[moved general unclear and 'inflammatory' whine about systemic neutrality issue (with specific topical example)]

Why don't you take your concern to the neutral point of view noticeboard? However, if indeed the project is "promot[ing] a POV which is clearly aligned with the so called 'normal' views punted by the mainstream media", but for the inflammatory "clearly", "so called", "punted" and scare quotes around "normal", that pretty much describes what we try to do here, which is follow the reliable sources. Mainstream media are generally reliable, and being mainstream assures a good first approximation to NPOV. Perhaps you didn't state yourself clearly? I would guess Jimbo would recommend something similar, but of course he is free to prove me wrong. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your clarity. although I note that noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues and although there are a few specific examples I was alluding to a more systemic generalised concern and wondering what Jimbo thought about that. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC) updated [1] 94.168.189.5 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've think that you could make Wikipedia an encyclopedia with advertisments. But OPTIONAL advertisments. There is a Spanish web page that uses this metod [2], and the earn enough to pay servers, host, domain, etc. And it's a good way to earn money without making ads obligatory.

I would activate it.--Victor.spain (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertisements could lead to conflict of interest issues. Wikipedia is strictly neutral (or at least tries to be). -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Soy el usuario que puedes ver aquí dicen que soy un usuario con propósito particular. Esto es así por que soy testigo de Jehová y la verdad es que mi propósito particular es promover el conocimiento lo más ampliamente posible. Me han cogido manía por se testigo de Jehová, de hecho me ha bloqueado Drini de forma despreciativa insultando al colectivo de los testigos de Jehová, tal como hacían los nazis y los fascistas soviéticos.

No puedo editar nada y por ello te pido que le des orden de que me desbloquee la IP, me ha bloqueado 4 meses, que se muestren mis contribuciones vandálicas en todo caso. --87.220.31.170 (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Automatic translation:

I am the user that you can see here they say that I am a user with private purpose. This is thus because I am witness of Jehovah and the truth is that my private purpose is to promote the knowledge as extensively as possible. They have caught me mania by themselves witness of Jehovah, in fact has blocked me Drini of scornful form insulting to the collective one of the witnesses of Jehovah, just as did the Nazis and the Soviet Fascists.

I cannot publish anything and because of it I ask you that give him order that release me the IP, has blocked me 4 months, that my destructive contributions in every case be shown

.

Fram (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Since problems have existed in automatic translations and I can see that the meaning has been changed using it. I'll do my best to translate:

I am the user that you can see here they say that I am a user with a particular purpose (my comment: SPA). It is like that because I am witness of Jehovah and the truth is that my particular purpose is to promote the knowledge the most far as possible. They have gotten a mania because I testify of Jehovah, Drini has blocked me in a form disrespectful, insulting the community of Jehovah's witnesses (My comment: maybe he refers to church?), just like the nazis and soviet fascists did.

I cannot edit nothing and because of that I beg you that you give them order that they unblock my IP, they have blocked me for 4 months, show my contributions vandalism (My comment: doesn't translate well into English) in all cases.

Griffinofwales (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I love Wikipedia and I think you're cool! I am really helped by Wiki! Thanks, Chilliaphenia (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As a response to the delays with Flagged Protection (and the fact that it is complicated and creepy), I've put together a simple proposal that I believe could be implemented very quickly and target flagging at the most vulnerable BLPs - while not throwing out the general wiki-editing spirit. I thought you might like to take a look. It is at: Wikipedia:Targeted Flagging.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 00:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the WikiCup? iMatthew ^talk at 00:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If Jimbo joins, were all doomed to failure :(--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking him to join, I'm interested to know if he's familiar with it. iMatthew ^talk at 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh...Well I wants saying that he's not invited. Rather that he would crush beat all of us. Sorry about the misunderstanding.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair gents, Jimbo wouldn't stand a chance. He doesn't exactly edit much in the article space you know... Just saying. Pedro :  Chat  00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

wow. over 50% of your edits are to user talk pages. You must get a lot of questions and/or comments. But as iMatthew pointed out, He wasnt asking for you to join. Just if you have heard about it :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Oh well, I had the opportunity to say something incredibly witty right beneath Jimbo Wales where everyone will read it — but I've exhausted all my creativity updating my userpage for 2010. Maybe next year. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question! :( iMatthew ^talk at 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See "Power 101." ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales,

I have been instructed by my client to notify you of intended legal action against this site.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L Phillips QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.91.45 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and advised per WP:NLT. This guy either follows our procedures, or he does not. If he will not, he has no place here, or in a court of law. Rodhullandemu 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a real attorney would more likely have sent any such notification via the specified contacts for the foundation rather than anonymously post on what — from a legal standpoint — is a random internet graffiti wall (Jimmy's talk page). — Coren ^(talk) 01:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This fraudster has already been so advised, as I have pointed out on his Talk page. He's a bully, using non-existent legal authority to push the point. No real QC in any Commonwealth jurisdiction would ever act like this, on pain of being disbarred.^[1] That's why I know this is a fake. Rodhullandemu 01:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus, if I remember correctly, he has tried this game a couple times before on ANI. SirFozzie (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's over controlled with fanatic muslims. They make everything according to their faith and what makes islam and arab looks better whatever what's wrong is written they just don't care and they retrieve any modification against that even if it's with sources... just like that, they think it's Islamic Wikipedia not Arabic Wikipedia. They even threaten me with expelling for just announcing that i'm atheist! Please do something don't let these people ruin an american successful project. thanks --41.235.42.171 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone speak Arabic to even start examining it in the first place? ;-) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This IP belongs to a user who was blocked on Arabic Wikipedia (by me) for creating a sock puppet account to attack other users. --Meno25 (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"WIKIPEDIA: A boon to lazy students everywhere, the open-source encyclopedia used the masses to police its entries and keep them (mostly) (sometimes) accurate."(Dawn)--yousaf465 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delayed by a day few hours. Nothing exciting. I just spent more time with my daughter this evening than I had planned, and I also forgot that I was due to do Wikivoices in the afternoon. Blame Carl Sagan's Cosmos. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent procrastination. I had meant to compose a sonnet in honor of one of the electees to give them on the day of the announcement (note: someone who I'd randomly encountered before election not knowing they were a candidate ... so COI/sucking-up not be an issue) ... but I got distracted and forgot ... luckily someone else forgot, too. :-)

I.E., The beautiful (Cosmosological) synchronicity of lazy-icity. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, now's your chance but you'd best hurry. :-) I'm reviewing everything carefully but nearly done.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit. LOL ... I thought I had until tomorrow. (I've got the first line ... Usually takes about 20 minutes ... let's see who get's done first. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. The results have already been announced in the Signpost. [3] If Jimbo wants to make an additional announcement, that's fine, but to say it will be made, then not to make it, and to keep us waiting ... but for what? ... is unsettling. It undermines the role that Jimbo has been playing for the last few years. It may or may not be a good thing that that role is diminishing—that's for another discussion—but I think many would agree it's not good to see it undermined inadvertently. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A very merry Yuletide to you and yours Jimbo, best wishes for 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to wish you a happy holiday season. Hope you enjoy yourself! Kind regards, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 02:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

MerryChristmas! From your pal, CG

– ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 04:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm here to ask for a little clarification on your stance of Administrative powers. Is there any policy that explicitly allows a single admin to decide at whim to Topic Ban someone? I've brought this up to administrators and they have told me it is implicitly allowed. I find this to be in contravention of the purpose of wikipedia. We are here for collaborative environment and I hardly see how it can be collaborative when a single person can say you can't edit within one particular articlespace. While not commenting on the rightness of arbcom (whom I personally see striking resemblances to other "ruling or political groups" found time after time throughout history. Take your pick there are so many....)Can you define your position on this issue? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate for a single admin to topic ban someone in the usual cases. However, I should add, there are many special circumstances. Perhaps you can point me to a particular discussion where an admin is claiming the right to topic ban someone?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. One example is [[4]] and also here [[5]]. The full discussion where this started is found here [[6]], this was my first knowledge of David Tombes and I didn't see anyone trying to mediate with him discuss anything. I point this out there too...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In short, Jehochman's admin decisions regarding David Tombe and Ottava Rima; both of which have been upheld by Arbcom. Over to you Jimmy. ;-)

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are the examples, yes. I am not pointing them out alone though. These topic bans were issued by one admin and then the course of IMHO it became a game on how to catch them. Just because Arbcom later ratified the decision doesn't make the procedure proper. how much aggravation was brought on the committee itself by improper procedure before they reviewed it? Kinda taints the water when someone comes in and says I topic banned them and they aren't listening, let's sanction them further. Assuming Arbcom is fair how can a well built second floor stand up if it's built on a rotted floor? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's talk about the principles that would make for a solid floor? One principle is that admins can unilaterally (subject to later review by other admins and - if necessary - the ArbCom) block users for misbehavior. I think it a fairly clear and reasonable principle that "If an admin could issue a block for a period of time for a behavior, the admin can equally well let the user know that in lieu of blocking (which prevents editing anywhere), there will be an editing restriction for that period of time on certain topics." The difficulty of definition only arises in the event that an admin issues a topic ban in circumstances that wouldn't warrant a block. If the offense is not a blockable offense, then is it a topic-bannable offense? My initial inclination - as always - would be to say "mostly no, but individual circumstances have to be considered."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oy Jimbo! Even for those of us you are neutrally indifferent towards you, this statement is a masterpiece of mealy-mouthed doublespeak - "Well, I don't support it except when I do.". Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave! Crafty (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just a very rude comment that fails to take into account the specifics of what I wrote. I did not say "I don't support it except when I do" and I advance the state of the discussion by clearly delineating a case where I do support it (when the offense is a blockable offense) and I invite further discussion - from those who think that attacking me personally is less important than working together to achieve deeper understanding and better decisionmaking. If you just want to insult me, please take it elsewhere, thanks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A solid floor is consensus. My own opinion is that Admin do have the authority to block if the offenses are egregious enough, But a topic ban should always be left to consensus. The problem with this particular incident is that I've witnessed no attempts to garner support, just a unilateral action. I brought these up to the administrator in question and my block log was thrown in my face and it was claimed that I only wanted to cause drama.

This is a serious problem here, you have administators that are encouraging, indeed campaigning on every possible technicalities [7] to get rid of editors with differing viewpoints. Currently David Toomb can't even appeal to Arbcom because it's a violation of his sanctions. My main understanding of their speed of light arguement was that they held with the Orwellian Speed of Light and the others Einsteins. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV if all the info can be sourced. A very fitting example of a similar situation is that of the Catholic Church when dealing with things like Protestantism, the Albigensian Crusade, or even Galileo. In this case (agf) both parties are proceeding in their view how the 'pedia or world would be benefited more. The methods used were less then favorable. I was recently blocked for being uncivil. I Was attacking Arbcoms decisions when describing their behaviors and I used foul language when I did so. I likened their behaviors to Nazis, this is a accurate description of behaviors but the manner in which I did it was wrong, I'm not suggesting that Arbcom is mass murderers or the like but the behaviors have the same underlying problem, if you don't agree with the viewpoint you silence it altogether. During my block while trying to describe the situation like I did above, my block was extended because a Administrator thought I hadn't learned my lesson enough[8]. Per the policy, if I am describing behaviors and not talking about personal characteristics I am 100% allowed to use historic examples, however the action taken was I disagreed and although I had used more appropriate language and context I was wrong to do so and should be silenced.

My main point here is that it isn't hard to find an Admin that will block or topic ban at the drop of a dime (not saying all will) and this is especially why topic bans should be left to consensus. I think I've stated my case on the matter, I want to thank you for taking the time in responding to this. I would like to thank you for founding this website, I never thought I would find pleasure volunteering until I started editing Wikipedia and I fully laud the effort by all here to maintain free knowledge. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, you say above that "Currently David Toomb can't even appeal to Arbcom because it's a violation of his sanctions.", however I have corrected you already over at User talk:David Tombe#attacks on Jehochman and Arbcom. He is able to appeal, by following the appeal process. He is able to participate in request for comments. I have explicitly said that those two venues remain open to him. I have asked him to stop disputing it on other pages, especially this page like he did at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 52#Arbcom appointments. Do you have a problem with this? I'd really like to get this sorted, because it seems tangential to your query about topic bans which could be a productive discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You state that like you've posted that a long time ago. You posted that today on his page. I then refered you here. However he may appeal in private is that correct? Since when is matters so serious they require private inquiries. private inquiries only lead to deeper suspicionsand breed mistrust in the dispute resolution process. It's easy to shrug off a good arguement if no one can see it3*.. Can you really argue a decision that is based on a flawed ground? If a good deal of this transpired over actions that are not allowed here then things should be looked at.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The original message from a few days ago was clear enough. I restated it in a reply to you at 10:34, 25 December 2009. Your post above was six hours afterwards.

He has already appealed to Jimbo in public here, but strayed into attacks on an admin and arbcom. As a result, I've asked him to stop. Jimbo can continuing to hear his appeal privately if he wants to, or set up a public appeal page if he wants to. That is beside the point. David Tombe has been asked to stop disputing it on pages other than the proper venues.

It isn't a case of matters being "so serious" that it needs to be handled privately; the problem is that David Tombe is drawing it out and attacking people, so he should no longer be allowed to continue this except on the appropriate pages. I've told him which pages he can use to publicly pursue this.

The Arbcom decision is binding. Jehochman's actions were upheld by Arbcom. Like it or not, that is the decision. It is time to move on, and maybe better prepare for the next time.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Prepare for the next time? Already planning that far ahead? I hadn't though this issue was decided. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to come in here with two points of fact,

(1) There are two aspects to my sanctions. The more serious of the two is an indefinite sanction which is sometimes referred to as 'probation'. ARBCOM made it categorically clear that I am not allowed to appeal this sanction for one year. In my view, such a command was pushing their powers well beyond that which would be expected. And the sanction in question is so vague that it has become a licence to bully. There is no better illustration of the abuse of that licence than in the case where admin Tzntai expanded my sanctions on the totally spurious grounds that I had breached my topic ban when I made a perfectly legitimate complaint at AN/I about an editor who had misrepresented the grounds for my topic ban on a policy page.

(2) When jehochman pagebanned me on 19th August 2009, I challenged his grounds for doing so. In a follow up thread in which an attempt was made to similarly ban Brews ohare, I was totally silenced by jehochman in a manner which can be read here, and which any impartial observer will agree was ill-becoming of wikipedia. Look here and find the section "Tendentious discussion at 'talk:speed of light'". Then scroll down to my first edit on that thread, and then look at jehochman's response,

[9]

As a result of this second thread, the matter went to ARBCOM. I would have expected that ARBCOM would have looked into the edits that caused jehochman to page ban me on 19th August. But that did not happen. Instead, a wide range of issues were brought up against me, most of which were a hill of beans dating back to 2006, and alot of which related to other problems that had already, rightly or wrongly been dealt with. A tirade of lies prevailed on an enormous scale, and no attempt was made to prevent these lies from festering. In the end I made a statement to the extent that it's all starting to look like Goebbels's tactic of repetitive lies, in which when a lie is told often enough, people will start to believe it.

Then followed a most disgusting display of phoney indignation, and my analogy was thrown back at me in order to make out that I had committed the ultimate heineous offence by comparing other editors with nazis. The campaign of lies then escalated to include the claim that I had engaed in nazi insults. And it has recently escalated even further to the idea that I had previously been indulging in nazi insults on a regular basis as a matter of course.

This had the effect of getting jehochman off the hook, because the whole case then focused on this big lie about nazi insults, and I got topic banned from all physics articles and put on probation indefinitely.

So jehochman's initial actions had the effect of stirring the pot and causing a phoney reaction which was falsley used to retrospectively justify jehochman's initial abuse of authority.

At no stage was any attempt made by ARBCOM to analyse the edits which jehochman used to justify his initial actions.

So, Jimbo, when you say that a topic ban is not justified where a block is not justified, I think that you have got a clear cut case here were no topic bans were justified either against myself or Brews ohare. David Tombe (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the case, and having observed your behavior both here and in your appeals to me, I do not share your views. Talking about "big lie about nazi insults" is a bit rich, coming mere moments after you invoked the name of Goebbels to describe others. I think you really should step back and take a break from even looking at Wikipedia for a month or so. Get some fresh air. Find another hobby. And come back and let's discuss it when you aren't so angry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s., anyone who is interested in this topical area, and is looking for another hobby, or just tired of flushing time down the drain in edit wars, come on over to Wikisource where we have a few ongoing transcription projects for James Clerk Maxwell. We especially need MediaWiki math markup gurus.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't recall that I ever used the name of Goebbels to describe others. There was an ongoing campaign of lies in which it was being maintained that I had been engaged in long term disruptive behaviour as a proven fact. It was being repeated over and over again at ARBCOM and diverting attention away from the real issues of the case. When I used the name of Goebbels, I was using it in connection with his famous statement that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it.

There was absolutely no harm in making such a statement. But the statement was maliciously used as a strawman argument to switch the tables and divert attention away from the real evil, and make out that the evil lay with me for drawing attention to the analogy.

And it seems right now that you are continuing to use this statement as a basis for diverting attention away from the real issue of whether or not I said anything in the middle of August that warranted a page ban at the speed of light. I would say that everything in my previous statement still stands. An admin abused his authority, and the ensuing commotion that followed was used as a basis for retrospective justification. That's hardly cricket. David Tombe (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out this is precisely the reason we should have specific policy in effect to make sure a situation like this doesn't happen again. It's very similar to "cool down" blocks, all the unilateral action did was make the editors in question more angry leading to other problems. Either way Mr Wales, I appreciate your open page policy and again thank you for the time you spent discussing the issue with me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with conventional wisdom about "cool down" blocks. I think they are a useful tool in some very obvious cases.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree we could benefit from a more clarified policy on topic bans? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think more discussion would be potentially valuable. This discussion got a bit side-tracked, unfortunately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we got there in the end. I do intend on working on something for topic bans and getting imput from various administrators to see about possibly making it into or amending existing policy, I will return when I have things fleshed out to see if it might be somethign you can support. thanks again for your time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Peripheral (personal/rhetorical) comment re Nazi insults
  (whether insidious rhetorical escalation indicating incorrigibility of disputant — or transient hyperbole/mockery for extraordinary moments :-)

  Personal note: I have — with great restraint (wisely, see above:) — oft-refrained from the pleasures of alliteration in designating teams of Wikipedia

  disambiguation page cleaners who undertake blitzkriegs (albeit under the flag of MOS:DAB, rather than one containing a swastika) ... Dabnazis. ^;^ (Heil JHunterJ![10] LOL)

  Oops. :-)
  (sotto voce: "foreshadowing" / and, ps, looking forward to description the ever-wise but unknown-middle-named John Vandenberg will place in the hat/hab-collapse of this irreverent holiday-licensed peripheral comment, previously alluded to in the true tale of the beginning of Proofreader77. lol Cheers.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Re your comment about cool-down blocks: "I don't agree with conventional wisdom about "cool down" blocks. I think they are a useful tool in some very obvious cases." Please note that the conventional wisdom about cool down blocks is Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLOCK: "Blocks intended solely to 'cool down' an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect."[11] Bolding and italics in the original text. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

  Yes, I'm aware of that. One of our more misguided policies, I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Jimbo, I'm all in favour of blocks. They are necessary to maintain law and order on the project. But beyond vandalism, and edit warring on main article space, and repeated blatantly unacceptable abusive language on talk pages, which would of course cater for the 'cool down block' scenario, I can't think of any problem that could ever arise on wikipedia that could not be handled by a maximum three month block. Topic bans and ARBCOM sanctions in general serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other that to generate discord and sense of foul play. The issue of administrators issuing blocks abusively is a separate question which requires some kind of higher tier arbitration committee to monitor. David Tombe (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  Mr. Tombe (David, whichever you would prefer to be addressed as): While I certainly do not speak for Mr. Wales, and on other occasions might even tend to concur with implications of some of your points here — but speaking as somewhat knowledgeable of rhetorical matters, it seems the choice of combative stance might appear to be the basis of the response you've gotten (and continue to get).

  If I remember correctly, I saw words somewhere to the effect that you could "appeal to Jimbo." Consider that if you were appealing to, e.g., the Supreme Court, the justices would treat a rhetorically disrespectful appeal ... with contempt.

  So, even if you are correct, the starting point is behaving rhetorically as if the people/roles you're appealing to are honorable holders of their positions of authority (and that the rules applied — are not going to change the instant someone disagrees with them.) If that is not the starting point, "you cannot get there from here."

  Now: At this time, the "rhetorical field" is far too negatively charged to back up and start again (whatever the merits may be). Again: at this time.

  I have fairly good rhetorical judgment on things like this. (Although others may disagree profoundly:-). But I will offer you the following rhetorical rule I operate from: "Do not fight battles. Transcend them." It seems you are much invested in "this battle." My unsolicited and probably hugely unwelcome advice ... is to step back and see if the project means enough to you ... to, yes, transcend the emotions of the moment ... and see if there is not a "higher solution" which may be reached ... in the future.

  ("We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming." :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Wales, first of all I would like to say "Merry Christmass"! The problem which forced me to come here, was that in Fa wiki, there is no banning revision, and admins easily ban users without clear explanation. Ultranationalist groups are editing there freely without any obstacle, but democrat and pro human right users, are under great pressure. They are being banned one after another. No admin would answer why he has banned a user. They speak about it, in their mailing list and ban whoever they want in a discriminative manner. Special notice should be paid to fa wiki. Such an enviroment has made it really inactive. What should we do in your opinion? sicaspi 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)

1. This year, I am requiring all successful candidates to identify to the WMF or to me personally (but preferably to the WMF) before being seated. This point has been strongly supported by ArbCom and the community. The ArbCom has interpreted this requirement to mean "that people do not gain access to mailing lists nor Checkuser/Oversight until they have identified." I am interpreting it a bit more broadly - you aren't an ArbCom member until you identify.

2. All candidates should contact me at my usual email address (jwales) at the Foundation (wikimedia.org) to give their preferred email address. I will be passing these to Risker, who will be doing the actual additions.

3. I am not appointing anyone who gets less than 50% support. Fortunately, the lowest candidate needed to fill all available seats got 59.9% support, so we are not faced with any issue there.

4. I have asked privately of the ArbCom for any objections - to be expressed either to the ArbCom as a whole, or to me privately if necessary - to any of the top candidates. I have received none. I have also received no particular valid objections to any of the candidates from anyone.

5. Kirill Lokshin, Fritzpoll, Coren, Mailer diablo and Steve Smith are hereby appointed to two year terms expiring 31 December 2011.

6. SirFozzie, Hersfold, KnightLago and Shell Kinney are hereby appointed to one year terms expiring 31 December 2010.

7. In the event of retirements or vacancies for any two year seat (including the seats held by existing ArbCom members), I reserve the right to move any of the 4 one year appointees into a two year seat. Since there was some interest from some members of the community in me appointing all 9 to two year seats, I don't think this will be controversial. As usual, I am not likely to make interim appointments unless there is a strong desire by existing ArbCom members that we replenish in some fashion by having a fresh election, something I don't foresee happening.

Finally, I would like to ask all incoming ArbCom members to review the history of the ArbCom, and in particular to familiarize yourself with some of the worst "political problems" that ArbCom has faced, in the hopes of gaining some wisdom to avoid such issues in the coming year.

Your job is hard. No matter how well you perform your duties, some will say you have been too lenient. Some will say you have been too strict. And some will say that you've been inconsistent or arbitrary. Likewise, some will criticize you for moving too quickly, and others will criticize you for moving too slowly.

Strive to be none of those things, neither too lenient nor too strict, neither too quick nor too slow. And never inconsistent or arbitary. But know that you will face those claims anyway. Face those claims with friendliness and dignity, and all will be fine in the end.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• (Timestamp:) Just finished that sonnet ... for Shell Kinney. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

42+10

{SK.AC.01} ____ At infinite improbability
{SK.AC.02} ____ there's nothing that can't happen. Press engage.
{SK.AC.03} ____ The matrix calculations find the key
{SK.AC.04} ____ to place her, oh so rightly, on the stage.

{SK.AC.05} ____ One year's enough to let her wisdom shine
{SK.AC.06} ____ upon the scales that sometimes lose the light.
{SK.AC.07} ____ (I know the grace her gesture brought to mine.)
{SK.AC.08} ____ The matrix knows her judgement will be right.

{SK.AC.09} ____ The coefficient of her fam'ly brought
{SK.AC.10} ____ a briefer burden — yes, the matrix cares. :-)
{SK.AC.11} ____ Responsibility must not be wrought
{SK.AC.12} ____ by sacrificing too much to affairs.

{SK.AC.13} ____ Of miracles that make this project fly
{SK.AC.14} ____ the one that installed Kinney ranks quite high.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The incoming arbitrations should identify to the WMF (not you) before accessing any of the lists, as they contain the private information obtained from the tools which are governed by the WMF privacy policy.

I trust that the mailing list admins will wait until meta:Id is done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(re An Appeal by Jimbo Wales) FYI: Inspired by that "10" in the title of the sonnet above (which there means weeks) ... it struck me that at this moment it might be a good time to applaud the project a bit louder ... and add nine more Benjamins for a total of one Grover Cleveland. They don't print those anymore, but I suspect it will work out virtually the same. :-)

NOTE/A STORY OF CREATIVE GIVING :-) The credit card I want to put Grover on is one my bank has just fussed at me about for not using enough and lowered its limit. (No, artists are not all rich. lol) ... And so I am making a special request (in progress) to the bank (which recently ate my previous bank) to allow the 9 to be added to the card ... which I promised them I would pay off slowly so they could profit from this gesture. lol (I kid you not.)

If the bank is Scroogish (I've emailed them that it is for a nonprofit donation), I'll do it another way, but I think the bank should allow it ... If request declined, perhaps an appeal to president of that bank will do the trick. :-) But if even that fails, ah, then the 9 can come in like pieces of eight + 1. Cheers.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 03:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Update_{[9+1=10: A STORY OF CREATIVE GIVING]}: So far, two levels of customer service at my (big!) bank's credit card department have responded to my appeal to the recent lowering of my card credit line (due to under-usage!) by suggesting I apply for more credit. lol

  My (response) steps:

  1. Paid off all of credit card balance except recent $100 donation to WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION (You can, too.)
  2. Will deposit $1,000+ in bank today to replenish savings account. :-)
  3. (Taking good notes on all the technical glitches and other infelicities of bank's online interaction system — so I will have something useful to discuss with bank president, should it come to that. ^;^ E.g.: [a] Deleting customers carefully composed messages when clicking "Save draft" is bad. [b] Not reflecting payments in balances, causing customer worry. Bad interactive system. [c] Inappropriate canned response for special case [d] etc.)
  4. When bank's online system finally registers there is only $100 on the card, I will appeal to the 3rd level of customer service to allow me to place the aforementioned additional 9 Benjamins donation to WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION on the account for a total of 10 Benjamins (1 + 9 = 10)
  5. (Incomplete-prophecy): When the 3rd level of customer service responds with "please apply for more credit" (to my appeal not to lower it in the first place) ...

  (To be continued ... until the 9 joins the 1 donation to WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION :-)
  -- You can, too. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the high attrition rate for Arbs, should an interim vacancy or two arise, would you give priority to this election's top runners up?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were to happen quite soon, I might. But I'm far more inclined to call a special election half-way through the year for any necessary "top-up" seats. However, whatever I might do in such a case, it would only be with the guidance and advice of the sitting ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm not sure a lot of people are entirely comfortable with the in-house references. Advising the voters that you've asked the sitting arbs for their opinions on the candidates the community gave the thumbs-up to seems like it's giving the arbs a right of veto; there's a clear conflict of interest for them in travelling down that road. The arbs themselves got just one vote in the election, like the rest of us. They are explicitly at arm's distance from the electoral process, which has to be run by the community as a matter of policy—even to the point where I encountered reluctance to provide technical advice to the coordinators out of respect for that arm's distance notion. It doesn't make sense to me that they might trump the electorate they are a part of. Then to read, "unless there is a strong desire by existing ArbCom members ... However, whatever I might do in such a case, it would only be with the guidance and advice of the sitting ArbCom." I'd like to think that the community will have some say, too, in advising on by-elections or policy matters as they evolve.

I'm sorry to be the annoying mosquito, and I want you to know that I really support what you've done with WP. A lot. But that doesn't stop me wanting to see an adjustment WRT ArbCom, which in the larger scheme should not figure strongly on your radar; that much I've picked up from statements you've made here and in speeches over the past few years. Tony (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood me. In general, the ArbCom has traditionally felt comfortable operating with less than a full complement of members, and I assume that a loss of one or two wouldn't hamper them much. My point is that I would not appoint anyone to fill any vacant seats without ArbCom feeling that it is needed. The idea of ArbCom "vetoing" candidates is an interesting one, but not one that I find particularly worrisome in any way. Wikipedia is not a democracy. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Meta-aside: Wikipedia/Democracy/SecurePoll) Smelled vaguely like democracy. :-) Pondering: Will there be a community-wide postmortem discussion about this election's process? (Ignore with impunity, but I did donate a hundred bucks yesterday. Note to obsevers: See "Power 101." :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a postmortem at the moment on the /Feedback page.

Closer to the time of the next election, I (or someone else) will start another RFC to allow us to either revert back to the old election method, or fine tune the SecurePoll system. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be interested to follow that discussion. I was happy with this election process, much to my surprise. But I think fine-tuning is always a good idea. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Two replies for the price of one. :-) Many thanks, John and Jimbo. This is the first Arbcom election I've voted in, and I do smile that it is the first by secret ballot. Note: I voted in the last WP:Stewards election, and that was my first time voting for candidates in Wikipedia. It takes awhile to know enough to think about that. lol I'm just barely there. Again, my thanks, and happy holidays to all. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the AC veto is only for emergencies where the AC—and probably only the AC—know that election would bring the project into disrepute. For example, someone known to stalk other editors, but only the ArbCom (and people who have been stalked) would know. I recall an incident last year when the ArbCom received evidence of a candidate being a serial harasser near the end of November, but as the person was running, the AC couldn't/wouldn't take action on him then, because they needed to run a fair election. I reckon those would be the only cases where the AC would be allowed to veto. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the ArbCom ever has the power to veto an ArbCom member. I do, and I would only do so with the advice and consent of the sitting ArbCom, and then only under the most unusual of circumstances (such that I can't quite even think what they might be). One thing that I would stand very strong against is any sort of "political" block on ArbCom membership (whether for reasons of internal or external politics). Part of my role here is as a check/balance against ArbCom itself - this has never been necessary but it is in theory possible that a rogue ArbCom could generate significant outrage in the community, leading to (for example) a poll for their removal en masse, in which case I would listen to that poll carefully. Checks and balances are a good thing, as they ensure that a system can be flexible and robust, that experimentation can happen without fear of things going completely off the rails.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. Shouldn't it have been disclosed at the time? It's before my time, as I am new here, so I don't know the details. MajorStovall (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The harassment was an open secret; everyone knew he was doing it, but no-one was doing anything about it. The ArbCom didn't receive the evidence until he had an announced his candidacy. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm intrigued. I think I may do some detective work to find out what went on! Thanks, MajorStovall (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you figure it out, please email me privately to let me know because I'm curious too. I don't see any reason for drama here in terms of revealing an "open secret" (whatever that means! :-) ) here, but I'm curious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done so. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm really curious. Come on, I won't be able to sleep until I find out. MajorStovall (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this to the Help Desk.  Skomorokh  11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Craftyminion's talk page.
Message added 03:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crafty (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it has now become quite clear what the problem is. We have a core of admins and an arbitration committee with overlapping responsibilities, and arguments going on about what their respective jurisdictions are. The admins can issue blocks and freeze pages for the purpose of maintaining law and order on the project. But ARBCOM are concentrating on topic bans and other sanctions. The latter function seems to be exclusively political and not necessary for the maintenance of basic law and order on the project. The situation has been further exacerbated by the fact that some ARBCOM sanctions are like Tudor Ordinances or wartime emergency legislation in that they legislate a full dictatorial power to admins. And some admins adopt ARBCOM powers unilaterally without any opposition from ARBCOM.

What is needed is a clear division of responsibilities. We need a core of admins to control law and order, and we need an Arbitration committee that is totally independent of the core of admins, for the exclusive purpose of monitoring abuses of power by the admins. David Tombe (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of order, Mr. Tombe. You are now abusing this public space. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 07:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the oversight of power abuses, I would agree we need a two tiered admin structure. I will tell you why, I think that the tools should be seperated. I would not alwaysmake the right decisions in blocking but I would like the tools to work with the new article patrols. I could avoid the drama of the blocking part and be able to work on new article patrol only. It would also give us a incremental way of understanding who would use the blocking part of the tools the best. Think about the myriad of editors that don't want to block people just work on new article patrol? Kinda like stepping stones. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Out of order)

Perhaps another "learning moment", Hell in A Bucket, -:) the topic is out of order. This is not a freedom of speech issue, and yes, usually one could raise any issue on Jimbo's page that strikes you — but here the issue was raised after an appeal to Jimbo of sanctions by someone who has been sanctioned, appealed, and not gotten the answer they want. At that point, their beginning a discussion about changing the rules/structure on Jimbo's talk page is "out of order."

Responding to such a topic with continuing discussion is inappropriate (out of order).

Note: The topic could have been (usually I would have) reverted or hat/hab collapsed — but I had just responded with a broad suggestion regarding why this was not the time to continue pressing the matter to Mr. Tombe's comment higher on the page which I did not believe he had time to read (and heed the advice: This is not the time, nor the place).
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, You are quite wrong. The thread in question was not initiatiated by myself, and I don't recall making an appeal. I entered the thread to make a couple of clarifications of fact. Often the truth carries with it a strong indication of a correct course of action, but I don't think that you will find anything in my edits on this page that amounted to an appeal, as such. And you are in no position whatsoever to come here and decide what is, or is not, out of order. A perfectly legitimate suggestion has been raised. Hell in a Bucket has added his comments, and there is no need to have you hanging around trying to silence the two of us. The suggestion for a two tier administration is a matter of general interest to many wikipedia users. We need two independent groups, of which an arbitration committe will get into the habbit of assessing appeals objectively. David Tombe (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Mr. Tombe's 906 + 158 = 1064 words (How about $1/word donation?)

Regarding Mr. Tombe's previous (now archived) 906 words, I was being charitable ;-) in referring to them as "an appeal."

Speaking of charitable, perhaps Mr. Tombe' would be willing to donate $1/word to the current fundraising drive (which would more than match my own pledge of $1,000).

As for policy proposals, this is, as previously mentioned, the wrong place. And, while still the wrong time (given the givens), the right place to start might be WP:Village pump (policy).
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is out of order, please Proofreader, let David Tombe to leave his message in peace. Prodego ^talk 06:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is out of order in the context of all that has come before, including the response of others to the previous discussion now in archive, honorable Prodego. Surely Mr. Wale's talk page is not to become the home for such a discussion in any case, as I'm sure you are aware.

But while you're here, perhaps you will add an additional denomination to the current fundraising drive. Benjamin, Cleveland, ... The symbolism of James Madison would certainly be inspiring to us all. .-:)
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is he is hoping he will be able to ascertain Jimbo's opinion on the matter...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, I didn't start the threads which you are referring to. Those threads were about policy, and specific examples were used that involved my own recent case at ARBCOM. I entered the second thread to put a few facts straight. Jimbo replied with a reply that indicated that if an appeal were made, he would not oblige. But that is hardly surprising. Jimbo, on his own admission, has found himself in the role of the British monarch in relation to his own creation. And we all know that the British monarch hasn't exercised his/her power to refuse assent to parliamentary legislation since the year 1708, in the reign of Queen Anne. For Jimbo to overturn an ARBCOM decision on such a scale would be an unprecedented upheaval of the current system of things. I would have been very surprised if Jimbo had suddenly said 'OK. This ARBCOM case was totally out of order, I hereby make it null and void'.

And that's all the more reason why we need a strong new-style pro-active arbitration committee for the sole purpose of monitoring administrative abuses. You seem to think that because I have a personal vested interest in this matter, that I have therefore relinquished my right to comment on these matters when raised by other editors. This is where you are quite wrong. And as a matter of interest, you also have a personal interest in these matters. I note on your user page that you claim to have voted for jehochman in the ARBCOM elections. So you are not without prejudice yourself in this regard. You clearly have a vested interest in opposing comments which are contrary to jehochman's interests. Just like Crum, Fram, and Viridae on the first thread, you are trying to divert the real issue away to my own personal case, and then rule it to be off-topic. David Tombe (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reminded Proofreader he doesn't OWN Jimbo's page. He disagrees.[[12]] To put it bluntly and explicitly as good faith is wearing out at this point. This isn't your page, it isn't your job to regulate things that are posted here unless they fail outside of Wikpedia policy. Jimbo has final say on anything here and he has not explicitly told him to not post here. A suggestion was made to return when he was less angry, that's end period point blank the end. Please stop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[13] Proofreader77 ^(interact) 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Irregardless of the threats [[14]], which I find comical and out of touch with the reality of Wikipedia's policies. I think that a valid point has been raised, It isn't for someone on a powertrip to decide what is or isn't appropriate here and ask Jimbo to confirm for himself that this is a issue. So the ball's in your court Proofreader, put up or shut up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Jimbo, Just wondering if [15] is in fact you? There seems to be a few accounts like that, and of course the owner of the account "Yes, I'm the real me" - just wondering :) — Deon^talk 05:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that one is me. [16] is also me, but as it warns, I don't use it. I hear that I can get twitter to verify me and kick people off of squatted names, but I haven't researched the details yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the place to request verified account status. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, I just wanted to ask you a question regarding this matter I discussed. I issued a requested move to change the title of the United States page to United States of America. Although I lost, I have to ask you what you personally think the title of the article should be.

Here's the link to the talk page and to the article.--Valkyrie Red 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

My first inclination was to agree with you but when I read the discussion, I wasn't so sure. Then I went to Google, Bing, and Yahoo and searched for both "United States" and "United States of America" to see if there is a big impact on findability. There is none. (And, interestingly enough, all 3 of these search engines returned this entry in the #1 "normal" slot for both search terms - Bing has a special box for the usa.gov site that comes up higher, but that's it.) So, probably it doesn't really affect anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just passing by, and thought I'd drop my two cents. Both seem equally valid. However, per Occam's razor, I think most people will opt for the simpler of the two. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct terminology is United States of America. That's what should be used rather than a "commonly known as" shortened version. There are lots of United States as the disambiguation page on that subject shows United States (disambiguation). Better luck next time. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. There has been some debate about the appearance of signatures in images of media content. Some users cite the policy against watermarks and credits as covering signatures as well. However, signatures are neither a watermark nor credit, but a proof of authorship. This becomes especially confusing given new age media that employs electronic signatures. So I would ask your opinion on a few types of situations to know if signatures are appropriate in them.

• In traditional media, such as paintings or drawings, where the signature is on the media and thus represented in any photographic images.
• In traditional media but the artist later adds his electronic signature, that is a computer generated image or device as proof of his authorship, to photographic images of the media.
• In new age media, that is anything generated by computer, where an electronic signature is the only way an artist may add his proof of authorship.
• In mixed media, like a drawing that is later coloured using computer software, where the artist either adds in digitally his signature of his own hand or his electronic signature.

The way, if I may generalize, it seems to go is that traditional media is allowed a signature f the media is old, and newer and less famous artists should not necessarily be allowed to show their signatures because they are not notable, even if their art is being used. New age media seems to allow small initials and small ambiguous symbols or devices without concern, but large initials or anything that includes the full name of the artist is met as unfavourable. So there is no uniformity on signatures, and I would like to attempt a clarification if I could. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this. I would say that digital signatures (not visible on the image, but contained in metadata for example) seem like something we should be using as much as possible - it keeps the attribution with the file. Visible signatures sound more like what you're talking about though, and current policy sounds more or less reasonable to me, although as I say, I have no strong opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If I may ask another question of you, an administrator tells me that once I upload an image with Creative Commons licensing, that Creative Commons owns the image and I lose all copyrights. I was under the impression when I uploaded the images that I could rescind the license, though not retroactively, and that the whole thing was merely to show intent to share to avoid the need to have persons write in for permission to use images. So my question is does Wikipedia not allow a Creative Commons license to be rescinded, and does Wikipedia actually lay a claim of ownership on any images uploaded? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, you cannot rescind the license effectively. You can stop distributing it under those terms but anyone who has gotten it from you previously is able to continue distributing it under those same terms (and that would include Wikipedia. — Coren ^(talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And to answer the other part of your question, Wikimedia does not assert ownership over any user-generated content. You continue to own your images, and any text you may insert, for the legal meaning of the word "own" (not to be confused with WP:OWN). Nathan ^T 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the reported confusion on the part of the admin. This is the first sentence on their (CC's) page for licensing, "With a Creative Commons license, you keep your copyright but allow people to copy and distribute your work provided they give you credit — and only on the conditions you specify here." [emphasis in original] See http://creativecommons.org/choose/. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Creative Commons does not own your copyright. Depending on the exact circumstances, the community is willing to delete images and other content if someone decides they don't want it in Wikipedia anymore. In many cases, of course, this is impossible. But it happens fairly regularly. I'm sure someone other than me can help you find policy pages about that sort of thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just found out that my name is missing in the list of ex super eagles of nigeria players. Eventhough am not the kind of person that takes such omission seriuosly, on second thought, if I played 37 times for my country I deserve to be in that list. I see a lot of players who played 3 or 4 games for Ngeria and they are on that list. My name is CHARLES OKONKWO, and my email is <redacted>. I live in welwyn garden city in the U.K. For futher and easy proof and pictures, check me out on facebook.

Regards,

CHARLES OKONKWO.86.129.189.1 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't even have a page here...--Misortie (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's refering to this team Nigeria national football team.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is best left to the editors at WikiProject:FOOTBALL. I'll copy this over to the project's talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All the best for 2010 Jimbo. I hope the weather in your part of the world is better then here in Australia, Floods one second Fire the next. Cheers ZooPro 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...we had the "big financial crisis" - started by wallstreet-bankers who drank too much champaigne - now we have the "relevancy crisis" in de_wiki (and i know you are not against those criterias!). so, what's the linking bit? right: it's the PSI-thing called "Schwarmgeist" in German - please look it up, will you? - this totally undefined feeling that every problem will be solved by the efforts the community makes...

wasn't it you who said it's a good way de_wiki goes? good quality instead of pure quantity??

we deal with big numbers. and there's no PSI. huge communities (and their projects) need rules. happily, i do not need to explain those simple facts to you any further ;) !

my question is: could you please involve yourself into the discussion? best possibility: a short message in our "newspaper" - de:Wikipedia:Kurier - we will understand your words even in english...

anyway: happy NEW DECADE !

yours sincerely, --Ulli Purwin (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...if you are not sure about my identity: please ask User:Frank Schulenburg...

Dude, hoping to see you at the National Championship game !! You need to get a real contact info page at the website! Hookem Horns!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.121.192 (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, Hoping you enjoy a Happy New Year! I wish you and Wikipedia the very best for continued success on behalf of Pakistani Wikipedians. --Saqib ^talk 11:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too, thank you so much for starting the Wikipedia project! Microsofkid (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

→ Eine Million Artikel in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia sind erreicht!

   Danke, Jimbo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocian (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re Jimbo Wales at Parc des Buttes Chaumont - Now that is the (iconic) image that I will remember. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in arabic page of Martyrs of Córdoba شهداء قرطبة they moved the page to مسيحيو قرطبة المحكومين عليهم بالاعدام or (christian of Cordoba who were executed) Justifying that it's not neutral. Is that true? according to Naming conventions we use the Common names and according to sources. Besides, the 48 person weren't all executed.. some of them were tortured to death [17] [18] so i doubt that we can call that execution. I want your opinion. thanks and happy new year. --Rimmyram (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My friend User:Bdfjhkgj and I created WP:User Creed, a page containing the Wikipedia creed in its present form. It has also been modified by other users. Feel free to check it out and improve it. After all, the user creed emphasizes what you follow as a user and represents those working for your database. Gigogag (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC):-)

Dear Jimbo Wales/Archive 53,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No doubt Jimbo is completely smashed right now and will probably not be able to edit for a while. Shame, so let’s tear this place apart while he’s away!!!--Misortie (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tisk tisk. Anyway Happy New Year Jimbo! Man can any of you belive that wikipedia is almost 10 years old? I didnt even know about Wikipedia until 2004!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice thought, but unlikely; it's at least 5 hours away from New Years Day where Jimbo is, and if I remember correctly, it's best to approach the "magic hour" with stealth and caution, otherwise it's a negative experience. If I remember correctly, which is moot, New Year seems to be regarded as some sort of transition from past to present, although in real terms, that seems to me to be purely arbitrary and symbolic. It's a label, and somewhat iconic, but in reality, largely meaningless. Not that I don't wish anyone, including Jimbo and yourself, best seasonal wishes, but purely objectively, I might just as well wish anyone happy 9th April to celebrate the birthday of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEARS!!! You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidentally my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[[19]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!! Gigogag (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Feliz Año Nuevo from Mexico City! Unfortunately I have a nasty cold so no getting drunk for me. Slept right through midnight.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"2010" - doesn't it just sound awesome? We're living in the future!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Omgawd, yes. I can't get my head around it. Bring on robot Wives please!--Misortie (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Somerset! --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 15:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean Jimbo. Has anyone here seen movie(s) or anything else for that matter that that are/is set in 2010 and the planet is either super futureistic or its doomsday (aka Post Apocalyptic World)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, I am an author in the German Wikipedia.

I refer to the policy about "paid editing" [20]

"Advertising for paid editing services is prohibited. This includes advertising services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, or bureaucrat, bidding on advertised jobs to edit on behalf of, or to advocate for, the benefit of the employer (...)."

and your statements in the article "Jimbo Wales: No one can make money from Wikipedia..." [21]:

"It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. (...) I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."

In June 2007 the Nova Institute, director Michael Carus, imposed paid editing in the theme circle "Renewable resources" in German Wikipedia (Nachwachsende Rohstoffe) [22]. Also Frank Schulenburg took part in the negotations about the project [23]. The project is paid by the German Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. [24]. The Bundeszentrale is a public institution to spread political knowledge and pays more than 80,000 Euro, the whole budget is said to be 140,000 Euro [25]. Whatever the real budget is, it is an enormous amount per article. Also the German Wikimedia chapter Wikimedia in Deutschland gave 17,663 Euro in 2008 for "Nachwachsende Rohstoffe" [26]. For example, the author, administrator and former boards member of German Wikimedia chapter Achim Raschka was engaged by Nova Institute for this project.

In October 2009 we were informed in the Diderot-Club [27] that Nova Institute is offering paid service for charity organisations: Workshop: Wikipedia as millionfold pointer for your donators. (Workshop: Wikipedia als millionenfacher Wegweiser Ihrer Spender) also naming Achim Raschka:

"You will learn basic and progressive knowledge how to change your entries factually and correctly as Wikipedia is demanding, at the same time in content and visualisation convincing for your potential donators. ("Sie erlernen Grundlagen und Fortgeschrittenen-Wissen, um Ihre Einträge einerseits so sachlich und korrekt zu verändern, wie Wikiedia es verlangt, ihn zugleich aber auch inhaltlich und visuell überzeugend für Ihre potentiellen Spender zu gestalten.") [28]

In November 2009 we found Achim Raschka in conflict with other users in arcticles about charity organisations. Achim's versions of reduced critics were protected, the critic was blocked. The affected articles were World Vision, Plan International and others, the critics argue that is not ok that child sponsors are not informed whether their African sponsor child is untertaken female mutilation. The critics were even blamed for rassism.

Michael Carus did not answer my request for information on clients and affected articles [29].

In fact, since September 2009 stuff members of Nova Institute worked a lot and uploaded a lot of graphical material of the organisations like [30], for example the co-worker of Achim Raschka at Nova Institut, Mr. Jens Watenphul. Jens is portrayed as working for Ärzte ohne Grenzen, Greenpeace, World Vision. He is offering workshops for campaigns and strategies in Wikipedia ("Jens Watenphul ist Studienleiter an der Fundraising Akademie und bietet regelmäßig Kampagnen- und Strategieworkshops an – auch zu Wikipedia."). [31] Also there are some accounts cooperating closely who seem to have a single focus on these organizations.

Some Wikipedians are argueing rudely that it were ok to find paid positions after all for Wikipedia long time activists.

On the other hand, how will a project with volunteer authors resist to the influence of interest groups if these hire Wikipedians?

Yours sincerly – Simplicius (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone in the world.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

After a few years and some 10.000 edits I'm giving up. I've added photos, hunted typos, reverted more vandalism than I care to remember, and for what? Vandalism is still rampant and any anonymous idiot can still ruin an article. And they do. Some do it very obvious, others do it so subtle that it takes ages to spot. If at all. Other jokers just play the system time and time again, as if it's some kind of sport. All these morons take up a lot of time and resources from the rest of us. Yet there's still no decent user registration or similar protection. Anyone can edit, yes. Anyone can vandalize too. I feel I'm wasting my time here, sorry. I've had this feeling before and have taken a few breaks before, but this time it's final. Good luck and goodbye. Yintaɳ  01:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The thread below shows the problem in all its nasty glory. 94.143.177.172 (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

...who was in correspondence with you yesterday above has asked me here to let you know that s/he has been unable to reply to your question because s/he has been blocked. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in arabic page of Martyrs of Córdoba شهداء قرطبة they moved the page to مسيحيو قرطبة المحكومين عليهم بالاعدام or (christian of Cordoba who were executed) Justifying that it's not neutral. Is that true? according to Naming conventions we use the Common names and according to sources. Besides, the 48 person weren't all executed.. some of them were tortured to death [32] [33] so i doubt that we can call that execution. I want your opinion. thanks and happy new year. --Rimmyram (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Martyrs of Cordoba" may be the common English name for the group, but is it the common Arabic name? --Carnildo (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is.... and according to sources as well. to make sure please google شهداء قرطبة. thanks for replying --Rimmyram (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do hate to get start making accusations, but I feel as if User:Delicious carbuncle is seriously heading down a road of corruption. It all started over a simple proposal at WP:VILLAGE where I skeptically proposed an idea for a template similar to the Template:Romeo warning for silly vandals apparently belonging to cheerleading squads. DC then started questioning my actions at WP:ABUSE, in which case I appropriately addressed his concerns. However, he seems to possibly have a problem with either my involvement at the project or perhaps even the project as a whole. He posted my real life first name, high school, and high school mascot in an example, in which case I raised concerns of WP:OUTING (note that his previous block for outing is unrelated). He said that it was merely a random name he chose, and I've chosen to WP:AGF in the matter, and you may treat that matter however you so desire. After receiving a comment on his talk page from a blatant IP troll that's been harassing me for over a month, he decided to start looking into the trolls claims about my handling of a repeat offender mainly known here as User:LBHS Cheerleader. He started heatedly questioning my actions, asking for diffs about bans. I had removed a "suspected sockpuppet" template stating that the user might be related to User:Bobabobabo (which I had added over a year ago) and replaced it with a banned template since although I feel it's inappropriate that we were using Boba's ban against LBHSC without evidence, I similiarily felt it was inappropriate to all of a sudden to consider her "debanned." I also added LBHSC to the list of community banned users as it seemed to be a consensus to me. I probably should have discussed this first, but I did not in light of WP:BOLD and WP:DENY (I didn't want to start a thread without absolutely needing to). Per WP:DUCK, it seems pretty obvious that LBHSC and her minions have been vandalizing for quite some time, at least since 2006, probably ban-worthy. However, I gracefully removed the contested templates when Delicious carbuncle started a thread at WP:AN/I in attempt to calmly settle the issue, and even stated that I would voluntarily abandon my efforts to combat LBHSC's disruption (beyond non-controversial reverting of blatant vandalism of course). DC ruthlessly refused to compromise, and I even contemplated retirement if only to save my name "PCHS-NJROTC." Even then DC was not satisfied. Several users argued that LBHSC should indeed be considered banned as she would likely never be unblocked, including highly respected admins. Many editors, administrators, and even members of the WP:ArbCom have expressed their opinion that DC should move on. Even an admin who felt I had acted out of line and should be blocked stated that there's not enough support to keep the discussion going. Although there were those who defended my actions 100%, felt that although that the user should be banned but I should have discussed first, felt that I was being power hungry, and even thought that my actions were abusive, the general consenus of everybody was that I had offered settlement, learned important lessons, and that good faith should be assumed. Despite consensus, DC continued to revive the discussion over and over again, providing nothing new, and basically insisting on action. He has been warned repeatedly by several respected editors. He had stopped, and I had disengaged. I really wish this could have stayed in the past. However, Delicious carbuncle started User:Delicious_carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC_ban_redux in the dawn of the new year. Considering the edit summary he used when creating the page, I initially thought his intentions were to use that as an arguement against someone who he is in conflict with known as User:Neutralhomer. In desire to not be involved in his conflict, I nominated the page for deletion at WP:MFD. I viewed it simply as an attack page which did not help the encyclopedia. I could have nominated for WP:CSD, but I didn't want to say that he was "attacking me" as I was in favor of disengagement as was recommended at AN/I. In response to the MfD, he indicated that he intends to start yet another ban discussion. I'm not sure if he's wanting a topic ban on vandalism as before (which really isn't even a topic) or an all out ban. I did indicate that I would not stay here if I was topic banned, and that I would just assume be renamed to something unaffiliated with me (i.e. Vandal Fighter Missing in Action) and then be fully banned, but thankfully there's no support for either a topic ban or all out ban. It's clear that disengagement is still prefered based on some comments at the MfD discussion. After the original page was nominated at WP:MfD, Delicious carbuncle proceeded to create User:Delicious carbuncle/work_page, and admitted to doing so to blatantly avoid scrutiny at MfD. I added the same MfD tag to that page as well because it was simply a recreation in anticipation of deletion. DC proceeded to remove the MfD tag. I then reinserted it and requested that he not edit war. Just as I've been composing this message, he's proceeded to once again remove the tag and complete his "work" and move it to WP:AN/I, which isn't even the place for ban proposals anyway (WP:AN would have been more appropriate]]). WP:AN. After posting at AN/I, he blanked the page, which is acceptable, but I restored it in fear that it would otherwise be speedy deleted, and I prefer that it stand at this time for others to observe through the course of this. In a nutshell, Delicious carbuncle is being obsessive; Wikipedians of all levels of experience have agreed that this drama has gone on too long, including User:Shell Kinney and User:SirFossie who are members of the Ban Appeals Committee at ArbCom. I can only WP:Let it go if he lets it go, and he's continuing to beat the dead horse. I am a proud Wikipedians, and I have made mistakes along side of great contributions. Please neutrally settle this as you feel fit, preferably along side consensus. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy TLDR batman! The community is more than happy to handle this, fwiw. tedder (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wanted Jimbo to get the whole story. Took several minutes to write. If the community can handle this, Godspeed, and hopefully it will stay settled this time. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jimbo! The AN thread is here. If it needs to be said, little of what PCHS-NJROTC is accurate, but I'm not going to bother to refute it or respond to any other provocations here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Relax DC, relax, soon it will all be over. No need to bite me as inaccurate or for me to bite you as inaccurate; neither of us are perfect angels in this. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. See also WP:AN#Proposed topic ban for User:PCHS-NJROTC. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, I am an author in the German Wikipedia.

I refer to the policy about "paid editing" [34]

"Advertising for paid editing services is prohibited. This includes advertising services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, or bureaucrat, bidding on advertised jobs to edit on behalf of, or to advocate for, the benefit of the employer (...)."

and your statements in the article "Jimbo Wales: No one can make money from Wikipedia..." [35]:

"It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. (...) I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."

In June 2007 the Nova Institute, director Michael Carus, imposed paid editing in the theme circle "Renewable resources" in German Wikipedia (Nachwachsende Rohstoffe) [36]. Also Frank Schulenburg took part in the negotations about the project [37]. The project is paid by the German Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. [38]. The Bundeszentrale is a public institution to spread political knowledge and pays more than 80,000 Euro, the whole budget is said to be 140,000 Euro [39]. Whatever the real budget is, it is an enormous amount per article. Also the German Wikimedia chapter Wikimedia in Deutschland gave 17,663 Euro in 2008 for "Nachwachsende Rohstoffe" [40]. For example, the author, administrator and former boards member of German Wikimedia chapter Achim Raschka was engaged by Nova Institute for this project.

In October 2009 we were informed in the Diderot-Club [41] that Nova Institute is offering paid service for charity organisations: Workshop: Wikipedia as millionfold pointer for your donators. (Workshop: Wikipedia als millionenfacher Wegweiser Ihrer Spender) also naming Achim Raschka:

"You will learn basic and progressive knowledge how to change your entries factually and correctly as Wikipedia is demanding, at the same time in content and visualisation convincing for your potential donators. ("Sie erlernen Grundlagen und Fortgeschrittenen-Wissen, um Ihre Einträge einerseits so sachlich und korrekt zu verändern, wie Wikiedia es verlangt, ihn zugleich aber auch inhaltlich und visuell überzeugend für Ihre potentiellen Spender zu gestalten.") [42]

In November 2009 we found Achim Raschka editing since September and in conflict with other users in arcticles about charity organisations. Achim's versions of reduced critics were protected, the critic was blocked. The affected articles were World Vision, Plan International and others, the critics argue that is not ok that child sponsors are not informed whether their African sponsor child is untertaken female mutilation. The critics were even blamed for rassism.

Michael Carus did not answer my request for information on clients and affected articles [43].

In fact, since September 2009 stuff members of Nova Institute worked a lot and uploaded a lot of graphical material of the organisations like [44], for example the co-worker of Achim Raschka at Nova Institut, Mr. Jens Watenphul. Jens is portrayed as working for Ärzte ohne Grenzen, Greenpeace, World Vision. He is offering workshops for campaigns and strategies in Wikipedia ("Jens Watenphul ist Studienleiter an der Fundraising Akademie und bietet regelmäßig Kampagnen- und Strategieworkshops an – auch zu Wikipedia."). [45] Also there are some accounts cooperating closely who seem to have a single focus on these organizations.

Some Wikipedians are argueing rudely that it were ok to find paid positions after all for Wikipedia long time activists.

On the other hand, how will a project with volunteer authors resist to the influence of interest groups if these hire Wikipedians?

Yours sincerly – Simplicius (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.247.13.185 (talk)

I would appreciate to know your opinion about this case. Thank you. Simplicius (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be entertained/horrified to read this paean to the First Couple of Wikipeda. Rule 42: never doubt it.  Skomorokh  11:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

XD!!!!--Misortie (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this page out, Skomorokh. I have deleted it. I would block the user, but since the page was a pornographic story written about me, some might consider me to have a conflict of interest, so I'll let someone else deal with that aspect of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done but there are much more disturbing allegations made at that site here. Are they true? Think of the children (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically (I have followed some of the story, but don't advise following any of the links too far) it has been alleged that the author of Wikipedia's most famous mascot is also the author, and owner, of some extremely unpleasant images involving child abuse. Again, is this true? Think of the children (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And your evidence for that is? (INB4BLOCK)--Misortie (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been alleged on this website here. I don't know whether true. I would like someone to comment. Think of the children (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is true or not. Why do you ask? Do you have a specific proposal for an action within policy, or a change to policy?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand why this may be a problem? No, I thought you wouldn't. Think: public relations. Think of the children (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I ask you why that might be a problem? Did I say anything to indicate that I don't think it is a problem? Did I say anything to suggest that I might not understand something? No. I did not. I asked you: what are you proposing?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What Kasuga does outside of this Encyclopaedia is irrelevant.--Misortie (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, with your Wikia hat on, you may want to take a look at this story about you at Unencyclopedia GTD 13:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's Uncyc. I don't get involved personally in policy there. Generally speaking, it's an appropriate place for satire/parody/farce. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Think of the children certainly has some odd interests. If it is indeed true that this artist also draws scandalous works in a similar style, the Foundation might want to consider the ramifications any official endorsement or use. But that's the organization's policy and it's really not a matter for us editors. Regarding content policy on the encyclopedia, as fan art, or as an illustration in an article about anime, I don't see what the problem is with the tame images, certainly nothing that would suggest banning an artist's entire body of work because some of the works are this particular type of cartoon porn. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no official endorsement of this Wikipetan character. As for me, I've never liked it, but lots of people do. I'm happy to consider what should be done about it if the author of the work is in some way a sketchy character, but so far Think of the Children hasn't shared any ideas.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to see this article about you at uncyclopedia. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? For goodness sake folks, don't you think Jimbo has better things to do than look at ridiculous website posts? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental right that everyone has on the Internet is privacy. If Jimbo does not wish to discuss this further, he doesn’t have to. If Jimbo wishes to remove this thread, he can. Totally up to him. Now I’m off to the little French bakery (Yes. They have French bakery’s in Seoul, but it’s all Korean food!)--Misortie (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

re Seoul - One day at a symposium at USC Annenberg, I was talking with someone about broadband suckage in America, and they mentioned that South Korea's was an order of magnitude faster ... because people had to have the superfastest connection to compete in online games. And I said, ah ha! SO QUESTION: Is the broadband really superfaster there, or can you not tell, etc? Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's probably exaggerated somewhat, but yes, it is rather good. Excellent for downloading video content. The current connection I am using is shared and it is still very fast, much better than it is in the UK and as you mentioned the US. And it's peak time here aswell, not to mention I'm in a city of 20M people (Cf Seoul infobox Sadly, I am back in the UK tomorrow so I wont be able to benefit form it until I return in late spring! (If you have the time to Answer Jimbo, have you ever been to the Republic of Korea?)--Misortie (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been to South Korea a few times. I like it very much. And yes, the Internet is pretty fast there. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (to Misortie and Jimbo) ... Note: re Broadband+gaming - I noticed that Time Warner Cable has fairly recently (August 2009 commercial: "Lag") picked up on that idea the person at USC mentioned to me a few years back. We Americans can be slow on the uptake, sometimes. ^;^ Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a discussion about 7107Delicious regarding this incident at WP:AN#Jimbo requests block of User:7107delicious, and from this edit, it appears that he will be emailing you. I appreciate that emails are private, but would you be able to drop a note at WP:AN about what he sends? There is a bit of a debate as to whether he should be blocked indef, or for a period of time. Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, the story lends itself to allegorical interpretation—Wikipe-tan could be interpreted as the personification of the Wikipedia community, and the relationship between Jimbo and Wikipe-tan could represent Jimbo's purported love for the community, and vice versa.

But that would be absolutely ridiculous! So I suppose it's only fitting that that the story was deleted and its author was blocked from editing. Everyking (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, just wanted to congratulate you on raising 7.5 million dollars to support Wikipedia. Hope this site lasts forever!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let it be ... RESOLVED: WP:AGF should be replaced by WP:PCS (Presume Common Sense) in 2010.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(First 10 only please)

1. Since even Hitler meant well {serious smile}, WP:AGF is meaningless other than the WP:CIVILITY issue (a highly contentious matter LoL see: WP:Civility/Poll) of not saying what we're thinking about another editor's actions.

   So, let us forget the pointless flailing (and flinging) of AGF ... and move on to a starting position when addressing another editor of: Presume Common Sense [PCS]. Presume we are on the same page as human beings with a good "common sense" of things ... and neither is an idiot ... etc. {serious smile}

   By presuming common sense, we stop when confused by someone's actions, ... rather than presuming they are from another planet, assume we may be mistaken about what each is saying ... and therefore strive to get back to the same page ... rather than, e.g., erecting a force-field projector to keep the crazy person from the other planet from reaching our page.
   -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2. -

(First 10 only please)

1. I prefer to Assume Complete Ignorance of the Rules first :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
2. [2 limericks for the negative]

   "Presume Common Sense" is no better.
   While AGF surely won't fetter
   presumptions that fools
   (who went to bad schools!)
   are running amok, silly rhetor!*

   (*Resorting to self-defamation
   to counter my case with negation
   is par for the course.
   Have you heard Bad Horse
   wants to join my music conflation? :-)
   -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 10:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(bonus points for haikus ;-)

• [haiku] Yelling "AGF!" / is usually a good sign / of not doing so. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• [haiku re Negative #1] The only rule is: / Pretend the sysop is right / and "admit" you're wrong. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• [haiku] I've sent a challenge. / This year's rhetorical moves / burn hole in pocket. :-) -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi - there seems to be little interest in this topic apart from your own contributions, but your bi-daily additions to your own thread circumvent it from being auto-archived! Perhaps it would sit better on your own talk page? Little grape (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Normally that might be true, but I just donated $1,000 in response to Jimbo's appeal, so have a bit more slack than usual to see if I can conjure up more interest in actually interesting ways to "debate" things debatable. Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to match my donation? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not only is it normally true, it is true in this case too. Please stop bumping your thread on this talk page. If you wish, you can raise this proposal at a more appropriate place, such as WT:AGF. Prodego ^talk 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Proofreader, if I donate $1,000.01, will I have more of a say than you do? DS (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  You would have to go to $1,000.02, then there will be a discussion regarding your two cents. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Little grape - false statement - "bi-daily additions to your own thread" (Check the number of posts and timestamps of Proofreader77) - (Note: Possibly passing for BS on a charitable day. :-) FINE: Donate $25 to Wikipedia. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Prodego - Echoing of BS (Snowball BS) by administrator (who has already goofed in interpreting what's going on on this page before while claiming to be on wikibreak — more BS. LoL) FINE: Donate $50 to Wikipedia. (Administrators should know better, or remain silent when they don't.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I read your nicely written editorial in the Wall Street Journal Europe about hostility (incivility tends to be a Wikipedia used term and wasn't used in the editorial, I believe) on the internet.

If you have any ideas to bring about a kinder Wikipedia, let us know! I think it should be along the lines as lack of hostility must be rigourously enforced, especially among veteran editors, who have no excuse (and newbies, who have only a tiny excuse). Whether it be blocking, warning, discussion, yellow cards (English tend to use this), or something else, I am not advocating any specific measure. It is too bad that ANI is full of accusations and fighting. Although Wikipedians don't like editorial boards, sometimes these might help us guide really difficult questions when article talk pages fail. This is just brainstorming, not concrete suggestions. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Suomi Finland 2009 for mentioning this (I would have missed it) — and thank you, Mr. Wales for highlighting this: A complex problem matrix of human nature and technology ... not beyond creative solution. Working on it. (serious smile) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 07:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear people thoughts on the following. I made this edit to Jimbo's user page. I did so as per the statement of "Edit this page". I was careful not to vandalize or to violate policies. The edit was reverted in a manner that is appropriate for vandalism (no edit summary justification).

I don't care about the particular edit I made. It was a lighthearted bit of fun. I'm wondering what people think about the edit and the revert. If this edit was reverted as vandalism, then what type of edit was Jimbo referring to with his statement of "Edit this page!"? I'd like to explore this. Any thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the revert was unnecessary. Your edit was clever/cute and not disruptive in the least. JamieS93 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I believe it follows the spirit of the message. You can make the change again as it isn't vandalism in my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

People who persistently don’t leave edit summaries should be warned, in my opinion. As for your change, I personally thought it was pretty good and I agree with above^^--Misortie (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• In fact an edit summary was given. It was 'rv', which means 'revert'. This is the second part of the WP:BRD cycle and does not mean that your edit was considered vandalism. --86.159.91.82 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also it seems to me like User:Zvn was just doing the same as Joe407 did, i.e. editing the page in a way they thought suitable as encouraged by the page itself and the very edit Joe was making. Note that no one has said it was vandalism. As 86 said, rv is revert, rvv is reverting vandalism. The edit summary perhaps didn't really explain the reason for the revert, but really is there any reason for an extensive discussion over a bit of light hearted fun? Joe407 has his/her fun by making an edit, Zvn had his/her fun by reverting. By definition, both are as free as the other to make their edits. Someone else can have their fun by reinstating Joe's edit if they really want although let's not start an edit war in Jimbo's page please. As highlighted in the BRD essay it's fairly common that people will revert an edit they think is inappropriate or doesn't improve a page, this doesn't mean it was done with bad intentions. The best practice is that both editors will then start discussing, and other editors will join in, and a consensus decision will be reached. There seems to be a myth that it's inappropriate to revert a good faith edit however while often it's best not to revert when the edit makes some improvement even if it has flaws and it's usually wise to explain why you are reverting, ultimately the most important thing is that you participate in any attempt at discussion which the person who wants to make the edit is free to start once they realise people object to their edit. For a variety of reasons we often defer to the previous stable version when there is substanial dispute. Remember that Joe's edit summary didn't really explain why they were making the edit either. All it really says is I'm editing this page because it said I could (or should?) which isn't terrible but isn't really a great reason (except for the sandbox) and not much better then 'rv' IMHO. Joe may find the edit humourous as do other editors, but not all editors share the same sense of humour so it may have simply came across as a pointless edit to Zvn, that didn't make the page any better and was solely made because the page said they could which under the circumstances isn't necessarily bad, but may be worth of reversion. A better edit summary would have been something like 'better wording as requested' or 'improving wording as requested' or 'funnier wording as requested by' which tells Zvn why you think the edit is improving the page. Again, I wouldn't say a major issue in this case, but if you're going to complain about another editor, it's worth considering the other side. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Jimbo. Sorry to bug you, but I tried to ask someone else with knowledge in this area, and they haven't gotten back to me. Members of the Rational Response Squad, most notably its founder, Brian Sapient, uses aliases for reasons of privacy and safety. Sapient has confirmed to me via email that he prefers not to have his real name used in the RRS article. My understanding is that the respect for BLP subjects includes sometimes keeping such material out of articles (and even deleting articles), even when it is well-sourced. Would I be correct in understanding that removing Sapient's real name is permitted? Do you require that he email you himself? Nightscream (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not intending to speak for Mr. Wales, but the questions I'd ask myself are: Does including the person's real name add to the article? Will my understanding of the subject be impacted by the removal of the name? Is the person notable enough of their own accord to have their own article? If the answer is no to all three of these, then I'd say we should respect the rights of the private citizen to retain their privacy. Zaereth (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo what Zaereth has said. I don't think it is possible to write down a very simple rule about this sort of thing. It depends on the sorts of factors that Zaereth covers, for sure.

I have not studied this particular case in depth, but I did take a glance. At this point, we reference his real name with an amicus brief filed by Google in a court case. In general, direct cites to court documents should raise alarm bells: is this WP:OR? (I'm not saying that court documents can never be cited, only noting that many times people cite them inappropriately. It's too often a technique used to get around the fact that something isn't actually notable in any way. Again, though, I am not making any specific judgment about this particular case - I haven't looked into it deeply enough to have a firm opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer to all three of Zaereth's questions is indeed "no". I do not have sufficient knowledge about citing court documents, however. I wasn't even aware that citing court documents could be OR. In what circumstances is it inappropriate? Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, should the following versions to which the real names were added be removed from the Edit History: [46][47][48] and the Talk Page's Edit History [49][50]? Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources, and are therefore much more likely to be prone to misinterpretation and synthesis. Secondary sources should be used, because these are usually researched and interpreted by experts in that sort of thing, and are therefore much more reliable. I've taken a little time to look at this myself, and it appears to me that you are correct, the article would be no less informative without the name. It appears from the talk page that the name was added more to show that somebody could rather than they should. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Along the same lines, an RFC opened on Star Wars Kid recently at [51] where debate centred around the 'potential harm' issue vs. 'but everyone else has published the name' argument. Little grape (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that and the Brian Peppers case were two that I cited as precedent to User:Eugeneacurry, my colleague who added Brian Sapient's real name to the RRS article. Nightscream (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This query would be best handled at WP:BLP/N. As a regular, much of the basics has already been discussed here but a key point is that another reason we avoid primary sources is because for privacy reasons, we prefer not to publish things not already relatively widely disseminated. In particular, if someone's name is not covered in any secondary source, then it's not widely disseminated and particularly if it doesn't really add great value to the article, then it's best kept out. In particular, people looking thorough primary sources to find information others may consider private is usually frowned upon even if when they have good intentions/no intent to harm. Sometimes even when something is covered in secondary sources, we still keep it out as I expect the Star Wars Kid highlights and some other cases I've dealt with before. It's worth remembering that ideally any info added to an article should stay there forever unless it's shown to be false or no longer true and would often be one of the first results in an internet search engine whereas secondary sources so adding info to an article should be considered a big deal and can easily be more significant then something covered in some obscure source. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is very true, and a perfect example of OR. I left the following message for Nightscream, but, now that I think about it, the information may be useful to many others in situations like this, where Wikipedia policy does not provide a very clear answer:

Here is some helpful information from the Society of Professional Journalists on the ethics that should be used in writing. This is not Wikipolicy, nor is it enforceable in any way, but it does provide the basic dos and don'ts that are accepted by media outlets worldwide, from newspapers to paper encyclopedias. Much of it is a condensed version of wikipolicy, and it has often provided me with some very good, plain old common-sense arguments. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revs update. I'm just posting this here because lots of people in the community watch my talk page and I want to make sure people see it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks. (Have been watching the tech mailing list, this is much better. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello sir Jimmy Wales! In the romanian wikipedia are big problems. From a simple question that administrators did not care for her, blocking users no sense, especially that violate known rules: It is censored! Many users complains that admins we understand ourselves, simple users, I for example, I was blocked yesterday for no reason! I would ask you to intervene in a fl or ltul, because the Romanian Wikipedia is an incredible crisis. Thank you. --Ervin C. (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wales!

I respect you and your companies very greatly. I have contributed to some Wikipedia articles, and such. I would just like to tell you an idea I have, and was just wondering if you would consider it. You see, I was just thinking: Couldn't Wikipedia allow ads, and then give the money away to charity? I found an article on the web about this: [52]

This will allow you to:

• 1. Build thousands of schools around the world. This will expand your goal of providing education to the world.
• 2. Fund research in medicine, etc.
• 3. Use part of this money for Wikipedia, in improving technology, etc.
• 4. Help fight world hunger.
• 5. Make Wikipedia the largest charity in the world.

Also, people now edit Wikipedia because it is non-profit. And this will be non-profit too. In fact, people will work even harder, because the money is going to help others. You can also continue to allow donations, because many people will still want to donate.

This could also be the first truly democratic company:

• 1. Wikipedia users can vote on who is the president, board members, etc.
• 2. Wikipedia users can vote on how the money is spent.
• 3. Everyone can put in their input, to achieve better ideas, etc.
• 4. Wikipedia users can vote on the salaries of the workers.

Also, you should make is so that the ads can be hidden, so that if some people do not want ads, they do not have to see them. Additionally, since Wikipedia is edited by the people, ads will not really affect bias or anything.

Wikipedia is growing very fast. Wikibooks, for example, is still in its infancy. This means that in the Wikipedia Foundation could make and continue to make billions from ads.

This, I think, will truly allow you to change the world even more. Your Wikipedia revolutionized knowledge. And now this can revolutionize charity. It will be the worlds first 'corporation of the people.' Also, it could help cure world hunger, bring medicine to billions of people, improve education for billions, fund billions of dollars of research, build research institutions, etc.

You, Mr. Wales, have the opportunity to change the lives of billions of people around the world. In fact, if you do this, I honestly think you would win the Nobel Peace Prize. Wikipedia would become the worlds largest charity! And it will continue on for as long as humans live, since it is made of the people, for the people.

I was just wondering if the Wikipedia community could have a discussion on this? Perhaps a vote. I honestly think most people would want this. All the people I have talked to would love to see this happen.

Mr Wales, you have revolutionized knowledge. Because of you, the nature of knowledge has changed forever. Knowledge has become much more open, much more collaborative. Now, you can help change the world, and change the way people see the world. A Wikipedia charity will be humanity at its best: The world working together for the common good. If you start this, you will no doubt go down as one of the great men of human history. A revolutionary trend setter. A man who changed the course of history. --Jo (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Adverts introduce lots of potential Conflicts of Interest, Wikipedia should remain neutral. Its aim is to build an encyclopaedia, not to fund charitable efforts or become an experiment in democracy. WP:NOT explicitly states this amongst other things. Wikipedia should not implement any sort of bureaucracy unless it's conducive to writing an encyclopaedia -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, if it was to help the Wikimedia Foundation with getting $$$, I would definitely be open to adverts. 71.166.39.70 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to examine the following discussions. Additional comments are welcome.

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Defining consensus
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Achieving consensus
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Recording consensus
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Lapses in consensus
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Jimbo, just wanted to say happy holidays! Nascarfans (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in arabic page of Martyrs of Córdoba شهداء قرطبة they moved the page to مسيحيو قرطبة المحكومين عليهم بالاعدام or (christian of Cordoba who were executed) Justifying that it's not neutral. Is that true? according to Naming conventions we use the Common names and according to sources. Besides, the 48 person weren't all executed.. some of them were tortured to death [53] [54] so i doubt that we can call that execution. I want your opinion. thanks and happy new year. --Rimmyram (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.42.120 (talk)

I'm having problems on my Wikia (http://tyw7.wikia.com/wiki/My_Wiki). I cannot replace the image in the top right corner. No matter how many times I upload the image, it just wouldn't appear! Secondly, whenever I try to verify my email, I'm geting errors (see http://pastebin.com/m2109d0f1). Thanks. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your solution is best achieved by emailing community@wikia.com. They will help you over there. Wikipedia isn't the best place to ask for Wikia help! :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also posted on your Wikia talk page and contacted the admins through special:contact. Plus, aren't you the same Jimbo Wales on Wikia? ;) --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's the same Jimbo, but he doesn't provide tech support for either site. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't show up to a professor's home asking for help on your essay, you show up at the office. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know... I guess that depends on whether the professor frequently advertises his home address when he's lecturing his class. This must be a 'completely separate Jimbo Wales. Move along, everyone. -- Iron Eagle 6 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What can be done when English and Czech Wikipedia contains contradicting informations and nobody listens. The English Wikipedia states that homosexuality was remeved from the lists of disorders on the ground of recognizing the scientific evidence. This fact supported by the most reliable sources available to the topic. The Czech Wikipedia states that homosexuality was removed solely because of the political reasons. This statement is supported by one unfounded opinion of the author of scripts. Yes, you read right! It is absurd, isn't it? I believe this is a serious problem, but nobody has listened for several months and the article is blocked to prevent correct that. Nothing can be done. The Wikipedia policies about reliable sources and exceptional claims have been ignored there for many months. Is there any chance to set right propaganda of ultraconservative editors and inactive admins there? I believe CS Wikipedia should present facts in similar fashion as the EN Wikipedia, since it is not Conservapedia. Moreover, the Czech Wikipedia editors violates undue weight and reliable sources policies by presenting fringe sources even if those was explicitly prohibited to use in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_August_8#Contradicting_informations_between_en_and_cs_Wikipedia didn't help to solve the issue. All mechanism including Czech Arbitrary Comitee has failed so far. These issues hurt Wikipedia project. Who is responsible and who failed here? --Destinero (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As you describe it, it doesn't sound good... but of course I can't read Czech. I wonder if you'd be willing to ask some of the people who don't agree with you about the current situation, but who can also speak English, to come and join in a discussion here - or on my talk page in Czech Wikipedia would probably be better, but please let me know if you do that. It is not up to me to directly decide what Czech Wikipedia should say, of course, but I would be happy to try to make myself useful in terms of assisting with a discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

On that note it'd be interesting to contrast between the Japanese wikipedia articles on the issues and events surrounding the whaling in the southern ocean with the English wikipedia. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr Wales, I contact you because I have questions about redirections in list, ... here, I have put good links, and a person revert me, after there is here too it is for a space, and about easypeasy here, I see the official website "easypeasy - for netbooks", I proposed a lof of move requests (about SLAX->Slax, ... here) what are your opinions ? Thanks in advance — Neustradamus (✉) 22:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And about this, it is a talk page ok but it is possible to improve this article, no ? the best is [[example]] not [[example|example]] — Neustradamus (✉) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• This whole thing is an unnecessary conflict between form and substance; as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". The bottom line is that articles have been written using variants of the English language, and spellings should not be changed without good reason. This involves discussing such changes on the Talk pages of affected articles rather than riding roughshod over our guidelines to suit a personal preference. In particular, WP:TALK specifically excludes Talk pages from these guidelines. This editor should stop making changes without consensus, and has already been blocked by me for failing to do so. Moreover, bringing it here looks like forum shopping to achieve his intended result, and it should stop. We have plenty of other things to do here other than waste time on "licence/license" and on the use of non-breaking spaces. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a mess, although not one that requires Jimbo's attention. The conduct by both sides is a textbook example of how not to behave on Wikipedia. In a series of articles dealing with computer software, Neustradamus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who evidently is not a native speaker of English, changes correct British English spellings to American English, which is a violation of the Manual of Style's guideline on National varieties of English, and also disregards Wikipedia's fundamental policy on Consensus. (The main word in contention is licence [British spelling for the noun] versus license [British spelling for the verb, American spelling for noun and verb].[55]) Neustradamus also painstakingly corrected many wikilinks from redirect pages to the correct target pages. The editors who apparently represent the current "consensus" at the pages in question (I haven't tried to figure out how many editors are active) mass revert all of Neustradamus's edits, and thereby restore the real errors that Neustradamus corrected. Even on a project page that lists articles by name, and therefore should use the article's actual names, they reverted the corrections.[56] I don't know the history of the acrimony, and Neustradamus's manner (compounded by his lack of facility in English) is probably a significant cause. However, it is Wikipedia's quality that suffers most. (I stumbled into this mess when a bad revert of a good edit by Neustradamus popped up on my watchlist.)—Finell 02:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

About license and licence it is ok (US/GB) but why I edited? It is very simple because the best solution is the real license name, not for you ? (A cat is a cat, a dog is a dog, a cat is not a dog, and a dog is not a cat), we must name by the real name — Neustradamus (✉) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very difficult to parse the above sentense. To Neustradamus: if what you're saying is that the actual (software) licenses almost always use the spelling "license" (even in the title), this does not imply that the spelling "licence" is incorrect. Both are correct spellings, although one is preferred in American English and the other in Commonwealth (or British) English. (See American and British English spelling differences if you're interested.) Both are perfectly acceptable spellings on Wikipedia, and one should not change the name of an article without compelling reasons (and if an article was started with a particular spelling, it should retain it, see WP:RETAIN). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neustradamus's statement is unintelligible, and your statement of the guidelines is correct. On the other hand, when referring to a document by title, we do not alter the spelling of the title to conform to the article's English variety, just as we don't alter the spelling of direct quotations. Further, your statement does not address the erroneous reverts of Neustradamus's corrections of wikilinks that pointed to redirect pages; wikilinked words can be piped to the article's English variety, but the link should point to the correct target page. And he made other wikilink corrections, which had nothing to do with English varieties, that were mass-reverted along with everything else he did. Just because an editor makes some mistakes, or even is troublesome in some ways, doesn't mean that all of his or her edits should be reverted automatically, without examining the edits individually.—Finell 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the disruptive and recently blocked editor, Neustradamus, you are making a number of observations, yet you said above that you don't know the history of the case. Could I suggest any editors unfamiliar and wishing to comment should first read the history and the quite small set of previous discussions: 1 WP:AN, 2 User_talk:Michael Hardy, 3 Talk:Free software licence, 4 User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Re:_User_Neustradamus and 5 User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Neustradamus_again. The history is short, and discussions so far have been civil and free of acrimony.
• I don't think there is any dispute that Neustradamus has been entering multiple different venues and has been advised on each occasion by multiple, uninvolved admins, and experienced editors, to heed our policies and guidelines: WP:ENGVAR, WP:TPG, MOS:HYPHEN, and several others besides. Neustradamus ignored everybody's advice on WP:AN, and elsewhere, and became disruptive, editing as before, and at high speed, across many different articles. That was why he was blocked by Rodhullandemu. He appealed, but was declined after still not accepting WP:ENGVAR. Due to the large number of disruptive edits, they were reverted using "rollback all". Also affected were a handful of "false positives", which should not have been reverted. This is a trifling issue in comparison with the disruption to the project that went before, and the reverts were promptly and properly reviewed, and all of the incorrect ones have been undone by Rodhullandemu and me. Even after his block, N resumed editing disruptively and contrary to WP:ENGVAR, MOS:HYPHEN, and WP:TPG. N was therefore given a final warning by Rodhullandemu.
• You also said, "Neustradamus also painstakingly corrected many wikilinks from redirect pages to the correct target pages." I get the impression you think those edits by Neustradamus were correct. You neglected to mention he also changed spellings in the edit you cited to his preferred version contrary to WP:ENGVAR. There is a minority misconception, not limited to new editors, that linking to redirects is wrong, and that such links need to be "fixed" to point to their target articles. Linking to redirects isn't wrong and such links should not be "fixed", per our very longstanding consensus, well explained on WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN, "do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. ... It is unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects. ... and it can actually be detrimental." 91.187.66.243 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Look for examples: Mozilla Public License (MPL) GNU General Public License (GPL) GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Apache License Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) Common Public License (CPL) Eclipse Public License (EPL) MIT License BSD License ... a big list. There are licenses (not example) written in the United Kingdom (commonwealth), but it is not the majority — Neustradamus (✉) 06:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I like naked women, but this picture crosses the line. [[57]]. The arguement to keep this is that it Wikipedia isn't censored....Does this mean we should find someone to take a photo of a rape so we can accurately portray a rape? I'm sorry but censorship is one thing, revictimizing this poor woman completely different. Can you comment on your opinion about including images like this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For all clarity: this has been discussed and dismissed today at WP:ANI#Unnecessarily Graphic Photo?. Argumentum ad Jimbo is probably not the best way of trying to get a different outcome anyway. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of people who think they need to protect JIMBO....Can't you allow him to have a opinion? Where in this did I say he must change things, I merely asked his opinion on censorship and what counts as and what doesn't. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But why is a single person's opinion sought when a wider-reaching community discussion has already taken place? They manner in which you're bribing this here suggests that (in your mind, anyways) it is an appeal to some sort of higher authority that can take precedence over AN/I. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is why you shouldn't assume. It makes an ass out of u and me.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Smarmy snark aside, you failed to address the point; why do you seek the opinion of one, when many have already weighed in? Tarc (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference? You say it won't change things so why harry me on why I want one persons opinion. Unless I'm breaking a policy that says I an't have a discussion with this user move on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept your concession. Good luck here. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I do know that posting here is highly unlikely to make a change, however Jimbo was kind enough to discuss a issue previously and it giave good insights to his opinion. Nothing changed there either but it was impressive he would have a open dialogue on the issue. I like open door policies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Proposition 1: We are an encyclopedia. Lemma 1: Therefore, we reflect what happens in the world, without imposing our opinions.
• Proposition 2: From Proposition 1, it is therefore necessary to deal with,and describe, evil. Lemma 2a: Sometimes the extent of this cannot be adequately conveyed in mere words. Lemma 2b : If we are to have any moral authority as a supplier of information, we should not shy from presenting the world as it is, not as we would prefer to see it, and Lemma 2c: There exist technical mechanisms in the Wikimedia software for viewers who prefer not to view images offensive to them to avoid doing so.
• Proposition 3: There is ample precedent for such images, e.g. Phan Thị Kim Phúc, the image used being the winner of a Pulitzer Prize. For the image currently under discussion, the victim is not identified, and is now unlikely to be. Lemma 3: There is no known personal impact here, so that is a red herring.
• Proposition 4: WP:NOTCENSORED should be neither a free-for-all for licentiousness, nor should it be a stick to stifle encyclopedic content; Lemma 4: Our personal opinions count for precisely nothing here.

Proposal: Nothing to discuss here, move on please. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal. Read this...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. From WP:OWN: "no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." We are not talking about any article in particular, we are talking about principles. I am not assuming ownership of anything; I am putting forward principles as I see them. Personal taste is supremely irrelevant in this debate. If you want to change our principles so as we offer a bowdlerised view of the World, fine; but that's not what we are here for, and would be very likely the second stage on the route to the ultimate failure of Wikipedia; the first being that we have been far too tolerant of vandalism, particularly from unregistered editors, and as our success and penetration has increased, we have conspicuously failed to deal with it effectively. If you want to take cudgels against a side-issue, fine. That's a luxury those of us who daily combat vandalism can ill afford. Get real, please. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok maybe you can point to the policy that gives you authority to stop discussions here. If you can't point out the authority drop your own stick, shut up and quit bitching. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to anything where I have purported to exercise this missing authority? I made a proposal based on arguments from policy here. You are, of course, free to disregard advice and other constructive comments, but personal attacks that come nowhere near addressing the content of my arguments might well be seen as ad hominem and more than that, avoiding the issue. I've set out my propositions; please feel free to deal with them. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you make a valid arguement. I'm sorry I jumped the gun. I've caught some shit for this opinion and am really testy. Please acept my apologies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside our personal opinions when we enter the door of this endeavour is a most noble, but very rare, stance, and few seem to manage it with aplomb. We should accept our humanity, and the occasional failure; however, the ability to negotiate constructively is to be applauded, when it happens. Rodhullandemu 02:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell, nothing is requiring you to respond to those who think you should not come to Jimbo to decide something when the community is already deciding it(count me as one of them). You could just wait for Jimbo to respond and decline to respond. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As a heads up only...I think it's appropriate to make you aware of this ANI topic I started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing I would believe that the normal available Admin structures in place, will resolve my concerns. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the way in which this ANI is being handled, if you have time, I would ask that you take a peek. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation: He's dissatisfied with the outcome, a condition that afflicts about half of the Wikipedians who have business at ANI.—Finell 04:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When are editors going to understand that appealing to Jimbo hurts their case? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Never. The same lack of judgment that leads to their troubles in the first place leads them here. It also leads them to make proposals to drastically amend the long-standing, fundamental Wikipedia policies that they were sanctioned for violating. (In this case, by the way, the editor was a complainant who was unsuccessful in an attempt to have another editor sanctioned; that is less common than complaints by sanctioned editors.) It's hopeless, and an essay won't help. Essays like that are read and understood only by those who don't need them, not by the troublemakers who come here to complain.—Finell 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've just written an essay on this. See Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but the following has been on my user talk FAQ for a while. Durova⁴⁰¹ 01:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have a random problem. Would you please drop everything and solve it?

• This is not Wikipedia's complaints department. Please go to User talk:Jimbo Wales. He's equally ineffective but his page auto-archives.

Durova: That is priceless! I had no idea that you have a talk page FAQ. In fact, I don't see a reference to it on your talk or user page. Where is this hidden gem? What other delights await us when we find it?—Finell 03:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's near the top in a collapse box. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that little band below the beautiful graphics section, sitting right on top of the archive links so it looks like it is part of them. Definitely worth reading! I especially like, "And offer to do something for me." I guess I won't be asking her to re-touch my head shot after all.—Finell 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, I read your essay Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo with great interest. I would have to agree with pretty well everything that you wrote, right down to the details about the cabal that will routinely intervene and point out that the actions that are being complained about were actually justified. We have even seen it on this very thread. We have seen an editor assuming that all sanctions will have been justified.

You have summed the situation up very well indeed, but you have overlooked one important thing. People tend to like to discover these realities for themselves. The reality in this case, which you have accurately described in your essay, is totally unsatisfactory, but people with a legitimate grievance are unlikely to wish to drop the issue until such times as they have discovered this unsatisfactory reality for themselves. Yes, it's a last resort. But a last resort is still nevertheless a last resort.

What they in fact discover when adopting this last resort appeal, is that the same cabal which you mention in your essay, shows up at every level in the dispute resolution procedures, whether at AN/I or wiki-etiquette alerts or wherever. David Tombe (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of order, Mr. Tombe :-) On December 26, 2009 Jimbo advised you not to complain about the cabal (or imply they are nazis) for "a month or so" and it has only been three weeks or so. While not a member myself, I can assure you the cabal takes week count very seriously, and your disrespect of the week count will not reflect well on you in cabal meetings regarding your fate. Capiche? ;-)

To observers, let it be noted that the cabal rarely cares what Jimbo actually says (such remembrance falls to, e.g., Proofreader77/aka me), but rather their conception of what Jimbo would say if they said it themselves. Bear that in mind. LoL
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 08:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DEAR LORD!!! Please, please please please don't start this again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Note: The "out of order" I issued above was only a humorous illumination of User talk: Jimbo Wales protocol. If that had been an actual "out of order" ruling, then the honorable Hell In A Bucket would also be out of order due to their reinforcement of a statement ruled out of order under the protocol that if Jimbo implies one should take a break from Wikipedia, one should not be in his face until such suggested R&R has elapsed.

So, we will spare Hell In A Bucket the indignity of being ruled "out of order," and simply let them reflect upon their misdeeds at their leisure — hopefully while listening to their favorite song, which should be obvious to Grateful Dead fans. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 09:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

David Tombe has his facts reversed, at least about this incident.Tombaker321 went to ANI to try to get another editor blocked. When that didn't happen, he came here to complain. More broadly, the admins do get it right most of the time. If the community were not reasonably well satisfied overall (which is about the best that anyone can expect), the community would make changes. It is past time for Tombe to drop the stick. He should be thankful that he was not sanctioned more severely for his outrageous incivility and personal attacks, including the repeated Nazi slurs.—Finell 02:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No Finell, You are telling lies again. I never engaged in any incivilities or nazi slurs. The real tragedy about the incident that you are referring to was that they didn't sanction you for your repeated lies. David Tombe (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So many kibitzers so little time.

A. I notified the owner of this userpage of an ANI topic, and said that I expected the normal processes to take their course. Part of the ANI related to user Jimbo Wales' talk pages. This is the first time I have started an ANI process. After several other admin's remarks, Jehochman decided to treat the ANI as a joke, when I objected, Jehochman lobbied the ANI to focus its aim at me.

B. I then went to the user Jimbo Wale's talk page and updated it to say "if you have the time, take a peek". I was asking for a glance. It was not an appeal, or a request for outcome. Those expectations would be frivolous.

C. Admin Jehochman, then decides upon himself, to delete Proofreader77's commenting in this ANI related to Proofreader77's communications style. Removing them before other Admins could see them, he did. Even though the topic degenerated to have comments like [ "Get thee behind me, Satan." Durova401 21:43 ]...Jehochman deletes only the remarks by Proofreader77.

Finell, your reasoning is myopic. Tbsdy lives, a most excellent essay, any chance of an inspired by tag? Jimbo Wales, the "ANI process" seems to be degenerating over time, with actions be done by rote. That process may be worth some reconsideration as Wikipedia continues to expand, with this sampling as one of the "cases in point". To the rest, the ANI outcome was effectively a "do nothing" result...as Proofreader77 so clearly states above....provided that Jehochman does not delete them again.

And so it goes --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tom, a review of your article contributions[58] shows that virtually all you've ever done on Wikipedia is attempt to slander Roman Polanski by inserting dubiously sourced material into his biography, or battle against people who try to stop you. Why are you here? Jehochman ^Brrr 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, are you trying to assassinate my character or my content? Why am I here? In the metaphysical?

Regardless, you analysis of my edits is self serving. I have NEVER used dubious sources. I have not slandered anyone, and characterizing my all contributions as that, is beyond the pale. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, do you mean he slandered the [redacted allegedly libelous characterization] by refusing to allow whitewashing information about how old someone said the 13 year old victim looked(video footage shows Roman Polanski in a courtroom stating he understood she was 13), or otherwise downplay the severity of the crime? Check the talk page and its archives to see that argument constantly going by those he is "battling against". [59] [60] Dream Focus 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Advisory: libelous comment should be refactored at words 8-9) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. I meant, [redacted allegedly libelous characterization]. How about that? A 13 year old child was raped by the guy after all, he convicted of that in court of law, and even admitting to having had sex with her when she was too young to give consent. But we already had these discussions on the talk page, so no sense dragging it out here again. Dream Focus 03:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Documentation: Dreamfocus vs Proofreader77 ANI 12 December 2009 -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Redaction note:
  + Dream Focus advised of libelous characterization on their user talk,
  + Dream Focus responds by ALL CAP version of libelous characterization,
  + Proofreader77 redacts libelous characterizations
  -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Dream Focus reverts Proofreader77's alteration of his talk page message, since it is inappropriate for him to have done so, and against the rules. Honestly now, you know better than that. Dream Focus 10:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• BLPN topic created: BLPN:User talk:Jimbo Wales libelous characterization of Roman Polanski Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Notification of BLPN topic on User talk:Dream Focus Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a <br /> tag before the "This is a Wikipedia user page" table. Cheers, MW talk contribs 16:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What are some good reasons, in your opinion, Jimbo, for posting here instead of somewhere else (such as Citizendium, Knol, etc)? There is little control, if any, on the material that gets posted/changed/upgraded, and many users are loosely using this site as a chat network/forum, more than a place for learning and sharing useful facts, and are therefore consuming a part of the resources that could be used in a more optimal manner. How could "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" be enforced? What about some degree of control? Not necessarily real identities, but flagged revisions? What is holding that feature back? SalaciousBreadcrumb (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions/flagged protection is being held back by technical reasons. There was a blog post about it fairly recently. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about the other sites but I contribute here because I KNOW a large number of people will eventually see my work as Wikipedia comes up very high, if not number one, on Google searches.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Google doesn't care about accuracy, they care about money! If the pages that come up first are inaccurate, there can be problems. SalaciousBreadcrumb (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'd appreciate your input on a proposal I added to the village pump about the need for a citation style standard. The goal is not to waste time deciding whether a semicolon is more appropriate than a comma in a citation, the goal is to avoid all the clutter that has crept into WP because we don't have a citation style standard, and avoid the wasted time and effort that accompanies that clutter. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you take a look at this ANI thread. [61] --MW talk contribs 20:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I have been using wikipedia and wiktionary very often whenever I'm in need of informations or definitions and I find them very handy or very easy to use. Generally I can almost consider the Wikimedia foundation as my refuge of knowledge except for one thing, the translators. Of course wiktionary has included translations on some languages but very often they lack the desired translations on the terms that I have been looking for. I really strongly suggest that you or the Wikimedia Foundation should extend your/their project to online translators which also works the same as the wikipedia or the wiktionary, that allows all the respective editors of all races from around the world to translate the languages of their respective country.

And one more thing, the name " Project Babylon Tower" is very ambitious, I think you should change it into something else, perhaps the name "Project Site of Knowledge" would be more appropriate. Just incase you have'nt figured it out yet it's the people who build the Babylon Tower who stumbled first, not the tower.--Rollyalvarez3rd (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's been 9 years to the day so...

Here's to the success of a great enyclopedia!

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 313° 56' 15" NET 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I say the same. Happy WikiBirthday!!! --MW talk contribs 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I only just noticed today is Wikipedia Day, with three minutes to spare. :) So I'll just say quickly: thanks for all your work, and here's to a successful tenth year! Robofish (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday Wikipedia!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday Wikipedia! Wikipedia has become a huge success. Congratulations Jimbo! Long live WP! Difu Wu (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is a cake for everyone on Wikipedia's birthday:

December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy belated birthday, Wikipedia! --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 19:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

scientia potentia est knowledge is power...
Dear Jimbo, Hi, Happy birthday Wikipedia, well I made this medal to gift it to you on 15 January but I was so busy on Commons that I almost forget it, sorry for that, now I see it is already gifted to you, anyway, just wanted to thank you for founding this wonderful project, by the way, I made a slogan for Wikipedia: "knowledge is power, Wikipedia is knowledge, so Wikipedia is power". with the best wishes for you and all amazing contributors of Wikimedia projects, keep up your great work.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I've come across that slogan before, or at least one similar.

So, once again, happy birthday Wikipedia!! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 351° 7' 30" NET 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that one even exist   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, it's all the same; the important thing here is that Wikipedia is as great as ever! (and then some!!) :D Set Sail For The Seven Seas 359° 20' 0" NET 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales,

I am a local Saint Petersburg Business owner and Rotarian. I have the pleasure of hosting a brilliant Brazillian exchange student who would love to be able to meet you. Is there a way for you to contact me if this is something you might consider? 173.65.191.178 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)katrina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.191.178 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I love you. 82.194.62.20 (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeek0124 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

when will they fully switch to the new wikipedia layout? 24.21.192.207 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "FREE" in "the free encyclopedia" at the top of every page means that this is a free service without charge. The Chinese pages, however, used the Chinese words "FREE" 自由 as in FREEDUM. They should be replaced wih "FREE - no charge" in a different set of Chinese words 免費 - literally means "no chage". Someone needs to change all the pages to the correct usage of Chinese words, probably in the page layout. There are several styles of Chinese pages (Taiwan, China, Hong Kong) in Wikipedia; they should all be corrected. 70.20.153.184 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we mean "free" as in "freedom": freedom to edit, freedom to read, freedom to ignore. The cost issue is separate and yes, there is no cost to use, but that's true for most of the Web. Crum375 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And all other languages, where there is usually a clear distinction between costless and freedom, use the freedom meaning. Crum375 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why the English version is not named "The Open Encyclopedia" - I think it carries the intended meaning better than "Free" which many indeed understand as costless. Laurent (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Open" isn't cromulent for anyone not already immersed in the jargon. Instead, it's better to eschew obfuscation. WilyD 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

HELLO JIMBO MY FARTHER looled after and protected the QUEEN IN BRISBANE IN 1954,IF IT IS OK WITH YOU I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THIS KNOWLEDGE WITH YOU UNDER MY FARTHERS PERMISSION MY EMAIL IS <e-mail redacted> CHEERS KIMBO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.239.177 (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am the Queens Pastie Quality Control (Voluntary and Unbidden) Representative for Cornwall, and am known to sample a pastie at least once a week. If there is any chance of placing this unique and uncommon fact in the articles Queen, Pasty and Volunteers then this place is going to the dogs. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OMG do I miss proper Cornish pasties...maybe the QPQC(VU)RC could help me get some here in the US? – ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Does getting a software license worth $99 in exchange for writing a Wikipedia article count as paid editing to you? (IANAL, but I think the IRS would count that as income.) Pcap ping 08:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pay enough money and some Wikipedia Admins will let you do anything you feel like doing ... want to promote your own business / enterprise ? No problem ! Want to promote your reputation by claiming to be a "significant person" ... No problem, write an article about yourself on Wikipedia, pay the Admins to protect it, prevent it from being deleted, have it protected against justified edits / complaints / ect. -- 80.133.135.152 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Shocked, shocked I tells ya - http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/01/19/ctw.connector.jimmy.wales.cnn - where was the Request for Beard Removal? Nanonic (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh God yes please! Its like when Deanna Troi had Will Riker shave his in one of the movies (cant remember which one.... hey Im not THAT MUCH of a nerd!). I audibly screamed "NO!" and sulked through the rest of the picture. You are far more sexy with da beard.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro beardless (PR factors analysis)

But beardless is warmer and fuzzier (ironically LoL) ... and younger looking ... which fits all the right demographic identity factors. (Consider: How many Japanese adolescent girls have beards? No, not joking ... they determine the future of culture. Haven't you heard?) And speaking of "heard," the pitch of his voice fits better the beardless image. (I'm an expert on such things. In my way. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Beard for comment anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the community must speak. BfC is obviously warranted. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this wasn't out of process. See WP:BEARDMUSTGO. Hans Adler 07:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo. I wanted to direct your attention towards Wikipedia:ANI#Notification and review request of block of User:Craigy144 for copyright violations. User:Craigy144 is a long-term administrator who, unfortunately, has been violating the copyright policy for about a year now. Despite being warned about this multiple times throughout last year, he has shown no indication that he is willing to reform. The investigating administrator has blocked him indefinitely, but I was wondering if you thought a desysopping by yourself would be in order. NW (Talk) 17:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While Jimbo could do it, I think it would be preferable for Arbcom to do it, even if by motion, given Jimbo's transition to a non-decisionmaking figure. MBisanz ^talk 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom was previously informed by me; they're looking into it apparantly. Meaning, I assume, they'll have a mailing list chat sometime. We may as well leave it to Arbcom. That said, Jimbo, if you choose to desysop I for one will not create dramah out of it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi master, first of all I want to congratulate you and also my regards to teammate Larry Singer, I am a follower of his since childhood, as founder of an online encyclopedia (with your project Nupedia). The most suitable form of new journalism line: there is life on the other side of the screen and have a keyboard we are the millions of collaborators around the world. Actually, I think the original idea of Wikipedia is in Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu. But, I congratulate you sincerely imagine something very different is to make it happen as you did it with Wikipedia and 5 points to admire:

*1. The collaborative work can create is beyond any preconceived "idea".

*2. A good leader gun structure, create the foundations and let your ego aside for the community to use the tools to flourish and grow.

*3. Collaborate and share knowledge, when he finds that environment where members are valued, is the most valuable thing we as a community.

*4. It does not take a commercial project, you can rely on the cooperation of all, to change paradigms set ... even in the Wild Wide Web.

*5. We need a neutral network to allow room for innovation.

Although the editors like me (I'm 16 years old) are seen as children, can not speak for everyone in my generation, but do not consider myself a child (I am a minor), but no child, therefore I am entitled to equal treatment and respect as an editor over 18 years, that my intelligence, knowledge and attitudes are not underestimated. I hope the biased and prejudiced eyes of some editors to minors, you change for the good of this great community. A greeting for you. Ccrazymann (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo - question is self explanatory I hope? I've made a short video presentation to raise awareness on this matter, which I consider to be very important - it features some explicit material from commons (and therefore may be illegal to view if you are a 'talk page watcher' under the age of majority - please don't) - if you have any feedback, or even would prefer to point me in the direction of any way of furthering communication on this subject, please feel free.

The video is a work in progress, so all thoughts most welcome from whomever..... Privatemusings (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well? Great... How about you stop going on and on and on about this? This is what, the fourth thread you started about this "problem" in less than a month on this page? Plus, this is the English Wikipedia, not commons, so you'ld better voice your concerns there. Fram (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that common ground on this issue is easier than you think to find, Fram..... I think it's good to let Jimbo know anywhoo....... Privatemusings (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)this is the first thread this month, no?

OK let's cut to the quick here: WP:NOTCENSORED. I and I am guessing 99.99% of other editors will vehemently object to any attempt to censor material on any of the Wikimedia projects. One problem, among many, is enforcement. Where do you draw the line and who decides what is or is not acceptable? Bad, bad, bad idea, kill it with fire now. This isn't China. – ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And let us not forget about the weekly Commons Village Pump posting that Privatemusings creates on this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we have WP:DEAD DUCK? Rodhullandemu 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Privatemusings has a point, though. It's currently possible for a 13-year-old to upload pictures of themselves ejaculating over their same-aged girlfriend's face, claiming it is suitable for the facial article, and, as long as they claim they are of legal age, it has a good chance of not being deleted. Is that right? GTD 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that mental image. No, it isn't right. But is it substantially our wrong is a more useful analysis, and comparisons to the current government of China should be left in the dustbin with the Nazis, Stalin, the the Facists.--Tznkai (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I say if the shoe fits wear it....If not WP:DENY.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

< I'm heartened to read around the place that more folk are buying into the idea that this might be an issue worth examining - hopefully Jimbo is among them, and I hope to hear that the issue in general is on someone's plate (board or advisory board) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They are? Tell you what, open a request for comment so we can see the views of these folk all in one place and evaluate them. – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they really aren't. This is just a middling pet peeve within a small subset of the WR, who post here and then go teehee over there about posting over here. Tarc (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about that, Tarc. Privatemusings (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Privatemusings: I notice that you didn't respond to the suggestion that you open an RfC. AGK 21:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

do you think a RfC is a good idea, AGK? - I'll try to find time to head to your talk page and chat....... Privatemusings (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)hopefully the matter can be raised with the board / advisory board regardless?

< fyi, mike godwin recently posted on this matter over on foundation-l - that thread may be of interest. Privatemusings (talk)it'd be great to get the thoughts of jimbo on this one :-)

It's interesting because Mike is taking the position that it's a matter for community consensus, not Foundation action (unless something illegal is going on): ...it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative... So which forum are you shopping at next? – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a minor uploading child porn this week.....It was a shit fest on the ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Has PM engaged in any WP:BEANS worthy ideas? Is there a rash of disruption I'm unaware of? If not, let him lobby whoever he wants. Its an issue that he can be legitimately worked up about that actually involves real consequences to real people. I'm not asking you to agree with him, but give the man some breathing space. (Replace with gender neutral language as need be.--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There was, and it was swiftly and appropriately dealt with by the community. – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It also brings up several legal issues for the editors here and potentially the 'pedia. This is a double edge sword, everyone who looked at that image committed a illegal act. However at that point we aren't reporting the incident to the proper authorities, we are technically doing what the Catholic Church did by sweeping it under the Carpet, This is a sad issue because that could have lasting implications on the minor and the site. While respecting the fact that we aren't censored there is a clear need to protect us the editors and the pedia itself by some control who can upload adult oriented material. So what happens if the minor is only claiming to be a minor and isn't a minor.....What if it is a adult spreading child porn? Where is our obligations to the community? What is our obligations to ourselves or the victim? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Everyone who looked at that image committed a illegal act." No. They didn't. The law doesn't work that way. If you feel like the law needs to get involved, and you feel strongly about it, then there is only one course of action left to you.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not well versed in law, that's why I'm asking these questions. I also didn't see the material however it is similar to the sex scandal currently rocking the Catholic Church. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It truly and honestly is not. The Catholic Church is accused of systemically and deliberately betraying an implicit and explicit trust of their membership over dozens of years, despite knowing of allegations that certain priests were serially sexually abusing young boys. The nature of the relationship, their actions, and the crime involved are very, very different. You can't "technically" sweep something under the rug. You don't "technically" engage in a mass conspiracy to obstruct justice and employ dangerous criminals.--Tznkai (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In Matthew 5:48, Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect ...," but Wikipedia administrators refuse to listen to Jesus (perhaps because they are not Christian, but anyway) ... perhaps they will listen to Jimbo :-) if, of course, there is community consensus.

It should be obvious that if sysops were perfect, many problems would be resolved. (hmmm LoL)

Resolved: Wikipedia administrators shall henceforth be perfect.

• So say we all! -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You misspelled prefects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A most excellent retort/insight/something. LoL e.g. [i.e], Hear hear! Proofreader77 ^(interact) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Question (re disambiguation) @LessHeard vanU: Do you mean prefects or Prefects? Proofreader77 (interact) 18:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Prefects, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus also said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged..." (Matt 7:1). Before demanding others to be perfect, please take a moment and examine thyself, and make thyself perfect first. Thanks. Difu Wu (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

re: "Judge not, that ye be not judged..." (Matt 7:1).
Side resolution: A new banner for ANI? ^;^ Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all of them are perfect, but some of them are obviously criminals. Criminals in the sense of being corrupt, in the sense of tolerating advertisement on Wikipedia in obvious exchange for $$$ ... in the sense of deleting / banning regular users who complain or indicate violation of rules / wrongdoing of mobsters who misuse Wikipedia for personal benefit. SHAME ON YOU !!! __80.133.135.152 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of order: If you wish to rant on Jimbo's talk page, you'll first have to purchase a JTRL (Jimbo's Talk Ranting License). I have the Platinum version myself which costs $1,000 — but there are less expensive plans depending upon the amount and frequency of ranting you're interested in. I can take paypal. The JTRL license window is here. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a joker, Proofreader :-) I like the side resolution, by the way. What do others think? Difu Wu (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume you have seen this? Several administrators got tired of waiting for you and the WMF board and the WMF staff to actually implement Flagged Revisions, as had been hoped for since 2007. We are still waiting for Flagged Revisions implementation on English Wikipedia (a dream since August 2007, a suggestion since January 2009, a Foundation-level proposal since January 2009, and a call to raise hell if not implemented by September 25, 2009). This current mess at ArbCom could have been avoided if only you had shown more ability to actually get simple things implemented in a timely manner. Many of us are very disappointed in you. -- Deloware (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged versions will not solve the problem of the grandfathered-in unreferenced BLPs unless you'd flag them all as un-reviewed and display a blank page for them until sources are added. It is a possible solution, but I'm not sure there's consensus for it. It's certainly less disruptive than mass deleting them, that's for sure. Pcap ping 12:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the main part of that comment but Jimbo isn't in any position to solve this. Hell has been raised and ArbCom so far seems to be getting the point. I don't think it would be wise for Jimbo to intervene at this point. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been a strong advocate of Flagged Revisions for years, but I'm also unable to actually write the code myself. In any event, I think deleting these bios is really an somewhat different matter (as Pcap notes) and without endorsing each and every deletion that was made (any large movement is bound to involve some degree of error), I am generally supportive of the broad strokes of this. Hosting bad BLPs is not a viable option, period.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, don't you work in the same office as many of these people—or at least see them several times a year, for board meetings? Can't you slap them around the ear and tell them to get their backsides in gear? AGK 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the recent posting on the Wikimedia tech blog about this? It's not as simple as kicking people in the butt. :-) But, yes, I would say in retrospect that I could and should have done more to get this done faster - I don't think anyone who is involved in the whole FlaggedRevisions process is happy that it has taken so long. At the same time, I think it is important to note that FlaggedRevisions is not a magical cure-all, and that real enforcment of policy is sometimes difficult but should be applauded.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is a bad BLP to you? For instance János Aczél (mathematician) was tagged as unreferenced, but everything said there is easily verified from this page in the external link. And he qualifies for a bio here per WP:PROF. Pcap ping 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what the technical problems are meant to be for FlaggedRevs but they managed to give it to us very quickly over at Wikinews. It works a dream over there and we've never had any problem with it; in fact, coupled with a review system we have turned WN into a valid, reliable source using FlaggedRevs. Does anyone know (in plain English, sorry :p) why it is hard to put it on en.wp when it is in use elsewhere? I belive de.wp has it as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the community here had expressed their will to have a custom and watered-down version that could be turned on only on specific pages on demand (specifically for BLPs) because it would otherwise interfere with the notion that anyone could edit en.wikipedia. :The modifications to implement that is what's holding back the whole thing here. MLauba (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I can see why that might be an issue. Thanks! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales. I don't know if anyone's ever done this to you before, and I had hoped that my first interaction with you might be more positive, but I feel the need to do this:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

How can you defend the unilateral actions of sysops using their tools for destruction with flagrant disregard (and even open contempt) for consensus and established policy? What happened to fancy ideals like "community", "consensus", "no cabal" and "no big deal"? If the backlog of unreferenced BLPs was such a huge problem, you could have organised a task force to tackle it constructively: you could have put big banners at the top of all our pages asking for help, and you'd have got it. Improvement via collaborative effort wouldn't magically solve everything overnight, but it's the way we've come to expect things to be done around here. You have not only bitten many of the hands which feed Wikipedia, you have also betrayed your own stated principles upon which you built this huge, living, breathing miracle of teamwork and co-operation which you are now willing to discard in favour of dictatorial hierarchy. Words are incapable of adequately expressing the disappointment and disgust I now feel. Perhaps the saddest part of this for me is that you used to be my hero. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's a positive flurry of collaborative effort happening since this kicked off.   pablo_hablo. 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Jimbo, the admin you have praised on his talk page , wrote, to justify his actions: This deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt. ([62]). Do you endorse this opinion? --Cyclopia^talk 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it that case, Jimbo should join Wikipedia Review, where this view is widespread. Pcap ping 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a serious question. I think it is important for the community to ensure what Jimbo thinks of such statements. --Cyclopia^talk 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, like anyone else, should feel free to endorse one statement without having to be held accountable for anything else that someone has said.--Tznkai (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flip it around for a second, and the absurdity becomes apparent : if you disagree with one thing someone has said, do disagree with everything they've said? If you disagree with my statement that "I hate people" do you necessarily think that I was incorrect when I said "murder is wrong?"--Tznkai (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your logic, Tznkai. But the action Jimbo praised stemmed from that very opinion -that is why I am asking. I hope Jimbo will endorse one thing and not the other, but I really, sincerely want to be sure, and see how he answers. We, as a community, deserve to know. --Cyclopia^talk 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No. We don't deserve bupkis from Jimbo. He owes us precisely nothing. What he choses to do, what is a good idea, what is sometimes needed from Jimbo - thats a separate discussion. But leave just desserts out of it.--Tznkai (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave Jimbo the right to answer, if he feels so, and not to if he feels not to. My personal opinion is that the Wikipedia community deserves to know if the Wikipedia founder thinks too that it deserves "nothing but ethical contempt". I am quite sure that Jimbo doesn't think that, but it cannot be a bad idea to ask, especially in the recent context, what he thinks. --Cyclopia^talk 23:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't think that. I disagree strongly with that statement. I would say, rather, that the quick endorsement of a proper action builds very much on my faith in the community to make the right decisions. I understand why Scott was frustrated - but I disagree with his assessment of the situation. There are a handful of people who are, in fact, irresponsible and unethical - they are mostly not members of the community, who may disagree about certain parameters here and there, but who, as far as I can see, very much have their heads screwed on straight about BLP issues. I think sometimes we just need someone bold among us to remind us that we, the community, have the right to insist that Wikipedia is of good quality, and following an ethical mission in the world - even against the cries of those who think that it's something else.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much Jimbo. --Cyclopia^talk 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

IAR apparently played a part in this recent deletion spree Jimbo, so I wonder what your view is on this petition I just knocked up. I'm not fussed if you do or don't sign it, I haven't been so bold as to put words in your mouth and plonk a Jimbo quote on it, but we do generally seem to be well overdue an up to date Jimboism on the small matter of NO BIG DEAL. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This restored an unreferenced BLP that said the guy is currently unemployed. Presumably forever so! Obviously no references were provided. Pcap ping 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for sure it was not a G10. To say that someone is unemployed is not defamatory, nor an attack. PROD it or send it to AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a fairly obvious A7. Being a soccer player without a contract is not an assertion of the importance of the subject. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also [63] (says the guy is famous for making bad decisions as a referee)., [64] (says the guy is very controversial in an unspecified way), [65] (says that guy had "vocal attitudes" in "numerous instances"). Pcap ping 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Can be solved by removing the negative statements, they're not purely attack pages. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC) - Which I did. --Cyclopia^talk 16:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just found this thread. Pcap, if you are going to discuss issues about an editor, it is considered good manners to contact the editor in question. On ANI, it is obligatory to do so, and I am sure the same applies here. I do not appreciate stumbling upon a thread only to discover that for the last half hour or so you have discussing my actions, and calling me an "irresponsible administrator". Stephen! ^Coming... 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You said you were following my contributions, so I assumed you'd have found this too. Pcap ping 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but assuming is not very reliable. There is a phrase: "Never ASSUME as it makes an ASS of U and ME". If you check the time-stamp on that post diff you give above, it was about 6 hours before you started this thread. I had been travelling home from work, then I started doing some work on other areas. It was only because I thought I would see if you had responded to my post and saw that there was a thread on your page stemming from my post that I thought I would see what prompted it. It is always safest to drop a note on a talk page, just in case it hasn't been spotted - saves unintentionally causing bad feelings. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You were actively posting message after message on my talk page, when I posted this here. Pcap ping 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted once on your page after you had started the thread about me, before I found it; that was to reiterate the other poster's comments, and to add about the importance of tagging correctly. It was a little while later that I discovered this page. In any case, you shouldn't rely on chance or assumption that the person will see a thread about them. You assumed I would find it, and I only discovered it by chance - it was only because I saw "irresponsible administrators" mentioned in your list of contributions that I decided to check it out. Up till then, I was only interested in checking your tagging of articles for deletion.

Now, at this point, we could carry on indefinitely saying "you said... I said..." which will get us nowhere, and will result in someone quoting the WP:STICK guideline. I propose we both chalk this up to experience, and vow to do the following. I'll pay more attention to contensious sentences in articles, and you can tag appropriately and notify editors if you are discussing them. OK with you? Stephen! ^Coming... 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Pcap ping 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Example, another (look at this guy's contribs too). There are other IP addresses doing just this. There are approximately 17,000 BLP articles that have at least a web address or a ref tag in them, but are tagged as totally unreferenced. And obviously Bruce Schneir did nothing but write a column for Wired. Of course, Schneier is going to lie about his date of birth or the algorithms he invented, so one couldn't possibly cite and interview with him on that. And we couldn't possibly trust that he published any books because that info comes from the publisher, who isn't an independent source. So many bad BLPs that need to be deleted. Pcap ping 05:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your sarcastic tone is helpful at all. The problem is, by constructing a "straw man" to mock, you fail to consider the genuine arguments put forward by those who disagree with you. Let me be specific: "we couldn't possibly trust that he published any books because that info comes from the publisher" - no one seriously involved in this discussion is arguing that a statement from a trustworthy publisher that a book has been published is not a reliable source for that fact! So please dispense with that sort of argument so we can focus on the real issues - of which there are of course many about which reasonable people can differ. You make your own position seem worse than it actually is when you mischaracterize the position of your opponents. (The difference between Wikipedia and sound-bite politics, I hope, is that we should try really hard to avoid cute statements that misrepresent the facts.)

Now, regarding one of the specific biographies: I'm sure that Sourav Chatterjee is a wonderful fellow, and he may even be a suitable subject for a biography. But that doesn't change the fact that the current biography of him is junk. "Following from there he came to Stanford University, which is the seat of academic excellence across the whole world." While Stanford is indeed a wonderful school, that bit is pretty clearly not consistent with our NPOV approach, and having a biography with a statement like this is precisely what gives rise to the perception that anyone can write any old nonsense into Wikipedia they want. We need to insist on higher quality.

There is a philosophical point to all this as well. There are those who point out, correctly, that fixing a biography like this takes 10 minutes (or some other short period of time depending on the case), so that therefore, arguably, we should not delete them, but rather fix them. I'm sympathetic to that perspective, but for the fact that for the ones that have sat around unreferenced and of low quality for several years, it seems likely that we simply do not have the capacity at the present time to responsibly correct and maintain the articles, in which case I think it clear (in the case of BLPs, which can clearly be dangerous vandal/troll magnets with a real and tangible impact on the reputation of the subject and on our reputation) that we are better off deleting them until such time as we can actually write a decent biography and maintain it. I support that the list people are using to delete these also be used to re-create them, if someone wants to do it right. In the meantime, I think we ought not to have them at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only one (see this discussion) to correctly point out that Chatterjee's bio was full of puffery, even after it was roughly referenced. My approach to such BLPs is to review them an clean-up or nominate for deletion depending on how worthy of inclusion they are. Last year I had discovered that Elonka Dunin's bio made some claims contradicted by Science (journal). Arguably, that was a far more serious NPOV violation than saying that Stanford is a center of academic excellence. Should we have just deleted her entire biography? It was actually kept at AfD. I guess I managed you draw your ire by my sarcastic tone. On the other hand, you can tell from the section right above that I got chastised by an admin for trying to delete unreferenced BLP stubs that were largely negative, so arguably more damaging if not more junk than Chatterjee's.

If you click that link to the WT:WPM discussion, you can also see that an effort is underway to review and fix unreferenced Math biographies, which includes deleting some. I've made similar lists for other WikiProjects I'm involved with (WP:COMPSCI, WP:ROMANIA), and other editors have used that route for other areas. So, something is being done. But it won't be definitive given the current technical and social nature of this wiki: newbie editors with little experience write new biographies all the time, and there's no junk-o-meter sizing them up right now, be they referenced or not.

Old biographies (and articles in general) are almost always vastly under-referenced here. Many old featured articles have been demoted for this very reason—being insufficiently referenced. From my own experience, seriously under-referenced BLPs include many of Romania's significant political figures from before 2000 (presidents Ion Iliescu, Emil Constantinescu, prime ministers Victor Ciorbea, Radu Vasile, Nicolae Văcăroiu etc.) I'm not fan of these guys, contrary to how other Romanian wikipedians have already labeled me for working towards referencing some of those articles, so I have no great incentive to (re)write them to FA standards. There has been a definite shift in the article referencing culture here after 2006 or so, but I'm not convinced that just nuking most of the old contents is the answer. Pcap ping 11:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales. You don't know me and I know now you could not care less what I, and many others like me, have done here. Without causing (much) drama, and without seeking power, I have (usually) quietly volunteered here, contributing what I could in what areas interested me. During that time I have bit my tongue many times when my own personal opinion conflicted with the consensus of the community. I have sourced articles started by other editors when they were threatened with deletion. I have made an effort to source every statement I've put on the main space. With this edit you spat in the face of every editor who has ever abided by consensus in order to work in a collaborative environment. You have spat in the face of editors who have tried to improve on the work of others rather than denigrate and delete it. You have spat in the face of contributors and cheered on destructive power-hungry thuggery. You have made it plain that this is a place for petty, impotent despots to come to play online power-games rather than what it pretends to be: a place for generous volunteers to contribute and share information. You have, in my eyes, bastardized this project for volunteers here and lessened the value of Wikipedia as a potential source for information. Dekkappai (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I concur. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales,

as a regular contributor to wikipedia (given, i havent dont much lately, but still), the commendation you have given to Scott MacDonald can be seen as controversial. His work on the John Silber article and his response (which is to threaten blocking/banning users who revert his edits) is rather distressing. Here i shall paste the concerning warning:

"

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"

I was one of the early contributors to the Silber article, and Scott's work involves deleting anything and everything that is unflattering to Mr. Silber, despite that fact that they are sourced from reputable sources such as New York Times, with correct citations. Your praise to Mr. MacDonald can now be seen as a tacit endorsement of his policies, including his implied threats against editors who do not agree with him, whether you see it that way or not. It is my belief that wikipedia biographies is to describe a person's life, controversies included, rather than whitewashing any unflattering details about the person's life. I would like to hear from you on this matter. Thank you. --Bud (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a little high in rhetorical flourish but in substance I agree, it is not a good thing to encourage rogue behavior by administrators. If there is a large scale problem it needs to be discussed in the community, a plan worked out, and then executed in an orderly way. This spree of deletions was unannounced and is both capricious and sloppy. They aren't being logged or noticed, and often not even reviewed - some of them are sourced despite the unsourced tag. Even a very simple solution would be better, like moving them all to an archive where they can be evaluated and sourced. Allowing administrators to go wild with their own interpretations and solutions alienates the community, hurts the encyclopedia, and causes widespread discontent. This has been a common thread in all of the previous deletion campaigns I have seen. It really is some kind of power play. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

==Hallo Jimbo! Just to let you know a copy of a comm to user:cirt - great work! Uwe

Hallo Cirt!

On the occasion of a retirement I give my photograph of Antarctic Krill Euphausia superba to the public domain in 591 pixel resolution. Can you please set on commons krill.jpg und krill666.jpg to that resolution. It was on thousands of pages and documentations, often on the frontpage, like in WIKIPEDIA in Germany and Danmark - you can bring your results to no higher distribution and mention in so many countries like wikis frontpage. Just look on the image description page into how many countries it went. It would be nice if you find for me a copyright tag royalty free with mention of author.

I can not do that because user:martin h. blocked me pages over pages, claiming uploading nude, you asked us to use only one voice. He can have all copyrights, we never uploaded these images (which we do own, they were stolen first). Thank you very much to authors like you and to Jimbo - thank you very much

Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)