Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10


Another point

Dear sir. Do you regard this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem Reaction Solution as being in line with your vision of Wikipedia? If yes, please let me know. --Striver 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


jo! what's up? congr4ts on the 1,000,000th articl3! wow! i was r34lly unaware! maybe there could be a contest on something, like best user page, or som3thing like th4t?

wikipedia definitely does not suck like an azz-sucking thing! :-D ;-P h33, h33!

Chef Clover 02:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi From Snorlax

Image:Snorlax.png Sn0rlax 16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffery Vernon Merkey

Good evening Jimbo,

I hope I find you in a decent mood. Jeff was banned/indefinitely blocked as Gadugi. He has reincarnated himself as Waya sahoni. The evidence is extremely strong that this is the case.

Many have complained of his attempts to edit the article about himself and to move large portions of the article into an unused article about LKML.

guanaco is an admin who has been told of the sockpuppetry, appears to be convinced that this is a genuine case, yet refuses to block Merkey's new account.

Regards, Vigilant

No love?? Vigilant 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Vigilant, I think you need to post that at the Admin's user board. Antonrojo 02:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for your comment on my talk page. Keep up the good work! Here's to a million more! Nach0king 09:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're at all serious about visiting the station, let me know when, I would love to come down for the historic occasion of a few people standing at an unstaffed, open-plan suburban railway station in western Scotland while commuters stare and wonder what the hell's going on :) Nach0king 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hi Jimbo! It was brough to my attention on WP:ANI that you have stated that serious vandal edits from an account warrant indefinite blocking, even if it's part of a mixture of good and bad edits. On the other hand the blocking policy says "indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.". Can you update the blocking policy so that your opinion and the policy are synchronized? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he knew what the policy said in the first place, honestly. And I really don't think Jimbo should be unilaterally changing any policies. Everyking 07:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think he certainly has the right to if he wants and it seems as though he at least reserves the right to. Rx StrangeLove 07:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
He certainly does. Some people amazingly let the fact of Jimbo being the owner of the website slip their mind, I daresay. How odd. If Jimbo hadn't put forth his dream in the beggining, we wouldn't be here in the first place. -ZeroTalk 07:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthurmore, Jimbo's comments in regards to this situation seemed perfectly plausible and demonstrated an understanding of policy. Jimbo merely realizes that we are an project attempting to carry ourselves and our work as proffesionally as possible. We have quite enough on our plate. We've no need for trolling of vandalism. That's silly.-ZeroTalk 08:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

userbox policy proposal

Jimbo, please check out my "Conditional Support" entry on the userbox poll page. I advocate the proposed policy only if Wikiproject Userboxes can maintain a comprehensive listing of userboxes (including those that could not be made into templates according to the proposal), so that users can contribute and use them to hard-code to their userpages. I think that if this feature were added to the proposed policy, many others in the opposed camp would then support the policy. I'm curious to see what you think.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that getting listings of userboxes completely out of the official namespaces is the most important thing. The point is that these userboxes are very much frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. If some people want to use them, fine, but they should not be using official pages to do it. (This is just a comment, not an order or a request or anything else.)--Jimbo Wales 08:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless your comments are to alltoo many users in fact orders. Face it: It doesn´t matter if you say: "this is not a order" you are JIMBO WALLES (the leader) and your wish is the command of many users. Flamarande 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Take them out of the official pages, fine, but there should be some sort of userbox directory equivalent to Wikipedia:Userboxes. I don't care which namespace it's in, but it should exist.Dtm142 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And now for an innocuous question

What do you think of all of the languages that your name has been translated or transliterated to on your user page? I know I'm pretty impressed (noting some specious "languages"), and was just wondering your thoughts. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Lord Voldemort here. You had some pretty interesting languages I would never have thought of including (Binary? Morse code? N.A.T.O. radiotelephone procedure?). It's one of the many cool ideas flowing out of the great Jimmy Wales.
The coolest guy you know. Excepting yourself, Mr. Wales. The Destroyer 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted...

I run across this banal phrase frequently in articles, and remove it nearly everywhere it exists, because its presence is nearly always redundant and unhelpful. So I was surprised to see you use the phrase in your messages on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. Please join the cause and expunge this phrase from your Wiki vocabulary. I do not mean to say that the phrase is not sometimes appropriate for casual speech or writing, just that it is not encyclopedic. --Blainster 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This blatant censorship is getting out of control, take a stand

Hi, I am Flamarande (obviously) and I am herewith complaining officially about the current unofficial and sneaky "userboxes burning campaign".

As far as I know, some users started to complain about userboxes (who by the way appear only in the personal userpages and therefore clearly show that they are a personal view and not Wikipedia stance). You played the politician (my own POV) and made a statement that: "controversial political userboxes schouldn´t be used in Wikipedia as they would give a wrong impression of Wikipedia" (quoting freely). As far as I know, the policy itself is still being debated, but nevertheless many admistrators/users allready started to delete userboxes in a "userboxes burning campaign" everywhere, whithout following the proper procedure or even listening to users who disagree! In a truly "take no prisoners" policy many of them didn´t even announce their deletions in the usual channels.

It began with the very convient deletion of the redirects userbox and userboxes (read the talkpages). Suddenly userboxes were being deleted everywhere. Very convienient, and it makes you wonder... They even deleted the userbox about the United Nations ! Now they are beginning to delete userboxes about books ! like the ASoIaF userboxes.

IF you or the consensus simply had said: "NO USERBOXES OF ANY KIND" or "NO POLITICAL USERBOXES OF ANY KIND" I wouldn´t oppose to this (and personaly I would agree with the second). But there appears to be a unwritten policy of censorship. The controversial userboxes are being deleted while the political corect Userboxes are acceptable. This is BLANTANT CENSORSHIP in my personal opinion. Freedom of Speech and political freedom also means that everybody is free to buy all the books, the Holy Bible, the Koran, the Tora, AND the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx, Porn, and the Mein Kampf of Adolf Hitler in a bookshoop without any problems.

If you or the consensus says: "this a encyclopedia and NOT a place where we discuss politics" I won´t oppose to it, but then we also have to delete ALL the political userboxes like "in memorian of 9/11" and "I support the troops" (hey, these are obvious political statements). Then we have to delete ALL of them (at least the political ones). It is the same with the bookshops and books: Nobody can force all the booksops to sell all the books (the idea of going into a childrens library and ordering the Communist Manifesto is funny) but it also means that any library can sell all political books, even those we don´t like and disagree and even hate.

Long time ago, I saw a movie about the attempt of the National Socialist Party of America (read the article, please) to march into Stokie. They had to be defended by a jewish laywer of the ACLU. The matter went as far to a court (I don´t remember which one, it was "one step" before the Supreme Court). The judges decided in favour of the nationalist socialist party and wrote: "Freedom of Speech not only means that we have the freedom to say what we like to hear. It also means that other people have the liberty to say things we hate." (quoting freely from memory, and I saw the movie a long time ago).

So decide this whole matter and/or make a official statement about this and don´t give us a political correct statement where you wash your hands. I would be much obliged for a reply in this talpage or in a official channel . Thanks Flamarande 21:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) PS: If anyone begins to say : "How dares he to talk in this tone?" or "Show the proper respect/education" I can only reply: Look at my "political incorrect userbox" - its all there.

The userbox deletion is NOT censorship. You will still be free to use your userboxes (by copy-pasting the <div>...</div> code) on your userpage, all that is happening is that they will no longer be allowed on userspace, for the following reasons:
To be honest: this also is using the fact that some (at least) users don´t know to make userboxes and/or don´t like to fill their userpage with codes they don´t really understand. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. It can be used for 'vote stuffing' (e.g. 'this user is a Catholic' userbox, somebody goes to the 'What Links Here' for that userbox template and emails everyone who uses it to ask them to shout down a deletion discussion on a Catholic-related article)
My answer to this is: If that happens (and I concede that it will) then complain to a adminstrator (what are there here for?). Still read above: if we delete ALL political userboxes I won´t object, but we got to be honest and completely impartial. In certain backward countries where many citizens don´t seem to understand the separation between politics and religion (like the USA and IRAN, sad but true), in these countries lying politicians are simply manipulating believers using faith, and nothing else (in my own opinion). Therefore ALL userboxes about religion, beliefs or faiths or political statements should also be deleted. Then we have also to delete all political userboxes like in "memoriam of 9/11" and "I support the troops" for these also ARE political statements (see above). Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. It puts more strain on the servers to have the code 'called' as a template than having the code on the userpage itself.
Ok, I have no argument against this. Strangely this argument is NOT presented in the arguments fot the deletion, at least that I noticed. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That's because it's a bad argument; it's at best an argument for substituting the userboxes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Having them in the official Template space may give some people the [mistaken] impression that the views expressed on them are endorsed by Wikipedia.
To prevent that, simply put in really fat letters in the userboxpages:" These boxes do not represent any official position of Wikipedia". Also, if we accept userboxes of ALL political quadrants we can in a reasonable fashion answer to opponents (read: journalist who are interrested in asking hard questions, and manipulating politicians for are trying to use wikipedia to show the self-rightouness): We accept userboxes of ALL kinds and also of your own view. IF we start with censorship, then we also have to delete the userboxes of YOUR political view. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but anyone who knows where to find templates should already know enough to realise that they're not "official". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I understand your concerns about the conduct of certain users in relation to the userbox issue - in fact there is a discussion going on about this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/February_userbox_deletion. Since Jimbo has previously indicated that he is not going to take any action against the admins in question, that RfC is probably a better place to complain than Jimbo's talkpage Cynical 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


When you made this edit, were you imposing it as policy, or was it just an edit? There is no consensus for this criterion; in fact, most users are opposed to it due to its widespread misuse. If it is not actually a policy from above, it needs to be removed ASAP. —Guanaco 16:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

He clearly stated he intended for us to discuss it, adjust it, apply it in the same way we do any edit of a policy or guideline. This is exactly what we have done. Consensus is to keep T1 as modified by the community. It has been edited many times and debated continually, as you are doing now. WAS 4.250 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The heated discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion makes it very clear that there is no consensus for this criterion. —Guanaco 16:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
A clear minority being upset does not refute consensus. That minority not raising substantive issues is even more to the point. WAS 4.250 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


How do you combat Anti-Romanian edits from Wikipedia? There are several users that enjoy having Anti-Romanian edits. They keep attacking some Romanian related pages by edits that may be considered as Anti-Romanian one. Do something. Stefan cel Mare 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is very confused, conflating anything bad that happens to Romanians with anti-Romanianism. The discussion page shows the process is working as it should. I tell everyone to spend as much time learning from Wikipedia as they do teaching others who read Wikipedia. Watch and learn. WAS 4.250 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest: If we start to run to old Momma Walles everytime something goes wrong he simply wouldn´t have time for anything. Use the talkpage to debate the matter, and if that fails complain to a adminstrator (thats part of their job-description). If someone simply keeps on doing abusive edits a adminstrator is capabale to ban him (a full year is the maximun penalty I think). Flamarande 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

They attacked these articles with anti-romanian edits:

  1. Moldova
  2. Moldovan language
  3. Moldovans

Stefan cel Mare 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, he's off at a conference in Moscow currently, then off to the UK for more of the same, before ending in Washington, before heading home. Further proof he doesn't have time to deal with any individual article/articles, except in extreme cases. Just discuss that matters civilly on the talk pages of the individual articles, or even ask for a wikipedia:Peer review to get a judgement of its balancedness. -- user:zanimum

Just FYI

I would like to bring to your attention some gross disarray on Czech Wikipedia, which probably should be addressed - it is most probably quite typical for those East European Wiki's (thats what I am hearing), but still it is not right. See here [1] - otherwise, greetings from Ft. Myers, FL. Ross.Hedvicek 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ross, see the comments in the above item. You probably should bring this up on the talk pages for the articles or be bold and fix it yourself. Antonrojo 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Usebox appeal

Sigh. I hate to do this, as you've gotten more than enough mentions of this tiresomely fraught issue already - but, it's tearing the community apart, and so I will ask. Please review the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. We need to do something to stop inflaming the community by deleting userboxes without a clear policy to point to. Either we need to simply allow any and all userboxs and give up on the factionalization and we're-here-to-write-an-encyclopedia issues, or we need a policy that forbids all userbox templates (by which I mean pages, wherever they are, that only contain the wikitext of a userbox, not any other text) maybe with an exception for WikiProjects and such groups. Either one of these options would be vastly prefered by a very large part of the community of editors. We can't let things stay the way they are going - it's tearing the community apart. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

However imposed solutions from above are unlikely to help and leting to two sides talk it out is probably the least damageing option.Geni 03:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that while the whole affair is still being debated (is is a proposed policy and not a official one, for Chris´s sake) some users/administrators have been deleting the political incorrect userboxes and sparing the correct ones.
I have a question here and I'll probably state it badly, so when you notice I could have stated it better please be aware I would have stated it better if I could have. I have seen the claim "it's tearing the community apart" many times. I can agree the FIRST attempts accompanied by arrogant "screw the process" type remarks were divisive. But later attempts to achieve the same end result were handled better. I do not see current efforts as "tearing the community apart". So my question is: What is the evidence for the position that current efforts to delete user box templates are interfering with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia (ie objective evidence for tearing apart the encyclopedia building part of the community)? Are fewer articles being written? What is the evidence? Please don't answer by changing the subject. The assertion that those templates aren't divisive is a seperate argument that I am specificly not addressing here. WAS 4.250 03:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You have to simply to look in the talkpages. As for your statement: "But later attempts to achieve the same end result were handled better. I do not see current efforts as "tearing the community apart" , get real. Jus look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/February_userbox_deletion. It clearly shows that the "rouge/vigilante/self-rightous" administrators who are engaged in this "userboxes deletion campaign" have been doing it despite all opposition. Tell me how is a normal user suppossed to deal with a "over-eager" administrator? Flamarande 10:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To show all of you that there is a division see below. And get real: a third is plenty, there is a division

Results as of 2200 EST 2006-03-04 (0300 UTC 2006-03-05)

I don't care

... what happens, it's only Wikipedia! Have fun. --JimmyT 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Your message is very therapeutic. Speaking for myself, it seems like the most Wikistress comes from little things—sort of like death by a thousand cuts.
    -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


My respectful greetings to you. I feel privileged and happy to speak to you who initiated the Project. And, so in the 12th month of my wiki-sojourn (with 16,500 plus edits to more than 10,000 distinct pages, and creating several hundread new stubs and pages, on an average of at least one per day!), I reached here to record my feelings on a day on which I had decided to say a final goodbye to the Project wikipedia. I am glad that the destiny has willed otherwise! A bureacrate’s immediate intervention and the love and affection of the wiki-community prevented me to run away. Please allow me a little indulgence to share with you certain thoughts which have been disturbing me for sometime, and they are there in the section: Sabotage of Wikipedia. With best regards. --Bhadani 15:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/RfAs

I know adminship is not a big deal but on my RfAs people had made big deal of it.

I have collected some highlights and would like your oppinion.

I am wondering if I should continue pursuing adminship as it appears unlikely I will ever win concensus...

Cat chi? 23:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would really apriciate a response Cat chi? 20:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC).


I don't expect a response to this, but for whatever wisdom it may contain I'm copying what I just posted on the talk page for the current vote on a userboxes policy. As follows:

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to organise opposition to the policy by asking people who might not be aware of it, and are thought likely to be against it, to come and vote. Accusing people of vote stacking, or whatever, doesn't help the debate; it just raises emotions. Vote stacking implies something corrupt - like getting friends to sign up as wikipedia members just so they can vote, creating sock puppets to manipulate the voting, or offering kickbacks for voting. Just trying to organise some opposition is not vote stacking. I'm sure there has been some organising of support for the policy as well - though probably through networks of people who know each other. That is also legitimate; there's nothing corrupt about it.
I do think this is a pretty good policy in all the circumstances. The trouble is that some admins evidently jumped the gun and started deleting relatively innocuous userboxes before the community could respond to Jimbo's words through a consultative process. That was an unwise way to deal with an issue of symbolic importance. As a result, a lot of users are evidently confused and upset (as I was a couple of weeks ago). I wish the whole thing had been done consultatively with a vote to ratify this as a compromise after a lot of discussion (maybe taking some weeks) and no pre-emptive action. I'm sure it would have had overwhelming support in those circumstances.
IMHO it's just not tenable to allow template space to be used forever the way it has been in the past - Jimbo is right about that - but there has to be a transition period, adequate protection of users who still want easy ways to express their beliefs in their own user space, and a moratorium (while we all digest what is needed) on deleting boxes merely because they express political or religious beliefs. This policy does all of that about as well as possible. However reluctant people are to abandon the old situation, I think something like this policy is necessary.
I suggest that people who are upset, and want to express it by voting against the policy, think about whether the old situation was really tenable. It seems to me that it wasn't, given that having these things as templates really does give an odd impression to newcomers and the public, and besides Jimbo's views, which he is entitled to since he's putting such resources into this, will ultimately have to be deferred to in some way. If you can accept that the old situation is not tenable long-term, try to consider this policy on its merits - i.e. separate from the premature actions taken to delete templates in advance of the process of working out a policy. If you agree that the policy itself is quite good, you can support it while expressing your reluctance or regret that it is needed, and/or you can support it while also using other forums here to oppose continuing attempts by some people to jump the gun. E.g. you can vote to reinstate deleted templates pending this policy getting wide agreement.
Conversely, if this vote fails, I ask people who want to stop the kinds of userboxes concerned to accept the result for now and look at any alternative proposals on their merits. Maybe someone could propose a rejigged policy like this in a couple of months, during which people are not being antagonised by premature attempts to delete userbox templates. It's more important to get this right than to prove a point, win a victory, or make a painful (if needed) change quickly.
Just my two cents.

I don't expect this to do much to still the troubled waters, but you never know. Regards, Metamagician3000 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has elsewhere stated that there are no votes on Wikipedia, only polls. Polls, by definition, seek a representative cross-section of the target population. While of course the part of Wikipedia that participates in your average poll isn't representative by any means, that doesn't excuse deliberate attempts to skew the sample still further. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that any aspect of this process has been exemplary. I'm saying that everyone needs to cut others a bit of slack and take this slowly. This is an exercise in change management which needs to be handled with care and patience. Metamagician3000 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Really Reformed Church ...

Hi Jimbo, I was just looking at the Meta thing on the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia, and, mostly, it seems to parody the Christian culture. Did you design it or did others do it? Anyway it says in the department of Fun that it's humor. Good thing, 'cause I'd be really, um ..., I don't know ... if it were serious. Anyway just a comment. Hail Wikipedia as the King! Adam Puckett (email) 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering Wales is a Catholic (from my sources), I doubt he would intentionally make a mockery of the Christian church. However, I completely agree that it would be offensive if this article is meant to be serious and/or Wales and all affiliated are actually NOT Christian. CrazyInSane 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (formerly Darwiner111).
I have it on good authority he's Pentecostal, but he may be a Muslim or Hindu. 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It is meant to be humour, and it was initiated by Johnleemk. Jimmy has never edited the page, although I'm sure he's fully aware of it. There are many slightly distasteful pages from the pre-Wikimedia Foundation days, when things were carefree, and we never had to worry about what other people thought. And I'm pretty sure the last two suggestions are complete bunk. -- user:zanimum
Just to clarify, when I said last two suggestions, I meant Muslim and Hindu, not:
# Catholic
# Christian/Muslim/Hindu
as another user thought I meant, and posted on my talk page.
Anyway, I have an inclination that he may not be too apt to talk about his religion, if he does indeed practice, as then even more people would either a.) try and get him to side with them on edit wars, because "dude, we're the same religion", and b.) it would give more people more reasons to blaim biases in individual articles on him, instead of juːst working out the problems out civilily themselves. Just my opinion. -- user:zanimum

I read some of that "wiki reformed church" page. To me, it's mocking, juvenile and needlessly provocative. I think it's ill advised. Merecat 06:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Going to China

Hi - I'm considering going to Hohhot in a bit perhaps for two months (I live in Seoul now so it's not very far) but it's too bad about the ban. I don't suppose you know if it'll get lifted during my time there if I decide to go? I'm a sysop on the Ido Wikipedia too so it would be even less fun to not be able to use it for a whole two months. I suppose there are ways around the ban but one other thing I would like to do is tell any Mongolian people I meet there about Wikipedia to see if we can get theirs up to speed. Mithridates 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Legislation

A one page New Jersey legislative proposal (pending bill), An Act concerning the posting of certain Internet messages and supplementing chapter 38A of Title 2A of the New Jersey Statutes:

"Makes certain operators of interactive computer services and Internet service providers liable to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum websites. [...] The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate. [...] An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website. [...] Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to section 2 of P.L. , c. (C.) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider. [...] This bill would require an operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish, maintain and enforce a policy requiring an information content provider who posts messages on a public forum website either to be identified by legal name and address or to register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website. The bill requires an operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website. In addition, the bill makes any operator or Internet service provider liable for compensatory and punitive damages as well as costs of a law suit filed by a person damaged by the posting of such messages if the operator or Internet service provider fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required by section 2 of the bill." WAS 4.250 13:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This bill is unconstitutional as it attempts to regulate interstate commerce and states have no power to do so.--Fahrenheit451 00:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of ArbCom Sanction

I have been sanctioned by the Wikipedia arbitration committee ([2]). This sanction took place in response to my voluntary and unsolicited submission of a statement in a preexisting arbitration of other parties ([3]). No one has presented a statement of charges against me. I had no opportunity to collect evidence, challenge my accusers, or formulate my defense. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been accused of violating Wikipedia editorial guidelines in my contributions ([4]). The arbitration committee has failed to respond to my request to clarify the nature of conduct for which I was threatened with sanctions, and eventually sanctioned. FredBauder has referred me ([5]) to you in response to my request for an opportunity to appeal the ArbCom decision to the extent that it affects me. Please advise me on your requirements for lodging my appeal. Henryuzi 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi


The fix is in the works, it should be done shortly, we're whitelisting it, sorry, it caught you on that. -- Tawker 03:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not just with respect to bots but in general, considering the sanctions, to prevent reverts of WP:OFFICE done in good faith but in haste, perhaps you can put up a template on such a page as well as protect it. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The admin bot fix is in place, now if one is on the adminlist (which all admins should be but it is a manually created list and exclusions do occur.) I also agree about protecting OFFICE policy pages, I wasn't planning on requesting sysop on the bot but then some people pointed out that the rollback link is faster easier on the servers than grabbing a diff and reverting from that. Of course, that won't happen for a while as both joshbuddy and myself would need to pass an RfA before it would make sense, otherwise we could use a bot account and bypass the RfA process. -- Tawker 04:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


There's a straw poll about three tagline variants at MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#Straw_poll., if you'd like to throw in a vote. :-) — Omegatron 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll closed

Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll closed with 61% in support. Editors on the talk page, including myself, decided that's not enough of a majority, although most of the oppose votes were from relatively new users. If you want to say otherwise (as it does stem from your polite request) now would probably be the right time. Personally, I think the poll demonstrates that this won't end any time soon without intervention from the Powers that Be. Ashibaka tock 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I think imposing policy by diktat is generally to be avoided, I think if you were to decree/impose the userbox policy it would at least be better than the flamewar-ridden mess that we currently have with CSD T1 Cynical 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Expanded CSD G3 Criterion

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that CSD G3 has been expanded to include attack pages. You are being particularly notified as CSD T1 is proposed to be merged into the new criterion - as the most divisive types of userboxes have been ones with no purpose but to disparage other people. You are encouraged to weigh into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed CSD G10 - Attack_pages. Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a fair summary?

There's a discussion on the nature of reliable sourcing at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and I have cited comments you made, although I have summarised your statements somewhat and I just want to run that by you to play fair:

At Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance you stated "Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." and also "When I say 'verifiable' I don't mean 'in some abstract fantasy theory' I mean actually practically verifiable by Wikipedians".

I've summarised your first statement as "information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV valid material for an encyclopedia", and used the second one whole. I hope that's a fair summation. Also, would it be approriate to build some sort of proposed policy along these comments? Basically, I'm of the opinion that if you can cite sources, if you can be verifiable, if it's of a NPOV and isn't OR, in that it is easily verifiable and would not require exact replication of the original research in verifying the information, then it should be included until consensus is formed at afd to the opposite. I'd be interested in your opinion on original research also, to be honest. Is looking at a CD case or a website original research? To my mind, in those circumstances, making assertions not supported by the sources cited is the original research. Is that correct? Steve block talk 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please participate in my survey!

Dear Wikipedians:

Your participation in the "Micro Wikipedia Survey" at User:Shuo Xiang is much appreciated!

Thank you for your time!

Shuo Xiang 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello I need some opinion on a page that I have made

Just make sure the last edit was by me

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

And if you dont like something say it and maybe what you would like to replace it with.

(Deng 14:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC))


Seeing how you are one of three people to get a wikihalo, perhaps you want to give your two cents on the MfD over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikihalo. Pepsidrinka 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A German Wikipedia-contributor calls for help

I am a contributor to the German Wikipedia.

Now I have a BIG PROBLEM. An administrator is misusing his power, in my opinion, and I would like to ask you for help. Over here, I do not get help, on the contrary.

I contribute to “UFO” and “UFO-Absturz von Roswell”, one (two) of the most controversial topics. Those who together wrote this articles until I entered the scene are mostly skeptics, and they had also written the (or most of) the parts representing the other side (the “believers”).

As I saw that they entered nearly through all the articles their personal opinions without any sources or questionable sources, I entered (mostly American) facts and sources which were totally lacking (e.g. Ruppelt, Hynek, Project Blue Book, Condon Committee; Randle/Schmitt, Friedman/Berliner, etc.). They did not dare to delete these facts and sources, but, of course, as they contradicted their opinion, they did not like them at all. Two or three contributors united (expressly written on one of their users discussion site) to expel “all the Brigitten (this is me) of this world” – that is the other opinion. The administrator Henriette who shares the skeptics opinion and contributed also and who recently claimed Wikipedia had to be skeptical, joined the “conspiracy”

I asked other administrators to help me, to tell the skeptics that they should not build a conspiracy against a dissident. I asked two administrators but one referred me to another and the other did not found any conspiracy in people who “simply work together” – that is the way he (and Henriette herself afterwards) call their written consent to use means to get me out.

Now she had the system operator block me. She now is the only one she declared who can enter something into the article, and she would only do it on the basis of “consent”. Of course, as the majority of contributors is skeptic, I have no chance at all, and you can be sure my contributions will very rapidly disappear.

In Discussion UFO she says: „And we do write a skeptical encyclopedia here, providing the reader with stead information and not hallucinations. -- Henriette 01:54, 9. Mär 2006 (CET.“ So SHE decides what Wikipedia has to do/write (no need for the other opinion) and what is stead information and not hallucinations?!

She is abusing her special rights, in my opinion, to be dominating in the article, together with the “consent” of her like-minded pals. As before there will be nobody speaking for the other opinion.

PLEASE HELP ME. Brigitte Wilcke

[6]-- Bwilcke 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Brigitte, if you haven't yet, you might want to file a request for mediation or a request for peer review. Since articles rely on the process of consensus to determine what gets kept (and it is impossible to include every point of view), users limiting your comments might be fair. One solution I've seen for articles with a minority viewpoint is creating a section with a title like 'Believers' to explain the minority viewpoint. Antonrojo 02:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jimbo!

I need some advice regarding The Cartoon War-

The discusssion page constanyly escalates into a flame-war with editors having empty user pages.

I have a notion that the anonymous editors like it that way, but it is hard for me to respond in a proper way without knowing their background.

Is it possible for an ordinary user to disclose their IP adresses? (assune not)

Is there a proper way to accomplish what I said above?

02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. See also m:Help:CheckUser. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Kurds

In my view it is not wikipedias place to determine who belongs to an ethnic minority and who doesn't based on the percent match of their genes. Ethnicity is cultural concept not racial. In my view this article is racism caped under science.

An AfD ruled a no concensus for this article however people voting keep primarily consists of people who vote keep to all kurd related articles indiscriminantly.

What do you think? Cat chi? 10:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's place to document anything factual, whether or not you view it as racist. Genetic analysis to determine migratory patterns is a perfectly common and often interesting kind of study that sheds light onto the history of the human race. If you would like to argue that the studies aren't credible, that's an entirely different question. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I was not talking to you... You failed to see the entier point. Ethnicity#Ethnicity is something you cannot trace geneticaly as that would be race. No one has any right to determine if someone is a kurd or not based on their genes as per the definition of Ethnicity. Cat chi? 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Google "relationship between ethnicity and race". "Ethnicity#Ethnicity is something you cannot trace geneticaly as that would be race" is inaccurate. Like saying it's stripped so it can't be red. WAS 4.250 01:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just a note...

Edit summary usage for Jimbo Wales: 54% for major edits and 35% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 79 minor edits in the article namespace.

BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So... you're going to oppose Jimbo's RfA, or what? ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes! Good contribs, but doesn't use edit summaries often enough. Also too involved in usertalkspace and not involved enough in mainspace. Thus, sad oppose. Come back in a couple months and I might support. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I hear he's got the 'crats in his pocket though. fnord So... good luck stopping him, might as well pile on with a Support... ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...average edits per day too low[7]. I'll have to oppose due to lack of activity :). BTW, how do you get edit summary %s?Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Fails my standards, oppose ;) NSLE (T+C) at 09:57 UTC (2006-03-12)
Oppose. Not enough edits, not enough articlespace. Good length though, but not active enough. Come back in a few months. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Not a serious nomination. He's a frequent vandal and has many sock puppets. --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 11:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, appears to be too eager to apply WP:IAR. Potential threat to Wikipedia stability. To the candidate: I suggest you withdraw now, you're unlikely to get enough support votes to pass at this rate. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support. I thought he was already an admin. The nominee fails to meet my typical RfA standards, but I suppose the quality of his contributions to Wikipedia greatly outweighs his low edit count. I would really like to see more edit-summary usage in the future, though. --TantalumTelluride 06:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support- User constructed the site and owns it. Clearly admin material. -ZeroTalk 07:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Traditionally large companies or organizations usurp the founders' power and push them out with little or no compensation. Why wait?  Coyoty 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith and consider that an jest on your part. -ZeroTalk 16:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
HYPERSTRONG SUPPORT: He is THE BOSS. Martial Law 21:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Just to get serious for a moment, it might help if Jimbo had a regular non-admin account and a Foundation-authority level account and make it obvious when he made an edit what the edit's authority was based on - jimbo the person (nonadmin) (deal with as you would any nonadmin edit) or Jimbo the founder and top authority (deal with as the owner of the hardware stating how we may use his (the foundation's) hardware). This is not a new idea, I know. WAS 4.250 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe he already does. Rich Farmbrough 16:43 14 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment. What gives? Just couldn't wait till April the First? You know, this joke was really the funny the first time I heard it. In fact, I laughed so hard I fell off my wooly mammoth. (Sorry to be mean—but c'mon folks, come up with some new material for Tsathoggua's sake!)
    -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Windows to
See the commies at work. Sorry, not funny
To be continued.
Greetings from Berlin (not Hans Bug) 09:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You enjoy the show?

As the Germans (not only the reds) say: "Gelernt ist gelernt!"

  • Another interesting and very special German topic: .....

.... or .... Problems ? No , we have no problems ?

Greetings from Berlin 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Tsor and Peter Lustig, two "Geisteshelden" (admins) , self-declared agents of the wikimedia foundation........
.... das wiederspricht ja wohl dem wiki-prinzip, nachdem grundsätzlich jeder alle Seite editieren darf. Und da weder Hans noch sonst irgendjemand für "seine" Benutzerseite gezahlt hat, gehört die Seite auch immer noch der Foundation nicht dem jeweiligen Benutzer und das Meinungsbild ist somit hinfällig, egal was es für ein Ergebnis ergab. -- Peter Lustig 23:31, 10. Mär 2006 (CET)
.......... but no one laughs at them in de, sorry.
complete in:

  • See (beginning tomorrow) whether the Germans will/will not tolerate the commie terror.
My prognosis: Some day the US-Army has to come back again to get through some international standards ......
Some love it, that there is always someone, who knows what is good for them to read .But the majority is simply too anxious....
And if you ask: Why Hans Bug charges only a three months Temp-Deadmin?
Maybe he wants to get the title "The pleasant guy of de". I have no better idea , sorry.....
Greetings from Berlin, a free island in the red sea 18:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The following latest case is very interesting for all, who are interested in how the commies work in de .
1. Admin Bdk gives an introduction to a (rare!) curious guy. Sure, that´s his interpretation of the latest events, but o.k..... And what happens? Not the admin (aka Dickbauch) , who has banned Hans Bug for 2 days using a fake pretext is accused, but - believe it or not - Hans Bug
Brand new commie stuff in: 2. (see talk site too)
The only reason for this new "Benutzersperrung": His "Sperrlogbuch", which is full of old little fake reasons of this kind. But only a minority(!) wants to find out the cause.
My opinion: That was not enough to kick Skriptor, his spirit has survived in his buddies/comrades as : Tsor, Peter Lustig, Rainer Bielefeld, 790, Voyager, Eike sauer, Finanzer, Crux, Jesusfreund, Nodutschke, Philipendula, Markus Schweiß, Lung, Simplicius, AN, Rax, Steschke, Stechlin, DaB, Balbor T'han (= Unscheinbar-successor) and some more).
Greetings from West-Berlin, a free island in the red sea 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As to Mr. Bug: We all know that Wikipedia is no democracy, don't we - that's why we need a Court jester. Imagine a court who would vote for firing its jester; no good idea, I think. Wouldn't that just prove that we are just a bunch of humourless people? He is not dangerous, he just wants to play. And after all: it's not a Bug, it's a feature of German WP! :-) --Proofreader 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, ignore and/or forget it. -- Murtasa 21:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Murtasa (Or should I say Mar...? :-)) Mr.Wales will be very surprised, when he first looks at our very different contributions and then at our identical IPs.:-) LOL. But that´s another story of wikipedia ... or should I say AOL? Anyway.
Did you notice, that Tsor currently has blocked AOL from Hans Bug´s talk site? Greetings 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to act is NOW on Userboxes

Jimbo (and I'm addressing this directly to Jimbo) you need to take action on Userboxes. Please. A post above indicates that there is clear, politically correct bias determining which Userboxes are and are not be deleted. The poster is correct. My view, to be honest, is that ALL should be deleted, and put into the userspace. But problems exist. To illustrate: Someone created two user boxes User:UBX/Communist and Template:User Nazi on the same day, just to make a point. The user admited that was his intention. Well, predicatably no one came to the defense of the Nazi box - including me. But dozens supported he Communist box, some saying it was only until a policy was put in place. The result was speedy keep the Nazi box, until a policy is set, and to 'keep' the Communist box. However, the Nazi box was promptly deleted. The deleter, administrator User:Cyde, admitted to bias in his decision, saying: "there's a huge difference between Nazism and Communism. Communism is a legitimate political party that is still around in many countries. Nazism refers to a specific instance of a fascist government that no longer exists. And, as we all know, Nazism was evil; modern Communists, not necessarily." While I would argue BOTH are evil, that's not the issue. FAIRNESS is the issue. This situation has been repeated over and over again. Template:User no Rand was deleted, but Template:user No Marxism has been saved, for instance, several times. Template:User anti-fascism, clearly an "anti" box, was saved, while many other "anti" boxes were deleted. What's the logic here? Please take action to delete BOTH of these boxes, and I urge you to elminate ALL political, divisive Userboxes. I have to add that I'm becoming disillusioned with the main Wikipedia, since it seems to be a political battleground - both in these Userbox debates and in articles - rather than dedicated to creating an unbiased encyclopedia. Nhprman UserLists 14:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You have wrong, it wasn't the same person who created that two boxes. AzaToth 14:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That is incorrect. It was User:Alibabs. And he admitted it during the TfD debate. He also was said to have created User AntiPalestine the same day. Please check the facts. Nhprman UserLists
Last time I checked it was User:D-Day who created {{user Nazi}}, it was therefore I closed it as WP:POINT, and it was also not speediable under CSD G7. thou Cyde had already deleted the template for another reason. AzaToth 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to AGF and assume you haven't read through the entire comment section for the Nazi Template [8]. Please see the "challenge" by User:Nellis and then User:Alibabs' response admitting he did it (at least the one RECENTLY created to make a point) both on that page. The fact that deleting the template deletes the creation history is mighty inconvenient for my assertion, but it isn't even necessary when the perpetrator boldly admits it and is taken to task by several users in the preserve TfD record. Frankly, who created it is less important now than why it was deleted arbitrarily. I love all the feedback, but I do want Jimbo to weigh in personally. 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this'll be good. I too want to hear Jimbo weigh in on whether or not he thinks Nazi userboxes belong on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 00:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
See the comments on my talk page, I think you're misrepresenting me here. But yes, of course I agree with you, userboxes do need to go, and something needs to be done as soon as possible. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to admit there is a bias when Template:User marriage man-woman is going to be deleted and Template:User queerrights will be undeleted. We need a policy that does not keep popular view points while censoring minority opinions.--God Ω War 20:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of a policy where users can include pretty much whatever userboxes they want (some userboxes are useless trolling, but as long as they represent either genuine conviction, accurate descriptions, or harmless fun, I think they are totally acceptable elements of the community). I know that sounds awfully radical and all... Everyking 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • See WP:NOT. This is not MySpace, it's an encyclopedia. Jimbo has already made it explicitly clear why userboxes are bad for the project. --Cyde Weys 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I know perfectly well what the argument is. The problem is that the argument sucks, and I don't agree with it. Everyking 00:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • What's the difference between putting "{{User generic hate-filled rant}}" on one's user page, and putting the same hate-filled rant directly into the text of one's user page? Powers 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Jimbo is working on this. --Cyde Weys 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think all user boxes just should go. --KimvdLinde 22:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd like to drop a reminder that a better solution may be to reword or change userboxes into something desirable, rather than to get rid of them. --AySz88^-^ 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I've suggested "User Interest Lists" for use on User pages only, in which users can express themselves and their edit interests without taking up time, resources and bandwidth arguing about the creation/destruction of Userbox templates. It's a matter of opinion as to whether they are a good substitute or not. They are just one attempt to solve the Userbox issue. I'm sure there are other good ideas out there - maybe some that are better. Nhprman UserLists 03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I've commented on the User Interest List proposal here. I think it has potential to move the discussion forward, but needs more work. Noisy | Talk 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm honored and pleased that you think so! ;-) They are definitely adaptable and I'm looking forward to seeing permutations of the idea show up on User pages. Nhprman UserLists 02:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Most of the userboxes are patently unsavable or not worth saving. The few that are possibly worth saving, such as Babel boxes, are probably already covered under the proposed remedy. --Cyde Weys 22:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I think you misunderstood my meaning: What kinds of words, phrases, facts, statistics, etc. would you like to see on a userpage? Then encourage those things with a userbox, and turn them into a good thing. --AySz88^-^ 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Good grief! Are people still bickering over userboxes? I thought that died down weeks ago. Give it up and go back to editing the encyclopedia, already! —Steve Summit (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Not so much *bickering* per se, as much as selectively deleting or "rallying" supporters to "save" boxes and creating boxes to make a point. I agree, a huge waste of time, but it's going to continue until we have a final ruling from Mr. J.W. Himself, I'm afraid. (Jimbo? You reading this?) Nhprman UserLists 03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • There has been too much action - and far too much speedying - already; these have been far more divisive than the userboxes. Please just everybody stop. The late Wikipedia:userbox policy poll came close to consensus; it might have attained it with more discussion beforehand, and a few boldface reassurances that it did not intend things that it carefully avoided authorizing. Let us leave this alone and come back to it in a couple months.
              • Jimbo has the power to impose a policy in the meantime. I hope that if he does, it is a temporary policy, with an expiration date; and that it will discourage all action, either of creating or deleting, until tempers cool. Septentrionalis 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, the "action" I was referring to is Jimbo's to take. Nhprman UserLists 02:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


How do I create a poortal? Please reply on my User page. -User:Code Napoleon

See Wikipedia:Portal (this comment also copied to user's talk page). --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Stranger replies

Thank you for your questions. My reply will follow here shortly. StrangerInParadise 21:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

An update for you and those watching your userpage: I am still working on my reply to you, and will finish soon. StrangerInParadise 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made a reply to your in particular comment, which should answer many of your questions. I have some broader remarks to make, which I am still working on. Thanks for waiting. StrangerInParadise 09:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


thanks jimbo... that might produce an even better solution.Mackinaw 21:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I agree, and I suspect that most if not all of the links should eventually be added to the articles. After finding an anon. adding the links to over fifty articles in a session, though, and then having confirmed on my Talk page that it was a volunteer worker for Librivox who had been given the job, I found myself drawn into an increasingly futile discussion of what constitutes spam-linking. I can't deny that I also had just a small concern (and it was no more than that) that organisations can start as free and charitable, get a reasonable profile, and then switch to commercial operations — but that didn't really play a big part in my thinking. And, as a partial excuse for what might seem pure stubbornness on my part, if the first response to my actions hadn't included "I'm going to do my best to go thru your edits and revert them back" things might have gone a little differently...

Anyway, if they'd agree to place the links on the relevant Talk pages, I'm sure that in almost every case they'd be added to the articles (and I and other editors could go through clearing up any cases of neglected Talk pages). It would be no more work for them, and a tiny amount of work when spread over all the editors involved. I'll try again to see if Mackinaw will go along with that, as it seems a fairly painless way of achieving what we all want. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

well, it looks like I jumped too soon to accept the Mel Etitis proposal: librivox volunteers didn't react very well and there's a fair bit of disenchantment over there about wikipedia right now. This is probably a drop in the bucket wrt wikipedia's significant challenges, but it's unfortunate that a big online community, based on wikipedia's ideals, and working towards the same goals, should be transformed from great wikipedia boosters, to a group many of whom seem to be saying a version of: "my opinion of Wikipedia is much less right now than it was yesterday." Tho I do realize that this was just a debate with one admin, not all of wikipedia, but disenchantment seems to be the pervasive reaction among core LV volunteers at the moment. which is too bad. and what that means is there aren't any ready LV volunteers to post links to appropriate wikipedia pages (talk or otherwise) -- at the moment, anyway, though that may change. Our cataloging process is kind of arduous; we had a step in there to add the relevant link in wp. Looks as though that step is gone now; and perhaps it contravened wp rules. (a solution would be to inform some non-LVer wp editor when we have a new file and let them add it if they wish).
So I guess it's now up to the wikipedia community to decide whether the LV links should be there or not, and if they should, who/how they should get there. for reference, here is the LV catalog page:

There *is* a wikipeida policy question here, though, worth looking at, re: linking:
wikipedia has prescriptive and proscriptive policies about links. The prescriptive says: "an article about a book ... should link to the actual book," (see external_links) ie if there's a gutenberg text, (or I would argue, a LV recording) , ie the "actual book," it should be linked from the article. The proscriptive policy says, among other things, that, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." So in deciding whether or not a link like this ought or not to be included, it seems to me the process should be: "is it the actual book"? Yes --> include it; No --> then evaluate based on other criteria.
Perhaps I am wrong. There's a question of process over content (ie who can add the link, versus whether the link should be there); and the claim (from the admin) seems to be that process wins over content. Mackinaw 14:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A month ago you had 15 books and now you have 30 books with some documents and poems. Link one every day ot two yourself. I was gonna link one for you today, but when I reviewed your contributions looking for one to unrevert from mel, I found you had spammed wikipedia by adding links all over the place. Don't add your site to external links at the author's biography. Do add it to an article on the work that is actually read. If the article doesn't exist, write it. WAS 4.250 19:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just an update here: WAS 4.250 stepped in and we had a long and productive discussion about LibriVox & wikipedia. wikipedia policy explained in a reasonable way, librivox project better understood. etc. things clear now. ruffled feathers smoothed. will return to LibriVox land with a signed peace accord.Mackinaw 17:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Objection to: "However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less"

Respectfully Mr. Wales. While I join the rest of the world in hoping that the catastrophe experienced at Chernobyl is never repeated, I take exception to this specific assertion and the many similar forward-looking statements with the same or similar theme. President Bush has said that no one could have foreseen the breach of the levies, or anticipated the strength of the resistance in Iraq. It is increasingly clear that the first step in a catastrophe is an irrational belief in one's infallibility.

I must formally object to the official endorsement of unattributed forward looking statements such as "However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less" which is reasserted here: [9] after having been tacitly and effectively embraced and protected by official actions of the Arbitration Committee. By way of appeal, I ask you to denounce this particular assertion as inappropriate and to encourage the Arbcom to place more emphasis on the scientific integrity of the articles. Thank you, Benjamin Gatti 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom case was about POV pushing behavior by Mr. Gatti. It was not about any particular article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The Arbcom case, like all Arbcom cases was wholly undisciplined in both scope and focus; the purpose and effect however; is quite clear - to promote and protect the reputation of nuclear-based energy at all costs. Benjamin Gatti 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is printing only the rosiest speculation regarding nuclear power, "Illinois sues nuclear plant over tainted water" [10] Benjamin Gatti 19:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for "final word" on subject?

Mr. Wales, like any good person who feels information should be free, I edited an article about a game called Geometry Wars so as to include two tiny sentences about a clone that someone had made of the game. Instead of creating a whole new article or vandalising the whole page to turn it into nothing but info about the clone I added two sentences. Two other people don't believe this information is valid and one has even accused me of writing a vanity article even when I have nothing at all to do with the clone. I contend that this information deserves at least a footnote in the main article as it is a notable achievement; namely it is a clone of a game currently on sale commercially and it was written by one person and it's freely available for anyone with a computer.

Further I contend that when the original article was written the game was still a mini game inside of another much larger game and that if the mini game was notable enough to deserve an article--regardless of whether or not it was written ten days before the stand alone version was released or twenty days or one hundred days, it was still a mini game at the time--that the clone should be notable enough as well.

I've been told that the two sentences are not encyclopaedic, but considering Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopaedia with the limits inherent in traditional encyclopaedias, how can this information not be encyclopaedic? And not only that, but of what authority are these two people to determine what is and isn't considered encyclopaedic?

I can understand not listing every clone of a game--such as the clones made of Tetris--but this game is unique in the fact that the original is commercially available now, unlike Tetris, and it is not a 20 year old game that has been cloned umpteen times, unlike Tetris.

Thank you in advance. Should you decide the information is not valid enough to be listed I will leave the subject alone. 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Jimbo Wales doesn't usually mediate content disputes. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead. And second of all, Tetris is commercially available, copyrighted and trademarked by Nintendo and sold for various Nintendo platforms (although, of course, the copyright only covers the actual code they use, not independent clones of the functionality). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


I do not see why you have placed a big statement at the top of the page - and noted no-one is to edit it. Doesn't this just destroy all principles, firstly the statement makes Wikipedia seem like a crystal ball (one of the NOTs), and is completely unreferenced (why will they soon all go, who will do this, when?). Also the "Do not remove or modify wording without good reason" makes Wikipedia being an actuctal wiki pointless. Why bother if people can't edit it? (We could all it |pedia). I do not want to seem rude, but I thought we were all supposidly equal, wth the same editing rights and rules that apply to all. However if I placed such a statement on a page and told people not to remove it, I doubt it would stay very long. And if I were to remove your notice and you revet me and block me - wouldn't that class as abuse of admin powers in a situation in which you are involved. Thank you for your time, and I hope you understand my conserns. Ian13/talk 19:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The placement in a box and the request not to alter the wording was mine. I seem to recall they followed some attempts to alter the meanng or remove it. I don't see why anyone with any commonsense would want to remove that notice, but in the event some people did. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do we have to delete the religion userboxes? They have been brought back, but I want to know why they were ever deleted (except for that athiest one, something fishy bout that..) The Republican 22:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually they were all deleted, nothing "fishy" going on with the atheist one. And I'm wondering when they are going to all be deleted again. Simply put they don't belong on Wikipedia and Jimbo has already made that clear. Now we just have to wait to see when he'll act. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That last line's the kicker. Frankly, the mixed messages on this are growing tiresome. On March 4 (the last time Mr. Wales spoke on this issue - on this very page, see above) he said: "I think that getting listings of userboxes completely out of the official namespaces is the most important thing. The point is that these userboxes are very much frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. If some people want to use them, fine, but they should not be using official pages to do it." Excellent. But then he adds: (This is just a comment, not an order or a request or anything else.)" As someone points out, many see his word as Gospel and act accordingly. Since I agree with Cyde's view on boxes, I actually wish admins would interpret his comment as Gospel, or, as another option, that Mr. Wales would simply make it Gospel. Being a leader means making tough decisions, and I'm afraid I haven't seen any on this issue that aren't heavily qualified with words that create more confusion. "Staying out of the fray" and posing as the peacemaker (if that's your plan, Mr Wales) is simply allowing the conflict to escalate, not ending it. Deleting userboxes as templates but allowing them as text in userspace - subject to existing rules about attacking other users - is a fair solution to the problem. Nhprman UserLists 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit

Did y'all see this, posted yesterday on Wikipedia Review? Herostratus 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignore it. Wikipedia Review is small time and unimportant. Right? Oh and the link is here if anyone wants to read it, or add comments. 12:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia Review "Has anyone ever thought of the idea of admins selling their accounts on Ebay? I wonder what those would go for. I mean, there are also various online games where accounts or in-game "property" are sold for real money. Maybe some people could professionally build up accounts to adminship just to sell them... I have been doing this. I have an account, on an IP range other than my normal one, where I am working towards admin. For me the whole key is to do this in as little time and effort as possible. Once this account becomes an admin, I will switch to another IP range and start working for an adminship there. When I am halfway to all the way there with the second account, I will start using my first admin account to correct the right-leaning bias of Wikipedia.

"One thing we can discuss is how to become an admin as soon as possible. I tried doing this a year ago and it was hard, but find it is easier nowadays. A lot of the tools are there now that didn't used to be, from reverting vandalism, to things tagged with cleanup tags, to whatever. The key to me is, how many edits can I make in an hour where people say what I'm doing is a useful edit? Of course, if you're adding a few paragraphs to an article, make sure to do it in more than one edit, that's common sense. I just work to get to that 1000 edit threshold.

"Obviously, I don't get into the kind of fights I do with my real account which I use from my normal IP range. I do everything I can to avoid fights, at all costs.

"Also remember people like to see people in different spaces. So aside from article space I do AFDs, leave notes in user talk and talk, and other places as well.

"While I'm getting good at doing a lot of quick edits fast, I also feel I should have some gravitas as well. So right now I am focusing on an area or two I want filled out on Wikipedia, which are pretty sparse anyhow, so I won't be raising too much conflict. A lot of the data is just facts, names etc. I just want to seem like I do more than just wiki-fairy stuff. When people ask what I edit, I'll talk about what I'm interested in, but it's the other stuff that will get me up to over 1000 edits.

"Just read what people say in RFA, that's a good guide. You know - working in different areas of Wikipedia so it's obvious you're familiar with the rules, leaving edit summaries, that type of thing. Some people want to see a conflict mediated. Luckily, that's not always necessary. If it is, tread lightly, it is important not to get into fights.

"Any advice from others on becoming an admin, quickly, with minimal effort? I'm gunning not for one, but several admin accounts. Perhaps we can collaborate, meaning maybe we can have two or three people working on an account 24/7 on the road to adminship. Once we have a few, we can go to work on what we want to do. If we have a lot of these admin-road accounts, we can even hold off on one or two of them, letting them go deep undercover - maybe they can even get on ArbCom or something. We'd have to have some kind of IRC ass-kissing bot for that though."

This is great! Let's encouage the idea that if you make a few thousand good edits you get something you can sell or use as a power base in wikipedia. Hundreds of people making millions of good edits. WAS 4.250 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait... you mean being an admin isn't a source of untold power and wealth? Of deep mystical revelations about the depths of the human soul? You don't automatically learn everything ever written on Wikipedia by being an administrator? Then what did I just pay $135 for??!?!! JDoorjam Talk 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What I fail to see is why someone would want an adminship account if they did not know how o use the tools, or only held it for fun. For a start, in itself adminship doesn't do anything - you are not above rules or anything. And if you were to use it for something menacing, although you may get away with it longer than a new user, you would shortly be desysoped. The positive I do see however is the edits made to get the so-say 'award' of adminship. Ian13/talk 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
But think of the girls, Ian. All you have to do is let in drop in any bar in town that you're a wiki admin, and you're guaranteed a threesome, at least.Herostratus
It's true. I'm not selling my adminship. The Land 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Who volunteers to search eBay listings every day from now on? Make sure there's something in the TOS or whatever to prevent things like this, then report the entries. In any case, it might be advisable to try out some BEANS. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On that note, what the hell does this thing have to do with Wikipedia? Do you use it to "speedy delete" your foes or something? Your enemies won't have the chance to revert you even once. Ok, these jokes are getting worse and worse. JDoorjam Talk 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, none of the results for Wikipedia seem to be of much relevance. Wouldn't selling the account mean a violation of the GFDL as it's then impossible to attribute the work to any specific person? --AySz88^-^ 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The infoworld seller does actually have a fit with the keyword (although I should try selling off MY free magazines too) but the others are just keyword spamming. As for the swords, I'm tempted, it takes the term "vandal whacking" to a new high! ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"Wouldn't selling the account mean a violation of the GFDL as it's then impossible to attribute the work to any specific person?" No. First of all, we don't have to attribute to any specific person, only the alias they choose to make their contributions under (otherwise IP addresses would be pretty dodgy). Second of all, you still have the right to disclaim any of your GFDL rights (as to accurate attribution), and if you sell your account, you're obviously giving the buyer permission to use it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Highlighting Quotes

You gotta love how they describe the best way to become an admin: independent thought, helping other people, and doing anything besides acting like a robot hurt your chances of becoming an admin. Nice. Oh and here's another good quote: "I bet you that Slim Virgin could sell hers for a couple of thousand. Maybe sell it to President George W. Bush himself. I bet you he'd love to have the power to change history, especially if he's an admin, and one who is "above reproach". And with Slim Virgin being so mysterious anyway, there's no guarantee that anyone would know." Another funny part on the thread (no offense to SlimVirgin), "For example, if say Sjakelle sold his account and started acting like a tool. We'd notice this. But someone who is already abusive, like for example Slim Virgin, you wouldn't notice. Because the behaviour wouldn't change. If you like, you could just say "Hey, this is how I behave, just copy this". And there you go." and "Kelly Martin, Snowspinner, Raul654 - all of these would be invaluable. Heck, even David Gerard would be pretty handy, since he's highish level and gets to act like a total idiot all the time. Easy to play that role." and "Well, I would think that the best ones are the ones that are corrupt but get away with it. Number 1: Slim Virgin - because she is so secretive, hence making it so easy to change over with no questions asked. Number 2: Snowspinner - because he gets away with just so much. Unfortunately, to play the part you'd have to start acting like him, and it could be tough to do. Number 3: David Gerard - because he is batfink insane, and it would be easy as pie to pretend to be him. He doesn't have as much power as the other two above, but he still has enough, and has done enough corrupt acts without anything being done to be worth something. As for others, well, Kelly Martin and Ambi are just too public so it'd be next to impossible to impersonate them." and then "when you do a lot of Snowspinner-esque moves and get away with it in true Snowspinner style. i.e. act like a corrupt bastard and other admins praise you for it.". The final quote is optimistic... "Given a choice between a handful of vandals (who could be stopped easily with code if they wanted to) and abusive admins or stupid rules, which is more likely to destroy the site? To be quite frank, regular level users can't destroy the site. Short of law suits and major hacking which takes over the site, they can't do a thing. Wikipedia is big enough now that major hacking isn't going to really do much damage, and if law suits come in to it, then it's because Wikipedia hasn't done their homework. So the biggest threat to Wikipedia is itself. Stupid rules and bad admins in there. That's the danger. And that's what they should be worrying about. People like Snowspinner and Slim Virgin are a much greater threat to Wikipedia than someone like say Willy on Wheels." DyslexicEditor 00:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation of multiple hardbanned user DW

May I ask you to have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I think I have provided enough evidence that Ted Wilkes is identical with User:DW and his many aliases who have all been indefinitely hardbanned by you. See Wikipedia:List of banned users. See also the Block log of this user who is frequently gaming the system. Thank you. Onefortyone 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone, did you report these as sockpuppets? This sounds like something any admin could handle. Antonrojo 02:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia forum or Google Group?

Hello, Mr. Wales. I am 14 and joined Wikipedia about a month ago. I think everyone has done a fantastic job in making Wikipedia what it is today. Although I still have trouble finding my way around and asking about rules, I have written several articles, contributed to others and removed vandalism from various articles.

However, I find it difficult to participate in general discussion about Wikipedia, socialise with other Wikipedians and get feedback on new articles I write. This is not a fault of the community, but the wiki format. The wiki format makes threading difficult, if not impossible (see my talk page for an example, and offer answers to some of my questions). It is easy to vandalize pages and edit other users' comments. (E.g. someone could edit my comment so it looks like Hildanknight says Jimbo Wales is a <insert insulting word here>.) I can't find a page for general Wikipedia discussion and suggestions either.

I suggest we have a Wikipedia forum on Google Groups. The key advantage of Google Groups over Yahoo! Groups and the wiki format is threading. For an example, browse through the threads at my Google group (my group's for bored teens to chat; you don't need to join). Google Groups also offers profiles and allows users to rate posts, among others. It is also more secure than the wiki format, in that you cannot modify posts made by other users (but you can appoint moderators to delete offensive posts and ban offending members). You need a Gmail account or Google account to use Google Groups, but since I suspect most intelligent Wikipedians have Gmail, and creating a Google or Gmail account is easy, that should not be a large problem.

A Google Group would facilitate discussion on

  • Wikipedia in general and suggestions on how to improve it
  • Social interaction between Wikipedians
  • Discussion on topics which Wikipedia has articles for (to my understanding, on article discussion pages, you can only discuss about the article, not about the article's topic)
  • Getting feedback on one's edits and articles
  • Much more

I have written an article about Google Groups - you can read it to learn more about Google Groups, and to give me feedback on how well I have written the article.

I think you can start a Wikipedia page for discussion on whether we should have a Google group for Wikipedia discussion, and if so, what it should be called. If we decide to have a Google Group, I will create the group, and appoint you as co-owner while we invite all veteran Wikipedians to create Google/Gmail accounts to join, and decide who to appoint as owners or managers. (Avoid having too many.)

What is the best way for me to get feedback on a new article after I submit it? {{peerreview}} is for established, high-quality articles. The two articles I wrote are the Google Groups article and an article on the movie Homerun. I think the Google Group would be useful for this.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have a mailing list (Wikipedia:Mailing lists), which is listed at Gmane [11]. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That's good, but Google Groups is for forums as well as mailing lists. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Hildankinight - welcome to Wikipedia. I like your idea of a Google Group for Wikipedia discussion. I have not used Google Groups but I will look into them.
Regarding your question about how to get suggestions for improving a new article you write, here are a few ideas you may wish to consider:
  1. Nominate your new page to appear in "Did You Know" - Template_talk:Did_you_know. There are rules for this - the article can't be a stub, and it has to be less than 5 days old...
  2. Find an existing article which is closely related, and where people are engaged in discussion and editing. In this case, perhaps Google would be an obvious choice, but also maybe e-mail or discussion forum. Any article that wikilinks to your article is probably a good candidate.
  3. See if there is a Wikipedia:Portal or Wikipedia:WikiProject related to your topic and post a note over at their discussion page.
  4. I think once you've been here a while, and you've met people with similar interests, it will be easy for you to pick out individual users who might help and to post a note on their Talk page.
I hope this is helpful. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. Best, Johntex\talk 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A request

A user by the name of Nohat goes on making false claims in this page . He blatantly tell that the "the proto-Dravidian /l/ of 'four' which has been lost in Tamil", which is a TOTALLY INCORRECT statement. The "Naal" is still used in Tamil and has not been lost. This is just one of the many lies uttered by this user. To whom should we complain in Wikipedia regarding such high handed behaviour. He seems to have no qualification regarding Dravidian languages. Just because he is an administrator, should we sit and watch him malign one language and culture.

He terms a presidential order as "purely speculation"

When some one adds a fact, he immediately remvoes it or edits it and asks for the ISBN of the book. About 95 % of books in India do not have ISBN. How can we say that they are not authoritative. Does the Gospel written by Luke and Mark in sheep skin carry an ISBN. Did the Holy Quran of 18th century have an ISBN.

Dravidian languages are Indian languages. An Indian Government Order should be a valid source than some book published in America or Finland as far as Dravidian languages is concerned.

What can we do for users with such high handed behaviour.

isn't Wikipedia a collective work. If there are two conflicting views over a subject, why can't we have both and give the relevant proof and ask the readers to discern. or it should be settled by an expert on that field. How can some one who does not know anything about India decide about that just because he is an administrator.

I am not writing this about this one incident alone. I request you to do something to check such behaviours by administrators into dealing with areas where they have no background knowledge. After all there is no profanity or vulgarism in the facts given.

Unless they have expertise in the field, some one should not pass judgements over that with whims and fancies without any citations just because he has an authority over that Doctor Bruno 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he's asking for sources. If you don't have the ISBN give a title, author, publisher and date. Rich Farmbrough 16:57 14 March 2006 (UTC).

Other users have already given and

He is not accepting anything. More than that what is really a concern is statements like "the proto-Dravidian /l/ of 'four' which has been lost in Tamil" WHICH IS A COMPLETELY FALSE BASELESS STATEMENT and not at all warranted. Without knowing anything about Dravidian languages, he is passing opinion.

Our chief concern is whether 'some one automatically gets a right to pronounce judgements about a language (or anything for that matter) which he does not know a bit, just because he is an administrator'. Inspite of giving a lot of sources, the administrators still say that "we are not satisfied". Obviously, they cannot be satisfied because they know nothing about the field. Why I have posted the problem in this page is not to settle the claim for ONE WORD alone. THe aim of bringing the problem over here is to get the general opinion as to whether some one automatically gets a right to pronounce (FALSE BASELESS) judgements JUST BECAUSE HE IS AN ADMINISTRATOR.

The problem seems to creep in many pages which deal with local affairs, about which the administrator does not know anything, but interferes with the position as an administrator.

We are dealing with Tamil Language. The sources and books will be in Tamil. Administrator who does not know Tamil deleted the entries and asks for proof and that too a book with ISBN. Most of the Indian books do not have ISBN. What to do.

Another question is as to whether there is a policy in wikipedia that gives a user full right to abuse some one, some culture, some nation or some language in the talk page ???? Does the policy of wikipedia allows me or you to talk ill of some country in the talk page of an article without any proof, which may be insulting to the concerned persons. Won't you feel insulted if I call a presidential order of your country as "pure speculation" without me knowing anything about. Should I not tender an apology when my mistake has been pointed out and proved (Unsigned by Doctorbruno)

Everyone has the right to make disagreeable comments in the talk pages. Everyone has the right to disagree with them in the talk pages. They do not have the right to change or delete another person's comments unless the comments are vicious personal attacks or vandalism.  Coyoty 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What to do when a comment attacks not just one person, but an entire culture. What to do when some one calls your country's government order as speculation. What are we to do when these things are done by an administrator WHO DOES NOT HAVE ELEMENTARY KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD HE IS INTERFERINGDoctor Bruno 11:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the issue being discussed regards the history or structure of a language, then a government order is not binding on this; history and linguistics can't be changed by presidential proclamation. If George W. Bush signed a decree stating that American English was the purest form of the language, unchanged in 2000 years, that wouldn't make it so. *Dan T.* 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A Humble Request

  • Mr. Wales. Could you please look into the situation unfolding with the Joe Byrd article? It is very troublesome that certain users are bound and determined to besmirch other users. I have collaborated on several articles including this one and it seems to be a double standard unfolding. Some can do this or that and some cannot. --Bookofsecrets 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should try other courses of dispute resolution before directly appealing to Jimbo? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • When I get tired of "tom-foolery" I go straight to the top. --Bookofsecrets 13:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Then don't be surprised if you get ignored. If you want the situation resolved, follow WP:DR. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Insulting behaviour by User Nohat

I have asked a simple question to one user Nohat at this page Talk:List of English words of Tamil origin What is your level of knowledge regarding Dravidian Languages.

He terms this as "a stupid question" (Nohat 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My request to other administrators is to kindly tell whether the above question is vandalism. How can some one term my question as "stupid". Does an administrator in Wikipedia automatically gets rights to call others by insulting terms and also brand a question asking for academic credentials ("level of knowledge regarding Dravidian Languages") as "stupid"

To whom should we report this. What is Wikipedia and other admins going to do for such high handed behaviour. What is the solution for this.Doctor Bruno 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the least insulting insults I've seen all day. You need to learn to ignore this stuff rather than letting it get to you. --Cyde Weys 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Nohat, based on WP:CIVILITY technically this is vandalism in the sense that it's suggested that you delete the comments. Antonrojo 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Audio format standard

I've started a page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Audio format standard to discuss the current exclusive use of Ogg files on Wikipedia. I hope that you will join in the discussion, since a large part of the Wikipedia community is not satisfied with the current policy, which is apparently derived from a post you made [12]. You make the claim that Ogg is better-suited than MP3 to a policy based on the question: "Can the format be used by legal free software?" I hope that you will elaborate on that claim, since much of the Wikipedia community that has spoken about this issue feels strongly that MP3s are so ubiquitous that the use of the Ogg format reduces the usefulness of audio files on Wikipedia. --LostLeviathan 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Blanking AfD pages

Hi Jimbo, A user has blanked the AfD for a deleted article [13], and changed the Guide to deletion policy as a result of this edit it appears you made to another AfD page. Is this appropriate? Should Articles for Deletion entries be blanked now? Thanks Fagstein 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd like to at least wait until we hear from Jimbo before we start assuming this is something we're supposed to be doing. Just because Jimbo does it once doesn't mean it's right, or at least, a widely-applicable policy. --Cyde Weys 22:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just noting that User:Michael Snow was the first one to blank the page. I merely happened to have it on my watchlist and revert Fagstein a number of times. As the issue has now been brought to Jimbo, I'm not going to revert any further. Looking forward to the response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • ABCD pointed out on the mailing list that our robots.txt file disallows AfD pages, so this may solve the issue without the need to blank pages. It certainly seems like it would solve the problem... JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done this quite a few times on request from people concerned (via email to one of the foundation addresses or to Jimbo). It seems harmless enough, the text is still available if needed but hidden from searches - which don't always obey robot.txt In the cases I've done this, there has been no dispute and no complaints. It seems to work well for everyone. If I recall, Jimbo has done it a few times for people as well -- sannse (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I recently created an image, and put it under Public Domain, as I created it. The thing is, BrokenSegue tells me it can't be. But how can it, since it is my own work? He says it's because of the images in it, but they were crudely cut out using the lasso tool on Macromedia Fireworks. Oh, and the image is: [[Image:President Peter.png|thumb|align|left|Peter for President]]

I'd rather you say it can't be on Wikipedia than him. You made this great site, he's just some eleceted administrator. The Republican 23:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice this image isn't linked to from anywhere. How is this image at all encyclopedic? Fagstein 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone is trying to use Wikipedia as a free webhost. That image should be speedily deleted. It sure as hell ain't applicable for any sort of encyclopedic topic. --Cyde Weys 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Republican, the issue is not the provenance of your image. It is, of course, your image to do with as you please. However, the issue is the relevance of the image to Wikipedia. As far as I can see, there is none. Did you plan to use it in an article? Powers 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your image is what's known as a "derivative work". You can't use anything made by other people, even if you only take parts of it and mix them together yourself. If you created the work from scratch, not based on anything else, then it would be in your power to release it into the public domain; as it is, it's not. It's only partially yours, not entirely. As a copyrighted image with no permission or justification for use on Wikipedia, the image must be deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Note, the image was previously added to Macromedia Fireworks as an example of an image produced with Fireworks. I removed it from the article because it didn't really add anything. Whatever we think about the copyright status, I think we can probably agree on that - and an orphaned image is deleteable. FreplySpang (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Last I was aware, only orphaned fair-use images were deletable, not orphaned images generally. Since this isn't even fair-use, however, it's certainly deletable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After some though, I decided to let it get deleted. I haved saved it on my home computer (I made it on my schools computer) and all I really wanted was that , find a good article to put it in, and to have it on my userpage. The Republican 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's gone, for a number of reasons. ×Meegs 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Advice for Wikibooks

Mr. Wales, this is Karl Wick, the "Wikibooks guy". An apology for the recent quality issues, I was out of the country and had limited Internet, but I am back in the US and working with other folks on Wikibooks to get things into shape. I have big dreams about what the materials we develop on that site will do, and I gather from reading a couple of your interviews, that you do, too.

The situation: For all of the textbooks to be developed on Wikibooks, there are basically three options I see available for how they are organized, and I'd like your input on which makes more sense.

  1. The first option: All of the books are housed on the same domain on one big umbrella site: A general biology book for high school would differentiate itself from a general biology book for the university level through its title, and each book would be linked from other pages on the site with other books of a similar level.
  2. The second, intermediate, option: House all of the textbooks on one domain with subdomains, like or, or replace the /wiki/ with the information, like etc.
  3. The third option: split everything up into different domains, like,, etc.

I can see benefits to grouping it all together on one site, and benefits to dividing it down into several, more focused sites, directed at each age group or student type. And that reorganization could take place right now, or at some determined point in the future.

I actually thought that you could ask Peter Drucker, the management guru who is focused on helping non-profit organizations, because he could probably tell us in ten minutes what would take us years to figure out by trial and error. I would contact him myself but since you are already famous it's more likely that you could get in. You could even take the opportunity to ask him about uncounted other organizational things you have had on your mind.

Thanks in advance for your help, --karlwick 02:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Karl Wick on Wikibooks

Unfortunately Drucker passed away recently. Everyking 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A Request

Dear Sir,

Here is the Logo for dv:Wikipedia. Still the Logo is not changed with the translated logo. If you can help in this matter we would be very happy. We use this time to thank you for founding wikipedia and sister projects, thats only why our language also got a place in the world of internet, the wikiworld. Here is the logo for dv:wikipedia.
Ayersalisa 05:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Its already changed. --Oblivious 11:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The army of yes men

I love how your army of yes men (you call them "administrators") conspire to hide everything from you. Really. It's priceless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sir! Johntex\talk 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
How can they conpire against Jimbo and be his "yes men"? I am confused. I thought you were either one of Jimbo's "yes men" or you conspired against him. I didn't know it worked both ways. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
And you call yourself Lord Voldemort. Some evil master YOU are! ... "yes" to his face, conspire behind his back. Simple! Hope that helps! And turn in your secret decoder ring. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
What did you just say to me?!?! That's it, Death Eaters shall be at your door momentarily. And quit giving out trade secrets! ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's the way we say "Yes", with extra "s"es while slowly rubbing our hands together: "Yessssss...."  Coyoty 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I can say yes and lick his boots simultaneously. Rx StrangeLove 23:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I agree with this person. This is the one thing that many of us are too afraid to say. Although it has been said in the past, this is the best way to say it. Thank you. -- Shell <e> 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that means saying yes like this: YES!!! See you guys at the Burning Evidence to Hide it from Jimbo BBQ this Saturday, JDoorjam Talk 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have never paid attention as a world super-power leader has staged an illegal war. The idea is to have your army of yes men hide from you all evidence that the war is illegal or impractical. Then, when the towers come crashing down, you can stand up and say to the nation "We never imagined somebody would use airplanes..." or when the levees break you can say "We never imagined the levees would break..." or when you discover libelous, false information in hundreds of articles you can claim "We never imagined that many articles could be so wrong..." Tyuiyujtn 01:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yesss yesss ohhhh yesss! Wait no that sounded so wrong. :P Cat chi? 09:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Occams razor says that the army of are trying to spare Jimbo from dealing with noise. Seeing as how everything that happens here is more or less transparent until deleted, "hiding" is a ludicrous accusation. Prometheuspan 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Newcomers are always to be welcomed.

Precisely the opposite has happened to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I, for one, welcome you.  Coyoty 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bothering you and the rest of the Board...

Hi Jimbo, I would like to point out that there are a lot of requests for new Wikipedias that need to be fulfilled. Some requests have been approved for months now (see meta:Approved requests for new languages) but are still out in the cold. Yes, I know the developers have lots of other things to do, but requests with flourishing test Wikipedias and plenty of native speaker support should not be waiting so long for their own Wikipedias. Can you tell me at least why their creation is delayed like this? Regards, Caesarion 00:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Potential Problem Down Under

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I am writing to alert you to a potential problem. My name is Benjamin Cass and I am an Australian who has occasionally been very heavily criticised by some anonymous or pseudonym using authors on Wikipedia. These criticisms are linked to my business interests, some of which have received media attention.

Some of the criticisms are sourced to The Age newspaper, traditionally considered a reputable newspaper but that ran a very ugly campaign against me (motivated mainly by the left-wing politics of the editorial staff). I believe their view is incorrect and have been keen to ensure that there was balance in the article(s) that dealt with the subject matter.

OK. So why am I writing to you about a probably very run of the mill dispute about what's in a few articles ?

It's because I am very concerned that a political adversary of mine (who I believe edits anonymously or behind a pseudonym) is a "Very Important Person" in Wikipedia. That person is determined to restrict my ability to edit articles that relate to me. And probably also to block or ban me using whatever techniques they have available to them due to their VIP status. I am not an expert on Wikipedia rulings but I believe they are twisting them to breaking point to get the outcomes they want. I believe they are sufficiently well connected to achieve their objective.

This problem effects another friend of mine User:DarrenRay who has also been criticised for the same sorts of issues and has been contributing more than I am able to. He has said that the controversy of John Seigenthaler Sr. highlights the need for Wikipedia to manage these issues with respect for everyone and reading about it (at least from Wikipedia's point of view) I think that's true. I personally don't like Mr Seigenthaler's approach, I'd prefer to work for neutrality in articles by consensus with reference to sources, even if it is a bit of a pain. Wikipedia belongs to everyone so I think it is incumbent on me to do my best to contribute everything I can.

I have contributed to Wikipedia and wish to continue to do so. I wish to ensure that all articles on subjects with which I am familiar are neutral (yes, even those involving me). I believe if this move to block/ban or whatever goes ahead that it would be most unjust. I have come forward, identified myself, corrected bias and error and been pleased to edit many other articles adding knowledge where I can and believe me gaining a lot too.

I respectfully ask that you pay careful attention to what's happening with this matter, as I believe it is warranted. If I had a problem of this potential magnitude in my business, I'd want to know so I'm telling you and hope you don't mind.

According to Alexa today, you have the 18th most popular website in the world, congratulations. That's an astonishing accomplishment.

PS I can be contacted on +61 417 088 246 if need be.

Benjamin Cass --2006BC 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem that numerous editors (including a former member of the arbitration committee) have had with Ben and Darren is that they are trying to push their agenda, in a legal case they are involved in, on Wikipedia. This agenda his included the attacking of Dean McVeigh (the person suing them) and blanket reverts to their POV versions. This case is currently being considred for arbitration. Xtra 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Not so. The problem is an abuse of power by someone very keen to get their own way on a range of articles. The dispute over the article that mentions me is largely resolved, with very few recent edits. The issue for Jimbo to consider isn't anything as mundane as what's in an article, it's whether a proper process is about to be followed in relation to two editors who have tried to lessen grossly defamatory material about them. That's the issue. And I note at least Xtra reveals on his user page his affiliations, although remains behind a pseudonym. --2006BC 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Good grief. We have finally hit the bottom. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was hoping to spare people like Jimbo. Anyway, the articles in question are Melbourne University student organisations, University of Melbourne Student Union, Rugs Galore, Andrew Landeryou, Dean McVeigh (since reduced to a redirect, but the history is still there) and possibly others. I encourage people to make up their own minds. I'm available for a debate, but for god's sake let's not do it on Jimbo's talk page. Stevage 16:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I do have to object to claiming that the dispute on one particular article is "largely resolved". Lack of edit war does not mean approval of the current version of the page - it simply indicates lack of desire to perpetuate an edit war. Speaking for myself, I'm just abstaining from editing until some basic agreement on how to handle this situation is achieved.Stevage 16:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
Thank you for your response, I will email you as you suggest with my concerns, and a number of links that have informed me in reaching my conclusions. I note the remarks above of those who follow my every edit and who followed me here and think it best not to respond further here other than to say I believe the edits they (and others) have made to those articles speak for themselves anyway. Again, thanks,
Benjamin Cass
2006BC 05:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey, guys, just kind of interested. Who do you think are the worst vandals on Wikipedia? Freddie 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the best way to fight vandalism is to encourage them to compete. Fagstein 05:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Trolls who get people talking endlessly about things other than encyclopedia writing. WAS 4.250 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

On your userbox solution

This is in regards to this post. Let's do it, ASAP. Announce a one week grace period so people have time to get everything they're using out of template space and then implement it. This looks like it's going to be the end solution anyway and the longer you take to act the more work there's going to be in the end. Every day dozens more template userboxes are created. A stitch in time saves nine. --Cyde Weys 16:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, as this is already growing in magnitude of the mop-n'-bucket work ahead of us, 9 stitches in time save 81. Cyde's right: this seems like the logical conclusion of this madness, so we might as well actively point the prow of the discussion in that direction. (Ok, now I'm mixing metaphors.) As Jimbonium Maximus has already made it clear that he wants us to solve this on our own, rather than waiting for His decree, we should just implement that wording change in the policy and send it up for another vote. JDoorjam Talk 16:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The voting is fundamentally broken then. It just gets swarmed with MySpacers and votestackers. It's worthless. Just look at the last vote and compare the number of article space edits on both sides. This needs to be done from the top-down. --Cyde Weys 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's hack and slash, by fiat, and leave no surviving userboxes, because we can't commit to a statement of principle such as WP:UUSM that attacks the core problem instead of a knee-jerk deletionist's wet dream. I'm sure those against userboxes would love to believe that it's only cranks and noobs that disagree with them, but this only illustrates their false presumptions. - Keith D. Tyler 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. C'maaahhn, it's Friday. Take it down a notch. Or at the very least, take it over to WP:UBD, where the Wiki code has been specially insulated to stand up to the caustic effects of hyperbole. The voting on the issue as it stands has been very frustrating for all parties involved. Lunging at people and (1) telling them what their motives are, and then (2) telling them why their motives are teh sux0r is not going to accomplish anything, except St. Patty's Day ire. Green beer doesn't go well with seeing red. JDoorjam Talk 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys seem to be reading into the post way more than what Jimbo said? I don't see anything there that suggests Jimbo is proposing anything more than a small piece moving towards a final product. It also seems to me that people are starting to think that StrangerInParadise represents the views of many people that opposed WP:UPP, and that compromising with him will end up moving then product towards consensus; I doubt many people agree with his views at all, and solving his issue might remove one votestacker but doesn't actually improve the policy from the view of all the other people objecting for completely different reasons. --AySz88^-^ 04:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You know following this thread on userbox issues (for probably two hours) makes the head spin. I'd dropped in to chide you in 'non-management' by way of finding out Radiant! had departed (I've been away helping in Katrina's wake) to renew a call for top down firm management. I'd dropped that ball last summer when I volunteered. (My concern is the long observation that wikipolicies continually drive editors away with frustrated knots of anger... folks like Radiant! and many other folks who like Radiant! couldn't swallow one more extra straw (to mix metaphors). Say like User Talk: Xiong, who I know nothing about except from threads above that led me to read his poignant goodbye, and from having experienced similar feelings.) Is anyone out there listening to these anguished crys? RU paying attention to the wasted (volunteered) Man-hours some of these idealist attitudes cost in the day to day flow of Wikiwork. Apparently not. Or you don't care unless it embroils you directly in the controversy like this userbox thing. (Which I could care less about, as I'm not involved. Oh, my. That's easy to think! Even feels a little good. It's YOUR TIME, not mine. Everything must be Okay then. Yawn. Right Tony Sideway?)
  • This userbox issue just affirms the need I perceived for some top down fiats. Free discussion is great, but no organization can long survive run by committee with out at least occasional executive action. Skimming something like WP:UUSM seems to be along the right lines on userboxes. Personally, I never look at the stupid things excepting I have found the occasional language box to be useful for matters international. I can see that a professions set would be of similar value occasionally.
  • So when will there be a minimal policy that registers editors, so that socketpuppetry and anom. edits, and vote stacking can be minimized? (i.e. it's time to reform the ideal to the real.) How you ask? Requiring a new editor (or his puppet) to provide a valid email to recieve a computer generated password (which he can later change), and having the computers behind this thing watch for duplicates. While not perfect, it will at least make the abusers work harder (by establishing & keeping multiple email addys, which gets costly causing a natural negative feedback on the abusive practices.)
  • If that was in place, I opine that such things as user pages could be easily locked for access only by a valid logged in fellow editor— which would take them off the web entirely (As I certainly prefer. I don't know of any company that shares it's internal documents on the web, do you? Besides Wiki, I mean.), put them firmly in the category 'for wiki internal use only', and obviate the whole need to have discussions about whether or not four new spaces could be used as a free site on the net as a whole. (What rationale makes them visible externally in the first place?)
  • Moreover, such registrations would provide a mechanism whereby Jimbo could attempt an apology one on one in private with such cases as Radiant! (I'd suggest the email addys be available to the Admins regardless of a users preferences.) Personally, I don't ever trust an editor that blocks email, even if it's just thru wiki's screwed up news column-tiny email compostion window. (Yuck!) Not a serious person. Won't take responsibility.
  • Perhaps more importantly, being on record, they would allow the computer to generate a monthly email check "Hi- RU still active" to weed out bad actors (assuming some free for a month email addy was used. Ooops! Good bye Mr. Puppet. Don't do this, it might work!) by requiring a response (coded to match the query). Certainly I hope I'm not the only one that has recieved a similar two way exhange from a careful security conscious entity! I see that I've gotten 'Long' here, not my intent, nor was it to rant. Hope you agree that airing the thought at least has some merit. But these 'two cents', would certainly be a start on controling some of the animals in the zoo! Consider the frequent case I see in technical or historical articles where user posts twelve edits because he forgot to log in. (If he couldn't post an edit, she'd have to do so... establishing the all important 'accountability' an encyclopedia needs. IMHO, it's even worse if they never log in. You figure out why.) How may he be contacted? No talk page. Effort to confer fails. Call me a troll, but that's very counterproductive, and so I say, outright stupid. Sorry. Too much freedom just moves the math into chaos theory, not a good thing!FrankB 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Good, clear thinking here, especially the need for "top down fiats." I can't imagine Bill Gates allowing Microsoft employees to spend thousands of hours posting on internal message boards debating whether Coke or Pepsi machines should be allowed in the lobby - all the while staying silent on the issue or issuing cryptic "non-command" pro-Pepsi statements - but that hypothetical is what this situation sounds like, and not just about userboxes. Registration of all editor/users is another simple, brilliant idea. Wouldn't vandalism and POV-pushing (which is heartbreaking, if your work is the target, as User Talk: Xiong's statements show) be reduced substantially if anon. edits were not allowed? They aren't allowed ANYWHERE ELSE, and for good reason. Thanks for the breath of fresh air! Let's hope we don't see these ideas codified into 2,500-word "policies," submitted to 6 months of "reviews," debates and popularity contest-like "votes" only to see no action on them because no "consensus" is reached. What a waste that would be, though I half expect that very scenario to occur. Nhprman UserLists 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, your posts are just getting boring at this point. You say the same thing and continue to suck up to jimbo. Do you see what you are doing? You are telling us that we are not allowed to say even non-inflamitory stuff. What is the difference between saying it and putting it in a little box? -- Shell <e> 06:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL, yes, me sucking up to Jimbo. Brilliant. Do you have anything better than a weak attack on my motives? And you're totally missing the point. It's not the difference between "saying it" and "saying it in a little box", it's the difference between "saying it on your userpage" and "saying it in template and category space". Template: and Category: are supposed to be used for building the encyclopedia, not displaying silly nonsense like "This user vomited on his keyboard, EWWWW." But your constant nonstop misrepresentations of my point of view make it difficult for me to see a way to compromise with people like you. This isn't about userboxes, it's about the use of template and category namespace. You're the one who's obsessed over userboxes and can't see beyond them. If there were a large number of other non-userbox kinds of unencyclopedic templates you can bet I'd be opposing them just as much. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't like the userbox policy dear Cyde? Well, If you say so. It's my solemn duty as the 'Self-Appointed Godfather of Wikipedia and Mega Man' to make sure your concerns have their proper voice.

So, I had the boys down at the airport fire up my private 777, load the refrigerator with wine coolers, and make sure my Doom 3 and Starcraft 2 beta builds were ready. The Limo service was quite irritating, so I actually had to ride in a cab… Normally I have reservations about them, but Aziz proved to be the most entertaining chauffeur I've ever had.

The flight was a deary one, but I managed to book a solid day with Jimbo; he owed me big time ever since I suggested not intervening in regards to userbox policy and not taking any desisive action. I still had to step into this gently.

We started our day with a champagne brunch, then a tour of the website, to make sure all the new articles were up to the usual high standards. He tried to get me to marry his next door neighbor again, (She was a looker, too.) but I managed to sidestep that one carefully, without offending her family honor. I told him I was simply not worthy of the radiant fruit of the mighty loins, and bowed respectfully. Jimbo grudgingly dropped the subject.

We had an early lunch at 'The Morning Virility Shop.' For those not familiar with fine establishment, I'll need to give you a very basic overview of Jimbo's work ethic. His goal as a businessman and head of wikipedia was to work himself to death by the time he's twenty-five. As such, he's often extremely exhausted, and occasionally needs a pick-me-up. Often, he purchases expensive energy drinks loaded with sugar and herbs, many of which are extremely expensive. A few summers ago, when I was visiting his family for the Holidays, he let me in on his personal secret. The Morning Virility Shop.

The diet of the Morning Virility shop is blatantly 'male.' Most of the meats served are the sexual organs of various animals served with simple fruits vegetables and grains. As for energy crystals for a reploid like myself, they are of the highest quality. The owner believes that such a diet empowers his customers with a raw primal energy, and I'll be damned if he's not right! We played Tennis afterwards, and I played like a reploid possessed!

After lunch, and tennis, we stopped by the massage parlor. Having gorgeous women rub your armor with scented oils is an experience not quickly forgotten. I'd go so far as to say it was one of the very best parts of the business trip.

After that, I broached the subject of making template policy mainspace exclusively, as you suggested. He got really quiet, considering for a moment. We had a heated debate for the better part of an hour, and his wife begged us to stop arguing, his daughter even cried. I'm afraid in the end, I agreed with him. Future userbox policy is still up in the air, I'm afraid.

Sorry, Cyde, I did my best.

~P.S., do you want to marry his neighbor? I need to find an eligible young man, quick! Or there may be no escape for me! -ZeroTalk 13:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. Zero, sorry your extensive discussion with Jimbo (mythical though it was) did not result in a resolution of the situation. I also noticed that action has not yet been taken, and that divisive political userboxes are still being created. It also hasn't escaped my notice that Jimbo has not yet posted to this section regarding his intentions - or his intention to have intentions at one point - on the Userbox fiasco. it's great to hear from others chiming in to speak for him (or in some case, against him,) but when someone posts on my User page, I always respond in some fashion. Nhprman UserLists 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"Mythical" indeed. I daresay I'll take another trip as soon as spring is in full bloom. Jimbo's tennis playing skills are to die for. :) -ZeroTalk 20:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely you're not...never mind. I'll give you a wide berth since you're smart enough to believe in ending this Userbox mess (and you're only in high school. Smart kid.) Nhprman UserLists 01:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You lost me there. Could you be a tad more specific with your answer..? Its a bit vague. -ZeroTalk 08:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure: Obviously fake little visit. But very clever, for a high school senior like yourself. I agree with you on Userboxes. Pithy enough for you? Nhprman UserLists 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry; I didn't mean it that way. I simply didn't understand the thought you were attempting to convey through your previous comment, hence I inquired clarification. -ZeroTalk 15:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The Internet lends itself to misunderstandings. Thank God for these little smiley things: ;-) They help convey *some* of the tone of a conversation, usually. Though I'm not sure which one I should have used before! ;-) (see, that helped, didn't it?) Nhprman UserLists 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki for profit?

(section title added by JDoorjam) it is me agostinho faria from netherlands im new in this site what i dont get is why wikipedia is not for profit website.i think is worth twice as much google means billions of dollars.there are many site making money to the depens of wikipedia.i dont like that.are these folks on wikipedia blind?felisberto21:50,17 march2006

Maybe there are some people still around who think there's more to life than making money? *Dan T.* 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Unlike the Ferengi Cat chi? 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, I hope you don't see this post as rude or as spamlinking, but I have had very few replies elsewhere on wikimedia pages. is a family tree project: I have added it to the list of proposed projects (and it has a meta page) and I have posted to the foundation mailing lists, but as mentioned above, I have had very little response. On the meta page one user suggested 'setting up a dialogue with the foundation'. I am not sure what this means, and could not find much information on new projects on meta, so decided to post this here. I would love to hear your personal opinions of the site. --Bjwebb (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the censorship!

Here's my comments that you or someone saw fit to delete. Since you yourself said you oppose censorship, i'll just restore this for you, since there's nothing offensive whatsoever in it.

You are a winner, good sir!

You've won, there's no denying it! You now have managed to get yet ANOTHER person to leave Wikipedia! So, gold stars for you, Jimbo, gold stars for you! Oh, and something else... the comfort of knowing that this whole mess you caused is far from over. Coolgamer 23:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear to me in what way you think that I caused any mess at all. I'll post more on your talk page.--Jimbo Wales 10:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)". I don't see how you can take this statement to say anything but the following: 1. User boxes are just a fad, a phase. (But in that case, why worry about them?) 2. A mass deletion is likely to happen if the "userbox fad", as you put it, doesn't just go away by itself. In other words, you won't shut them down, as long as we do that for you. How thoughtful. Regardless on if you meant to cause this chain-reaction, the fact remains we have over-eager admins putting up almost all boxes for speedy delete, sometimes deleting boxes after majority votes not to. It's annoying, distracting, and it wastes MY time trying to edit articles for your benefit. I have not even done my rounds of minor edits, i've been too busy having to vote on, complain in favor of, and whatnot about the userbox issue. This, quite frankly, is not fair. Thanks to the templates, i've been able to find people with the same interests as me, and that has been quite healthy for me to have people I know I can talk to. That's shot to hell. IT might not seem like much, but when you know you can just vent once in a while to someone who's been there... it means a lot. People take your word as gospel here. The admins seem to think they're doing what you want (plus a bit of what they want now that they can justify it)... it's just... feh. It's a problem. One which I do not want to deal with any longer. Coolgamer 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry someone erased your comments. There's nothing offensive in expressing an opinion, or criticizing Jimbo. That said, Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be a social networking site where we can meet folks to talk to with similar interests. Perhaps Jimbo or someone should create a Wiki for that purpose. I think it would be very successful (like the others, like myspace.) But he and others have repeatedly said that this isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. I also agree that the Userbox War is a waste of time, and that the selective deletions are infuriating. Nothing says we have to continue talking about them, however. Nhprman UserLists 15:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If Jimbo ever replied to the deleted version, I missed it. I'd like to see him explain his own words. Coolgamer 02:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism must be stopped

I have noticed that many ananymous users have been vandalizing various pages by blanking an article and adding a picture of Squidward. They put in their edit summary "SQUIDWARD!!" This war must have been planned by the ananymous users (there may be hundreds of anons right now, vandalizing pages) and they must be stopped. This is causing the RC Patrollers to become disorganized, making more vandals to vandalize without notice.Funnybunny 18:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, vandalism should be stopped. Such as . . . how? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The only good solution is to continue as we do, removing their droppings as we find them. (I don't want to give reasons why other solutions won't work, at the risk of WP:BEANS.)  Coyoty 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to worry. This rash vandalism has stopped ever since I posted my last message. Funnybunny 02:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This vandalism was caused by an open proxy. More information here. Funnybunny 01:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion

Why can't this image be used on Wikipedia? This page reads:

The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission.
Non-commercial Reproduction
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We ask only that:
  • Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
  • The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada be identified as the source department; and,
  • The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Thanks, Ouuplas 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, non-commercial licenses are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia; there are plenty of commercial mirrors of Wikipedia, and these must be allowed according to the GFDL (which all of Wikipedia is licensed under). Second of all, the requirement that "Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced" is incompatible with the requirement of the GFDL that the content must be modifiable by anyone who wishes, even if that renders it inaccurate. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's disappointing, I wasn't aware every image on Wikipedia had to be compatible with the GFDL. Ouuplas 00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, fair use images don't have to be. But other than that, they do need to be at least free (I'm pretty sure Creative Commons is okay); even if it may be technically legal for us to use noncommercial images, depending on how you look at it, Wikipedia wants itself to be copiable freely even for commercial purposes. Thus Jimbo outlawed use of noncommercial-only images. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That license does seem a bit vague. It's not really clear if the "intent" clause is meant to be descriptive or prescriptive, nor is it clear what restrictions the "due diligence" clause actually implies. One could interpret it in a way that is GFDL-compatible, although prudence dictates that we not do so if there's any doubt about it. Still, I think whoever wrote that license might well agree to allow distribution under the terms of the GFDL if we manage to contact them and ask. It's worth a try, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This information was inserted by me and immediately precedes the quoted text above[[14] - and indicates that a GFDL-compatible license was not intended. However, they may be willing to grant one - so I sent an email. Trödel 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the help everyone, and thanks for sending the email, Trödel. There are quite a few images that come from Canadian government websites (all of which have the same license, the one above), and it would be a shame if we couldn't use any of them. It's nearly impossible to get free replacements for some of the images, such as the photos of planes in mid-flight. Ouuplas 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

An appeal for action concerning policies

Mr. Wales,

I appeal to you to declare the Wikipedia:Username policy as invalid. I believe that this is required for the following reason:-

1)The policy bans certain names as "offensive", thus practicing censorship.
2)Censorship expresses a particular point-of-view (POV), namely that certain content is "offensive" while other contents are not.
3)The fundamental wikipedia policy (possibly even the fundamental) of WP:NPOV demands a neutral-point-of-view.
4)Therefore the policy Wikipedia:Username policy is in direct and gross violation of the more fundamental and important Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV.
5)The Wikipedia:Username policy should be declared null and void.

This same argument applies against all other policies seeking to curtail a human beings basic right to freedom of expression and in favor of policies seeking to overturn this unhealthy, counterproductive and destructive trend, most notably Wikipedia:censorship. It is currently a proposed policy, but I don't see how it can be a proposed policy when it is in fact simply a restatement of the existing policy of WP:NPOV.

Censorship is FUNDAMENTALLY and INCURABLY POV, therefore any and all forms of censorship (including banning, blocking, hiding, removing etc) are directly opposed to Wikipedia's guiding principle of maintaining a neutral and unbiased stand in all matters.

I shall be awaiting your comment on this sensitive issue. The right steps at this point, if taken, will help Wikipedia tremendously in the short and long run by channeling away a lot of energy from the counterproductive task of censorship (and fighting over censorship) into the productive task of editing articles from a neutral point-of-view.

Long live Wikipedia!

Yours Sincerely,
Shish Basu Palit
Loom91 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV applies only to articles, not policies regarding the conduct of editors. It's also POV to say that personal attacks are bad, and for that matter that edit wars and user-page vandalism are bad. Disruptive usernames are not necessary and cause nothing but annoyance and confusion if not outright harm of some sort. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. You have no rights here. While I think some in the name police are a bit over-sensitive, blocking blatantly obvious provocative usernames is a right that admins should keep, as long as they assume good faith. Fagstein 07:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is quite true that certain usernames are created in bad faith, but I object to admins having the right to decide what is offensive. It is not possible to ban everything anyone is offended by (lots and lots of people are seriously offended by pictures of women wearing western clothes), therefore banning only what certain people are offended by is expressing an unfair POV. Many people are offended by many things and different people by different things; as we can't block all of them we should block none of them. "Offensive username" seems a very poor reason to scare away editors. Loom91 11:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Wales says on his user page "Freedom of speech is critical for all cultures". Then how can it not be critical for Wikipedia. By allowing a select few to censor others, are we not falling prey to the elitism we try to avoid? By the way, does Mr. Wales regularly read this page? Loom91 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
One of the many things I'm glad Wikipedia is not is an experiment in chaos theory, even if that's not explicitly stated. I find it kind of amazing that people would say that if the creators of this encyclopedia set some boundaries for expressing oneself that it's "censorship" or that they are "elitist" for seeking to keep things focused on creating an encyclopedia, rather than allowing it to turn into a social network. I think people need to take a deep breath and remember why we're here. I am frustrated that, in an attempt to remain "neutral" the founders have allowed some to create policy on their own, thus allowing *some* boxes to be deleted while others have remained untouched (and new ones continue to be created.) But let me reiterate that Jimbo has every right to say, tomorrow: "No more userboxes. Period." I would also point out that Wikicities is an EXCELLENT social networking experiment in which you can explore your interest in boats, cars, movies, actors, Star Trek, politics, travel, etc. So there's really no censorship going on here in Wikia-land. Nhprman UserLists 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As for Mr. Wales reading this page, I say probably not very often, although I do see him comment here when the issue is bland, non-controversial and doesn't have a lot of "bad vibes" or "bad karma." You see, Jimbo is a very peaceful man. A Guru of Harmony, of sorts. Controversy must be avoided, and "consensus" is the way towards achieving transcendence. /sarcasm. My view? It's time for him to wade into this mess and fix it, even if it causes some people not to like him anymore. Nhprman UserLists 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how opposing censorship is proposing social networking. Censorship is detrimental to creating an encyclopaedia, because it means editing is done with unencyclopaedic concerns in mind. Removal of censorship is unconnected with WP turning into a social network. Loom91 09:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The creation of deliberately provocative usernames is very detrimental to creating an encyclopedia and is clearly designed to create side-arguements that detract from the site's purpose. The owners of Wikia have every right to set rules for what goes on in this space and that's not "censorship" any more than it is if you were to hang a "Pro-Life" banner above your desk at work, and hand out bumper stickers advocating your social views. Nhprman UserLists 18:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
From your earlier comments on the user talk page of User:Jebus Christ, I understand that it is the blocking of that particular username in July, 2005, that concerns you. Could we try to explore that particular case to see if I can understand your objection?
The user in question is free to edit the encyclopedia either logged in or not, he hasn't been denied any editing rights, and indeed he created the username User:Jimididit a few days ago and has used it to edit Wikipedia. All that has been done is that the offending username has been blocked. On blocking the old account, the administrator posted the standard notice explaining why the block had been made and suggesting that he might like to have his contributions from that account transferred to the new one.
So the editor may contribute to Wikipedia, but not under the username Jebus Christ. We know that a name like Jebus Christ is provocative, may offend some people, and can only have been chosen as a joke name--it isn't this fellow's actual name and it doesn't say anything useful. It isn't going to reflect well on Wikipedia to have articles with edit summaries signed by someone who calls himself "Jebus Christ". And since he could edit any article, including the ones about Christianity, this could make Wikipedia look like a rather Mickey Mouse encyclopedia, which is not the message we want to send.
You plead freedom of speech, but his speech hasn't been significantly abridged. Censorship? Well he may not insert an edit signed by "Jebus Christ" into an article on Wikipedia. I think that's a reasonable limitation, don't you? He may insert precisely the same edit signed by "Jimididit" or (on most articles) by his IP number alone. Only the privilege of using his particular choice of username is abridged.
Is it that last point that concerns you, that there are limits, subject to the discretion of administrators, to the username he may select? --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This will set a good precedent... "maybe". --JimmyT 09:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I can find many such examples such as User:Entheta. --JimmyT 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My question to pro-username-blocking admins, will you ban an username I find to be offensive? In fact, a phonetical variation of the word Tony was used to tease my cousin at school, so I may well take offense at it. Will the username Tony Sideways blocked in that case?

Another point in my original post was article Censorship. What is offensive is a thouroughly unencyclopaedic concern when editing pages, so why is it allowed to flourish?

As everyone knows, admins don't always do the right things, they don't even always do things in good faith. Giving them the power to censor (which is the ultimate power) gives a lot worse image to the public than an offending username. Power corrupts.

One more point I'll like to make is that while usernames should not really matter in an encyclopaedia (which is no excuse to block them), they DO matter to some people who may decide not to contribute if their username is denied. There is also the practical consideration that not all people may want to remember multiple usernames for the websites they use. Contributions lost this way far outweighs the little (if any) that may be gained by blocking "offensive" usernames. Loom91 11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Policy Proposal

Hi there,

Thought you should be aware (in case you weren't already) of the latest Blocking Policy Proposal, and you're encouraged to weigh in. The policy in a nutshell is that a new type of block should be created that allows only established users can edit pages (similar to semi-protection).

Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 05:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Under this proposal, how does a new Wikipedian become "established"? Martial Law 06:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I believe it's an account that is four days or older. And for the record let me say that I think this is a good idea. --Cyde Weys 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I fully support this idea. I have been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia because some people using the same ISP as me (StarHub) have been vandalizing Wikipedia. All StarHub members use the same ISP, and as StarHub is a major ISP in Singapore, blocking that IP will cause a major problem to StarHub and Singapore Wikipedians. I believe that when you block an IP, registered, established users should be allowed to continue editing under that IP. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Appeal request again

Jimbo, once again I want to request that you look at my appeal, as you have twice agreed to do in the past. But this time, since my last pleas have never actually accomplished anything, I want to make a variation on my request. What if you designated someone else to review my appeal in your place? An individual who you trust, and of course who is not a strong critic of me. I am sure you are busy doing whatever it is you do that manages things at the top level, so it's understandable that you don't have the time to review a case like mine. My frustration stems from the lack of any alternatives. If you are busy, why not simply create an alternative by designating representatives to review these things in your place? You know as well as I do that the project is too big for you to handle all your assumed duties yourself. You need to delegate some of it. I see no reason why you can't start by handing the appeal power regarding me over to somebody else. Everyking 12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there :)

Its sort of a month late but sorry for deleting the living people category, it was stupid of me (and, quite surprised to come back to an account that still has administration abilities...) :). Anyway, these new happenings like WP:OFFICE are fascinating... I'm interested to see what else happens over the next year or so!

P.S. your talk page has been semi-protected for a couple of days now :).

Just another star in the night T | @ | C 03:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there. I'm all for use of semiprotection to stop vandalism of pages like George W. Bush, but semiprotecting a talk page for two days is going way too far. It's completely against policy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It was because of one persistent vandal, apparently gone now. Ashibaka tock 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Alert

Jimbo Wales, there was vandalism on Wikipedia:WikiProject Science. It was replaced by the IP adress User: He put down as I quote "Wikipedia is gay." We should ban the user from editing. --User:General Eisenhower

Jimbo doesn't usually deal with simple vandals such as this. In the future, use WP:AIV to report vandals for blocking. This user only made one edit, so I don't think it warrants a block. —Guanaco 17:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE intro section

(crossposted from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy))
I have added an introdutory section to WP:OFFICE, attempting to better explain what it's all about (and perhaps reduce the number of people confused about it). However, since the lead section will probably end up being taken as the "official" version, I would like for as many people as possible to review it and make it as clear and as close to the real policy as possible. --cesarb 02:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the one who wrote most of the original material on that page, it would be good to review the newly added section to check if there isn't anything horribly incorrect there. --cesarb 04:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Disrespectful Administrators


I think there is an inherant problem with the way in which some administrators treat editors.

An admin by the name of Secretlondon wrote the following on my talk page within 12 minutes of me registering the username User:Jebus Christ: I suggest you change your Wikipedia:Username. As no further explanation was provided and because this was only a suggestion and not an order or direction I continued to use the username for a month.

Now firstly, if the username was considered inappropriate I believe some explanation is warranted. I personally couldn't and still can't see how the username conflicts with wikipedia username policy.

I believe the respectful way to treat a new user in this circumstance would have been to explain the problem a little better alog with why they believe the username conflicts with the username policy.

One month later admin Trilobite blocked my user account. No warning was given. The only explanation given was that the account was blocked in line with wikipedia's username policy. Despite efforts to get a better explanation I still don't have one. I again was treated with disrespect. A respecfull response, again, would have been to offer a better explanation and possibly a brief discussion.

Recently I decided to form a straw poll in order to get an idea of public opinion on the issue. I had (and still do have) quite a lot of support for reinstatement of the username and a discussion began between myself and an admin who opposed the reinstatement of the username. This admin was still unable to point me to the section of the username policy that my username conflicted with but at least he (Tony Sidaway) was willing to discuss the issue! Anyway, just as we were getting somewhere in the discussion admin Freakofnurture decided to block my talk page, delete the entire discussion, accuse me of being a troll leaving only 'bye' as the explanation for his actions.

Is this really the level of disrespect hard working wikipedia editors can expect from our administrators?

Jimididit 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (Formerly User:Jebus Christ)

Changing your username isn't a very big deal. It's a problem that you were blocked for it after a lot of good contributions, but "Jebus Christ" is very easy to see in an offensive light. In fact, Internet Infidels and other atheist forums use that term to mock Christians (because of the Simpsons episode). Ashibaka tock 13:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
People should have the right to mock Christians and create such nicknames, but Jimbo and this community are conservatives when it comes to such matetrs. In fact, I think that Jimbo wants us to believe that he's Liberal or Libertarian, when in fact he sometimes is almost like John Ashcroft. That user should not have been banned and the policy on usernames should be rewritten to a Libertarian style. Conservative ideals should have no place in a "free encyclopedia". --Candide, or Optimism 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You inserted this into the middle of an existing discussion. I would like to state that I had no intention of mocking christians and the second it was pointed out to me that this term was used in this manner, I agreed to change my username. I'd also like to point out... again, that this post is not about the username. It is about the disrespect shown to many posters by certain administrators. See User talk:Jebus Christ. Jimididit 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take this argument to the discussion page. My complaint here is really about a large number of administrators who treat editors with disrespect. Thanks again for reverting freakofnurture's deletion of my user talk page text. And thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. Jimididit 13:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it would be wise for admins to be sensitive to the idea that the username "Jesus" may be perfectly acceptable since this is a common name in many Hispanic cultures. It's very easy to reflexively assume BAD faith sometimes, and I'm guilty of that, too. Just a thought. Nhprman UserLists 16:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The user who came here and made the complain was blocked by another admin for "trolling". I guess that complaining to Jimbo will get you blocked. I hope you're proud of your admins, Jimbo. --Candide, or Optimism 17:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That reason for a block sounds like the work of Ed Poor. DyslexicEditor 16:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank User talk:Aaron Brenneman for unblocking me after I was accused of being an 'Idiot Troll' and blocked for 12 hours just for making this post. I guess some administrators can empathise with those who use the tactics i've just complained about. Jimididit 21:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin Freakofnurture

I don't want to seem petty here, this is unrelated to my previous complaints. Freakofnuture has a section on her user page encouraging and allowing vandalism. This section of the user page is currently loaded with profanity and hard core pornographic images.

Surely this violates wikipedia policy at some level.

Jimididit 13:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, what policy would that be? I can't think of any offhand. Powers 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
So hard core porn in a userpage is ok? I doubt it's even legal. Jimididit 13:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This user is a sockpuppet of a blocked troll. Just click on his username. I somehow doubt this conversation's going to get very constructive. I see there's more there than I saw at first glance (though you still can't use a blocked username page as your own). Oh, and if you don't like the pictures, I suggest you remove them; I think that's the point of that section on Freakofnurture's page. JDoorjam Talk 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. {{sofixit}} —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I could lose my job just for openning that user page. Jimididit 14:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't your browser have a way to temporarily turn off images? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It's far from the only page on Wikipedia with pornographic images on it. Please see Wikipedia:Image censorship and Wikipedia:Censorship. Powers 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the image is unsourced and almost certainly a copyvio. I've removed it from the page and nominated it for deletion on commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what you get for policy-wonking on Wikipedia when you should be working . You may wish to stick to article space. - David Gerard 16:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Gerard, since when has making complaints against administrators who abuse their position been considered, and I quote, 'Idiot Trolling'?. But thanks for the unwarranted block (which was lifted by another administrator) and for providing me with more evidence to support my previous complaint (which had nothing to do with my username). Jimididit

I'm not into censorship and have no problem with Wikipedia containing pornographic images in an article labelled as such (ie the article Pornography). What I object to is accidently stumbling on pornography in unexpected places such as user pages. Furthermore I feel that Freakofnurture's user page was encouraging this kind of activity and tried to absolve herself from responsiblity. Jimididit 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To wit, the objectionable content was added by As_hL (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), most likely somebody's sockpuppet. As stated next to the [edit] link, I assume no responsibility for content on that subpage. And, yes Jimididit, your former username was completely unacceptable (and I say this not even being of the Christian faith). — Mar. 24, '06 [20:34] <freakofnurxture|talk>
AS were your actions when you abused your administrative powers by deleting a discussion I was having with another administrator about my previous username. Another admin had undone your dirty work within a couple of hours. What does that say about your credibility as an administrator? Like you, none of the other administrators at that time were able to come up with an explanation as to why the username breached our username policy. What you've done with your userpage makes wikipedia dangerous site for anyone to access from their work pcs. With regards to your statement attempting to absolve yourself of responsibility, international law agrees with that as much as it agrees with wikipedia's copyright policy. Remember that big company that decided to offer peer to peer file sharing and absolve itself of responsiblity? Jimididit 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what this guy is still doing here. Three days ago he said he was leaving Wikipedia. It's so funny... he did s***, got hot-headed because people went against his s***, and then he ended up promising things which he just would not have the guts to accomplish. Pathetic. Geemisucks 02:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am very much against censorship and if User:Freakofnurture would like to have pornographic images on his page it should be allowed, after all Wkipedia is not censored. Furthermore he should not be responsible for what other users put on his page.--GorillazFanAdam 02:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Look, Adam... I have no desire to store pornographic images on my user page. That seems to be your interest, and the interest of the other relatively new user who posted there, not mine. — Mar. 29, '06 [02:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>
      • Ok, I was just trying to defend you. --GorillazFanAdam 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture would you give us a tutorial on how to do the framed edit text box on your user page please? I figured out some of it, such as the edit box edits User:Freakofnurture/Vandals, but not the rest. DyslexicEditor 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Why does this keep getting mentioned? — Apr. 2, '06 [01:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Please help me Jimbo

I desperately need your help, please. I need the page user:1929Depression/*CENSORED* deleted immediately, and removed from the Google cache. If you could please insert this line: <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE"> at the beginning of the HTML code for that page (with the META tags) so that Google will not hold a cache of the site any longer, I would never stop thanking you. Google has an "autobot" that would automatically remove the site from their cache if you insert the META tag. I desperately need that info. removed from Google's cache and need access to its HTML code to do so. Please help me. Thank you very very much, CrazyInSane 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

Other user's responses

I've been bold and deleted the lot of them per common sense. They'll be gone from Google's cache soon enough. All of these subpages would have been obvious CSDs if they were in article space, and some contained excessive personal information. With the user who created them blocked indefinitely, I see little reason to keep them. Wikipedia will not miss them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand but I need the specific page User:1929Depression/*CENSORED* removed from Google cache immediately. I think only Jimbo or a select few have the ability to edit the META tags in order to insert the above META and allow Google's AUTOBOT to remove cache NOW. Thanks though. CrazyInSane 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of what META tags one might insert, Google won't notice them until they their bot revisits that article. If you want the article removed from their cache faster, you'd have to contact Google directly. There's nothing Jimbo can do to help you there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, Google has an "AUTOBOT" that it claims will remove the page immediately in case of urgence. I've visited this and they said "cannot remove the page, META tags must be inserted". At this page, it says this:
"Note: If you believe your request is urgent and cannot wait until the next time Google crawls your site, use our automatic URL removal system. In order for this automated process to work, the webmaster must first insert the appropriate meta tags into the page's HTML code"
When clicking there you can remove pages immediately, given that Jimbo would insert the meta tag above. CrazyInSane 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right. As it happens, deleted Wikipedia pages already do have the appropriate META tag set, so there should be no need for developer intervention. I just submitted a request to have the page removed from Google. Alas, they say it may take up to 5 days. Hopefully that's a worst-case estimate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the NOARCHIVE flag in the page source, just NOINDEX and NOFOLLOW. I am not sure how Googlebot will respond, though; it may purge the cache, or it may skip re-indexing and leave the cache alone. - jredmond 23:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to post about that; I think intervention by Wales is most definitely neccesary in order to have the cache permanently eradicated. I'd hope he can respond here somewhere. I'm still waiting on corporate responses from both Google and Wikimedia, though. CrazyInSane 00:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is so vital this information not be seen, why did you post it? Jonathunder 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure NOINDEX implies NOARCHIVE. In any case, the problematic content that used to be on that page is gone now. As soon as Googlebot visits that page it will grab the latest version, which currently contains our standard "no such page" notice. It hardly matters whether Google will archive that or not, don't you think? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand, however, it is prudent that the cached version of an earlier version of that article (which is still availabe at Google apon search of "*CENSORED*") be eradicated now for personal/legal reasons, thus I am unsure of the NOINDEX command will cover the removal of the cached version (which NOARCHIVE would do). CrazyInSane 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does User talk:Darwiner111 redirect to your talk page? Powers 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Because they are the same person, as were a host of other sockpuppets. Jonathunder 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't deny being user:Darwiner111, but I should address that my current username CrazyInSane is not a sockpuppet of Darwiner111, but I actually had my username changed from Darwiner111 to CrazyInSane, per the username change request page. CrazyInSane 23:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you deny Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Darwiner111 are also you? Jonathunder 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
All but user:1989Love are me. I'll add that the username 1929Depression was taken from the Great Depression of 1929, and I suspect that whoever created 1989Love was mocking this and attempting to impersonate me. CrazyInSane 00:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see the whinings of this user tolerated by other editors without any complaint! He posted the content, he can't expect that devolopers will take time off their busy shcedules to accomodate his whims! If the content of that Google cache is in any way distressing to you (and I seriously can't see how they could be in any way), then you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. Assume responsibility for your actions and don't expect others to clean up your mess for your sole benefit. In any case someone could probably use the Wayback Machine to retrieve that page even after removal from the Google cache.Loom91 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The whims of that user have nothing to do with it. I would've deleted the page even if he hand't asked for it, since it had no place on Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem isn't CIS. The problem is *CENSORED*, whose personal information was posted on that page. I easily retrieved it from Google's cache. At least CIS is taking responsibility for posting that information. I agree, if it was CIS's own information, there's no rush in making sure the cache is removed. But this doesn't appear to be the case -- it's *CENSORED*' information, and I'm guessing she didn't consent to having it put up on the Web. Powers 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Correct, indeed. Thanks to Google, it's now completely vanished from Google search, not just the cached version but the entire page. CrazyInSane 23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure she'll be relieved. I trust appropriate measures are being taken to ensure we don't have to go through this mess again? =) Powers 04:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement of support (Karmafist)

Regarding your statement of support and since you seem to have his ear, please ask Karmafist to go back and replace his welcome message to hundreds of newcomers with a less hostile message. I'm concened to the point of replacing his welcome with a standard version and I could use some help. Call it restitution on his part. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I award you this barnstar for your wise message to Karmafist following his arbitration. --TantalumTelluride 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope Karmafist obeys the arbitration ruling, but I doubt that he would agree to replace any of his past welcomes because that would involve admitting that he was wrong. He adamantly believes that his actions were justified, so making him replace hundreds of messages with "approved" templates would be rubbing it in his face. In fact, if anyone pressures him too much, he might resort to unconventional measures again. I think Jimbo's message to Karmafist hits the nail on the head. If everyone just drops the issue and abides by the ArbCom ruling, we should be able to proceed without additional conflict. --TantalumTelluride 22:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is at best a very back-handed compliment to Karmafist; treat him with kid gloves, or he might do something silly again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep. hydnjo talk
The Lord in league with the consummate politician. Arghhhh... I mean Oh, great! I mean Yesss! :-( --hydnjo talk 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the communiy would have done exactly what Jimbo has asked of us. What ruffled my feathers was that neither Jimbo nor Karmafist were willing to AGF on our part and that we had to be told what to do. hydnjo talk 16:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, Hydnjo, that you feel that way, but I have to point out that I did not tell anyone what to do. I just wanted to reach out to Karmafist in a friendly way, and I certainly was not failing to assume good faith on the part of anyone.--Jimbo Wales 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A newcomers suggestion

hello im new in this site i took a deeplook in this site i have seen many people working behind the scenes editing many articles while doing this they are hurting themselves it means they are hurting their carrers, jobs,works,marriages,relationship for the sake of is time for wikipedia to give something back to them(wikipedians). it is time to wikipedia to become for profit website just as google or yahoo in order to create secure jobs for people who are working for. and to improve the quality of the articles as well. in the end everybody will be happy.not just one person.sorry my inglish.user:felisberto,23 march2006

Hell no, I bet somebody would piss in my coffee. Everyking 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


What's your take on the EB's rebuttal to the Nature article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As the intro to a favorite computer game of mine put it: "Of course they're desperate. They can smell their death, and the sound they'll make rattling their cage will serve as a warning to the rest." Of course, they probably have good points—but then again, even if the reviewers made mistakes in rating Britannica, they must have made just as many rating Wikipedia. And they ignore the fact that Wikipedia coming within a third of Britannica's accuracy rate was (for most) such a totally unexpected achievement merited the "nearly". And I like how the fact that their omission in the Dirac article was justified because of length concerns, when that's one of Wikipedia's fundamental advantages over Britannica.

But I'm sure you just wanted to hear what Jimbo thinks, not me. I'm interested too. :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said somewhere else, if you look carefully at Britannica's first paragraph, they refer to Wikipedia as an internet "database" (and not as an encyclopedia). This is an intentional slap in the face at us. So I had this facetious suggestion - we should start referring to Britannica as an anthology. After all, an "encyclopedia" is supposed to be comprehensive. How can they claim to be an encyclopedia with only 50,000 entries? (Nowadays, we add almost that many in a month). Worse, their replies to the criticisms in the Dirac, FET, and Meliaceae articles basically amounts to "it's not a bug, it's a feature". Britannica's not comprehensive enoughh to be called an encyclopedia -- it's really just a compendium of writings on different topics, an anthology. Raul654 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Fredrik Johansson 08:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that whole response is a hack job. They fall prey to some of the same problems they incorrectly ascribe to Nature... ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
With this sort of whining and recrimination from leading community members, it is no surprise wikipedia has the reputation it does as an abusive editorial environment dominated by self-important bullies who's caustic style costs them any potential access to paid publishing markets. If Wikipedia is not an "internet database" what is it? Anybody who takes issue with calling a database a database, while claiming to be giving away free knowledge from a neutral point of view, probably deserves to be slapped in the face. I recommend Britanica use a closed fist to deliver the next reply. Tiyuiyutn 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What is it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It happens (like many many other things out there in the world) to have a database (MySQL) inside of it as part of the implementation mechanism. Calling it a database suggests a lack of understanding on Britannia's part of what it actually is. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia editors claim to know what things are. That's why 90 percent of articles start with "Topic is a..." Instead of citing reputable sources in the context of presenting facts, Wikipedians rely on original authority to declare what is what.
Wikipedia doesn't know what anything is, though the current cabal of self-important rulers has let lay-editors get away with persistent claims contrary to the self-exiled founders notion that an encylopedia represents not what things are, but what people say things are. Yours and Raul's hostility to the views of a major publisher that this is a database reveals your inability to comply with Wikipedia's basic mission -- that being to represent major views about relevant topics. In reality, yours and Raul's mission in these comments is to promote your pro-Wikipedia point of view to the exclusion of any other. I suggest until you find a peer reviewed source to support your claim that Wikipedia is an encylopedia, you accept and dispassionately report the findings of a reputable publisher with expertise in the field who asserts that this open SQL database is a ... duh .... a damned database. What's wrong with being a database? It doesn't feel good for Raul to recognize that he contributes to an open database? Not our problem. Tiyuiyutn 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, sir. I have no idea what I was thinking, and it has now become much much clearer! As illustration of your thesis, then... the New York Times website is a database, and NOTHING more, for, after all, it USES a database. And so is And the airline scheduling system, and the FAA flight control apparatus. For that matter, the IRS is just a database too. Which is good because the money you owe them? The bank you keep it in? Just a database. The whole world is just one big federated database, and nothing more. EVERYTHING that USES a database clearly IS a database, and nothing more. Why did I not see this before? What a fool I was for thinking that "HAS A", "USES A" and "IS A" were different! They're all the same! But on the bright side, you've slurred me in pretty good company, so that's something anyway. OK, now I need to go look in a mirror and say to myself "YHBT... HAND...", and get back to working on my database, er articles. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What has me concerned is that the Encyclopedia Britannica may be just bleached wood pulp and ink. My world view: shaken. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times website is a "Web site." After some discussion, we might reach a consensus with the Britanica editor that Wikipedia is a "Web site." It is a Web site that provides access to a database. The nature of the database is an open topic on which there is no consensus view, and a reputable published source choose not to repeat the specious claim that the database comprises an encyclopedia. The FAA flight control apparatus is more than a database -- it is an administrative structure. is a Web site that provides a travel booking service. It provides more than a collective data storage portal -- it provides opportunities to purchase services. Wikipedia is not an administrative structure, nor a venue for economic exchange -- Wikimedia Foundation is the structure. Wikipedia is the product. The product is a database, and a set of software tools that facilitate database access. Wales own defense against potential libel claims is that neither he nor Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for content, because their purpose is merely to provide users with access to a database. If Wikimedia were publisher of an encyclopedia, surely it would be responsible for the content of its publication.
If a reputable publisher refused to repeat Jimmy Wales original claim that his database comprises an encyclopedia, that is Wales' problem. Wales needs to either present citations from a reputable peer-reviewed source verifying and not merely repeating his nomenclature in a scholarly context, or he needs to recognize that he and his followers are representing his original research as objective knowledge -- contrary to Wikipedia policies that say there is no objective knowledge, but merely representation of major shared views. That Wikipedia is an enclopedia is one view, shared especially among those who use and write the encyclopedia. That Wikipedia is a WEb site and database is another view, shared by most anyone who understands what is a database and who is not inclined to split hairs over what else Wikipedia might be. Tiyuiyutn 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Under any common definition, an encyclopedia is a reasonably comprehensive collection of information on one or more topics arranged into articles. See, for instance, the definition of the AHD. We don't need a peer-reviewed source to tell us that Wikipedia possesses those qualities any more than we need a peer-reviewed source to tell us that Michael Jackson is a member of the species homo sapiens.

Wikipedia is indisputably a reference work, insofar as it's intended to be used for reference (although browsing is of course an option as well). It is comprehensive, certainly, if you're willing to consider any paper encyclopedia comprehensive. It indisputably contains articles on a wide range of subjects. What aspects of the AHD's definition does Wikipedia not meet? Or look at Merriam-Webster's definition: same deal. In what way is Wikipedia's conformance to those criteria in any way, shape, or form ambiguous? Or do you contend that major dictionaries are unreliable sources? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You have peer reviewed sources to define what is a homo-sapiens, and there is wide consensus outside of a dictionary to support the definition of what is a homo-sapiens. There is no such concensus about what is an encyclopedia and what publications meet that definition. Under a loose definition, Johnny's Encyclopedia of Dirty Jokes is an encyclopedia. Those in the business of producign encyclopedias question whether such a loose definition suits either their work or the definition as recognized throughout the brief history of encyclopedic publishing. Wikipedia falls short in many people's eyes because it does not contain knowledge. It contains mostly hearsay. Knowledge, as offered by most encyclopedias, is a collection of information about subjects derived from identifiable sources. Knowledge, according to Wikipedia, is whatever somebody wrote and then stayed up late enough to revert after their last editorial opponenet went to bed. Seldom are sources directly sited and in most cases sources are not even indirectly referenced. We have no way of knowing if it is valid, hence what we are offered from this database does not comprise knowledge. Tiyuiyutn 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think there's very wide consensus about what an encyclopedia is. As a little test, I checked out how a bunch of well-known news sources described Wikipedia in their articles. The Boston Globe has referred to it as an encyclopedia, as have CBS News[15], The Guardian[16], Fortune[17], FOX News[18], the BBC[19], the Los Angeles Times[20], the New York Times[21], the Washington Post[22], the Associated Press[23], and the Washington Times[24]. The Times referred to it as a "challenger" of Britannica, and a "source". CNN calls it an "encyclopedic Web site" at least once, other times it's more cautious in its wording. The Register appears to studiously avoid referring to it as an encyclopedia, but then, it could just be Andrew Orlowski's personal preference rather than any kind of editorial policy (since he seems to write about 95% of their articles on Wikipedia). Are those reputable enough for you?

To say that evaluating a word's definition requires a peer-reviewed source in case of controversy is absurd in any case. As any linguist will tell you (I promise, go ask one), common usage determines a word's meaning. In common usage, Wikipedia is definitely an encyclopedia, and this alone validates the usage of the term.

Incidentally, let me be the first to post Nature's response to EB's accusations. I await EB's response, if it cares to offer one. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fox News, LOL The Psycho 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we can tell what side of the political spectrum you fall on . . . but that's neither here nor there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Just letting you know, we do have a workshop page at Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop. That's where most of the work is happening. So even though there isn't much activity on the main NLP page, there is on the workshop. We're keeping the main page protected until we get some sort of agreement on the workshop page. Otherwise, we'd have the same chaos that we had on the main page. Things are very slowly progressing and we're exploring some other options to solve the issues. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I wanted your opinion...

With just a little more than a week before the event, I was wondering what your thoughts on the Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page were. Any suggestions to keep it fun, foolish, and in-line with what we're trying to do here? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Message to Mr. Jimmy Jimbo Wales

I want to you to file a libel case against the Wikipedia Watch because in the page 1 of Wikipedia Watch, the title is The Wikipedia is out of Control to block the Website of Wikipedia Watch, Thank you. --Joseph Solis 07:48 UTC

Dealing with critics by trying to suppress them through the legal system would do wonders for this site's reputation, wouldn't it? Anyway, since we use a No Legal Threats policy to discourage people from threatening to sue Wikipedia or its editors, we should be fairhanded and not threaten to sue others who oppose Wikipedia, either. *Dan T.* 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
We can always send angry letters and endup in the shark tank... Cat chi? 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Dear Jimbo, I know you don't read this very often, but I thought I'd thank you for your addition to m:The Wrong Version. While the main content of the article was mildly funny, your additions were hilarious. Even reading it again makes me laugh so hard it brings tears to my eyes. Thank you very much for a good laugh, O Benevolent Dictator. ;) Best of luck! Sincerely, Cromwellt|Talk 16:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey Jimbo, can I go to the art conference too!!!! 0waldo 00:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Measurements in Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo,

I used the fact your third edit to Wikipedia was adding feet to the Mt. Logan article [25] as part of my defense/discussion for adding English measurements to articles in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 Israel. Hope you don't mind.—MJCdetroit 05:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, more Jimbo-worship. Jimbo doesn't make policy unless he says he's making policy. (I still do, however, find the removal of non-SI units incomprehensible, except in technical scientific discussions where non-SI units wouldn't help anyone better understand anything. Seriously, what's people's problem? I think SI is way better than customary too, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
do you seriously think that understand what 150 000 is harder that 100 000 sq.mi or visa versa? it's just a figure totally empty for any readers and in any page except ranking by this particular characterictic. --tasc 20:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The English system of measurement is probably used in only one country of the world right now. It's very inconvenient and primitive and has thus been abandoned internationally. I see no reason to use it in Wikipedia. Loom91 08:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The English system of measurement (or parts thereof) is used in three countries (the US, Canada, and the UK) comprising an estimated 40% of the English-speaking population of the world. I see no reason not to accomodate those 40%. --Carnildo 09:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite certain both Canada and the UK use the metric system. Fagstein 18:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Legally, yes. In actual practice, both systems are used. (Just try going down to the local pub and ordering a half-liter of beer!) --Carnildo 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the brits were using "continental" measurements by now. They allready do it with the coinage (100pence = 1 pound) and liters instead of gallons. Flamarande 12:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
We use rather a messy mixture of the two systems.Geni 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Primitive" or not, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Many of our readers find imperial units easier to understand; like it or not, America is a large percentage of the English-speaking Internet, and Wikipedia is as much for them as for metric users (plus, as mentioned, certain other English-speaking countries still use imperial measurements for certain things, albeit mixed with the metric system). Wikipedia's goal is to inform, and omitting useful clarifications because some find them aesthetically displeasing does nothing but retard that goal. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

New "End Notes" style of external links reduces readability

Jimbo, I see that a number of articles (example: Rationale to impeach George W. Bush) are now using a style of "End Note" links, which is defeating a main benefit of the WIKI - easy & fast verification of assertions. I am troubled by this new system, as access to the external links is being garbled by the forced additional step and the imprecise "jump to" that this new links style requires. If I want to actually read the content of a link, so as to be sure it supports the assertion made in the article, when I click the link, I am taken to the "end note" section of the article - not to the actual external link. And, not only that, but I am not taken precisely to the actual link, so I cannot then be certain which "end note" link I want to open. I feel that allowing this new system of links to be used,we are making a large mistake. Merecat 08:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First, this is rather harsh, you might have suggested improvemnent on the talkpage before making this statement, Second, every reference the article points you to (when more than one is available) supports the same information, there are multiple sources for one statement to address the assertions of POV-NOR-RS-et cetera, which have now even resulted in the AfD tag without even discussing the alleged POV.  Nomen Nescio 11:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what you appear to mean is that the new style reduces useability. I find the readability much improved with the superscripted reference numbers. However, I also have to disagree with you on useability. Whenever I click a reference link, it jumps directly to the reference in question. (Although now that I think about it, if the references are close enough to the bottom of the page, the reference in question may not be at the top. However, you can still look in your address bar and see which note you clicked on and cross-reference it.) I don't mind the extra step, because I think it's more important to have all the sources collected together. Powers 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to second the opinion of Merecat. Arkon 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove other users' comments when adding your own. Thanks! Powers 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What Merecat is mainly complaining about is the deal where the ref body can contain a bulleted list of references. When you click on the ref you go to the list, not to any one single citation. That's interesting. In the old system there would have been a little row of refs, each pointing to a particular link. I can see his point, that you don't know which reference is being used for that exact statement. Also, I could see a possible misuse - to bamboozle the user with a whole bunch of citations for one point, some valid, some not, some POV, etc, and who has time to check them all? And also unintentional misuse -- don't have time to really check your citations? just pack a bunch into one ref and hope one of them supports your statement. However, it's also very useful, especially for general statments, e.g. "many experts say..." etc. Herostratus 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the links are AWESOME!

Old system:
1) Article has some material referenced and some not.
2) Somebody comes and removes all but three links saying "article has too many links." Usually this is an admin so it looks like it's the right thing to do.
3) Article has little references and is gradually edited to innacuracy.

New System:
1) Every statement has a reference. Sure it's long, but it's good.

DyslexicEditor 00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't websites technically supposed to have brief bibliographic information in the citation (author, date, etc.), just like books and other materials? If so, I can think of no way to avoid having the external link somewhere outside of the main text, unless inline citations are used (like "[...] (Smith 2004)."). It's probably a valid possibility, but my opinion is that that style looks ugly, cluttered, and unprofessional. Ardric47 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a good style link for a web-based article: USA Today recently said that Wikipedia had a controversial false biography [26]. Quick, concise, allows immediate verification of asserted statement. End-notes are only worth using if and only if the cited material is not on the web. If the cited material is on the web, in-line links such as I used here are best. Merecat 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would work well in a print version, or even in a printed or quoted copy of the article. Plus, that example does not give the author, etc. By the way, shouldn't this discussion be moved off Jimbo's page? Ardric47 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot of common knowledge articles lacking sources, claiming the info is common knowledge. But things we know as common knowledge may be proven wrong one day. Like destiny/free will/fate. Maybe science will prove one day that every single edit war and revert on wikipedia was destined by a god and planned in advance before time began. eh? DyslexicEditor 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Amazing! My little picture has become famous as a JimboStar! Who would have thought! Krashlandon (e) 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it on various chain letter emails. Is that really your cat? Can you tell the story of what happened and why it's suffocating itself in its food instead of sleeping on something more comfortable? DyslexicEditor 00:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not my cat. The picture did the rounds on email a year or two ago. I am unable to find the photo originator, yet I am pretty sure the rights were released. I plan to change the tag accordingly, but first, post here if you know the copyright or wish to correct me. If anyone knows where this photo first came from, please tell me. Krashlandon (e) 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Computer Security Questions

Jimbo, I was kind of wondering...
1) How often does password phishing of wikipedia accounts occur?
2) How often are wikipedia accounts stolen or hijacked?
3) How often is brute force password cracking done on wikipedia?
4) Because wikipedia does not use any SSL servers for login (I know this is more expensive), how often has a person who used a proxy or was on a public and unsecure computer had their password stolen?
5) What is the highest level of password theft done? Admin? Buerocrat/One of those other high levels? Jimbo Wales's account?
6) Has wikipedia ever received denial of service attacks? Since wikipedia stores every edit, I suspect this would be a problem if the DoS uses edits.
7) What frequency do spammers use your email system to send spams to other users?

DyslexicEditor 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Like, Wikipedia-guy was so much cooler than Britannica-guy on CBS tonight! Nice work. <g> - Nunh-huh 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I missed it! JaredW! 12:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Check it out here. Jimbo does a good job. Canderson7 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
For those of us that don't have bandwidth or work forebearance to watch videos, does anyone know if there is a rough transcript of what was said already online anywhere? (apparently there were 3 different segments... if so transcripts of all 3 would be awesome) Thanks muchly! ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This link: [27] gives an overview of the story, with a couple of quotes, which is useful... not a transcript per se though. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox policy??

So, Jimbo. Any word on a Userbox policy? Me and some new friends had a lovely (and long) chat about the issues up above here on your Talk page, but I noticed you didn't chime in. I'm sure you know the problem isn't going away, and in fact, numerous new, divisive and POV boxes have been created at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional_Politics and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. Not counting any new heavily-qualified statements that may be upcoming on the subject, when can we expect a final, definitive ruling on the future of Userboxes? All the best! Your pal, Nhprman UserLists 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in on this. While I support userboxes for presenting personal information about a user in an easy to digest manner, I agree that while some are harmless (one saying I'm from Texas) others can easily instigate petty squabbling (one saying I am straight but support gay rights). Since many are about different topics but all generally concern personal background facts/opinions, they are all equally available for approval or removal. An official stance on this would be very helpful. Thank you again for all the hard work you've put behind the foundation and its projects. Cybertooth85 07:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We've been though this. Official statements don't work. They will not work in future either. You want a userbox policy? Go out there and discuss it.Geni 09:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Love the feedback, but I was hoping for Jimbo's response. And we've seen ENDLESS discussion on this. Here's the result:
  • Admins using a proposed policy (which has failed to gain consensus) as a reason to eliminate Userboxes. Not that universal deletion of divisive boxes is a bad thing. However, we now have...
  • Deletion of SOME boxes, while others remain untouched. Not a good thing, or fair. Resulting in...
  • Endless "voting" on boxes' deletions, with some being nominated repeatedly for deletion. Meaning...
  • Whoever can marshall enough supporters for a box "wins" and the boxes aren't deleted.
The result of inaction? This site now has a huge social networking component dedicated to creating, destroying and saving Userboxes. Jimbo is on record for not wanting this to happen, for good reason. But it's here - because we have no official policy.
So it may seem like a nice concept to try to achieve ultimate harmony through endless chatter and "consensus" on issues not related to articles - where, in fact, those tactics work, for the most part. But as we've seen, it will not result in peace, only continued chaos and conflict. As owner of this corporation (and yes, it's a business, not a club or a commune) Jimbo has every right to set policy, and I hope he will. Jimbo: please end the chaos. Nhprman UserLists 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Official statements will work. They just haven't been done yet on userboxes. I'm talking statements with teeth, by the way, not the kind of "This is the way I feel" statements. Jimbo resolved the issues on Brian Peppers, the pedophilia userbox, etc., very quickly. It'll work on userboxes too. I just find it weird that you're saying it won't work when it has worked on the past on other issues and it hasn't even been tried on this issue yet. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with issuing a formal userbox policy, as I see it, is that there is nothing particularly damaging about a controversial view placed in a subst-ed box. If "userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project" then other, not boxed, statements of the same kind are also damaging to the project. In other words, given this problem of specifying the domain of the proposed official policy's application, we're either going to have to regulate all POV on the user namespace, or delete only the most egregious. I'm not so sure the former course of action is a good idea. Mikker (...) 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
My thinking is that as with all laws, policies or rules, they would be unnecessary if people exercised some self-control. Until that Utopian dream comes true, however, I see no conflict with saying "Don't take up space creating Userboxes or arguing about Userbox content, but feel free (within certain, clearly specified limits) to express yourself about your interests, where you live, your language proficiency, and perhaps even some of your biases on your User page, being aware that the User namespace isn't meant to be your personal homepage and that this is not in any way a social networking site." That one sentence, or thereabouts, would go a long way towards solving the problem and setting us on a new path. Nhprman UserLists 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If this is -really- about the site's integrity and not about a blanket effort to censor 'controversial' things (like being a feminist, or a member of a political party, or alternative sexuality, etc etc etc), then why not just have a huge disclaimer hard-coded into the top of every user page that says 'this is a user page, and does not reflect the feelings, opinions, or beliefs of founders or other contributors on Wikipedia' or something similar. To censor userboxes is to censor users. A userbox is like a t-shirt. Some of them are disgusting, crude, rude, obnoxious, disgusting. But we are free to wear whatever ones we like, regardless of who it offends. The offended party need only look away - and that's how it should be. Do you really want to walk down that dark road? I hope not, because I love this project the way it is. In fact, userboxes were one of the 'cool neato!' factors that finally convinced me to register an account. Why on earth would you want to take that away, outside of political (not politic, political!) motivations of your own? Joey 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nhprman, you may have misunderstood my point a little bit. As far as I can make out, there are only two reasons why boxed POV (or viewpoints "of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature") are more damaging than non-boxed POV. That is, userboxes come with categories and a "what links here" option in the toolbox. This, it is argued, results in factionalism because POV-warriors use the categories (and where these are absent, "what links here") to engage in vote stacking, edit warring, and other tactics that sour relations in our community. Fair enough. But what if we make user categorisation "illegal" and require the use of subst for boxes? If this is done, boxed POV is just as damaging as non-boxed POV. In other words, if it is true that "userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project" then viewpoints on user pages of a "political or, more broadly, polemical, nature" are also "bad for the project". So if we really want to combat userboxes because they are "bad for the project," to be consistent, we also have to combat non-boxed userpage POV. My suggestion is that doing this is a bad idea because, inter alia, (i) it would be extremely time consuming, (ii) it would piss people off no end, (iii) it would result in factionalism (those who oppose the new policy and those who support it) and (iv) it would discourage independent minded people from joining. So though I agree that a wiki with no POV userboxes and no userpage POV is probably a better wiki than the one we have currently, perhaps discretion is the better part of valour. Perhaps we should learn from the theory of the second best and recognise that in attempting to put one flaw in Wikipedia's culture right, we may cause others to emerge. Perhaps we should remember Benjamin Cardozo's wise words: "The evils of existing systems obscure the blessings that attend them" [28]. Anyway, these are my thoughts, but they're probably purely academic. I doubt Jimbo is reading. :) Mikker (...) 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What you say makes a great deal of sense. My explanation is that Userboxes are bad for the project, in part, because of the problems attending them currently in their incarnation as Templates. You're right that the problem would still exist if they were on Userpages alone or POV was simply expressed in text form, but I think that would be far less of a problem than currently, and most people would (may?) accept POV expressions without the Templated boxes, although some expressions ("user is pedophile") may still be "banned" from the entire project space - whatever the format, and even if it pissed off the "independent minded" pedophile. I am less concerned with Jimbo or others "pissing people off" since this is his House. If I go to someone's house - or business, either as employee or customer - I have to abide by their rules, not necessarily mine. I think folks are walking on entirely too many eggshells here when it comes to setting policies. I do, however, see the wisdom of "second best," until we can do better. But let's remember that societies and social structures have never become better by settling for second best for very long, and if we fail to act out of fear of changing the entire structure, then we're in effect paralyzed by fear of the unknown. Luckiliy, we know that structures require rules, and that groups that fail to set basic policies due to a fear of setting them without consensus (Green Party? Libertarian Party? the U.S. Reform Party? to name 3 political examples) tend to languish and fail, directionless. In the case of Wikipedia, banning Userboxes altogether, and limiting POV expressions on Userpages would indeed change the culture here - for the better, and reorient its focus back to editing.
And no, I don't think Jimbo is reading all this, sadly. I think he is a bit Utopian when it comes to the masses coming up with policies. Unless one group overwhelms the other's views and comes up with a policy on its own (a brand of "mobocracy") then a policy on this and other issues simply won't happen. Nhprman UserLists 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Cyde do you think the antiuserboxians would shut up and go away if jimbo told them to leave off?Geni 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks and insignia and copyright status of images that appear on it

I feel you may want to comment on this as it is about copyrights on wikipedia.

I and other wikipedians have recraeated a nuber of rank insignias that appeared on the show (such as the one appearing on this page) and released it under a free license so that it can be distributed with ease using paint and other software. However some people raised concerns during featured list candidacy that images I created like this still violate copyrights. I feel this is a case of copyright paranoia and was wondering what you thought.

Cat chi? 09:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think these are almost certainly copyright violations.--Jimbo Wales 09:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a lawyer that works for wikipedia I can consult this? I just want to clarify the matter as I really worked hard in creating a free alternative for the images. I just feel copyrigting a yellow circle is ridiclous (no offense). Consider this image:   in contrast with the other on this section. Cat chi? 12:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC) blacklisted

I have been unable to edit pages on two separate occasions because they have contained the above URL, which was considered spam, without first removing it from the text. I reported this to the Spam Blacklist, but so far nothing has been done about it. - Conrad Devonshire 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's on the blacklist for a reason. Originally, the operators of that website were spamming hundreds of talk pages with links to their project at that site. After they were made to stop doing that, there were reports that they were emailing users with similar messages. I wouldn't be comfortable seeing it off the blacklist until we're reasonably certain that these guys aren't coming back. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems we need a method for making blacklist exceptions, e.g. so an admin can set that page x can contain url y without lifting the blacklist entry on that url. Plugwash 15:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Jimbo. I just want to ask if you would consent to me asking you a few questions for a project. I'd really appreciate that. Thanks!Omni ND 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Use the phone number on his user page if you want an interview. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jimbo Wales/Archive 6".