User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 200

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195 ← Archive 198 Archive 199 Archive 200 Archive 201 Archive 202 → Archive 205

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Staff morale

We understand that there was a healthy 93% response rate among some 240 staff. While numbers approached 90% for pride in working at the WMF and confidence in line managers, the responses to four propositions may raise eyebrows:

  • Senior leadership at Wikimedia have communicated a vision that motivates me: 7% agree
  • Senior leadership at Wikimedia keep people informed about what is happening: 7% agree
  • I have confidence in senior leadership at Wikimedia: 10% agree
  • Senior leadership effectively directs resources (funding, people and effort) towards the Foundation's goals: 10% agree

The Signpost has been informed that among the "C-levels" (members of the executive), only one has confidence in senior leadership.

I expected it to be bad, but I didn't expect it to be that bad: 10% have confidence in senior leadership. Let's assume there was none of this controversy over James. What is the board going to do about staff dissatisfaction? II | (t - c) 03:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that WMF needs a completely new board; it may not be easy, but this shows that the current board is failing miserably in doing its work and has to be fired, somehow. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Pretty extreme. But... so is the figure of 10%. For the first time I'm leaning in this direction. An Rfc vote of no confidence might be worth discussing. Jimmy, your thoughts? It seems we are getting serious indeed. I am particularly disturbed by the board's unhealthy relationship with Google. Jusdafax 03:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this board has any unhealthy relationship with Google.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Nearly any relationship with Google is unhealthy. It's a privacy raping, data mining company, the very opposite of a healthy relationship. It's doing evil. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, well I wasn't really expecting you to have a sophisticated and balanced assessment of the situation. But still, there is no unhealthy relationship between the WMF board and Google. It'd be helpful if you could list specific things that you are afraid of in this regard. What negative things do you think Google might try to get the board to do?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious there's a serious problem, but is it the staff or the leadership? We're assuming it's the leadership. Flow was written by staff, right? --Elvey(t•c) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If I had been in charge of the Flow project, one of two things would have happened; either [A] we would have delivered a product that was acceptable to the vast majority of our customers (that would be all of you in the Wikipedia community) or [B] it would have been cancelled during the requirements or preliminary feasibility stage. See Why does software cost so much and Learning From The Past: The History Of Structured Engineering. The fact that neither of those things happened clearly shows that it was the leadership, not the staff. Specifically, it shows that the leadership was worse than my leadership would have been, and I consider my ability to lead engineering projects to by rather average. As far as I can tell, there was no requirements phase -- nobody captured the requirements of the Wikipedia community. From that point on the project was doomed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was recently reading and writing about a "benevolent anarchy" in management of a creative educational organization and the good that comes out of it. (See, James Franck Institute). Wikipedia is, at best, a benevolent anarchy, so it would not be surprising if the Foundation has some of that. Software development is a creative enterprise, an especially "pure" one in an environment where no creator will make a profit from the creation because it will be free. Those people who need to be creative will have an incentive in 'follow your muse', they will need a bit of benevolent anarchy, they will need the room to fail. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That's right, and it's often forgotten that many managers don't give a hoot about staff morale. They may not even want good morale, they may want creative tension that makes people miserable. Some managers want high turnover too. Sometimes they're right. In this case? Don't know. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Benevolent anarchy is not equivalent to stupidity. Google's 20% time might be considered "benevolent anarchy". But Guy is correct, both the 20% projects and the 80% projects are statistically likely to be disasters if they do not follow the tried and tested methods of project management to an appropriate extent. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
I really don't care about the Grey's Anatomy drama (ER medics who think they're all-seeing & all knowing gods piss me off to no end - en-wiki or above) but those staff morale figures are appalling. Immediate, transparent, consultative (with staff & community), action needs to be determined A.S.A.P. No messing around - those are critical figures for any org. AnonNep (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Software is hard

The numerous problems with software development can be utterly overwhelming, even to people spending 60 hours-per-week to pull the tasks together; meanwhile the intensity of programming can be so all-consuming that a good, successful delivery can still leave staffers emotionally drained, as if low morale. I like the term, "herding cats" to describe the mindsets of a programming team and then when successful, well what are happy cats? The quiet purring is not so easy to measure for morale. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Relative indent for talk-pages

For the problem of ":::::" I have created a relative-indent template (in user space to avoid instant wp:TfD delete) which will indent +1 ':' when appended to the end of a posted message, see: {{inreply}}.

The Template:inreply will indent a reply message, as a relative level deeper, when appended to a posted talk-page message, as if being another colon-indent ":" level further inward. To indent by a 2nd level, even deeper, then use {{inreply|2}}. Note how the level number, such as "|2" is relative to the current message, as 2 deeper than that post, not just deeper than the talk-page margin; for example at level 3 deep (":::"), the parameter "|2" will indent as if 5 deep (":::::").

Example of two replies 7 deep, each indented - For 2 replies together: 

  ::::::: This is another post. -User:Xxx 06:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC) {{inreply}}Here the first reply. -User:Zzz 06:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC) {{inreply|2}} Then the 2nd reply 9 deep. -~~~~
will show result:
This is another post. -User:Xxx 06:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Here the first reply. -User:Zzz 06:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Then the 2nd reply 9 deep. -User:Xxx 06:45, 4 July 2016

So a working group could discuss changing talk-page policies to allow relative indent in talk-pages, which would likely meet extreme resistance as the real reason many improvements have been difficult. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem of ":::::"?—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It's faster to type, for sure, but for me I have to get close to the screen to count ::::: to see how many I need to use. Past 3 or 4 I could see that template being pretty useful tbh. SQLQuery me! 22:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Why would it be deleted if it is put in template-space? I think it would be useful for some people. I might use it. I don't always count the :s correctly. Neutron (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
No idea. I never said it would :) SQLQuery me! 23:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I was responding to User:Wikid77. Neutron (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is quite clever. But again I say - it's absurd that we should ask people to learn about such things for the very very simple and well understood process of replying to a comment in a threaded discussion. Templates? Colons? Nowhere else on the web are people accustomed to such things and certainly as we see the world turning to mobile, such things are quite hard for people to accomplish, as compared to the normal and expected 'click on reply and type your response'.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There could be other talk-page tools to help new users reply, but we need to add new features, meanwhile (even as templates), because many users have seen no improvements for "10 years". When new interfaces such as wp:LiquidThreads have been tried, then several older users complained that posts were slower, only one at a time, and examples of markup tables and infoboxes could not be shown screen-wide inside a posted message, and more screenshot images were needed to show examples. Hence, add smaller improvements each month. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, though I respect the WIMPS crowd, there is very little to learn compared with having to learn what all the icons on buttons mean, and where things live in menus, which can be changed at the drop of a hat. That's not to say that there may not be ways of improving the user interface - it is sad when anyone opposes these. And Wikkid77's template is one such.
Extending this we could easily have a little [reply] tag on the end of signatures which would work out the correct indenting, and tuck the reply in the appropriate place.
Maybe a few days dev effort, and 90% of the apparent confusion for new users would be solved. But people needs must have a whole new threaded discussion system from whole cloth, which is not the way things usually work in engineering - rather the incremental improvements are the key to progress.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC).
Well, perhaps a reply-button could be added under the edit-buffer window, in the manner of the current insertion-menu which now inserts "<ref></ref>" as a quick wp:reftag text inserted at the cursor-spot when editing. Just tell a user to position the cursor in the talk-page and then click the reply-button. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to understand your ethics. Are there any?

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales,

While many of your pages I find interesting, I don't find them thoroughly researched, however entertaining. The pages on living people often border on sensational and slanderous. I, myself, am enough of a public figure to have my own page which apparently someone else wrote and which I cannot edit, as I try, and the methods to do so are fairly obscure. The information is scavenged from old press and various blurbs on the web.

Couldn't I also be a source? I certainly wouldn't need it as a resume, but if this is where people go for information, not just entertainment, is there not an ethical boundary that you would like to uphold? It would in fact make this site more legitimate and it's a good thing to do, it's a humanitarian thing to do. I can't tell if this is tabloid or not you have created. Would you please give me the ethics or at least concept that you have behind Wikipedia? Is it anyone can write anything as long as they find something published on the subject? In the page about being wrong "you might be wrong if your friends think you're right but everyone else doesn't". Hmmm.. Have you run that by the ancient Greek philosophers?

In the worst case, I find some of your pages slanderous and damaging. For example the page on Nicolai Levashov. Wow, that editor tore that scientist apart. I do happen to know he was a legitimate scientist, a theoretical physicist with an actual degree! And I do actually know the child he cured of a brain tumor. Who is alive and well. Granted, it's pretty out there, but shouldn't there be some neutrality? Shouldn't there be some room for conjecture and debate rather than punitive judgment and un researched, violent attitude that is practically medieval? It's witch-hunty. Put that word in your Wiki. But I'm sure if the writer never heard of Tesla he or she would do the same if presented with that material.

It is unfortunate that we have all this brilliant technology and we allow the lowest common denominator to make it useless rather than using it to raise the bar. We certainly have nothing to lose though with our climate rising, overpopulation, starving immigrants, mass shootings, terrorism, chemical addiction in foods and so forth. You get my meaning.

I am thinking of writing a piece on Wikipedia for the AP, because as my colleagues and I peruse through it, it leaves a lot to question. The big one is, can we, as a first world society, afford to call this "information", when in fact it is entertainment, often at the expense of other people and ideas.

Your response would be appreciated and duly noted, Oh, by the way, I'm an original reality star from NYC's The Real World, MTV, 1992. I know so well how reality can be distorted for the masses for entertainment purposes.

Regards, Rebecca (Becky) Blasband, London, UK LondonRAB (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"reality can be distorted for the masses for entertainment purposes". Big yawn. I await (and have waited for about a decade) to read an intelligently written and insightful article about Wikipedia that explores it and its dangers seriously. I guess as long as people dismiss its significance, its influence and its failings as a matter of mere entertainment I'll have to continue to wait. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's articles follow the consensus view of reliable independent sources. In this case the consensus is that Levashov was a charlatan. If this is a problem, it is one which exists in the real world, and it is not Wikipedia's job to fix it. If by Tesla you mean Nikola Tesla, we have a long and well referenced article on him. As an electrical engineer, it reads well to me. Obviously we don't say much about the silly claims of free energy promoted in his name by modern-day cranks, at least not in that article. As an electrical engineer I am of course biased in one important respect: it seems weird to me that anybody might not have heard of Tesla, what with his name being used for the SI unit of magnetism and all. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Becky, I look forward to your piece about Wikipedia in the Associated Press, and I am sure we will all read it with interest and sympathy. MPS1992 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
LondonRAB, the article on you, Rebecca Blasband is probably out-of-date because it has rarely been edited over the past four years. That's one problem we have, not enough editors, and there is no staff to ensure that every one of the 5 million article is updated. 99.9999% of editors are volunteers. If you have some suggestions for updating your article, your input would be welcome on Talk:Rebecca Blasband if you can provide Wikipedia with some reliable sources that provide new information on your career. You obviously learned how to edit Wikipedia or you could not have posted on this talk page.
I'm not sure why you term this a question of ethics and lay the responsibility at Jimmy Wales' feet. If you have any objections of articles that you think are scandalous, I encourage you to post your concerns at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where editors can see if problems exist. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Rebecca. Just a small addition to the posts by JzG and Liz. If you feel that your own article is factually incorrect, distorted or outdated, then it is probably better to ask for help on the talk page of the article rather than edit yourself. The reason is very difficult to be neutral when talk about yourself and your friends in real life. Read Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.
Regarding you question: no, your own words said on Wikipedia website cannot be used as a source for the articles. The reason is simple - Wikipedia has no means to ensure that the editor making the statement is really you and not an impostor. Still any personal websites, blogs, twitters, etc. can be used as a source of noncontroversial information about the authors. E.g. if you publish in your own blog that you have personally witnesses Mr Levashov healed brain tumors it can be potentially a statement in Nicolai Levashov article: American screenwriter Rebecca Blasband praised Levashov in her blog and wrote that she personally witnessed him healing a person from a brain tumor (ref to the blog). The statement would be considered properly referenced because the public blogs by the person can be a source about the person's opinions, but some editors might object that it is not notable enough since Rebecca Blasband does not have authority in medical matters. Still most probably the sentence will be accommodated to the article as we are trying to balance negative information about living and recently deceased people. This is how it works, it looks casuistic and it certainly not ideal but there are reasons for this and all the other systems works worse. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions on how to improve your article:

  • Post your comments, along with reliable sources that back them up on the talk page. Please realize that we cannot assume that anybody who claims to be you is actually you, so the sources are the key.
  • Send us some good photos of yourself, where you clearly own the copyright, and properly release them with a free license (e.g. CC-BY-SA). You can upload them at Commons or on Wikipedia itself. If you're not 100% sure about whether you own the copyright, it is likely owned by the photographer. Maybe ask your agent about this.
  • There has been discussion about a "right of reply" to bios on Wikipedia, but this has not been implemented (or even gotten close to being adopted), but there are ways to do-it-yourself. Just get something published in a reliable source. Or (maybe) on your own blog as mentioned above. Or my favorite, record a video and post it on YouTube. A common name for this exercise is "Wikipedia - Fact or Fiction?" We can then link to the video in your article, see e.g. Ice-T. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If you find your article unduly negative or in conflict with the truth, we can stub it and start from scratch. That's the decent thing to do and we multiple precedents for doing this. Jimbo himself has stubbed articles deemed to be atrocious. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If you're writing an article for the Associated Press and this is how you start it....man the AP has become crap. (Edit) Read more....spotlight seeking is my immediate thought here but...who knows.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Mark Miller, I did feel that way when I read the original post. I still somewhat feel that way when I look at it now. My very short reply was based on such a feeling. But I do now feel others who have responded wrote much better replies than mine, so I am sorry for that. MPS1992 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Oh and also the original section title implied to be quite insulting in the English that I am used to. MPS1992 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Does Mr. Levashov's list of awards remind anyone else of a Wikipedia Barnstar page? From each according to his abilities.... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a bunch of tabloidish factoids that I removed a few days ago after the post here. Keep that in mind if your just looking at the bio now. --DHeyward (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please I need your intervention

Hi,

Since couple of days ago I tried to correct a misinformation on "bigraphy of a living person" at Spanish Wikipedia, but instead I got harrassed by an administrator and finally been blocked! Now I ask You this simple question, is this the wikipedia you are promoting and asking to be a part of!? You can check all my edits in Wiki English and others they were all "Anti-Vandalism," and authentics. Attached a copy of complain I made at Spanish Wiki board (in Spanish). Have a pleasant day Sir. (Mona778 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)) >

P.S. Beside, according to Wikipedia rule mentioning subject's height isn't relevant.

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

== problema con otro usuario ==

Hola, puedes solucionar la disputa entre mí y este usuario Pawita? sigue añadiendo "altura falsa" al artículo Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ. He añadido toneladas de referencias periódico fiable etc., pero él sigue confiar en una datos falsos!> (https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%B1van%C3%A7_Tatl%C4%B1tu%C4%9F&diff=88326036&oldid=88326018) mire la foto abajo, si Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ es 1,90 m como (Pawita) afirma que él es, entonces el actor en su lado derecho Kenan İmirzalıoğlu (1,92 m) debe ser 2,10 m !? >

http://durreslajm.com/sites/default/files/artikuj/ezel%202.jpg

http://img.haberler.com/haber/885/karadayi-dizisinin-ekibi-birlikte-eglendi-4106885_9142_o.jpg

véase también esta escena de la (serie Ezel) se puede ver Kenan está empequeñeciendo Kıvanç >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1aKE_Wibfo


usted puede también buscar en la web claramente mencionado > Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ Altura : 1.87 m

además, es como eso no es bastante también cambiando actores y actrices "Años activo" a su voluntad como éste que era correcta antes del cambio Çağatay Ulusoy de 2010 a 2011.(https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%87a%C4%9Fatay_Ulusoy&diff=88215443&oldid=88215240) *comenzó su carrera como figura "callejón"(2010). > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87a%C4%9Fatay_Ulusoy)

(https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87a%C4%9Fatay_Ulusoy)

Espero puede resolver la disputa y no necesita preguntar "Jimbo Wales". Gracias mucho (Mona778 (discusión) 16:53 12 ene 2016 (UTC))

P.S debajo nota se puede ver que hasta se atreve me acusó del "vandalismo"! Que es falso. Sólo trataba de corregir la información errónea. Es lástima, porque él sólo daña wikipedia como una fuente fidedigna. (Mona778 (discusión) 16:53 12 ene 2016 (UTC))

(https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalismo_en_curso&diff=prev&oldid=88323691)

Hi, first of all Jimbo is not going to intervene, or at least he's no more likely to intervene than to win the lottery (not very.) Secondly, the Spanish language Wikipedia has it's own set of administrators. If you wish to contest a block there, you must follow the procedure there for doing so. We don't overrule other Wikipedia's actions. I hope this helps. KillerChihuahua 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks For the reply. But according to what you're saying you're not going to intervene even if the actions of the counterparty were wrong and uncivilized, I'm I correct!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1810:3812:ad00:b839:8aec:c52b:d157 (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no authority to intervene, even if I wanted to. I'm not an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia, or even an editor there. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Most edited pages per year for the last 15 years

I thought you, and all the watchers, might be interested to read this article by 538. The Most-Edited Wikipedia Pages Over The Last 15 Years. From 124 edits on Creationism topping the list in 2001 to 7,290 edits on Geospatial summary of the High Peaks/Summits of the Juneau Icefield in 2015 (Deaths in 2015 was the true #1 but general list entries were excluded from the main rankings). The list gives an insight into the trends and popular stories of each of the last 15 years. Apparently we have a morbid obsession with tracking death and destruction as many of the top edited pages have to do with disasters and mass killings. For the top ten list for each year see this. --Majora (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Most edits for deaths/disasters or song/dance/beauty contests: I see in the lists (alpha...15) how the obsession about death was joined by some contests in recent years. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at those most heavily edited pages for 2015, they were the work of a couple of very focused editors who made 99% of the edits to the article, from 7K-10K over a short period of time. I'd be interested in seeing a list of articles that had the most editors who contributed, not the most edits by an individual editor. But data is always kind of interesting if you look at how it is pulled together and see what aspects of Wikipedia is represented. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
True. If you discount the Geospatial article from the 2015 section the rest of the articles kind of make sense. The Charlie Hebdo shooting and the 2015 Pacific typhoon season being in there. The Geospatial article was basically one, very very focused, person. I do agree that the articles with the most unique editors would be interesting to see. --Majora (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow... almost 7300 edits to a single article by a single editor in a single year. Is that... dedication, or what? - theWOLFchild 03:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia in trouble?

In Time, Chris Wilson says that the answer is yes. [1] Among his arguments:

  • "...the number of dedicated editors has been in decline since 2007." (Based on a graph of data [2] that ends in 2012.)
  • "...a large proportion of articles contain some sort of warning that they are incomplete, poorly written or inadequately researched."
  • W/respect to the last point, he downloaded the revision histories of 25000 of our articles and found that "12% of the articles in this sample had some documented problem". (Is 12% a "large proportion"? I don't know, but I doubt it.)
  • I would like to know what Wales and other watchers of this talk page think about the concerns raised in this article. Everymorning (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A good question, but the author of that article has a really dodgy methodology and seems to have overlooked the real problems and focused on superficial things that are not really a problem. For a far better attempt at identifying our current problems, see [ http://wittylama.com/2016/01/08/strategy-and-controversy/ ].
As always, I would like to stress that in my opinion Wikipedia is doing well and our problems are minor -- but that doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to fix the known problems and make the encyclopedia even better. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
We should follow what the Reliable Sources are doing. When they publish a crappy article, they don't ornate it with a depreciating tag. If you want to fix an article, then please do. If you are only a Galactic Patroller, quietly wait for a Galactic Reviewer. Pldx1 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
As a former senior editor of Slate Magazine, Wilson has been peddling this angle for a while now. See here. Karst (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, an average editor or a user have very little concern over the internal problems of WMF board and the staff. So far as the website is online most of the time and works reasonably smoothly their concerns are with declining community of active editors (or at least not growing exponentially like everything else online), insufficient maintenance of the articles (caused by the diminishing population of the editors) and the low public esteem for the site and its editors (how many volunteers put their wikiwork on their job resume? How many researchers publicly admit using wiki? How many educational institutions teach people to correctly use and edit wiki)? Still the problems of ordinary users could have possibly be alleviated if WMF had worked better. If we would have useable VE and Flow we would have more editors, we could have automatic tools for QA of the articles (e.g. disallow users to add unreferenced material or at least tag such edits), etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
A crude model is:
  • Stage 1, create content
  • Stage 2, tag the issues
  • Stage 3, fix the issues
What Wilson has shown is that 12.5% are in stage 2. This snapshot effectively tells us nothing. What we need to understand is whether and to what extent the backlog of issues is being dealt with. Doing this is not helped by having whole classes of tags deprecated by the community.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC).
We should all be bolder in removing redundant tags, and nuking articles tagged for good cause. I very often find articles that have been tagged for years, and sometimes you look at the edit history and see that the issues were fixed long ago. Many of the tags are drive-bys, with no discussion on talk. I believe it would be a good idea to amend the templates to encourage people to remove the tags if they think the problem is gone - and potentially to ask those whose code-fu is strong to add a "this issue si fixed" link that removes the tag without having to play with markup. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: I have to say that I love your idea of a simple "click here to marked this issue resolved"-type link on every cleanup template. I concur with your perception that many cleanup tags linger for years after the issue has been addressed and this would certainly help clear them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that “many of the tags are drive-bys, with no discussion on talk”, as you wrote. I’m not sure there is much benefit keeping arbitrary and vague (yet stern and authoritative-looking) appraisals. It’s also a waste of time for editors to try to guess the precise intention of the tag’s poster and then scrutinise the whole article in an attempt to determine whether the problem was indeed fixed (or even real in the first place), or how to suitably fix it. Perhaps we should be bolder in just removing tags that are unsubstantiated (on the talk page). Perhaps even a bot could help do that relatively easily (did the tag poster modify the talk page shortly before or after placing the tag?): first notifying the tag poster and asking for details, and only removing the tag after a grace period.
 — Wlgrin 01:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: I am strongly in agreement with Guy that this is a problem. As an OTRS agent, one of the very common emails reads something like: "someone left a tag on an article identifying some deficiency; I have addressed the problem, but the tag hasn't gone away" Most make the flawed, but understandable assumption that whomever added the tag is monitoring it and will remove it when the problem is cured. We know that isn't the way it works. Perhaps it should. What if an editor leaving a tag were to get an automated post after x days, or after n edits to the article asking them to check to see if the problem has been resolved? Or maybe some other solution could be devised.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I love the idea of notifying template bombers about changes to the articles they tagged rather than fixed. Anything that promotes the idea that adding a template is an admission that you can't fix something is a step in the right direction. Hopefully this could help move things back to the SoFixIt era of Wikipedia's golden age. ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. While many good ideas have germinated on Jimbo's page, it isn't the right venue to cultivate, fertilize and prune ideas (if I may push the metaphor a bit too far). Perhaps we could discuss this more at your talk page or maybe WP:VPI?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Communicating with WMF

Is this talk page the best place for ordinary editors to communicate with the WMF Board? If not, is there a specific page either in the English Wikipedia or on Meta for the purpose? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a proposed case at the ArbCom involving an administrator dealing with disruption caused by two particular trolls. Several editors, including respected former arbitrator User:Newyorkbrad, have said that the WMF needs to pursue legal action against the trolls for the malicious disruption. Is this page the place to make that request to the WMF, or should this be discussed somewhere else? (In a while, that request will probably be formally made by the ArbCom.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless the WMF setup has changed recently, requests relating to the English Wikipedia go to Mdennis, either via talk or email as appropriate. (You can safely assume that Arbcom and NYB are both well aware of this.) ‑ Iridescent 18:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
In theory, the proper place is meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, but I have pretty much determined that the majority of the board members do not read their own noticeboard. See meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Archives/2015#A Quick Poll. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Also see meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Accountability to the community (finances) to see some mixed results regarding getting answers from the board regarding a particular question. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It's important to remember that WMF staff is not the WMF Board, and the two groups do different jobs in different ways. It helps to be clear about which you're trying to contact when you approach a question like this; in this case you would generally direct a request for legal action to the WMF, not to the Board. For what it's worth, though, I do my best to keep an eye on WMF-related issues on the projects I spend a lot of time on, and happen to have already flagged that RFAR discussion to bring up to the WMF's Support and Safety (AKA SUSA, FKA Community Advocacy) team. I can make no promises about what happens from there, but the team is at least aware.

By the way, in the future, you can always give me a ping on this account if you want to draw SUSA's attention to something. Maggie is also pingable for that stuff, of course, but I sometimes end up spending more boots-on-the-ground time than she's able to these days, so she appreciates it when I can filter stuff up to her. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. If you're looking for a good way to contact and persuade the WMF Board to start suing editors, my advice is... don't. I have no idea why anyone would ever have thought that suppressing revisions by a 'troll' so we can't see them and threatening editors who repost what he said is going to reduce the troll's impact, but apparently it's not so. If you sue an editor to stop him, you are publicly admitting that any jurisdiction where you can't track down the 'troll' provides an effective haven for people to disrupt Wikipedia - which potentially gives them a lot of power to sit your people down and tell them, for example, what articles about well-connected Russians you have to delete or rewrite in order to get some legal cooperation dealing with the troll problem. You can't even start down that road, because if it seems daunting to come up with a technical fix to deal with one troll, are you going to return to principle when you're already using the law to try to contain twenty of them? Wnt (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct spelling - desirable or not?

Dear Jimmy,

Do you think the encyclopaedia should spell words correctly? Strange question, you might think. And I presume you would say yes, of course it should. I can't think of any possible reason why it shouldn't, and I guess you can't either. So you may be surprised to learn that over the course of a year, nine different editors have restored the word "should't" some 19 times to the article Wilderness hut, and two administrators have protected the article to ensure that this ridiculous error can't be corrected. The article is currently indefinitely protected.

I think the people responsible for this embarrassment don't care about encyclopaedic quality at all. I think they just find it funny to bait and provoke and insult people. And I think they bait and provoke and insult anonymous editors because such behaviour is not just tolerated but actively encouraged by the community. I wonder what you think? If you don't agree with me, I can give you hundreds and hundreds of other examples of absurd behaviour like this. 192.121.113.96 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. So you could submit a request on the talk page and ask another editor to change it for you. Or you could create an account and fulfill the requirements to become autoconfirmed. Either way, a quick search of that article shows exactly one use of the word "should't" which I will now correct. --Majora (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi IP, the spelling mistake you mention is quite a small one, it is possible whichever sysop protected the article simply missed it. We are only human after all. In this case, the article is only semi-protected meaning that confirmed editors can still edit it. For future reference, for semi-protected articles, you need to place this template on the talk page and follow the instructions.--5 albert square (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Majora, you clearly couldn't wait to gleefully declare that I was wrong, happily declaring that "that word isn't there", that there were "exactly zero" uses of it and that you had "no idea" what I was talking about.[3] And then you realised that yes, indeed, the word "should't" was there in the article, hurriedly changing your "zero" to "one", as if "exactly one" is a perfectly acceptable number of occurrences of "should't", and if there was "exactly one" occurrence being forced into the article for a year, then what's the problem? [4] I think you behaved this way because of exactly the kind of anti-anonymous prejudice that I was pointing out. How ironic.
Still, at least there is one fewer spelling mistake in the article than there has been for the past year. I leave it for you to find the numerous other spelling and grammar errors that remain, and to consider whether in fact Wikipedia should be instructing its readers, in an article on wilderness huts, on what to do with their rubbish should they be in a wilderness hut. 192.121.113.96 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:5 albert square, you miss the point. I think it's a deeply embarrassing error actually but OK, if you don't mind it then fine. But the people who were forcing it back in didn't care if it was misspelled or not. They didn't "simply miss" it. They reverted my edits without any regard for the content, purely to bait and provoke and insult, just as User:Majora leapt into action in some kind of gaslighting attempt to declare that the misspelt word wasn't even there. 192.121.113.96 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
You are correct. I did miss it the first time since I searched for "shouldn't" instead of "should't." Obviously my first message was incorrect and for that I apologize. To insinuate that I have an "anti anonymous" prejudice is just wrong however. I invite you to find all the errors on that page and submit an edit request. I will be happy to fix the problems you find. Right now, I don't have the time to go through every word myself. As to the other issue that is a content dispute and should be discussed on the talk page anyways. It was at one time but the conversation died and was never acted upon. --Majora (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your apology. I find it hard to imagine you'd have behaved in the same way to a user with an account, but if you say you don't have a prejudice against anonymous editors, then I believe you. I have repeatedly found and corrected all the errors on that page, only for my work to be undone by people who don't care about encyclopaedic quality but find it funny to provoke anonymous editors. 192.121.113.96 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
And now someone has amusingly taken it upon themselves to declare that they have banned me and is undoing every single one of my edits, restoring yet more basic spelling and grammar errors to the encyclopaedia. I hope in vain that someone more sensible will put a stop to this utterly ridiculous situation. 192.121.113.96 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The OP, also known as the IP editor, has made an excellent point. The article in question, Wilderness hut, contains narrow instructions about "proper conduct" which varies greatly worldwide. Much of the content is in direct violation of our policy WP:NOT, which says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." By coincidence, I have written an article about such a wilderness hut, Horse Camp, which is a notable example which contradicts many of the unreferenced generalizations in this article. Horse camp has toilet facilities, excellent running water and an on-site caretaker in summer months. Wilderness hut is a perfect example of an article which has been semi-protected for the wrong reasons. A good faith IP editor wants to improve a mediocre article, and is being thwarted at every turn. Very sad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be sad if he were a good faith editor. But he isn't, per Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I'm not surprised he tried to hoodwink people here into thinking he was just another IP trying to be helpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
IP, you have been blocked not banned. You were blocked because your edits are quacking very very loudly.--5 albert square (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Sanders DMCA actions

Lots of Some media coverage recently about Bernie Sanders's campaign demanding that Wikipedia remove some pictures of his campaign logo. Apparently we did so almost immediately, but since then the campaign has withdrawn the DMCA notice that let to the images being removed. [5] [6] I wonder if they really have a case as to whether we're actually violating the DMCA by posting these pictures. Everymorning (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

They had no case. The logos in question were {{PD-text}} logos at best. According to the DMCA noticeboard WMF-Legal analyzed the various Bernie Sanders campaign logos at issue and determined that they most likely did meet the threshold of creativity for copyright. However, because of the way the DMCA is worded the office had no choice but to comply. The other issue was that the WMF could not personally send a counternotice to Sanders's campaign (another quirk of the law). Luckily Odder filed a counternotice for us. When the campaign received the counternotice they rescinded their takedown request. They knew completely what they were doing and their attempt to abuse the DMCA process did not go unnoticed. It was just lucky this time that someone (Odder) stepped up and filed a counternotice else the images would still be deleted. --Majora (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I am unsure whether a mention in BoingBoing and a mention in ArsTechnica amounts to "lots of media coverage". The matter is resolved, and is over and done with, so why waste more electrons discussing it? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed the beginning of my post to reflect that there's not as much coverage as I originally thought. I didn't see anything in the Ars Technica source that said the images were back up, so since the matter has apprently been resolved, I guess they are. I'd like to hear some confirmation that this is the case to be sure, though. Everymorning (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Everymorning: All files affected by the takedown notice have been restored by @User:Jalexander-WMF after the Sanders campaign got in touch with the Foundation. I have also received written confirmation by the lawyer who sent the DMCA that they had decided to withdraw it, so just as @Cullen328 says above, this is all done and dusted (as far as I am concerned). odder (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there's a technical quibble with the news coverage. According to the DMCA letter, the files were File:Bernie Sanders 2016 logo.svg / .png, File:Bernie Sanders 2016 logo with year.svg, File:Bernie Sanders 2016 Pride.jpg, File:FEELTHEBERN.svg / .png. The image shown on the news report adds a border to FEELTHEBERN and a Union label graphic, which increases the complexity and potentially confuses the trademark issues of the union label into the mix (though as the files currently say, there might also be trademark issues with the Sanders campaign) Wnt (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations on 15.wikipedia.org

Dear Jimbo, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the site https://15.wikipedia.org/history.html provides a very special birthday gift from WMF to the Wikipedians' community: The use of user-generated content without any attribution or mention, disregarding the licenses and the core principle of Wikipedia to cite the source where one takes other's content from. By a long research I managed to identify those (ab)used files and text:

I would appreciate to get to know your personal thoughts on this case and how to solve these issues in the fastest possible way (preferrably with an honest apology to the original contributors). Thank you. --.js[democracy needed] 11:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this matter is being discussed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 17 as well as on Meta. The issue has been referred to the legal department so I think that and the discussion on Meta is the fastest possible way to solve these issues rather than on a user talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, correcting practical errors like this is best done in other places. But being asked for my personal thoughts? I think someone at the Foundation screwed up if they used images without attribution, and that they should be more careful in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jimbo, for your answer. Could you tell me is there any procedure that ensures WMF staff and contractors get educated in the core Wikipedian principles prior to any centent publishing contributions they will have to perform? --.js[democracy needed] 08:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't work there so I don't know the details of the onboarding process. But I do know that such things are talked about all the time at the Foundation, which is full of Wikipedians and is constantly steeped in the philosophy of free culture. People can and do and will make mistakes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, really, because just within the past few days some editors have had to explain to one of the Foundation's Legal Counsel staff the English Wikipedia's fair use policy. His general line of argument seemed to be, at least before a bunch of people chimed in, "We can get away with a lot more under the law, so what's the big deal?" --71.119.131.184 (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Well yes? He is legal for the WMF. As far as the WMF is concerned it isnt a big deal. EN-WP's Non-free content policy is very restrictive, far more than the law would allow, so badgering the legal counsel for not knowing the local background or why the local policy is so restrictive is pointless. It has no legal impact, so as far as they are concerned, its not a problem. I can see a trainwreck down the line when related articles is out of beta and goes live. Either ENWP's NFC policy will need to change to allow for that sort of navigational linking, or related articles will need a way to differentiate between free and non-free pictures and exclude the latter. I cant see that happening easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as the WMF is concerned it isnt a big deal this is exactly the problem. Most projects have a strong "free culture" background. The English Wikipedia has a fairly permissive NFC policy (it does not completely disallow it), and the WMF's projects need to be sensitive to the projects' culture. The solution for navigational linking is easy: just make "preferred image for linking" part of human-editable metadata. Why would you want that image to be selected by an algorithm anyway? —Kusma (t·c) 12:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldnt personally, I imagine the WMF's overlords at Google probably have a different idea... While the solution for navigational linking is easy, I have doubts about getting it working. The WMF's track record on tech upgrades shows they are resistant to outside advice/criticism, not particulary great at implementation, and tend to resort to attack dog tactics when communities reject their flawed 'upgrades'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Badgering me isn't particularly helpful ;-) but I wouldn't say the discussion is pointless. The better I understand the policies and guidelines, the better I can advise engineering teams on how to build good software that fits the culture. I appreciate that people care a lot about strictly following the rules and procedures, but my only request would be to treat staffers kindly when we show up and want to discuss. There is a lot to learn, and I think open conversations will be crucial to getting it right. Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Stephen LaPorte (WMF), "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute" is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and a variation of it is the first line of the summary at the Terms of Use, which you've checked a box saying you agree to on 844 separate occasions. Nobody should need to be explaining this to any WMF editor, let alone a WMF employee. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@.js: Thanks for bringing this to our attention, the attributions can be found in full. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Heather, looks very good now! --.js[democracy needed] 08:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP help

So does BLP apply just to living people, or can it also apply towards communities? Rabt man (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that this is not a retoritcal question it would be helpful to know what the community in question is and the specific content you want to discuss. Also, even if BLP does not apply the are other policies such as WP:NPOV that might apply. Once again this will be much easier to answer if we know what the exact issue is.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If the edit affects identifiable living persons - it falls under BLP. It does not apply to large groups where, presumably, no specific individual is implicitly identified. And this applies to all edits on any page on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts on Wikipedia turning 15

This has gone beyond the scope of appropriate conversation for Wikipedia. If people here wish to discuss theories of child raising there are websites for that JbhTalk 17:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When I was a young student, anytime I was assigned a report on a historical person or event my first stop was the school library and the pages of the World Book Encyclopedia. It never failed me. It gave me the 5 W's, was brief and had a bibliography for some starter sources. The Internet didn't exist yet (for all intents and purposes) and Wikipedia wouldn't come around for several more decades. How lucky I was, and how unfortunate for today's youth that Wikipedia exists, for it is truly a disservice to efficient scholarship.

Case in point; Consider Wikipedia's entry on The Battle of Flodden and compare/contrast that to Encyclopædia Britannica's version. I read the Wikipedia version three times and couldn't tell you what the battle was about. Britanica OTOH told me what I needed to know in under 30 seconds. This of course is not an isolated incident.

So after careful consideration I've come to the conclusion that your encyclopedia sucks. I will forbid my children from using it and will enforce my edict by corporal punishment if necessary. Wikipedia is a bad habit, a habit that should never be started in the first place. I encourage other parents and educators to prevent their children and pupils from accessing its pages. A PSA campaign might be in the making. Five Whacks for Wikipedia sounds nice, though the penalty may not be severe enough.Which Hazel? (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Which Hazel?
Sorry to hear that you do not like one of the many articles that are on this encyclopaedia.
I've looked at both our version of the Battle of Flodden and Britannica's version and from what I can see we are providing more information and going into more depth about the subject, after all that is what we are here to do. I also did not find our article hard to understand. However, if you think that there is information in the article that does not need to be there, why not edit the article? Or why not start a discussion on the talk page of the article as to how you can improve it?
I'm concerned that you think it's acceptable to use corporal punishment to prevent your children from using Wikipedia. Why not critically evaluate information instead of banning your children from using one source?--5 albert square (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not just one article. The verbosity, especially in the lead is pretty much a problem for most articles. IMO Wikipedia is dangerous to the mind as firecrackers are dangerous to the hand.Which Hazel? (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is targeted at a wide range of users. If your children are young, they may want to try the Simple English Wikipedia (assuming there is an article) for a more basic overview. For people needing more detailed information (and, for better articles, more suggested references to follow up on) then the longer English Wikipedia articles work better than Britannica. An advanced student of Indonesian history, for example, would benefit little from Britannica's article on Suharto, but may find our series more useful.
And yes, I am likewise concerned that you think physically punishing your children is an acceptable way to handle their browsing habits. They need to learn (or, even better, be taught) to critically analyze the sources they have access to. Otherwise they may end up simply reposting Facebook posts and wind up believing (for example) that thousands of New Jersey Muslims celebrated the attacks on the World Trade Center... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh you're concerned are you? I'll discipline my children how I see fit. Deal with it. Which Hazel? (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I actually will concede your point, in that the lead of an article on a battle should say why it was fought, and the obscure article you cite does not. Of course, if you're really concerned about that, you could go correct that rather than complain here. Beating children (including any form of "corporal punishment") remains wrong. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A drawer full of cracked wooden spoons says otherwise.Which Hazel? (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to criticize Wikipedia, or better yet just ignore it if you dislike it so much. I do agree with others above that corporal punishment is a terrible idea. Hitting children teaches them that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems. But of course, it rarely solves anything. Children who are abused are more likely to abuse their own children. Do you really want your grandchildren to be abused? And hitting children can physically hurt them, even permanently if you aren't very very careful. Hitting children for anything is wrong. Hitting children for reading is very very wrong. Hitting children for reading an encyclopedia is very very very wrong. Please talk to somebody you trust about this, or just take the time to rethink what you wrote here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which Hazel? I agree with @Smallbones: on this one. By all means, feel free to criticise Wikipedia, call it all the names under the sun if you wish if that makes you feel better. If your children are using Wikipedia, then they are only using it to try and educate themselves. There is nothing wrong with that.--5 albert square (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Which Hazel?, I agree with Seraphimblade Talk to me, I see you know how to edit so just go correct that is your most constructive option. Please don't be bring up the issue of beating children anymore as everybody's getting pissed off, including me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Corporal punishment in the home is full of research you may wish to review Which Hazel? since the subject matter is of interest to you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Mind your own business is one you should check out, yet from your perch (or subterranean windowless basement if that's the case) you have a spine to preach? Try doing that in person sometime. I suspect you wouldn't like the results. But that's not the point. Wikipedia articles, for the most part, are garbage when compared to a real encyclopedia. Which brings me to this riddle. What do 15 year olds and Wikipeia have in common? Which Hazel? (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of confidence in the WMF Board

Dear Jimbo and others, it appears to me that there is a major lack of confidence in the Board by the community of editors. I therefore recommend that we conduct an RfC to gauge just how low the confidence is. This way we can reliably report to the Board how little 'confidence the editors have in the Board and, hopefully, they can take steps to improve this confidence. Sincerely, New England Cop (someone who has no idea how to sign this message as there exists a lack of the squiggle/tilde button on my iPad's Bluetooth keyboard) New England Cop (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

[ To get 4 tildes "~~~~" on a limited keyboard, then perhaps copy/paste, as from text shown by Template:sign. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)) ]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_200&oldid=1092091672"