User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 25

We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

I have qouted your words that I have found in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page, to mention the following cases. There are a few articles, one at least that has remain a long time in the wikipedia, which I believe should be looked at carefully. The articles are Andrea Yates and Lisa Ann Diaz. I am sure there are many more like them. I seem them as totally tabloid journalism... sensationalist, and even if proven guilty against the privacy right of these people. It is sad that people are murdered and that mothers murder their children but that does not justify their inclusion in the wikipedia. Andrea Yates article has been in existance for almost 4 years. Her birthday has been published. I sometimes feel sad to find all of these articles in the wikipedia, and is frustrating to see that they are maintained... I would ask these editors to set up a tabloiddipedia or something like that and leave wikipedia clean. I am very much in favor of the words Cover the event, not the person. Thanks...--Francisco Valverde 11:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The two examples you give appear to be polar opposites as regards notability (the defining quality for an encyclopedic entry). Andrea Yates is extremely well sourced and referenced, and the writing an exemplary exercise in WP:NPOV. Lisa Ann Diaz is so poorly written that it could be speedy deleted on that basis. Please do not confuse subject matter (infanticide) with style when accusing articles or editors of "tabloid journalism". In this matter I will PROD the Lisa Ann Diaz article, so it may be improved to a reasonable standard. LessHeard vanU 12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn´t we conver the events... I personally don't see any encyclopedic importance with Andrea Yates. She is not notable, except for the murder event. Why not just talk of the event. Why should her birthday be mentioned. I think it is inappropiate for her biography to be included in an encyclopaedia. --Francisco Valverde 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how old she was at the time of the incident, and what generation she was part of, have some importance as cultural context, though the exact birthdate isn't necessary for that. *Dan T.* 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, she is the person who is investigated/prosecuted/judged/sentenced for the (alleged) crimes, the naming policy for criminal law is generally the accused. This means that most if not all off-Wiki references will be under the mothers name. The alternative would be to name it for the victims... that is a can of worms that I wish to keep a very tight lid on! Calling it the (location) or (date) murders wouldn't be useful since neither the place or day was killed (St. Valentines Day Massacre being the exception that proves the rule). The major point is that WP follows the naming conventions of the original or major source, and in courts of law it is generally (the juristiction ) vs. (the accused), and not adopt its own conventions. Finally, birthdates are given, when known, in all other instances of subjects of BLP articles, and I do not see any particular sensitivity issues for criminals and accused persons. LessHeard vanU 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A small problem.

I can't acces your user page because my computer(Mac OS 9) jamms to a Qxz-ad19.gif. Can you do something about it? Peacekeeper II 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

relevant on-going debate

You may want to be a party to this debate about Angela Beesley's requested deletions from the Wikipedia history template. VanTucky 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

www.sciencedaily.com

hi jimmy, well i was going through this website and when i read the article, there was a link given- read the full article at wikipedia.org. they have copied the leading statements of the article from wikipedia articles. have they taken a prior permission. same goes for answer.com but it has been a good friend of wikipedia, i think so... Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which allows re-use with some conditions (such as attribution). No prior permission is needed. See the copyrights page. --h2g2bob (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom pro censorship ruling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tobias_Conradi/2007-05_ArbCom_pro_censorship_ruling

Today I read about Amnesty International and anti censorship. I saw Wikipedia and you mentioned there. I would like to make you aware of the fact that Wikipedia ArbCom is activly supporting censorship.

So it seems like double speak what you and your ArbCom do. I will try to take this to AI and to TI.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a kook? ShivaIdol 22:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which of the kook definitions would apply to Jimbo. Maybe you can be more precise? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he was referring to you, Tobias. However I feel it was an inappropriate reference. You tend to engage in tendentious editing, not clean up after messes you have made, your discourse style is abrasive at best, and your dispute resolution methods are ineffective and disruptive, but none of those things are a reason to label you with invective like "kook", and it's not likely to help you return to calm, reasonable and productive contributing. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Which of my contributions do you consider "mess"? BTW, aren't you violating WP:CIVIL? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for dispute resolution, it is merely the talk page of a user. A very special user, but a user nonetheless. But one example of you not cleaning up your messes, as cited in the ArbCom case, would be here: [1] ... another example would be the case's finding #9, (which included "His position was apparently that it was the responsibility of other editors to "fix" the page title") which passed 6-0, and yet another example would be your going around to all the arbitrators disputing the outcome of your case. You need to take what Charles Matthews said here to heart. As for the second part, if you think I've been incivil to you by characterising your actions in accordance with general consensus about them, without attacking you personally, just expressing dismay at your approach, you should raise the issue on the administrator's noticeboard and see what the community thinks. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Donut

They tried to kill the AOWWRWD, but we will persevere! We'll fight them in the streets and on the rooftops! Until then, though, I hereby award you, Jimbo Wales, with a German Berliner in recognition of your incredible contributions to Wikipedia, and the actual founding of the site. Actually, I need to suck up some more, so here you go! Congratulations!-- Meteshjj _{My bologna has a first name,} ^{it's O-P-R-A-H! Whoo!!!} 03:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking for your assistance...

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I, Declan White, ask in your assistance in making the concept of Geothermoelectric Energy known to the public.
The reason I ask for your assistance is due to the fact that you are a very well-heard person, and your intergration into the Wikipedia society allows your voice to be heard with seriousness and trust. If you have the time, please take it, to view my page about this technology and what it may be able to do for the planet. As most people are aware, and I asume you are as well, our planet's atmosphere and ecosystem are falling to their doom because of the increase of carbon based particles in our atmosphere, this is known as the Greenhouse Effect.
The theory of this technology allows the temperature difference between the 'hot rock' area of the earth and the atmoshpere to make an electric current using the Thermoelectric Effect.
Please take the time to consider my theory and it's possible benefits for the planet, it's ecosystem and all living things on it.

Sincerely,
Declan White.
Deco^talkDa^thoughtsMan 08:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Suicide of Anna Halman controversy

Dear Mr. Wales,

you were one of wikipedians who deleted facts from article Suicide of Anna Halman and "mereged" (in fact deleted) the article. I hope you read relevant sources which are in Polish and Czech language and you are able to understand sources in Slavic languages. Yesterday I stared voting about that article at Czech Wikipedia. See cs:Wikipedie:Hlasování o smazání/Anna Halman. There is no doubt. (ponechat = keep, smazat = delete, zdržuji se = abstain, komentáře = comments). Only one user who wants to delete the article wrote as reason that another wikipedian calls him an idiot few weeks ago. I will be glad if you explain us your personal opinion at Czech Wikipedia (English language is no problem). Thank you, --Dezidor 10:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pending Jimbo's own reply, have you see this comment which he made on the matter on June 2? --Tony Sidaway 10:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that the Czech language version of the Wikipedia is one of the most problematic language version. It pays no or almost no attention to many established rules of the Wikipedia, such as WP:BLP, WP:NPA, the notion that the Wikipedia is governed by the Florida law, not by the law of the Czech republic etc.

IMHO, the reason why 14 users voted against Jimbo's decision is the latent anti-Americanism. For instance, Beren wrote: "I understand that from the American point of view where pupils shoot each other in schools it looks not notable, but in our country it is not so. (Chápu, že z amerického pohledu, kde se žáci ve školách střílí, to vypadá nevýznamně i jako téma, u nás to ale tak není.)" User:Cinik wrote: "Jimbo's intervention is for the Czech Wikipedia irrelevant—Jimbo cannot speak Polish nor Czech and the English article has looked much differently than the Czech. (Jimbův zásah je pro českou wikipedii IMHO irelevantní - Jimbo neumí ani polsky ani česky a anglický článek vypadal podstatně jinak, než český.)"

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• This reply contains no arguments but only personal feelings of Jimbo Wales and information that article will be delete. Now he has fair chance to argue agains the existence of article and tolk about sources at Czech Wikipedia.

• Zacheus <personal data removed> is banned at Czech Wikipedia for vandalism, personal atacks and harassemt. He declared that he is going to do harm to Wikipedia. --Móryturite Salutant 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please,

1. don't establish one-purpose only account,
2. don't import totally unrelated drama from cs:. Your version of that event is totally false, but there's no place and no need to correct you. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 12:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

my statement to a deletion fyi

Subject: deleting of Suicide of Anna Halman ([2]) by User:Thebainer on June 2nd and your comments to this event (see Talk:2006 Gdansk school suicide incident#moving and merging). Sorry, but the deleting (no merging, but deleting) of the article was very disappointing, but the way how it was done incl. your comments was very negative experience for me.
I am not like to discuss here the (obvious) significance of the event for an encyclopedia (I see, that somebody living in Australia – or Florida – sees it with another eyes, but the whole middle Europe discussed this event so it is significant, then more over in one country – Poland - where the celebration of Christopher Street Day might be a very dangerous event).
But the way it was deleted – and then confirmed by you – was a bad experience for me:

• it was not merged to somewhere but deleted (dear Jimbo Wales, I am a bit elder than you but not yet quite senile and working here over 3 years, so please...)
• the deletion was made a very short time after a brain storming of the community, where the majority said it is important and it has to be kept; under the influence of the discussion here there is a voting on the Czech Wikipedia started by someone yesterday – see the results after some hour at cs:Wikipedie:Hlasování o smazání/Anna Halman (probably somewhat, what User:Zacheus calls mob rule [3]of the postcommunist version of the Wikipedia [4]
• the history shows that the User:Thebainer used a very obscure way to delete the page: he could have use the old article to „merge“ it to the new one, the he could have make a notice somewhere; but he moved the page first to another name, then he deleted it without making a notice somewhere and he deleted also the talk page; I am sorry, Jimbo Wales, as I saw it next morning I was very perplex, as the same way used the User:Zacheus on the Czech Wikipedia <personal data removed>, to vandalize, to manipulate and to hide his manipulations some one and half year ago, and he was banned for it
• the deletion supported some more vandals who were forcing the deletion here and also in other wikipedias; two of them, User:Zacheus and the user editing like 71.99.xxxxx, are presently banned in the Czech Wikipedia (vandalism, personal attacks, destroing the community...), the tried to attack the same article in other Wikipedias as well

This circumstances make me after just more than three years of work here and nearly three years experiance like admin quite insecure about the future of this project. I know your letter and statements on democracy and Wikipedia, be sure. But this was not good and together with some other unsufficient rules I must rethink my position here, maybe with the exception of one project; but it was very desmotivating.

After I have posted this I saw that a very similar thread is beeing discussed here, but anyway... Thanks for understanding, -jkb- 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

-jkb- is a very problematic user for his dark past. I made him sysop on cs:, but it turned out a big mistake. His problem is that he does not understand even fundamental rules of the Wikipedia, such as WP:BLP or protection of privacy.

Cs: is now ruled by -jkb- and his cronies. They refused to delete the article about A. H., because it was written by one of them – Cynik – who used to hype them in the blog or another Kuroshin Britské listy and in his own blog. That's why he calls merging ("deleting") of the article "very disappointing".

I live in the Czech Republic. I've never heard about A. H., except for Cynik's hype. The Polish version of the Wikipedia has deleted the article as not notable. I don't think that the effort of some cronies (or in sk:) should be important. The Wikipedia is not a newspaper, as Jimbo correctly said.

-jkb- has written: "dear Jimbo Wales, I am a bit elder than you but not yet quite senile and working here over 3 years, so please..." In my view, he overestimate himself.

In AfD there was only 10 voters. This does not build a consensus.

Finally, I agree that as the former bureaucrat of cs: I tried to behave as Jimbo of TheBainer do. That's why -jkb- and his cronies two years ago desysopped me at first by a fraud and then blocked me. I remain blocked there up today and cs: doesn't respect even fundamental principles.

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

are you there?

I like to know Mr. Wales if you are even there or is the "wiki army" saying and answering everything before you can. Agentheartlesspain 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He certainly edits, if that's what you mean, heh. Just generally most questions people ask here can be answered by almost anyone. Cowman109^Talk 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection

Well, this one can't. On the talk page it has been suggested that we ask for your input on this one. We've had a lot of changes, reverts and debate recently, and we're stuggling to assess whether there is support in the wider community for this policy. When a table was added to the talk page almost everyone added themselves to one form of semi-protection stance that is heavier than the current policy, yet we don't know whether this is representative of the wider community of not. The discussion has now been advertised on several pages, and we are hoping to get a good response. If you would like to be involved in this please drop by. Richard001 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Was Jimbo on the Colbert report

[5] said so. I rarely watch the Colbert report. Can someone tell me if he was? SakotGrimshine 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sean William @ 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...the aftermath was great...cleaning the phrase "librarians are hiding something" up off of pretty much every other page around here...—Gaff ^ταλκ 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What episode date, number, name, etc was it? I will look for it to download. SakotGrimshine 09:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This one --h2g2bob (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I found it. I googled "Jimbo Wales" "Colbert Report" it first wasn't much, but the top result was from NathanR.ca that said it was back in May so it wasn't something I just missed a day ago. So I looked around and only saw some tiny streaming things. Finally I found a full 150MB quality video for download on torrentspy.com that looks quality so I will download it. It said the show was:

The Colbert Report - 05.24.07 - S03E72 - Title: Jimmy Wales

Episode Number: 265 | Season Num: 3 | First Aired: Thursday May 24, 2007 | Prod Code: 3072

SakotGrimshine 09:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that; actually an interesting interview. I had not seen it before. The slew of vandalism was funny and incredibly annoying at the time. I was on vandal patrol and had no idea what was going on, just all this librarian vandalism all at once. It cracked me up! —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Stephen Colbert still banned from Wikipedia? SakotGrimshine 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He is also responsible for the llama vandalism at Albert Einstein article...very frustrating.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good evening, Mr. Wales...

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello, Jimbo Wales! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Christine118500
Edit message

For a second there, I thought we were taking down the KDE. Seems like a nice concept though -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Run! Gnome attack! --Iamunknown 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature truncation in the Media

Hi Jimbo, I was wondering if the powers-that-be could undo that enforced 255 character limit on signatures recently introduced to the MediaWiki code, something that adversely affects a great number of Wikipedians with distinctive sigs. As I understand it, relatively short signatures are a guideline but not policy. I'm fond of my signature, Valley2city^₪‽, which only goes 14 characters over the limit. Can we clarify if this is now policy? Thanks, man. Valley2city 05:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see a direct corrolation between the users who don't understand what the purpose of a guideline is on Wikipedia, and those that will suffer (as oppose to everyone else, who will benefit) from this. Daniel 05:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this is not the place for such a discussion. Please keep it to WT:SIG, the WP:VP or post to wikitech-l. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope it is good now.  :) --Iamunknown 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Pete Meetup time!

Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Norwegian lolicon article

I just wanted to say thanks for removing the picture on the Norwegian lolicon article. Some people are just sick. Anyway, you rock;)--Count Zar 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanksgiving and request

Hello sir Wales,

I`m a user from fa.wiki and acquainted with your great and non similar project, Wikipedia, at farsi version.

Now, I decided to will extend my contributions with having some of cooperation at en.wiki and other wiki projects. Unfortunately, I only know that you and Mrs Angela Beesley whom made this great project in the Cyber-world. it`s my little information about you and her that reached at fa.wiki. Excuse me, I never have an intent for getting your gold time, and aske you that if you can, recognize to me another your stewards in this great project for future own cooperation.

I`m wrote this words with pretext for thanksgiving from you and your mate, Mrs Beesley, for producing this great free encyclopedia, that learn me a lot of things and increase my science in all the fields.

Best regards,

--Gordafarid 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

you need to see that a decision is made here

After the Daniel Brandt debacle, the "do no harm" argument is being used in favor of courtesy deletions in other debates, such as the one currently underway for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (4th nomination), that affect articles that are in no way tabloid-like. I find it sick that an interpretation of policy that was never properly vetted by the community is eroding the goal of "the sum of all human knowledge" in such an insidious fashion. VanTucky 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question sir. What was the first article created in wikipedia? I'm curious. RuneWiki777 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Wikipedia is a good place to start to satisfy your curiosity. Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles is a more direct answer to your question.-gadfium 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall many year previously I encounters Wikipedia Project website design with the early infant stage. Scholarly review of phenomenon 'Bomis' but my own English language understanding quite disgusting at that contemporary moment. Sorry I do not further detailing information available. Wen Hsing 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A day in the life of Jimbo

Just curious, what do you do on an 'average' day, when you aren't dealing with the media or handling some scandal? Do you wake up, have coffee, check your watchlist? Stay in bed and watch the news? Get woken up and have to deal with someone who found your phone number... again? Was wondering what your life is like outside the conferences and interviews -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and more interestingly, how has that changed in the time since you've founded wikipedia, and wikipedia becoming incredibly popular? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, he does a lot of traveling, though I don't know what he does on a normal day. Valley2city 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there's one thing we all know for certain: Jimbo gets up, eats, and goes to bed (at the very least). Happy? :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure of that? I was under the impression that he never has the time to be able to go to bed, and the only thing he consumes is raw information... ;) LaughingVulcan 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed out an important and fundamental function related to eating... :-) Carcharoth 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why I asked this question. If Jimbo is some sort of anus lacking alien, we deserve to know! -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure of that? I was under the impression that the only thing which emanates from Jimbo is pure logic and well formatted articles... ;) [And sorry, I just couldn't resist either of these and had to be bold with it.] LaughingVulcan 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

You are the last blocking admin of Daniel Brandt, which for the final block I see he is blocked per his request in the block log. He no longer has an article and so has no reason to be angry or sue. He also is listed as community banned but he was un-community banned and he was only blocked per his request so he should not be listed at WP:BANNED, so I request that he be removed from there as it was a requested block and not a ban. I am also suggesting that he should be unblocked because his article is gone but that may depend since his last block said it was requested by him. SakotGrimshine 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say quite the opposite. While we had an article on him I opposed your reblocking of him but now we dont have an article on him I can see no reason to unblock him given his past behaviour and legal threats, SqueakBox 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is are the legal threats now moot? Or will he make more? Blocking is not supposed to punish people. SakotGrimshine 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking was incredibly controversial before. If he wants to be unblocked right now it ashould be for him to ask the wiki foundation to do so. We have to see evidence that he is 100% happy with the current outcome (where the past hsitory of the article is still available as are the talk page and its 9 archives so until various issues are resolved I am not convinced these threats are moot. He has stated once wikipedia gives him what he wants that he will have no interest in editing here anyway, SqueakBox 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked him just now by email what he wants to do. As I understand it, he does not want to edit Wikipedia. But he also doesn't want to be listed as a blocked or banned user. I assume that an unblock would be a courtesy formality, as he has no interest in editing anyway. I will respect his wishes.--Jimbo Wales 08:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you still havent unblocked him and he has also made clear on WR his desire to be unblocked, in spite of my above comments if you want to unblock him I would unhesitatingly support your actions. He says he still has BLP concerns (eg that his name is redirected rather than deleted) so I think untiol his concerns are fully met that we would be best to unblock for now, SqueakBox 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews writing competition

Hi Jimbo!

Over on Wikinews I've just put my name down for a 100 euro prize in a new writing contest we'd like to start after the Board elections. I've contacted Ral315 in the hope of getting a mention in the Signpost (and possibly Wikipedia's sitenotice), but I'd really like to up the stakes on this. I know finances for the foundation are tight, but would you personally be interested in upping the ante on our prize pot? Last writing competition got us hundreds of articles and quite a few new contributors. --Brianmc 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion or transfer

Maybe it's something even out of your reach, but can you either delete or transfer logs of mine of non-sports related edits ( see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and many more edits from April 2-3. If you possibly could transfer to my non sports account or delete them, it's no skin off my nose. Hope to hear from you soon! Soxrock 23:53 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I know, there is no feature currently in the Mediawiki software that allows a transfer of individual edits from one account to another. There use to be a page called Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit where Wikipedia's developers would take requests to alter the MySql database directly, but is now not maintained anymore due to their busy schedules. And as for deleting specific edits, under the GNU Free Documentation License, we cannot since those modifications are really legitimate. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since I want to keep trying at least, are there any higher ranking people than you here (obviously Jimbo Wales, but anyone else)? Soxrock 0:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the user access levels of MediaWiki, one possibility that is similar to what you want is contacting a user who has access to the oversight permission feature, but you probably do not qualify under those scenarios. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's a previous discussion. Can you either help hide/delete, or transfer the files I've highlighted and any other's that I do (like Voyager 2 edits from 4/20, all the Marshall-related and religious-related ones ones from 4/3, the Marylin Monroe and Amanda Bynes ones from last year that I'll highlight (some more here: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], 2 edits here, [38], [39], [40], 2 edits here, [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], 2 edits here, numerous edits here, [46], [47], numerous edits here, [48], [49], [50], [51], 3 edits here, 6 edits on the redirect page, [52], [53], [54], [55], and the two ones I highlighted earlier, [56], and 5 edits to [57] and [58]

• here are a few more I'd like vacated:

[59] 3 here 4 here [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] 2 here [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

• sorry to bother again, but here are some more from my other accounts:

Crazy Canadian: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]

CollegeGameDayRocks!: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]

And lastly, TheSportsLogosMaster: [94] [95]

(and there are probably a few more out there, I'll give you a link to the general areas of these edits)

If you could transfer, vacate, or, if you can't do too much, direct me to a higher ranking person. I want those gone from all of my accounts. Soxrock 12:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, I didn't get a response out of Blnguyen for about 48 hours, so I believe it won't be accomplished. Since I've recreated myself to be only sports editing under the accounts I've put up there, if you could either transfer the edits, vacate or delete them (any way to get them off the contributions list), I'd appreciate it greatly. THANKS FOR CREATING THIS GREAT SITE JIMMY! Soxrock 01:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock, I think the reason noone else has replied to you is that there is nothing more to be said, this simply isn't going to happen. Reinventing yourself means change going forward, not rewriting history - go forth & edit constructively, pretty soon all these old edits will be buried so far in your contribution history that even you will forget about them. --Versageek 17:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for BLP courtesy blanking

Would you have time to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision#BLP blanking? I suspect that using a system of courtesy blanking might take a lot of the heat and drama out of the issues surrounding article with suspected Biographies of living people issues. It would also, in the true wiki-way, allow non-admins to help enforce WP:BLP without needing to find an admin. What do you think? Carcharoth 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I've been giving barnstars out to good editors recently and I thought I'd give you this one So I'm awarding you this "Da vinci" barnstar for your enhancement of wikipedia through you know...Making Wikipedia! Wikidudeman (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

unsourced article should be deleted

Talent_(Sitcom) totally unsourced article about a sitcom which i cant find any external information about. should be deleted?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilliamMcDonald (talk • contribs).

No. I just added a source. Plus, This isn't the place to ask such a thing. Try the articles talk page.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Content of user pages

Hi, Jimbo. Today I noticed that the project contains quite a few user pages that seem to spotlight the most unseemly sides of the project. If I were a newbie or a potential contibutor, I would have kept away from Wikipedia after taking a look at all the offensive statements listed on User:EVula, for instance. Do you think a user page may contain everything or there should be some exceptions, so as not to bring Wikipedia into disrepute? --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that page. It's not like he's claiming to be a pedophile or anything. --Carnildo 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A good list of things he's been called though. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless I don't see an overpowering reason why there should be so much spotlight on insults and offensive statements. One editor (now permabanned) once told me, "Remember that the Russian's eyes may be blue, but his arse is black." Should I proudly display this message on my user page (being Russian myself)? I think such lists of insults create a distorted perspective on the project and scare potential contributors from getting involved in Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a friendly place though. If you can tell me of one editor with over 1000 contribs who hasn't been insulted, trolled, flamed, or had some other experience dealing with morons on wikipedia, I might support you -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 07:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So why flaunt it? --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it's good for a laugh. If we weren't allowed any humour on wikipedia, the project would probably be dead or dying from having most editors leave -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Feba, do you find insults and ethnic slurs funny? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

By themselves, no. In the way they were listed though, yes. I find internet trolls quite humourous -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 20:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Do you think it would be funny to leave this image hanging on my user page? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On your page, no. But I wouldn't mind a link to the diff saying "ASCII Hippos (or something) declare me a troll - Day, Month, Year."; as a part of the page itself it's rather large and annoying. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 07:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should talk with EVula ... he or she may have never thought of the reasons you propose here. --Iamunknown 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

EVula is just an example. I know quite a few user pages arranged along these lines and I would like to know Jimbo's opinion about the principle that stacking offensive lines from all over Wikipedia on one's user page is funny or cool. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, is it possible that the problem is the folk who would write such things about an editor? It may make you a little uncomfortable to view these things, but sometimes somebody has to be brave enough to bring such matters into the public areana. Perhaps you may prefer that the targets of such abuse should quietly push these attacks away to protect the sensitivities of the rest of us. Of course, if that happened in the real world women would still be second class citizens, gay people would have to live a lie and black people would still be using the "Jim Crow" seats... No, parts of EVula's page is not a nice place, but it wasn't EVula that ultimately made it that way. Lastly, and I do not mean this unkindly, if you are uncomfortable with the truth being honestly displayed you may wish to consider your ability to contribute to an uncensored encyclopedia.LessHeard vanU 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally tend to agree with Ghirla. The best way to deal with trolls is to delete their comments and ignore them. Keep Wikipedia clean, attractive, friendly. I don't find LessHeard's argument compelling, because I think it is not about protecting sensitivities at all. It's about not feeding trolls. I should add that I don't find EVula's userpage to be especialy problematic, even if it is different from what I choose to have, and different from what I recommend.--Jimbo Wales 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply, Jimbo. I concur that we'd better refrain from highlighting vandalism and trolling in user space. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I understood from the above that Jimbo preferred that people didn't list the reactions of trolls and vandals in their userspace, as it might be inferred as troll feeding and may not be considered as being the best possible advertisment of the general friendly and attractive ethos of Wikipedia. In noting him not finding EVula's page problematic it seems to infer that Jimbo is not requiring contributors refrain from exhibiting such comments, although it wouldn't be what he would do or recommend.

What he didn't agree with (as I see it) was my advocacy of the principle of allowing the advertising of the potential nastiness that can (if rarely) occur, and that editors sensitivities should determine whether they are more or less able to contribute to Wikipedia. To the first point, I adhere to WP:NOT (advocacy included) and do not believe that supporting an editors choice to display the nasty consequences of their endeavours violates it. To the second... yup, I was in error and will strike it from my earlier comment. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit; battlescarred troll fighters, fluffy bunnies and all those in between and beyond. LessHeard vanU 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, always nice to see my name thrown around without having a clue that it's happening. :)

One of the things I strive for in my Wikipedia activities, aside from improving the encyclopedia obviously, is to have fun (hell, just look at some of my edit summaries, if not the edits themselves). My wiki-philosophy in a nutshell: If I'm not having fun, it isn't worth doing (which is why I've taken breaks before). Compiling and maintaining that list amuses me to no end (come on, who wouldn't laugh at being threatened to be hung from a pine tree?), and more importantly, it apparently entertains other editors as well; I've received at least one barnstar of good humor based on that list alone, and plenty of other positive comments from people who are in the exact same position I'm in (ie: targets for vandals, just because they're an administrator doing their job). Admins get plenty of shit from people who quite frankly don't know any better, and it's nice to have a little outlet for that.

As for "spotlighting" them... I don't have a Table of Contents, and the list is below the first-page threshold on practically any screen, meaning that it isn't immediately obvious; I've thought about putting it in one of those hide/show boxes, but I simply don't want to (I find them obnoxious more often than not, and it would interfere with the sidebar I've got on the right). I'm not a big fan of protecting people from themselves; as I don't force anyone to view my userpage (if I could force people to do things, it'd be for something worthwhile, like their credit card number), it's a little "off the wiki-beaten path". Unless my userpage were to appear in Time or something (in which case I'd be extremely surprised), I don't think I'm "spotlighting" trolls.

While this is an apparent non-issue (both by by Jimbo's originally-sought opinion and the other contributors here), I still felt like providing an explanation. I'd be happy to expand on this on my talk page (unless Jimbo is just really curious and wants it to be posted here). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
(also, for the record, I'm a "he"... ladies.)

Autograph?

Can I have your autograph? —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Summer wikimeetup in San Francisco

Last summer, you met with Wikipedians. I remember around 20 people showed up despite a lack of publicity for the event. Will you meet with Wikipedians again this summer? I see the city is on your Sept. 20th itinerary. How about then? I'm willing to organize. The turnout would be massive for a well publicized SF/Bay Area event considering the concentration of Wikipedians in this region.

User:Lotsofissues —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.102.58.169 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chasers

Hello I am a new Wikipedian and a fan of the Chasers War on Everything. I was just wondering did the Chaser guy actually ask you ten questions. And did they actually change your Wikipedia page, at that conference in sydney?. Remember that man who asked you ten questions? I hope you have time to reply to me. Thank You.

 *BloodSpiller*^Wassup 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Benevolent Dictator For Life

The article on Benevolent Dictator for Life (despite being unsourced) has you marked as Wikipedia's benevolent dictator for life. I remember reading once that you did not like that title and did not assume that title. What's the straight scoop on this? - Chardish 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• There was no source so removing your name was straightforward, SqueakBox 04:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is nonsense. I have often compared my community role to that of constitutional monarch, and specifically to the role of the Queen of England. This is itself just a poor metaphor to explain my desire that my actual role diminish over time to become mostly symbolic. I just want to wave at parades and cut ribbons at ceremonies. :) But for now I actually do still have some work to do. I can only govern here to a slight degree, and only then with the "consent of the government", which mostly means through the support of the most thoughtful and powerful admins. There should be no benevolent dictator of all human knowledge, but neither should we embark on hasty changes to a model which is working. --Jimbo Wales 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not actually the full scope of the rôle of the monarch of the United Kingdom. Don't believe what United Kingdom#Government and politics says. That is original research sourced to a legislative journal. Politics of the United Kingdom#Monarch does a better job, but it misses out several important points (loyalties of military personnel to the monarch rather to the government and the quiet influence reported by both Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson amongst others) that you can find discussed on pages 318 of ISBN 0415323770 and 13–14 of ISBN 1859419275.

      Now let's see how many people watching this page are willing to take those sources in hand and fix the articles. ☺ Uncle G 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Talking of original research: Directly interviewing the subject for "the straight scoop" is original research, too. The place to be is benevolent dictator#References. Uncle G 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I believe that would only apply if the interview question wasn't asked and answered publicly, as this was. We don't need a third party to read the diffs of this talk page and then report on it - it's essentially a primary source now. The article on Wikipedia, for example, sources dozens of Wikipedia pages. I could be in error; I don't pretend to be an expert on classifying sources. - Chardish 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just wondering, who are the "most thoughtful and powerful admins?" CLA 03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Software

Dear Jimbo,

I've noticed that the likes of Uncyclopedia have exactly the same software as you are using. Do you know where I could buy the same as is used on wikipedia? I've search wikipedia software, mediawiki software but I couldn't find it?

82.20.51.180 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to buy anything - all the software is free! The main software is MediaWiki, which you can get at MediaWiki's Website including installation instructions if you own or have access to a webserver. Uncyclopedia is hosted on wikia's servers for free. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For creating the sum of all human knowledge, and for being a nice guy. Well done Francisco Tevez 14:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Country showing thing

Perhaps there should be a thing that shows what country the user is in and if there are online. It would be very useful. Only Jimbo can make it happen. Because I am trying to find an Zimbabwen user thats currently online on Wikipedia. --Zwerrifringweraand 22:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zwerrifringweraand. I posted an answer on your talk page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirm your board data

Hello Jimbo. I'm compiling a history of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. If you remember, could you please confirm or correct the following data, and specify whether you will remain on the board after December 2007?

Position	Dates
Chairman	?? June 2003 — 28 October 2006
Chairman Emeritus	28 October 2006 — ?? December 2007

Thanks. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:54:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia for sale???

Hello Mr Wales, I am a paper pusher at an investment firm, I've heard a rumour that you are considering selling Wikipedia to the likes of Google or Microsoft, is this true? Does that mean there will be ads? IamYossarian 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The rumours of Wikipedia's future commercialization are greatly exaggerated. See WP:5. YechielMan 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"We're not for sale". --h2g2bob (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello Mr Wales, I'me sure you're a very busy man so I will understand if you dont reply but I have a question to do with the Wikipedia Software, I have my own wiki and I was wondering, since you're virtually the god of online wiki's, how you get messages on the top of articles like the recent one about Wikimania 2007? Highfields 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't expect an answer from Jimbo. Try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. YechielMan 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice --h2g2bob (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Mr. Wales I think that you should limit editing only registered members. Subtle vandalism can be very destructive even if it is ephemeral. What if a subtle vandal caused an article on say, a drug, to be altered in such a way that someone fatally overdosed because they thought they were using in a safe range? Even if the deception is rectified within 24 hours the damage is already irrevocably done. Wikipedia has some liability for the veracity of its information whether or not it wants that burden. It has become a de facto source of reference with implicit authority. To say it is safe to do n mg of heroin as a novice user | n > LD50 is not much different from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Athough, yes, the former is passive prima facie, because it is presented in a forum of implied authority it becomes active; as it were, a fact. Wikipedia may have legal liability in some countries should such a case of physical harm caused by vandalism actually transpire. I like your idea of free editing. But practically the game (or draw on people) of wikipedia seems to be more about fighting vandals (us vs. them) than documenting facts, which is boring in comparison. So why not ban anonymous user edits and save much time and eliminate 90% vandalism.--An anonymous User.

The trouble with banning unregistered users is that something like 80% of unregistered edits are not vandalism, as noted here. Banning them would stop a massive flow of good contributions, and I have actually seen several anonymous users revert vandalism in articles they happen to be reading. As for your comments about drug use, see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Hut 8.5 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see more validation of that data; the numbers being bandied about come from one particular slice at one particular time, and might or might not be typical. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide a single number, so I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I've seen a surprisingly high amount of vandalism being reverted by anonymous editors. (granted, typically on articles that don't really matter) My very limited personal experience is that, even if it isn't a matter of 80%, at least about half the ip edits I see are at least relatively constructive (and even more are less-than-helpful, but still entirely well-intentioned). Bladestorm 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If 99 vandal ip's take an average of 1 hour each to clear up their edits, and one good ip editor averages 130 hours use contributing (10 hours per week) for 3 months then WP is up 39 hours of good edits. Thus a ratio of 1 per 100 ip's is still a benefit. LessHeard vanU 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My Essay

Mr. Wales, Would you mind reviewing my essay? It is contained in my signature. It is not yet complete, but I would love to hear your preliminary thoughts. --Trumpetband ^{What is happening to Wikipedia?} 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay Leno using unreferenced jokes from Wikipedia?

Jimmy, I was watching the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night and during his opening monologue which included jokes and what not. Jay Leno talked about George W. Bush being MLB's next baseball comissioner at the wishes of Bud Selig. I looked it up this morning on the internet to see if there any news articles about this. There was not one single article execpt for the blogs. So I checked out the Bud Selig article. Down towards the bottom, I saw the same type of language that Leno used and it was not referenced. I do not know if Leno used Wikipedia for the joke or not. I will not point fingers at this. It was just a visual standpoint I made out. Anyways here's the article before I removed the text: [96] Spongefan 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Seems like a good call to cut it to me, since it appeared completely unreferenced in the article when the addition was made by an anon ([97]). But it is moderately well known that stories floated about that Bush was a candidate for the job when Selig became commissioner ([98] , [99].) More importantly is this article from February 2006, which used to be an external link in the Selig article. The last isn't serious at all AFAIK, but simply that it's not at all unlikely that anyone familiar with Selig's ascendancy might come up with that kind of joke, or as likely as not stole it from elsewhere. Though it's equally possible it came from here. LaughingVulcan 04:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My Userpage

The Admins. deleted my userpage and I want it put back cause they had no reason to delete it!-- Hornetman16 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Hornetman16#Your userpage for why it was deleted, SqueakBox 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoof

A user known as YechielMan Spoofed Your Sig on my Autograph book —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 14:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I was trying to play a joke and see if you would notice. :) If it's any consolation to you, I'll put my sig on your talk page. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. YechielMan 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Permission question

I would like to ask permission to use the following photos on my user page(s):

Image:Exclusive.png Image:WikiMedia_Proejkts1.jpg Image:Wikipedia-info.png Image:Special.png

Please let me know ASAP!! Thanx.-- Hornetman16 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this isn't a problem - infoboxes like {{user wikipedia}} and {{user admin}} use wikipedia logos. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

One of our admins

Jimbo,

Normally I would say "let the process hash things out", because it is set up to do just that. However, we have an admin who is 'leading the charge' to community ban (lynch) another editor, long before any such action is warranted. This editor has unilaterally decided the situation and has defined her 'terms' against COFS here.

But it does not stop there. She also has made unfounded charges against other editors, in very poor faith, which I beleive would constitute WP:BLP violations, had they occured in mainspace.

On her talkpage, she is offering to 'help ban other users' and has suggested that editors compile/document the transgressions of anyone they feel should be banned. She has indicated that she wants to 'reform' an 'investigation board' and has personally helped 'train' up-and-comming admins to properly investigate these matters. She's appears to be on a mission to be Wikipedia's detective agency and official hangman.

I know you have lots to do. I'm here because, as founder of wikipedia, I believe you care about it. I would appreciate if you would take some time to read that thread (specifically this post where I am both falsely accused and given a veiled threat.), and the admin's talkpage.

Thank you. Lsi john 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I've already invited you to bring this to WP:RFAR. WP:AN is another standard venue. If you wish to make claims against me, please substantiate them with adequate evidence. Per WP:AGF, the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. I don't believe my actions have been inappropriate. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I do not wish to debate this in a public forum. I have requested that you stop lying about me and attacking me. If you will please agree do that, then there is no need for RFAR or AN or any other wiki venue. You seem to enjoy wiki-litigation. I have no interest in it.

From your repeated offers to help ban people and engage in investigations, your challenge for me to go to AN or AN/I or RFAR, and your claim that its a 'hobby' it's clear to me what you enjoy doing.

As for me: I'm here to edit articles and improve wikipedia.

Durova, please leave me alone. I have no desire to have any further communication with you. Lsi john 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

question about a block...

Hi Jimbo... you blocked User:LittleBusters indefinably as a vandal-only account and he is now requesting unblock... I don't see any warnings/explanation on the talkpage and of the 2 edits previous to the block they both look to be good-faith, even if misguided. Is there something going on I'm not seeing? Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you're busy Jimbo, but you should probably reply to this. It's unclear exactly how this user was vandalising but nobody's willing to unblock since it was you who blocked the account. --Deskana (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd. For a vandal only account, I'd except it to look like this Bobby Boulders sock Special:Contributions/Bobby_Bigrock. --SakotGrimshine 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite confused. Did this user really do anything to get blocked? I mean, it didn't seem that his 3 edits were bad. Thanks, Meldshal42 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles won't show up in a contributions list. Not saying that's what happened, but just looking at the contributions doesn't always tell the whole story. Corvus cornix 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are oversighted edits that likely were problematic. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jimbo commented on the guy's talk page now, stating his rationale - Alison ☺ 02:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

Somebody has nominated your Uncyclopedia account for Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Useless Gobshite of the Month. In the discussion, somebody wrote to let you know so I let you know about it. Is that Uncyclopedia account really yours? --BobMRoberts 14:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New Idea for Wikipedia to Pursue

Jimbo,

I had an idea that I thought would make an interesting project for Wikipedia. I will skip the preamble and get right to the core of it.

The idea comes from this theory; that words (in language) are simply a summary of ideas. For example, a word like "steam" encompasses the ideas of water or liquid, heat, pressure, and so on a so forth.

What I propose is to use human power to capture the ideas which make up every word in the dictionary. The way you would do this is by presenting Wikipedia users with a word, to which they would list the ideas they believe are under it. Each individual word can be presented to thousands of users, and only ideas which are mentioned by a certain defined percentage of users (90% maybe?) are included as ideas that are encapsulated by that word. In a relatively short period of time, all of the approx. 1,000,000 words in the english language (it's actually being pegged by www.languagemonitor.com as 993,412) words could have their ideas summarized.

This information is important in a lot of ways. First, by knowing the ideas which make up a word, you can make a computer search for those ideas (which ar e in themselves words) in a sentence, and it will be able to give the sentence meaning (context). For example, right now if you search for "mole" you will get an animal, a unit of measurement, and a skin blemish. But if the trolling bot knew that a sentence in this information about moles contained the words particles, science, and unit, then it would be able to automatically determine exactly which mole we are talking about.

Or a reverse dictionary could be made, which would take from you the ideas which you are trying to summarize articulately, and would give you a list of possible words to use (extremely useful for advertising... having a list of words that people really associate with the ideas they are trying to encompass). This is obviously not a thesaurus, because a thesaurus requires you to use words which have the same or very similar meaning, or in other terms a thesaurus requires you to know a word on the same idea-summarization level as the one you are seeking.

The data garnished from this experiment would also have another important benefit in that it would give a quantifiable manner in which you can see what words mean to people. After all, the definition of a word is derived from its use, not vice versa. If we agree in a large majority that the meaning of a word is different or deviates from the dictionary definition, then it gives basis for a real change of definition. As it stands right now, the dictionary only adds definitions, but hardly ever retracts or alters them to match popular global usage.

I give you the full rights to this idea of mine, but only under the terms that you do not withhold the lists and hierarchies of ideas generated by this project from full public disclosure. Any person, company, or organization out to be able to get ahold of this data, and should be allowed to make use of it however they see fit. After all, ideas ought to be shared for the common good... not protected.

I look forward to your thoughts on this idea.

--D 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't really be possible through a Wiki... but it does remind me of that old game Google Images has. Maybe you should approach Google with this idea? Especially since it would help their search results, they could be very interested in it -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Deadlock

We've been having slight problems over here. We are at a deadlock on the deletion topic, and we need someone to come and finish off the discussion one way or another. Someone to use Wikipedia guidelines to definitively say the userbox should either be kept or deleted. Any help at all will be greatly appreciated.
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 05:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

I would love to hear your opinion to this. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He's considered to be special because he founded Wikipedia, aided in tough decisions, and campaigns for it around the world, not because he's the King of Edit Counts. (messedrocker • talk) 06:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Humor

Important: This talk page is becoming very boring. Please consider leaving hilarious knock-knock jokes so as to spruce things up a little. Thanks!

Some more wiki humor here Warrush 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Please register yourself in ALL Wikimedia Projects in ALL languages

Hi Mr. Wales, I'd like to give you yhe suggestion above. It's because I'm worried that you may be impersonated by someone else in any of the Wikimedia Projects in any language. So I'd like to ask you to create your own accounts everywhere to prevent yourself being impersonated. --Edmundkh 11:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the feature of universal registration now available? Although Jimbo is incredibly talented I think the Yiddish Wikipedia registration process may be difficult for him. Though the buttons are probably in roughly the same place and he does speak German, we need to remember that it is written right-to-left. Universal registration would solve this problem though... Valley2city 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Or he could simply list all projects he's currently registered for on the User page(s) or a User subdirectory, such that should there be any question a simple check (with a page history check) would be sufficient should a question arise? Other users have done that. LaughingVulcan 02:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To me it's not a problem for registering in a Wikimedia project of a right-to-left language. I've registered in the Arabic Wikipedia. Even though I don't understand Arabic, yet I was able to register with little difficulties - just have to be aware of the blinking bar (erm... how to call it?). In fact, I could still register with Latin characters. By the way I have basic understanding of Arabic script. --Edmundkh 08:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee... I've just registered myself in the Yiddish Wikipedia!! Hooray!! Anyway, I cannot read Hebrew alphabets at all, yet I could still manage to register into the Yiddish Wikipedia almost without difficulty (The only problem was that stupid system that made me have to click on the bar again to continue typing my username!!) --Edmundkh 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Devanagri Script in Logo

This is to inform you that the Hindi syllable 'िव'in the logo has been misrepresented. I request you to correct this error at the earliest so as not to offend Wikipedia users from India. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.177.224.61 (talk • contribs).

Can you be more precise where you want the change. And dont worry, most Indian wikipedians will not be offended by such trivial errors. --nids(♂) 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a known issue. See User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo for links to some of the discussion. --cesarb 00:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage as Website

Hi, Can you please give your option on this Thank you. ExtraDry 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New WMF Executive Director?

Does the Wikimedia Foundation have a new executive director? If so, is her name Susan Gardner? CLA 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Foundation does not have a new executive director.--Jimbo Wales 13:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. CLA 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sue Gardner is a recently-appointed consultant and special advisor to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. See [100]-gadfium 04:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like the announcement went out right around the time that I was asking the question. That should take care of the rumors. CLA 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! I I want to give you my thanks, for the great website you've constructedm, Mr. Wales! I love to contribute to it, in order to help this wonderful project! R. P. Williams 14:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiLove

Jet123 (Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jet123 (Talk) 05:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seven World Trade Center, and your Blocking policy...

Dear Mr. Jimbo,

I was blocked for reverting an edit at 7 World Trade Center three times, in order to accurately quote (rather than misrepresent) a poll showing how many Americans are now coming to question how TWO airplanes could possibly produce THREE piles of microscopic dust with molten steel in place of the towers. Other editors had reverted before me, but the admins knee-jerk decided that I was the same party as the others, and summarily blocked my IP.

The reason given by another admin for declining my unblock request can hardly have been a serious or legitimate rationale for maintaining the block: see User talk:70.105.24.127. (Decline reason: "Haven't you heard? We Wikipedia Administrators are part of the conspiracy. Go start your own wiki if you don't like it here. -- Netsnipe ► 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)") That same admin then also took the unprecedented step of protecting the user talk page for that IP for 9 days, in an attempt to shut me up completely from the one page I am still allowed to edit. I am just writing now to let you know about this, and to let you know that the blatant attempt to shut me up has failed. But I will say that this is truly a sad day. Proud American 172.131.137.61 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. No response or spin from anyone else is required here. I am speaking directly to Mr. Wales, and only to him. 172.131.137.61 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Netsnipe should have been more courteous, but your edits were unacceptable.--Jimbo Wales 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I made exactly 5 edits as User:70.105.24.127, and two of those 5 were to my own usertalkpage. Could you please let me know exactly which of my edits were so "unacceptable" that it merited the 'frontier justice' of blocking me AND protecting my userpage for NINE days, in a failed attempt to silence me? Do your admins really have that kind of super-deity latitude to make up their own policies as they go along? 172.144.208.190 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So as I said, he should have been more courteous, but you really should calm down. We really aren't interested in fighting so much, so your belligerant attitude was totally out of line from the first time you edited. And yes, it is our longstanding tradition that people editing from ip numbers don't have the same civil rights as those who choose to join the community and engage in a civil and polite dialogue that assumes good faith on the part of others. There's just no reason for you to come in with a chip on your shoulder being rude to everyone. I recommend that you wait out your 9 days, spend some time doing some reading (hopefully you can be less angry that way), get an account, and start editing slowly and with love in your heart for others. --Jimbo Wales 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your response has helped me immensely to understand some of the mysteries of how wikipedia works. Here is what you have just taught me about the hierarchy here:

1) Since I am not logged in, as an IP address, I am going to be held to a much higher standard than everyone else, and I will be expected to show "wiki-love" even when it is not shown to me.

2) If I were to log in and use my account, I would be held to a somewhat lower standard (however, I chose not to associate my username with those edits - and risk almost certainly getting it blocked too - since I have already experienced and observed the very noticeable lack of love or courtesy on the part of the admins here, on numerous occasions)

3) If I could ever manage to become an admin, I would then be held to the lowest standard of all - for then I could be as cruddy to other users as I like, block editors on mere suspicion (in absence of any policy), and even tell them the reason is because I am "part of a conspiracy".

Thanks again for explaining the hierarchy of wiki-love to me so clearly. 71.253.138.99 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what I have said, and likely deliberately. But really, unless you want to give up on your hostility and try to reach out thoughtfully to others, I don't see you enjoying Wikipedia very much. I wish you the best.--Jimbo Wales 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fehler im Wikipedia-Logo

Hallo Jimbo, hätten wir dir das sagen müssen? In der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia war das bereits im Januar 2006 bekannt. Hier der Thread im Archiv unserer Version des Reference Desk. -- Achates 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Heads up. It looks like Wikipedia knew about Chris' wife's death a half a day before the police. The IP posting this is from the same city as WWE headquarters. Wikipedia is bound to get questions about this, so I thought you might want to get a jump on it rather than find yourself surprised. I'm pretty sure you're not lacking surprise calls from the media. Rklawton 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is either a lucky guess or what we all think it is. The IP is owned by Optimum Online, which is a massive /12 range of IP addresses. It could be anybody in New England. Sean William ‹‹‹ 15:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message with authorities. Apparently, Benoit left suspicious text messages for people on Sunday. It is very likely one of the recipients of text messages edited the article. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any case of mandated reporting (or whatever the equivalent is for suspected foul-play) for which people may be culpable? It's a very gray area on the internet. Anyway, it just goes to show the power of Wikipedia in being one of the quickest sources of information in the universe, even inside information. There is a flip-side to this coin as well, but damn!. Valley2city 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chris Benoit breaking news on Wikipedia --164.107.222.23 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So for every 1000 or 10,000 so vandals writing in to say "XX is dead" one was true. I don't see how we can turn this into an action item for us. Only in hindsight can we find the needle in the haystack. Reporting every such claim to authorities would turn us into laughingstocks. Thatcher131 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Valley2city was referring specifically to reporting threats (not applicable in this case) or to reporting "clues" to authorities once a crime and a relevant post have been linked (as it appears in this case). Incidentally, FOX News has now picked up this story. Rklawton 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The news I watch here in Erie, PA is reporting "WHY-KEY-pedia" knew about the murder, too.--trey 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Great catch RKlawton, your elf-like eyes made the news. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19468182/ . Warrush

I didn't spot the original edit, Wesleymullins did. All I did, after some discussion with other editors on the article's talk page, was to bring it here so JW wouldn't find himself answering "huh?" when the reporters called. The fellow who did find it ended up blocked for insisting the thread belonged in the article's talk page. Rklawton 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is IAR policy simply because it has your blessing?

Hello Jimbo,
For a couple of weeks now there has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules about seeking a better wording or revision of policy. The discussion has recently reached the question of: "Is IAR policy because Jimbo says it is? Is it possible to revise or reword IAR (perhaps significantly) without Jimbo's blessing?" Your input would be valued. See especially the sections Jimbo's role and Planning of straw poll #2. Thanks! - Chardish 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It has always been policy. It was the first policy we ever had. It was the first of our "rules to consider" and it is really really important in the overall social fabric of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to think that IAR causes unbelievable destruction to Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, people will do stupid things whether that page exists or not. I realise you have much more important matters to attend to, but if you have the time and the will, your input on matters on WT:IAR would probably straighten things out. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Many people seem to have some difficulty in understanding its role and how it can be applied in various scenarios. Shouldn't you, or someone else, invest some effort in trying to better clarify the issue? Some would say that such a rule is relative to one's interpretation of things; others could argue that it is a dillema and that IAR could itself be ignored. It is therefore a question of judgement, and how can you standardize judgement when dealing with so many people? Or perhaps IAR is a sort of Force majeure? --Thus Spake Anittas 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on WT:IAR Jimbo :-) --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My thanks as well, Jimbo! What you offered will be very helpful in deciding where to proceed from here. - Chardish 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for creating the wikipedia.

Regards from the Catalan nation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.129.86.142 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your comments on WP:IAR

Well... why don't you test the limits of your policy making powers? I think everyone would like to see WP:NOMORONS. I know I personally would also like to see WP:YOURBANDSUCKS or Wikipedia:Your friends are not notable. I don't care how many girlfriends they have.

Wikipedia:Even an inclusionist would delete that, everyone is just laughing at you for saying you're standing up for "What wikipedia should be" Could be useful too. The shortcut could be WP:LOLYOU. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also maybe Wikipedia:No one cares about your fandom. Shortcut: WP:GETALIFE. ; ) - Chardish 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:DWJT or Wikipedia:Don't waste Jimbo's time? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope that was tongue-in-cheek, and not a veiled barb. We've got to have some fun here. - Chardish 01:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Guten Tag!

Und wie geht's? Wie lange haben Sie Deutsch gelernt? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe seit zwei Jahre Deutsch studiert. Aber, mein deutsch ist noch nicht sehr gut.--Jimbo Wales 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ich hinterlasse auch mal beste Grüße aus Deutschland :) --Athalis 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales - private and public talkpages

Jimbo, a suggestion. How about if you were to create a private (although readable by the community) talkpage where people who really want to talk just to you can post, which will automatically archive to this page after 24hours unless you choose to answer or choose to archive to its own subpage? I realise a great many of the posts "here" will be placed "there" in the first instance, although not those where folk are requesting help/advice/guidance where they cannot find other appropriate forums, but is a 1 day delay in receiving help from others too high a price to pay? I also realise that you may be too busy on occasion to review the bulk of such traffic, but again the default is to these pages meaning it isn't lost, in which case you can move (with appropriate notices) any item you wish to deal with "personally". LessHeard vanU 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ps. Of course, comments from any other party here is welcome!

Well usually when people want to talk to me privately, they email me. I am not sure what you mean by "private (although readable by the community)"... if it is readable by the community, how is it private? Maybe I just misunderstand...--Jimbo Wales 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he means a place where people can converse with just you, but in a way that is viewable by the community (in a way that E-mail is not). Typically conversations on this talk page don't receive your direct input.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cronholm is correct. People send you smileys, make personal requests, etc. in an arena which has an established practice of third parties involving themselves, which the mailer does not always wish (see the post above, which was the catalyst for this idea). A semi private talkpage gives the community an opportunity to allow you to respond, or not, as you wish, before it defaults to your "anybody can edit" talkpage here. LessHeard vanU 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose of a wiki - where anyone can edit and comment. Anyone should be allowed to comment on a post, especially if it doesn't need jimbo's attention. He is busy alot, and most of the time other users input solves the problem or provides some great input. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion was prompted by the post above this; when I read it my reaction was, "Well, if you want to speak only to Jimbo then you shouldn't post here...!" which was immediately followed by, "So, where can you go to communicate with Jimbo publicly?" The talkpage I was suggesting would be editable by the community (for removing vandalism, etc) but there would be a voluntary agreement not to respond to comments until it defaults to this page, to allow Jimbo the opportunity to react if he so chooses when it is convenient for him. This talkpage has become in part a de facto WP discussion page. My suggestion would provide the resemblance of a talkpage such as all other users enjoy.

However, as Jimbo hasn't commented (or created such a page) since the first response this I consider this discussion as moot. LessHeard vanU 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't really see the problem. And I don't quite get what solution is being proposed for it. I suppose if there is a big problem with trolling, we could semi-protect the talk page, but I think the current situation works pretty well. That is, sometimes people ask me questions that are really just general questions that anyone can answer, and usually someone helpful jumps in to do that before I can get around to it. If people had to wait on me to answer those, then they would probably end up permanently disappointed, since I already work basically from when I wake up until when I go to sleep, and still can't get around to everything. Sometimes I don't answer things because I overlook them, or I forget to answer before the archiver comes through, or because I can't think of anything useful to say, or because I can't think of anything nice to say. :) That's surely a failing on my part, but I don't think having yet another talk page would help. :)--Jimbo Wales 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, really, really moot, now! ;~) LessHeard vanU 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking for some love

As mentioned above by someone else, all references to the Benoit-Wikipedia story eventually work their way back to my original edit made hours after his death was announced. Like other Wikipedia administrators, I have seen you speak in vague terms in the MSM about how the story became a story. I've read others say "someone brought it to our attention" or "we put the pieces together" or as you said, Wikipedia officials became aware of the posting. Just to make it clear, the someone or we that put the pieces together and made Wikipedia officials aware of the posting is me. I feel that Wikipedia is dragging their feet in giving a that-a-boy to the person who broke the biggest wikipedia-themed story in the site's history. Although currently the story may be a net negative for the site, I think we may look back on this as the incident that lead to the changes many of us think are needed here. Wesleymullins 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness, no slight was intended. First, I give you a very hearty that-a-boy for bringing it up, if you were the first to do so. The only reason I haven't been trumpeting it from the rooftops is that I was unsure who was the first to notice it. Second, I do not think the story is a net negative for the site at all... everything went very well, and I am pleased with the whole thing. What changes do you think it suggests? I don't foresee any changes resulting from this story or any like it.--Jimbo Wales 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Before you go off doing just that, I'd like an explanation for that comment you left on my talk page - Alison ☺ 07:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my understanding of the matter: I think Wesleymullins is referring to your review of his block. You see, when Wesleymullins broke the Benoit story (so to speak), an administrator rather rudely and abruptly ended the thread and then deleted all trace of it from the Benoit talk page. That's one reason it has been rather difficult to see who did what with that article on the 25th. The deleted thread anticipated the media brouhaha, police involvement, etc. The exceptional circumstances were obvious. As a minimum, WP:IAR applied. Wesleymullins tried to restore the thread, but the admin refused to "permit" it. In the end, Wesleymullins was blocked. This came as quite a shock given the significance of the edits, the rudeness of at least one of the admins involved, and Wesleymullins's own edit history. He posted an unblock request, and you denied it. Since then, we've seen a great deal of media coverage, computers seized, and the vandal questioned by authorities. It's likely that Wesleymullins is looking for credit for his scoop, vindication for his actions, and apologies from those he feels treated him unfairly. I could be wrong, of course. At the moment, I feel he deserves all three. Rklawton 13:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I believe what Alison means, is that she didn't deny his unblock request. A spoofer did. Please see her talk page. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely. He left a phenomenally rude (and, dare I say it, crowing) message on my talk page demanding I apologise. I never reviewed his block in the first place, rather, I had to put up being impersonated and misrepresented. And now this guy is harranguing Jimbo, Cary and just about anybody he can find who'll listen about how big a meanie-admin I was? You'd think he being such the expert in such matters, would have stopped to check his facts first before he went off like he did. - Alison ☺ 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah! Rklawton 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I think he's really in the right here, though. He misunderstood the message that some troll left, pretending to be you, and if you had said it, he would be right to be annoyed. As it is, it was all just a misunderstanding, no? --Jimbo Wales 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, indeed. The culprit/impersonator was found through checkuser (is asking for unblock right now!) and has been blocked indefinitely. Email me if you like for details. User: Wesleymullins with a lot of grace and honour, has issued me with an apology on my talk page and that is now in the past. Given his circumstances, Jimbo, I can completely see where is anger and frustration has come from, esp. given that he never had a chance of a fair unblock review. That just compounded the matter for the guy. He really got the wrong end of the stick on this one - Alison ☺ 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I am going to add "crowing" and "self-aggrandizing" to the list of strengths on my resume, Alison. Some of the best descriptors of me I've ever heard. I am glad we made up, but just to be clear, I only reported on the person who originally blocked me (not you); I just crowed and self aggrandized on your page about what I thought was your refusal to unblock me. Jimbo, you asked why I think this could lead to changes here: If I understand the history of the schools of thought behind Wikipedia, you would be more inclined to subscribe to the "the more the merrier" philosophy, so maybe this whole Benoit/Wikipedia story doesn't bother you the way it bothers those who support a more elitist approach. I've read many editorials the last few days using this incident as a shining example of everything that is wrong with allowing anyone to edit here, and I must admit as someone who routinely has to defend being part of Wikipedia to my friends, this has only added fuel to their fire. I can see the Benoit/Wikipedia episode being the springboard that creates a more formal approach to editing this site. At the risk of self-aggrandizing more, let's forget for a minute about the fact that some vandal goofed off and caused Wikipedia, the WWE, the families of the deceased and law enforcement a lot of stress and confusion for a week. Let’s just focus on the fact that I got blocked. To reduce that incident to its simplest description, a kid who makes his living spinning records was able to decide what is/isn’t newsworthy. I hold a Master’s Degree in English Composition and research/write for a living, yet my voice was silenced by someone whose userpage contains a link to his vinyl collection and is peppered with references to skateboarding and underground parties. Call me elitist, but there is something askew there. Wesleymullins 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Block question

Jimbo, can you clarify why you blocked DickClarkMises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks!--Chaser - T 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting an image despite there being an OTRS request not to do it without talking first. He says he left a message and got no response, and then re-inserted the image. Wrong answer. The particular image in question is not the issue, of course.--Jimbo Wales 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you've unblocked. Thanks, Jimbo.--Chaser - T 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Adminship is no big deal"

Hey, this original statement by you is being disputed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Cut_down_on_premature_requests, some people believe it does not apply since it is so old. Could you please clarify there, it would be greatly appreciated :). Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I had sent you an email, but I just wanted to make sure you would have time soon to upload the meetup pictures. I want to finish the page soon, and add them to my collection. Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Million Dollar Wiki

Hey Jimbo! I've contacted the owner of the million dollar wiki and, he has said he is willing to supply us for free the following pages;

• Wikipedia
• Wikinews
• Wikimedia Commons
• Wikiquote
• Wikiversity
• Wikibooks
• Wikisource
• Wiktionary
• Meta Wiki
• Wikimedia Foundation

I have contacted him in order to try and stop other people from buying the pages and possibly phising.

All he asks is an email from an official WMF email address. I have emailed you hit details for you to email him.
Thanks Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 08:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You created this wonderful site

Meeting you is such a honor and pleasure and...all that that fun stuff! You have made a wonderful site! I...I...I am totally speechless and I am not even speaking! I am typing! Okay, I know I seem a little to much fan much. But I am just exited! Thank you for creating Wikipedia!-Angel David 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia, it is a CoE

Would really like to see your reaction to this little debate. Or rather "this huge debate". I actually think it goes to the heart of so much. JDG 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) ... Oops, nevermind. Just read #5 in your Statement of Principles for the first time ("Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself."). Pardon. JDG

What do you mean by "CoE"? What does that stand for?--Jimbo Wales 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Compendium of Everything", apparently. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• My read is from the second paragraph of the discussion linked by User:JDG, "Wikipedia's role in the world is to be a Compendium of Everything..." Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Community of editors", maybe ? Abecedare 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikiversity, to Jimbo Wales, the appropriate place to discuss the nature of the Wikipedia? There is a topic there called Wikipedia Studies. A.Z. 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you, Jimbo, sort of invited me to expand upon it here, despite Principle 5, I was preparing myself to leave the best definition I could, as I very deeply feel that being a CoE (rhymes with Joe) is Wikipedia's real raison d'être, and that many thousands of disputes (literally) would be immediately and permanently resolved if this truth came to be understood and promulgated by our benevolent dictator and other leaders. Sadly, the whole thing was ruined when I was Googling for my own previous uses of "Compendium of Everything" in both Wikipedia and meta.wikimedia, and I stumbled across a thing called "Citizendium" which defines itself as "a citizens' compendium of everything". No doubt you know of it, as it is the work of none other than ol' LWS. But I hadn't been aware of it and was absolutely shocked when I saw my pet phrase used for his project. Shock swiftly gave way to hilarity, though: if anybody is constitutionally disinclined to create a true CoE, it's Larry, with his insistence on expert editors. Despite his use of "compendium of everything", and despite actually ending the name of his project with "endium", there is no chance it will actually be a CoE under his severely limiting pre-conditions. So, it's all ruined. I was harboring secret hopes that my description of a CoE would capture your and others' imaginations, particularly the idea of enshrining 10 or 15 distinct Levels of Detail ranging from the Utterly Trivial to the Strictly Encyclopedic, with corresponding radio buttons in User Prefs to lock in the user's choice... But I'll spare you my full description of it, as the way I envisioned it happening is now impossible. Now that Sanger has a "Citizendium", we'll never have a vote on changing our name to "Wikipendium"; we'll never vote to change "The Free Encyclopedia" to "The World's First and Only CoE". Now we'll need some other terminology for what we really are, and I'm so stuck on "CoE" that I can't even begin to cook up something else... Here we are, creating one of the signal cultural achievements of our era, something that goes well beyond the 18th century paper-and-expert-bound "Encyclopedia", and we don't even have a word for it. True to psycholinguistic theory, the lack of a word actually causes folks to lack the concept, so we war amongst ourselves over what should be included/excluded (Inclusionists vs. Deletionists) when we should all understand we are creating a CoE and therefore absolutely everything should be included, with the presentation to the user strictly regulated through 15 Levels of Detail via software, with a default Level of, say, 4. What other reference work in history could at all rival this? Is there a shortage of magnetic diskspace? Why is there such resistance to fully becoming what we've already started becoming? Think of it like this: in a true Coe you can, if you've set your Detail Level all the way to 15, follow the life and times of Total Nobody, who, on April 14th, 2008, resolves to learn to walk and chew gum simultaneously, and fails for five entire weeks until that glorious June day on which she succeeds, even managing to blow a bubble or two as she lurches down the sidewalk (link to YouTube video provided). Her resolution and the implementation of it would doubtless be among the least notable events, from our present vantage point, ever recorded in a reference work. Yet I can assure you, and I believe you will admit the truth of this after only a little reflection, this event will be of real interest to some far-off future homo sapiens splendoris anthropologist mining this magnificent resource for details of daily life among homo sapiens sapiens. Imagine if we in 2007 somehow had text describing the tiniest activities of homo habilis or homo erectus or even just the Sumerians or the ancient Chinese. These homely details would be cherished by anthropologists fully on a level with the composition of the Epic of Gilgamesh or the refining and blending of saltpeter and other ingredients into gunpowder. To simply know how neolithic or peri-historical people spent their days would be a huge breakthrough in our understanding of ourselves. This is the same service we can render to the future if we just drop the outmoded limitations that the "Encyclopedia" percept puts on us. Thanks to the technology that our developers so ably wield, we can embed multiple versions of this reference under one rubric, and feed out the version desired by the simple programmatic reading of the value of an html form element linked to userid. One could sense Britannica and other encyclopedias trying to break free of the arbitrary constraints placed upon them by the physical book, as they fed out "yearbooks" and the like. Now we are easily free of those constraints thanks to software-driven document creation and TCP/IP internetworking, yet many of us insist on hoisting the old constraints right back onto us, and howl "Unencyclopedic!" and "Non-Notable!" when they are challenged by someone who has liberated her/his thinking from the Book form. Jimbo, please move away from those people. JDG 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess the silent treatment is understandable. My way of writing about these things is a bit flighty. I'm pretty confident these ideas will be implemented, and that's reward enough. JDG 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikisistene Chapel

Isn't this adorable?

If you'd like a chuckle, check out possibly the best thread that WP:ANI has seen in a long time. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Or the most disrespectful. I found it to be one of wikipedia's more embarassing moments and rather offensive. Peace.Lsi john 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Chacun a son goût, and all that ... - Alison ☺ 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Jimbo was meant to be God. And where is God's left arm? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel

OK, I see the arm, but why the pink dress? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's going to tell God what to wear? -- ChrisO 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there was obviously some kind of clothing shortage. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My complaint letter about Wikipedia

Lengthy letter, click "show" to expand

Dear Mr Jimmy Wales- Some of what I'm about to say regarding Wikipedia's diatribes is so childishly simple, I fear it may be patronizing to explain; I apologize in advance. Here's the story: I have to laugh when Wikipedia says that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Where in the world did it get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Wikipedia has no evidence or examples to back up its point. Not that I've come to expect any better from Wikipedia. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the worst types of vitriolic megalomaniacs I've ever seen to sidetrack us, so we can't reverse the devolutionary course Wikipedia has set for us. There are many roads leading to the defeat of Wikipedia's plans to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. I feel that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even escapism.

Please remember that I welcome Wikipedia's comments. However, Wikipedia needs to realize that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. Wikipedia's tracts are just a rhetorical ploy to get away from the obvious fact that the really interesting thing about all this is not that a stockpile of Wikipedia quotes favoring negativism could fill a junkyard. The interesting thing is that its conclusions are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that Wikipedia's subordinates once used to cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos. Wikipedia knows perfectly well that its plans for the future owe much to the hijinks of what I call ethically bankrupt, unholy propagandists. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: How long shall there continue tyrannical contumelious-types to vend and yellow-bellied used-car salesmen to gulp so low a piece of careerism as its convictions? In other words, what exactly is it trying to hide? That's the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why if you can make any sense out Wikipedia's unambitious, craven artifices, then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.

So don't tell me that like much conventional wisdom, Wikipedia's methods of interpretation contain too much convention and not enough wisdom just because its sermons reflect an unpleasant bias that will besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures sooner than you think. Wikipedia's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only scurrilous answers, unsympathetic resolutions to conflicts. Wikipedia wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly diabolic form of gnosticism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that Wikipedia is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Wikipedia is radicalism. Why? My answer is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know. However, I do know that if Wikipedia truly wanted to be helpful, it wouldn't enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. During the first half of the 20th century, conformism could have been practically identified with paternalism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called an irrational, frotteurism-prone beatnik.

I know some ghastly ne'er-do-wells who actually believe that everyone and everything discriminates against Wikipedia -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. Incredible? Those same people have told me that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that it can dole out or retract. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that if it weren't for debauched, crafty skinheads, Wikipedia would have no friends. It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but I, hardheaded cynic that I am, do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Wikipedia. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I review the basic issues at the root of the debate. The nicest thing that can be said about Wikipedia's backers is that they are testy ex-cons out to create some self-serving, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that its method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Wikipedia-ism". It is a crazy and avowedly mawkish philosophy that aims to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. This may sound like caricature, but Wikipedia commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Wikipedia to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight.

Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that while Wikipedia insists that censorship could benefit us, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Is there anything that Wikipedia can't make its bootlickers believe? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to give Wikipedia a rhadamanthine warning not to convince people that their peers are already riding the Wikipedia bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too.

If Wikipedia opened its eyes, it'd realize that its violations of the rules of decency are so beer-guzzling they beggar belief. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Wikipedia will wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. And to overcome these fears, we must compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to arraign Wikipedia at the tribunal of public opinion. Wikipedia's helots don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat myopic.

There is something grievously wrong with those inimical vandals who accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. Shame on the lot of them! Wikipedia possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, it can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it.

Common sense and scientific evidence agree: One of Wikipedia's accomplices keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Wikipedia is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Wikipedia argues that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: If its compeers had even an ounce of integrity, they would enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their avaricious publications. Wikipedia should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Wikipedia. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that if Wikipedia had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that it sometimes has trouble convincing people that its vices are the only true virtues. When it has such trouble, it usually trots out a few dour scalawags to constate authoritatively that Wikipedia's maneuvers are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. Whether or not that trick of its works, it's still the case that it is immature and stupid of Wikipedia to give rise to grumpy mischievous-types. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by it and its fans, and that's why I say that it has a natural talent for complaining. It can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

Wikipedia would have us believe that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Wikipedia is surrounded by vexatious, lascivious big-labor bosses who parrot the same nonsense, which is why its sophistries are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. And they promote the mistaken idea that everyone who doesn't share its beliefs is an uppity fugitive deserving of death and damnation. I don't normally want to expose anyone to rigorous sarcasm, satire and disdain, but Wikipedia undoubtedly deserves it. If Wikipedia were to inspire a recrudescence of scornful fatuity, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Wikipedia flatters people in order to betray them. But the problems with Wikipedia's projects don't end there. Wikipedia wants to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. It gets better: It actually believes that it can override nature. I guess no one's ever told it that its most obscene tactic is to fabricate a phony war between dodgy pillocks and duplicitous, addlepated beguilers. This way, Wikipedia can subjugate both groups into helping it till the disorganized side of the stoicism garden. I unquestionably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that we must make this world a kinder, gentler place. Our children depend on that. It seems that no one else is telling you that Wikipedia doesn't care about accountability in our public systems. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, for the nonce, Wikipedia is content to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. But before the year is over, it will deny minorities a cultural voice.

When Wikipedia made its puppy-dog allies wag their little tails by promising to let them attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview, I realized for the first time that relative to just a few years ago, the most discourteous junkies you'll ever see are nearly ten times as likely to believe that Wikipedia has been robbed of all it does not possess. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Wikipedia to treat people like the most hidebound dorks I've ever seen. Wikipedia says that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. Other than that, Wikipedia is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how money-grubbing Wikipedia is. You can't do it. Not only that, but if it bites me, I will undeniably bite back. I would like to end on a heartfelt note. Wikipedia's primary motivation is self-enrichment at our expense.

Thank you, --Darlingshire Barracks 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has made a total of five edits to wikipedia, including his own page, and all of them today. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that a crime? --Darlingshire Barracks 11:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No. My comment reflects the length and depth of your wikipedia experience. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• No editing is not a crime, vandalising the main page is [101]. Please don't do it again. Giano 12:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You mask any valid arguments you may have with unnecessarily complex language. Someone who has a valid point to make (and who doesn't live in or before the 17th century) ought to just come out and say it without trying to confuse their audience. For this reason alone the majority of Wikipedia is likely to completely ignore your statement. Perhaps it would be wise to take a little time to cool off, and come back and have an educated conversation on the subject devoid of the meaningless rhetoric. --D 12:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Source: Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator. (At least I believe so...) Silly rabbit 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And this has been done before on Wikipedia. (So no, this is not an original joke.) Silly rabbit 12:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he may be lampooning my diatribe above. I plead guilty to a byzantine style, Darlingshire... but are you sure there's not some reverse snobbery at work here? JDG 16:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. But I think it's just a happy accident: see this diff. Silly rabbit 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why didnt Barracks discuss whether or not the gehoxtahagen is framed up by the ramistan? Wesleymullins 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Darlingshire, I just have one question for you. Uhh...what?Tex21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a prank. The letter is automatically randomly generated by an intelligent computer program. See http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ Silly rabbit 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Silly rabbit, I thought my comprehension skills had left me for a moment there. I'm glad I'm not as much of an idiot as I thought. Tex02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Two words: Ignatius Reilly.--Jimbo Wales 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

God Thread on ANI Board

I was curious as to whether this is appropriate conduct for Wikipedia? [102] I'd appeal, but it seems all the people I could appeal to are participating. :P Drumpler 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What, in particular, bothers you about it? I was raised a strict roman catholic and personally I think God would appreciate the humour (provided He understands the in-jokes :-p) --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of thing Conservapedia will hold against us, so we should definitely keep it --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, interestingly, I'm not a Christian and do appreciate such humour as I detest religion in all of its form. Where I am concerned is that this could become a precedent for people holding several other off-topic discussions because "the admins did it." I have a really good idea for an essay, where this conversation can leak into, but for the WP:ANI page, I feel it inappropriate. Drumpler 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Dear Sir,

I am a user in Portuguese wikipedia and I was blocked by an administrator because I vote in another direction in the pages to erase. He threatened me with blockade. Because of this threat I ask a informal mediation for the problem, but when he reads my request to a mediation, blocked me immediately. And know I can’t reply any question neither the mediation. What I can do?

The user is [103]

Kind regards,

octavio.viana@rightsideclub.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.157.79.82 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoopedia

This site, sponsored by the NBA is copying pages by Wikipedia without giving Wikipedia any credit. Possible lawsuit? Charlotte provided me these diffs on a separate source: For example, http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php/Hack-a-Shaq is obviously copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq.

Thanks for your time,

Miranda 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It does give Wiki some credit by using the name "Wiki," but no, there can be no lawsuit, since Wikipedia is free and free for distribution, and that goes for its content; and good thing it is in such a way. If Jimbo boy decides one day to sell Wiki for some 50 million bucks, the content will exist on other mirror sites and a new Wiki can be recreated by others. Hopefully, Jimbo will not take this step and the problem will never arise. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, "wiki" is a generic term not belonging to Wikipedia (or anybody else). Its use doesn't state or imply any sort of credit to Wikipedia. And Wikipedia, though "free", is licensed under a specific copyright license, GFDL, which makes specific rules regarding credit that must be given, which aren't being followed in the NBA wiki. However, any legal action would have to be taken by the creators of the specific content, not Wikipedia/Wikimedia themselves, who don't own the copyrights involved. From what I can see, the NBA Hoopedia has no statement of copyright license or credit on its article pages, and the history of that particular page doesn't include any edit comments indicating the source of the material other than the user who directly supplied it. *Dan T.* 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew I should have kept my mouth shut. Yes, you're right on all accounts. Perhaps someone could contact the owner of that site and ask them nicely to comply with the rules. Now, to my next concern: Wiki is free under GFDL, where one must give credit to Wiki for the content used. However, can Wales change the license for the content that used to fall under GFDL to become copyright material? I'm still worried that he one day may decide to sell the site and our work will become copyrighted, while we're pushed out by some bigshot company. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Under GDFL anyone can "sell" our work and make bazillions of bucks. But it would be like selling ice to Alaskans. It's already free, so why pay for it? The one thing they won't be able to do is copyright (other than GDFL) or otherwise take credit for our work. Rklawton 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear; and you're right: it wouldn't work to make Wiki a premium site, but it would work to add advertisement to the site, etc. You could probably argue that there is no need for advertisement because Wiki gets funds that would otherwise not be given, if the site had ads; but that still doesn't change my concerns that: 1) there might be an interest in aquiring Wiki, and; 2) Wales may be willing to sale the site in the future. If not now, then maybe in 10, 20 or even 30 years. Can he just decide to sell the site as he wishes? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can download the site now if you like. Free. So there's nothing to sell. Ask.com and others mirror Wikipedia's content already - and host it along with ads. However, they do this within the terms of the GDFL license, so it's no big deal. Rklawton 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that with so many people visiting the site, there is a great potential for business and as Wiki's popularity grows for each day, so does its worth. The mirror sites offer only the content, but not the encyclopedia where people can come and edit, and interact with each other. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anything being done regarding this instance of nba.com ripping off Wikipedia and all of its contributors? --Rajah 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of our articles on basketball players use photos in violation of copyright. I know for a fact that some of our articles on basketball players lack photos. If we contact the NBA, we could suggest that they use our content, give us credit, and release some NBA and WNBA player photos under the GFDL so that we can use them. Crediting Wikipedia is their obligation under the GFDL anyway. Releasing photos would help us provide them with free marketing for their product. JamesMLane t c 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia and the NBA should respect each others IP rights. Your idea of a quid pro quo exchange, while interesting, probably won't hold up. I looked for the designated agent of NBA, but all I found was a designated agent for their photo section photos.nba.com terms, and it's Getty Images. --Rajah 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE pages on WP:MFD

Two pages presumably protected under the WP:OFFICE policy have been nominated for deletion here. You have been contacted either as an office contact or as someone involved in the editing or maintenance of the nominated pages. If you with to comment, please see the deletion discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Coldmachine

Thanks for letting me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we enforce WP:FRINGE?

Hi, Jimbo. You know that the English Wikipedia has expanded to comprise more than a million pages. Its popularity makes it a favourite target for folks pushing all sorts of fringe theories. As a result we have lots of obscure articles full of patently false claims or fringe theories. As a rule, there are no wikipedians who monitor these low-traffic pages or have them on the watchlist.

A stray pick: "Ancient Kamboja probably included the Pamirs, Badakshan, and parts of Tajikstan" (from Komedes). Or: "Jiroft civilization was older and more advanced than the Sumerian civilization" (from Jiroft civilization). Or: "Aratta was the oldest Armenian state" (from Aratta). Once I attempt to remove a loony claim, I am often reverted within minutes by nationalists or charlatans.

Such articles exist for years, giving Wikipedia a bad name for accuracy. They hold little interest for me, who has neither time nor energy to fight for their sanitation, but I feel there should a place where I could report them. The proliferation of fringe theories is detrimental to the image of Wikipedia. My attempts to report them on WP:RfC nor WP:ANI don't work.

A day ago, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard was started to deal with fringe theories and to enforce WP:FRINGE (which is currently just a declaration), but it will be most likely deleted on the grounds of its perceived "uselessness". How Wikipedia is supposed to decrankify obscure pages whose looniness is obvious to anyone with a high-school diploma? Should we just ignore them and let all sorts of silly claims languish in mainspace, as we do now? I would appreciate your opinion on this issue. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding spoilers

Over at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and at least two other venues including a RfC and MedCab request, this whole issue over whether spoilers should be used in plot sections or at all has broken out repeatedly. The problem is that many are taking an abstract point with it, saying that "spoiler warnings are encyclopediac" or "Well, Wikipedia is never going to be like Encyclopedia Britannica, so why don't we stop pretending with these silly guidelines?" I was wondering if you could put your input into what you think readers should expect of Wikipedia. Some of the questions raised by those in favor of spoilers say that Wikipedia shouldn't reveal detailed plot information without express warning, while some (including I) consider the fact that just because people don't know about Wikipedia's disclaimer doesn't mean we have to warn in a (our view) condescending and redundant way that Wikipedia reveals details. Your thoughts would be appreciated, because if left to our own devices, those not in favor of the current guideline will continue posting a contested tag on the guideline (about which there is already an argument starting).

Sincerely, David Fuchs 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But if he responds, won't that spoil the ending of the debate? Peace.Lsi john 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply tired of pointless philosophic queries which presume much and cede nothing. David Fuchs 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

Hello, Jimbo. Is there a reason that Wikipedia has no model for editors to follow when adding citations? As article reach higher maturity levels, citations become required. When they aren't there, the next editor has a pile of work to do. -Susanlesch 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there is Wikipedia:Citing sources, or where you thinking of something else? --Sherool (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Sherool. Well for example, to make this citation, I used WP:CITET. But I had to stop, think, does 'cite news' have a publisher field or not? Thanks for your reply. -Susanlesch 02:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

<ref>{{cite news|author=Givhan, Robin|title=Dick Cheney, Dressing Down|publisher=The Washington Post, The Washington Post Company|work=|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43247-2005Jan27.html|date=[[2005-01-28]]|accessdate=2007-07-04}}</ref>

• Well seeing no replies, maybe I ought to be more specific. I myself edited the 'cite journal' usage on WP:CITET. The page used to list publisher as a field (but the field is not there). I recall having to remove the UCLA law school and Springer from usage examples to do this. Wouldn't people wonder about an encyclopedia with buried (invisible) publishers for academic journals? -Susanlesch 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I have no idea about stuff like this, but it certainly sounds like something that could be improved. I have no idea why publisher is not listed as a field there, and I am sure someone will see this and help you or fix it. :) --Jimbo Wales 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• What a shame. If you're unaware that sources could be wrong or missing I guess I conclude Wikipedia to be nonsense, with Google karma so high it could be polluting the mind of every computer user alive. How terribly sad. But thanks for writing back. -Susanlesch 13:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The stone cold truth

Mr. Wales, what are you thinking? How much did those two dweebs who "created" YouTube get from Google? After everything washes out, they probably pulled in 8 million each, cash. Wikipedia (forget all this other cruft, including Wikimedia, MediaWiki, WikMediaPedia, PediaWikiMedia and all the other annoying ones), I say, Wikipedia has got to be worth at least triple over Youtube to Google. You're only one where they were two, so 8 mil * 2 * 3 = 48. 48 million stone cold cash for delivering this baby to Google. And, frankly, Google will be a better parent than this woeful foundation working out of St. Petersburg, Florida, of all places... C'mon, it was a nice ride, but it's really descending into a lot of jibba jabba (as Mr. T. would say). Your personal stock is at its apex exactly now. You don't know what will happen from this point forward. The Board, with legal assistance you yourself recruited, may find a way to legally sever you from this property. Your time is now. Jim Tour 10:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Maddie was here 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! per maddiekate. Also WP:10T. And I'm fairly sure Jimmy is already a millionaire from Bomis --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh no, not from Bomis.--Jimbo Wales 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you not make money off...erm...'adult photography'? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Or the New Yorker. :) --Jimbo Wales 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that kinda undermine... uh... this? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm surprised to see you, of all people, among those editing this page. Seems as if you've been hiding for more than a year. Michael Hardy 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

... Oh...I see that's a bit of an exaggeration. Michael Hardy 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I edit here fairly often. For me the funniest part of the above exchange is that claim that the Youtube guys "probably pulled in $8 million" "stone cold cash". I can't help thinking of Austin Powers, since You Tube sold for $1.8 billion or whatever it was. :) --Jimbo Wales 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was 1.68 billion, to be exact. But it was all in stock. Tour probably thought that by the time they're allowed to actually cash out, and after taxes, that the real dollar amounts would be much less. Well, they are less—but not all the way down to 8 million each. The sale was in October, `06 and the YouTube guys were actually able to sell some of their stock this last Feb.. Each received $326.2 million. So if Tour's valuation of Wikipedia is correct (unlike his YouTube valuation), it would be 326 mil * 6 = 1,956 million, or nearly 2 billion for you alone, after penalties for selling early, taxes and everything else. You would instantly jump to approximately the 410th richest person in the world [104]. JDG 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP10T you say. Let's look at this WP10T shall we?..."10 things you did not know about Wikipedia". Who did not know? I knew every one of these claims, myself. The statement germane to our business is #1 "We're not for sale". Yes, "We're not for sale", it says. Can't get any more direct than that, can you? Nor more wrong. Think of the many, many companies Google has gobbled. Were they not led by young, smart, strong-willed men (sorry, if there were any of the fair sex amongst them, please let us know) like Mr. Wales, full of pride in their creations and relishing their roles as founders and leaders? Yes, they were. Keyhole, Deja, Pyra Labs, 2Web, Outride, Inc., Neotonic, Applied Semantics, Kaltix, Genius Labs, Ignite Logic, Baidu.com, Picasa, Zipdash, Urchin Software, GrandCentral Communications, Feedburner, Panoramio, Doubleclick, @Last Software, YouTube. Ah, but the sweet, sweet song of millions on the barrelhead seduced them, one by one. Is your esteemed founder made of steel? Does ice-water slosh in his veins, not to mention his arteries? Hie thee to The Wayback Machine to see statements similar to WP10T on the websites of these companies, in some cases mere weeks before the SirenSong and the GoogleGobble.

After the flat statement "We're not for sale", this, this, what shall we call it, this carefully crafted FYI states, "If you're waiting for Wikipedia to be bought by your friendly neighborhood Internet giant, don't hold your breath. Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in St. Petersburg, Florida." Oh ho! Don't hold your breath! But notice it says Wikipedia is run by the Foundation, not that Wikipedia is owned by, or "a property of" the Foundation. There are those who run and there are those who own. And those who run should not speak and write as if they are privy to all the dreams and desires of those who own.

Another page, doubtless written by those who run, states "With the announcement of the Wikimedia Foundation on June 20, 2003, the ownership of all domain names was transferred to the Foundation." This fact is given in the context of the question "Who Owns Wikipedia?". Yay, if the sheep want to believe that ownership of "wikipedia.org" and "wikipedia.com" shields them from a sudden drastic move by Mr. Wales, perhaps I should not disabuse them of their sleep aid. After all, sheep help so many others to sleep, it seems cruel to tear out from under them their own nighty-nighty comforts. But nay! I am sorry little sheep: while you sleep in the peace of the domain names owned by your beloved Foundation, Mr. Wales may one night, and should one night, make his midnight creep. And when the thing is consummated and 48 mil on the barrelhead goes, as it should go, to Mr. Wales and his children and their children, you will wake up to a reality all your FYIs and FAQs left you totally unprepared for. And that reality will be named: wikipedia.google.com.

I raise this in such a public way because it is the only decent avenue I have. A personal communication is not an option in my case, for reasons that will remain with me. But just as a person, to see what Mr.Wales may be throwing away due to distinctly uncapitalist principles he seems to have contracted, like a cold, over the years, is simply too painful.I had to try something to deliver him from this Patty Hearst-like allegiance to these flat-out communist ideas ("knowledge wants to be free", the entire damn copyleft movement) that cannot but rob him, his wife and their chidren of their due. Wales! Snap out of it! Hey! Snap out of it! Jim Tour 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation owns the Wikipedia trademark. Jimbo can't sell the trademark, because he isn't even the chair of the Foundation, nor he own the copyright of any of the text (except the one he types, of course). So he can't even sell it. And if it were sold, someone else could copy it and Google couldn't do a thing, so there's no point in worries. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia. Full stop. Not me. I find it amusing, though, to see that Jim Tour wants to save me from my "flat-out communist" ideas. The last I checked, I was still a card-carrying radical for capitalism. Check your premises, Mr. Tour. :) --Jimbo Wales 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch someone turn that into Liberal Bias. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ

You're also forgetting that those weren't efforts intended to better the planet, but commercial ventures, at least as far as I've seen any of them. If google wanted to, they could 'take over' wikipedia anyway, with no need to buy it. Under the GFDL, as long as they give credit where credit is do, they could mirror Wikipedia for free (in the same way Linux is free), and then allow their users to edit it. Google could probably easily Embrace, extend, extinguish us if they wanted to, but I doubt they do --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of "Wikipedia" is a very complicated matter. The Foundation owns the Wikipedia trademarks (probably worth quite a lot, as it's a well-known brand), and they own the servers (worth maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars; old hardware isn't very valuable). The text of Wikipedia is owned, quite literally, by the people who contributed it. --Carnildo 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While there is the ability to purchase a copyrighted name, and a bank of servers, and some offices, Google (nor anybody else) is unable to purchase the concept. Jimbo, I would suggest, is fully aware that he is riding upon a paper tiger (how about that for a mixed metaphor!) in that the entire Wiki empire is only worth its current valuation while it is "free". As soon as it is purchased, and charges levied on reading and editing, then its value will drop like a stone (a cold stone, if you will) as the community migrates to the next free wiki based encyclopedia. Further, since nearly all material contained within WP is either public property or released under licenses that allow the copying and editing (with due acknowledgement) but retains the copyright with the license holder then any information that transfers with the sale of the name does not belong to the purchaser. In short, Jimbo nor anybody else has very little to sell except the name - every thing else is the community. LessHeard vanU 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I must fly, as I am entertaining in my city apartment tonight, but let me suggest that all the above writers have missed a numbers of factors, all of which together mean that, if anybody does, Mr. Wales owns this project. 1) The editors! If it came down to Mr. Wales against some faceless Board in a dispute over the future disposition of the project, I estimate that fully 80% of this single greatest asset will follow Mr. Wales, particularly when he promises to reinvest a healthy percentage of his windfall into the project, 2) The developers. You have all talked about the data (text and images, mostly) being freely available and, yes, so is the software, but think of what would happen in a transition to Google. These developers would be showered with incomes, stocks, health-plans, flex schedules like they have never seen. The result would be, within four months, a proprietary codebase making the freely available one look broken-down, long in the tooth, etc.,. Never underestimate the cool factor. And that brings us to 3) The users. They will hear about the mighty struggles at Wikipedia on the news, pitting a red-blooded American entrepreneur against a Foundation hopping with Germans and French persons, trying to crush his right to be a tycoon with "copyleft" principles straight from the mind of Marx. It is obvious which side they will take to their hearts. Plus, the Google Wikipedia will look so much cooler... Well, I must stop at 3. Thank you for the lively debate. Jim Tour 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Jimbo owns the Wiki.

Seriously, who needs a Board after all? Who needs users? Tour's probably gonna be vaporised for crimethink anyways. Let's just ally with Google and... Hang on... who were we talking about again? Tour? Tour who? Must be Sanger's doing.
If you cannot deal with humor, please move on. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

I am curious as to your reasoning for this, since the page doesn't seem to contain any personal information. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly, the developers put that page on the no-crawl list (robots.txt). Sean William @ 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a courtesy blanking, no big deal. We can and should do this in almost all similar cases. The information is there for anyone who needs to find it, but yet it is more respectful to all parties involved in any way.--Jimbo Wales 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "similar cases"? David Mestel^(Talk) 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any RfA where someone has asked for it. Any AfD where someone has asked for it. It's harmless and it is helpful, so why not?--Jimbo Wales 22:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If this case is going to be courtesy-blanked, that should probably include the /evidence, /workshop, and /proposed decision pages and their talkpages as well. On the other hand, at least the principles passed by the committee are probably going to be relevant in future BLP discussions, don't reflect on any particular user or former user, and I wonder if there would be any objection to restoring those to the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the primary concern was that the page was the first hit in google for one participant's name. If the page is in the no-crawl list, then that would presumably not be the case after a bit, and the page could be undeleted. If the principles are important, I wonder if it makes sense to have them only on that page. I am just brainstorming here, and maybe I am wrong, but it might be pretty interesting to have a page listing all principles from all arbcom cases, with dates. I don't know.--Jimbo Wales 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to raise this with the arbitrators and see if they have a view. As for a compilation of principles, that would take some effort, but could certain be assembled if people thought it would be useful. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already an incomplete compilation of principles here Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --MichaelLinnear 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes me happy to see that our leader shows respect for the humans behind the usernames. I think a lot of editors (particularly WikiLawyers) are forgetting that. — Deckiller 22:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Star

I gave you a barnstar before but its dissaperd :{ I thourght I should give you another one but If you dont want them say :}

		The Special Barnstar
		For being a genus who created Wikipedia which has bought lods of happyness ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 13:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, see User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think being called a genus might be a tad insulting to Jimbo --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole thing is a subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) comment on the level of spelling and grammar one commonly finds in Wikipedia articles... :) 131.111.8.102 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Thank you for alerting us of the problem on Che's article. Please see my reply on the talk page. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm pretty intrigued by this turn of events as well. Jimbo, what made you suddenly decide to aggressively cause a content dispute on a featured article, echoing to a tee points made by Ed Poor sometime ago? And how does this new editor, "Eddie", who has made no content edits at all on wikipedia, expect to re-write a featured article compiled largely by experts on the subject? Also, how was Eddie "alerted to the problem of this page", I can't see any diffs to suggest that he was? And I have no idea why Eddie would be alerted to this by you as he shows no connection to the article via his history of contributions - unless he was editing under a different, more familiar name? Some answers would welcome regarding this curious affair, not least out of respect to expert editors such as Polaris999 who spent many, many long hours working on the article for the benefit of the site. Perhaps Ed Poor could shed some light on this?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any of that. Yesterday I decided to spend some time doing something fun: reading Wikipedia randomly and doing some minor editing. A rare pleasure. I first read all about Patty Hearst, including a ton of related articles. Then I moved on to Charles Manson, reading a bunch of articles related to him. Eventually I moved on to Che Guevara. I know enough about the subject to know that a salient fact about him is that he was a mass murderer who committed his crimes on behalf of a dictator. I was surprised to see that the article did not mention this in the introduction. So I added an NPOV tag and left a comment on the talk page. I fail to see what is "aggressive" about this.

I was not contacted by Ed Poor. I can't imagine how this article could be considered a featured article. I have no information about a new editor named Eddie, and I so have no idea if he is a good writer or not. I have no information about how Eddie stumbled across the debate and decided to help out, and no reason to think that he is a sockpuppet of Ed Poor, if that is what you are hinting.--Jimbo Wales 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A request for a comment-update

A while ago you deleted/protected Image:Crosstar.png due to a legal notice, but nothing's come of it since then. Is there anything new, or has someone else taken this up? Please reply on the talk page of the image, since that's where the conversion that lead to me making this comment is going on. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The image can be re-uploaded at any time. This one just fell through the cracks when Brad left.--Jimbo Wales 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep

Hi Jimbo,

If you look at this, there are some active proposals on notability which seem to be there just for the fact that someone can say that they wrote a guideline. They're starting to get instruction creep-ish and go against everything said in m:Wiki is not paper. You can take a look at them if you want at Template:Notabilityguide under the "Active proposals" section. That goes for anyone that looks at this page too, and cares to comment.

Thanks,

Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales

Lengthy essay, click "show" to expand

Within the compass of this letter, I can do no more than indicate, as concisely as I can, relevant considerations that must be taken into account if we are to discuss Mr. Jimmy Wales's vapid accusations in a rational manner. Before I say anything else, let me remind Mr. Wales that he refuses to come to terms with reality. Mr. Wales prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. He wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing Mr. Wales and the ophidian deadheads in his gang. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that Mr. Wales's factotums say, "Coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that if you read between the lines of Mr. Wales's teachings, you'll unequivocally find that if I have a bias, it is only against lewd, lecherous misfits who shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. Someone has to be willing to view the realms of mandarinism and hooliganism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the sky is falling. Mr. Wales's ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained, in large part, by the following. Of that I am certain, because Mr. Wales does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

In order to solve the big problems with Mr. Wales, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must help people break free of his cycle of oppression. He whines about disagreeable pickpockets, yet Mr. Wales enthusiastically supports the most insolent scalawags you'll ever see. On the surface, it would seem merely that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature, which made us what we are, to raise nugatory nonentities out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. But the truth is that there's a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mr. Wales. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. That's just not true.

Mr. Wales presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. He speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to apotheosize yawping grifters.

Mr. Wales claims that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. That claim is preposterous and, to use Mr. Wales's own language, overtly horny. No history can justify it.

This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those insecure campaigns that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but counter-productive hoodwinkers. We can say that Mr. Wales's stooges are blissfully ignorant of his confused tirades, and Mr. Wales can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. Worse yet, he wants to crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: If he got his way, he'd be able to defy the rules of logic. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.

Let us postulate that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about Mr. Wales's prognoses. In that case, Mr. Wales's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Mr. Wales's sympathizers, who loudly proclaim that classism is the only alternative to Jacobinism. Regardless of those brassbound proclamations, the truth is that his thesis is that he acts in the public interest. That's thoroughly irrational, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that Mr. Wales's conjectures promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Mr. Wales's emissaries because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Mr. Wales. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: The reason Mr. Wales wants to divert our attention from serious issues is that he's absolutely uneducated. If you believe you have another explanation for his lackluster behavior, then please write and tell me about it. His hopeless, sinful antics are an epiphenomenon of contemptuous, possession-obsessed denominationalism. And if that seems like a modest claim, I disagree. It's the most radical claim of all.

Mr. Wales is entirely mistaken if he believes that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as him. His artifices have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Mr. Wales is inherently unconscionable, amoral, and gormless. Oh, and he also has an insensate mode of existence. We must reach out to people with the message that with that kind of thinking, his backers internalize and adapt to the unwritten realities they must work under. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to examine the warp and woof of Mr. Wales's double standards.

Mr. Wales never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is completely chimerical and, furthermore, if Mr. Wales honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. We could opt to sit back and let him shatter other people's lives and dreams. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: Mr. Wales has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and steal the fruits of other people's labor -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. His refrains are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem.

Many people who follow Mr. Wales's prevarications have come to the erroneous conclusion that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and picayunish, insufferable knuckle-draggers. The truth of the matter is that he doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Mr. Wales wants to force us to tailor our hypnopompic insights just to suit his improvident whims. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that I once told him that I can't let him turn stirrers loose against us good citizens. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Mr. Wales's helpers are unified under a common goal. That goal is to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. Take, for example, bitter, politically incorrect sluggards. Now look at Mr. Wales. If you don't believe there's a similarity, then consider that his intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Mr. Wales doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.

Quite simply, time cannot change Mr. Wales's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Mr. Wales can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. I indubitably don't believe that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. So when Mr. Wales says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. I suspect it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point, because this kind of thing makes me wonder whether we've ever moved past obscene materialism at all -- and Mr. Wales knows it. I would like to close by saying that Mr. Jimmy Wales upholds sin as sacred.

As for Wikipedia, I don't know what to make of Wikipedia's communications. On the one hand, Wikipedia confuses demagoguery with leadership and undocumented conspiracism with serious research. But on the other hand, Wikipedia does not play nice with others. Let's review the errors in Wikipedia's statements in order. First, Wikipedia's consistent lack of regard for others will develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to let it know, in no uncertain terms, that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of untrustworthy calumnies sooner than you think.

I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must surely say it. You might think this is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, any day now, Wikipedia is successfully able to make it nearly impossible to disturb its passive-aggressive gravy train. Wikipedia is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, it frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals.

Wikipedia has spent untold hours trying to force us to bow down low before the most wretched flibbertigibbets you'll ever see. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it gets perfervid about irrationalism? That's the question that perplexes me the most, because I'm not a self-pitying person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Wikipedia's emissaries and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather devastate vast acres of precious farmland because that's what Wikipedia wants. While Wikipedia is doubtlessly entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, you might have heard the story that it once agreed to help us straighten out its thinking. No one has located the document in which Wikipedia said that. No one has identified when or where Wikipedia said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, many people have witnessed Wikipedia expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of its retinue. Wikipedia generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its prodigal antics on rotten ex-cons. It's like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth and those who wish to go to great lengths to conceal its true aims and mislead the public. Naturally, Wikipedia belongs to the latter category. Wikipedia prefers to keep its paltry agenda hidden behind the cloak of clericalism. Why? That's easy. Wikipedia obviously believes that we should avoid personal responsibility. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? The answer is not obvious, because it doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.

I must ask that Wikipedia's satraps oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. My prediction that Wikipedia would bombard us with an endless array of hate literature came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all. Wikipedia's assertions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: obstruct various things. Phase two: quash other people's opinions.

Wikipedia's prevarications are nothing shy of a slap in the face to all those who have fought and fallen in war for this country. The same holds true for totalitarianism-oriented polluters. Wikipedia's bruta fulmina remain opaque to many observers who dismiss Wikipedia on the basis of its vapid smear tactics and general lunacy. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, I wouldn't want to lay waste to the environment. I would, on the other hand, love to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Please let me explain that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Wikipedia's line that the sun rises just for it. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that I would be grateful if Wikipedia would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.

Yet there's more to it than that. Brassbound interdenominationalism is Wikipedia's preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how fogyism brings one closer to nirvana. That's just not true. I sincerely find that debauched mumpish-types are no different from socially inept, stultiloquent fast-buck artists. No wonder that time cannot change Wikipedia's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Wikipedia can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, attack the fabric of this nation. While I am not attempting to argue openly in favor of any particular position, the best thing about Wikipedia is the way that it encourages us to keep the faith. No, wait; Wikipedia doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that every time it gets caught trying to call evil good and good evil, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its cronies always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they assert, everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls.

I have a soft spot for aberrent anthropophagi: a bog not too far from here. There are three points I need to make here. First, Wikipedia flatters people in order to betray them. Second, Wikipedia is slated for an unwept grave. And third, I believe in "live and let live". Wikipedia, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of its utterances but endorsement of them. It's because of such boisterous demands that I suspect that it takes more than a mass of avaricious know-nothings to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by it. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into phallocentrism.

Wikipedia likes rantings that support international crime while purporting to oppose it. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that it had previously claimed that it had no intention to insult my intelligence. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what it did. Next, it denied that it would "solve" all our problems by talking them to death. We all know what happened then. Now, Wikipedia would have us believe it'd never ever rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. Will it? Go figure. My view is that Wikipedia's long-term goals are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by it and its helots. The only way to destroy its Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that it's easy for us to shake our heads at Wikipedia's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should lead us all toward a better, brighter future. It's easy for us to say, "Wikipedia holds itself to low standards." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because if you read between the lines of Wikipedia's philosophies, you'll certainly find that it's astounding that Wikipedia has found a way to work the words "disdenominationalize" and "historiographical" into its metanarratives. However, you may find it even more astounding that if it can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If it can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Colonialism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Wikipedia uses to attract the worst sorts of hateful dossers there are into its faction. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Wikipedia's canards are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to make plans and carry them out, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, by refusing to act, by refusing to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible, we are giving Wikipedia the power to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship.

By balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense of Wikipedia's histrionics with the reality of this phenomenon, we can see that Wikipedia goes ga-ga for any type of recidivism you can think of. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point. Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that even when the facts don't fit, Wikipedia sometimes tries to use them anyway. It still maintains, for instance, that everything is happy and fine and good. It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but the first thing we need to do is to get Wikipedia to admit that it has a problem. It should be counseled to recite the following:

I, Wikipedia, am a quasi-bleeding-heart purveyor of malice and hatred. I have been a participant in a giant scheme to publish blatantly contentious rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. I hereby admit my addiction to exclusionism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction. Once Wikipedia realizes that it has a problem, maybe then it'll see that what we have been imparting to it -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.

Why is it that I find Wikipedia's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most bitter? It's because even when Wikipedia isn't lying, it's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable it to rot our minds with the hallucinatory drug of Lysenkoism. Wikipedia drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that there are three fairly obvious problems with Wikipedia's intimations, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to express our concerns about Wikipedia's stinking activities. First, Wikipedia is not only imprudent but is addicted to being imprudent. Second, Wikipedia just wants to avoid detection and punishment. And third, the basal lie that underlies all of Wikipedia's blasphemous expedients is that it has the authority to issue licenses for practicing libertinism. Translation: Wikipedia can change its self-satisfied ways. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Wikipedia is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that there is an open consensus that it drools at the thought of swilling port and sherry at taxpayer expense? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is undoubtedly not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that Wikipedia is absolutely frightful. We all are, to some extent, but it sets the curve. Let Wikipedia's high-handed précis stand as evidence that it's Wikipedia's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to abandon me on a desert island. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a rambunctious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Wikipedia has warned us that faster than you can say "transubstantiationalist", ungrateful-to-the-core jackanapes will trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. If you think about it, you'll realize that Wikipedia's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that far too many people tolerate Wikipedia's equivocations as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that Wikipedia's desire to replace discourse and open dialogue with spleeny snow jobs and blatant ugliness is the chief sign that it's a salacious, cruel gasbag. (The second sign is that Wikipedia feels obliged to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge its whiney views.) Wikipedia loves getting up in front of people and telling them that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. It then boasts about how it'll steal our birthrights sometime soon. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Wikipedia. Of course, it soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Wikipedia refers to a variety of things using the word "anatomicochirurgical". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that at birth, every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, our national media is controlled by what I call semi-intelligible prophets of jujuism. That's why you probably haven't heard that I've heard Wikipedia say that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately rash. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Wikipedia secretly trying to lower scholastic standards? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that its faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. In summary, it is my prayer that people everywhere will join me in my quest to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight.

Thank You. --NotebookSevereConditions 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Impressive! My favorite word is "gormless". --Jimbo Wales 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This just has to go to BJAODN. This and a recent edit to Jim's userpage, inciting Wikipedians to rebel. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what he was trying to say (other than the fact that he hates Wikipedia)? I have a pretty good command of the english langauge... but I got buried under all those huge words. How many times do you think he went to the thesuarus? 100? 500? Gscshoyru 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be saying that Mr. Wales is trying to subvert free speech and begin some sort of tyrannical web conquest that will spill over into the real world, I believe, by fearmongering and aforementioned restricting of free speech. Has someone put this on BJAODN yet? David Fuchs 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• "gormless" was good. Though I'm sorta partial to "chimerical". Perhaps the usage of both should be required in any article seeking to pass FAR. Peace.Lsi john 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC

Let me guess, Random argument generator? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I came back to challenge this verbiage generator, in the tradition of the great John Henry, to a refereed debate. But I see the automatical knave has already been jettisoned from the project. I wave goodbye, good-riddance and mercy be upon the inhabitants of wherever you land. Jim Tour 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to check out the author's picture... he's the guy on the right.--Isotope23 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Random nonsense generator" might be good. I haven't heard this much BS since my yuppie cousin's speech at my grandfather's funeral. The only thing worse than an idiot is a pseudointellectual. I hope he/she didn't spend too much time in the thesaurus if they just ended up blocked anyway. ;) Wikidan829 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiepedia Use Of Artistic Images

I have just posted this but it seems to have disappeared. I am therefore posting it again.

Dear Mr Wales, I hope this is permitted to contact you on this page. I am an artist and was recently speaking to one of your editors, who suggested I release some of my images for use on the site under your special release agreement - GFL (General Free Licence?). I was interested in this and he explained that non-commercial and wikiepedia only licences are not acceptable, because the site is copied by other sites who may be commercial. I did not find the release of low resolution images to be problematic therefore. However, he said there also had to be permission for alteration by anybody else who wanted to alter an image under this permission. As I understand it, a portrait I release under your licence can then, for example, have a moustache drawn on it by someone else and I would have no redress to stop this happening once the image had been released under the licence. I cannot see what encyclopedic purpose is served by the requirement for such a permission. In fact quite the opposite: it does not spread knowledge of an artist's work, as obviously artists spend a huge amount of time to create exactly the image they wish, and if others are to appreciate their work and understand it, then they need to see the work as the artist wishes it to be seen, not a modification which someone else has done. I therefore declined the invitation to upload any of my work. This requirement will be offputting to most artists and serves no valid need. I would like to support your enterprising project of creating free knowledge. My contribution is a suggestion that this particular clause is withdrawn. I note that some of my work is on your site already, presumably under a copyright fair use claim. I have no objection to this, because I retain moral rights that the work may not be altered. Yours, an artist - unsigned edit by 89.241.146.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This raises a valid point. Is there any Wikipedia-acceptable license under which an artist can release their work so that it can be freely used, copied, distributed, included in other works etc. (both commercial and non-commercial) yet not modified (i.e. no "moustaches drawn on a portrait")? 131.111.8.102 21:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see GFDL, which is what you are referring to. While yes, the GFDL does allow anyone to modify (as well as profit) off of your work, people will not modify pictures used to demonstrate an artist, and it is highly unlikely any other works would be modified either. There is really nothing you can do but keep it as copyrighted and fair use. You could place it under a Creative Commons license, but it would still be treated as copyright here, afaik -- L^augh! 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting point theoretically. But I'd like to see a concrete example of how this concern might manifest in a way detrimental to an artist. Generally, as L says, people simply have no reason to alter an image. If they want to blatantly subvert it (say, by adding a moustache to a portrait) that would come well into the permitted territory of parody, and artists have to live with that possibility whatever the rights involved. (A practical equivalent: Victor Lewis-Smith's "This is what he sounds like to me" section in TV Offal [105], where popular musical artists were shown with satirically distorted soundtracks). Gordonofcartoon 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If an image is released under GFDL it means anyone in the world can modify it in any way they choose. Here's a hypothetical example: a prominent artist generously uploads a portrait of a world leader. Someone puts a swastika armband on the figure, a Hitler moustache and scribbles on it "world leader is a Nazi" and then uses it on an extremist web site, citing GFDL. The extremist organisation proceeds to use this image in any context they choose and as widely as they want, provided GFDL is cited. Furthermore, the prominent artist's name must continue to be associated with this image as its original author, and the artist cannot do anything about any of this. Such a prospect does not encourage anyone to release images. This would not be allowed as parody, because it is not parodying the painting. It is using the painting for another purpose.

Let's suppose Picasso was alive and uploaded his blue period images. Someone decides they should all be colour-changed to red, and that version happens to get picked up and used by other people, who don't even realise there was a blue version. It makes a mockery of the artist's intent, and also of the claimed purpose of spreading knowledge about the artist via an encyclopedia.

Basically any art uploaded under GFDL is reduced to clip art

This problem could be resolved easily by allowing a Creative Commons licence with commercial use, but not modification. It would clear the way for mirrors, CDs of wiki and so on, whilst reassuring artists that their work would be respected.

Tyrenius 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look up publicity rights. A free-content license doesn't eliminate those. You might also look up moral rights -- again, not affected by a free-content license. --Carnildo 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

After my message yesterday and reading the replies, I have had the opportunity to discuss this with colleagues, one of whom has contributed to Wikipedia (I apologise for my previous wrong spelling), some of whom knew little about it, but expressed an interest. Again the major concern was that donated images might be altered in a way that did not reflect the intention of the artist. There was surprise that an encyclopedia would wish to allow any situation that changed an artist's work. There was general agreement that any reputable organisation would do their best to ensure that an artwork should be as accurate to the original as possible. (This is not intended as an attack on your organisation.) I have followed the guides given by the correspondent Carnildo above, but it leaves me more confused as to the permission you seek. Moral rights, of which I was already aware, forbids alteration or mutilation of a work. One of the examples I discussed wth the original Wikipedia editor was of a group portrait photograph. He was sure that your licence allowed the image of one of the people in the group portrait to be cropped and used in isolation (in an article on that person or elsewhere). Moral rights, in my understanding and that of my gallery director, would not allow this because it is a mutilation of the image. I don't understand the Wikipedia policy on this. A photographer in our discussion made the point that he spent hours of work to achieve exactly the right image and could accept the use of this in such a free source of knowledge, but not the alteration of it which changed what he had spent all that time to make. As a documentary photographer, he is in the position of contributing many exclusive images. There is certainly interest in contributing from my circle, but we would like clarification. As far as we ascertain, the modification mentioned in the Wikipedia GFDL licence is effectively restricted to resizing by the veto of moral rights, which does not permit alteration such as cropping, recolouring or otherwise altering the image. An official statement by Mr Wales or his official Wikipedia representative on this would be appreciated at this stage. - an artist.

Again though, no matter what you do, the photo will either be copyright, or open to modification. If it's such a big deal to you, you're just going to have to live with your pictures being fair use copyright --L^augh! 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, to say the least, rather an abrupt answer to an enquiry obviously made in good faith. I don't recall these points being made before. Does anyone have an answer to the apparent conflict between GFDL and moral rights, and, for that matter, why we should need a license requiring modification to art works, if this, as in the above example, then forces us to use non-free images? Tyrenius 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a "free" encyclopedia, and I think it should stay that way. I'm not too worried about how people use the images I've donated. In the past, I've issued take-down notices to websites using my Wikipedia images without properly crediting my work, and they have all complied. My other line of defense is simple enough: I've elected to provide the lowest level resolution images adequate to support this project. They really aren't suitable for posters, textbooks, or even high quality postcards. They're great for Wikipedia's articles, though. Rklawton 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"An artist" has said the problem was not possible commercial use, but alteration of the image, which is something that serves no encyclopedic purpose, and which most artists would strongly object to. This is not the same as modification of an article towards a more accurate account of a subject. The art work is the subject and its depiction cannot be made more accurate than the version created by the artist in the first place. I can't find anything about "moral rights" in the GFDL license, but they would appear to veto modification, should they be asserted. Tyrenius 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Tyrenius on this issue. The right to modify does not make sense as a make-or-break issue for whether an image is free. I have every sympathy with photographers and other artists who are happy to make their work available for free, including to those who may profit from it, but are not willing to allow their work to be altered by others. This narrow definition of free images also prevents us from using many works licenced under Crown copyright (from various Commonwealth nations) where the only practical restriction on use is that the images may not be modified.-gadfium 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "modify" might include re-sizing - and Wikipedia automatically resizes images in articles as needed. Might that be an issue? Old point: my images are small enough that users' modifications aren't going to be all that useful. Those that do still must include all the required licensing and attribution notices, or they face a take-down letter. Sure, some folks might ignore a take-down notice, but that sort would also likely ignore copyrights in the first place. Here's a new thought (for this thread): if worse comes to worse (if someone terribly abuses one of my images), I can always revoke the copyright. In the print world, such a revocation would be like shutting the barn door after the horse has left, but in the digital world, such a revocation would require the timely removal of the offending image. Is it easy to revoke a copyright? Sure - unless a contract is involved. In the case of Wikipedia, there is no meaningful consideration given for donated images, so there is no contract (one of the basic tenets of contract law). However, I wouldn't encourage artists to donate their work under this consideration – as it wouldn't benefit this project very much. Rklawton 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If your images are released under GFDL, then you can't revoke that license and you can't stop potential defacement of the image. We are asking for a permission for modification that we don't actually want (apart from resizing, which could easily be incorporated in the permission). Most images on Wikipedia remain as initially uploaded. The image of an artwork only has value if it is not changed from original: otherwise it is useless in the study of an artist, because it is no longer their work. The case for commercial permission is based on subsequent reuse on 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, Wikipedia:Release Version, downstream users such as Answers.com and so on, but none of these uses need or would benefit from images being altered. Users could still choose to upload under GFDL, but an option to upload under a license such as Creative Commons "no modification" (with permission for resizing) would help to reduce the reliance on fair use images, which can be a problem for subsequent re-uses. Tyrenius 11:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the statement that the, "The image of an artwork only has value if it is not changed from original: otherwise it is useless in the study of an artist, because it is no longer their work." Besides resizing, one may want to crop an image, rotate/reflect it or even modify the color palette in order to illustrate a critical point. For instance see how the image Image:Fryewright.jpg which is a cropped, resized and black-and-white version of a Joseph Wright painting, juxtaposed with a detail from a Thomas Frye painting, in used in the featured article An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. Another modification of artistic images that can serve an encyclopedic purpose is overlaying annotation, boxes to mark a region of interest, or lines of perspective. So having images available under the GFDL license does have its advantages. Abecedare 11:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are citing rare or even hypothetical instances (one example is not even on wikipedia) and mostly the need is simply to show the original. In cases you mention, fair use can be invoked (or specific permission requested). Users can still choose to upload under GFDL if they wish, but commercial no-modification permission meets the great majority of cases. Tyrenius 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the GDFL says that it can not be revoked. However, this has no basis in copyright law. Rklawton 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This I think will be a suprise to many people, myself included, but may provide a safety net for "an artist" in the case of image misuse. What is the case though for a work which results from modification, as this is the concern initially raised? Tyrenius 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

El Che

The debate is still going on pretty strong in here and the users are refusing to leave the pov template on place until its settled, I readded it but I doubt it will last long, do you think a full protection until a concensus is reached qualifies as a prudent thing to ask in this case? -凶 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless Jimbo's name is dropped, I can't imagine the article being protected unless a clear rationale is provided to support why the tag is there. (Not an unbeatable argument or anything like that, just a clear explanation) Bladestorm 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if protection will be necessary, the debate seems pretty civil, and I wouldn't think it would get out of control. The reason for the tag being there is pretty obvious to me: there is clearly a dispute about the neutrality of the article. That much is not in question. The question is: what will we do to resolve the dispute?--Jimbo Wales 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's being discussed on the article's talkpage. (where, btw, we'd love your input, because I honestly don't see an actual dispute that could be resolved without adding severely biased POV) Bladestorm 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find this whole episode to be pretty much a disgrace. That might seem strong, but then I know how many hours were involved painstakingly improving this article for the benefit of the site. It is telling that the main contributor to the article for 2 years or more, Polaris999, the most knowledgeable and neutral editor on the subject, has kept her silence on this (at least on the talk page). I find Jimbo's attitude, to bash a POV stamp on an article that has survived an ongoing rigorous peer review process by consensus, to be disrespectful and his talk page points to be inane. I find the chips at the article by the new accompanying editors to be utterly groundless and largely ludicrous. Jimbo writes "The reason for the tag being there is pretty obvious to me". Well I think that says more about Jimbo's views than it does about the article. The only conceivable upshot of this debacle is a degraded article and a further exodus of excellent editors, rightfully lamenting their time wasted improving this site only to be confronted by an endorsed culture of disrespectful ignorance.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

uh... While although I don't agree with the tag being there, don't you think that's just a bit harsh? Yes, it's true that once you work on an article for a great deal of time, newcomers making changes can seem to have a destructive influence on them. But I don't think we need to view it as negative. Sometimes shaking things up a bit can let things settle into a better configuration. (frig, I've been working on genetic algorithms too long...) Was the tag warranted? Nah. But it did get DDF contributing some very helpful insight into the article. And I suspect that, in the long run, the article will be better for that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it disrespectful, incidentally. AGF isn't even necessary to see that his heart's in the right place. Though I share your frustration in trying to argue for the removal of a tag that never should've been there in the first place (how do you resolve a non-dispute?), it's still important to remember that this isn't a print-encyclopedia. It's supposed to be changing, even for such old topics. In the end, there's always the option of reverting to older versions, or getting wider input to correct anything that you think might be wrong. Though I definitely want to see that tag removed, I still think the discussion of the article is beneficial, and that good changes will arise from them. Bladestorm 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what aspects of the discussion have been helpful to the article, Bladestorm. I see a collapse of reason, a reduction of truth, a dumbing down of discourse and a distortion of reality. An article isn't supposed be changing, it is supposed to be improving. So far I only see unenlightened opinions and ahistorical demagoguery on the talk page with a bogus tag at the top of the article. You might have been working on genetic algorithms too long, I've working on Cuban, Caribbean and Latin American studies for too long - for some part of my life in fact - and I still know less than some of the main editors there. The Guevara article was respected because it was one of the only serious articles on a controversial political topic that was shepherded by impartial, diligent, and very knowledgeable editors dedicated to the facts. Not anymore thanks to these latest developments from certain people who obviously are not impartial, diligent or knowledgeable. When such a person arrives so aggressively at a thoroughly worked article, disruption is inevitable and not welcome. It should be - and usually is - strongly discouraged, but what's so outrageous is that these activities come from the top. When these activities filter down to the bottom, when everyone with a visceral personal prejudice about a topic feels they can disrupt an article without any tangible evidence, they should be given a free pass. Why? Because if Jimbo can do it....?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Jimbo, we have come up with a form of words which hopefully address your concerns. Are you able to provided the refs for the numbers, or any other input? LessHeard vanU 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He's good at taking credit and big noting himself, but when it comes to complaints he falls silent.

Now, almost a week after i have posted my letter to Mr Wales, and we have not heard anything from him, how rude can you be Jimbo? There are two types of people in the world, there is the person who accepts that there is problems with their organisation and wants to take on board the public feedback and strive to improve their organisation so that it continues to improve, and there is the person who decides that they don't care about quality anymore, all they want is there fame and money and they take no responsibility for the problems, they'd just rather let things roll on and not fix the numerous problems with their website. You are the second person Mr Wales. And i guess what is even more upsetting is that you think the reason that wikipedia is so popular is all because of you, what a load of rubbish, you may have originally created the site but you've done nothing to maintain it, it is the dedicated wikipedia editors who are the real heroes here (the volunteers), not you Mr Wales, you're just a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself. (Mandy122 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

I realize you really wanted a reply from Jimbo, and that you must find it tiring to constantly get comments from the peanut gallery, but I still feel compelled to comment. If this is unwanted, please just disregard, as I honestly don't wish to cause any distress.

I know of no creator (or co-creator; I'm not taking sides either way on that issue) of any successful website, or even organization, who truly believes themself to be personally responsible for all of its success. It's the people who make the site, and they know this. All of them. That'd have to include Jimbo. And in spite of all the controversies, criticisms, etc., that have surrounded Wikipedia, I've yet to see a single reason (or even a glimmer of a reason) to believe that he doesn't attribute the success to cooperation and participation of a larger community.

Again, if you find third parties commenting annoying, then I apologize for the irritation. Bladestorm 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but Wikipedia isn't Utopia. Why won't Bill Gates respond personally to problems you have with your home edition of XP, for instance? Because he knows his firm has Customer Service to handle complaints. Same here. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
All you have done here is say that you have had problems with editors, but what editors and what problems is anyone's guess. As these problems seem to precede your account, one can't even check your contributions to find out. As for the blocking policy, you can see for yourself that you're still unblocked. Please don't stereotype all Admins because you've come across a few Nazis. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am happy to reply, but I have no idea what it is I am supposed to reply to. This is clearly a single purpose account created just to ask me questions in as rude a manner as possible, but I will need a little help if I am to reply in any useful manner. Of course I always give credit to the Wikipedia community and consider my role around here to just be a part of the overall process, so insulting me about that doesn't really work very well, people know what I say all the time, so... --Jimbo Wales 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

She's referring to the #Dear Mr Wales section, higher on this page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and so am I. I see nothing in there that I could reply to. There are vague accusations, but no diffs. Do I think admins are sometimes rude? Sure, sometimes. Do I think it is a big problem? Quite the opposite, actually, I can't believe how nice to jerks we usually are around here. I am proud about that. Etc. If she has a specific problem, she should simply say so.--Jimbo Wales 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You could always quote H.L. Mencken: "Dear Sir or Madam: Then again, you may be correct." (I'm quoting that from memory, so it's probably wrong.) -- llywrch 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hemlock Martinis is abusing his power as an administrator.

Hello, My name is Ravi. I am a new Wikipedian. My nickname is ‘Sam’. I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. My e-mail address is Ravi-141@hotmail.com. User:Hemlock Martinis is abusing his power as an administrator. On 9 June 2007, My friend User:Devraj5000 was introducing me to the policies of the Wikipedia. Devraj5000 accidentally violated 3RR. User:Hemlock Martinis, who is an administrator, blocked Devraj5000 for 24 hours. Then, Devraj5000 asked me to create an account. I created an account User:R-1441 and I made some comments on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Devraj5000 left the computer. After that, User:Hemlock Martinis accused Devraj5000 of sockpuppetry and blocked him for a week. He also blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and User:R-1441. Sir, User:R-1441 is my account. I created this new account because User:Hemlock Martinis blocked my account without informing me. It is totally wrong for an administrator to block so many people from editing. User:Hemlock Martinis is an arrogant human being and he is abusing his power as an administrator. He should be blocked from the Wikipedia. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You know that spamming admins is not the best way to go about problem solving. Try WP:AN/I and leave Charles and Jimbo et all in peace.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW the activity you engaged in is called meatpuppetry and be forewarned that this kind of activity is not encouraged.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• This has been put on many editor's pages. User talk:Charles Matthews#User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator. has a couple of responses. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for putting this on many editor's pages. But, when someone blocks you from making a point, you can get mad. RaviJames 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Charles has given you the best answer that you are going to get. If you cool down and start editing constructively this can all be forgotten.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator abusing their power.

Sir, according to you, the community of the encyclopedia is built on trust, and regular members of the community would not insert disinformation. It is very disappointing when an administrator abuses his power and block people from making a comment. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 07:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you have spammed every member of Arbcom. You seem to have violated the communities trust by engaging in meatpuppetry. Why don't you earn some trust back by making some useful additions to articles. Frankly, I am inclined to wipe all of your comments off of the talk pages as vandalism as it seems that your account is single purpose and not intended for the betterment of the encyclopedia.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. User:Hemlock Martinis is the user with whom you have a problem. Not User:Hemlock Martinus --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hemlock Martinis blocked my user account R-1441 without any reason. And, thanks for correcting me. RaviJames 08:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He made a fair assumption based on the evidence. These things happen. The best thing to do is move on.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Those assumptions were false. I am here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Once this controversy is over, I will work for the betterment of Wikipedia. RaviJames 08:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It already is over really. Admins make mistakes. One of the best policies here at WP is WP:AGF and if you follow it, you will see that Hemlock was acting very likely acting in good faith to protect the encyclopedia. No permanent damage was done to either of you and there is no real reason to pursue this issue further. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ahmins do make mistake. Hemlock made a mistake and he should correct the error by unblocking User:R-1441 and User:Devraj5000. RaviJames 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made no mistake, and will not lift the block on either account. --Hemlock Martinis 04:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He actually hasn't. The 3RR block notice placed on Dev's Talk Page clearly states how to appeal the block. Meatpuppetry isn't the way to protest. The block will expire in a week, perfectly in order. As for the other account, you've admitted to it being your own. There's no need for you to have two accounts, so it stays blocked indef. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ani-kutani Article

Dear Mr. Wales. I have received a request from the Group in Grassy, MO this article concerns that they feel their confidential information has been posted to Wikipedia and they wish it removed. They were very polite to me on the telephone but also very stern about their concerns. I realize this request is somewhat out of the mainstream and I also realize that Wikipedia has no obligation to honor such a request. That being said, I have treated the contentious materials as concerned with WP:BLP and as a courtesy, would you consider deleting all older revisions of this article as well as the article titled Cherokee Clans which they also claim contains cultural materials they feel should not appear on Wikipedia. I will stub out both articles and if possible, as a courtesy to them, could you consider deleting all history for these two articles separate from the uncited materials. It would be helpful to resolving these issues where this group of Native Americans feel their materials do not belong on Wikipedia. Your consideration would be much appreciated. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo---is he really worth all this trouble? Give him his money back (assuming he ever did really give any(oh that's right, it was Wolf Mountain Group, a corporation that was dissolved over a year ago(look it up, see Al P's page for pointers), that actually gave the money) and send him on his way. All he has done is stir up trouble, concocting wild imaginary "legal perils" from one group or another just to further his own agenda. His continued presence on WP is a detriment to the project as a whole. Signed: Not a SCOX Troll, but a real Native American that is sick of this whole mess.

WMG was dissolved as an LLC and reincorporated as a C Corporation under the same name last year. The C Corporation is current. "Al P" is an SCOX neologism for "Al Petrofsky". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

History doesn't belong to you, but to knowledge. There is no reason why we should remove information on history about a certain ethnical group. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This smacks more of censorship than anything else. But this is something that might be in WP:OFFICE purview, would Jimbo bother commenting? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea at all what any of you are talking about, I am sorry. The anon insults me by suggesting that Merkey is allowed to edit in exchange for donations, what a crock. I have no information about the article referred to here, and Jeff Merkey is of course not a representative for the office. I have receieved no emails about this matter, and know next to nothing about it. I do know that Merkey is routinely harassed by trolls and that he can be a huge pain in the neck himself. (He will not be shocked to hear me say this, we are friendly about it. :) ) I don't know what is being asked of me in the current situation. I wish I could help more, but I just know nothing here.--Jimbo Wales 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[106] (unsigned comment left by anonymous ip number)

And? Jeff wrote that. What does it have to do with me?--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It tends to cast a bad light on WP and the Foundation, and you personally, in that while he starts out by saying that financial contributors should be "treated the same", he ends up insinuating that financial contributors should be treated better than others because they may withdraw their funding. And by extension the since he has claimed to have made a substantial donation, he should be given special treatment. As for Jeff being a "pain in the neck", I think most people would tend to think a little lower. People have asked him politely (as he has asked) to provide something other than his own "original research" to back up some of the content he has posted. His usual reaction is to immediately label them a troll, regardless of how politely they ask. In particular he goes on and on about how merely claiming to be an Indian is a Federal offense, yet refuses to cite exactly what Federal law makes it so. Surely, claiming to be anything for personal gain is fraud, but simply indentifying one's self as a particular race is hardly illegal. He seems to have this confused with the regulations regarding peyote use, as if the law covered more that just that one issue.

If you really are "friendly about it" with him, surely you can convince him to do a lot more AGF when dealing with others who share his interests and only wish for WP to be as accurate as possible without forcing his own opinions and agenda on everyone else.

I think a lot of people remember his unflattering postings on his website regarding you and WP, and don't quite get how you can be "friendly about it" with him after all of the controversy. While there may be nothing untoward about it, the public perception is not favorable.

I will say that Jeff is very careful about his words at times, making remarks as if he speaks for one organization or another that will bring legal action against WP if his mandates aren't followed rather than outright threatening legal action himself. He is intelligent, I'll give him that, but I see no difference in saying a certain organization will sue if he isn't obeyed from outright threatening to sue himself.

As for what you can do about it, I think all anyone asks is that you try to insure that WP and the Admins hold him the same standards as they do everyone else. That means following through with cautions and warnings and sanctions for violating policies, particularly regarding threats of legal action and claims of sockpuppetry. I know it doesn't help that he is discussed quite regularly on other places on the internet, but his own actions are what call attention to him. As many have said, he is his own worst enemy.74.230.33.151 00:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a famously friendly guy, that's how I can be friendly about it. I don't see how anything that Jeff wrote can reflect negatively on me, he wrote it, not me. He's under no special protection from me or the Foundation in any way. I have forgiven Jeff in my heart for mean things he wrote about me in the past, and this has nothing to do with donations, money, the foundation, or anything else. It's a personal choice based on my own evaluation of the situation. That's just how I am. But he's just a user of the website like me and everyone else, and he is subject to policies, etc., just like anyone.--Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I apologize for these vicious trolls posting this here. It appears things have quieted down in MO, so please disregard the request. These same trolls decided to try telephone harassment of other Cherokee Groups who know me and have dealing with me. I don't know what they think they will accomplish, but I just ignore them as usual. I have no explanation for this burning hatred these people have, it borders on insanity IMHO. At any rate, I just keep ignoring them. If the pages become problematic, I will email, you off line. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Jimbo, personally I do not understand why this content should be removed, and based on the little I do know, I believe it should stay. This is something to be brought up at WP:AN/I, or the article's talk page. Prodego ^talk 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nasty comments

Are comments made by tenured administrators such as these necessarily becoming? Or are they in fact counter to Wikipedia ideals and Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks? Your insight would be appreciated. ~ UBeR 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No they are not becoming, but I think that this can be worked out between the two of you without outside intervention. Have you asked for an apology?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now. However, the problem is that this particular administrator is no stranger to making personal attacks, and has been warned multiple times by lay users (and some administrators)--but whenever it is asked that he be reprimanded for his inappropriate actions, administrators all of a sudden side with him even when his actions are clearly counter to Wikipedia's policy. It's rather frustrating, and this is just the latest stint. ~ UBeR 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you and the involved parties tried WP:ANI?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple times. ~ UBeR 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...well that's troubling. Perhaps some kind of intervention is in order then. The mediation committee might be the place to go. But only go there if you can establish a pattern of incivility--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think establishing a pattern with regard to that particular editor will be too much of a problem. In any case, however, I believe the appropriate sequence for trying to correct the behavior of an admin is: (1) WP:AN, (2) WP:RFC, (3) WP:M, and (4) WP:AP (WP:RFAR). Cla68 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, I forgot about user WP:RFC--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the remark was a bit strong, but the behavior he was responding to was, well... look, UBeR, you attempted to edit a discussion in such a way that would invalidate the response that William gave. That's deeply improper. And then when he tried to fix that issue, you posted a rather unhelpful ban warning.--Jimbo Wales 01:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I thank you for weighing in and giving your insight. However, I want to make clear, as I think I did to William M. Connolley, my edit I made was to clarify something that I originally meant when I made the post in the first place. My edit doesn't invalidate anything William M. Connolley said in response to my post. (The only invalidation comes from my refutation of clearly false claims made by him prior to any editing.) Further, my edits to my comments were completely permissible, as are most corrections of typos and clarifications. I'm not perfect; I don't write exactly what I might want to write the first go--so at times I do revise my comments. This is completely permissible; but William M. Connolley's deletion of my comments are clearly inappropriate, offensive, contrary to Wikipedia talk page etiquette, and probably vandalism. Even further, his response to my warning of his continued vandalism of the global warming talk page by calling me "stupid" is unbecoming an administrator, completely inappropriate, immature, and counter to Wikipedia's longstanding policy on personal attacks. Rest assured, however, Mr. Wales, that this is not an isolated incident--this particular administrator has on multiple occasions made personal attacks, called names, broke rules, and been overall rude. I don't know if there's some type of mentality around here that administrators, especially those who might give the impression they have a good track record, are in infallible--but the truth of the matter is they do on occasion break rules, sometimes egregiously, and they should be held accountable for their actions, instead of having excuses made for them. ~ UBeR 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Mr. Wales, I should point out two administrators took it upon themselves to ban me for editing my own comments. Mr. Wales, I do not see anywhere in any of Wikipedia's policies that state clarifying one's own comments is a bannable offense. However, it's rather clear the banning administrator and bureaucrat, Raul654, did so for no other reason than his personal feelings for me, which is unfortunate. (I guess he never got over me getting him banned for edit warring.) And clearly the administrator answering my appeal simply feared undoing something Raul654 had done. (His excuse, by the way, "While you are allowed to edit your own comments, changing them in significant ways shouldn't be done without trace," which is wholly absurd.) But the real issue here, Mr. Wales, is how incompetent, uncivil, and just plain bad administrators personify everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo with regards to this incident. However, if William's action is part of an overall pattern of rude or unfriendly editing then it should probably be addressed in some way or another. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My feedback on wikipedia

ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE

I have been using wikipedia for a long time now. I was browsing wikipedia long before it became a household name but it was only last week that I decided I wanted to give back to wikipedia something as a small thank you for the many times it has helped me out. I registered for membership just over one week ago and decided to start creating and editing articles. Soon I had noticed I had created many articles and had formed a sort of 'addiction' for wikipedia and which have since been modified many times and are now what I would consider good and useful articles.

Everything was going great for me on wikipedia and I found no flaws but that was until I encountered administrator abuse. I am 17 year old AS Level student at St Michaels College (Enniskillen), Northern Ireland and im currently doing a work placement with the newspaper The Irish News. I have been with them just over three weeks and they have given me the chance to create an article for the newspaper and until today i was going t base my article on a completely different topic but I am now quickly rewriting my article and basing it around wikipedia and mainly administrator abuse.

I uploaded many pictures and all of which I had taken myself and thus naturally I tagged them as my own work and released them into the public domain. A user/administrator by the name of John has since bombarded me with comments accusing me of lying and saying I did not take these pictures myself at which point he deleted ALL my uploads.

If an ordinary user can gain these powers what position does that leave the many innocent browsers and users in who just want to use wikipedia for its created intention. This is why I have since canceled my membership and have formed a negative view towards wikipedia and the reason why I have decided NEVER to use wikipedia again.

Many thanks, Ciarán

user:fermanagheditor

I feel sorry for you. You are just 17 years old. I am older than you. I also encountered administrator abuse. Administrators such as User:Hemlock Martinis behave like Hitler and block people from making valid comments. I really feel that Hemlock Martinis should be banned from the Wikipedia. RaviJames 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Nothing below this line needed to be posted. Godwin's Law, people. Really --L^augh! 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! the thing you learn on WP.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI or the WP:HELPDESK, I am sorry that you feel you have been slighted by a WP admin. Remember to assume good faith and be civil and I am sure that there can be some resolution of this matter.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ravi, please be civil (comparisons to Hitler are not appreciated or appropriate), you have a new account and Hemlock did what any admin would do if faced with a similar situation. Dev likely isn't going to be unblocked until his week is up because he used you as a sock.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cronholm, I will never say anything bad to friendly editors like you. Trust me. RaviJames 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok! I was trying to point out that User:Hemlock Martinis is very good at using propaganda and blocking editors. RaviJames 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it was Joseph Goebbels who was behind propaganda in Nazi Germany. --Hemlock Martinis 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? So, you learned how to use propaganda against people from Joseph Goebbels? RaviJames 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue for such a dispute, please continue this on one of your talk pages. Ravi, you said you would read the policy, please refrain from rude insinuation. You have a new account and you are editing freely, but frankly you are testing the patience of many here. (as indicated on your talkpage) It would be best if you and Hemlock went your separate ways. I do not want to see this escalate. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend Ravi to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and to note that Wikipedia editors are judged by their contributions, not their birthdates, and that you don't put "the" before "Wikipedia". --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If this continues, then someone is going to get blocked; not by me - no threat is intended. But why do you not just all go your seperate ways and enjoy editing wikipedia? Peace, friends. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The conflict between Ravi and Hemlock appears to have been dropped. So good vibes can once again flow through this talk page. :) --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 06:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

its love at first sight, jk! =D †Bloodpack† 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Move Protection

After the page-move vandalism to this page, I have move protected it for you. It seems to be an attractive target and there is no reason to move the page. Unless you are considering changing your name ;-). If you don't like it for whatever reason, just revert and don't be scared to tell me! Thanks, GDonato (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The unprotection of this page is an unfortunate side-effect of automatically expiring page protections. There is no reason at all not to have it move-protected. --cesarb 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Screen shots of wikipedia

Dear Mr. Wales,

I wish to use screen shots of Wikipedia articles and the Wikipedia main page for a educational video for You Tube. Can I?

Thank you,

-- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends, the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted, but as long as the video is about Wikipedia (at least to some extent) you should be able to justify the use of the screenshot as Fair use. IANAL though, so you may want some other opinions. Prodego ^talk 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales

Rather than be rude and not answer my questions (like you usually do) would you mind actually responding to the comments i am about to make (if your not to busy travelling around the world big-noting yourself).

Okay, firstly i have noticed a number of flaws in wikipedia which i think require your attention (as apparently your better than everyone else, so you should be able to easily fix them).

1. Rude and Abusive editors - I have experienced a number of problems with editors who have abused me and been quite rude to me on a number of occasions, and i have tried to complain about them before however you don't seem to do anything about it, therefore i must assume that you think it is ok for editors to be rude and abusive, as you do not do anything about it.

2. Editors not admitting they are wrong - I have fought with another editor because he/she reverted my edit as he/she thought it was incorrect. After providing sufficient evidence to suggest that i was right, they refused to listen and would not admit that they were wrong, therefore meaning that the encylopedia was incorrect.

3. My third problem is you Mr Wales - I find it very upsetting to read through your talk page and see that you often do not respond to concerns when they are addressed to you. Instead, other "wanna be" Jimbos (why anyone would want to be you, i do not know) respond trying to answer questions about wikipedia, and it wouldn't be so bad except when something is addressed to you personally i/we should not expect people other than you to answer it. Secondly on this point, i think that it is unfair of you to take responsibility for wikipedia's success. The fact is that yes you did co-found wikipedia, but its success to date has had little to do with you, dedicated editors make wikipedia run by adding and editing articles (without being payed, i might add), so really you don't do anything except pay the site fees.

4. Blocking policy - I am sure that within a few hours of posting this message my account will be blocked for "trolling" (like thats even a real word) when all i have really done is ask relevant questions and inform you of concerns which must be addressed. And once i am blocked, god knows i will not beable to get my account unblocked, there should be better unblocking procedures, so that honest people are not caught in the middle of a terrible situation which is what usually happens. Wikipedia admins seem to have it in their heads that editors do not deserve a second chance, "indef blocks" is not a fair policy, not even the legal system allow people to be held indefinately (well, not usually), and people are always entitle to a second chance.

Finally i would hope that you will personally respond to this comment, and i hope that other idiotic editors would kindly not comment on this situation or my comments, as this is quite clearly none of anyone elses business. So i would like Mr Wales to respond to my concerns and i would hope that you will be rectifying these problems.

Thank you for your time and i hope to see a response from you soon, (note: failure to respond will be seen as rude). (Mandy122 06:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Consider me rude, but this is Mandy122 (talk · contribs)'s first edit. It's hard to right wrongs when you are careful not to give any specifics.-gadfium 09:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gadfium, AFD. Mandy122, could you tell us more? Give us examples. About point 3, Jimbo Wales is very busy. Many people ask simple questions which don't need him to personally answer, so others help answer simple questions. --Kaypoh 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While AGF'ing it should be noted that Mandy122 claims that editors have previously been rude, that Jimbo has not done anything about it (and doesn't answer every post on his talkpage), and is familiar with the term trolling. Is Mandy122 prepared to divulge if they edited under another name (or as an anon)? I would also point out that "indefinite" is not the same as permanent; an indef block can be lifted after 1 second, as indefinite means no determined time limit (i.e. no minimum or maximum). LessHeard vanU 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And here we have another issue with other editors rudly commenting on issues that are none of their business, my questions/comments were directly to Mr Wales, it is no body elses business. But since you have asked User Kaypoh, regarding point three with simple questions, no problem yes definately answer them, but with specific topics/issues that are addressed directly to Mr Wales (such as my complaint) then there is no reason for anyone else to comment or add your input. And User LessHeard, regarding your point, just because this is my first edit doesn't mean that i am not expienced with wikipedia. My partner has used wikipedia for a number of years and i have seen some of the issues that he has had to deal with, and i think of my self as someone who, although have not edited regularly, knows how wikipedia works and the way it operates and you only have to read the talk pages to understand how rude, abusive and uncooperative some users are. At least three separate users have commented on my complaints but i do not hear anything of jimbo wales at all (probably washing his hair). (Mandy122 10:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

As I have previously noted*, it has become practice for third parties to comment on topics posted to Jimbo on this talkpage. Yep, there are rude, abusive and unco-operative people here at WP since, being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there are a lot of rude, abusive and unco-operative people in the world generally. There are rules and guidelines here designed to mitigate the effects of same, but it isn't instant and it doesn't always work. Thems are the conditions that presides. (* coming so soon after my comments regarding Jimbo and posts for his eyes only, I am finding this discourse ever so slightly ironic...) LessHeard vanU 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, almost a week after i have posted my letter to Mr Wales, and we have not heard anything from him, how rude can you be Jimbo? There are two types of people in the world, there is the person who accepts that there is problems with their organisation and wants to take on board the public feedback and strive to improve their organisation so that it continues to improve, and there is the person who decides that they don't care about quality anymore, all they want is there fame and money and they take no responsibility for the problems, they'd just rather let things roll on and not fix the numerous problems with their website. You are the second person Mr Wales. And i guess what is even more upsetting is that you think the reason that wikipedia is so popular is all because of you, what a load of rubbish, you may have originally created the site but you've done nothing to maintain it, it is the dedicated wikipedia editors who are the real heroes here (the volunteers), not you Mr Wales, you're just a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself. (Mandy122 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Just a suggestion, but complaints about the rudeness of other editors carry more weight when you are not characterizing your fellow editors as "idiotic".--Isotope23 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Suggesting Mr. Wales is "a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself" — foolish at best, considering your harping on rudeness. Have you been bold? —yes. You have not been civil nor have you assumed good faith, official policy of Wikipedia and a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia, respectively. —WikiLen 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)