the Political Cooperative article was nominated for deletion, but it was speedied before I got a chance to vote -- oops, I mean discuss my opinion in an abbreviated, list format. Mr. Zinn clearly is notable, and I would say that if, in the future, he was to run for president and get on a number of state ballots as the candidate of the Political Cooperative and not simply with their endorsement (compare the Nader-Green Party situation in 1996), the Political Cooperative would have become notable enough for its own article. For now, what is interesting is that the Howard Zinn article does not mention Political Cooperative, and Noam Chomsky's personal web site does not mention it either -- even though the group cites both of them as their "candidates." They seem to be a group that has big dreams but has not fulfilled them yet, and dreams do not a notable article subject make. 6SJ7 01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

---

6SJ7, is CORRECT, Howard Zimm = Howard Zinn. I was misled by Google: [12] - 164 hits, includung USATODAY.com.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it should be restored and put up for AFD where if it loses you will be unhappy at a large number of people instead of just two. Anomo 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo,

I am leaving Wikipedia for the moment over this issue. I may return sometime in the future. I have no interest in participating in a project where the opinion of contributors is not respected and is considered not worth gauging. I am at a loss to understand why you did what you did without discussing it with me on my talk page. If you can provide me with any more insight into your actions I would appreciate it. Please feel free to post here, to my user page or to my user talk page.

Cedars 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I don't blame you at all. I see why the sites which dislike Wikipedia call Jimbo a tyrant (or something along those lines). While WP:NOT states Wikipedia is not a democracy, how is policy to change if a vote is just closed by Mr. Wales like that?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 16:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular opinion does not change the legal restrictions that an open, free Encyclopedia faces. Jwales's steps may have been frustrating to some, but they were absolutely necessary to meet the clearly stated goals that Wikipedia has espoused from day one. This is not a failure of democracy, this is a triumph of long term growth and health for the project. Pain is an unavoidable part of creation. If things are easy, then they are usually not worth doing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but didn't Mr. Wales need to close the that survey in such a way? See my comments at the issue --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 16:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You asserted that a complete encyclopedia is more important than a legaly sound, free encyclopedia, and that images are required in every article to be complete. I don't think either statements are representative of the stated goals of the project and predict those may have been part of his decision, but I'm just zis guy, you know? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you're a sock of JzG? JDoorjam Talk 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it very sad that this would come as a culture-shock to you; that it has is (yet another) sign that we are not enculturing new users sufficiently well. No doubt such upsets will continue until we fix this. :-(

James F. (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any new users here - Cedars been here since 2004 and I have been here since 2005 unless someone else here is new.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Go measure the median account age of those for and against the poll. :) It is true that not-all who supported that change were new, but a lot of them are. You may not believe it, but your position is influenced by the folks around you. It is clear from the discussion that free content is unimportant to quite a few of the participants. In fact, on the discussion we saw some people who appears to be claiming the free content was bad because it allowed commercial use. --Gmaxwell 19:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, "new" is in the eye of the beholder, IYSWIM.

James F. (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat more open and honest to close a poll that doesn't matter than to let it continue and give it the illusion of counting. The talk page was not blanked, and none of the dicussion pages which are the real places to discuss this matter have been blanked, either. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this exchange fascinating. All what Jimmy did was to close a poll and encourage a vigorous debate on the subject instead. Such polls are divisive and accomplish absolutely nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed!

James F. (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often people whine at me when I tell them polls are evil. It's nice to see Jimbo just closing them like that. Perhaps people will start to recognise they are actually not so good. --Deskana (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also an issue of stopping a forest fire from spreading. People shouldn't create multiple discussion fora because they then have to be sewn up again later. JDoorjam Talk 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about Search Wikia

Hallo Jimbo! Their is an discussion about Search Wiki in the german wikipedia. One part of users say, that the informations in the newspapers in germany are false. They want to delete the lemma de:Search Wikia. I think, it is important, that we have this article in the wikipedia. What do you think about this? Benutzer Taube Nuss, Germany

The press has gotten very excited about this project, leading to a mad rush of press coverage, a great deal of which has been confused and misleading. There is such a project, but it is not the same as the screenshot which was circulated on some websites, and it does not involve Amazon in any way, etc. I hope that it would someday warrant a separate article, but I doubt if it does at the moment. Not my decision, of course. :) --Jimbo Wales 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kate Walsh Ted Global 2.JPG

Hi, can you re-look at this image you uploaded. Even though you took the photo, I don't think it's a "free" image. Its a picture of her from a projection screen at (what I assume is) a commercial concert. Now, if you took a screen capture of a live event on TV, that wouldn't be free, so the fact you took it "in person" shouldn't make any difference. In other words, the fact screen was next to the singer, instead of at your home is unimportant. Any image taken from a screen, produced by somebody else, is a non-original work. --Rob 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wales

See Wikipedia:Help desk -- Zanimum 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Report administrator abuse - Jmabel

I apologize too, if this matter could be taken elswhere,but I feel the best way to solve this is to bring the matter to you myself.I am here to report a serious administrator abuse,who bring a lot of damages in my career and life.The nightmare started in July,when Jmabel(Joe Mabel)delete an article about me,for the reason:"Not notability".After another months,the article was recreate by someone and have been deleted again by Jmabel.After Deletion review in December 3 ,the conclusion was:"Endorse deletion among established editors",because the article was very poor in information about me.Again someone recreate a new article ,but with many new information about me.Again the article was deleted by Jmabel,with DRV.The article have been to Deletion review and the conclusion was:"Speedy deletion overturned,AfD optional",because another administrator Mgm said:"A forced DRV only applies if someone wants to repost deleted content.The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel)asserts notability by national news coverage,which the originally deleted version didn't".The article have been restored and deleted again by Jmabel with the help of Dahn,a romanian who said"two minor article in journals".Is not true.Everybody read the references ,in the article can see a lot of article in the most important romanian journals.Another user from Jmabel team said:"Browsing through the links to his works on the current version,and old versions,it seems as though many are the rambling gibberish of a schizophrenic",or"Ioannes Pragensis:"publishing a few lunatic books".This is not Wikipedian language and how know these peoples if my books are lunatic or not?They read my books?I don't think.The article have been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation,in December 25,(Christmas Day) the same day when Jmabel,sign to Administrators'noticeboard/Incident Archive 163,Sorin Cerin sock alert and said:"It would not astound me if they (the people who edit the article with my name)are all D-ul Cerin himself.I don't know who is Alinaro,Mircia,L.Marchis or Rolineseem who said:"1)Is Cerin well know in Romania?Yes.2)Have published 6 books?Yes.3)Was invited in talk shows in Romanian television?Yes.4)Was invited in Romanian national radio stations?Yes.5)Have references in media ,newspapers and other media?Yes.6)Have published a lot of philosophical article?Yes.7)The Cerin's books have been sold all over the world?Yes.8)Was in Reader2 and Book Crossing?Yes.90Was journalist to 'Dreptatea"?Yes,10)Can be verify that?Yes.How?Translate Romanian Wikipedia."Anyone to read the article finf notability.I found article about me in the most important national newspaper and I was invited in a lot of television or radio talk shows like ,Omul si cartea,(The man and book) with Ion Cristoiu in January 8,2005. I hope in change for the better these revolting and and unprecedented abuse who bring very serious damges in my career and life. Thank You.Have a Wonderful Holiday. Sorin Cerin

I see that my name is being dragged through here by Mr. Cerin, who has so far broken almost every single convention on wikipedia (trolling, vandalism, sockpuppeting, re-creation of deleted article, canvassing). I urge him to seek another solution to his obvious frustrations. Dahn 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am an AnonymousCoward who looked up the history, followed the links, discussion, etc, and thinks JMabel and the other editors are right. I will go so far as to say that this is obvious self promotion by a non-notable author. Thank you and all the contributors for making Wikipedia awesome. -AC :)

You can tell about yourself in your user page, a sandbox, or you can tell others about you in your talk page. Wikipedia is a site where people look up common/important facts, not where users post their autobiographies. Happy editing, nevertheless. Eiyuu Kou 16:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, in case you decide to take this seriously at all:

1. The remarks about "rambling gibberish of a schizophrenic" and "publishing a few lunatic books" were not mine. I'm not responsible for other contributors speaking this way. For what it's worth, though, I raised no objection to these remarks when I read them, because I think they summed up the situation well, even if not politely.
2. As you will easily see if you examine the record, early on I was quite open to the possibility that Sorin Cerin might actually be of encyclopedic notability. I was doing my best to be helpful despite my strong doubts.
3. As you will also easily see, the moment it became clear that there was even slight question about the re-creation of the article being appropriate for speedy deletion (something I had no way to know when I speedied it, since there was no pointer to anywhere a decision had been overturned) I restored it an took it to AFD.
4. Furthermore, Does this complaint read like the work of a man who is an important author, which is what the article claimed him to be? Note that in both English and Romanian, he, the initial "author" of virtually all article content, and virtually all of his supporters in the deletion debates have the same poor punctuation. Up until now, I have been relatively gentle about suggesting the possibility of sockpuppetry, since it did not seem important with all decisions still going against the article. But if my character is being called into question, I do request that before anyone takes this at all seriously a usercheck on Alinaro (talk · contribs), Mircia (talk · contribs), L.Marchis (talk · contribs) and Rolineseem (talk · contribs) would be in order, comparing them against the IP address used by D-ul Cerin here. By the way, in most of these cases, most of their edits are no longer visible in their contribs, because they were to deleted versions of the Sorin Cerin article (now seeded against re-creation); you can see them easily enough in the list of deleted edits.
5. There is, indeed a lengthy article on Sorin Cerin in the Romanian Wikipedia. Judging by its punctuation, the bulk of it was written by the same person. Perhaps someone should look into this. At a quick look, it looks mostly like lengthy quotations lacking diacritics or Wikification. Since he brought this up, I decided to check some of its references. The link "Articol în România Liberă (ediţia 16 Aprilie 2004) despre succesul lui Sorin Cerin peste ocean." ("Article in România Liberă (editin of 16 April 2004) about the success of Sorin Cerin across the ocean") is simply a link to the home page of România Liberă (the article may well exist, but the link does not help with verifiability). The one labeled "[Notă în ziarul Cronica Română despre lansarea romanului "Destin" la Muzeul Literaturii Române." ("note in the newspaper Cronica Română about the launch of the novel Destiny at the Romanian Museum of Literature does suggest strongly that he really did have a book launch at a prominent location in Bucharest, but since it is presumably just a reprint of a press release it doesn't prove much. Etc. There might be something there, and I think it would be a fine exercise for someone (presumably a native Romanian speaker, rather them me) to go through this with a fine-tooth comb.
6. Finally, this complaint was brought to your user talk page without his first bringing the matter to mine or (as far as I know) to WP:AN/I.

Jmabel | Talk 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1)I've never wrote in the article Sorin Cerin. 2)As a notability,my criticism was wrote from 1979 until today.The critics have been:Octavian Ghetan,Revista de Filosofie,Alexandru Piru,Grigore Tanasescu,Alexandru Protopopescu,Florentin Popescu,Paul Dugneanu,Radu G.Teposu,Laurentiu Ulici,etc.Most of the critique isn't on the Internet,because in 70'-80'and early 90'the Internet doesn't exist.For that reason I must to post myself in January or February,like my correspondence with Emil Cioran from 1990.Who know about that correspondence?Ask Paul Everac. 3)I not sent you that before because don't wish to make publicity myself and I have a spite against sockpupetry. 4)A book cannot be launched to the Romanian National Lierary Museum,without be recommended,presented and represented by two major critics.In my case was Florentin Popescu and Paul Dugneanu.See Romanian news agencies. 5)If yours don't want I don't wish to be in Wikipedia and I agree to be deleted from all languages.Sorin CerinSorin Cerin 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

To Jimbo Wales

I hope you had a merry Christmas and I wish you a happy new year 2007!

From, Kamope 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Corruption

I know you said to put complaints at the Helpdesk, but this is very serious! Administrators are blocking people as "confirmed" sockpuppets just because they share a vandal's IP address even though this is supposed to be hidden. The Showster is a good example. He uses the same IP as the likes of Bowser Koopa and Crazy Commander. He vandalised one page and was reported by Crazy Commander for vandalising a page that neither he nor Crazy ever visited. They had all been blocked as sockpuppets. The Showster should be unblocked as he helped identify Bowser's proper sockpuppets and has vandalised ONCE. He needs your help as he is unfairly accused and you need to step in before this goes any further! Bowsy 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

He vandalized Wikipedia, why should I really care? I find it bizarre that you would approach this as a case of "corruption". I am unblocking "The Showster" now, as you have indicated that he's not the same person. Fine. But that hardly amounts to corruption on the part of admins.--Jimbo Wales 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

World Wide Entertainment

This is very much something I am aware of and working on. I recommend not discussing it publicly at the moment, ok? Private email to me is fine, to comment or bring additional info to my attention. --Jimbo Wales 17:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Hi, I know it would take more than a minute to read, but I would appreciate your opinion on the raging, lengthy debate at Talk:Noah's Ark on the supposed "neutrality" of Wikipedia endorsing the view that the Scriptures are "mythological pseudoscience"... It has been going on for one month now, with those in favor still insisting that theirs is the only significant POV on Scripture. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Equal treatment under the (Wikipedia) Law

Islamic apartheid redirects to Criticism of Islam Israeli apartheid should, in a similar way redirects to Criticism of Zionism

Zeq 10:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid, Remedy #3 ("Centralized discussion"):

Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" [...] shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles.

I don't think this recommendation has been fully exploited yet, before coming to Jimbo's page. --Francis Schonken 10:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the recomndeation to redirect Islamic apartheid to Criticism of Islam much like Israeli apartheid in a similar way redirects to Criticism of Zionism  ???? If you think this is the case you are wrong. They are not being treated equally. 89.1.247.220 13:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The arguments are not clear as to what is requested here, but I disagree that Israeli apartheid should redirect to Criticism of Zionism. Israel is a country, not a religion, so equal re-direction should exist for both. For example, no mention is specifically made to highlight the overwhelming inadequacies in the Saudi system as being an example of Islamic criticism. --LeyteWolfer 13:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK so we are in agreement.

Since Islamic apartheid redirects to Criticism of Islam

Israeli apartheid should, in a similar way, redirects to Criticism of Israel

89.1.206.229 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Likely probation violation

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Zeq_disruption_in_violation_of_probation. --70.48.71.15 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Homey ! long time no seen Zeq 08:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Hello sir, I would like to give you a link to a web site which is totally copyright of wikipedia. It is completely rubbish. They have abused you on there main page. Kindly see to it.

Link this. Thanks Sushant gupta 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it already has Jimbo's OK. On a side note, the temptation to link to Uncyclopedia:Nobody cares is very strong :) --WikiSlasher 09:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year and a question about CC-BY-SA

Hello there, Jimbo, and Happy New Year! This is a very simple question. I have been talking with a Flickr user who says he would change the license of his images to {{cc-by-sa}} if his name appears in a caption every time the image is being used. I would agree with it (every time one of his images is used I would add "Photo by XXX" or similar, with XXX the real name of the user), and I have seen it done in some articles (Tank Man, Magicicada, Holmsund, Brent Harding). However, that may conflict with the GFDL license, as users would not be able to edit that sentence out of the article. Do you have any thoughts about this matter? Or, if someone else who checks this page knows about a guideline or a previous discussion about this, I will gladly take any tip about it. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Cuba!!!

Hi Jimbo, i wanna give you my thanks by Wikipedia development... Really, it's GREAT... And... why don't you come to visit us at Cuba??? We love the free source! Thanks & Happy new year! ZorphDark

Isn't it still illegal for Americans to visit Cuba, without special government permission? *Dan T.* 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not illegal to visit, it is illegal to spend money there. However, it is possible to get government permission, and I believe that it is not that hard to obtain. Certainly, if anyone could get it, I should be able to get it. I would very much like to visit Cuba. I will post more about this on ZorphDark's user talk.--Jimbo Wales 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Many American visits my country in many ways. I think that the US policies could affects Cuba's economy and reputation, but will cannot harm good intentions from the people that want to help us. ZorphDark 2 January 2007

a policy/philosophy question

Hello Jimbo, First of all, many thanks for coming up with this brilliant idea called Wikipedia!!!

I have a question for you, in which I shall mention no names of either contributors or articles because I would like this to remain in the realm of the hypothetical and would like to hear your opinion on dealing with it as a hypothetical, general situation. What should be done if, on a number of articles relating to similar things or events, there is a small group of users (maybe two, three or four people, and the same group on all the involved articles) who have written somewhat slanted, rather POV versions of the things or events in question, and then guard those articles so closely that changing them is practically impossible. Statements, paragraphs, even just sentences presenting an opposing viewpoint, even those with verifiable sources, are frequently reverted and called vandalism or lies. Add to this mess that the disputes almost always divide along predictable national lines, and then keep in mind that blocks are not a good idea because all of the involved parties have made many valuable contributions on other articles and topics.....

Again, I do not wish to name names of anything or anyone. I am, however, quite interested to hear your opinion on what should generally be done to resolve a situation such as the one I described above.

Happy New Year!!!

Yours sincerely, K. Lástocska 16:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered following our dispute resolution process? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sort of, but it's more of a cold war than a hot war, and I don't think DR would work very well in this case. K. Lástocska 20:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a happy and safe Christmas season, and a blessed new year. Enjoy where you are, and who your with. Merry Christmas! From, Defrag and Jilly.

Virgin Unite

Could you please explain why an advertisement for Virgin Unite is posted on every Wikimedia page? Does this not violate Wikipedia's principle against such posts?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses to the advertisement posted here:

• [13][14]Hamedog has left Wikipedia
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_No_ads#Virgin_advert
• Talk:Main_Page#Virgin_Unite_Logo

--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What principle are you thinking of, Ed? Can you provide a link to that page? -- SCZenz 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads (not really a principle). But there is Wikipedia:Spam--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then there's Jimbo's claim that he and Larry Sanger parted ways because Jimbo refused to put ads in Wikipedia to pay Sanger's salary. I would provide a link, but it would require a link to an IRC log. Those who were on the channel know what was said. Amicus Sparticus 08:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it still does not answer my question about the Virgin Unite advertisement--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Has the Board responded to these complaints yet?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's no issue at all here. A logo does not constitute an advertisement, nor does a sentence saying that the company will be matching donations. If they're making voluntary donations, not in exchange for the service of advertisement, then it's not advertisement in any form. If the use of the logo caused the issue, what about all the logos used in articles in Wikipedia? Do they constitute advertisements? Virgin Unite, a charitable arm of a TNC, was making a large donation to Wikipedia - does that not deserve recognition with a simple sentence (and no external link even, after their site went down) and a recognisable logo? If we weren't to do what we did with the fundraising notification, what else should we have used, do you suggest (in retrospect)? It's important to remeber that it would have been easy for anyone with an objection to the notification to just click the "close" button and be done with it. Martinp23 01:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Logos in articles are different - they are not sight wide banners and they identify the company. Since when does making a donation require a logo to be displayed. "We will pay you money if you display our logo" is an advertisement. The logo was unnecessary and has created a POV issue with the Virgin Unite article. It has lowered the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. As per above, I have stopped editing abd I am with holding edits until an apology is issued by someone involved with in wikipedia (see my user page).--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Martinp23, are you inferring that all of the donators other than Virgin Unite do not deserve recognition for their generosity? As far as I'm concerned, Virgin Unite, like other contributors, sacrificed a considerable amount of money in order for this site to operate! Also, think about it this way: Would Virgin Unite's donation alone help to keep Wikimedia running? No. Their contributions, along with the other groups that donated, are used to help the Foundation.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not making such an inference. All donors have their donations noted on the fundraising reports, linked for the site notice. However, matching donations are omitted from this listing, and the next best place to note our thanks to Virgin Unite, and (by consenquence) encourage extra donations on the understanding that they would be doubled is the site notice. Seriously, a single logo and message of thanks does in no way constitute an advertisement. I'd agree that it was an ad if WMF had offered Virgin Unite advertising space (and the ability for VU to leave their own message there), but I'm sure we can agree that this isn't what happened, and it would have been the WMF who contacted VU requesting donations. We can't even say whether VU were told that their logo and (for a time) a link to their site would be shown before they offered to match donations, and until we have such information from those who make the decisions, and finger pointing and accusations of going against fundamental policies are premature. Probably the fact is that the community needs more information to help us to get a clearer understanding of the situation, though there will still be disagreement over what an advertisement is. Martinp23 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the presence of the Virgin Unite logo encourages extra donations is somewhat troubling to me. This is because it helps the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a non-profit organization, to receive more money. The WMF just can't control the articles its volunteers edit! We don't have to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. No one should be forced or encouraged in any way to fund this organization. It is solely their option to do so--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, what is your comment on this???--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, having read your comment on Ed's talk page as well as receiving emails from CJ King and GChriss, please read my reason for with holding my edits on my user page. Thanks.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Two-revert rule

I have the following proposal: Two-revert rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Two-revert_rule I think the large majority of the users would support this change. This would be a radical shift in mentality and will bring only good quality to various articles. In this way 3RR rule is redundant, we can get rid of it and no more reports on 3RR is needed. Would you favor such a drastic reform? Thank you, --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 13:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to know your feedback please. Thank you. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think something has to be done. Otherwise competition will make a new encylopedia with more rules and order and Wikipedia will fall into vandalism. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to you, Jimbo! I didn't know that you had been in our country, Finland, until I saw that one picture on Commons. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the whole Wikipedia system and happy new year! --Roosa 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

May you and your beard accomplish. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your article

I read the nom for featured status of Jimmy Wales and you commented that some of the information such as your birthdate comes from unreliable sources and is false, but it hasn't been removed as far as I know. If you point out the falsehoods, I will remove them if you want.--Azer Red Si? 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New users

Hi Jimmy, this wiki thing was a great idea! Anyways, in my opinion it is very hard for Wikipedia's content to comply with NVOP if there is no growth. Growth in numbers of contributors diversifies the gene pool so to speak, preventing "in-breading". As it is right now an estimated 5000 new users are registering per day. Here are seven points to consider.

1. Did the user contribute at all
2. Did the user continue contributing after a week.
3. Did the user receive any warnings for abuse of the system.
4. Did the user become blocked.
5. Did the user create a user page.
6. Did the user express an interest in the adopt-a-user program.
7. Did the user join a wikiproject.

I have been analysing these points through Category:WelcomeBotResearch and find the results dismal. I don't have a complete report though we hope to have one soon. I would very much appreciate your comments, perhaps you have a full report already. Please glimpse at the talk to see Haggerman's proposal. Thanks and Happy new year!

frummer 07:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue

The YouTube/Copyright issue that's blown up has gained the wiki some bad press in Boingboing [15], and still doesn't seem to be going away.

There's a minority of editors and admin who are being very vocal and active both about promoting their opinion that all external links should have a "Fully verified copyright licence" (Whatever that means), as well as acting on that and running projects to use AWB to find and delete the 'bad links'. Current Policy says not to "Knowingly and Intentionally" link to copyvio, and it's my opinion that a change to policy to add extra verification of copyright beyond this would be a large burden to editors.

I've tried to talk them down by asking them to discuss this over at the WP:EL talk page, but proponents now change the guideline without discussion to reflect their opinion. This is getting out of hand and snowballing into a big issue, with talk of taking it to Arbitration or bringing it up before the Wikimedia Foundation.

Is there any chance that you'd like to nip this in the bud? --Barberio 18:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A note, I see that the BoingBoing link is a month old. If you could provide newer links that support your assertion that this is spiraling out of control, it might help anyone new to the issue. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube and note the need for a special notice on YouTube as well as various attempts to edit the guideline without consensus discussion, Diff of a talk post calling for Brad to look into it, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington a hopelessly muddled RfC where the "urgent need to delete potentially copyright violating you tube links" is used as defence of an editwar ending in protection of an article. --Barberio 19:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Frohes Neues Jahr!

Hallo Jimmy!

Ich wünsche dir ein „Frohes Neues Jahr“.

Grüße aus Deutschland; --Athalis 19:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible future request for a block

I am not a Wikipedia admin. The anonymous user, 68.37.91.154 vandalized Appalachian Mountains. That was his/her only contribution so far. I put a warning on his/her talk page. I will be watching his/her contributions and the history for Appalachian Mountains. If the user vandalizes Appalachian Mountains more times, I will put put warnings on his/her talk page and after a few warnings, I will request a block. If he/she vandalizes another article, I will put warnings on his/her talk page. Kamope 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

May I call you Jimmy? *winks* lol -- Hope you had a swell holiday! Wolfie001 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

happy

new hear. Blueaster 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Something to cheer you up

Just wanted to say thanks for all you've done so far. Keep up the good work. --RedPooka 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian indy wrestling articles

Message removed by author (not logged in) as it was ignored. 124.181.204.208 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lemire

No problem. I did manage to find one article that mentions him, but then I realized that it said, "primary source for most of this info is Wikipedia". So...I guess I'll keep looking. Khoikhoi 03:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. Was it uploaded after he was banned? Anyways, I hope the sources that I've added so far are reliable enough. I'll try to find some more. Khoikhoi 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try. :-) BTW, are Lauder and Kinsella reliable soruces? Khoikhoi 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know. They are published books, and if someone has a copy that would help enormously. Lemire has objected that apparently one or both of them has been discredited or strongly critiqued. We should at least investigate whether these are respectable books or not.--Jimbo Wales 15:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted this in the talk page but thought I should post it here as well. Here are some reviews of the book and some information on Mr. Kinsella: A wake-up call against hate, Warren Kinsella, Shedding Light on the Prince of Darkness, National Post: Warren Kinsella, 1997 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents (note that B'nai Brith uses Web of Hate as a source). I would say that Kinsella is as reliable a source as anyone in Canada on the far right in Canada. AnnieHall 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lemire article

Unfortunately I don't know where Wikipedia-acceptable neutral sources can be found about this character. However, I'll keep an eye on the article so it doesn't get too whitewashed and gloss over his racist politics. Anyone who goes on his website can see that the only freedom of speech he cares about is freedom of speech for racists and anti-semites. Maybe the current short article is all he really deserves, because he's not an important political figure.Spylab 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it "his website" or a website he hosts? I honestly haven't tried to find out, I am just trying to be as critical and thoughtful as I can be on all sides of the question. Everyone agrees that the article should not be a whitewash... and I think there is clearly no danger of that. But I do think that there is a danger of an article which is biased against him by assuming he holds views which he has not publicly stated or defended in any way.

Let me be specific. It's fine rhetoric to say "Anyone who goes on his website can see that the only freedom of speech he cares about is freedom of speech for racists and anti-semites." If that's true, can you give me a quote from his website, written by him, which supports it?--Jimbo Wales 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(I am moving some possibly helpful information to the talk page of the article. It was added here by an anon, and I am not sure yet what to make of it (have to read it and check some of the claims that the anon made).--Jimbo Wales 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I believe he runs and hosts the site, although my uncertainty is why I can't be very helpful in adding information to the article. I agree that there should only be facts that are documented by reliable sources, but I can't be bothered to search them out. As I said before, he's really not a very important person. It's not so much that specific quotes show the site is only about protection of racist speech; it's the fact that the only links on his site — and the only freedom of speech issues discussed — are about white power, anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, and related issues. He's not fighting for freedom when it comes to other issues, such as sex-related topics or leftists being monitored by the authorities. Spylab 17:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Was that really you on IRC or was it a imposter? Get back to me on my talk page please. Also have a happy new year!!!! God bless. --Sir James Paul 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for creating wikipedia and making the internet not suck. Sir James Paul 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. Thanks a lot. Have a nice week and god bless. --Sir James Paul 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

:-)

¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy editing!!!--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on User talk: 82.148.97.69

You may email me and ask me for my personal cellphone number, which I will answer 24 hours a day to confirm or disconfirm any such story of this type. --Jimbo Wales 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

... You do sleep, right? Just checking... :-) theProject 05:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

) Well, if the press is going to report something as absurdly false as "Wikipedia bans Qatar" I think it is ethically incumbent on them to at least ask first if it is true. And ethically incumbent on me to drag myself out of bed to tell them that they must be smoking crack if they believe a story like that.--Jimbo Wales 15:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

We love you jimbo - just don't ban us again ;) 82.148.97.69 16:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I support advertising on wikipedia

Greeting I just wanted to say that I fully support advertising on wikipedia. I see there is a lot of people objecting to the ads, but I fully support them as long as proceedings go to the nonprofit foundation or are used to purchase copyrighted content. Thank you very much for your time, I appreciated you on NPR Mineralè 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You replied to my talk page saying that you oppose ads on wikipedia. I believe the foundation could do more than just the wiki. What about purchasing rights to media that we need? What about sourcing funds for printed copies of select articles? The Mozilla foundation is doing very well with the money they are receiving from google advertisements (on the default opening page). The no ads policy is a quixotic ideal, please consider ads, see the recent slashdot article. Mineralè 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper

Hi, I remember your edits regarding WP:BLP and Ron Jeremy and thought I'd just ask you a quick question about the inclusion of speculation on the sexuality of Anderson Cooper on that article. The section, in summary (to me anyway) reads as 'Someone in X magazine speculated about Anderson Coopers sexuality and he replied to another journalist 'I don't comment on my personal life'.' Could you take a look as I am seeing it is nothing more than speculation and gossip that is poorly sourced. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice of political controversy re AFD

Hi. Didn't meant to "come here first" but I'm unsure which dept. of Wiki's many processes and procedures to address some of my mounting concerns about the disposition of a certain article and its associated AFD case. It involves a BLP but also POV/censorship and other core Wiki principles as well as questionable behaviour by SPAs contributing to the article, and now the AFD. The overall context is a mounting and very major political scandal here in Canada, of which you will get partial idea by following the external link within my post to the AFD at [[16]]. I am sorry to write at such length - I'm either loquacious or a windbag depending on who you talk to ;-) but I can't help but be lengthy in writing or speech - it's in my nature - especially about important matters which may reflect on Wikipedia's integrity and the wisdom of its decision-making processes, especially when real-world political manipulation intrudes into Wikipedia's edit histories and talk pages, as has happened here. The upshot of the whole affair is that control of information in Wikipedia is becoming part of a political cover-up here in Canada [17]. It is disturbing to me that, while AFDs are not "votes", input on the fate of an article and its attached debates relating to major public affairs can be commented upon, and their fate decided, by people unfamiliar with or indifferent to Canadian/British Columbian public affairs. I'm not asking you to comment on the AFD, only to apprise yourself of its contents and to be prepared should the manipulation of Wikipedia and its processes by the protagonist's supporters surfaces in the media and becomes part of the scandal. Yours, with respect and appreciation for creating the wonder that is Wikipedia....Skookum1 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PS the protagonists/antagonists re this article and its talk page have repeatedly made insinuations of libellous and slanderous comment, meant to intimidate both Wikipedia and its contributors, in the course of their vandalism, by way of justification for same. The realpolitik of the situation is that, should such a lawsuit be filed, it would be front-page headlines and have the counter-effect of propelling Mr. Bornmann into the public eye, from which is so eager to remove himself. I didn't cite their various threats and insinuations in my AFD statement, but they're there to read in the edit history of the talkpage and the article, and also with similar at BC Legislature Raids by other parties, which was also systematically vandalized and "patrolled" by the same agenda.Skookum1 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to drop more of this in your lap, but the tide has turned on the AFD, thanks to other editors from BC who've weighed in, but I thought I should also bring this to your attention, which is a sockpuppet charge against "the leader of the pack" of SPAs who've also said some very nasty things about me during the course of the AFD. No big deal, I'm starting to feel things might work out, but I did think it best to apprise you of the potential political fracas implicit in all connected proceedings to do with this case. Now, back to my mountain ranges and history articles.......Skookum1 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your biograghy

Hello Jimbo Wales, have you ever thought of expanding the Wikipedia article based on yourself, I was just having a little look at it, and it says that it needs expanding and improving, and as you will know more about yourself than other people, you could help.--Rasillon 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps: The Wiki project is the most excellent thing I have ever seen on the internet. You are a genius to come up with this.

Hi Rasillon. As a rule, we try not edit things that are much too close to us. Wikipedia was once littered with examples of how this can go very wrong. I, for example, should not edit an article too much about my Grandfather's school. It's an excellent idea in terms of saving time, however! :)Nina Odell 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marc Lemire

Hi Jimbo.

Since a federal court judge in Canada has affirmed that Marc Lemire is leader of the Heritage Front can we list him in the neo-nazi and white nationalist categories? Justice Blais mentions Lemire several times in his ruling on Ernst Zundel as evidence that Zundel associated with neo-nazis and was thus a national security threat who, as a non-citizen could be detained under a National Security Certificate and deported. In paragraph 39 of his decision, for instance, Blais wrote "If, as Mr. Zündel said, the Heritage Front, a group described as the most powerful racist gang to hit Canada since the real Nazis back in the Dirty Thirties, was not a good idea, then why would he hire the president of that organization, Mr. Lemire, as a part-time and then full-time employee in his own personal residence?"[18]. Dimitroff 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger "co-founder" questions

Jimbo, you've been objecting to calling Larry Sanger a "co-founder" of Wikipedia, on IRC and elsewhere. I have read your arguments, that Larry was an employee of yours when Wikipedia was founded, and that you were committed to anonymous editing by anyone while he was not, leading to several arguments. I had been convinced; in fact just a short time ago I removed a reference to "co-founder" from Sanger's article. But then thinking about it and digging deeper I came across [19] and was surprised to read:

• Sanger proposed using a wiki to simplify Nupedia's arduous review process shortly after a January 2, 2001 dinner with Ben Kovitz where Ben described Cunningham's wiki software, and your agreement to this proposal was the beginning of Wikipedia.

• Sanger coined the name "Wikipedia"

Are those recollections accurate? If either is, I think you should not object to anyone calling Sanger a "co-founder." The American Heritage Dictionary defines the verb "found" as, "to establish or set up." Creating the proposal leading to a thing's existence certainly qualifies as helping to establish it, and naming a web site is an important part of setting it up, I am sure everyone would agree.

You might also want to consider why this means so much more to you than anyone else, such that you have had to ask others to remove the "co-founder" label in several locations, and whether you want to be known as someone who has such strong feelings about labels which at best are only borderline-inaccurate, concerning an issue in which you are personally involved. I offer these questions and comments only as a passing acquaintance and admirer concerned for your image, and I hope you will take them that way. 75.35.77.22 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop raising this issue. You will only get the same response. And I highly suggest that you stop editing your comments once they are published. Thanks and have a good day!--CJ King 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never raised this issue before. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know it was an issue. As for editing comments, this is a wiki, and if I make a typo I ought to correct it. 75.35.77.22 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My only issue here is that Wikipedia ought to remain neutral on the subject. --Jimbo Wales 03:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody asked about your issues. The question warrants a simple yes or no response. Do you have a different recollection than that offered by your fellow founder of this project? Where's your openness and wikilove when push comes to shove? Apparently your respect for truth and neutrality stops when you surf out of the namespace you created into the public media, where your mission seems to be to skew truth toward your own liking. Your public commitment to transparency apparently ends when you enter an IRC channel to plot how to foist your version of Wikimedia history on the public through the media. I and many others would kindly appreciate if you would expedite your retirement from the board of directors, and take your Bomis buddies with you. Thank you for your contribution, but as you said, it wasn't you who figured this out, it was all of those volunteers. Aside from fostering the environment of hatred, abuse and self-service that now dominates this site, your primary contribution here has been cash and in-kind services, but not encyclopedic content nor effective leadership. Your services are no longer required. Truth up 04:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One reason conflict of interest is an issue in creating an unbiased encyclopedia is that everyone has biases and those biases include believing things that make oneself look better in one's own eyes. Everyone misremembers things in ways that promote their own psychcological health and as Wales and Sanger are both human, we can assume each will remember and believe and hold to be important things that accord with their own psychcological health. As writers of Wikipedia it is our job to make the articles reflect the best reliable published sources we have. I know Jimmy Wales agrees with this, even if it is really really galling to him that he knows some things in Wikipedia are wrong based on his own memory. Now where's that book on memory; I know I left it right there ... WAS 4.250 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me this is Jimbo's user page, and common courtesy dictates that he gets the same right as everyone else to be final arbiter of how he is presented on this page, particularly in any controversy. By their very nature, user pages have come to present us from our own POV, and I do not see that Jimbo needs to be an exception.

If, however, this were a bio article, he would have to be presented in accord with valid and verifiable evidence from all sides and a neutral POV, which might (and in the past, where there have been both userpage and bio articles for the same person, often has) present a different picture.

There is an oriental saying: "Each man is three things, as he sees himself (userpage), as others see him (bio article), and as he really is (reality)". --Zeraeph 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim that users are allowed a right to arbitrate how others see them on their user page is false. Users are routinely preventing from editing a user page and a user talk page assigned to their user name whenever any one of 1,000 secret administrators gets the whim. Then, users are represented as criminals ("vandals"), subhumans ("trolls") and con-artists ("sockpuppets") sometimes in perpetuity with no opportunity for a user to rebut the attacks of anonymous agents of Wikimedia Foundation. It is funny how these idealistic policies get trotted out when needed to defend the faithful but trampled under foot when someone decides it is convenient to dehumanize a contributor contrary to the stated policies used to attract naive new contributors. Truth up 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you misunderstand the issue. It about wikipedia articles. WAS 4.250 11:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if I do, because this is the talk for Jimbo's user page, where the "co-founder" question is becoming, at least, a long running "revert scuffle".

What appears in any Wikipedia article related to Jimbo, Wikipedia, or Larry Sanger should surely be neutral and presented in accord with whatever valid and verifiable sources that can be cited for it.

What appears anywhere else is very unlikely to be under our control in our role as editors of Wikipedia and thus is not worth discussing. To question Jimbo about this issue here is, strictly, bringing off Wiki issues onto Wikipedia and no more in accord with protocol than if somebody chose to bring personal off-Wiki issues to my user page or yours. --Zeraeph 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue existed since 1 or 2 years ago when Jimbo edited his article and there was a news story. It's now only brought up because of a certain website posting chat logs. Anomo 12:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the content of wikipedia articles: [20], [21], [22]. WAS 4.250 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which should be discussed in those locations. As far as I can see the only issue that needs discussing here is this [23]. --Zeraeph 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Wales is a user who has edited those articles about himself, it is appropriate to approach him about the matter here. "Wrong forum" is a standard dodge used in this club to misdirect anyone who offers criticism that somehow upbraids the wikifaithful. Since Wales promotes an "eventualist" philosophy of publication, since there is ongoing public discourse about the matter and since Wales broached the issue in a secret venue used primarily to conduct foundation-related business, it is as urgent that the discussion continue here as it is a pretty red stop sign with a hand be placed on a page when a user contributes something an admin doesn't like. Truth up 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Winston Olde English Bulldogge

Hello,

I made a post at both the Vandalism page and the Investigation page and both were reverted by an editor named yandman so I am going to post my request here in the hope that it can be resolved fairly.

The article Winston Olde English Bulldogge was at wikipedia yesterday because I worked on it and now it is deleted without a vote. This is a breed a dog and should be in Wikipedia. I have been advised that JzG has decided on his own that the article is not warranted and it was deleted. He recently tried to have the Olde English Bulldogge deleted with a vote and it is not succeeding, so now he is simply deleting dog breed articles he does not like. I would like the article brought back and a vote taken. I believe that this dog breed exists and it should be in Wikipedia. Thank you Headphonos 10:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To discuss the deletion of a page that you feel wa unwarranted, Wikipedia has Deletion Review. To list it at Vandalism and Request for Investigation or applying directly to Jimbo Wales is premature and not the best way to resolve this. Fram 11:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds and see what they say there. Nina Odell 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I have made a post here: Post Headphonos 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A search of "Winston Olde English Bulldogge"(which took .05 seconds) yielded 492 hits, along with a placeholder for this article in the Wikipedia article Old English Bulldog. Headphonos, I'm sorry. It doesn't look like your dog is notable - pfft - of course it is. Please consider sticking around Wikipedia. Nina Odell 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Just... Why? 58.178.64.147 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because. Dar-Ape 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Place!

Hi, I'm just here to say that Wikipedia is the greatest thing on the Internet that i've ever found. It's a nice place to meet people, but it's also a great thing for when i'm in school writing those long essays. I'm really just saying: Thanks Jimbo Wales! Wikipedia is GREAT! Have a nice day, RyGuy Happy New Year!

I second that! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I have to third that. Yuser31415 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal from Novartis to collaborate with Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

http://web.gnf.org/ Hi there One of the group leaders at the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation has contacted our Wikiproject and is proposing a large-scale collaboration with Wikipedia. The talk page is Here. You might have a lot to add to this discussion so we would appreciate your input. TimVickers 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I am making a website and I want YOU to be one of the admins! This website is not open yet but ill tell you when it does! Fattdoggy 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Showster

Hey Jimbo, about a week ago you decided to unblock The Showster (talk · contribs) based on this thread. The Showster is attempting to get an autoblock template up, but can't seem to get it straight. While he's still working on that, I'd just like to ask if you would mind reviewing the situation to determine if an unblock on the IP address would be a good idea. As you may be aware, The Showster was blocked as part of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bowser Koopa. Based on the case history and Dmcdevit (talk · contribs)'s block on it the day of the closing of the checkuser request, I assume that 209.244.43.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the IP that The Showster will be requesting an unblock on whenever he figures out how to use the template. I'm just curious if you would mind taking a look at the checkuser history surrounding this case. Do you think that unblocking The Showster's IP will open up a huge can of worms? Or do you think it should be okay? Thanks, Metros232 06:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine to unblock. He will be under no special protection from me. If the username or the ip misbehaves, we can treat it as a normal case. The only reason I unblocked is that someone indicated that they were being blocked as collateral damage in a sockpuppeting case. Do I believe it? Hmm, doesn't really matter. It costs little to give it a go and see what happens.--Jimbo Wales 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Powerful enough to demand" a "free" photo?

This is with reference to your statements at Wikipedia talk:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote#My own view and Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos#This page is dangerous implying that Wikipedia is now powerful enough to get freely licenced images of celebrities (and other promotional images).

It might be possible to get images licenced for free use/copying/distribution. But I wonder if a sizeable number of celebrities/photographers would allow for free modification of their photos, realising all the consequences. User:Nil Einne has a nice description of things allowed by "free modification" that people might not imagine when we ask them for a freely licenced image (added in this edit).

I have also noticed that at times people forget about the "free modification" clause of copyleft licences when talking about free licences (e.g. once I found that many licences allowing unrestricted use/copying but not explicitly mentioning modifications were tagged as free licences at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags -- discussion here). Due to this, we might get some celebrities/photographers to give us a "free" image, without their understanding that we allow unrestricted creation of derivative works.

Due to this, if someone takes such a photo from Wikipedia and creates an image that is not to the celebrity/photographer's liking, they might sue us saying we misinformed them about the "free licence" we are asking for, and consequences of derivative works.

Hence we have to make sure the celebrity/photographer understand that we would allow creation of derivative works not to their liking, in which case, I guess we would mostly be refused a freely licenced photograph. -- Paddu 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC) [scared at posting my first ever comment here]

Obviously we should not list licenses that does not allow modifications to the content as free licenses. If you have any particular ones in mind you should bring that up over at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags (or just remove obvious cases). I know the BSD, GNU, CC, MIT, FAL licenses listed are ok. I did remove a couple of the NZ government tags listed there though, and some in the "general purpose" category could probably wanrrant some closer examination, so you are correct, we need to be carefull in what we clasify as "free content", allowing modification is one of the "must haves" to qualify. --Sherool (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, can you or the Board of Trustees launch a public request for free images, maybe aimed at notable personalities directly? I believe such request would be much more powerful than any we can individually do, and would really help us to have the Foundation in our backs when requesting images from personalities. -- ReyBrujo 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to help with this. What I would recommend is that we first prepare a letter for me to send, a letter to the major publicists for Hollywood stars, perhaps, as a start. I can email this letter to them and also release it as a press release. I recommend that we recommend to them to use CC BY-SA, since that's a license people can better understand than the GNU FDL.--Jimbo Wales 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A simpler solution to that problem

Perhaps we could consider allowing the "ND" tag on Creative Commons licenses for images of a living person used in an article for purely identificational purposes ... and only for that purpose? I know that wouldn't prevent people from using the images for derivative works, but they'd not be doing it with the original creators' permission. Daniel Case 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That solves the problem you think is involved but does solve the problem actually involved. The problem is that the goal of the Wikimedia Foundation (and its long time supporters) is free educational resources with free not just meaning no cost but also encompassing all the freedoms free people should have with regard to information of all kinds - including the freedom to alter it and distribute it. Freedom is not something to sell out for the sake of a pretty web page. On the other hand, a no cost distribution of educational images that unfortunately are not totally free is a useful compromise at times. This is the issue and the debate. WAS 4.250 09:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikisaria

I removed a badly-written, all-lowercase, unsourced section from your biography that had been there for at least a week here. It made me wonder: (1) Why didn't any of the hundreds of Wikipedians remove it and (2) You should really scan your article every few days, if you don't already. -- Chris is me 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo shouldn't edit his own page (he's gotten in trouble for that before ;-). Also, that section is correct, and though it wasn't the best section, it wasn't all that awful (except that "Google-killer" part). Prodego ^talk 03:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was pretty awful, with numerous inaccuracies. But that is not wikipedia's fault, the media butchered the story pretty badly.--Jimbo Wales 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

GIGO Exus79 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True nuff. I stubbed and cited the section in question. Anyone is free(I suppose I don't need to say this, but whatever) to use the reference and expand or find others. I suppose I should care more about the section topic, but I seem to be missing a gene somewhere that enables me to do this. Nina Odell 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever review the comments on Political Cooperative article?

Just wondering why the latest sysops action was taken. - Darrow

Happy Holidays!

Hello from Russia. Vinograd19

Hello

Your an inspiration to all of us. Thanks for everything. User:YumMobile12

Dear Mr. Wales (Akron Wiki)

Dear Master Jimbo Wales: We at the wiki "Cool People from Akron" would like to see to it that the Akron Wiki and Akroness habve their own articles on your wonderful site. I feel that some administrators are being unfair and that they are enforcing their belifes which prevents us from making your encyclopedia free. I feel that Akroness is a genuine slang term that has been used in many print sources in the Akron area, and I feel that our wiki is being discriminated against while other wikis can have their own pages. I feel you should intervene with these administrators, especally User:Nishkid64, to allow us to create our articles. Best regards,

CPFA

title

Please Help!

Hi there Jimmy, I need some help because I was recently contacted by E-mail by a user who has been blocked from Wikipedia for being a Sockpuppet, now I think the policy on Wikipedia is that Sock-puppets are allowed to have multiple accounts as long as they are not to cause trouble - and this user has not been vandalising Wikipedia; and he says that a certain Administrator (I'd like to keep him anonymous as I am not taking sides with anybody) is picking on him and another user who he knows and reverting there edits all the time, even though they are not vandalism, now I checked through some of the contributions of one of the users who contacted me and I cant see any reversions by the user names he gave me (who he suspected of misconduct) but I'll ask him for direct links of these unfair reversions, but none of his contributions appear to be Vandalism, just attempts to improve Wikipedia, this user also claims that this Administrator is shielding a group of Sockpuppets or bad users althnough oce again I'm not taking sides and I have no idea as to whether this is true or not. And he says he can provide links of this possible misconduct and he has already provided some and I said that he should contact you as a last resort and left him a link to your talk Page. So really all I need is some adivce on how to help him and he says that one of the users who he believes the admin is protecting has a history of leading a sockpuppet group (once again i don't know whether this is true or not). If you need any further Information such as usernames or other Info please fell free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks and I hope you enjoyed your New Year and enjoy the rest of 2007!

Respectfully..... Tellyaddict^Talk 14:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

I am honored to speak to you, Mr. Wales. It is out of your kindness that you have permitted lowly Users such as me to communicate with one as kind, generous and clever as you, and I am elated at this chance to talk about you. Your online encyclopedia is an excellent reference source for my kids and my students. However, I was just wondering if there is a project page for censorship. thanks! Librax 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Which raises an interesting question: What is the correct title we should use for you, Jimbo? I would have thought that 'Sir' should have sufficed.  :) Chovain 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Librax,

Deskana was kind enough to answer on your talk page, as did I. Jimmy always likes to hear from people, but can't respond as quickly or as often as he might wish to (a supposition on my part). I doubt he considers you a lowly user. In fact, you're highly treasured on Wikipedia as an educator, mother, and woman. The combination is lovely! Nina Odell 14:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

So my efforts on the article have all been reversed, and pretty much misunderstood. I'm a little sad, but I cheer myself with some other work I'm doing. It's an uphill road, so I'm writing you in order to lighten it for a minute.

Today is the traditional Mahayana Buddhist new year. In fact, I just found this out today - which is funny because I am one. We had a wonderful time, however, January 1. In any event, I'm using it as an excuse to give you my very first "card". I've found all the buttons at the top of the edit page very helpful!

• 
  Please click on useless image. Happy New Year from a complete maniac. Nina Odell 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely,

Nina PS: I don't know why the image is gone. Perhaps it's something to do with your page. Anyhow, it was a free image I found at Commons. It's called "Lights of the World", and is a poster of all the lights around the world that can be seen from space. I saved it to my desktop, to remind me of all the Wikipedians out there. Do find it if you've never seen it. Nina Odell 11:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's back! Yay! Nina Odell 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It won't be back for long. It is a copyvio because it is a photo of a poster. For the original NASA image, go to the NASA website. For example, a copy is here. The posters you see are from companies that use the original images, or even the original satellite data, and play around with it until they get something that looks nice. But that takes them time and effort. We can't just copy that. If a Wikipedian were to obtain one of the NASA images and play around with it themselves, that would be fine, IMO. Carcharoth 11:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of a website containing original DMSP data: [24]. Carcharoth 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ProtectionBot

How do you feel about this? It's a bot request for adminship. I'm sure that they'd all love to hear your stance on it. Cbrown1023 15:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It would please me for the code to be released under a free license. I do understand the security concerns about that, but find them not fully persuasive. It strikes me as quite easy for someone to write a bot to vandalize wikipedia, and keeping bot software secret in an attempt to prevent vandalbots from being created by fools is security through obscurity... it might work for a while, but it gives a false sense of safety.

As a separate comment, I should add that I am 100% in favor of bots being given the admin bit selectively.--Jimbo Wales 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Subtle Donation fraud

Dear Mr. Wales

What is Wikipenta ( Penta is the German user name )

He ask for a donation on his account Account Number is his.

This looks too much official ( like the real wikipedia donation ) in my personal point of view.

Please stop this kind of nonsens. [25]

I am quite convinced that the last € donation over Wikimedia e.V was missused and that there was some kind of bribery and corruption. ( some kind i do not know exactly what was going on ) The last German Focus Magazin said the same if you read between the lines.

Anyhow lucky to see that the donations are managed from the main branch again. But it would be still very necessary that the donators could get transparent informations where and for what the money has been used for.

Kind regards and a Happy New Year.--Ekkenekepen 09:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, enough is enough, we should not be tolerating this trolling and libel. – Chacor 11:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Puha this aint no libel this aint no trolling but probably you will learn to differentiate words. Many greetings to Wikimedia e.V with which you seem quite obviously connected. otherwise you would not write such really stupid nonsens ( Be aware and read carefully I did not mean in any ways that you are stupid )

Happy New Year and Greetings to the ones in the back office I think you are just their Marjodomo--Ekkenekepen 11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done, making personal attacks on JIMBO'S PAGE. – Chacor 11:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to go trough much more than this peanuts in de wiki so that aint no libel or trolling at all--Ekkenekepen 12:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Poster of above has been indefinitely blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam Blannig has vanished his present has been the indefinit block of user ekkenekepen. Well done--80.144.236.234 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Search

Hi, I would like to draw up your kind attention that wikipedia search has totally recked down. Kindly see. Thanks Sushant gupta 13:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia's search is down, try Google's (type in site:en.wikipedia.org searchterm). Google often works better than Wikipedia's built in search even when it is working.

You will also get a faster response to technical issues at the village pump or help desk. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on Marc Lemire

I'll have to respectfully disagree in regards to your comments on Talk:Marc Lemire.

There are {{fact}} tags everywhere on Wikipedia, and can be with facts that could be construed as insulting depending on your point of view(since there are an infinite amount of povs, everybody is insulted by something).

It seems more like trying to hide something by just removing it because some povs consider it to be inflammatory. I think it would be better to put up a {{disputed}} tag and let people know that this view is an outside and possibly untrue view. If the consensus thinks it best to remove the portion, then it should be removed. If it isn't presented as fact, it cannot be libel, and if it isn't libelous, it isn't scholarly to hide information.Just H 02:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should hold ourselves to a much higher standard of quality than that. Just because the man is a far right-winger, that is no excuse for linking to random web forum posts (at stormfront, no less!) as if it proves anything about him. We need SOLID SOURCING for ALL statements about living persons. The problematic statements WERE presented as fact, but even if they were not, it would still be problematic from a moral point of view... it is possible to libel someone through "false light", you know...--Jimbo Wales 02:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the beauty though. Just because it was presented as fact before doesn't mean it is cast in stone. This is a wiki after all! It's best to tone down the words, show that the sources of information are likely to be faulty, but until there's something better, to keep it there and be transparent about that. If the information is incredibly poor, it eventually will be replaced rather quickly, and if it's false, it will be removed per WP:V.Just H 02:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We can all collaborate on that article to make it safe both for Wikipedia, for the subject, and for those who wish to understand the topic. At least, that's what I believe. I'm one person, and one person does not make consensus. Until there is a consensus there, i'll leave it be. If we don't act by consensus only in difficult situations, I guarantee that this website will eventually fall apart.Just H 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are just mistaken here. When we are talking about a biography of a living person, it is mandatory that poorly sourced negative material be removed IMMEDIATELY. We have an ethical obligation here to get things absolutely right. Please understand that whoever put the information there, whoever puts information anywhere in wikipedia, had better be prepared to stand behind it personally, because we are all individually responsible for our own actions here... not just legally, but morally. Simply tagging some horrible crap with a fact tag is absolutely unacceptable when a real person might be hurt by it... and this remains true no matter how unsympathetic the person might be.--Jimbo Wales 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree then. I'm not saying what I said because the subject is unpopular. I'd say the same thing for any topic, irregardless of how it may be viewed by some.

I am somewhat disappointed however that you as the co-founder of Wikipedia are so reactionary in how you percieve information, in what I thought was a place where all information was presented for the good of everyone's understanding.

I'm also disappointed that you think so subjectively rather than objectively. If I think something is "crap", does that mean it is "crap" to you? What do you consider to be "crap"? What does the general public to be consider to be "crap"? In the end, it's just a slippery slope towards censorship unless all subjectivity is removed and is replaced with objectivity.Just H 03:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you think attention to quality is the same thing as censorship, or that I am "reactionary" you need to find a different hobby.--Jimbo Wales 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to find a different hobby? I thought we could have an intelligent and respectful debate here(particularly over what you consider "quality", since I'd beg to differ with the vast majority of the articles on Wikipedia in comparison to what you'd find on Britannica, but I guess not. I wish you a happy new year, despite our disagreements(I assume there are more), and my apologies if I offended you, which was not my intention. Just H 05:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm absolutely blown away by this decision to sub an entire article. The only thing I agree with is the removal of information where Stormfront is a source. Since it only deals with Marc Lemire's birthday it's can't be too difficult to find a better source. However, I fundamentally disagree with you statement that sources found on the Nizkor Project website is not acceptable. Most of the information from the Nizkor Project clearly show the provenance; government documents, newspaper articles, magazine articles, and primary sources (email correspondences). Even excluding the Nizkor Project, the majority of sources provided WERE government documents (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) or from other legitimate sources such as B'nai Brith and other similar sites. Warren Kinsella's book, Web of Hate is well-known to accademics and law-enforcement agencies documenting the far right in Canada from the early 1980s (actually, before then as well) to the mid 1990s. AnnieHall 03:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One additional thing. Although I agree that Stormfront is not a legitimate source of information, Marc Lemire did indeed post a meassage in the thread in question. AnnieHall 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of proof that it was actually him? No. That's why we don't do original research here. We must have reliable sources. In this case, it should be easy enough to find reliable sources, and if there are none, then this guy is clearly not notable enough to have a wikipedia biography in the first place. (As it turns out, I think there are some.) --Jimbo Wales 03:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case I do have proof but I really do agree that any reference using Stormfront still isn't appropriate. Be that as it may, I have a copy of Mr. Kinsella's book at home. I'll add some direct quotes once I return home from the holidays. I do understand why you would be concerned with some Nizkor sources given your explanation, however I think that those used in the Lemire article are appropriate. Perhaps it would be possible to re-examine the Nizkor sources to determine which ones could be used and which ones should not be? AnnieHall 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, read the article... It reads like crap and isn't, in my opinion, suitable for an encyclopedia in it's current state. I really have no idea who Marc Lemire is, but I can tell you I didn't find out by reading this article. An encyclopedic biography from the world leading encyclopedia should contain more than a slur campaign as the basis for an article? Please use a little wiki-love and write an article fitting for Wikipedia, the authoritative source for information content, not information generation. Have a great day!!! 209.244.16.221 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's your ball, and you can go home if you want."

To paraphrase the old saying though, it's your website, and you can go home with it if you want to. Just H 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Or you can follow long-established policies. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of news media photos for historic events

In case you weren't aware, there's an interesting battle going on at WP:IFD over a number of fair use photos that have been taken from news media sources. See [26], for instance. Basically, a question which is coming up that the community is having a hard time deciding is this: WP:FU counterexample #5 specifically mentions that it's not fair use to use a news media photo to illustrate an event, unless the photo itself is significant and that is being discussed. However, {{historicphoto}} is directly at odds with this, and claims that it is fair use to use a photo of an unreproducible historic event. Care to comment? I know this kind of thing is important to you. Mangojuice^talk 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the {{historicphoto}} template is a reasonable one, if used in an extremely sparing way. For example, any random picture of Elvis is in some very stretched sense historically unique, but we should be able to get plenty of freely licensed photos of Elvis. Surely someone saw him in concert or took a picture. This is different from a photo which is really the only possible illustration for an article, like if there was some unique historical event, and the article is about that event, and there are either no photos or so few photos that there is just no way we will ever get a free one.--Jimbo Wales 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would there be some kind of threshold for the importance of that historic event? In other words, how unique is "unique"? I think it clearly helps justify fair use if the event is at least an important one, as opposed (say) to something like Uma Thurman attending the 2005 Oscars.. which is arguably unique, and no free images may exist for it, but we don't need to cover that. Mangojuice^talk 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as well. Even in the case of something like a photo from the war in Iraq where it's almost certain that we will not find very many free photos, how we claim fair use on a current-day news media photo (when the article is not about the photo itself)? The photographer/news agency makes money on royalties from that photo and we would be using the photo in the exact way that they intend to profit from it. Obviously, I will respect your wishes and not submit any such photos to IFD unless they are the more obvious case you mentioned (a random photo of Elvis), but I must admit that I'm scratching my head a little bit on it. --BigDT 19:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo in signatures

There's an An/I thread going on (User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature) about the use of "Jimbo" in signatures other than your own. What are your thoughts on this? Hbdragon88 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are other people in the world who are named / nicknamed Jimbo, so it's not necessarily an attempt to impersonate Mr. Wales. However, perhaps it would be better if they added an initial or something to their sig to disambiguate; I once used "Dan" in my sig, but changed it to "Dan T." after I got some complaints of confusion because somebody else who had been around earlier and was more notable in the community was using "Dan" as his sig already. *Dan T.* 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with current events in the German Wikipedia

Hi, I want to point out on an issue in the German WP, on current events. During the last months there's a rather rigideous faction of wikipedians -- many of them are adminins -- which consider any articles on current events as not encyclopedic and as a result such articles get deleted or have to go survife a raunchy request for deletion discussion (the German nick for that page is deletion hell). The latest instance is de:Mordserie in Ipswich 2006 (the English equivalent is 2006 Ipswich murder investigation) but another was the German version of 2006 Qana airstrike which got deleted in August and even the article about the last year's war in Lebanon as a whole had to survive the deletion hell. I don't expect any specific (re)action, my intention is rather to determine what really WP wants. Is it correct that -- since WP is flexible and can be changed at any time -- articles on current events are welcomed (similar stated in the German rules for deletion) or is it true, that according to that faction, writing articles about current events isn't encyclopedic, because about such events can be written only the event settled and books (!) have been written about it, i.e. newspaper or online sources, even serious, like the New York Times or Germany's Der Spiegel or BBC-News aren't reliable sources for writing a wikipedia. That faction's main argument is, such stuff belongs to wikinews.

Of course many first attempts of covering a current event are badly written, unsourced, biased, or worse. OTOH, many people are interested in the topic, they all do research. It's much more difficult to write an article one year later or two when sources aren't available anymore. Search in newspaper archives are not for free and not every contributer has access tp public libraries. As a result, for instance, the German WP still doesn't have an article about the elections in Venezuela. It also doesn't have an article about the 2006 Thai coup d'état. Why? -- Would you like to work for the rubbish can?

IMHO, many new wikipedians are joining the community during major current events and because of fluctuation, because of people are unhappy, they leave -- so new wikipedians are needed all the time. I also think that most new users are joining the community during and because of a (major) current event occurs. It's highly frustrating if you start to work together with some fellow writers about a topic which is in the news and then some people come and tell you that your work is worth a s nothing, because it just happened and is in the news and we should go and write it at Wikinews.

During the last six months I made some 2,000 edits in articles (w/o discussions) and I think that 1,800+ of them had been in articles about current events but I have to tell you that I reached the point where I am fed up with that attitude. Since the topic reappears at the AFD discussions peiodically, like a broken record, I also am nearing the point where I'll question myself, if it's to stay or to resign. Please don't misunderstand, this is no ultimatum or whatsoever, it's only my frustration about the question, wether I am wasting my time here, or if the result of the time I am spending is welcomed in general. It's only the just and simple question: is writing about current events welcomed or not? (And maybe more complicated: Even in the German wikipedia? How much it can decide on its own and does that make sense?) It's the question if an article like Battle of Baidoa can be written now or only after 2008 has finished.

I hope I didn't waste (too much of) your time. Have a nice day. --213.155.224.232 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Child Wikipedians

Now that the wiki-drama has died down a bit on this (and the nasty e-mails have subsided) I'd like to talk to you about my concerns on how it was handled. Issues like this one get messy because of the tendency to make simplistic responses or to fail to separate out intermingled questions. In this case I see three streams:

1. The speedy deletion of the category itself,
2. The paucity of discussion on the category, and
3. The "Foundation's work" argument.

With regards to the speedy deletion of the category, I know you've come out and supported it (while wearing your "mere mortal" hat) so I understand your view on this decision. But more generally, you've come out strongly against wheel warring and demonstrably one admin (and probably more) had seen this category and failed to delete "on sight." Isn't there some internal contradiction there, and doesn't supporting the deletion give some justification (?) for reversing other admins decision based on being extra-right?

With regards to the discourse itself, do you look over this debate and see the kind of dialog you'd like decision making to be based upon? I recall your ire at a similar debate for Category:Living person where real debate was thin on the ground.

Finally, there's often "coded talk" about people doing the foundation's dirty work to avoid media exposure. (Citations available upon request.) What are your feelings on having your name taken in vain, as it were? My understanding was that Office et alia were there to prevent any confusion with matters like this, and that the "foundation work" was to be very clear when it was being done.

Thanks mate, brenneman 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re IRC: Duo Penotti?

Hi Jimmy, on #wikipedia-nl you asked about a product. Could it be Duo Penotti (nl), a bi-coloured chocolate spread? As an alternative, I'd like to suggest stroopwafels (nl). Cheers! Siebrand 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay, I bet that is it. --Jimbo Wales 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's making me famous!!

Take a look at this, read all the threads! thought you might think its funny! At least someones making me famous! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, we deleted the listing for Rock Slope? My favorite band? AfD really is broken. ;-)--Jimbo Wales 11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad quarrel spilling over

Jimbo, A bad quarrel centring on a sockpuppet case is spilling over to Orkut and is threatening the image of certain Wikipedia admins and of the community in general. I made a request to Raul on this [27] but he didn't seem to have responded or acted. An Orkut community named Viva Wikipedia with over 12000 members which remained dormant until recently has become the pivot of quarrel (and certain other related communities also). The community is moderated by an admin, user:Deepujoseph. He seems to have acted in haste to ban certain members who raised some criticism of the project. His actions have given rise to stringent criticism and he has become the target of much personal attacks on various communities on Orkut. There is enough to supsect that he acted not in entirely responsible manner vis-à-vis some criticism posted on his talk page relating to content he added. [28], [29], [30]. In any case, it would be a good idea if some senior admins intervened to diffuse a scandal and save user:Deepujoseph from being a target of personal attacks all over the web. Sameera Bhat 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I am being accused of sockpuppetry. Llama Man and Metros232 are saying I am a sockpuppeteer and Bowsy is my sockpuppet. This is not true. From their evidence, they should have found out that we live in the same house. They are saying Bowsy is my sockpuppet because his account was created 4 minutes after mine and I do a little then he does. This is because, as we live in the same house, we must take turns. They are sayinghe is my sockpuppet because he was the only delete for cruft. This is because he saw me nominate it. They are mentioning the edit war. Bowsy dropped out of this after contributing once. As you can see, they are using unreliable evidence so can you please end this as we aren't sockpuppets. Henchman 2000 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try other channels first, such as WP:ANI. Jimbo rarely involves himself in disputes like this without you trying other methods first. --Deskana (request backup) 13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No degree in Marketing

However...

• 
  Wikiprojects make your admin life so much easier, it will blow your mind. NinaOdell | Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NinaOdell | Talk 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Freedom and patents

I didn't think Richard Stallman's concerns about patents subverting copyleft licenses applied to Wikipedia until I read this. WAS 4.250 09:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. It's just something about artificial intelligence. Anomo 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The company intends to patent algorithms that use Wikipedia's internal links as a source of data so that we ourselves at some future date would have to pay a royalty to expand our own encyclopedia's software (example: searching) even if we wrote the code from scratch ourselves. Anyone familiar with existing software patents, for example on using a single click to buy something, can see the implications of this. See Transcript of Richard Stallman speaking on GPLv3 in Torino; 18th March 2006 for background. WAS 4.250 14:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is to create forums on a Wiki site to brainstorm future possible uses for all our data and discuss algorithms for implementing them. If all the ideas are "prior art" in the public domain, then they cannot be patented. The Wiki would be a record of the idea being released to the general public. Any company applying for a patent would have to prove that they had the idea before it was posted on the Wiki. Maybe this should be Wikifree.org? A site for free ideas. (I just bought the name to protect it). Has something like this ever been discussed? --Samuel Wantman 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What if the idea was discussed on some obscure Wikipedia talk page somewhere? Could that prevent the patent stealing the idea, or do we have to follow up with the idea ourselves? I support the idea of a free brainstorming wiki to come up with ideas - and Samuel, maybe you should set it up as a Wikia anyway, and get people participating. Carcharoth 11:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a patent lawyer, though I do have a patent in my name. My understanding is that all patents must reference "prior art" (which is all the ideas that are closely related to the patent) and demonstrate how the idea is novel and not a derivative of the old ideas. Prior art includes previous patents, and ideas in the public domain. By disclosing an idea before a patent is applied for, you put the idea in the public domain. As for Wikia, I would feel very uncomfortable setting this up in Wikia. Wikia is not a non-profit corporation. -- Samuel Wantman 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademark infringement on Adwords

Hi Jimbo... You guys might want to do some trademark enforcement. It's getting silly. I saw one that was "en wikipedia org" and it was a website selling prescription medication or some such. It's getting silly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The third one appears to be a weird feature of Google more than anything else. As to the others, I wonder whether anything can actually be done. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure either... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wales

Mr. Wales, you can't claim npov on this matter, unless you do not believe in rules that you made, which would be hypocritical.. Of course, if you wish to be hypocritical, that's your choice.

However, despite the fact that you basically own this encyclopedia, I consider the mission of this encyclopedia superceding even you, and I will not change my opinion due to anyone's position, but facts and consensus.

In the Larry Sanger article, he is also seen as a co-founder, which would also make you a co-founder, IMO.

Due to the sensitive nature of my opinion, I have reached out to try and engage towards the consensus edit on the talk page of that article here and [31], and a few more times.

If you would like to continue discussing this matter, please feel free to get back to me on my talk page. Just H 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is controversial, then i'm sure there will be no problem with the {{disputed}} tag on both articles until both are no longer controversial. As you said on your edit summary to me, NPOV is mandatory, so I ask you to follow it -- nobody can be %100 NPOV about themselves without ceasing to be themselves, and you are no exception. Just H 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You can be offended if you want to be, that's your issue, not my intention. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. I apologize for any psychological harm you may have incurred from my opinion, which unfortunately, is a part of being a famous person such as yourself.

I'm curious how other notable people, or for that matter, other users have felt, in situations similiar to yours right now. There doesn't seem to be alot of structure on here, and even then it seems to be ignored. Fixing that would seem to be the key thing from preventing this and balancing the reputations of people on Wikipedia with the presentation of all facts, and the best thing you can do as "King" is to set an example and follow them. Just H 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Telephone

Thank you for the offer, Mr. Wales. However, I am more able to express my thoughts on a computer than on a telephone, so I would prefer to continue our discussions here. Just H 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUTO. Please know that I do not have anything personal with you, and if I offended you, I apologize. You weren't really a factor in my opinion, and like I said on the talk page, I have no problem with compromising to get all viewpoints in, all Wikipedians should compromise. I also believe all Wikipedians should agree to follow the rules that we've all agreed upon(or seem to have agreed upon), or nobody will follow them and there will be chaos. You are a wikipedian, I assume, so I included you into that expectation.

However, I did also feel somewhat intimidated since you are pretty much the "King" of Wikipedia, and I construed your comments as "agree with me or else". However, I know that probably wasn't your intent, so I tried to assume good faith the best I could and not bring that up in there.

My objective is to make that article, and this entire encyclopedia as good as possible, and that in my opinion includes providing as many opinions and sources as possible and presenting them as neutrally as possible. Just H 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If It Helps At All

I've done many things in my life I don't like looking back on either, at least that's my guess in regards to your take on the Sanger issue. That you look back on that time with regret and you want to bury it.

If it helps, you're not alone, Mr. Wales. Just feel proud that even though this website can dredge up old memories that can harm us, in the end it has a noble purpose and it wouldn't have happened without you.

Out there in the articles, it's not about me or you, it's about information. But as they say, the truth can hurt sometimes and I hope we can work it out outside of the articles so we can forego our egos for the good of this project. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to alleviate that hurt without compromising the project.Just H 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia integration

Hi,

nice wiki.

i just have a problem with the interaction of it like, when i type a word in english in the hebrew wiki it will not lead me to the translation in the english wiki. it would me very cool if people will not need to change language just to get a resault in theyre language when tey are using other languages.

Best Regards, Moran

Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.0.188.171 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for the awesome signature and comment! SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to bring this to your attention

Hi. My name is PL (DB). I'm rather pleased to actually speak to you. I really love Wikipedia and I can't spend more than a week without editing it since it's so enjoyable and educational. Now then, I want to have your authorization about one thing: If I continuously remove warnings/comments, etc., from my user talk page, will I not be warned, blocked or anything? I really want you to say that I can since you're the mastermind of Wikipedia. Now, the only warnings I won't remove right off the bat are those that I deserve for vandalizing and whatnot recently (also those given to me by an Admin.) I shall only remove Admin. warnings/comments given to me only after some time has passed. So... Is there such a template of yours that says This user is cleared to remove warnings/comments, etc., by my authorization, Jimmy Wales. Or something like that... do I have your authorization, sire? PL(DB) 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just archive everything up to a week ago? Everyone is authorised to remove old comments from their talk page, including warnings, so long as the warnings aren't recent and their problematic behaviour isn't continuing, so you really don't need the founder's blessing. There should be no problem if you just move old comments to a subpage (User talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)/Archive) and link to it at the top of your user talk page. If you do that and someone reverts you saying "you removed warnings", I'll revert them myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing! I don't wanna archive everything (even though I already have an archive). I wanna just refresh my entire talk page. I mean, it is my talk page, right? I have been told that I can blank my talk page but two bad things will happen to me, One: I will be frowned upon, Two: The arbitration commitee will do something about me (which is kinda scary when ya think about it) Besides, Lord Jimmy Wales is head of that department, right? I mean, he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. I really need him to create a template for me or something showing that I can refresh my user talk page without getting warned or harassed for refreshing it. Also, the past warnings, comments and all will still be in my history page, right? And like I've said before, THE ONLY WARNINGS I WON'T REMOVE ARE THE ONES THAT I JUST RECIEVED ON THE SPOT. I'LL ONLY REMOVE THEM AFTER SOME TIME HAS PASSED AND I HAVE BEHAVED. Ok? (Me | The Article) 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

MR. WALES!!! IF YOU'RE ONLINE, PLEASE, please, I need to know if I can blank my user talk page!!! Thanks. (Me | The Article) 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been dealt with; result was page successfully blanked. Yuser31415 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

I'm starting to wonder if I may becoming out of step with the rest of wikipedia and would really appreciate your input. The reason I'm asking you instead of other editors is I have been accused by other editors of censorship for making a couple edits, one of which was a deletion of an image you had deleted earlier. It all started after a quick look at the top 100 viewed articles which ended up in a deletion of a double penetration image and removal and shuffle of redundant photos in the breast article. When I first saw the double penetration image, I noticed the style was different from the others so I went through the history logs to see if it was added by a vandal. After going through the logs, I noticed you deleted the image [32] but it was later added without any discussion so I deleted it as well stating "as per jimbo the style is different from the others - Definitely more pornographic than encyclopedic - Please use tact". [33] The image was then added again a few hours later stating not to remove the image without discussion. [34] I then deleted the image and asked to use talk to discuss why your deletion should be rv. [35] The image is added again but this time user Doc Tropics proclaims the wikipedia is not censored. At that point I gave up as the censored word was being thrown around. After the incident I was accused of censorship for an edit to the breast article and haven’t had much support from other editors so I'm second guessing my edits for fear that I may want wikipedia to be too perfect. Now I look up my watch list and see the image below has been added to the article with the double penetration image but no one has rv the image [[36]]. I wait, and still nothing. I have tried communicating with other editors after being called pro-censor but it seems no one really listens after you’ve been labeled a censor. You have done a tremendous thing for mankind and I believe your opinion is sincere so I'm looking for guidance from you on this issue and because you removed the the double pen image as well. Seriously, this isn’t a gripe or whine, just looking for guidance as I'm really not a censor.

Here is the first image you deleted that was rv and is still in the article.
Image:doublepen.png

And the new image added today. --I already forgot 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the copyvio image and handed out a couple of blocks for trolling. The other picture, the one in a different style, is a problem, but I consider that a legitimate editorial dispute. But re-inserting a blatant copyvio on the grounds that removing it would be censorship? That's just wrong.--Jimbo Wales 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with using a different style, in fact to keep to using the one same narrow style of pictures could easily be argued as not NPOV. That image isn't the only one in that "style", there are others done exactly the same way. Also you claim it is pornographic, however nothing could hardly be further from the truth as for a reason for it to not be included. Remember this image is on a page which is a list of sex positions, you should expect to see images there of any possible sex position. Which is one of the reasons among many others why wikipedia is not censored. Also if you look at the image, I'd suspect it is created based off a master image which was a photo? Or at least that would be one way I could create similar images. This means it has been made very much so not porngraphic in comparision to the original photo due to it's conversion to a drawing. Mathmo ^Talk 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that {{linkimage}} would be the ideal compromise here. We need to think of what will best serve our readers. Some of them will (based upon past experiences from other encyclopedias) expect to be able to read an informative article on sexual positions without encountering drawings or photos that directly portray penetration. Others may be conditioned by the amount of pornography available on-line to expect that we would be pushing the boundaries and allowing this sort of image to remain. Putting the image in the article but behind a single click helps cater to both desired user experiences. Johntex\^talk 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who said the image look pornographic. In the professional sense there are certain things pornographic directors do to set regular sex acts from the professional ones. For example: looking back at the camera as if looking at the viewer showing pleasure, money shots, etc. is an example of professional pornographic artistic ability. When you watch a pornographic movie you notice these types of things as I noticed it in the image (looking back showing pleasure). Pornography is not a bad thing for certain individuals, but if you are familiar with the style, its obvious when presented to you. I was merely pointing out that the image look pornographic do to my observation. That’s it. I dont remember reading that jimbo thought the image was pornographic.--I already forgot 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not making sense to me here, for some reason you are saying that looking at the camera and showing pleasure is pornographic? Don't know about you... but for me it is very normal to be showing pleasure during sex! And likewise, when a picture is being taken of me (any sort at all) I'll look at the camera! Is not the norm to be looking away from the camera when a person is taking your photo. (unless you happen to be an extremely shy person etc...) Mathmo ^Talk 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the attempt Jimbo. I'll continue to be a wikinomad and walk more carefully through the ever increasing villages and tribes growing within wikipedia. Though the response was confusing, it has also been enlightening. Thanks again for everything you have done.--I already forgot 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have talked about the use of linkimage on the Guidelines page, but that refers to "Photographs or video of sexual acts ". This artwork does not fit that category.

I can appreciate that some may view some images as pornographic. I mean no insult, but a characterization that it reminds a user of pornographic style is irrelevant. The context of the image is everything. (per Miller test) In this encylopedia, the section is a description of multiple penetrations. The image shows precisely that. The image does not meet the miller test of pornography, and should not be censored.

Also, editing images because the participants "show pleasure" in a sexually explicit image, in an article about sexuality is nonsense. The whole purpose of sexuality is pleasure.

You describe being suprised to see a drawing of penetration when looking at the sexual positions article under the sub section titled "multiple penetrations"? Hmmm. We need more images like this, not less. The more people become used to normal, healthy sexuality, the more they will perceive it as no different than someone bowling, or driving a car. It is the lack of exposure to normal behavior that makes people, in the manner describing your reaction, view this kind of thing as "pornography".

Again, my apologies, I did not mean to have been so blunt, as I respect both of your views. We should avoid trying to offend anyone. But, my opinion is that here is yet another attempt to censor something because of your viewpoint about sexuality, not a viewpoint shared by everyone. Regardless of rhetoric, it appears to me to be yet another example of trying to censor undesirable content when our policy is clearly "Wikpedia does not censor". I'm fine with discussions regarding the licensing status of images, or of the editorial decisions necessary to have a high quality article, including what images would improve, or decrease the editorial quality of an article. It seems that in this case, the image illustrates artistically the topic of the article, and the sub-section incredibly well. So well that people with sensitivity to sexually explicit content are bothered by it. If we are going to censor based on sexual content, let's just be honest about it, establish clear policies and guidelines, and firmly adhere to them, and not try to find some rhetoric to censor whenever an image is too honest or frank. If we aren't going to censor, then let's continue our discussion on developing guidelines for content, per Guidelines (or similar) and reach and maintain consensus. Atom 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that I have owned pornography, know people in the business, and respect it as a valid trade. I deleted the image because jimbo had deleted it earlier and it was re-added without discussion. Not sure if his rv of the removal was intentional vandalism or not so I rv to reflect his change. It was a mistake to add my pov in the edit summary which I apologize but that has nothing to do with the constant addition of an image he has removed and no discussion about re-adding it. I did not plan to use his talk page as a platform for the dispute or to expand on accusations that I'm a censor so I apologize to jimbo for using his talk which is now being used for other reasons than I intended. As for making people accept double penetration as "healthy sexuality so they can perceived it as no different than bowling"? I think each user should make that judgment for themselves and not wikipedia. That is why I asked for guidance.--I already forgot 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware the Mr. Wales had removed the image at any point. I see from comments above that it was for editorial/stylistic reasons. When I re-added it, it was because an anon IP had recently removed almost the entire article, and I reverted that. I know that you have, and continue to make your edits with good faith. IMO I believe that sexuality articles should be frank, honest, and cited and sourced as much as possible. Sexuality is normal and healthy, and no one should be ashamed with expressing that part of themselves. I agree that we should let every individual decide for themselves what range of the very broad sexual spectrum they are comfortable with. None of us should disparge a person because their range of sexuality is fairly narrow compared to another, nor should we disparage or try to limit those with a much broader range. We should offer a broad range of facts and citable views on sexuality, in accordance with our NPOV and non-censorship guidelines, and allow people who desire to participate and view Wikipedia (in accordance with our disclamers) to choose for themselves. If we were to try and limit sexual content to a range, it would have to be an arbitrary range. Would we choose to provide content only compatible with the official position of the Catholic church? With those comfortable within Sharia law? With those subscribed by a panel of orthodox jews? The intersection of that set? Maybe the views most commonly agreed upon as "normal" by most Americans? North Americans? Native English speakers? Well, to keep it simple, we have agreed to not censor, but to provide content that is considered to be factual, and citable. That is going to shock, offend, and surprise some people, hence out dislaimers. Atom 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. We do need to present a broad range of options to people. Thus, citing sources from different views is very good.

In the same vein, the linkimage is a good tool to allow people to either see or not see photographs that may offend people.

However, I disagree with you about the idea that making decisions about what range of material we present is somehow an arbitrary decision. Please do not confuse making a judgement call with making an arbitrary decision.

The world is not black-and-white. We continually must make judgement calls when we edit articles. Ex: Is this a reliable source or not? Is this statement important to the ariticle or not? Is this image more shocking than it absolutely needs to be? Every single one of these are judgement calls.

Just because reasonable opinions will differ does not excuse us from making these hard decisions. Neither does it make our decision arbitrary once we have made it.

The answer is not to say we must allow every single image - to do otherwise is POV and constitutes censorship. That is treating the world as black-and-white and amounts to advocating an extreme position. What we must do instead is recognize the shades of grey and to chart a middle path. Johntex\^talk 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. "Arbitrary" means "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Not based on necessity, reason, or principle." I agree that there is always the need for editorial discretion and judgement. We've decided to make the tough calls based on discussion and consensus. I also would not advocate allowing every single image, although, in the area of sexuality, as long as the image does not violate the law, erring on the side of more information rather than less would do less harm, even if it squicked more people. In the case of an opinion of fact, the statement needs verification. In the case of an image of "ejaculation", not much verification is needed.

• Is this image important to the article? I agree. Good criteria for judgement.

• Is this image more shocking than it needs to be? Not our call. Present the facts. If we make a shocking statement, factual and cited "An estimated 5 to 6 million Jews, including 3 million Polish Jews were killed by the Germans during WWII" we don't pull it because it is shocking, it is a fact. If we have an image of a man ejaculating, we don't pull it because someone might be shocked by it. Men do ejaculate. I agree that the use of linkimage, under some circumstances might have some value. Debatable is whether an image of every describable sex act needs to be shown in order to accurately document. Pulling an image because someone might be have very sheltered views about sexuality should not happen, though.

Let's keep working together on the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality#Work_in_Progress:_Guidelines_for_images_in_Sexology_and_Sexuality_articles.Atom 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Esperanza

Mr. Wales;

As you are undoubtedly aware, Esperanza has recently been deleted and transformed into a simple essay. I was fully behind this decision, though I had supported deletion and protection, as did the nominator, Dev920. We fear that the program will be revived and put back to it's corrupted use. The debate seems neverending; discussion of the first MFD and post-first MFD was amazingly lengthy and heated, and the second MFD and post discussion was the same. It was suggested that discussion be delayed for a month; this, however, has been misinterpreted as though law. I personally see no value in this; undoubtedly the arguments will come back in full force. Many of us are sick of the debate and wish to see a final decision made upon this. Mr. Wales, I hope this is not overly presumptuous of me, but I would request your input on this in order to meaningfully establish a decision. Thank you for your time. DoomsDay349 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to clog up your talk page too much, so I'll try to be brief. The disagreement in the MfD was not really over whether or not Esperanza should remain active or be closed down - by the end, that decision was clear. The disagreement was over what "closed down" actually means. Some people argued that all its pages should be deleted and salted, and that it should never be discussed again. Others felt that its pages should be tagged historical (so that anyone can access the "primary sources" regarding its history, not just admins) and that people should still be free to openly discuss its good and bad points. In the end, a compromise decision was made. Some projects were spun off as independent pages. Some sub-pages were soft-deleted (blanked and redirected to main page, but with page history intact.) Other sub-pages were hard-deleted.

IMHO, what's needed is a consistent method of dealing with failed proposals, as well as active projects that are closed down. There's currently a discussion about this very matter at:

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#MfDs of policy/guideline/essay and organisation pages

I'm sure any comments you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Quack 688 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation with Esperanza, Mr. Wales, is becoming ridiculous. Most users hung out on the MfD for a bit and then got on with their lives when the decision was reached. However, there's a hardcore of users for which Esperanza is not dead but merely dormant, and they are trying to keep that flame alive as long as possible. What it has resulted in is two battlelines, as it were, with me, Doomsday, and Moreschi, on the opposing side and Quack688, Geo.plrd, and Ed on the other side, with Carcharoth pursuing a "historical" policy in between. Additionally, Geo.plrd, why1991, and Zacharycrimsonwolf are trying to get together various ideas to bring Esperanza back on their talkpages. Neither side can back down for fear that the other side will sneak in and get their way. From Quack's rapid reply, it seems obvious that we are all watching each other's talkpages and possibly contributions, and both sides are not afraid of trying to change the terms of the debate to suit themselves. This endless struggle has dragged in all kinds of editors, admins, and now you. I, for one, would like to be free to get on with improving the encyclopedia, but as mentioned before, I can't let this one go lest Esperanza come back yet again. This debate is nothing to do with failed policy ideas, because Esperanza was a unique organisation with a unique goal. While I don't want a binding decision on the matter from you, Mr. Wales, I would appreciate a suggestion to deal with this arms buildup that we have found ourselves in and cannot get out of. Neutralising both sides is the best policy I think (though I wouldn't object if you simply said "Burn it all and never sugegst anything of the kind again" :) ). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to fuel the sitution more, but the best thing to do in these situations is to back down, since that indicates maturity and judgement for you and your supporters. I am certain Esperanza will not be revived, as any editor who did so would be going against the consensus displayed in perhaps the biggest MfD in Wikipedia's history. Just my two cents. Yuser31415 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning

I fixed a couple of things, but some little arguments annoy me, and I won't touch them. Is there anything else making you cranky today, or is that the end of it? If it we're me, I would avert my eyes and hope for the best (see any Wikipedia article related to Buddhism, for example). Again, good morning. NinaOdell | Talk 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I put my answer on the article's talk page

My opinion is eschew(spelling?) "founder" altogether and just put "internet enterpreneur" in the lead and then we can have a section about Bomis and Wikipedia and so on and put both views in those sections where applicable. I think that's pretty fair, how about you? Just H 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)