User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Food for Thought

How can Wikipedia be called an encyclopedia if you can not fully trust the information inside it? ComputerDude1010 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How can ANYTHING be called an encyclopedia, by that standard? See WP:EBE --Lucid 13:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias, are not reliable research tools. Unfortunately, a lot of people ignore this fact and rely on them for information regardless. Secondary sources are good, if it's from a reliable source. Primary sources are the best, if you can adequately interpret them. ~ UBeR 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference on various topics. Meanwhile, teachers in some schools my friend's children go to are calling Wikipedia a place for "unverified information not suitable for projects or reports". Therefore, Wikipedia is flawed in the fact it can't perform its main objective: To be a "Free Encyclopedia" ComputerDude1010 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I have realized Targeman described Wikipedia perfectly. "[Wikipedia is] a huge, inept and anarchic organization committed to political correctness more than to anything else, employing an unpaid, ill-equipped, badly trained and pitifully powerless work force." ComputerDude1010 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your point that's flawed. Just because 'teachers in some schools' don't consider it reliable doesn't mean it isn't an encyclopedia (which, for reference, a teacher shouldn't be accepting as a source anyway, as mentioned above). A lack of trust does not mean something is not an encyclopedia. No source is perfect, and relying on a single source to be perfect goes beyond trust, and into stupidity. Also, for an explanation of why Wikipedia is able to actually keep up or exceed the much more professional opposition, see Linus's Law --Lucid 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the best part of Wikipedia, we are doing it out of love, the good of humanity, and other Hallmark-esque reasons. Besides, no one is supposed to cite any encyclopedia as it is considered a Tertiary source, and as such not good enought for reference. As for validation, patience young grasshopper. Zidel333 13:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is playing the Political game. In short, deception is at work here. In my personal opinion, Wikipedia, like the world as a whole, is majorly flawed. This reminds me to put up my "The world will end in 1952 days" userbox. (PS: That's 12/21/12 ComputerDude1010 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So don't use it. Britanica is quite good. Use that instead. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A disclaimer was made for the purpose of avoiding such vacuous arguments. ~ UBeR 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot fully trust any information from any source. See Wikipedia:Non-Wikipedia disclaimers. Jon513 17:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1,951 Days and Counting!!! :P ComputerDude1010 17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help with Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles

I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like nonsense to me. Some things actually are conspiracy theories and should be dubbed as such.--Jimbo Wales 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If a theory is dubious it should not be "dubbed" with a non-neutral phrase that can be separately literally true. I am very surprised you aren't concerned some Wikipedia articles are violating Wikipedia's neutral presentation policies and principles by using a discrediting term in the title. zen master T 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible police investigation by Frank Zampino

Also posted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello! I'm Not sure if you are aware of this but I've spotted this article (although in French) mentioning that the individual is threating to demand a police investigation because of users using some IP's from the cabinet office of Gerald Tremblay the mayor of Montreal that had made defamatory edits on Zampino's article - the IP mentionned that he was a former nazi supporter and a member of the Weight Watchers. Another article here mentionned that the incident occured on August 15 2006 at 12:19 PM (so 16:19 UTC). JForget 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the one edit in question made by User:67.71.78.44.--JForget 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like an issue for the police not for wikipedia. We dont have any fear of the police here cos we are law-abiding, SqueakBox 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article was referring to a different edit, deleted 15:23, August 17, 2007 from a different IP, 142.243.254.239 that contained the same information. I've deleted the above-mentioned revisons that interestingly enough came weeks before (July 23) the ones mentioned in the article (August 15). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, we dont see enough of admins using the delete button for unacceptable revisions, IMHO, SqueakBox 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is an article in English. City hall hunts for Wikipedia 'vandal'. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the problem seems too serious. Just a case of vandalism that may or may not have come from the city hall. ~ UBeR 14:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you help

My article on Bay Valley Foods was just trashed. I put in a section that cites EPA public reports on this company's toxic emissions. The citation was removed, the section was removed, and in the discussion the reason given was no citation.

I don't know the right way top contest this.

Thank you

BmikeSci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.247.142 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks very much to me like this article should be looked at closely and probably deleted. The whole article looks very much like an attempt to use Wikipedia to make some kind of political or business attack. That's just my quick impression; I don't mean to cause offense to you. A more experienced editor, who knows more about the USA than I do, should look at this carefully. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding link: the page is Bay Valley Foods, created June 25. The main point of the article seems to insert claims about a particular plant being a source of pollution. Initial versions probably libelous and inadequately sourced. The subsequent attempt to document allegations are rather confused, and look throughly WP:POV. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A new barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you this barnstar for your great work on Wikipedia. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is WP sticking its neck out too far in discussing potentially inappropriate image uploads?

Consider this discussion on the administrators notice board.

I have made a proposal that WP contributors be discouraged from offering "legal conclusions" and "legal analysis" when flagging images and media uploaded to WP for deletion. This proposal seems quite sensible, considering Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and other important factors.

The basic point is this. There is a big difference between telling an uploader:

• 1) "you do not have redistribution rights for this image"; or
• 2) "this is a derivative work, and therefore does not belong to you";

and

• 3) "you have not adequately demonstrated that this image is consistent with WP terms of use"

It seems to me the only statement that needs to be made by WP contributors and admins is statement 3. The other two invite "legal gamesmanship" and fruitless debates. They are also unnecessary, since WP is not here to advise people about their individual legal rights to various media. Even in purely obvious cases of blatant copyright infringement, WP doesn't have to go any further than stating its own policy, and that the burden of proof is on the uploader.

These are just my preliminary thoughts after seeing some "red flags". Constructive criticism and comments are of course welcome. dr.ef.tymac 09:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

Hey Jimbo can you make me an administrator oh please!!!!--*VANILLA2 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You make request for adminship (RfA), which then gets reviewed by other editors. If the majority vote support (for the candidate) you are made an admin / sysop. If the majority don't support you, you just have to try again another time. You must have at least a few months experience editing Wikipedia, and experience editing Wikipedia-project space. It isn't easy to pass - that's what I conclude through experience on RfA! See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for more details. Cheers, Lradrama 15:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to be an admin, I would recommend going to RfA as well. If you would like help/advice, I am happy to offer it; we cen continue this discussion on my talk page. Cheers, Neranei (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

People, the user is already aware of this process. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanilla2. I think Vanilla2 wants to know if s/he can be made an admin by special appointment, outside of RfA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But is that possible? Lradrama 15:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. Jimbo is a steward after all. But how probable that is... now that's another story... Миша13 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if he ever intends to enact his "I'll just go around and randomly make some people who have been here awhile sysops" idea. --Lucid 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Well, note that being a steward gives one the ability in a technical sense to make someone a sysop, but gives no right to do so outside of normal procedures. So my being a steward is more or less irrelevant to the question. Now, under our traditional governance model, making sysops would be among my reserved powers, and I would imagine that the ArbCom would back me up on that, and indeed in some special cases they might even request me to do it. But this is clearly not a special case and in any event, I am well aware that in order for me to keep my traditional powers, it is best not to use them very much, and then typically only to resolve some kind of crisis in governance by cutting through some procedural dilemma to enact the will of the community directly. Not an easy matter, which is why I try as best I can to proceed slowly and thoughtfully.

So no, Vanilla2, as charming as the request is, I will not be granting you admin status. I rather doubt that I would ever directly grant sysop status to someone except upon the advise of the ArbCom. :) --Jimbo Wales 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of any situations where ArbCom would want you to give someone sysop where they couldn't pass an RFA? --Lucid 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, no.--Jimbo Wales 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

L, not heard of User:Mikegodwin? Anthere used her magical steward/board chair powers to appoint him sysop. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin. This is clearly a special case since he is the foundation's legal counsel. This is the kind of situation Jimbo is referring to, I think. --Deskana (banana) 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

but Jim are you saying that I will never become an administrator?--*VANILLA2 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is like sand. "The tighter you grasp it, the more slips through your fingers" --Lucid 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he's saying he's not going to specially appoint you to be an administrator. You can submit another request for adminship though I think everyone here would suggest you take several months to gain experience and learn morea bout the policies of Wikipedia more before you submit another RFA. Metros 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanilla2, don't be disheartened by the results of this discussion. Please, continue to edit Wikipedia, with particular focus on Wikipedia-project space, and provide sensible answers in your RfA, and there is no reason to suggest that you will not become an admin. Of course you will if you put the effort in. I wish you the best of luck in your future editing Wikipedia. Happy editing, Lradrama 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that your adminship candidacy would be opposed by a cabal of POV-pushing admins who are trying to control certain articles, policies, or BLPs in Wikipedia for their own ends. But, certain recent events in the project appear to indicate that such opposition is probably not likely at the moment so I think the regular RfA process should work as it is supposed to, at least for the time being. Cla68 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo says he won't, but that will not stop the community making you one in due course (and due process). Bear in mind, though, that a question that the community is likely to ask you is why you want so badly to be appointed an admin - and outside the usual methods. It was Jimbo who said that adminship should be "no big deal", therefore it really shouldn't matter if you are an admin or not as long as you are a valuable contributor. LessHeard vanU 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see no reason why Vanilla2 might not become an admin someday.--Jimbo Wales 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanilla2, if you'd like some admin coaching come to my user space or e-mail me. I'd be glad to help. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I have a few questions.

1. Where did you get the idea for wikipeidia?

2. What was the first article?

3. How many barnstars per day do you get?

(Please respond on my talk page) Thanks!! -Tobi4242 20:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For 1 and 2, see History of Wikipedia and WP:OLDEST (it's Transport). ←Ben^B4 07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just look at his talkpage archives for the amount of barnstars per day he gets! Lradrama 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

An idea to lower vandalism

Hello Jimbo, my name is HarrisonB and I have seen you on various shows such as the now defunct 'The Catchup' and the 'Sunday program of Australia. I have been working on the project for nearly six months and I had an idea to lower vandalism. Would it be feasible to stop anonymous editing and/or instate a 'One Strke, Your Out' program where one is blocked for a week for any vandalism? Thanks HarrisonB Speak! 04:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't ensure that we catch the vandals, as they could easily have moved on to a different IP. It's a good idea, but it won't work for dynamic IPs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of really good work is done by IP editors. Whenever you block an IP vandal, you might be blocking one of the good ones too. For example, we have a fairly nasty troll out of Chicago who has been extremely active for a long time. He's on a dynamic dsl, and a lot of the IPs he has used have also been used by good editors. So all we can really do is block him for short periods when he shows up. If he's on a tear, he'll be back in five minutes with a new IP anyway, and a longer block is only going to keep out legit editors. - Crockspot 05:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed how you said that a lot of good work is done by IP editors. What is stopping them creating an account? I guess you wouldd have to do more advertising to get an account, but it is doable. HarrisonB Speak! 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's something you'd have to ask each and every IP. Sometimes its someone just trying out Wikipedia for size, sometimes its just a registered user who hasn't logged in (perhaps at an insecure location, such as a public library computer). Why they don't register is largely irrelevant, however; the fact that good anonymous edits vastly outweigh the negative ones is the key here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S pleased to meet you two.

• And you as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I actually started to type something about that, but deleted it before posting because I thought I was starting to ramble. But yes, if we could find a better way to encourage IP editors to sign up, it would not solve the problem, but it would keep those editors from suffering annoyance blocks due to IP vandalism. There are already incentives to having an account, but maybe we need more, like some cool trick tool. Or maybe we need to advertise the existing incentives better. - Crockspot 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the fact that most vandals choose to do so as IP's rather than create accounts. We can see who their ISP is. We can tell if they are coming from a school and are therefore likely to just be kids mucking about, and we can, of course contact the school. We can tell if they are related to other vandalising IP's i.e if they are in the same range they are likely to be the same person and so can be blocked without further warnings. Wiki Scanner can be used on thier edits. Forcing people to log in would stop all this, and as creating an account is so easy only the casual vandals would be deterred. But these asual vandals are the easiest to deal with. The more pesistant ones would create multiple accounts and continue to vandalise. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I do agree with that entirely but if both vandals and good people start up an account it would still be easy to control, I think in some cases easier. It would also solve block problems with IPs. For instance, in 2005 or so when I did not have an account here I was blocked for 48 hours for something I did not do. I thought an edit I made, which was an attempt to correct a fact on the Ferrari Enzo article, which 'screwed up' a part of the code put me in hot water; I felt quite bad until I saw my contributions, ealising that I did not do that.

Also, it would be nice if Jimbo had a part to do in this conversation :) HarrisonB Speak! 06:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that anonymous (non-logged-in) editing is, on the whole, worthwhile. The delicious irony, of course, is that what is commonly called "anonymous" editing is not particularly anonymous, as the whole wonderful Wikiscanner thing has shown. As Theresa Knott said, we know that anons mostly do valuable things, and there are good reasons to want vandals on ip numbers instead of accounts, etc. --Jimbo Wales 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, we all start off as IPs! That gives us the confidence to create an accoutn for ourselves and get to know the place better. I made my first edits under an IP back in January, realised what a great website this is, and proceeded to get an account. Some people migth be deterred if you have to get an account in order to edit. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit is quite an attractive slogan to those who are new I think. And vandals are better kept to IP names, as Jimbo said. Lradrama 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, back to the drawing board I guess :) HarrisonB Speak! 07:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions

Jimbo, a few days ago I put this up on the Community Bulletin Board so it's gotten a lot of feedback lately. I don't see any comments from you on the discussion page. Would you like to weigh in? Thanks, Durova^Charge! 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A thread where you may want to comment

It's about the financial relationship between Wikimedia and Wikia. First came up at WP:COIN. I opened a thread at WP:AN so more eyes can view it and we've agreed to redirect discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Durova^Charge! 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sign me!!

I would like you to sign my talk page--that would be awesome. Savie Kumara 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My photos

Jimbo or any administrator, Can you help me. I need one of you to see if two photos work for fair use after resizing. You can find my problem and the photos on my talk page. Thank You.--Stco23 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut down on vandalism

Jimbo, if you did want to stop at least a percentage of the vandalism you could install some save click checks on edits that would deny page blanking and disallow edits with the vandals' favorite words (e.g., "sucks", "penis") for anon accounts and new accounts. It would be an easy programming fix to look for mass changes or instring words. As a programmer I would consider that part of the delivery as, for example, you wouldn't want everyone in the accounting department to have access rights to all parts of a program. --PTR 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget "poop" and "Kevin McAuliffe's sister is Hot!" - BillCJ 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't cut down all all the vandalism - just a percentage. Is Kevin McAuliffe's sister hot? --PTR 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• LOL. I wouldn't know, but it keeps getting put on my userpage every few months! - BillCJ 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that anonymous and new users shouldn't be allowed to edit penis and blowjob? --Carnildo 18:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. If they want to edit penis and blowjob they can register. I think it should be a sliding scale of rights. Once you prove you are here to edit productively and not disrupt - you get more rights. Face it, it's already in place with semi protected pages - like penis. --PTR 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this is not a bad idea overall, but one problem with it is that the Index of Prohibited Words and Actions would just keep growing and growing over time. Still, there is probably something worth considering in this general area.--Jimbo Wales 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it wouldn't stop all vandalism - only a percentage - but any small thing that keeps users from having to constantly remove vandalism would be helpful. Maybe make it so an IP or new user can only make a certain KB worth of changes at a time to stop page blanking when the user hits save. It would be a small inconvenience to a user who prefers editing through an IP but a big help to those that watch that page. Maybe put any questionable edits on an alert page that people could watchlist. A list of words would keep growing but that's the beauty of databases. --PTR 19:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We have MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Bad image list, editable only by administrators (by design), which are similar in function. I'd imagine it'd be fairly trivial for the developers to code a version of those that only affects autoconfirmed users. We'd need community consensus first though, preferably. --Deskana (banana) 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the perfect validity of using some words in certain situations; for example, if "sex" is "graylisted", it would prevent "I had sex with your mom", but it would also prevent "Person X is a vocal supporter of safe sex". It also does nothing to prevent something like "I had intercourse with your mom". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True - and there is no perfect solution as long as IPs are to be allowed free rein editing. (I know of one site on the internet (a Mets fan site) that replaces "Chipper" with "Larry" - a nickname with a given name - but ends up replacing "She's so happy and chipper." with "She's so happy and Larry.") I'm not advocating a ban on the word sex though - words in combination are also easy to catch and wouldn't be bothered by extra characters or span tags. Keep in mind this check would only apply to IPs and newly registered accounts so stripping span tags and checking word combinations is not difficult.--PTR 19:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We've already got bots that patrol for obvious vandalism - including some of the words noted above. Rklawton 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While I support the concept I would anticipate that the Index of Prohibited Words would become the kind of battle ground (inclusionists vs deletists - conversely taking each others usual stance - and liberals vs conservatives, etc.) that could potentially be more damaging to Wikipedia than anything a vandal could aspire to. It would simply be easier to trust contributors to undo what vandalism they find and let the admins (those who are willing - it isn't a required duty) deal with the vandals. LessHeard vanU 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So I'm a vandal, I try to write Jimbo sucks dick on the Wikipedia entry. Darned foiled by the word blacklist! So what do i do? Think "Oh no I cant vandalise?" or see it as a challange. What about Jimb0 sucks dick ,Jimbo sucks dickk, Jimb_ sucks_dick etc? Are we writing an encylopedia here or a cool new game to entertain bored schoolkids, who tend on the whole to be much more intelligent that any list of banned words could ever cope with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also more subtle stuff (at the risk of being beany), like "Ji<span>mbo su</span><span>cks di</span>ck", which would display just fine, but not be caught by a word blacklist. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

According to E-mail spam#Obfuscating message content there are 1.3 * 10^21 ways to spell viagra in an obfuscated form ("\/i@grã" for example) I wonder how may ways you can spell "Jimbo sucks dick" using the same methods. Jon513 19:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you all sure picked a great example to discuss on Jimbo's talk page. Good thing he's only offended by indications he owns corduroy pants. ;) --Chaser - T 03:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think that because something can't stop all vandalism it's a bad idea. I would also advocate only registered users on BLPs but that's just me. --PTR 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO the ability to undo recently incorporated is the ebst vandal tool we ahve ever had. I think your BLP idea is very interesting, PTR, why dont you take it to the BLP policy page talk, SqueakBox 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this problem once, an "anonymous/new user confirmation", where edits from an anon/new user had to be confirmed before they were made, which would also tie the confirmation to an established user, with the confirmation being done basically as such: Users download a client (or use a java client over the web, I suppose, although client side would be better here), the diff is handled by a server which decides who to send it to based on their activity and if they have any backlog, the user sees it, looks over it, and confirms it. Sadly, this would be a huge strain on resources, and would probably do more to suck editors from Wikipedia than it would stop vandalism. I suppose we could combine these two theories-- 'high risk' edits get sent to monitors to confirm, while low risk ones are confirmed without issue. Any use of non-standard characters or non-letters in the middle of words would also be flagged as high risk. Still, this would take a lot of effort to implement (server side, clients would have to be approved similar to AWB, and client programs would have to created. Sadly, there's just no real way to get around vandalism on Wikipedia without killing it --lucid 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just mark edits as questionable in the database when they are saved, have a program to review edits and revert known vandalism edits ("This page sucks", Kevin McAuliffe's sister is Hot!" jk) and have the rest on a single alert page. Those that wished could watch list the page and review for reversion. There is nothing that will stop vandalism entirely but a few tools in place could streamline the handling of it and take some of the burden off of those that just wish to edit. --PTR 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm reminded of the early days of public library Internet filtering when boneheaded programming prevented women from looking up "breast cancer". We've already got bots to excise the obvious vandalism. Though at first glance I like the shape of this proposal, the more I think about it the more it looks like poising a chisel at WP:NOT#Not censored. Durova^Charge! 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But we do censor vandalism already. We remove it using the bots or other users. If you look above you'll see I was suggesting:

Limiting the number of KB an IP or newly registered user can edit at a time to help with page blanking.

Preventing certain phrases from even going into WP with save edit checks - only for IPs and newly registered users.

Marking edits with a "possible vandalism" flag so people can review them more readily.

Making BLPs (where a lot of the vandalism occurs) all semi-protected.

Anyway, I had to try. --PTR 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For creating this site. Though the vulnerability to vandalism and spam are sometimes exasperating, it is a great idea, based on a truly optimistic ideal. It's a pleasure to contribute. Best wishes, JNW 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Wikipedia is a fine creation. Lradrama 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Provide link to the revisions of featured articles/policies tha passed the nomination to be featured/official policy

I just visited Uncyclopedia and I noticed that the "featured article" star at the top right corner of featured pages now includes a link to the revision that passed the nomination to become featured, so that editors can compare the current revision to the one that was originally featured. Here is an example page. If Uncyclopedia has this, then Wikipedia should definitely have it, because it will make keeping up articles' featured status way more easy, and provide a link to a featured-quality article at all times even if the article's current revision has declined in quality.

But perhaps an even more important way that Wikipedia could benefit from this is with official policy pages. Wikipedia should provide a similar link on official policy pages to the revision which passed the nomination to become official policy. This could be extremely helpful in making sure that the contents of the page do not get altered without consent, and then passed off as the original policy.

Also visit Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) where I've posted this if you like.--64.149.189.119 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. dr.ef.tymac 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Email

What is your email?

See "contacting me" under User:Jimbo Wales. TO contact the Wikimedia Foundation, see Wikipedia:Contact us. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I am to speak for an IP, but I possess account here in the wikipédia in English, the wikipédia in Portuguese and am intending to make in wiki in German. I know to say Japanese and to write, but my keyboard to write Japanese here, is fuck.

Good, coming back to the subject, I came to make it questions and to make suggestions for the wikipédia in general. The reason not to make this order in each community, to be voted and approved or rejected, will be below.

I am Brazilian, more necessarily of Salvador, in the Bahia. I have perceived with my time of knowledge in the wikipédia, that many rules still possess many imperfections and still badly they are formulated. I am until creating a list of improvements in the rules and norms to display to all. But what I came to ask for to it in the truth it is its opinion on what I come to speak.

I contribute much more in the wikipédia in Portuguese, where I have some very little thousands of editions. But also I contribute in others, thus making, to get thousand of editions. I consider an experienced publisher. E with what I perceived I will go to say things to it of my main wikipédia.

Wiki pt, currently possesss many quarrels and some vandalisms during only one day. Clearly, this is common. But not when only one quarrel, and always of only one focus of people, lasts time sufficiently and is making a great evil for community.

Bureaucrats and administrators, are friends and many are involved. The wikipédia, in my opinion, also needs somebody (perhaps one steward) to fight practical the bad ones that they occur in it, to look a solution. Only steward that it speaks Portuguese is the Redux. Only that almost never it is present in wiki. (for what I perceived, it helps more wiki en, of the place where it deferred payment and monitorial measured it wiki, he is clearly)

Another thing is the rules that the administrators try to fulfill and some that make it difficult the combat to the vandalism or until the growth in the article question between several others. Former: the rule exists to inform ips or users, before blocking them in case that it walks making many vandalisms. In it, first an user when reverting the vandalism has that to inform the user who made it. E in case that the user continues, to effect the blockade. However many users revert but they do not inform what exactly that the user makes some vandalisms and is informed, makes with that a great number of administrators does not effect the blockade, believing that this is to disregard with the rules. Another one also, is when an user knows what he is making. Until ips, already they know the norms but they practise vandalism. This is one of the imperfections of rules between thousand.

To reduce this colloquy that I do not know if she is very explain, I only know that it is great. I will go to speak soon in the critical point and with simple word:

The rules of the wikipédia need certain improvements, what I am making. (reformulating)

The wikipédia, needs somebody conscientious, ponderoso, not involved thing with the community directly and that it can make a harmony, controlling the situation of quarrels, subjects of the community and to help in the growth of the wikipédia.

Some administrators, make harms action. What cause anger of certain users, who make many vandalisms. This is an exploitation of the power. E all know that it makes this. However never an administrator of this type that with the power, makes badly to the wikipédia, will be desnomeado. Therefore the rule is only to desnomear in case that use of the tools occurs badly. If he was a common user, the other that is being reaching, clearly that would demand. But an administrator, many are with fear.

Had to a produced relationship already it enters some of the community, the desnomeação task also is difficult.

The main idea of that I spoke, I am to control the wikipédia and to improve the rules that in it exist. Thus, to cause the improvement of the community, between the users, to pacify the situations and to help in the growth of wiki. Therefore is these situations that generate much quarrel, being that our intention of is here is the main domain and not to make of wiki a community as the Orkut. It has that to exist somebody that has controlled the situation. E is not alone this that I have spoken. Before the community, much more practical ideas and for improvement and growth exist. That in language, or other things of other wikis of our language makes them not to be copying articles of wiki in outa.

Which its opinion on these situations?

I have some solutions and can be more necessary in my expression. I want until talking on an improvement that if can make in all the wikipedianas communities (the project that I have interest).

The opinions and colloquies, we can make for msn: ikarocampos7@hotmail.com. Not IRC taste. If it will be able I am there and we are for generating a mutual improvement for all the community, being able to have one better worship and growth of the wikipédia. 201.8.142.133 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

Hi Jimbo, A few of us have expressed an interest in hearing your opinion on the proposal of flagged revisions. Those of us with reservations about it are quite concerned that it fundamentally closes doors to new editors by not allowing them to see changes they make immediediately after making them and by creating two new classes of editor, this is where it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as argueably you are the most experienced editor of wikipedia, and one who probably has one of the best grasps on how these sorts of changes will impact the community in the long term. We'd be grateful for your input on the idea, thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a quotable "ruling" on this from Jimbo is appropriate at this point. But I would like to hear whether this is a top-down idea from the Foundation as is being suggested on the proposal's talk. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are we so nice to vandals?

Hey, Mister Wales. I recently requested adminship and one guy criticized my for giving a level 2 vandalism warning for a first offender, even though it was obvious he wasn't assuming good faith. He called the page's subject a "weeiner" and a "dick." My question is, why are we so nice to these asses? They're trying to destroy the world's greatest knowlage database and others are criticized for being too "strict." Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia way of responding to incivility and personal attacks is to be more civil than your attackers. Refraining from descending to the level of the attacker leaves them no room to complain further, as we gave them every reasonable opportunity to correct their behavior. Single violation blocking is the kind of activity that Conservapedia engages in, not us. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's obvious they do not have any intention of helping us, but rather to disrupt our great project. Give them a uw-vandalism2 when they aren't assuming good faith. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Jim Wales

or, Why I'm leaving as a registered user, and may return as a dynamic IP vandal!

Mr. Wales,

I discovered Wikipedia in June 2006, and returned a number of time to read info on interesting articles. I registered on August 20 2006, and began primarily editing aviation related articles, tho I did branch out at times. When I joined, I thought I was joining a free encyclopedia - I didn't realize I was joining a quasi-religious social experiment! (I say "quasi-religious" as you use the term "sacred" regarding the concept of "open editing".)

If you set out to create a place where:

• Serious editors are constantly harrassed by dynamic IP vandals,
• Where admins ride herd on registered users who are "mean" to vandals, but do nothing about the vandals because they don't want to run off "potential users",
• Where said "potential users" are seemingly more important that long-time registered users,
• Where "punative blocking" against IP vandals is forbidden, whlie "punitive blocking" of registered users for violations such as 3RR are encouraged,
• Where good ediotrs are leaving Wikipedia every day, yet no one in the FOundation seems interested in WHY they are leaving,

Then your experiment has worked!

I'm under no illusion that mandatory registration is a cure-all to the problems on Wikipedia. But as long as it's not required, I'm not sure why I should strive to be a good editor, when my registration means the dynamic IPs can send personal attacks to editors who work on the pages I edit, accuseing me of being a vandal. Where they can follow me into contentiuos discussions on article talk pages, spout maliciousness about my actions, yet no one can stop them because they are using dynamic IPs, and admins won't block IP ranges for fear of blocking other (hypothetical) users. It seems to me my time would be spent more profitably as an IP, ignoring all policies and vandalizing and harrassing regular editors who tick me off, espessialy the admins making life difficult for regular editors.

There is an old proverb: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. When you finally figure out how to apply that concept to Wikipedia, maybe your experiment in human knowledge will succed. Until then, WIkipedia will continue to be a joke to most outsiders as the free encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize! - BillCJ 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it is necessary to go to the opposite extreme of vandalism, except to make a point. I know of several long time established users who have abandoned their accounts, and edit quite happily on occasionally-shifting IP addresses. - Crockspot 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is if I want respect on Wikipedia, I should be an IP vandal. I'm not going to actually disrupt good articles, but I have no problem making life misearble for people who make life misearable for good serious editors. I may not do it, but heck, what can you do to stop me? That's my point! Nothing, under the current rules. So tell me WHY I should behave, and deal with CRAP from admins? Why should I put up with IPs harrassing me and stalking me? Why should I follow the rules, when Wikipedia will punish me, and allow the IPs to run wild? If Wikipedia won't take the product seriuosly, why should I? - BillCJ 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good behaviour is its own reward Bill. At present the fact that "anyone can edit" is a core value of the project; there may be ways in which you can have an influence towards changing this, but threatening to become a vandal is not one of them. At present you are an editor in good standing; if you need a wikibreak then take one, and if you need any specific help, message me or another admin and we can try to help you. Continuing down the road you seem to be considering will not lead anywhere good. --John 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You've made my point for me John. I'm obviously hurt, angry, venting, trying to get some attention drawn to the problem on Wikipedia, yet I'M treated as the problem! No one is event trying to substantively address the issues, or (excpet you, John, you have asked) even asking what they can do to help, or to deal with whoever is causing me problems here right now. Why? Becuase in reality, nothing can be done about IP vandals and their harrassment under the current system. That's been my whole point. Is anything I've said here doing any actual dameage to Wikipedia it self? Absolutely not! Yet I can already here the thinly-veiled threats! I've worked in customer service my whole adult life. When people who've contributed to the product for long periods start leaving, a company should find out way! Not on WIkipeidia! THey get warnings they should cool it, or be blocked. Meanwhile the stalkers run free and run off more good contributors. Well, enjoy all the poop in your articles - someday that's all you'll have left. Wikipedia has a GREAT product, and I enjoyed contributing to it. Rather than just leaving without saying something, I'm trying to address the issue in my own way - with a little sarcasm and satire. ANd what do I get? More grief than people who've been harrassing me freely. The thing is, they'll find another target - it might be one of you! - BillCJ 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you say that nobody is trying to address the issues, but I don't see you actually stating what your issues are (you mention vague problems, but don't provide any examples; how do you expect someone to say "yes, that situation is wrong" if you don't outline a specific situation?). Yes, people are harassed by IPs on occasion; those IPs are then blocked. Trust me, I've had more than my fair share of insults lobbed in my direction. I'm not about to give up just because I've pissed a few people off, though. I'd be more than willing to talk to you about why you're leaving the project if it will help you stay, but I really get the impression that you've made up your mind to leave, so why bother? Feel free to prove me wrong. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, EV. I really don't think anything can be done to stop my latest harrasser, as he/she has used a wide range of IPs, most of which have been blocked. Also, it's not just one incident, but several over the last few days that have lead to my "crack-up". I actually haven't decided what I am going to leave or not, but most likely it won't be on this username. I'll have this one deleted, and use a new one to avoid the harassers. I hate giving this one up, as I've got over 15,000 edits, but I don't see another option. It probably doens't matter, since I'm too hot-headed to be an admin, and this incident would haunt me even if I did apply. Also, I don't suffer fools well, so the whole "be nice to vandals" act wouldn't be something I could do :) I honestly would like to see some effort by the higher-ups that they appreciate long-term contirbutors, and take our concerns seriously. I have seen a good number of excellent editors leave Wikipedia in the last year, most over the same problems I'm talking about. I'm speaking up for them here as much as for myself. I just hope someone will do something to stop the exodus of good editors beyond just talking about it. - BillCJ 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill. If you like your current account, why not consider a change of name? This will allow you to keep your edits, while maintaining some of the anonymity that a new account would provide. ck lostsword•T•C 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, but it's no use to me if it's not confidential - my change name request was vandalized! [1] If he knows my new name, what use is keeping the history. - BillCJ 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who does not suffer fools (and has been criticized for saying so) and has been recently savaged by trollery, I feel your pain. But in the midst of the bloodbath I recently went through, I learned that a lot of good people here actually do care about this issue, and actually do notice good work that is done. Truly abusive trolls cannot be enabled by good editors for very long. They just can't seem to help themselves but to behave badly, and when they are defended, they get cocky and behave even more badly. Eventually, their support evaporates, and they are given the boot. There are those situations where blocking of IP's they use can be a problem. You just have to keep whacking them whenever their head pops up, and hope they eventually get bored and move on. - Crockspot 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Just to add my 2c; I went through a similar process while still a registered user; being harassed over a few articles I had been editing - although I was being harassed by a herd of POV-pushing registered users, even one administrator. For the most part, the only ones who bothered to come to my aid, as NPOV apparently isn't popular amongst the registered user base, were IP's. This was, hell, about the time you discovered WP, after two years of starting articles, adding lacking information, expanding stubs etc. Nowadays, I resort to WP only as a "reader", as "editors" are... let's not go there.--62.63.37.252 15:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Epitaph

Everything rises or falls on Leadership. When the leaders at the top turn a blind eye to the desperate pleas of those under them, then I see nothing left to do but leave. When the regulars are subjected to lectures while the vandals harassing the regulars are ignored, what else can I do but go? I have been a virtual invalid for 5 years. THis last year on WIkipedia has given me contact with the world, and a connection to the knowlege I love. But because ofmy bad health, I'm not strong enough emotionally to stand up to the harassment all the time. I would probably have come back after the break, were it not for Mr. Wales' total ignoring of my plea, and the refusal of anyone else to evev attempt to stop the vandals harrassing me. I understand I didn't phrase everthing in the best manner possible, but even a simple "I feel your pain, Bill" from Mr. Wales would have been better than nothing. I also seen other posts on this page about people who have left because of the vandalism, and noted no serious responses to them either - and they were phrased very nicely! "A house divided against itself cannot stand", and if Jim does not take the leadership in getting the WIkipedia house in order, it will not stand as it is. And that is a sacred princple alot older than any of us. Or, for something much more recent: as the new Delta Air Lines ads say: "We can refuse to listen and fade away, or we can CHANGE!" For the sake of the many good editors here, I do hope things will change before it gets to that point, but given what I've seen on this page today, I seriously doubt it. - BillCJ 04:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just leave Wikipedia altogether if you're tired of it. Turning vandal won't get you any respect.--64.149.189.119 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ you post your first comment to Jimbo's talk page at 6:22, 21 August 2007 and this last one complaining that Jimbo hasn't replied to you at 04:17, 22 August. I make that just under 10 hours! For crying out loud man! During that time Jimbo did not make any edits on Wikipedia whatsoever. I don't mean to come across too harshly but I think you should leave. Wikipedia clearly doen't suit your temperement. There are lot's of other places on the net where you can socialise in peace. Wikipedia can be a harsh place for people who get too upset by childish trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Look at this diff, and note who edited before him, and note the time difference. Please check your facts first before spouting off platitudes. - BillCJ 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep your right. He did edit almost immediately after then took a break. Seriously though the world doesn't revolve around you. You need to give people a chance to reply before you start complaining that they haven't. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sandbox

Couldn't you put the Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) template on MediaWiki:Sandbox. I'm not an expert on MediaWiki, but I think that way you wouldn't have to worry about people deleting the template. – Homestar-winner 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Love thy neighbor" or "Stop the Huns"?

What's your stance of first-time minor vandals/newbies that don't know where the sandbox is? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 16:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd explain to them what they're doing is wrong and redirect them to the sandbox. A warning template serves that purpose perfectly, and it is what we all should use. Lradrama 10:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop the huns by showing them neighborly love!--Jimbo Wales 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, WikiLove! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hands down, that is the best quote EVER. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 05:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, Wikipedia Editors are warring with Michael Moore, and Moore Is Involved - this could use your attention

Jim,

A notable user in the real world used to edit Wikipedia using his real name, User:TedFrank. He introduced himself on his User page, and named his employer. He then switched to User:THF and wants nobody to ever mention his real name, even though under this User Name he tried to have this attack piece about Michael Moore he wrote under his real name, and published by his real employer, inserted into 25 articles (his own admission that was his goal, I can supply the diff if I need to take the time). Michael Moore and his website picked up on how often User:THF edits his pages, and since THF outed himself (and still edits using his real initials and trumpeting the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed he is writing on his current User page), Moore made a statement of fact on his website. 'This is who THF is, and he edits my pages'. Now, all across the Admin Boards there are efforts to delink Michael Moore's website, and a lot of editors (mostly anti-Moore ones) think this is acceptable to protect one of our own editors. There was no attack on Moore's site, and I can mail you the screen shot to see for yourself. There were links to edit screens for THF's User page and the Sicko page. Moore took this down at our request, but left the substance of "This is who edits my Wikipedia page" message intact. Since this issue is involving Admins and editors who want to punish Moore by removing content from his articles (simply because he is revealing who THF is, something THF did many times over, including linking to the Moore site itself, thus outing himself again), and since Michael Moore himself is involved, this might be worth your attention. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump on whether it is feasible in this situation for a User and his supporter to disrupt Wikipedia so much simply because he wants to unring a bell that was run loudly by himself. --David Shankbone 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There is only one editor who tried to delink the Michael Moore site, and he was blocked hours ago. This dispute is stale.

David is appealing to you after having his inaccurate claims against me rejected at seven other tribunals, including COI/N and multiple times at AN/I and VP. I won't bore you with the long list of details David has wrong in this personal attack, unless you really wish to discuss them. Per WP:SCOIC, I have sought further guidance on COI compliance at WP:COI/N#Sicko. THF 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• The real issue is that THF is a notable public person, himself meriting a Wikipedia page, who has a public feud with Moore, has taken it to Wikipedia by editing every one of Moore's articles, and Moore pointed it out. Now THF wants nobody to say who he is, and is using policy to strong arm us into not using it. It was initially his request that links to Moore's website be removed. It's not stale, it's still quite hot. --David Shankbone 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not request links to Moore's site be removed. I requested that administrators decide what appropriate policy required under the circumstances of a weblog revealing personal information about an editor and asking users to vandalize his user page. I wish David would stop making the numerous inaccurate statements he makes in his 22:18 comment, as he has been corrected about it several times.THF 22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then why here, under the section you began with the heading "Attack site", do you, do you ask an admin "What's standard procedure for delinking attack sites?" with a link to Moore's site afterward? I don't think being coy or disingenuous in an argument is the answer here; it's quite apparent your intention. It was this section that birthed the "Wikipedia against Michael Moore War" --David Shankbone 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you misrepresent me, since within the hour, I expressly stated that I was not asking for special treatment, and just wanted whatever Wikipedia policy was on such sites to be followed. David, multiple admins have already warned you about WP:STALK. Why do you continue to harass me and Jimbo? THF 23:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask who these admins are? I would certainly be interested to see who thinks that trying to generate consensus on a user and notifying all the appropriate places is considered stalking... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably both of you should take the evening off. Watch a funny movie! Come back tomorrow.--Jimbo Wales 23:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I reccommend Three To Tango? It is hilarious. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I agree. Jimbo, is it good for Wikipedia when political operatives to make edits like these? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the source, but THF is correct. Blogs are not reliable sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In the instance Jehochman points to, TPMmuckraker (part of talkingpointsmemo.com) links to a Wall Street Journal article. It would be best were the article to source WSJ -- only because some people argue talkingpoinsmemo.com is a blog & ignore that its written by a veteran journalist -- but the WSJ article is behind a paywall. So the paraphrase in TPMmuckraker fits the spirit of the rule, if it violates the letter. -- llywrch 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue in response that this was a BLP issue, and any question as to reliability was grounds to remove it. And note, he didn't even remove it from the source - he commented out, presumably under the assumption that someone would later source it reliably. If this were an edit by an anonymous editor on BLP patrol, would it raise any eyebrows? ATren 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, Jimbo. Actually, my best friend is arriving here from out of town in a matter of moments, so this will be last my edit of the evening. Good night all, including to all the "secret people". --David Shankbone 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Crap! My cloaking device must be on the fritz again. - Crockspot 23:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The "blog" was actually a news website published online. It appears to have professional reporters and editorial staff. Just because somebody calls something a blog doesn't mean that its unreliable. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs or other self-published sources can only be used if they're written by experts in the field of the subject. Whether or not Mr. Frank qualifies, I do not know. Needless to say, the article doesn't come anywhere close to "an attack on Micheal Moore." If I see any COI, it's Mr. Moore editing his article. ~ UBeR 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am not a "political operative." I work for a nonpartisan institution. I have no idea who Jim Gibbons is, had never heard of him two days ago, and the likelihood is that I wouldn't like him if I met him. As anyone scouring my edit history as much as Jehochman must realize, the Jim Gibbons article was one of over a dozen articles I was looking at as part of cleanup of the seriously backlogged WP:BLP/N board, and that particular article had remained in violation of WP:BLP for nine days after the initial report had been made. As I specifically noted on the BLP/N board, I commented out a section sourced entirely by blogs to enable another editor to rewrite it with legitimate RS. If there are exceptions to BLP that permit the citation of blogs accusing a living person of a felony, please rewrite the policy to say so, because right now it says the opposite, and I was acting in good faith on that basis. I am now taking Jimbo's advice, but hope that no one else is going to make wild accusations without basis, and hope I will get to defend myself if such accusations are taken at all seriously. I've made 7000 edits to over 2500 articles. I'm not a SPA. THF 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy the film, and see you tomorrow. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like THF, and hope this will blow over. Meanwhile, we have uncovered a real issue worth discussing: Wikipedia has a bias against online sources. There are lots of things that are called "Blogs" but have editorial staff. They are effectively electronic magazines. We need to fix this common misunderstanding that all blogs are unreliable. Not so. Blogs have widely varying degrees of reliability. Some are perfectly good sources. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman. Would you like to do something about that? Could you help me out in this thread? --Kim Bruning 03:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe we kids have resolved this issue amongst ourselves. Thanks for any attention you may have paid to it, though. I predict other similar issues will arise, but most likely with a different cast of characters. Death at a Funeral provided some good belly laughs last night. --David Shankbone 03:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GDP of Romania or simply redirect to Economy of Romania?

How is it better? To have 2 articles or simply a redirect to Economy of Romania?--156.17.75.100 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

156.17.75.100 is most likely another proxy used by Bonaparte, and this is most likely another one of his ruses. See his edits and the page history of what he is reverting to (clicking on the contributors to that propaganda text will lead one to sockpuppets and open proxies, all of them blocked). Dahn 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's almost outrageous what you're supporting. I don't see any argument to redirect such a good article. --156.17.75.100 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly should be redirected - a country's GDP is easily covered within the article on that country's economy. I actually went past the building in the picture in the Economy of Romania article several times last month, as it happens. However, Jimbo's talk page isn't an appropriate place for a discussion about this topic anyway...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS EVIL!!!

My son's innocence was lost because of the Ben 10 redirects of boobs and thongs! He is only 8! 66.232.153.101 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just vandalism, take a look on how to revert it. Coastergeekperson04 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a strong case to be made for you being the evil one for not carefully monitoring your child's internet usage --lucid 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucid, I don't think everyone realises that Wikipedia is not censored. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucid, easy on the personal attacks. We shouldn't suggest that other editors are "evil." I'm sure Mr. & Ms. 66.232.153.101 do an excellent job monitoring their son's internet activities. How else would they have seen the boobs and the thongs? On a side note, I looked at the page history--saw a lot of thongs but no boobs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not go round calling anyone evil. In the mean time, take a look at the vandalism and censorship policies, along with the content disclaimer for further information regarding Wikipedia and particularly its potential effects on minors or sensitive readers. ck lostsword•T•C 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about anyone. Just commenting on the opinions of a lot of people --lucid 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You DID say something about someone. You offered your own opinion on the argument, which turned out to be highly contentious and not too helpful. 70.105.31.204 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that edit was vandalism done by a vandal was blocked from editing. I'm not the vandal, just an editor undoing the vandalism. I'm sorry your son saw the work of a vandal (He retaliated against my warnings by vandalising my userpage and has been blocked). But Flyguy made a valid point saying wikipedia is not censored. And this can mean vandals use this to vandalise articles relating to children. Like yesterday someone was replacing As Told By Ginger with some uncensored content found elsewhere on wikipedia. AngelOfSadness talk 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(I linked Ben 10 -- never heard of it before) I've added the page to my watch list to help catch future vandalism. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I never heard about it before either but I saw mass amounts of text being added to it from RC and it turned out to be the beginning of this whole situation. I have the article on my watchlist and thank you Flyguy for adding to yours. AngelOfSadness talk 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does nobody realise that the message above is trolling? Check out the IP's other edits. It's trollbait, and apparently elicited the correct response. Gekedo 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But still we assume good faith around here. Even though it's doubtful the user really had an 8 year-old son who saw boobs and thongs on Wikipedia, the vandalism the anon user refers to was real, and it's still a useful issue to discuss.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just checking. Good faith, good faith and all that =) Gekedo 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, how many people don't know that Wikipedia isn't censored, but do know Jimbo's user talk page and how to post messages? When trolls give you lemons, make shish kabobs with the lemons between the meat to keep your mouth from burning and also to give some nice citrussy flavor --lucid 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just upset that I missed the boobs and thongs. - Crockspot 19:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're having a BBQ and making shish kabobs, why not have a Wet T-Shirt contest too? Yeah, I'd like to see THAT in Britannica. And so well illustrated! --lucid 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they heard of Jimbo and wikipedia from the news or something.(When an organisation is mentioned in the news, they sometimes give the background and history of that organisation).Or they could have typed wikipedia into the wikipedia search engine and found out about Jimbo that way. But I do find it strange how some people expect wikipedia is censored. I mean it is an online encyclopedia: You will find that physical encyclopedias(book form) aren't exactly censored either. Also yet again there was only thongs in the edit no boobs AngelOfSadness talk 19:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that makes me feel half better.... Two thirds, actually. - Crockspot 19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about an 8 year old who had never seen boobs. Ossified 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again there was no boobs...only thongs. I had the honor of reverting the vandals edits so I know what was there before I reverted. AngelOfSadness talk 14:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I assumed this was trolling the moment I saw it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack Article

Barbara Schwarz has long been a problem. Now on its talk page one of the long time editors has said that one of the purposes of the article is to get its subject deported from the United States. I think this would be against WP policy. Steve Dufour 14:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MULTI going on here. Dealt with by admins at WP:BLP/N#Barbara Schwarz again. Nothing to see here. THF 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what MULTI is. The link redirects to another page. Thanks. Steve Dufour 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MULTI seems to be a suggestion that it's not advisable to post the same talk page requests on multiple talk pages, as it does not lead to centralised discussion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to avoid that in the future. Steve Dufour 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just Arrived Back

I just arrived back from Iraq and decided to sign up to edit. My soldiers have shown me how Wikipedia works and pointed out some things that I have to question. Why do liberal pov edits hardly get questioned, but conservative pov edits get squashed and editors warned? One of my soldiers showed me a dispute between two users over the military service of Presidents of the United States. There was an editor who continually placed George W Bush's service as AWOL. When reverted and warned, he would simply come back. No one ever blocked him and he was turned in for uncivility multiple times and no action taken. However, when someone mentioned Clinton's deferment during Vietnam, it was quickly reverted and the user blocked. Also of mention, the same editor of Bush is also posting on here that Reserve and National Guard service should not count as military service since it is not real. Glad to know that the convoys and patrols in my area were not being covered by "real" soldiers. This kind of blantant one sideness kind of makes me wonder what I am fighting for.MustangSixZero 23:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am (on most issues) also an conservative, and I find that we have a much better chance to get a fair hearing here than in the "main-stream" media and intellectual establishment. Many editors, even if they don't agree with us, still put fairness and honesty above politics. If you want to make a difference here, and I think it is a good place to try, please stick around and keep trying. God bless. Steve Dufour 02:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the sum of your edits (under your current username) to articles so far is the correction of a single spelling mistake. Thank you for correcting that spelling mistake. As for liberalism and conservatism, and edits to the articles on Bush and Clinton, there should indeed be no double standard. That there shouldn't be any doesn't mean that there isn't any. However, you may have difficulty getting people worked up about any alleged bias unless/until you provide clear evidence for it. You're welcome to amass this evidence and to present it later, but this is unlikely to be the best place. -- Hoary 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It might not be a matter of pov-- think of it another way, it might just be that the people editing the article(s) on Clinton are lazier or stupider, not that there's a bias :) Remember that articles are different from one to the next-- the same people that wrote Windows Vista didn't write Linux, and neither of them ever touched Mac OSX, it's not so much that there's a bias so much as different people act differently. Wikipedia makes many attempts to not be biased, and it is in fact one of our most important policies. You're perfectly welcome to use {{uw-v1}} and so on tags on vandals, and report them to WP:AIV-- and if you feel an editor is trying to censor an article, you're perfectly welcome to talk about it with them on the article's talk page, their user page, or WP:ANI depending on the circumstances. Remember though, the best way to make sure a job gets done is to do it yourself, not stand on the sidelines and ask other people why it isn't done yet. --lucid 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what is happening is not that WP itself is biased but that political articles attract the minority of editors who have an agenda to influence society, outside of WP. Since President Bush is still in office he makes a much better target for them than President Clinton. And among this group, those on the left do seem to outnumber those on the right. Steve Dufour 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Further points, critics are always more active than those who agree with the content of an article and thus appear to indicate a greater tolerance for their actions than is the case (you don't slap the wrists of people reverting the piece back to the consensus), and current political figures will always have new sources appearing, again the critical ones carrying further news than the non-critical types, rather than historical individual. Lastly, there seems to be an inference that left wing bias being more tolerated than right wing bias is wrong in the context that right thinking editors should be encouraged instead. Nope, all points of view should be represented where backed by good references; no bias, no favouritism. LessHeard vanU 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Meetup

Hi there!

Do you organise all the wiki-meetups, or can any wikipedian, as i'd be interested to propose one in Lincoln, UK.

Please reply on my user talk page, at User talk:ACBest, as I will probably forget to check back here, knowing me!!

Many Thanks, Damon

ACBest 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can, see WP:MU#Procedure. — Malcolm (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have one for the UK though, and Lincoln isnt mentioned on there... ACBest 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now, so if anyone is going to reply, you must must must use my talk page! Goodnight ACBest 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for Jimbo Wales

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for Jimbo Wales for founding Wikipedia on 2001 and also his hard work on Wikipedia stuff. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The funny part is that there are lots, and lots, of barnstars. Now there are countless amounts! Coastergeekperson04 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jimbo Wales deserves barnstars. He even made a good speech, which I found on YouTube. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy de-Adminship

Jimbo Wales, you said that the creation of an easy process for taking admin tools from people could be used by trolls against good administrators, which would cause more trouble than not having such a process causes to Wikipedia nowadays.

I think that the trouble caused by not having such a process is huge, but that's sort of intuitive and hard to show. One thing I can say is that the absence of such a process makes people be very careful when choosing who is to become an administrator, and this causes many potentially good candidates not to become administrators. Only a select few are given the tools. (here's one recent example: the first post by Friday)

Not having a process to take the tools turns adminship into a big deal: those who are chosen to be sysops celebrate and get happy about it not only due to having more tools to help Wikipedia, but also because people declared them to deserve eternal tools.

I don't see which problems could arise from the bad use of such a process by trolls. If the process required an agreement like that required to become an administrator nowadays, the matter shouldn't bother good administrators at all, since people would vote for them not to lose the tools. There could also be an established limit for nominations, such as only one per two months. Nominations that don't stand a chance could be closed early. A.Z. 00:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't think that having a Request for Lynching every six months would have an effect on some of our most prolific contributors? See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Side point on disruptive RfA comments for further discussion about why a rapid, casual process for requesting desysopping is a bad idea. (Allow me to toot my own horn by pointing at my own comment: [2]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to both views expressed here, and actually I think we all are fairly in agreement about what the tradeoffs are. Easier adminship would be great, and easier de-adminship is a path to easier adminship. And yet, there is also value in the independence created by the fact that admins can take bold actions with courage even in the face of trolling. Wikipedia is not a democracy after all, and 50 trolls whining about something doesn't really need to matter much. And yet - accountability to the rest of the admin community and to thoughtful people everywhere is also important. I know of no magic solutions which balance all these concerns perfectly.

In general, though, I think there is no general problem of "admin abuse" or tyranny... in virtually every case that I am asked to look into, I find some very unreasonable person who has been treated with extraordinary kindness until the limits of people's patience has been reached then suddenly complaining about being blocked "for no reason at all" or "to suppress the truth" or whatever nonsense excuse fits the situation. So while I support a general attitude of welcoming change, and doing some experiments to see how things work out, I also think there is no general crisis requiring too quick action.--Jimbo Wales 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The process would require consensus, so it doesn't matter if a few people enjoy accusing an administrator of being abusive from time to time. If you are worried about the psychological effects that "lynching" would cause on contributors, I think any kind of lynching is forbidden by policy already. A.Z. 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean Consensus? Several organisations already have systems in place that are capable of subverting online open votes, so that's something you simply need to take into account, and make sure you really do apply Consensus and nothing else. I'm slightly worried about where these tools may have been applied at the moment, but have no reliable means to find out.

In other news re:Lynching; someone needs to take out the Community Sanctions Noticeboard. That's insane. I've been spending less time on wikipedia for a bit, and that slipped right under my radar :-/ --Kim Bruning 03:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to have a discussion with me about that noticeboard? Durova^Charge! 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By consensus I meant only an RfA-like consensus. Is that what you're referring to? Are those systems capable of subverting RfA's? A.Z. 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I also think that currently bureaucrats are expected to not take action against subversion, oddly enough. --Kim Bruning 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For misconduct, RFAr should probably be the one to sort it out. And CSN is fine with me - however, I'm am concerned about the admin-only IRC channel, as that flies absolutely against Wikipedia's principles of openness. I can't really think of any situations which are so private that they can't be discussed on Wikipedia; but yet public enough to share amongst a random handful of admins.

Either way, I think bureaucrats should have the ability to de-sysop in emergencies such as those account hacking rampages (this is more of a technical issue really). --h2g2bob (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For quite a long time we have Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. It currently has 99 administrators. I feel that the default process suggested is not safe enough and in fact put somehow safer procedure for myself. But still so far there was not a single possible case of the process hijacked by vandals or trolls. In fact there was only one request to desysop (against User:Crzrussian) who has chosen not to argue his case on RfA but accepted desysopping (and regained it via another RfA in two months).

Obviously different admins do different jobs so some are more endangered from a concentrated attack by trolls. Still I am working mostly on the Eastern European articles there even quite good and devoted wikipedians are often feel strong animosity against each other as their editing is based on different national sources, narratives and discourses. In a sort I believe it is often as bad as it gets. Still nobody attempted to start the recalling procedures against me or many other open-to-recall sysops. I think the three stage procedure similar to User:Alex Bakharev/Recall:

1. A fixed number (e.g. six ) of established (e.g. having more than thousand edits) editors in good standing (e.g. never blocked for more than 48h) sign the request for desysopping
2. RfC shows that a simple majority of established editors support desysopping
3. RfAR closed by a bureacrat as having no consensuns

might be safely made wikipedia-wide. It is reasonably troll-proof and can streamline de-sysopping for people who are not sutable for the tools Alex Bakharev 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You missed User talk:Friday/archive5#Petition to recall User:Friday from the position of admin, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive164#Soliciting 'endorsments' for a recall 'vote', and User:Friday/Recall Petition, Alex. I can't think of a clearer demonstration of the type of participation such a process is likely to draw.

The recall petition was endorsed by seven editors, three of whom were adjudged at the time to be 'in good standing' by the rules of the process. Two of those 'good standing' editors have since been banned (one for extensive sockpuppetry, the other for ongoing personal attacks and vandalism). Among the other signatories, this guy got himself banned for being unable to stop calling another contributor a 'Nazi sympathizer' every other day; he moved to Wikiversity so he could have an unfettered platform to continue his attacks. Two other signers had fewer than forty mainspace edits apiece. I also award bonus points for the holiday spirit shown by the individuals who decided that the day before Christmas Eve would be a good time to launch a recall petition.

Even at the premature-and-fatuous stage – without progressing to a full-blown recall – a quick survey of the incident shows that the time of more than fifty editors was wasted. Who were the people supporting the recall? Mostly editors that Friday had warned or blocked (deservedly) in the recent past for a range of policy violations. Trolling doesn't get much more effective than that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ten, You are right, I have missed the incident. IMHO it proves that the concept works. Yes, trolls were trying to hijack the new process (as well as they are regularly trying to hijack XfDs, RfCs, RfARs, arbcom elections, etc. A simple process on the other hand shielded them off. The resources wasted: (fifty users mostly spending a few minutes on a simple vote: Gee, I know Friday, he certainly makes much more good than harm with his tools - were negligible relative to the effort required for an Arbcom case. That even more important the process, unlike ArbCom ,is fully scaleable. As I said, I am in favor of little bit more of the safeguards but even the standard ones appear to be working. Alex Bakharev 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The success of Category:Administrators open to recall has something to do with its voluntary nature. Part of it is a question of temperament - it takes a taste for brinksmanship to converse with an editor who accuses me of malfeasance and say If you really think I've acted out of bias then here's what you can do about it... I care about using the tools properly but it wouldn't bother me if I no longer had them; I even informed Jimbo once when I was considering resigning them. Every editor at Wikipedia gets some privileges that most sites reserve for sysops. Administrator may be a poor title because of the connotations. It's not supposed to be a big deal; maybe it would be an improvement if everyone called us Oompa Loompas. BTW some of us declare a commitment to self-regulation at Category:Eguor admins. Durova^Charge! 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it require a quite unusual psyche to be a devoted wikieditor, even more so to be an admin. On the other case, some sort of accountability to the established wikieditors is not something unusual. Almost all admins feel that accountability already Alex Bakharev 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On the title of 'Administrator, it's interesting that the term used for the equivalent position on Wikiversity is 'Custodian'. It works rather well in both senses of the word. Custodians are guardians and caretakers, responsible for protecting the project, but as servants and not owners. 'Custodian' is also synonymous with 'janitor' in U.S. English; the parallel there is too obvious to require explanation.

Of course it's far too late to change the title here, but I prefer to keep the Wikiversity term in mind when I go about my work. 'Administrator' brings to mind a middle-management functionary equipped with a set of rubber stamps and tasked with moving piles of paper from one side of his cubicle to the other for eight hours a day (less the two-hour lunch and half-hour smoke breaks). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there have been a few bad admins, I think it is more common that good admins make bad calls because they act before adequately understanding a situation due to impatience, momentary crankiness, or lack of time. I recommend that some guidelines be composed to assist admins in dealing with such conditions that lead to bad decisions.--Fahrenheit451 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to weigh in here. I've thought about this a lot, and I think the recalls we've had (mine in particular) demonstrate a couple things: 1) yes, recall is a troll magnet. But 2) it's a troll magnet we can handle. Wikipedia is already a troll magnet. If my recall is as ugly as they get, well.. I think that's ugly we can deal with. It didn't really hurt anything or waste too much time in my view. I believe this demonstrates that we have nothing to fear from some non-arbcom desysopping process, similar to an RFC. If good reasons for removal of sysop permissions are not presented, this will be clearly visible to all. It hadn't occurred to me until it happened that people opposing the recall could play a role, but if you've got way more opposers than supporters, this generally indicates there isn't a serious problem with the admin in question. People who call for a sysop's head over a simple mistake, for example, will only make themselves look foolish in a recall discussion- same as they do elsewhere, right now today. So in short, I feel that a recall process introduces no new problems- all the problems with it are problems we already have, that we already know how to deal with. Friday (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have stumped the folks at Help Desk

I asked a couple of (closely related) questions on the Wikipedia Help Desk, here, which seem to have stumped the folks there. Perhaps Jimbo would like to weigh in? 71.70.174.217 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. -- it's not directly related to content added or removed, however it is somewhat vague intentionally, so that common sense can be used when needed. --lucid 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that, lucid. But when it comes to specific examples, the folks on the Help desk seem to be stumped. This question is about to roll off the top/old list of questions there onto an archive page. Perhaps you and/or Jimbo would care to weigh in with some "common sense" answers before it does? Please? 71.70.174.217 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev

I don't know that this is the best place for this since I'm not sure how active you are, but I'm following the instructions at WP:Deletion review which says take it up with the deleting admin in the first place. And I'm sure there's plenty more sysops watching this page anyway...

You may recall an AfD for Ronen Segev a while back in which we both participated, which led to the article being kept. After an apparent OTRS request in June (ticket #2007011710000088) you then speedied the article and protected it. I noticed this a day or two later, and was able to use a WP mirror to rescue the cited content and add it to Ten O'Clock Classics. That turned out to be fortunate, since it was the cited sources that saved the TOC article from subsequent deletion at its own AfD.

As can be seen from both the talk page and edit history of Ten O'Clock Classics, Segev (or his associates) seems happy to promote TOC itself, and does not seem to object to his name appearing on the page (see some of the most recent edits). Therefore, wouldn't it be more sensible to create a protected redirect to at Ronen Segev instead of it being a perpetual dead end?

Regards, --DeLarge 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Ronen Segev article is that there is a non-notable event that people keep trying to insert into the article, a serious problem with undue weight. I have no problem with an article about him existing, though I think both he and Ten O'Clock Classics are borderline notable anyway... but only if we can keep an eye on it. Probably your idea, though, is a reasonable one... to create a protected redirect. Can you do that? It is fine with me.--Jimbo Wales 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd be the "PL" thing. I didn't watchlist the Ronen Segev page after the AfD was unsuccessful, but I have been watching the Ten O'Clock Classics page for a few months now, and it's attracted no ill attention. It would certainly be out of place on TOC, so I can just revert any additions on that subject.

I can't unprotect the article myself -- unless you want to IAR with regards to admin nomination procedures, and just grant me sysop, checkuser, bureaucrat and oversight permissions...? No? Oh well, God loves a trier. I'll just take it to Deletion review and point them in the direction of this conversation. Cheers, --DeLarge 20:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Editors Are More Equal Than Others, part 32

• All editors take note: Don't ever try writing edit summaries like this on your own!¹

1 - Unless you're User:Orangemarlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.30.46 (talk) 00:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Democracy -> some editors are more equal than others = correct. LessHeard vanU 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My old stalker friend, rbj (talk · contribs) is back. I note the anonymous editor has been blocked too! And yes, I love writing snarky edit summaries.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Harnessing Wikipedia. Zimbabwe is in trouble and we cannot just watch our screens. I believe Wikipedia has grown to the extent that it can cut across the complexities that exist. Is it feasible to harness the collective power of Wikipedians from all over the world to find a solution? This was the original intention, of people working harmoniously even though separated by huge distances, colour, religion, etc. Part 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Zimbabwe

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to WP:CSN

Greetings, Regarding this edit you may state your opinion, or close the discussion, however, it may not be proper to do both. If you have closed it as improper venue, or in your unique position as who you are, would you please come edit your conclusion to reflect that? Many thanks, Navou ^banter 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just stating a simple fact. The discussion may continue, but it will have no practical impact. If that ip number is blocked for the reasons given there and for the duration given, I will personally unblock and ask people to instead file something with the ArbCom. This would be an unprecedented step, and Community Sanction Noticeboard can't be used for that sort of thing. The whole "Community Sanction" thing is on very thin policy grounds in the first place, and what useful purpose it does serve would be wrecked if people attempt to use it inappropriately.--Jimbo Wales 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know

that you were in my home town of Adelaide (australian city capital of South Australia). I hope you found it a nice city . I sure love my home town . Have you tried a pie floater or a frog cake .

Richardson j 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

racist anti-semitic editor

Resolved

This is a tricky case and you may feel that it would be inappropriate to get involved, but you ought to be aware of this, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kola Boof

A request was put on my talk page about an article myself and other editor deleted due to OTRS concerns.[3] Since it was deleted twice for OTRS concerns, I wish to bring it to you before I wish to do anything with that article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A complicated question about PD, GFDL, and so on that you (and maybe a Wikimedia lawyer) might want to take a look at

You can see the full question here, but the short version is: Can public domain sources be copyrighted, and if not, wouldn't a Wikipedia page drawn from a PD source be PD itself, as the GFDL cannot apply to it? I bring this to you because it's a complicated legal issue for the foundation, if a page was significantly founded on, say, 1911, the edits to it (barring total rewrites from the ground up) are all minor changes to a public domain source, and are probably not copyrightable, which means that a page made from PD sources would probably always be PD, and not GFDL. I also have seen you quoted as saying that Copyleft is incredibly important for Wikipedia (especially because of forks and mirrors), and thought this might interest you personally. --lucid 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't think this is really a big problem. If something is under a less restrictive license than the GFDL, then it really doesn't affect distributability. And PD is the ultimate in less restrictive licenses, having as it does zero restrictions. -Amarkov moo! 03:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the law, rendering the entire question moot. Things in the public domain can be modified and then the new version is copyrighted. Public domain is not "copyleft". A page made from a public domain original source can therefore be GFDL without any difficulty of any kind. Period.--Jimbo Wales 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said though, this could be a problem because if something like this happened (which I'll admit is unlikely, as Jimbo has himself said in interviews that even things like historical articles in 1911 are horribly outdated) the Wikipedia article would not be able to be licensed under the GFDL, as that is a form of copyright, which can't be applied to PD. As Jimbo has also stated, Copyleft is important to Wikipedia, I can probably find the exact quote very easily. A Wikipedia article being in the Public Domain, instead of GFDL, could be problematic in the future, not to mention it's just an interesting scenario --lucid 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think adding wikimarkup, categories etc makes changes significant enough to consider an article to be a derivative piece of art. Thus, if an article is a verbatim copy of EB1911, then taking the text from wikipedia without applying GFDL is legal, taking the text and links and categories and illustrations is not. When we have a pure PD pieces of art, like our images we mark them accordingly Alex Bakharev 04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very valid issue especially since some misquote and misjudge Jimbo's words on the old sources and try to "clean WP" from 1911 EB and other old sources in a bot-like fashion. Once I've seen an excellent note to this degree by written Utgard Loki:

"It was absolutely endemic in 1900 to judge one's subject. 1911 EB entries on authors not only provide information but also rule on whether the authors are worth reading or not, and which works show the best spirit... The facts have not changed, largely, but we no longer pass judgments. It is not that the 1911 EB is a bad source -- it is a very, very good source -- but that it contains inappropriate judgments... [citing facts rather than conclusions] is complying fully with scholarly practice. In simple terms: there is nothing wrong with citing an old source's information, but there is something wrong with citing its valuations... Scholarly practice is to use the most current references solely so that the reader knows that the author has read everything, not because there is anything inherently better about them. In fact, most contemporary sources will be based on the older ones, especially for their primary research. If there is nothing more current, then a 19th century source is fine..."

So, yes, we need to have the PD issue settled. At the same time, if I understand the issue correctly, we are concerned with the freedom of distribution and redistribution. Having some of the WP in PD in addition to most of it in GFDL won't limit the redistribution. In fact, some of the WP is already in PD as some users in their multilicense tag on their userpages, choose PD as their second license. So, unless there is something I don't see, both using the old sources is not bad, when done properly, and having part of the WP under PD-licence is not bad either. --Irpen 04:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much that the content is PD, so much as if the content is PD only, as using one from a previously PD source would be (A user's contributions might still be under the GFDL and PD, not PD only) because then small corrects made to it are still working off of a public domain source, which would make that revision itself copyright -- which could mean that an entire article is under PD, not GFDL, with no attribution to their authors, as well as copyleft not existing --lucid 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article does not cite its sources it needs to be fixed regardless of their copyright anyway. Once the sources are attributed, what exactly is the problem? I don't see any. --Irpen 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be editorial issues arising from use of sources such as the 1911 Britannica, but I agree that there are no troubling legal issues because PD by definition is more free than GFDL, not less, and in any event, no one would have standing to raise any complaint. Newyorkbrad 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That rationale (setting aside the conclusion) is probably inconsistent with the statement just offered above Jimbo Wales. Moreover, an I.P. specialist would probably take immediate issue with the conclusion on standing, which is always contingent on specific facts, which have yet to be presented, let alone clearly stated.

In any event, the nuances and legal theories that may (or may not) apply here are entirely independent of the standards, practices and objectives presented by the Wikimedia Foundation pursuant to its charter. Impromptu adjudication of prospective legal disputes is, quite frankly, beyond the scope of this discussion page. dr.ef.tymac 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but "public domain" means that anyone is free to use the image for any purpose, which includes creating derivative works, using it for commercial profit, and relicensing derivative works under whatever license they choose. This means if we take PD works, we can use them for whatever we want, without attributing the author, and create derivatives (adding them into our articles) and relicense the derivative under GFDL. --Deskana (apples) 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IANAL either, nor I do anal, but there are more sources that are public domain than just 1911 Britannica. On a much larger scale, all works by the U.S. Government on the federal level are PD, with some minor exceptions. Since we do reference pages created by the Feds, the concerns are not restricted to the Britannica text that has fallen out of copyright.

But even then, public domain means simply that the work is not copyrighted. Since copyleft uses copyright law to create restrictions on prohibition of redistribution/modification/lack of attribution and their kin, documents that fall outside of poyright restrictions also fall outside of copyleft restrictions. Since PD works are not copyrighted, you really can lift a PD document and do anything you want with it. (Of course, I'm leaving out the entire issue of moral rights, but that is an entirely different beast.)

Since we're supposed to be citing where we get our stuff from, this should not be an issue: Yes, we can distribute text or an image under the GFDL, because PD does not prevent us from doing that, but if someone wants to do something with the original PD text that the GFDL does not permit, then they can go straight and use the original PD source, just like we did to begin with. They would only have to obey the GFDL for any modifications we would have made to the original text, which constitute derivative works and are indeed copyrightable, or in our case, copyleftable by individual contributors. Or they could choose to follow the GFDL restrictions we placed on the PD text if they choose, because it would make their life easier. So I'm not really sure what the problem is here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Titoxd hit it spot on. I could take, say, Ruthsarian's public domain layouts and redistribute them on my site under my own license. If I didn't substantially modify them (see e.g., Bridgeman Art Library vs Corel Corporation), then I wouldn't be able to enforce my license, but there's nothing wrong with applying my own license anyway. In the context of free documentation, copying a Wikipedia article which was based on a public domain source is effectively equivalent to copying the documentation from the PD source, then adding some changes that Wikipedians made. Whether that is fair use is based on those modifications from the original, not based on the article as a whole. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Complaint of 3RR

I found that someone merged Kiev and Kyiv. I explained that Kyiv is a wrong word but they still having revert. The problem becomes a edit war now. Raymond Giggs 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimbo Wales talk page and is usually used for matters that mostly concern Jimbo or require serious attention. Edit warring, three revert violations, and similar issues can be addressed at requests for page protection, the three revert noticeboard, and administrator noticeboard/incidents.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please to do the bug 9862

Dear Jimbo

A month ago you said some comments about No Open Proxies to help us in People's Republic of China to edit. Thank You! Now there is a Bug 9862 (bugzilla:9862) which can help very much and not be a problem for stopping vandals too. The Bug work stopped because no sysop will do the last part of it.

I ask you please to say that it is okay to do the finish of Bug 9862, which will help us edit from PRC. Fzpsc 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been having some bad luck speaking with you lately. The reason I wanted to speak with you is because I would like to ask you to push for completion of Bug 9862, and creation and grant of the relevant permission to several people on enwiki.

Besides being pretty much essential for people in the PRC, it will also help several people outside the PRC, including an experienced medcom mediator, and an experienced (non-associated) mediator. --Kim Bruning 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I third this request. ←Ben^B4 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, we're blocking proxies for vandalism, but it's keeping good contributors out. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear jimbo Wales

I think your userpage needs to be protected from massive vandalism .Richardson j 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not going to do that. Do you not see the bit that says "You can edit this page!". It's a core part of his philosophy, and ours too. --Deskana (apples) 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole of Wikipedia needs to be protected from massive vandalism. But as it is, it's organized in such a way as to allow massive vandalism by immature attention-seekers. (This is widely claimed not to be a bug but a side-effect of a feature.) The user page of the cofounder/founder of Wikipedia is an immensely attractive target for these nitwits. Granted that they'll be vandalizing some pages on WP, let them vandalize this one: as a known target of vandalism, it will be on many people's watchlists, so the nitwits can easily be identified (and their silliness elsewhere identified and reverted), warned off, and, if necessary, blocked. -- Hoary 00:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

O.k.Richardson j 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you just articulated Wikipedia:Fly paper.LessHeard vanU 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He won't protect it. Its "watchlisted" by plenty of editors as Hoary stated. However having jimbo's page unprotected does make finding vandals easier.--Hu12 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations, you have been awarded the origional barnstar for creating Wikipedia, which is a major accomplishment that requires hard work. --Alien joe 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that Jimbo's awards can be put straight into his barnstars section, to which there is a link from his userpage. :-) Lradrama 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um also you win for existing.

Wikipedia:No original research

Hello! You may be interested in the heavy discussions and edit wars concerning Wikipedia:No original research. Cheers! The Ogre 18:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Jimbo, I know that you will probably not answer this, but i am quite certain that someone will. Any admin, or any user, who spends any time in wikipedia cannot but be aware that there is an increasing tendency for users from Eastern Europe to user the project as a platform for their particular political platforms. Yes, I know that any user can, and should be able to, edit wikipedia. And yes, I know that wikipedia is not censored. But it is patently obvious that our friends from (mostly) Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia have no interest in posting any articles except their particular political dogma. This just leads to ongoing edit wars between diffent national political factions of the country in question, and does not in any way enhance Wikipedia. I am fully aware that I can 3RR block, but is there no more radical solution that can be adopted for what I see as a major problem? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hazard that with the derth of reliable sources regarding immediately pre-Communist national history, the repression of cultural and nationalist sentiment during the Soviet bloc era, and the lack of *recent* experience for the citizens in *the practices of* democratic debate, that the attitudes emanating from *some of* the editorship of those articles is not surprising - if more than a little depressing. However, it is hoped that Wikipedia is going to be around for a very long time and that eventually we will see good articles being created (by consensus) around these very subjects. In other words, remove the worst, hope for the best, and wait. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors primarily concerned about EE-related articles I wholly concur with Anthony's description of the problem although I disagree with Anthony's overgeneralization.

Yes, there are several EE editors who come here to pursue their narrow political and nationalist agendas. At the same time there are many EE editors who edit WP honestly and in good faith. They also frequently disagree which create a set of controversies that take root in a huge stack of interconnected content disagreements as many editors' views are often affected by nationalism or, at least, differences in narratives in national scholarship and/or education.

The ArbCom already threw its hands up recently at Piotrus' ArbCom. At the same time I already broached a porposal that may actually work. It is a lengthy one but if anyone has time to read it, as well as other parts of Piotrus' ArbCom they would understand what we are dealing with and, perhaps, develop my proposal or offer a better one. --Irpen 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks as though it would need both internal and external momentum if it were to achieve its goals. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But as the first step, it would need the editors who express their concern about the problem and look for a solution to refrain from disrespectful and patronizing tone. Thank you. --Irpen 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have read Piotrus comments. The basic difficulty, it seems to me, is that in political discussions/arguments on Eastern European issues, it is not possible for anyone to accept that their arguments or position might be wrong. Until editors accept that their opinions are only opinions, and not dogma cast in tablets of stone, the problem will remain. So, going back to my first comment, what is the answer? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see - perhaps I should have put my consideration in a different manner; Contributors, whose first language is not English but who contribute to the English language wikipedia on subjects on which they may hold strong opinions, do not always recognise the efforts of other editors (who may have a differing cultural or recent political background), whose emotional distance from the subject matter may lead to making observations or comments - in good faith - which are sometimes misinterpreted as being something they were not intended to be. Until such time that involved editors are able to recognise good faith comment from uninvolved third parties and without immediately reading unwarranted bias, possibly owing to a lack of both fluency in the language medium and of experience of the culture of the speaker, the likelihood of there being a mediated resolution of the current difficulties being experienced in the editing of articles relating to Eastern Europe is remote. I have tried twice to offer an honest appraisal, one by an outsider, only to have my native tongue misrepresented and my motives questioned. Best of luck with your efforts, Irpen, but until you are able to understand the help that is being offered then asking for it is going to be pointless. LessHeard vanU 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer lies in a combination of things. Sensible enforcement of the existing policies has to, sadly, be combined with the enforcement of some common rules of decency and ethical conduct, which is less trivial, since the concept of ethics is often an implied, rather than an explicit one. That there are ethical issues along with the mere policy compliance was made clear in the case in questions.

Secondly, the answer is in the unbiased review and not of the "opinions" because editors' opinions don't matter onwiki and they should not. The reviewed should be (1) the fitness of the sources to the material they allegedly support and (2) the fitness of the material, even if sourced, to the article where it is being pushed. An example of (1) is having historic facts sourced to the newspaper article or some web-site signed by a non-historian, or worse, unsigned. Another example is passing the sources' judgment, even referenced to the academic's writings except for the cases where the judgment is widely accepted or at least very common. Being able to tell requires the knowledge of the subject, honesty and integrity since even academics fiercely disagree on judgments while mostly provide facts correctly.

On (2), the main problem is WP:UNDUE. When an account with an agenda creates a referenced section titled "Homophobia in Poland" and inserts it directly into the Poland article despite a dedicated and narrower LGBT rights in Poland article already exists the editor needs to be brought to order. The same way, the anti-Russian and anti-Soviet grievances some former Soviet-block editors have are being injected unduely into the Russia-related articles to make a WP:POINT.

Sorting this out requires not just good faith and willingness to help but also the familiarity with the subject. That's why I proposed the workgroup. ArbCom however neither accepted or rejected my proposal. Its "resolving" the case without any meaningful decision and lack of participation of the arbitrators in the workshop demonstrates its inability to handle the problem the way it should. I don't think Jimbo can help much either.

As I wrote in my original statement to the ArbCom's case, the mess will likely continue for the most part. After that, when the case was almost concluded, I came up with the proposal of the novel solution. I saw no meaningful reaction to this which, perhaps, means that my proposal is also unworkable. --Irpen 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is associated with wealth of Soviet and Imperial Russian sources that are used generously by contributors of Russian descent on Wikipedia, and which are very biased and propagandic. This leads frequently to conflict, the problem re-surfaces time and time again

[4] [5]

As long as Stalinist era, Soviet and Tsarist era sources about history are used problems will continue. We don't use Nazi sources about history we shouldn't use Soviet ones either. Of course that is just part of the problem, many other factor's exist. --Molobo 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This passionate entry by Molobo largely demonstrates what I was talking about. :( --Irpen 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. How does he dare to challenge the Stalinist, Soviet and Tsarist era sources? We all know that they are as reliable as any modern Western era sources, don't we?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not seem to have a guideline on dealing with on-line hate groups. It is my belief, that in many cases what looks like a content dipute is in fact an on-line group using Wikipedia to promote an irredentist or revanchist agenda, or even worse, engaging in incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. -- Petri Krohn 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Briefly. I don't think EE area is more problematic than any of other controversial areas on Wikipedia. We have our share of problematic users, but we are also able to create high quality content (ex. Featured articles) at pretty decent rate. That said, indeed, my ArbCom was a major waste of time, illustrating a certain project-wide issue: WP:CIV and related policies are not enforced, and thus increasingly disrespected by many editors. I am indeed afraid that over long run this will worsen the quality of discource of Wikipedia, turning our talk pages into Usenet-level flamechats, as more editors used to more civilized discource (ex. academics) will refuse to contribute to a project where they can be constantly offended. I would indeed urge Jimbo to look into this issue, as this can, if not checked, lead to Wikipedia project collapse in future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Piotrus's view that the EE area is no more problematic than any other area with Wikipedia. Anthony.bradbury's characterisation: "But it is patently obvious that our friends from (mostly) Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia have no interest in posting any articles except their particular political dogma.", isn't really an accurate portrayal of the situation. Generally the conflict is between current Russian soviet-derived historiography on the one hand, and western-derived historiography adopted by the former Soviet Bloc states on the other. In my view, it will sort itself out over time when editors fully come to grips with WP:RS, WP:V, etc, etc. Martintg 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Eastern Europe topics, as Estonia is in Northern Europe. I suspect that Anthony.bradbury means Eastern bloc.

And I fully agree with Molobo, Piotrus and Martintg. I see very little edit warring among "diffent national political factions of the country in question", but there are plenty of single-purpose accounts coming from Russia/Russians, whose issue seems to be inability to cope with the idea that historical Soviet sources are flawed. Add to that the extremely tendentious reporting of events in Russian media (see example) and official policy of Soviet glorification. And that is the root cause of the mess involving Eastern bloc in Wikipedia, not editors from "Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia", who seem to get mostly along quite well, both inside their respective groups and with other Wikipedians (for inevitable Russophobe and "eSStonian nazi" accusations, not all Russian editors are like that. There are plenty of good, hard-working Russian editors (for example, it has been a pleasure to work with Colchicum and Ypetrachenko), but "bad" editors are far more visible then good ones. Out of five barnstars I've awarded, four are to (ethnically) Russian editors).

I see no quick and easy solution to this. There are examples of wikilawyering from all sides, as attempts to "shut up" their opponents. RfA started by Irpen is perhaps the latest example of that behavior. This constant pressure is... rather hard to tolerate, at least for me. I don't even remember when I had time to actually contribute to Wikipedia - especially to my areas of interest, such as evolution - or see about items on my to-do list. Or working on my tools for Wikipedia. Instead I have to waste my time constantly patrolling 1700 WikiProject Estonia articles and being involved in discussions such as this.

Perhaps only more attention by neutral administrators to Eastern bloc articles might help, with quickly enforced Wikipedia rules and stamping out incivility. Maybe as a separate noticeboard on AN or administrators-only WikiProject? Like I said, no quick and easy answers. I suspect that no matter how many RfC's, AN/I threads or RfA's there will be, this is something that Wikipedia just has to cope with. I really hope that I am wrong, but...

Sander Säde 06:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please to do the bug 9862

Dear Jimbo

A month ago you said some comments about No Open Proxies to help us in People's Republic of China to edit. Thank You! Now there is a Bug 9862 (bugzilla:9862) which can help very much and not be a problem for stopping vandals too. The Bug work stopped because no sysop will do the last part of it.

I ask you please to say that it is okay to do the finish of Bug 9862, which will help us edit from PRC. Fzpsc 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been having some bad luck speaking with you lately. The reason I wanted to speak with you is because I would like to ask you to push for completion of Bug 9862, and creation and grant of the relevant permission to several people on enwiki.

Besides being pretty much essential for people in the PRC, it will also help several people outside the PRC, including an experienced medcom mediator, and an experienced (non-associated) mediator. --Kim Bruning 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I third this request. ←Ben^B4 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, we're blocking proxies for vandalism, but it's keeping good contributors out. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear jimbo Wales

I think your userpage needs to be protected from massive vandalism .Richardson j 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not going to do that. Do you not see the bit that says "You can edit this page!". It's a core part of his philosophy, and ours too. --Deskana (apples) 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole of Wikipedia needs to be protected from massive vandalism. But as it is, it's organized in such a way as to allow massive vandalism by immature attention-seekers. (This is widely claimed not to be a bug but a side-effect of a feature.) The user page of the cofounder/founder of Wikipedia is an immensely attractive target for these nitwits. Granted that they'll be vandalizing some pages on WP, let them vandalize this one: as a known target of vandalism, it will be on many people's watchlists, so the nitwits can easily be identified (and their silliness elsewhere identified and reverted), warned off, and, if necessary, blocked. -- Hoary 00:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

O.k.Richardson j 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you just articulated Wikipedia:Fly paper.LessHeard vanU 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He won't protect it. Its "watchlisted" by plenty of editors as Hoary stated. However having jimbo's page unprotected does make finding vandals easier.--Hu12 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations, you have been awarded the origional barnstar for creating Wikipedia, which is a major accomplishment that requires hard work. --Alien joe 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that Jimbo's awards can be put straight into his barnstars section, to which there is a link from his userpage. :-) Lradrama 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um also you win for existing.

Attemping to compromise on the Sanger article

To no avail...any suggestions?--Trulexicon 01:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be pretty easy to find a compromise. It is wrong for Wikipedia to take either side on this issue.--Jimbo Wales 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the real problem here not a debate over whether or not Sanger is a co-founder, but that people insist on summing up a fairly complex situation in a few words, when it needs more like a paragraph to explain it? --lucid 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, just for the record, which "compromise" version of each article(yours and Larry's) do you endorse/perfer? It might help if you posted it here so we could refer to it. TIA and regardless of who "founded" wikipedia I really enjoy it :) Cheers! --Tom 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my own preferences are not all that important as to the exact wording. :-) --Jimbo Wales 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was curious since you say that a compromise should be easy and you have said that you like the "current version" but the ways thing change so fast around here I wasn't sure which version that was. I also disagree with the editor below. Your imput is welcome and trolls will be trolls regardless(not referring to the editor below). Anyways, --Tom 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, don't you think getting involved at all with this, let alone advocacy, does more damage to your reputation than whether he's called a co-founder or not? I sure do. It makes you seem pompous and vain. Can't you be emotionally independent enough to not care? I beg, please ignore this. It just gives fuel to your enemies who want to call you names behind your back. Tn017 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

TN017, yes I do have that concern, but my commitment to the neutrality of Wikipedia is stronger than anything else. It would not make sense for me to allow Wikipedia to blindly repeat a falsehood, even if it would be somehow better for my reputation if I did.--Jimbo Wales 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from Jimbo's replies above, I don't think you have anything to complain about. - Crockspot 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research

Hello! You may be interested in the heavy discussions and edit wars concerning Wikipedia:No original research. Cheers! The Ogre 18:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Jimbo, I know that you will probably not answer this, but i am quite certain that someone will. Any admin, or any user, who spends any time in wikipedia cannot but be aware that there is an increasing tendency for users from Eastern Europe to user the project as a platform for their particular political platforms. Yes, I know that any user can, and should be able to, edit wikipedia. And yes, I know that wikipedia is not censored. But it is patently obvious that our friends from (mostly) Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia have no interest in posting any articles except their particular political dogma. This just leads to ongoing edit wars between diffent national political factions of the country in question, and does not in any way enhance Wikipedia. I am fully aware that I can 3RR block, but is there no more radical solution that can be adopted for what I see as a major problem? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hazard that with the derth of reliable sources regarding immediately pre-Communist national history, the repression of cultural and nationalist sentiment during the Soviet bloc era, and the lack of *recent* experience for the citizens in *the practices of* democratic debate, that the attitudes emanating from *some of* the editorship of those articles is not surprising - if more than a little depressing. However, it is hoped that Wikipedia is going to be around for a very long time and that eventually we will see good articles being created (by consensus) around these very subjects. In other words, remove the worst, hope for the best, and wait. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors primarily concerned about EE-related articles I wholly concur with Anthony's description of the problem although I disagree with Anthony's overgeneralization.

Yes, there are several EE editors who come here to pursue their narrow political and nationalist agendas. At the same time there are many EE editors who edit WP honestly and in good faith. They also frequently disagree which create a set of controversies that take root in a huge stack of interconnected content disagreements as many editors' views are often affected by nationalism or, at least, differences in narratives in national scholarship and/or education.

The ArbCom already threw its hands up recently at Piotrus' ArbCom. At the same time I already broached a porposal that may actually work. It is a lengthy one but if anyone has time to read it, as well as other parts of Piotrus' ArbCom they would understand what we are dealing with and, perhaps, develop my proposal or offer a better one. --Irpen 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks as though it would need both internal and external momentum if it were to achieve its goals. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But as the first step, it would need the editors who express their concern about the problem and look for a solution to refrain from disrespectful and patronizing tone. Thank you. --Irpen 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have read Piotrus comments. The basic difficulty, it seems to me, is that in political discussions/arguments on Eastern European issues, it is not possible for anyone to accept that their arguments or position might be wrong. Until editors accept that their opinions are only opinions, and not dogma cast in tablets of stone, the problem will remain. So, going back to my first comment, what is the answer? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see - perhaps I should have put my consideration in a different manner; Contributors, whose first language is not English but who contribute to the English language wikipedia on subjects on which they may hold strong opinions, do not always recognise the efforts of other editors (who may have a differing cultural or recent political background), whose emotional distance from the subject matter may lead to making observations or comments - in good faith - which are sometimes misinterpreted as being something they were not intended to be. Until such time that involved editors are able to recognise good faith comment from uninvolved third parties and without immediately reading unwarranted bias, possibly owing to a lack of both fluency in the language medium and of experience of the culture of the speaker, the likelihood of there being a mediated resolution of the current difficulties being experienced in the editing of articles relating to Eastern Europe is remote. I have tried twice to offer an honest appraisal, one by an outsider, only to have my native tongue misrepresented and my motives questioned. Best of luck with your efforts, Irpen, but until you are able to understand the help that is being offered then asking for it is going to be pointless. LessHeard vanU 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer lies in a combination of things. Sensible enforcement of the existing policies has to, sadly, be combined with the enforcement of some common rules of decency and ethical conduct, which is less trivial, since the concept of ethics is often an implied, rather than an explicit one. That there are ethical issues along with the mere policy compliance was made clear in the case in questions.

Secondly, the answer is in the unbiased review and not of the "opinions" because editors' opinions don't matter onwiki and they should not. The reviewed should be (1) the fitness of the sources to the material they allegedly support and (2) the fitness of the material, even if sourced, to the article where it is being pushed. An example of (1) is having historic facts sourced to the newspaper article or some web-site signed by a non-historian, or worse, unsigned. Another example is passing the sources' judgment, even referenced to the academic's writings except for the cases where the judgment is widely accepted or at least very common. Being able to tell requires the knowledge of the subject, honesty and integrity since even academics fiercely disagree on judgments while mostly provide facts correctly.

On (2), the main problem is WP:UNDUE. When an account with an agenda creates a referenced section titled "Homophobia in Poland" and inserts it directly into the Poland article despite a dedicated and narrower LGBT rights in Poland article already exists the editor needs to be brought to order. The same way, the anti-Russian and anti-Soviet grievances some former Soviet-block editors have are being injected unduely into the Russia-related articles to make a WP:POINT.

Sorting this out requires not just good faith and willingness to help but also the familiarity with the subject. That's why I proposed the workgroup. ArbCom however neither accepted or rejected my proposal. Its "resolving" the case without any meaningful decision and lack of participation of the arbitrators in the workshop demonstrates its inability to handle the problem the way it should. I don't think Jimbo can help much either.

As I wrote in my original statement to the ArbCom's case, the mess will likely continue for the most part. After that, when the case was almost concluded, I came up with the proposal of the novel solution. I saw no meaningful reaction to this which, perhaps, means that my proposal is also unworkable. --Irpen 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is associated with wealth of Soviet and Imperial Russian sources that are used generously by contributors of Russian descent on Wikipedia, and which are very biased and propagandic. This leads frequently to conflict, the problem re-surfaces time and time again

[6] [7]

As long as Stalinist era, Soviet and Tsarist era sources about history are used problems will continue. We don't use Nazi sources about history we shouldn't use Soviet ones either. Of course that is just part of the problem, many other factor's exist. --Molobo 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This passionate entry by Molobo largely demonstrates what I was talking about. :( --Irpen 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. How does he dare to challenge the Stalinist, Soviet and Tsarist era sources? We all know that they are as reliable as any modern Western era sources, don't we?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not seem to have a guideline on dealing with on-line hate groups. It is my belief, that in many cases what looks like a content dipute is in fact an on-line group using Wikipedia to promote an irredentist or revanchist agenda, or even worse, engaging in incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. -- Petri Krohn 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Briefly. I don't think EE area is more problematic than any of other controversial areas on Wikipedia. We have our share of problematic users, but we are also able to create high quality content (ex. Featured articles) at pretty decent rate. That said, indeed, my ArbCom was a major waste of time, illustrating a certain project-wide issue: WP:CIV and related policies are not enforced, and thus increasingly disrespected by many editors. I am indeed afraid that over long run this will worsen the quality of discource of Wikipedia, turning our talk pages into Usenet-level flamechats, as more editors used to more civilized discource (ex. academics) will refuse to contribute to a project where they can be constantly offended. I would indeed urge Jimbo to look into this issue, as this can, if not checked, lead to Wikipedia project collapse in future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Piotrus's view that the EE area is no more problematic than any other area with Wikipedia. Anthony.bradbury's characterisation: "But it is patently obvious that our friends from (mostly) Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia have no interest in posting any articles except their particular political dogma.", isn't really an accurate portrayal of the situation. Generally the conflict is between current Russian soviet-derived historiography on the one hand, and western-derived historiography adopted by the former Soviet Bloc states on the other. In my view, it will sort itself out over time when editors fully come to grips with WP:RS, WP:V, etc, etc. Martintg 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Eastern Europe topics, as Estonia is in Northern Europe. I suspect that Anthony.bradbury means Eastern bloc.

And I fully agree with Molobo, Piotrus and Martintg. I see very little edit warring among "diffent national political factions of the country in question", but there are plenty of single-purpose accounts coming from Russia/Russians, whose issue seems to be inability to cope with the idea that historical Soviet sources are flawed. Add to that the extremely tendentious reporting of events in Russian media (see example) and official policy of Soviet glorification. And that is the root cause of the mess involving Eastern bloc in Wikipedia, not editors from "Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia", who seem to get mostly along quite well, both inside their respective groups and with other Wikipedians (for inevitable Russophobe and "eSStonian nazi" accusations, not all Russian editors are like that. There are plenty of good, hard-working Russian editors (for example, it has been a pleasure to work with Colchicum and Ypetrachenko), but "bad" editors are far more visible then good ones. Out of five barnstars I've awarded, four are to (ethnically) Russian editors).

I see no quick and easy solution to this. There are examples of wikilawyering from all sides, as attempts to "shut up" their opponents. RfA started by Irpen is perhaps the latest example of that behavior. This constant pressure is... rather hard to tolerate, at least for me. I don't even remember when I had time to actually contribute to Wikipedia - especially to my areas of interest, such as evolution - or see about items on my to-do list. Or working on my tools for Wikipedia. Instead I have to waste my time constantly patrolling 1700 WikiProject Estonia articles and being involved in discussions such as this.

Perhaps only more attention by neutral administrators to Eastern bloc articles might help, with quickly enforced Wikipedia rules and stamping out incivility. Maybe as a separate noticeboard on AN or administrators-only WikiProject? Like I said, no quick and easy answers. I suspect that no matter how many RfC's, AN/I threads or RfA's there will be, this is something that Wikipedia just has to cope with. I really hope that I am wrong, but...

Sander Säde 06:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

HTML layout of Wikipedia

I have no idea how to get this information to the right person, however this should be a good start. You know that blank space at the top of every page that has a bar and above the bar is the name of the page? Like right now I am staring at "Editing User talk:Jimbo Wales (comment)" - well I have noticed that periodically other notices get stuffed in there and they are underneath (covered up by) the above text and make cutting and pasting page titles difficult, because the stuffed in stuff gets dragged along, like right now what is also there is: "• Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! • • Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •". My suggestion, is there any way of talking your developers into moving that extra stuff to above the tabs, along with the other links like Sign in and stuff like that? However, I also want to thank your developers for moving the coordinates information, such as at the top of Glen Alpine, New South Wales to below the bar. It was very annoying to have the coordinate information up above the bar. While some page names are short, others are long, and covered up the coordinates. Just because you did one thing right you didn't need to mess it up by putting something else there. 199.125.109.26 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Try taking your idea to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) as this isnt the place for it, SqueakBox 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ads for Wikipedia

Just curious, why don't we have commercials on Television for Wikipedia? I was shocked to see that a lot of people don't know about it. It would definatley be a nice break from that HeadOn commercial! Cheers,JetLover 23:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a charity funded by donations from the people who edit its wikis. There's no money left for TV ads - most money gets used on things like bandwidth and computer equiptment. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer is (1) the foundation doesn't have any funds for this, and (2) most people know about Wikipedia already. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also most internet searches on Yahoo or Google turn up Wikipedia as one of the top three search results. While Wikipedia is now the tenth most popular website, it is relatively unknown among the non-internet savvy generation, but who cares? 199.125.109.26 02:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Wikipedia on a country with TV is like Pissing in an Ocean of Pi-- I mean, It's a waste of perfectly good money. The money it would take to even have a very modest national marketing campaign would be much, much better spent paying for more employees, or hardware, or bandwidth, or electricity, or buying OLPCs for her, and so on an so forth. We could do a lot more for Wikipedia by putting that money into keeping Wikimedia afloat than by advertising it --lucid 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

People dont spend money on advertising except to make more money and you havent explained how wikipedia could make money by advertising, SqueakBox 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already the ninth most popular website in the world. It gets attention for free in major news outlets every day. Why would it advertise? Durova^Charge! 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I've never seen Google advertise either, except occasionally in specialty publications to seek job applicants. Sometimes something (for-profit or not-for-profit) just manages to be in the right place at the right time with an idea whose time has come, and can become a massive institution purely on word-of-mouth. Advertising would just be a waste of money in those cases. *Dan T.* 18:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on this without further waste of space. 84.250.110.93 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What have they done with my song mam (replace: “Wikipedia, man”)?

Reminder to Your friendly intervention:

I'm back from vacancy and most of our club, meanwhile having resigned. Of course awful vandalism got more and more a serious problem for WIKI-admins. But they have no Right to violate themselves especially WP:NOR partly consistently, e.g. by putting – partly even priory! – bare depreciative opinions at first within an article instead of serious descriptions. That was shown in link above and more generally reprimanded in An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.

WIKI-Censorship? A meaning-dictatorship against unloved facts?

A kind of prior depreciative censorship was shown in Our partly commonly fixed issues, ignored: Precedently to any serious content of related theories, papers, links, depreciations are put as shown; this is nowhere supportable. If this continues, this would become a bad redaction, as usual in bad newspapers only...

We showed some incredible defects of knowledge

Involved WP:PHYS members in Our Open letter to Jim Wales support a mainstream and not the history. E.g.: The history of Hubble was falsified, really destroyed, by precedent opions in the sense that Big Bang is now valid and not what he Hubble had meant quite "falsly", himself never committed to Big Bang as steadily pretended:

Zwicky's Tired light is less irrational than Big Bang. 

Above linked important OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY was signed and supported meanwhile by thousands “dissidents” of Big-Bang (found in Google).

Those serious Institutes, Professors, Doctors and researchers need in our 3 dimensions a so-called "relativistic photon's mass" (m=hf/c²) producing Gravitational redshift and the related other Einstein effect.

Arrogantly acting proponents of Big-Bang mean that this is not needed in "their" 4 dimensions: Their gravity is replaced by curvatures of spacetime instead and all others have to follow their theory - and blindly. All mentioned dissidents became anyhow victims of those awfully acting “modern physicist’s” meaning quasi that old physics (like good old shoes) are no more "modern" and therefore must be bad.

Their new clothes are invisible ("mysteries, miracles"). They act like the naked Kaiser saying that only bad people cannot see his new clothes, but all see him naked...

Bare ignorance – also by WP:PHYS members in that tendency – supports the mentioned mental “war of physicians”.

Real fairness cannot support any kind of ignorance and wars, anywhere...

Proved now also

We were IP-hunted and how!

All we did was erased, obviously arbitrarily. We did not believe that this can be: We were chased (two assistants of Univ.-Prof. had told us the same, partly with their Wiki-IDs).

The same problem was already written by others

See e.g. Another open letter to Jim Wales.

Incredible defects in physics are hidden

Proved now in our link even multiply: Involved members of WP:PHYS have incredible defects in basic physics and math and refuse (by incompetence?) or by fear anyhow to (let!) put serious stuff in articles, all was rv meanwhile.

• E.g.: A frequency depending photon’s mass m=hf/c² - as calculated in the whole remaining world by EINSTEIN with E=mc² and PLANCK’s E=hf.
• E.g.: The article General relativity links [Solutions of General relativity] with cooking recipes only to find, but without any real solution at all (we put 6 well-known, erased). The second related article Exact solutions of General relativity begins until today with a seriously fault: A contravariant Einstein tensor. The fault is directly shown in comparison to all other articles and sources: the tensor indexes are put above. The defects were corrected in vain, rv, until today remaining.

Re-Acting slippery like snakes?

You will find especially how involved WIKI-Admin Duae seriously pretended at first not to understand German at all. Then he pretended to understand perfectly the related same German WIKI-article. He meant it says the same. But we showed - as you will realize with your advanced German knowledge:

  GERMAN WIKI had said (correctly!) the contrary of the ENGLISH WIKI!

Incredible? The ivolved Wiki-Admin acted also here (like to each even COMMONLY FIXED TOPICS) slippery away also from this topic like a snake after having been instructed by our translation of the kernel...

Also our priory two fixed Issues are not handled until today: Duae confessed to know the missing photon’s mass and its gravity used by (arbitrarily destroyed, named "crank", "silly") copies of original Fritz Zwicky papers. And resulting mental “war”-effects if people are not informed at all that a particle named photon must have a mass in our 3D-world.

Even those two topics were not handled at all... 

Instead Duae confessed

Big Bang needs mystery!

Big Bang makes everything from nothing. This needs indeed GOD and not any physics! Meanwhile it needs more and more, even many mysteries! The word “mystery” for it was confessed written by Admin Duae! But like a wounded greyhound he attacked in masses side-issues instead. He abuses a few real or pretended shortcomings or faults of alternative physics. Mainly he only pretended faults by his lack of serious "old-fashioned" physical knowledge, as shown. Such unfairness is no more banal (some of us meant: You User: Jimbo Wales certainly had left WIKI because you had to resign – as we now)...

We'll stop fighting windmills if no supervisor reacts seriously

We not want to act like the soldier in a picture:

He (has to) try to split a rock with his helmet-peak... 

If nobody reacts seriously we have to resign against the might of rigid windmills, against a kind of censorship, against bare ignorance, against serious lack of knowledge in phyiscs, etc. (our Dr.Kießlinger wrote – Email copied and linked – that Wikipedian Admins are unable to “hear” as others - until a Professor - support one ore all topics by linked emails)... DeepBlueDiamond 12:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: see User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues ←Ben^B4 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am embarrassed at the amount of time I wasted on that. It was a genuine attempt at communication and explanation, but futile. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Donations

I have a career pretty similar to your former one. How much do I need to donate to become an administrator? 86.150.30.172 09:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SYSOP. Donations have nothing to do with it --lucid 09:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All cheques payable to me... --Deskana (apples) 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The above comments and the one on my messages are not helpful. Surely it would be reasonable to give special privileges to donors. Naturally I see an arguement for greater scruitiny of the inexperienced, but a donation to Wikipedia can be as great a contribution as that of an editor. 86.150.30.172 12:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship isn't a reward for contributing to Wikipedia. It is a tool. --lucid 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So why can't I have that tool? 86.150.30.172 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, adminship is entrusted by the community to editors whom the community knows well. Editing from an IP address won't get you there (not to mention an IP can't be sysoped). I'd suggest that you create an account as a first step if you'd like to become an admin. Just edit for a long time; make solid, productive edits until you've impacted the community enough to be sysoped. But that shouldn't be your goal; your goal should be the project - making Wikipedia the best repository of human knowledge on the planet. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 12:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely a substantial donation to the community should be enough? Why do I have to be "known well"? 86.150.30.172 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Substitute "well known" for "widely recognised as a good contributor", one who is considered unlikely - based on observation - to use the extra tools available to disrupt Wikipedia. This is important since the tools available for admins can do a great more damage than those used for general editing. Donating a considerable amount of money only indicates that you have a considerable amount of money available for donation, and not how well you would carry out the work of an admin. LessHeard vanU 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is sort of like trying to make the sun the biggest thing in the solar system --lucid 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Point granted.  :-) =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I now have an account. Euriboring 13:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA is the only way you're going to get sysop rights, and without a lot more contributions behind your account, your RfA will fail. Adminship is a set of tools that let you help Wikipedia more, and without a need or use for those tools, you will not be granted them. --Deskana (apples) 13:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(*cough* The RfA page says, "The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy..." and nothing about the need for the tools - which is often an area of contention in the various discussions.) LessHeard vanU 14:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. This user would not be granted adminship, and you are as aware of this as me. --Deskana (apples) 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Semantics", indeed, as regards this editor (now rightly indefblocked by you) but not perhaps in discussions involving legitimate candidates. Just general principles for those unfamiliar with sysop criteria - hence my decision to remark in smaller type. LessHeard vanU 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Henry Root Letters are much funnier. -- Hoary 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you become an admin, it means you have a few special tools. You use the tools to fight abuse and clear backlogs. You need to know policy to use the tools well. --Kaypoh 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The user in question is now blocked. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the block of this user. What nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats a bit like trying to buy a place in the parliament. 84.250.110.93 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite being wrong, the idea that adminship is a reward for contributing to Wikipedia seems to be common, especially among newcomers. A.Z. 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Governments being bought? No, that never happens :-). Thanks for backing us, Jimbo. I never expected anything less. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, never literally. 84.250.110.93 10:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should AGF and teach him how to contribute to Wikipedia. If he learns policy, maybe he will become an admin one day! :) --Kaypoh 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at his user page. In his plea for unblock, he mentioned having no intention to make any good faith contributions to the project. Once he admits to wanting admin access for purely personal reasons, good faith goes out the window. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This block made me feel slightly uneasy. The user's request is doubtless very, very silly. He clearly has little understanding of how Wikipedia works and probably doesn't really know what an admin is, even though this was explained to him. Nevertheless, he wasn't harming the project and newcomers aren't usually blocked for strange behaviour. His questions were posted on talk and community pages and could have been answered or even just ignored. The assumptions behind the questions were wrong - but they would only be harmful if someone took them seriously and made him an admin. They weren't asked in bad faith. It's a shame that we bite newcomers like this but perhaps, if he decides to become a serious contributor, he might benefit from a new username. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked, not for being ridiculous (though he was being ridiculous), but for repeated disruptive edits. Non-admins can't see the deleted edits, but that's why he was blocked. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not the same guy as the previous ip address, but I never have heard there are edits you have to be an admin to see. When did this start and what is it's purpose? This is a good faith edit -- I'm just curious. I have never heard this before.  :-) 63.3.15.1 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just deleted edits- that is, edits on deleted articles. It's always been there. The only reason you can't see them is simply because they have to be invisible; otherwise, deleting attack pages would leave them still present, as Wikipedia has a perpetual memory. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete their edits? If you do that, non-admins can't judge whether you made a right decision or not. A.Z. 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The user made an RfA, in which he: offered to pay $250,000 to Wikipedia, and $250 to the first 500 people who "vote for him". Also he said "I want to be able to say that I am a Wikipedia administrator. Also I would like to be able to view deleted pages", as to why he wants to be an administrator. The edits were deleted because his RfA was deleted, they were not hidden from view, just removed. Prodego ^talk 01:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. A.Z. 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cash?  :-) Oh, sorry, that's hilarious. Thank you for the answer. 63.3.15.1 01:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol - it's good to hear people don't just get blocked for asking ridiculous questions. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Very good :-) A.Z. 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I bet many admins have never ever donated to Wikipedia. Lradrama 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture to say most haven't. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Prodego ^talk 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear me. Well that certainly makes my comment about his questions not being asked in bad faith look very silly. I wonder what on earth he can be trying to prove. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is never wrong. Prodego ^talk 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Supposing, in 8 weeks' time, this editor announces he has found someone willing to take bribes, and I'm sure there are some around, does it matter? Is it likely that this would happen outside Euriboring's test scenario? Without wishing to teach people to stuff beans up their nose, a favourable Wikipedia article could conceivably be a powerful PR tool and the possibility of money being paid may not be completely far fetched. Also, what would happen to the editor in question? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads

Hi, I would like to see his user page but I keep getting stuck on an image when loading it's called qxz-ad37.gif or something. Could someone see if it's not absolutely vital for the article and delete or change it to .png or something please. Thanks 84.250.110.93 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a Wikipedia ad. We could remove it, but I highly recommend that if your computer is that old, you turn off images in your web browser, or if your web browser is causing problems, try another one such as Firefox or Opera --lucid 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's user page and is not an article... And although Jimbo probably welcomes your opinion, it is his user page and it's up to him what to put on it and if he feels he wants the ad then it is vital Nil Einne 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Your user page is only there because the community lets it be-- if your user page is disruptive or causes real troubles for other users (it's your user page causing it, not the other users) it can and will be changed. You own your userspace in the same way you own a driver's license. --lucid 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, ignore this I just turned off images and it sill won't load, it's propably high-traffic or something. 84.250.110.93 22:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is is the adverts needn't be removed, because most computers have no problem with them. Lots of users have adverts on their userpages. There's no need for yet another scrap to start over this. Lradrama 14:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads violate policy, actually. Any experienced user will tell you that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laleena (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They aren't real ads, which doesn't seem to be communicated very well. See Template:Wikipedia ads. Prodego ^talk 23:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest harsher penalties for vandalism

Specifically, I think blocking after one pure vandalism edit would be an appropriate measure, to save productive users' time from being wasted. Wikipedia is big enough now that it's unlikely that these vandals would have much in terms of notable subjects to contribute, and as one of the most visited sites on the Internet, we need to take harsher action now, and extend longer blocks. WP:AGF dates back a long time, but since Wikipedia is so big now and shows up in every Google search and we still let anon-IPs edit, it's not so strong as a way of thinking as it once was. Personally, I'd never be a recent changes patroller as I'm not wasting my time dealing with idiots. I'm also in favour of logging in as a requirement to edit, to ensure quality.-16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's been talked about time and time again: no. The system works, amazingly enough. I've even seen some "pure vandalism edits" that later turned out to be by people who actually did decide to help the project, or simple misunderstandings. It's fine as it is --lucid 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Having said what I said, we shouldn't block people for introducing articles on non-notable subjects, in my opinion, and probably the opinion of many other Wikipedians. We should just guide them towards what is notable...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the system works, but I, despite my many positive contributions, would never be a recent changes patroller as it seems like little more than being a slave to the trolls and vandals. We should relieve these hard-working Wikipedians of their duties by imposing harsher penalties.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then don't do RCP. People that do RCP take pride in what they do, weeding out the vandals, while also helping newcomers, at least the good ones do. If you don't like it, don't do it, there's about a bajillion other things to work on here, we don't need to 'fix' a system that isn't broken just so you can get in on something that works fine for everyone who does it --lucid 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, once you impose "harsher penalties" you increase the attractiveness of a target among openly-antagonistic perpetrators who value the "prestige" of getting away with misdeeds with higher stakes. Moreover, unless the "penalties" involve a complete deprivation of all means of mounting future attacks (impossible with an open and totally anonymous system), or the deprivation of a fundamental necessity of life itself, the penalties will only be viewed as "harsh" by those who value participation here. The antagonistic trolls and vandals will just view it as a fun new "challenge" to surpass.

Thus, the greatest punishment will fall upon those who sincerely meant well, but were mistakenly identified as a troll or a vandal. Such well-meaning people will then be more likely to give up and not come back. This is the exact opposite of what you'd want. dr.ef.tymac 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to remember not every vandal vandalises past final warning. Many of them make vandalism edits once every three months. And I know from being on RC most of the summer. RC patrollers aren't "slaves to the trolls and vandals" like you said, I might have to put up with them for a short time but it isn't long before their actions get them blocked from editing. Also if you have to log in th edit, it kind of defeats the whole purpose of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." If people have to log in, that means everyone can't edit straight away because they have to sign up. Also not all IPs are vandals. There is a good long list of IPs who make loads of constructive edits to wikipedia along with the list of "Vandal IPs". You have to take the bad with the good and currently the good is shadowing the bad. AngelOfSadness talk 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to remember that anyone can create an account (very quickly, without email verification), and that's not contradictory to the idea of anyone being able to edit.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But you did say earlier that you would be in favour of logging in as a requirement. Making it a requirement defeats the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But also those accounts can be blocked as quickly as creating one. If it is found the editor isn't making any constructuve edits, then they will be blocked. If they create another account and continue their ways, then that account will be blocked aswell. It will continue until the vandal gets bored and finds something else to do with their time. AngelOfSadness talk 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm - tougher penalties for vandals? Why not... perhaps we could start flogging them... WjBscribe 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm now in favour of WJBscribe's idea on flogging. That would be much better than the current system of dealing with vandals :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I honestly think the current system works for a number of reasons. First and foremost, is that not all "vandalism" is intentional, or "destructive". The term has become a "catch-all" for any edit that does more harm than good to an article, and the truth is, many of these edits are mistakes made by younger folks, or brand new editors who don't understand how Wikipedia works. However, that being said, there are certainly cases of deliberate, pre-meditated vandalism, where the editor knows exactly how to disrupt in a way that makes it very difficult to revert the page for most people, such as resizing fonts, changing all colors to black, or the obvious image vandalism that happens. These things need a knowledge of the proper codes and how they'll render, and thus the intent is most certainly destructive, especially after more than one incident. All that being said, I still truly believe that a kind word, a custom warning, and a little patience can sometimes turn these people around, and if we can "save" even one out of a hundred from continuing, (without having to block them) I think it is worth it. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chop off their hands. They won't be able to use a keyboard any more. *Dan T.* 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chances are they'll grow more hands like the way Spongebob Squarepants can, use their other body parts(feet, nose etc) or get a loved one to type as they chant their wishes. AngelOfSadness talk 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Tarring and feathering? That sounds like fun...maybe a lynching? Life incarceration? Denial of ice cream? Although I do agree, vandalism is ferociously un-fun... =David^(talk)_(contribs) 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• As a RC patroller, I think we could be quicker to issue short term blocks in cases where an account or IP address is clearly only interested in vandalizing. After four appropriate warnings and a report to AIV, a vandal could get in a dozen vandalism edits in short order before he is blocked. (Many more than that if he is highly motivated). Most IP addresses can't be blocked for long term anyway, and a short time out for a named account will give that editor a chance to review policies and guidelines, and evaluate whether or not he wants to be a positive contributor to the project. I have been known to issue "only warnings" in such obvious cases, but I usually give them the chance to make two more vandal edits after my warning before I report them. So far I am not aware of any of my reports to AIV being rejected, so apparently the blocking admins are supportive of this in practice. But the named accounts usually get an indef block. Perhaps they could get a shorter one for the first block. - Crockspot 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should give one warning before blocking. We would want to make it nice and friendly, something along the line of a level one, but have it state that if they vandalize again, they will be blocked. But if this is implemented, we will have to be more careful about what we call vandalism. --Mschel 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the multi-level warning system works fine, as long as we have the leeway to step it up more quickly in the more abusive cases, which we appear to already have. - Crockspot 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are to be preventative not punitive. ~ Wikihermit 18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be preventive, since they are on a vandal tear at the moment. The object is to stop the vandalism, with the benefit of giving them a chance to reconsider further vandalism. - Crockspot 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea but some editors could abuse the use of the warning, giving it to people who they don't agree with instead of giving it to who did obvious vandalism. AngelOfSadness talk 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The call on whether or not to block is up to the admin responding to the AIV report. I assume that these reports are given at least a cursory contribution history examination. I think abuses would be caught there. - Crockspot 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course. What am I on about today? Permission to strikeout my last statement. AngelOfSadness talk 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In reply to crockspot's comments about vandals getting away with vandalism between the time they're reported and the time they're blocked, what about something like a user level block? Any user with more than, say, 500 edits can apply for it, and be approved fairly easily by any admin, kinda like the process for getting approved for AWB, and they can then block any user for 30-60 minutes, on the condition that it's blatant vandalism (X IS TOTAL SHIT) and they've had a full set of warnings, and then be reported to AIV-- on the condition, of course, that anyone abusing it would be instantly banned themselves, or anyone who was being careless with it would get it taken away. This would seem like a good way to at least get vandals to have to stop for a moment, look at their talk page, think about why they can't edit until an administrator reviews their case --lucid 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's a pretty good idea, considering that the mechanism for message notification to IP's is broken. But I'm not sure how easily that could be implemented. - Crockspot 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• That's an insanely creepy idea (nothing personal). We don't need some sort of new official mechanism in place; if an account (not an IP) has an obvious history of vandalism, but has never quite managed to make that final edit to get them blocked, the admins should just strap on a pair and shuffle them off. Vandals attempting to game the system are even worse than bored schoolkids. If it's an IP that has a history of vandalism and it looks like they're at a new cycle of vandalism, just issue a quick six-hour block and be done with it (short and sweet to minimize collateral damage, but long enough to make the vandal lose interest). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the ability to give a 30 minute block by an editor who has shown past good judgment in making reports to AIV, to stop further vandalism while the AIV backlog is being worked through, would not necessarily be a bad thing. There would have to be strict penalties for abusing this trust as well. But again, this might not even be doable in the current software environment. - Crockspot 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ADD - Even a ten minute block would be useful for vandal patrol (and not very useful for abusive purposes). But there may not be the mechanism for discerning levels of block permissions in the software. It's probably an all or none thing. - Crockspot 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• EVula, I can understand your concerns, but (and again, this is nothing personal ^^) you've had a mop for almost a year, I'm not sure you quite know/remember how frustrating it is to have to wait for an admin to get to AIV and constantly revert an IP every few minutes until someone answers it. you also seem to be misunderstanding the point-- it isn't an Alternative to administrator intervention, it is an additional measure to protect the encyclopedia. Again, this would only be to stop IPs until an administrator had a chance to look it over, and anyone abusing it or repeatedly using it mistakenly would have it taken away, or be banned themselves--lucid 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm willing to agree that I'm a bit out-of-touch with AIV from an editor's perspective. However, I still don't think that creating a "mini-sysop" permission level is the best idea (or, for that matter, even possible). Getting admins to more reliably patrol AIV is a better (and easier to implement) alternative (one that I'm woefully guilty of falling short on as well). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Backlogs would be a good idea-- have easy to read graphs (including using various shades of backgrounds for the numbers, like that RFA bot, to show if something is in backlog or clear), sorted by important (AIV > 3RR > UAA > RFPP, something like that) and such, and divided into backlogs that editors can help with, and backlogs that admins can help with. It could all be handled fairly simply by one or two well programmed bots. Just go to a single page, and get a quick glance over of what needs doing-- everything from WP:ACC to WP:AFC to CAT:CSD, and so on --lucid 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• It varies from admin to admin, from what I can tell. I've indefinitely blocked accounts with two edits that were painfully obvious vandalism, and short-blocked IPs after a single edit without warning (again, for painfully obvious, no good-faith assumption type vandalism). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

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

-WarthogDemon 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

2 Million Mark

Hello Jimbo, as you can see from here we are edging closer and closer to the 2 Million mark with articles. What should we do about it? Should we hold a competition for the person who creates the 2 Millionth article? HarrisonB Speak! 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this calls for a lengthy discussion of a commemoration ceremony and a plaque but no actual getting out of chairs. ←Ben^B4 03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality should be our focus now, rather than quantity. --Deskana (talky) 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Deskana in this situation. Wikipedia is already one of the largest and farthest reaching single sources of human knowledge on any subject one could imagine, and to worry now about encouraging people to make more articles instead of improving what we have got is... you know what, I don't have the heart to write a big long rant here. At least I got to the joke before anyone else --lucid 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Deskana here. It should be more about quality than quantity now, and 2 million is a less remarkable milestone than 1 million.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

plaque misuses non-free image Image:Wikipedia-logo.png and should be removed -85.210.32.112 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article creation level is high, we might not know who actually does create the 2,000,000 article. And then we'd have a vicious fight over who actually did. But if things were simple, it would be nice, yes. Lradrama 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What if the 2 millionth article got deleted though? Then what would happen? ACBest 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We came extremely close to deleting the 1,000,000th article. The 999,999th article was One million articles - see Talk:Jordanhill railway station/Archive 1#Thank god. Hut 8.5 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely that we will know the two millionth edit, because of the very high risk of it being deleted as vandalism or reverted. And nor should we. Wikipedia is a project to build a meaningful reference database; it is not an ego trip for editors to hit a magic number. There will almost certainly be a number of two-millionth edits, and none should be publicised. Unless it is from Jimbo, because he deserves the credit. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the two millionth edit, it's the two millionth article. What do you mean by saying that only Jimbo's two millionth edit should be publicised? A.Z. 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant if Jimbo created the article. I can't see Jimbo reaching 2,000,000 edits very soon can you? Isn't the poor bloke busy enough? ;-) Lradrama 09:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WR (*cough*) is plotting to create the 2000000. --Isis4563 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So I suspect are rather a lot of other people.Geni 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure, but if WR got the 2000000th, they would make it something bad. Something anti-Wikipedia. --Isis4563 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fun with numbers: Wikipedia has well over 160 million edits total (see m:List of Wikipedias#1 000 000+ articles). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why does your userpage get vandalized so much?--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He's the founder of Wikipedia, and a lot of crazy asses hate him for it. Primitive men solving everything with destruction. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Founder" of Wikipedia is actually disputed. --Tom 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

O_o why would someone vandalize a person's userpage who could block you in a second?--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

IT'S A MADHOUSE!!!! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea i get that, some people are just crazy--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism isn't rare. Many Wikipedians' userpages get vandalised a real lot, specially if they are admins or vandal patrollers. Mine's been vandalised 23 times :-( . But being a famous guy around here, people think it's funny to have a mess around with his page. Lradrama 09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, mine's been vandalized about eighty times (I just eventually stopped updating the counter). The more you work at improving the encyclopedia, the more conflict you come into with people who don't improve it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people feel thier need to express thier anger at Wikipedia and how it works (or dosen't work) by vandalizing. Of course, he could always have his userpage protected but I guess he dosen't mind. 71.112.225.88 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Traffic. LessHeard vanU 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy Blanking

I'm having a discussion with another user on the precedent you established of courtesy blanking arbitrations to prevent Google from turning them up. In our case, the user in question was suspended in part for overzealously blanking pages, making this somewhat ironic at the very least. I'd appreciate any insights you had into when it is appropriate to cover up the results of someone's arbitration. Jfwambaugh 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo

Hi Jimbo, how are you?

I need speak with you by instant mensage, about rules and status of some wikipédias.

Speak in german.

Hallo Jimbo, wie geht es Ihnen?

Ich muß mit dir durch sofortiges mensage, über Richtlinien und Status einiger wikipédias sprechen.

My msn is trapmastertheemperor@hotmail.de. Add, I don't use IRC.

Trap Master The Emperor 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Haven't you let Google buy Wikipedia yet?

Just curious, usually Google buys stuff that has severely changed the internet (like Youtube) 68.195.123.26 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's greatest asset is the community that creates it. The encyclopedia itself is just an array of data that fits on a disk. How do you sell a community? - Crockspot 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you buy something which cannot be sold? Raul654 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Everything has a price. 68.195.123.26 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)\
      • And anything can be sold. 68.195.123.26 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not the data itself. It is freely licensed. Can't be sold. But if someone wants to cut us all checks or some stock options for our mad editing skilz, I'm all ears. - Crockspot 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL ^Ariel♥Gold 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You remind me of that person the other day who asked how much for adminship saying 'Everything has a price' ACBest 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL ACBest. This is most interesting. --Reviewisat(Talk) 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to buy it, all money to me, not Jimbo!! ACBest 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You wish :D 84.250.110.93 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Over at WikipediaReview - a website inhabited primarily by users who have been banned from Wikipedia for mishebavhior - they were discussing just that, ACBest. The consensus seemed to be that the most abusive admins (from their perspective) who are immune to the rules (again, according to them) could make HUGE money from selling their accounts. Raul654 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, people think they can sell anything now ACBest 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My old World of Warcraft account is worth about £200 (which is like $400). Stupid, really. --Deskana (talky) 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for an online account...how crazy are some people. --Reviewisat(Talk) 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people get conned though - they sell the account, give a fake password, sell again. Its like selling homing pigeons :P ACBest 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fraud and you could be sued for that. (did I get the words fraud & sued right?) 84.250.110.93 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In Brazil a group of people kidnapped a guy to get his password and sell his GunBound account. A.Z. 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, though (not like it'd ever happen)...how does one go about buying a nonprofit organization? I mean, Jimbo doesn't own the project, the WM Foundation does. So who/what would the money go to? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The money would go to me! MUHAHA! I dont actually know who it would go to... tough question... ACBest 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The foundation, I assume, but what's the point of the foundation getting tons of money to spend on the wikis if its sold them all? This discussion is totally pointless, by the way, I don't see why we're continuing with it, especially on Jimbo's talk page. --Deskana (talky) 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• When you buy a business (singly owned, or partnership), you agree to purchase the outstanding assets and liabilities of that company. When you "buy" a corporation, what you are actually doing is purchasing 51% of the voting stock (Class A stock, usually. Note that for a company like Warren Buffet's Berskhire Hathoway, one share of class A stock costs around $100,000). A non-profit can sell its assets (the servers, the Foundation trademarks like the name "Wikipedia" and logos). So I suppose if the Foundation went bankrupt, you could buy the assets, but that's it. Buying the assets doesn't get you on the Foundation's board of trustees, which (in a legal sense) is how you take over the Foundation. Raul654 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What you're thinking:

1. Google gives Jimbo a bunch of money.
2. Jimbo escapes to mootxico and lives like a God-King
3. Google takes over Wikipedia, puts google ads on the sides and tops of articles, all goes on as normal. Everybody Wins.

What would actually happen:

1. Google takes over the Wikimedia foundation
2. Huge dramafest over Wikipedia
3. Community splits, someone imports the entire Wikipedia database offsite, mentions the GFDL, and someone starts a new site. The new site gets most of the community, Wikipedia gets most of the popularity (read:vandals)
4. Nobody wins.

--lucid 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would gladly take the money if Jimbo didn't want it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Get on with it, Jimbo will never let us down by selling it to a search machine. Now could we please stop wasting space of our precious encyclopedia :-P ? 84.250.110.93 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, get on with it! :-) =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? Lee Nysted still wants his name, and any likeness of him, deleted...permanently.

For some strange reason(s) User:Yamla, and others here, persist on recreating Lee Nysted's user and talk pages.

Here is the original link that allowed Mr. Nysted to be free of Wikipedia, as to his real name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_24#Lee_Nysted_requests_that_his_user_page_and_talk_page_be_deleted_per_policy_and_guidelines

I do not think Mr. Nysted has requested that he be re-instated as a user of Wikipedia. Please respect his initial request and delete his user and talk pages. Thank you. FP. 9-4-07 Courtesy Copy: LN 9-4-07 OneDayToDay 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like Mr. Nysted has reinstated himself by continuing to edit, in spite of his ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just with that account, either. There have been a substantial number of accounts editing for Mr. Nysted. --Yamla 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Mr. Nysted is quite comfortabe in Aruba. He has made it abundantly clear that he wants his own name not to be used as a user or talk page, here at Wikipedia. Please do not draw any conclusions about Mr. Nysted's activites because of the actions of fans or, as you say, the activity of "a substantial number of accounts." Wikipedia policy and guidelines are being ignored in this case and it is hardly worth any more time than it takes to simply do what is right. Thank you for your time, FP. OneDayToDay 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that Mr. Nysted's "fans" all have similar writing styles and use open proxies. Likewise, your first contributions were postings to your own talk and user pages that contained the same sort of Hallmark-card sentiments that Mr. Nysted normally posts to his sockpuppets' user and talk pages when he creates them. A curious set of coincidences wouldn't you say? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• It must be difficult editing and playing police detective on Wikipedia while "practicing law" in Chicago, Mr.O.

What would you do if Mr. Nysted ever becomes notable enough or emo enough for Wikipedia? Either way, I think Wikipedia editors that want Mr. Nysted to have a user page will help add to his Google hits. The innuendos and accusations are not seemly and certainly look somewhat slanted and not in good faith. OneDayToDay 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If Mr. Nysted ever meets the notability criteria, it would be entirely appropriate for someone to create an article on him. This would not automatically lift the ban on Mr. Nysted editing Wikipedia, of course. That can be appealed by going to WP:ARBCOM who, if I remember correctly (and I may not) imposed the original ban. --Yamla 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good, that is settled. Now, please delete Mr. Nysted's user page and his talk page per his request in May 2007. (See above link found in Jimbo's archive.) The ban is not an issue here, today. I am quite confident, Mr. Nysted will never want to edit here while using his real name. Thank you. OneDayToDay 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  If you read that link, you'll find that the admin who deleted your pages said, "The deleted pages of course remain accessible to administrators and can always be reinstated if there is any inappropriate activity in the future." "Inappropriate activity" would include continuing to use sock/meatpuppets to evade your ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? So you assume that I am Lee Nysted and everyone that ever edits anything about Lee Nysted will be seen as a sockpuppet or meat puppet of Lee Nysted? Velly intellestink. Wikipedia policy and guidelines / MySpace version? I am truly amazed at the potential scope such an inquiry could take and the lengths to which you and your cabal have gone to assure your ranks that the likes of someone like Lee Nysted will never gain a foothold in this hollow, sorry, hallowed place. Surely someone here will see that your tone and motives are suspect and certainly not up to the standards that have been established here. Thank you for your time. I pray Lee Nysted or his fans will read this and respond to this at some point in the future. OneDayToDay 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal, and the fact that you know that term and how it applies belies more knowledge about Wikipedia's goings-on than an ordinary new user should. I am a complete novice to this conversation, yet I do quite understand why they believe that you have more than a passing relationship with Mr. Nysted. How do you know that he wants his pages deleted while still needing to "pray [he] or his fans will read this"? The fact that you don't have the ability to communicate this to him means that you have no ability to speak for his wishes. Wikipedia assumes good faith; but remember, our ultimate goal isn't to assume good faith until we've sold the farm, it's to assume good faith until we've created the largest compendium of human knowledge ever. I'm sure that the other users in question would agree with me. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the original link that allowed Mr. Nysted to be free of Wikipedia, as to his real name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_24#Lee_Nysted_requests_that_his_user_page_and_talk_page_be_deleted_per_policy_and_guidelines You can block the name, but not the voice. The letter speaks for itself and it is quite clear. FP. Cc: LN 221.18.4.186 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Who is he? ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We blanked Lee Nysted's user and talk page by request and on the grounds that the violations of WP:SOCK would end. These violations have recently resumed and so the pages were unblanked. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, the abuses are continuing. --Yamla 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

as long as lee nysted is news you will have news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.83.74 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Persian Wikipedia

Mr. Wales we have a quite situation in Persian Wikipedia regarding to the issue of censorship. I wanted to see if in brief I could explain what is going on and if you would give your opinion.

Many Thanks --Kaaveh 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally something diffirent

Finally some fun news, I was following recent changes and found 4 vandalism cases. I calculated from that onre hour how long would destroying wikipedia take and here it is it would take with that rate take 479500 hours to destroy wikipedia completely :P heh-he and I do remember that the current rate is low but I'll keep doing this for some time :) ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Four vandal edits in an hour? Are you blindfolded? From my own experience, there are at least ten vandalisms a minute, if not many times more than that. - Crockspot 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes; you have to keep in mind that the RC page updates so fast, it's completely replaced in less than a second most times of day. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I chased a half-dozen vandal IPs around one article for half an hour the other day; they were making that many bad edits in a minute or so... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a more accurate view, go to this IRC channel, and keep a log of every change made in an hour. Then filter through them to see what's : Good edits, good faith but bad edits, reverts, vandalism, and so on, and then do your statistics --lucid 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure if the IRCs would work for my computer (quite old) But still, even with a rate of 1000 per hour =>2000 hours= 83,4 days wich is a few months or 600 per hour ten a minute 138 days or four months. Or just for the sake of it 100 a minute 13 days, if my math isn't rusty! :P The thing I don't understand is why do the vandals bother? There's uncyclopedia but nooo they have to come to wikipedia, let's start promoting uncyclopedia for vandals, hello your recent edits to never never land are considered vandalism and will result in a block you might consider moving to uncyclopedia if you wish to continue writing nonsence. :P ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Even Uncyclopedia has standards. Mr.Z-man 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignorable, that's what it says and is. Still if you want to ruin stuff do it there not where it's supposed to be reliable. ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo I need help banning this user

Can i try to ban this user, she has vandalized Rouge the bat and my userpage on Sonic News Network. Users blocked her many times, so I am about to leave a permanent ban on this user, I need help banning this user. --71.176.13.196 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss this on Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. Also consider creating an account. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And who is she, you can't ban if you're not an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace keeper II (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, an admin cannot ban a user either, though they can block one. It is different - see WP:BAN. Only the ArbCom, or Jimbo, or the community by consensus after procedure such as Dispute Resolution, or the Wikipedia Foundation can ban a user. Also, if you want action to be taken against a user, it helps if you tell us which one it is! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Citizendum - Need a laugh?

On the very day that The Times published an article expounding the virtues of Citizendum over Wikipedia - telling the great British public how reliable their known editors were, it seems they have already a problem. One of "ours" currently named in an arbcom case proved beyond doubt his RL identity to User: Alison in order to prevent a ban for sockpuppetry. However another "true identity" of the same person has now turned up on Citizendum with yet another name (complete with explanations of how difficult it is to pronounce) and inferences that it is on his passport. Too many links to give but there is a flavour of it leading from here [8]. I just hope he has taken his POV with him. Giano 18:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jon Burgstone article

I have read the my criticism of the article about Jon Burgstone and found several external, independent references. It appears at least as well sourced as many articles on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angielark (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

The user Bessemer Venture Partners below appears blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angielark (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, what do you think about my criticism of the article about Jon Burgstone? It seems pretty obvious that he or one of his co-workers has puffed up this article to undue proportions for an encyclopedia. --Bessemer Venture Partners 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

User:Tony1 is a professional copy editor who does such great work on featured article candidates that his advice is essentially required reading for FAC nominators. Tony has put together a proposal for adding gender-neutral language to the Manual of Style. His proposal is very mild, it does not require anything of editors, stating only, "Please consider the use of gender-neutral language where this can be achieved in reasonably tidy wording and without loss of precision."

There are very good reasons for using gender-neutral language beyond the fact that the vast majority of newspapers, newswires, and non-fiction publishers already make it their practice. Using the word "man" to refer to a person of either gender evokes images of males only in the minds of both sexes, "filtering out recognition of women's participation in ... major areas of life." (Schneider, J.W., and Hacker, S.L. (1973) "Sex role imagery and use of the generic 'man' in introductory texts" American Sociologist 8, pp. 12-18; a study confirmed e.g. here)

This issue is being discussed at WT:MOS#Proposal for guidelines on gender-neutral language. Sadly, it looks like there will be no consensus for inclusion or excluson of Tony's recommendations. This seems to me like the kind of issue where it would be appropriate for you to step in. If you disagree, I apologize, but I hope you agree and will ask that the recommendations be included in the Manual of Style. Thank you. ←Ben^B4 07:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the sentence you have outlined above. I generally keep my own writing completely gender neutral, though I fail on rare occasions. I think the best approach to gender neutrality is a mild and evolutionary approach rather than awkward new constructions, and I also think that the awkward constructions are not necessary. Of course my writing may give hives to people who can't tolerate the singular "they".  :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can stop things like this?

[9] There are three of these on this site (alone)slamming wiki editors by name. This is also being spread on the net, and yes I am now one of the ones being unmercifully attacked. Is there anything you or the association can do to stop it? Thanks for your time. Please feel free to email me if that is your preference. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it Crohnie. She thinks (according to her leaked email, she was told by I'clast) that I'm [10]. So if she gets this one wrong, I'm not surprised that she gets everything else wrong. Besides, millions of people read Wikipedia. Maybe a dozen review her hate-site. From reviewing her hate-site, and looking at who she thinks is who, she hasn't a very good strike rate. Just chill out and let the hate-mongers stick to their own shillpages and USENET. At least Wikipedia has rules to stop it going down this path. Shot info 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Milestone Acheivement Press Packet

I am looking for some quotes for a press packet I am preparing about the 2 million article milestone. It would be nice if you provided some via talk page or something else. Thanks, Laleena 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.63.254 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion you may want to know about...

[11] Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

CONFERENCE IN MALLORCA, SPAIN

Dear Mr. Wales,

We would like to invite you to give a conference/speech about free software, open source, and linux in general, in our hometown, Palma, in Mallorca, Spain. We are an association called InfoCoop, which belongs to the UCTAIB, focusing on developing our work within a cooperative effort, especially in education, which started two years back, as a support group for computer science teachers, and which later developed into organizing related events. Last year we invited Xavi de Blas, a university teacher from Barcelona who shoud be coming back to do his linux show later this year, last May we had Richard Stallman talking about GNU/linux, and in October, we will have a journalist, Vicent Partal who is running an online newspaper all based on free/open source software from Barcelona. Now we are trying to organize and book some more lectures, and we would be very interested in having you over here, and listen to what you have to say. The lecture would be open, and we usually count on the cooperation from club Diario de Mallorca, a local newspaper's venue which fits over 200 people. There is also further press coverage, including television, since we keep it open to everyone and invite and send information to all major organizations in the area. Obviously we we would cover travel, food and board, and your own fees. I hope we can meet soon in Mallorca, and attend your lecture, of course. Please let us know about your agenda, availability of dates for 2007-2008-2009, whenever it is more convenient for you (except July, August, everything seems to stop for the summer, over here) and costs.

Thanks for your time, hoping to hear from you soon,

Llorenç Mercer

ll.mercer@gmail.com

(empty comment so this can be archived) Fram 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone Know?

Anyone know when the 2millionth article ws created , and what it was? ACBestDog and Bone 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

El Hormiguero. ←Ben^B4 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimbo Wales' talk page, not a general enquiry board. Try the help desk or something. --Deskana (talky) 11:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where people are getting the notion that El Hormiguero is the 2 millionth article.. it was created in february. Cowman109^Talk 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was created, deleted, and then recreated. Alikvar 'helpful' decided to undelete them. And because I'm getting really tired of saying this over and over again, I'll be wiping those deleted edits right after I click save. Raul654 22:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know when the press release will be available? --Ixfd64 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A well-deserved award

For being cool at all times, I hereby award Jimbo Wales with the “Cool Award After all, what is cooler than making an encyclopedia with 2 million articles?” Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This site

This is a good site! 72.84.245.38 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, it is.  :-) =David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the ninth most popular site on the net, so yes, it ought to be rather good. Hut 8.5 09:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then isn't it obvious? :) --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 09:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a great site. It's an even better user-powered Encylopedia! Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. This website is not great at all. See the Wikipedia Review for more info. 81.132.78.69 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfft... those lot on Wikipedia review are mostly banned people ACBest 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone there is banned from here, SqueakBox 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Best did specify "mostly". There are a few thoughtful people there, but mostly they can be made to dance like trained cats with the slightest tug of a string. - Crockspot 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Review people share patience, experience, and wisdom. These things require time spent on earth. Musicgarden 04:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the weirdest thread ever.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at this. A.Z. 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is second place. --Isis4563 13:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes let's make the longest thread in the pedia. What's wrong with the site you IP? ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many things wrong with this website that I cannot mention here without breaking umpteen "guidelines" and so on, but the most important problem is that the concept is flawed. Wikipedia essentially aims to use the wisdom of crowds to produce an accurate encyclopedia, but for a myriad of reasons (analagous to market failure in economics) the concept won't work in an encyclopedic setting. I'm quite confident that the wiki search engine will work though, so long as Jimbo is able to persuade people to contribute. That's not to say that nothing is right about this website, of course. 81.158.96.234 13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing's wrong with the site. Unless you're in the Wikipedia Review mindset. Then Wikipedia seems like hell in Cyberspace. But of course it isn't. --Isis4563 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it basically is, in my experience.--P4k 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to belive how such a trivial discussion has grown so big ;-) . But then again, I have just added to it now, which is rather ironic, but I also have to agree with you too. This is a good site. Just don't get addicted to it. ;-) Lradrama 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't a good site. It's a great site! --Isis4563 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

2,000,000th Article!

Horay!

Wooo-hooo!

Great work everyone!Our edits ahave sontributed to reachiung a Wikipedi with 2,000,000 articles. It's been a pleasure working with you. A good effort all round, and a Party at my Place! Dfrg.msc 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

After the party.

Aye aye cheese pie - a very fine achievement indeed! Well done everyone! I'll come to you party haha. Do we know who created this article? Lradrama 08:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture at top left of this section - I want my hat back, yes, the same one i had before!! Congrats! ACBestDog and Bone 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pity i didn't create an original article or i would have patted my back .

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% would be my contrubited amount . Richardson j 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a glass of wine for you, Mr. Wales, for creating an encyclopædia that can get to not only 1 million articles, but 2. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that 2 million articles is anything to celebrate, especially givent the recent BLP controversies. Are we really going for 3 million articles? perhaps sacrificing quality for quantity, or will we address the issues of what is and what isnt appropriate to cover as an encyclopedia more fully over the next couple of years? There is an admin advice that says "if in doubt don't delete" which I wouild have thought should be changed to "if in doubt delete" and measuring our success on the number of articles we have is a sticky and dangerous road, IMHO, SqueakBox 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you sound like you're a member of WR...are you? --Isis4563 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in principle, that we should strive for quality over quantity. But I still say that two million is a great milestone, and the party is well-deserved! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isis and David. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am a member of WR though I would point out that there are many here who agree with me who are not members of WR and who even hate the place, and if there is a trend I have noticed its that the more experienced one becopmes as an editor the more aware one is of these issues. But, hey, I dont wish to be a party-pooper so am going to toast wikipedia with a slug of Caribbean rum, and really am just initating some serious party conversation, SqueakBox 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ 

People who hate the United States of America are welcome to find refuge in other countries; likewise, people who hate Wikipedia are more than welcome to leave, and I would invite them to do so the moment they shared their feelings with me. But this is not a thread for arguing over peoples' feelings about a good project (it can be taken elsewhere). Here's to 3 million. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I do like wikipedia and its precisely because I want a good project that I ahve made my comments. 3 million articles is just plain silly and we clearly need editors and admins who nop better and who dont see us as "we can do what we like and out who we like" project. People who pursue the endlessly more articles approach are not people who love wikipedia, I am certain of that, and your claim to the high ground, Springer, is both tragic and silly, as is you r toast to 3 million articles, SqueakBox 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page as I don't want to argue here. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for our fair Wiki! I gotta tell you, the guy who wrote that article is gonna get a helluva lot of barnstars! And for the occaision, how about an airshow? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that is such an awesome plane. -drools- —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 04:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)