User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

De-sysop of Trusilver

Arbcom has now voted to desysop User:Trusilver. This highlights the need for reform and overhaul. They agreed that the wording regarding the enforcement was wanting and decided to clarify that as well. Unfortunately this shows why Argumentum ad populum are generally no-no's, we have Arbcom noting that there is a problem with the block and the process yet they then decide to string him up as a example anyways. How does that make any sense? There's a problem with the block, there is a problem with the blocking administrator who did the blocking. There was a lack of clarity in how the AE was being set up, Trusilver was forthcoming with a reasonable defense that addressed the problem. My point is that they took 5+5 and came up with negative 2. Consider the statement by a arbcom member, User:Steve Smith, where he claims Trusilver was too principled to have the mop. In effect they are saying you have to be corrupt and malleable to be admin here, hence the repeated posting to your pages by multiple good faith editors to help clean that type of attitude out. That type of attitude has no place in a environment like ours! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Too principled" is a polite was of saying "too stubborn", IMO. It was simply not an admin's place to invoke IAR and overturn an arbcom-sanctioned block, and the refusal to reconsider once this was pointed out led to the desysop. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote specifically commending him and condemning him? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is admirable (really): refusing to adhere to the rules when they go against one's conscience is noble and commendable. My vote at this point is not punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit. Steve Smith (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TO make sure there is no confusioin the above was posted at Arbcom and the bluelink in the title links to the specific diffs.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve: Your remarks simply amplify H in B's concern over conflict between good sense and arbitration. In any event, the interpretation of this case as a disciplinary action to enforce "order" was a miscall. There was no need to make this a disciplinary action at all: it was a matter for interpretation of a murky sanction further obscured by Tznkai. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh FFS are you guys ever going to learn? Every single time anything related to Brews comes up for discussion it's right back to refighting the arbitration case. What happened in my opinion was that you caused ArbCom to believe that this was an action taken in furtherance of a campaign to subvert the findings and outcomes of the case, which it wasn't, with the result that Trusilver got desysopped for a defensible call given the ambiguities of the situation. Your posturing and bluster obscured that to the point that most of the arbs didn't see it for what it was. You are so lacking in political astuteness that it hurts to watch! Please just drop the bloody stick and leave it for the dust to settle, the chances of your causing anything other than your own banning for being a monstrous pain in the arse are rapidly diminishing. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If vague threats are all you can muster, I strongly suggest you yourself to drop the bloody stick. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT describes your behaviour perfectly. Goodbye. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you going somewhere? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, Something will have to be done about these people like Guy(JzG) who hang about noticeboards poking their nose into matters that don't concern them. Hell in a Bucket came to your talk page to seek your views on a matter of importance. He has drawn attention to the fact that an administrator has been desysoped by ARBCOM and that arbitrator Steve Smith has stated that the administrator in question is too principled to be an administrator. Something is seriously wrong when an arbitrator can make a satement like that. It tends to suggest that it is necessary that somebody should be somewhat corrupt in order to make an effective administrator. Do you agree with Steve Smith's statement?

Anyway, no sooner has Hell in a Bucket brought this important matter to your attention in good faith when the likes of Tarc and Guy(JzG) turn up and try to tamper with the evidence. Tarc gives us a new meaning to the word 'principled'. He tells us that 'principled' means 'stubborn'. Well that's the first time that I have ever heard that, and I'm a native English speaker. Guy(JzG) then tries to make out that ARBCOM made a wrong decision only because of the likes of myself having obscured the facts by speaking up in defence of the victim. Guy is one of these people who tries to pull the wool over our eyes and have us all believe that speaking up in defence of someone actually does them harm, whereas the harm is never done by those who do the blocking, or by those who bear the false witness. Guy uses that line of sophism in an attempt to eliminate benevolent witnesses from the picture. It's true that when corruption is abounding that benevolent witnesses have no beneficial effect. But let's end all this sophism about benevolent witnesses being the actual cause of the problem. David Tombe (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"poking their nose into matters that don't concern them", "the likes of Tarc and Guy(JzG) turn up and try to tamper with the evidence", "those who bear the false witness", "Guy uses that line of sophism in an attempt to eliminate benevolent witnesses from the picture", "corruption is abounding"... What happened with wp:NPA and wp:AGF? DVdm (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

David, Pot, Kettle, Black. I.e. surely something needs to be done about people like yourself repeatedly raising a matter that has nothing to do with you, in an inappropriate manner in a completely inappropriate location? Of course you will ignore this like you ignore everything that doesn't correspond to your special view of how WP should be run. How this doesn't violate your ban I don't know.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

David, you have mounted one of the most spectacularly counter-productive campaigns I've ever seen outside the area of link spamming - just as I predicted. Look at my talk page right now if you don't believe me. And if it's not obvious to you why I watch the admin noticeboards and Jimbo's talk page then there's not much I can do to help you, just as there's apparently not much I can do to help you understand why your constant agitation is having the precise opposite of the desired effect. The advice I gave you was and remains sound, you are of course free to continue to ignore it, and in the process you are more than likely to earn a topic ban because I'm provably not the only one who thinks you're actively making things worse. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bloody hell! Hell in a Bucket, David Tombe and Brews ohare: your lives must really be shallow if you spend time bitching about Wikipedia. Go forth and find a new hobby - flower arranging or something.... Jeez! Where is that rolling eyes emoticon when you need it? Jon 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about recent events related to discussion here

I recently brought up a matter of concern here, you supported discussion and participated in it at AN/I. It gained little to no interest, one subject engaged in some reflection and the topic is now really just waiting for auto-archival.

However - my bringing the subject up has led to a pronounced move to ban me specifically for discussing the topic. Now, after adding this edit[1] which was immediately deleted, not one, but two[2][3] editors opposing the concept have gone to AN/I to demand my immediate banning. I don't think banning is the appropriate method to settle content disputes, and I also like to think that somewhere in the attempt an actual violation of something could be stated and a supporting reference of a diff presented. As it stands now, I am[4] to be banned for a discussion you supported and participated in.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you log in?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Up until the last few years I never felt the need, now that IP editing has become let's say somewhat less common as community attitudes shift, I've considered it. At this point the fear of being tarred, feathered and branded the moment I log in keeps me away from it. Originally I never did it because I was on multiple computers over the course of the day and often in different countries, in that environment no logon was desirable. That hasn't been an issue for awhile now.99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You open yourself up to a useless vector of attack, the claim that you're sockpuppeting or being dishonest. If you aren't, then a login provides you with the means to establish an identity. Nevertheless, rest assured, you can't be banned from Wikipedia without a ruling of ArbCom or a universal unwillingness of anyone to unblock you - once you have a login. As an IP, people (including me) are much less likely to intervene to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the policy regarding an IP opening an account? Does life here begin then? Or must I dig up and claim what may well be my over 25,000 edits since summer 2001?99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit count is not important, nor an argument in any discussion. As a vandalism patrol i get tons of edits, but each edit only helps Wikipedia a little bit. On comparison User:Storye book was completely new when i came across an article he wrote, and his first article was absolutely stunning. Even now his edit count is not even a tenth of mine, but he isn't any less an editor then i am, not now and not on his first edit. I might actually argue that his added value is worth more then the retaining value my vandalism patrol brings in.

As for an account: All that matters is behavior and conduct. Using an account allows other people to identity you, which will eventually be beneficial. For one you will not be accused of sock-puppetry as easily if you switch IP's dynamically, and if your conduct is good people might even cut you a bit more slack when engaged in a heated discussion. One note though: If you have an account you should not combine it with IP editing on the same page, or to evade scrutiny on your account. And remember, Don't give the impression of sockpuppeting and be reasonable when debating. As said before, your edits are a bit aggressive and non constructive at times - in my humble opinion that is! :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) As an uninvolved editor who happened to come across this edit while working on vandalism patrol, i think i might be able offer some more or less unbiased input here.

As for the IP user, i can honestly say that i deem your debating style a little offensive, if not disruptive. Comments such as "I will endeavor to speed the decline of anti-intellectual Wikipedia by contributing (and not resisting) to the rot at the core. This will be easy to game simply by bending with the prevailing wind and pushing hard with the wind while leaving behind piles of crap quietly weaved into every facet I can touch. :) Hello brothers, I'm home. " are absolutely not constructive towards ANY decision making proces. Similary, accusations of canvassing and harrasment will not create a pleasant editing sphere for either party.

Furthermore, i deem your IP allocation scheme really odd. Every IP you used is owned by AT&T, and even in the same netblock. Dynamic IP's are most likely to be refreshed after the end of a session or after a given amount of time. You had [99.151.166.95] for 3 days, but after it was banned you suddenly moved to 99.151.166.95. After that one was banned as well, you appeared as 99.144.192.74. Seeing these are all in the same netblock, and seeing the IP changes right after a block this reeks of intentional block evasion / sockpupperty. Therefor, im not surprised that people immediately run to ANI once you returned and resumed.

As a closing comment, i would advice you to analyze your own editing behavior. If multiple people report you, and three different admins banned you, there is quite a high chance that the problem might at least partially originate with yourself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your criticism is sound, there is nothing in that edit but frustration expressed poorly and "pointy". Not a moment I'm at all proud of. Again, at this point my only concern is whether selective scarlet letter's as above will be sewn to my chest should I create an account.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is more whether you have any intention of editing beyond your apparent vendetta against a couple of people. If not, you are not welcome (the block evasion, incidentally, is also something you will need to ensure you never do again). If you would like to edit and can do so without continuing your vendetta then fair enough, but don't expect us to stand by and let you engage in precisely the sort of behaviour you allege against others, which is effectively what's been happening thus far. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In part, letters might be sown. Just search trough my history, and you will undoubtedly find questionable edits as well, which sound even worse out of context. Yet at the same time i can point to an even larger set of edits that are of good quality. At the same time there are quite a few editors that only work on fringe topics with a lot of heated debate, and still they manage to be respected editors. Sure, It is always possible you meet resistance, but you should keep in mind you cannot win every battle, even if you are certain you are right.

Even so, all that matters are good intentions. Show that you want to edit constructively, and people will accept and forgive quite a bit. I think the main problem here is that the discussion soured, words were said and bans were issued. If i may again offer my humble advice: Always keep cool when editing, as hard as it sometimes is (There are a few examples in my edit history where i didn't). It really, REALLY helps in heated or controversial discussions, and remember, sometimes things will not turn out as you want. Second, remember the basic policies, such as not editing while banned. As Jimbo already pointed out, this screams bad faith and most users will not accept it lightly. As for an account: Some users prefer IP, some accounts. Both have their advantages, and both have their drawbacks. Even so, i have seen both accounts and IP's that were as valuable editors. (Only drawback for me: IP's are really hard to track\contact as they have different user pages all the time :) ). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Can I respectfully ask you to review this decision [[5]]? It seems to have been make rather hastily (less than 48 hours after discussion was opened) and does not reflect the consensus of the discussion. It also seems to fly in the face of providing free access to all human knowledge, which I greatly support. How does one appeal such a decision? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother - this is a matter for community consensus, not for Jimbo. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since community consensus is not being observed here, what is the process to appeal? (I still think Jimbo might be interested in this, though). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty strong consensus. But, as was said, this isn't really a matter for me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow - thanks for answering. I've asked several places where to find out about appealing, since the majority of comments were "oppose" and yet the decision went the other way (13 oppose, 8 support - yet support called the consensus?). So where does one appeal?Smatprt (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Jimbo himself: Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. It is not a "vote count", see WP:Consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. But since no partnership was formed and nothing resolved between the "supports" and "opposes", no consensus was even attempted. Several suggestions were made, but the reviewer didn't respond to any of them. I should have been more clear about that. So where does one appeal this? Just answer me that and I'll go there. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Start with User:Peter cohen who "closed" the discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. For what it is worth, I misread the close. What I meant is that there seems to be a consensus against undertaking a merge. I see that the close says the opposite, perhaps Peter just mistyped? It happens. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was myself who made the close in the interests of moving the process forward. The resolution is to start sandboxing an article to replace the current one with an eye toward Wikipedia guidelines and policies especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSTS. It is requested that those upset with this close work constructively in the sandbox to try to develop the best article possible. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. You closed it opposite of community consensus (13 oppose, 8 support, with what look to be sensible comments in either direction) in order to "move things forward"? Shouldn't the resolution be in the other direction? And those who aren't happy with the existing community consensus to work to sandbox something that will answer the objections?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your last question is supposed to mean, but there is evidence of meatpuppetry action in the enumeration. I take Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not a majority vote seriously. The quality of the argumentation seemed to me to be very lopsided toward the "mergists" in the discussion. It seems clear to me that the arguments being made by those requesting a merge or a partial merge were more tied to reliable sources and legitimate content objections. The other side seemed to be appealing to vague notions of fair play and censorship that are not really germane to this discussion. In any case, I'm hoping that everyone will be involved in sandboxing a solution. If this fails, then it fails, but after wasting megabytes of text on this conflict we absolutely must move forward. The status quo is going to lead us to an arbitration. It is my opinion that this may be a way to forestall that seeming inevitability. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my concern precisely. I'm hoping ScienceApologist will re-factor his remarks accordingly. Smatprt (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify, but I would like you to collaborate rather than forum shop, Smatprt. For example, I would like to see you find some independent secondary sources that outline what the most important Shakespearean authorship ideas are. That would be incredibly useful to Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping? Can you please explain? Are you referring to the report that I filed on Tom Reedy for numerous incivility issues? For some reason you are trying very very hard to have that report deleted. I just don't understand why you and Peter are throwing all these allegations around and also interfering with an RFC/u. Based on these actions, you two have become involved editors representing one side of this debate. Don't you see that you are feeding the flames? Why don't you just follow Jimbo's suggestion above: "Shouldn't the resolution be in the other direction? And those who aren't happy with the existing community consensus to work to sandbox something that will answer the objections?" Instead, you seem to be directing everyone to rewrite the article from top to bottom. Smatprt (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done so on numerous occasions and supplied them for the article. Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it's time to use those to sandbox a good summary style article in the sandbox. I look forward to seeing your contribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, since my name has been introduced into this, I should like to point out the following.

• I started the merge thread in response to the consensus among experienced editors at WP:ANI#Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles that the articles should be merged
• There are a number of pretty obvious sockpuppets voting in that discussion
• When I contacted people offline for their suggestions as to who the puppetmasters were, I was informed that there is a record of off-wikipedia canvassing by some of those who argue that Shakespeare did not write his own plays.
• Discussions are not votes. The closer should consider the strength of the arguments in the light of Wikipedia policy. This can mean that the apparent minority wins.
• I did actually post at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard an invitation for admin intervention in light of the puppetry and arguments that misrepresent WP:NPOV. I didn't expect a non-admin to arrive, but there was an awful lot of crap to cut through and the views of those at the AN/I thread needed to be taken into account.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This allegation of sock puppetry is just that - an allegation. And an unproven and uninvestigated one at that. If someone merely checks the IP's and approximate locations, I am pretty darn sure Peter's allegation will be found to be in error.

• As someone who has hunted down a number of puppets, I can find no evidence for such an allegation, much less anything "pretty obvious", as Peter notes.

• For the record, I asked Peter for any evidence of Sockpuppetry and was provided none. Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, BenJonson is spending March Break with me as we are working on a book about Tempest together and writing an article on Hamlet, so I wouldn't be surprised if we have the same ip. He'll be back home next week, and our ips will be very different. Mizelmouse (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop the sniping back-and-forth Get back to writing the encyclopedia. There's a sandbox to play in where progress is waiting to be made. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already made a large contribution there. (I am the only one who has). But I did feel it important to address these allegations of SockPuppetry. I hope you agree that they really need to stop. Smatprt (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. In looking at ScienceApologist's further explanation of his ruling I don't think he has actually ruled in favor of either party of this debate. He's merely suspended judgement and directed everyone to create the sort of changes that need to be made. He hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all...yet. It's a "let's see the alternative first before deciding" approach. I think this is very smart and exactly what needs to be done in this contentious climate. Bravo!4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The following exchange, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#ScienceApologist.27s_Decision) has clarified ScienceApologist's methodology for dealing with disagreement:

Is there a point to continuing this exchange? I can't see one. Get into the sandbox and start editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: Despite your decision that editors should adopt a policy for which there was manifestly no consensus, Jimbo Wales has made it quite clear that your decision was erroneous. What do you propose to do about this? Why should I "play" in a sandbox for which you claim administrative privilege, in light of your clearly evident prejudices ("offending articles," etc.) and erroneous judgment? Has it ever occurred you that some of us might have better things to do than engage in a procedure controlled by your personal biases? --BenJonson (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)--BenJonson (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales, you had recommended I check with Peter to see if he mistyped, because, as you said "it happens". And I did check in with Peter. But what has happened in the mean time causes me concern. Peter has represented himself as having an "outside view". However this discussion [[6]] would seem to imply otherwise. He is obviously friends with Nishidani, one of the subjects of my RFC/u filing, and has since made comments supporting just one side of the debate across numerous talk pages and noticeboards [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]. It was Peter who actually instigated the whole merge discussion that brought me here in the first place. As I have said to Peter, it's fine to support your friends and take on their causes, but at least don't represent yourself as having an outside view or being uninvolved. So we have two administrators, Peter and ScienceApologist who have both jumped in as "uninvolved" or "outside" editors, but they seem to be actively representing one specific faction. Is this kosher? Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't WP:DR. Take it elsewhere, this will only make it worse. Verbal chat 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullying

Jimbo, I think this kind of bullying is not acceptable. Please don't do this, or we may need an RfC/U. Hans Adler 22:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that bullying? I asked him not to go and start editing long-settled articles in order to make a point about a completely unrelated article. There's nothing bullying about that at all. People should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor has a pattern of such behavior -- see [13]: "For third parties who may be confused by looking at the examples I gave above, editor ChrisO has methodically gone through and moved each of the templates I used as examples to where he thinks they should be."

This matter was inconsequential, but this is very aggressive editing, I think. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And as for Jimbo's comment, my own reaction is that it is both correct and proper. An RfC/U over it? Sheesh! Jusdafax 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What's disappointing is the amount of bad-faith assumptions being thrown around, particularly by people who should know better. Jimbo, if you had bothered to look at what I am actually doing, I am tidying up some long-standing terminological, sourcing and POV problems. This isn't "making a point", it's simple good practice. Take a look, for example, at the list of unsourced POV allegations against living persons I just deleted from Bandargate scandal.[14] Do you think I should have left that alone? Fixing problem articles is certainly a lot more productive than bickering on talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with various people) It is perfectly normal to address problems with long-settled articles as soon as they become apparent. After all, this is a wiki, and "it has always been like that", while still somewhat convincing, doesn't have the same force as in real life.

What I found really concerning is this: "You are making up policy that doesn't exist." You are simply claiming this. I challenged you to discuss interpretation of policy. You chose to propose a compromise title instead, which is fine. But then please don't act as if you had already won the dispute about policy interpretation.

WP:NPOV#Article titles sets a high standard for the use of inherently non-neutral titles:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. [my italics]

This seems to be the only passage that allows exceptions from the principle that we only use neutral titles. The term "Climategate" appears to be used by a majority of sources, and mentioned (in inverted commas or qualified with "so-called") by many but not all others. It is at least arguable (and in my opinion true) that that's not a consensus of the sources using the term.

I think as founder of this project you should be a bit more careful not to push a specific interpretation of technical points of policy in a matter in which you seem to be emotionally invested. Hans Adler 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not emotionally invested in anything other than the neutrality of Wikipedia. The current name is manifestly not neutral. Please help me work towards consensus on a proper title.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some support (I'm not sure how much) for adding "controversy" to the title. Does that satisfy your concerns or do you prefer "scandal"? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Help you work towards consensus on a proper title? You mean like this? Or by supporting one of the extremes, the one that you favour and that in my opinion is against policy? Hans Adler 23:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said, consensus requires both sides to find a middle ground, and I'm glad that you have at least (if somewhat grudgingly) endorsed the proposal that GoRight and I put forward, Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh noes! Now we have Gategategate! :-o Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The possibility of improving on the current title by focussing on the controversy has been put forward before, but as I recall commonly derailed by those demanding the less neutral "climategate" title refusing to compromise . Consensus is more likely to be achieved by ruling that term out, and pressing for a change from "hacking incident" to "controversy". The option of "scandal" appears problematic, a dreadful email talking of deleting one's own private emails is possibly a criminal offence under post 2005 legislation but is hardly an assault on the principles of science. . . dave souza, talk 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"derailed by those demanding climategate" -- Dave, this is categorically false. There were more than 20 editors who agreed to a compromise with the word "controversy", but it was blocked by a few who insisted on the title remaining "hacking". The debate was further tainted by false accusations of canvassing. ATren (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat my previous comment, on 17 February, 2010, there was an attempt to have "hacking" removed from the title Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. 27 people supported the change and 8 opposed it. Therefore, the name change failed. Q Science (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up diffs of the rather complex discussions, my memory on this is rather hazy and I'm glad to strike the wording concerned. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've been following this from the beginning, and we do seem to keep coming back to some variation of Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy as a title that everyone can live with. It's not my preference, but it works. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So what does it take to make that change? As for me, I will drop all objections if we can get that change. Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy will be fine. The main point for me is that it eliminates the false notion that the scandal is primarily about the emails being leaked/hacked... this isn't news because it is a "hacking incident" but because of the content of the emails and documents. That's the key point for neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm really mystified. A lot of people have been defending an article on "the hack". Is this no longer a topic notable enough to have its own article? Why not have two articles, one on the hack and one on the controversy. These are two different subjects, not two different titles for the same subject. So when you say that this is a compromise, I don't quite understand. They are 2 discrete topics. Moogwrench (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no very strong opinion on where the "hack" is sufficiently notable as a standalone. I currently would be inclined to say no. However if, as seems highly unlikely, there are further developments and this turns out to have been a sophisticated and well-funded hacking incident with much interesting to be said about it, then of course a separate article would be warranted. If, as I think more likely than that but still unlikely, it is eventually revealed that someone with access to the servers released the emails because they were either politically motivated or simply horrified at the ethical breaches evident in the emails, then depending on the circumstances that might or might not warrant a separate entry. And finally, in the most likely case of all, the investigation never turns up anything, then unless I've overlooked something noteworthy, we simply don't seem to have enough standalone to write about. But those are just my musings, and as I say, I have no very strong opinion about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I don't feel so alone now. If Jimbo can't get his article on Climategate to be actually called "Climategate", I suppose he can imagine how I feel trying to get right things that are far less obvious. This whole situation in here reminds me of William Golding's The Lord of the Flies. 115.128.13.88 (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment above was me, forgetting to log in. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The name Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy is very similar to the name of the current article Climatic Research Unit documents. My first choice is to make Climatic Research Unit documents the main article and redirecting Climategate to it. Sole Soul (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales - Wikiversity Alternative

I have started a Wikiversity alternative, a link can be found on my "user" page here. It seems to me that different wikis with similar scopes will ultimately be better for all stakeholders. I am currently and repeatedly banned from Wikiversity, however, you would be welcome to promote my wiki there or most anywhere else as an alternative for those who would appreciate a different management style in a research oriented/collaborative learning wiki. Good job on this wiki, though. It appears it is #6 on Alexa now. Have we cured poverty yet? Has Wikiversity already cured cancer? Probably not yet, but maybe eventually. Maybe. :) EME44 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

How much money do you make from your speaking engagements and do you donate the proceeds back to Wikipedia? Ferdy789 (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't answer questions about my personal finances. I do donate significant amounts of time and expenses to the Foundation - for example, I never get reimbursed for unpaid travel that I do on behalf of the Foundation, not even to board meetings. I pay my own flights and hotels. When I go to New York to meet with potential donors - as I did recently - I fly at my own expense, I pay for my own hotel, etc. An alternative approach, which I have considered but rejected for a number of reasons, would be for me to file my expenses with the Foundation and then when they reimburse me, simply donate that money back. The main reason not to do this is that it would be a useless accounting exercise, and it's been much simpler for me to simply make sure that no money ever flows from the Foundation to me. In addition to my fund-raising activities on behalf of the Foundation - activities which bring in many times my personal income from all activities in my life, I also have at times directed revenue from things that I am doing into the Foundation. I will continue to support the Foundation with my money and time as much as I can. I will also make no apologies for having a successful career outside the Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When the heck do you find time to sleep?Thelmadatter (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This question made me laugh out loud, thank you. The reason is that just after I posted the answer above, I took a nap. I'm in London and a bit jetlagged. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the contents here onto the Reference desk, where the same question was asked. Buddy431 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity

Hey Jimbo. Just wanted to say that I strongly support your recent actions at Wikiversity. As controversial as the block/delete/desysop may have been, I am sure they were performed in the best in interests of Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Foundation. Difficult as it may have been, I believe you did the right thing, and that's what counts. All the best, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Search page shortcomings

Hi, Jimbo Wales. Recently seeing this comment (again): ' Typically, Google search results are better ' about Wikipedia's Search page (and its 'cancer' outgrowth, the aptly named CatScan tool) made me think that reading it over and over in different places means that people consider this a fact of life; which seems to me strange, since after all the whole of Wikimedia sites have a very specific structure and meta-content that is not taken into account by Google at all (I guess); Wikimedia must have a 50m headstart there, not taking into account the more frequent indexing (I guess), nevertheless.... I've mentioned this pet concern of mine in other places without much reaction from Wikipedians so far and since I've not seen much improvement over time to that sorry state of affairs (I found out has a definite influence on my Wikipedia 'productivity'), I think this page may be my last hope of having a decent search tool on Wikimedia anytime soon. Thanks for your time and many thanks for having founded Wikipedia... --AlainR345^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (WikiProject Java and Design portal founder)

Article renaming discussion notification

You commented earlier on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident that you would support the article being renamed to a neutral compromise name. A formal move request has now been filed. Please feel free to add your view to the discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Requested move. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting that you review username dispute for bias

Resolved

 – Complainant is a sock: By User:Newuser549's admission, his main account of User:climateGate was confirmed by a WP:CheckUser as the sock of the banned editor User:Danrz, thus making himself a sock as well.

My username was until recently, ClimateGate. Reasons are stated in the two short appeals on the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClimateGate#Please_choose_a_different_username

I'm also suggesting the policies on user names be made more clear with more specifics. Otherwise, administrators can find a reason to get rid of hundreds of editors for bad motives under the guise of some grossly attenuated connection to some vague, ambiguous username policy. I'd like to point out also that I had this username for a number of weeks and all of a sudden I was banned after I voiced my support for the community recall of administrators policy, where I pointed out past conduct by a particular administrator to explain why I thought such a policy is important. After I voted on that page, a person whom I believe is an administrator endorsed my opinion. Thank-you. Newuser549 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"administrators can find a reason to get rid of hundreds of editors"? Nooo, all the editors have to do is select a different username. Franamax (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

They can use it to punish and offend someone, and thus ultimately make them feel like leaving. Newuser549 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note to "Newuser549/ClimateGates": Please read up on this editing guideline/policy of Wikipedia → WP:NPOV ←, the explanation for such implications are stated clearly for you to read... right there. Another thing is, I would suggest that you go back to your earlier username account to request an unblock review, stating that you have read and understand what was told to you by the blocking Admin, and that you are willing to change to another username that doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy. Because technically speaking, you are now in danger of being block again for evading your block without first resolving your earlier problem. Which to us, smells of trollish behaviour. No doubts these are minefields but it is really not a big deal if you are willing to accede to Wikipedia's policy and are willing to conform to them. Take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not evading a block, because the only thing that's blocked is that username and not the user behind it. And given the fact that I can't use it anymore, it doesn't make me a sock puppet, either. And I don't have to rename the account if I don't want to. I'm free to make a new one. And as to the username, it's also not a POV issue, because it's not promotional anymore than it would be promoting baseball if I named myself baseballdude72. What is that, now? The third successive excuse? Also, feel free to remove that disingenuous welcome material you posted to my user page and stop making threats in bold type. Thanks. Newuser549 (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• You said you are not a sockpuppet because you are not evading a block? We'll wait and see. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Guess what? The folks at SPI are going to nail you... you claimed that your main account is User:ClimateGate? Which, in turn, is traced and confirmed as the sock of User:Danrz, thus making you a sock too. Now, I'm bidding you adieu per WP:DENY, nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So, anything new on Flagged Revisions?

Since you announced the conclusion of User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll two weeks ago, I have not heard anything new about flagged revisions. Meanwhile, just today, I had to apologize to a distraught family that one of our articles called their son a pedophile and a rapist and tell them that as a result of our privacy policy, we are not at liberty to give them the IP information of the vandal who added that bit of damaging content unless they went through formal and expensive legal processes. Unfortunately, this situation is not unique. Every other OTRS ticket in the Quality subqueue in info-en seems to be a similar story. So...anything new? NW (Talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I plan to post a new poll in a few days - possibly tomorrow morning if I can manage to write up my analysis in the morning. I intend to keep seeking consensus for doing something useful with the existing software while we wait for the improved software to be finished.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Flagged Protection: ready for more testing --MZMcBride (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That edit was made to an article about a village, and flagged revisions can't do much about this type of incidents... except if it is applied to all articles. But since we don't want this, what can be done ? That's quite simple, but needs to be done: improving our monitoring tools; watchlists and recent changes are completely outdated, they can't keep up with the volume of editing over the vast number of articles. The only reason we can deal with most obvious vandalism is thanks to Huggle and a few other tools developed by users. But we need real software enhancements for more efficient, coordinated and in-depth monitoring and reviewing. There's been plenty of requests to improve watchlists (such as adding a visit functionality for more efficiency), to enable anything that could help us to better monitor articles, such as extension PovWatch (not implemented because unmaintained/not sufficiently developed), and of course patrolled revisions as part of WP:FPPR. But all those requests are not implemented or the features not developed. As a result of the deficiency in our monitoring capability, BLP issues propagate and people tend to protect more; so I guess that if the Foundation wants to keep Wikipedia open, it will have to do more in this domain. Cenarium (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Following that poll, I analyzed the flagged revision policy very closely and couldn't help but scratch my head at the drastic nature of it. It made me wonder what happened to the seemingly far simpler step of requiring folks to register an account before editing. It doesn't prohibit anyone from contributing and adds a bit more accountability (or, at least, a bit more illusion of accountability) without redistributing power among the 'anonymous' and 'established' userbases. It just seemed like that would be a more measured 'first step' in addressing the problem, as it would do far less to defy wikipedia's core values. I have no doubt the possibility has been discussed at length throughout the annals of the project and I even did a cursory search for such a conversation, but in the end...I dunno, I guess I got distracted by something shiny.
Of course, it's entirely possible flagged revisions aren't nearly as ominous as I perceived them to be from the explanation I was trying to decipher.
--K10wnsta (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't prohibit anyone from editing, but it would prevent a lot of people editing. A lot of people wouldn't both making their first edit to fix a typo if they had to register first. If people don't make their first edits, they aren't going to make subsequent ones. --Tango (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That reasoning occurred to me but two solutions came to mind immediately:

• Simply restrict IP edits in the article namespace while allowing their contributions on Talk Pages and the various portals of discussion. In the instance an IP user went to edit an article for a simple typo, it could redirect them to the talk page with a notice along the lines of:

"If you've spotted a minor error, please describe it here and the registered userbase will be notified and the correction made (if necessary). If you would like to make the correction yourself, simply register 'here' to promptly receive full editing privilege across the entire encyclopedia." (This message could even explain how registering will fill the user's life with sunshine and rainbows and somewhere in a distant land, breathe life into a dying forest critter^***)

• Keep everything as it is but limit the size of article edits by IP users to 1kb (or less if necessary). Any edit exceeding the established threshold would be redirected to the talk page and notified in a similar manner to the above option (with an explanation that the edit they're attempting to make exceeds the threshold for unregistered users). This option would be a relatively silent limitation, as in cases like that which you put forth, IP editors would have no idea it even existed if their only contributions were minor ones.
  

Anyhow, I figured if these two solutions became apparent to me with such immediacy, who knows what awesomeness we could come up with if we stormed our brains and thunk on it a bit?
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

^{***Sunshine, rainbows, and distance of distant land may vary. Dying forest critter not gauranteed to receive more life than one breath provides.}

I am glad that you make a poll, when the flagged revisions have no demonstrable beneficial effect on the German Wikipedia, nor do they have any theoretical foundations, but coincided with the decline of new users. But why not make the same mistake here, it must hurt to learn from others. Fossa_?! 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Vulva

Don't you think, the today's opening page of the German wikipedia will damage the image of wikipedia (showing a vulva)? Sincerely yours Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be an illustration related to an article about the vulva, which is quoted on the main page. --TS 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but it will inevitably be controversial. Was it really necessary? A balance must be struck between ideology and practicality. I think it is likely to do more harm than good. More schools blocking the site, for example. --Tango (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That is so full of awesome. It tops our Gropecunt Lane FA a few months back by far. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking it to en:wp allows me to for once be the first to say Will someone please think of the children? Looking forward to see y'all at de:wp, discussion was about to dry out and could use some revitalization --Studmult (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Honestly? I think it fails the test of the Principle of Least Astonishment. I see no reason to object to the image being placed (prominently, even) within the article Vulva — the reader who types vulva into the search box or who clicks the wikilink certainly should realize what he's getting into. I do wonder, however, if Wikipedia projects shouldn't exercise a bit more restraint with their Main Pages, however — the reader who comes to our front page planning to look up Puppies doesn't anticipate full-on, close-up, legs-splayed, vagina and anus. There is a certain amount of editorial restraint practiced in this regard; consider the sensibilities of what goes on the cover of, say, National Geographic or The Lancet versus the illustrations and photographs you might reasonably expect to find inside or 'below the fold'.

Incidentally, for those who are about to jump up and down shouting WP:NOTCENSORED, I would urge you to go and read that policy first, and then go and look at my track record on responding to the perennial silly proposals to add content rating systems and the like to Wikipedia articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am with TenOfAllTrades here all the way. I'm astonished it is there, and not in a good way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. We recently had a poll whether or not to restrict featured articles on the main page based on their content. The result was 233 votes against any restrictions vs. 13 votes for restrictions. In addition there was a quite lengthy discussion on which picture to use for illustration purposes. Regards--Meisterkoch (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right. It fails the test of Principle of Least Astonishment. Well, I was so surprised that I spat out parts of my bagel. Something like that should never happen! Hive001 (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the Vulva Picture is not a suprise in the meaning of the principle (if i want to go to mainpage, an get another page, this is a surprice by using user-interface, but get the mainpage and see a not wanted article-of-the-day is not a surpice in this meaning, in my opinion. Sorry for my bad english.--92.229.217.181 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's beautiful. I'm even considering making it my new wallpaper. If I do, though, I'm not yet sure where the shortcut to Wikipedia will go;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was astonished. As in "Wow! Sanity!" astonished. Are we to try to impose our insane Victorian standards of propriety even on other projects now? Or perhaps we should use some other standard? Make sure we don't have images of unveiled women either, say? That anyone could argue that a picture of a human organ is, somehow, offensive is a symptom of an ill society. That one could argue that it is somehow "harmful" to children is downright batshit insane. — Coren ^(talk) 15:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How many children would even exist without it! Unless, of course, you believe that whole nonsense about the Stork(which not surprisingly was also created by Victorian sexual repressions).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody here who refers to the rule: en:Wikipedia:Principle_of_least_astonishment#Principle_of_least_astonishment should see, that this rule does not exist in de:WP . On the other hand there is the obove mentioned poll. To remove the picture now would case damage for the existing rules in german wp. regards --91.59.57.198 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, please do not enforce your wish on this issue at deWP. While I can understand your perception, please accept that German society is different.

1. The article of the day and the picture are on the German front page for 17 hours by now. Not a single German news medium picked this up as a story: google news. OK, it is Sunday, but someone would have picked it up by now, if Germans would see a story there.
2. The article was mainly written by the single most prolific author of deWP. You will probably know him personally. Achim is a 40 year old biologist and father of three children, his wife is in the last days or maybe hours of pregnancy with their fourth right now (I'm not violating his privacy here as he put this in the discussion himself earlier today). He knows what he is doing, he suggested the image and still supports it.
3. The article got approved as "exzellent" (~featured), the promotion to article of the day was never seriously contested.
4. The picture to go on the front page with the teaser was discussed extensively in the longest discussion ever on such an issue for about three weeks and until late yesterday. There was no consensus, but strong support for this very image. No other can illustrate the article better. --h-stt !? 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is possible to get rid of the astonishment Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the Vulva? Okay, so they aren't the classiest kind of car, but they're perfectly good nonetheless.

...

...

...

Oh wait, that's Volvo. HalfShadow 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that German society is rather more open about sexuality than either the US or Britain. Sex shops in Germany have window displays for example, visible to all passers-by, and the covers of mainstream popular magazines often feature nudity. Cultural standards are different. As for children, a vulva is where they all came from. --JN466 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, sex shops, yes, there are some ones :-)... But the point is, that the sexuality has been discussed here in Germany very profoundly after the so called sexual revolution at the end of the 60's, also in the connections with the childrens education in schools etc. Regards -jkb- (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How hypocritical... seems EN:WP has no problem with the LP cover in Virgin Killer which would be a no go in the German WP even if fair use was allowed in the German WP. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment makes no sense. That LP cover is illegal in Germany. If it wasn't, I guess most people would have no problem with it, as it is not sexual in any way, you can see children at some nude beaches in Germany, and the LP is a relatively recent part of German mainstream culture anyway. It was always in bad taste, but I think it's still not far from the acceptable range. Hans Adler 20:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I lived 6 Month in the US and I agree that German people are more liberal in the context of sexuality than the people in the US, but I think the picture of a open vulva goes way too far. I think some people, that haven't finished their puberty, have taken over the control of the German Wikipedia. I am neither prudisch nor anything simular to that. --89.247.159.78 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Jimbo on Reichstag.jpg

Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does whatever a spider can. Except the part about laying a thousand eggs inside a paralyzed mouse...

There is only one possible solution. I am going to Berlin in a few weeks time, and I will attempt to reason with the members of the German community whom I meet there. If this fails, I am going to have to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to gain an advantage. You all may think this goes too far, but as far as I can see, only en, cs, and ru have a policy against it. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be pretty surprised if this picture caused much of a ripple outside the American bible belt if it appeared on the main page of English Wikipedia. That it was selected by the German Wikipedia first is just the luck of the draw. It isn't the 1950s any more. --TS 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Germany is not at all like the US in this respect. (See List of social nudity places in Europe#Germany for context: "Apart from urban areas and official baths, nude bathing is usual in Germany: unofficial nudist areas exist at most lakes and rivers, and other sites, such as abandoned rock quarries.") According to our article sauna, there doesn't even seem to be much of a sauna culture in the US, and mixed gender saunas require some clothing. That seems very odd to me.

I was a bit surprised to see the picture, but I don't think it's the kind of provocation that gives Wikipedia in Germany a bad reputation. So far there seems to be nothing in the press, and German blogs are mostly amused. As far as I can tell this could still turn out to be a highly successful publicity stunt – or maybe not even sufficiently noticed for that.

Jimbo, if this has any repercussions for Wikipedia in the US or elsewhere, you will probably have to communicate very clearly that that's your concern, rather than imposing American values on Europeans. Hans Adler 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few of us English speakers are also Europeans. We're not all Holy Joes you know. --TS 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this was a response to Jimbo, with an edit conflict that I didn't mark as such.

By the way, it appears to me that the German Wikipedia manages to enforce a more uniform standard for such things that permits them to put basically every article on the main page. I don't think something like the photos for autofellatio or the screenshot at goatse.cx would survive there for anything like the same length of time as it does here. Here you can occasionally get the impression that some illustrations exist only for their shock value. Hans Adler 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

given that it is almost certianly a copyvio (uploaded by a user with no undeleted edits, no metadata on the image and images of this type without very solid backgrounds do tend to be copyvios) I think there would be a fuss outside the bible belt.©Geni 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't follow you. I have gone through all the user's uploads, and as far as I can see (I am not an admin) no copyright problems were found (except possibly in one case, a photo of an old piece of art). The photos also look like amateur photos to me. (Two of his photos survive under their old name, another still exists on Commons but was renamed. The others were deleted because they were orphaned.) [15] Hans Adler 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All those images had metadata saying that they were taken by a Konica Minolta Digital Camera. The vulva image does not.©Geni 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If I were to upload such a photo of my girlfriend to Wikipedia you can bet that I would also crop it first so nobody can identify her. (Not that I take such photos in the first place...) Hans Adler 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

the other pics appear cropped but they have at least some of their metadata intact.©Geni 23:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hi Jimbo, I lived 6 Month in the US and I agree that German people are more liberal in the context of sexuality..." that is only half the truth. Incest is forbidden even if two parties comply with it. I still remember the case were a man went to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (corresponds to the US Supreme Court) because of that anti-incest law and the BVerfG argumented in national-socialist manner (Eugenics). Also in German society there are restrictions. About the statement again, Germans were more liberal in context of sexuality: Of course there are also places which are much more prude like the Emsland and the Bayerische Wald (staunchly Catholic areas). Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I find it astonishing that it might even be considered that persons from English speaking (and thus cultural) nations should be in a position to say what should be considered appropriate for another language encyclopedia. I would remind readers of the Mohammed cartoons debate, and the decision not to remove them from the article for the sake of offending Muslim sensibilities - and correctly, IMO, because this is the English language encyclopedia. As the saying is, "When in Rome..." or Berlin, as the case may be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why are we even discussing this? Isn't this a question for editors of the German Wikipedia to decide? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The photo is on commons where some of us have some involvement.©Geni 23:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There are images of the subject within the En-WP article, but the discussion was (initially) whether the Germnan language wikipedia should include it on the front page as the featured article - or indeed whether the subject was suitable for the front page. So, per AQFK, why are we discussing it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess we are discussing it because Jimbo is interested (he mentioned the principle of least astonishment at the German Wikipedia, but wasn't received very enthusiastically) and this is his talk page. And we are also discussing it because we are also not so sure how we deal with these things. Would we put such a photo on the main page? A picture of Muhammad? A severed head? A machine gun? Holocaust victims? Adolf Hitler on his birthday? (A standard example at the German Wikipedia for demonstrating that censorship doesn't need an explicit rule. Apparently some people keep proposing Hitler's article for the main page on his birthday, and simply never get anything close to the necessary support.) Ossama bin Laden on his birthday? George W. Bush on his birthday? Who are we prepared to offend and who don't we want to offend? Why are there no less than six pictures of Muhammad on Muhammad? Aren't most of them purely decorative? Is Prodego going to get into trouble for deleting the goatse.cx screen shot out of process? Will it be restored? Does the photo at autofellatio really have to be in the most prominent position so that even a hypothetical user who just googled the word to find out what it means would see it under all circumstances? Hans Adler 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, my english is as poor as your german, so excuse me. Do not visit Germany! You are very astonisht in Munich. There is a Place in the middle of the city, greater then the Central Park in New York, called the English Garden. Yes, the name is right. If you will see thousends of Naked in public, go there. This is Germany, so what? Greetings --Nightflyer (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why we discuss this?:

• The internet doesn't know territorial limits: Also other nations can see, what is going on in the German wiki.
• Jimbo Wales is also responsible for this project, thus, it is also his business.

Anyway, at least this discussion clarified the position of wikipedia once again and I think this is the EOD. (The day is over anyway) PS: Seems that the German society isn't that liberal as some want to suggest. (see the hefty reactions in the German wikipedia) Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

<Edit conflict>Indeed. Actually I would propose not to climb at the Reichstag due all that homeland security crap all the time ;-) I also didn't see anyone in the board of the German WPWikimedia chapter endorsing a removal of the picture today. It was a decision made by the community to make that article AotD of today and it was decided by consensus to use that picture. I don't see the need for a further discussion on that issue. At least we are used not to have articles on persons like Mike Handel on the German WP main page. BTW, the issue so far wasn't mentioned in the Media at all. So a tempest in a teacup. Actually, the German blogosphere mainly praised the decision of the admins, the picture not to take down- --Matthiasb (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC), corrected by --Matthiasb (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"I also didn't see anyone in the board of the German WP chapter endorsing a removal of the picture today. " Nice try, but how stupid do you think are the users? Your statement was the biggest lie so far. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Do you know what a Lie is? If so, you are capable of knowing what Matthiasb was seeing? If not, have you heard of WP:NPA? Fossa_?! 01:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You call that already a PA? :/ I am impressed from my side, too. Are Germans that sensitive? The user said, nobody opposed that picture, which is not true. In a Vote more than 50% wanted the picture to be banned. I am telling facts, not PAs. Truth hurts. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. If you call a wikipedian in the German WP a liar it depends on the admin which block you get. One day is the minimum but I already saw indefinite. However, I mistyped. It should read German Wikimedia chapter not Wikipedia chapter but it also should have been clear since I wrote board of the..., the Wikipedia does not have a board. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Then sorry for this PA. But, about the policy there: If he (any he) denied the Shoa and I called him a liar or she (any she) stated Helmut Kohl was never chancellor of Germany and I called her a liar, I will be blocked? Very logical policy of German wikipedia. (I understand that in that way.) But you knew you were not saying the truth (is this a PA, too?). Many endorsed the removal of that picture and you knew that. Don't change facts. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What I intended to say (and would have been clear if I hadn't messed up that in my croppy English) was that I didn't see anyone from the board of de:Wikipedia:Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. the German chapter of the WMF see endorsing a removal. However if anyone denied the Shoa than actualle he's not a liar but a denier, a disclaimer, a gainsayer or a repudiator, according to my dictionary. And he would be put on a trial since against to many states de:Holocaustleugnung is a criminal offense in Germany, it's not covered by free speech. If one would say that Kohl was never chancellor of Germany it depends on the intention and the context, assuming good faith could suggest that the person was simply messing up chancellor and president.

Yes, I saw many endorsements of removal, many by IPs, open proxies amongst them, many sockpuppets certainly as well but as well some well known and well reputated wikipedians. So what you saw? I didn't count the number of users involved into the discussion, but clearly most users which saw the main page yesterday didn't take part in the discussion. Pitifully that tool doesn't seem to work today but in average the German WP main page is seen by about one and a half million users a day, the article of the day is read about 70-150.000 times a day. So let it be one hundred who endorsed a removal (it surely weren't that much) that's diminishingly little it's like Deutsche Bank's former CEO Hilmar Kopper claiming that the loss of some 50 million Deutschmarks in a bancrupt cause was peanuts. According to the traffic in the German WP and the number of users and the number of active users that controversy was peanuts. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Then everything is clarified. Möge die Wiki-Macht mit dir sein. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW see analysis of the Main page talk page of yesterday. Mentioned are number of edits, IP or user name, first and last edit. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add another number here: 44. That's the number of emails the german language OTRS team had to answer (up to now) regarding the choice of the picture on the mainpage or the choice of the article at all, though the latter were a minority - only 2 mails (I think) were complaining about the topic as inapropriate, all others just found the picture offending, or were afraid about their kids seeing it. --Guandalug (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, next time, I will choose my words more wisely. Is it fine, now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukarnobhumibol (talk • contribs) 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Excusion accepted. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sex sells. It would not have been a good strategic decision to delete the picture from the main page. I expect the conflict to filter from the blogosphere slowly (probably through heise.de) into the mainstream media. Probably not on page 1 of the broadsheets, but maybe in the feuilleton pages. A good moment to advertise Wikipedia to older knowledgable people, who might not read the blogs and twitter, but who have kept up the habit of reading old-fashioned newspapers. Also a good moment to advertise the free travel shirt on the main page, which will be put up for auction over the next couple of days. Fossa_?! 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if it's finally reaching the media. As someone predicted further up, we now have a piece about it in Telepolis: Wikipedia: Feuchtgebiete 2.0 – Will Jimbo protect us from bare facts? The title is a clever allusion to the book Feuchtgebiete. Google translation It may or may not spread further from this. Hans Adler 12:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The media coverage of the discussion got documented within it --Mewtu (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So the online presence of Der Spiegel has already noted it, but hid its coverage in an internet news round-up whose title only referred to Google and China: Hans Adler 13:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

translated Spiegel News Ticker coverage
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jim Wales participates in discussion about vulva article on German Wikipedia Apparently overwhelmed by spring fever were also [this refers to the previous piece about Facebook] the operators of the German Wikipedia. Exactly on 21 March they put an article about the female vulva on the main page as "Article of the Day", presumably as a congenial contribution. With it a photo that left nothing to be desired in terms of anatomical detail smiled at the surfers. Some visitors of the page considered the explicit pic overkill, and soon an intense and voluminous discussion ensued about sense and nonsense of the sexual organ's presentation. In the end even Wikipedia godfather Jim Wales interfered in the debate. The founder of online encyclopaedia asked those responsible for the German web presence to take the photo out immediately. Furthermore, they should revise their decision-making processes to avoid repetition of similar incidents. "This is not a question of censorship, but the 'principle of least surprise'." Meanwhile the smoke cleared, the weekend is over, and today Wikipedia on its main page today deepens our knowledge about the "Water supply in Hamburg". By the way, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia whose articles are "created by a global community of authors collectively and without charge" (quoted from Wikipedia). Originally it was published by Wales and Larry Sanger as an enhancement of the Nupedia project on the servers on the servers of the online sex provider Bomis, also founded by Wales. Vulva topics are less surprising there [than on Wikipedia].

• hee hee, they said "mingled"... oh, wait..! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Visit to Germany

Hi, you mentioned that you will visit Germany. Depending on the date, I would be willing to travel to Berlin (?), but only, if there is reasonable time to discuss some things with you in a larger circle. So, please, could you give some details of your visit? Many thanks, Fossa_?! 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pure wiki deletion

Hello Jimbo, I have developed an extension to implement pure wiki deletion. Although it will need a few more tweaks and to go through more code review, I think it is a promising extension. In my opinion, this proposed reform will greatly improve Wikipedia's deletion processes. There are many scenarios in which pure wiki deletion would come in handy; consider, for instance, the article on the Xbox 360 slim. This article will be deleted in a few days, but if the Xbox 360 slim actually becomes a reality, someone will probably create a new article from scratch, perhaps without incorporating the historical information about the early speculation and motherboard leaks described in the current article, because that deleted article will be unviewable by non-sysops. Since it contains no copyvios, libel, confidential personal information, or other suppressible content, It would be better to blank it and let it remain in the history as a easily-accessible source of information for those considering creating a new article in the future.

Presently there is discussion ongoing at Village Pump Proposals, and the point has been raised that a change of this magnitude should really be advertised more widely. What do you think of the idea of posting a central notice to watchlists, as we did for the BLP discussion? Or do you think the goodness of this idea is clear enough that it can be implemented without the need for more advertising? Thanks, Tisane (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief Wikipedia outage = end of civilization?!?!?

Hey Jimbo (and talk page watchers), obviously Wikipedia ran into a bit of server trouble today, but it seems that things are up and running again (or at least they are for me) which is good. I was googling for info on the outage and came across a couple of live feeds with up-to-the-minute comments from Twitter users and the like. Since the comments were pretty interesting when taken collectively I copied a bunch of these and stuck them on a page in my userspace which you can find here. They might prove amusing and/or somewhat edifying to you and to other Wikipedians who lurk at your talk page. Personally I like, "All accumulated knowledge has been lost. I'm off to invent fire now." Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the procedure to follow with openly homophobic administrators in English Wikipedia

Boldly hatting this discussion, it's been moved to another forum anyway and absolutely nothing good is going to come of this. --Bigtimepeace
talk
Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. [16] What is the procedure here? WP:RFA/U? Phoenix of9 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC) LOL, why does this even belong on this talk page? (It doesn't) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) This is a good example of why the assume good faith policy is so important. The page (and edit) to which you are referring is a Frequently Asked Questions page about HIV. The point of any FAQ is to answer questions that people might ask on article talk pages, even ridiculous ones, and even ones that exhibit intolerance in one form or another. For example on the Barack Obama talk page one of the FAQ questions is "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?" It's there because many people have showed up on the talk page in the past shouting, "how come you're hiding the fact that Obama is a Muslim?" These individuals can quickly be referred to the FAQ which saves time. With respect to the HIV FAQ, my assumption would be that the talk page has received a lot of "how come you don't discuss the fact that the disease is always spread by homosexual sinners?" type comments. So the administrator to whom you refer almost certainly was not endorsing those kind of comments/questions (which are indeed very homophobic to my mind), but rather creating an FAQ to that would preempt them and hopefully keep some of them off the talk page, or at least not force people to answer them for the hundredth time. It would have been helpful for you to read more closely, or at least to wait for a reply from the admin in question before running over to Jimbo's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Phoenix, you could have asked him nicely about what he meant in that diff. Instead you make severe accusations on his talk page then immediately bring it up here on Jimbo's page. Do you honestly think that this is the best way to handle it when you have a disagreement with another editor? Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) That the FAQ should reflect commonly asked questions is a good thing - that FAQ question would have been equally well served by the stating 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. That would have answered any question on the subject. Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article. Many people will come to the article who have heard that homosexuality causes AIDS. A smaller portion of those will identify with the 'immoral' statement. People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic. Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Given that this person is an admin, I honestly dont see anything wrong in bringing that here. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Come on. Even so, there's no evidence that this person is openly homophobic. Honestly, I don't understand these people who need to find Fred Phelps around every corner and behind every bush. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Maybe in USA, these things are more common. Being in Canada, I am honestly surprised. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I happen to be Canadian as well so please don't automatically assume I'm American, thank you. Zazaban (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Why didn't you give 2/0 some time to respond before coming here? And why did you automatically assume some foul agenda was at play without waiting for a response first? Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) How can I not assume "some foul agenda" was not "at play"? The wording and comparison is pretty clear. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC) <sarcasm> The first steps of the procedure to follow when you notice that an administrator is openly homophobic are as follows: Make sure not to check the facts. Homophobia is one of those crimes that are so egregious that the presumed perpetrator is not worthy of a presumption of innocence. Leave a message on the admin's talk page. This is required for purely formal reasons, but this step should not be left out as it will give you an advantage later on in case other homophobes try to defend the criminal. To avoid giving the culprit any chance of defending themselves, start the escalation immediately afterwards by posting an inflammatory message to a high-profile page. Don't risk that the admin comes up with twisted arguments that somehow convince the secretly homophobic majority of editors that the crime was a mere misunderstanding. Here is a good example of how it works in practice. </sarcasm> Hans Adler 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful Phoenix of9 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) Cla68's questions are valid ones, but probably it's best if this gets taken away from Jimbo's talk page, because it never belonged here in the first place. There's already a discussion happening at 2over0's talk page (though ironically that editor has not even had the chance to say anything), so probably this should continue there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Moving to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies. All comments have been copied over. Zazaban (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (User:2over0), he might be interested at: 1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, this question could be relevant. 2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.Phoenix of9 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC) We should not be mincing FAQ questions just because we don't like how they are usually worded by the people asking. Real people are often nasty my friend. Zazaban (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Considering that I'm openly gay myself, I doubt that I'm defending homophobia. And I suppose that could work, but the specific wording really isn't the issue more than your aggressive manner of handling it. Zazaban (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I know you are gay, thats why I said your defense is disappointing. Given that this person is an admin, I'm much more concerned about this than I would be if it was written by a regular editor. Phoenix of9 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Nothing has happened. It's phrased the way the average homophobe would word it, and is refuted in nearly the same breath. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Phoenix, maybe you might want to sleep on it - then if you feel the same in the morning, take it from there. If youre really Canadian like us, What are you doing up? I'm going to bed. Have fun Zazaban. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Ugh, I should be writing a book right now, but now my focus has been pulled, and it's after one in the morning. Maybe I should go to bed too. I can see this isn't going anywhere anyway. Zazaban (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Outback the koala, given that you have an anti-gay userbox in your page, I dont think you are neutral here. Phoenix of9 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC) You've got to be kidding me.. Note to others; Don't feed the trolls. Good night. Outback the koala (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC) All he said was that we should go to bed; I don't see what being pro or anti gay has to do with it, that's good advice at this early in the morning. Incidentally, I don't approve of the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation. Zazaban (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Everybody, let's please leave this hatted and settle down; nothing good is going to come of this; really. -- Zazaban (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for commenting on a closed thread and for careless wording, but I find homophobia personally offensive and would like to address the issue briefly. I am openly bi, and did not intend the reading that that question has been given. Discussion continues in link above and possibly at Talk:HIV. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

m:Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag has been started, obviously without informing you (*sigh*). Best regards, --Thogo (Talk) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinionated editor

Hi Jimbo, I don't know if you read reports about yourself but this one is amusing, you seem to have hit a soft spot with your comment about op-editors. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to....

Incidents like this are a great reason for ARBCOM process overhaul. I think that it is funny that you ask for a review on Brews Ohare and while a step forward to progress is made, it makes two steps back. Part of the reason that Brews has this appeal is because of advocacy, not perfect advocacy but people raising a clamor saying there is a problem here. Now with this motion, Arbcom not only admits to a problem but then promptly desysops a admin, you order a review of Brews case and they try to take away his supporters. They say this is for the "good" of Brews. Brews has never been their concern, this is merely a political ploy to make people think their process is not in error. My case is in the point that if this was a case that could be solved easily and wasn't controversial it would be done. The fact that there is still support within the community for both lifting and expanding current sanctions. How do you get a consensus? Make sure the people who disagree can't be there, under threat of blocks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed that link for you. --Tango (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Every time Brews is discussed somewhere, his fan club shows up to try to re-litigate the speed of light arbitration decision, destroying any chance he has of getting a fair hearing. Banning these guys from commenting on Brews strikes me as the best thing that could happen. --Carnildo (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would indeed make sense, get a perfect consesus by removing those who disagree. What a great concept. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Carnildo: You repeat the continually repeated statement about "relitigating the SoL debate". Actually, though, this has not happened. What is argued about is the basis for various blocks, for example, which are about the Tznkai namespace restrictions, and why these restrictions should be removed. And the desysopping of Trusilver because he thought blocks based upon pretext were wrong. These events are not SoL matters. They are additional actions based upon namespace restrictions tacked on by Tznkai. It is these administrative actions all post SoL that have been discussed, despite what you might surmise by taking the clamor of admins for the unvarnished facts. Brews ohare (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm one alleged member of this so-called "fan club", let me give my opinion here before ArbCom passes the restriction barring me from doing so. An important thing to note is that the only thing that led me to "defend Brews" was my opinion that the topic ban was too wide and that this would likely lead to problems, if Brews decided to stay active on Wikipedia. It had nothing to do with me supporting Brews' position in the actual dispute. In fact I was and still am in disagreement with him in the actual dispute, both as far as the physics content of the dispute is concerned and also about how to control discussions that go on for too long.

Now, despite my strong disagreements with Brews, I was very happy that he decided to stay. My attitude was that Brews can do a lot in other areas like classical mechanics, electrical engineering etc. when the topic ban expires. Brews, as a retired professor, has both the expertise and the time to make certain indepth contributions. Usually, the more of an expert you are, the less time you will have for Wikipedia. Brews being a rare exception to this rule, is thus a valuable asset for Wikipedia.

This is why I supported Brews when he wrote his essay, contributed to my essay, and made some suggestions on policy talk pages. When others objected to those efforts, I defended Brews on the basis of an "as long as no harm is done let's not make a big deal about it" attitude. Over time, what happened was that the difference of opinion about how to deal with Brews became more of a conflict between the two sides and had little to do with Brews himself. The root of that dispute is the very familiar clash between fundamentalism and pragmatism.

Now, the ArbCom motion under discussion now is actually quite pragmatic. The restrictions against Brews will be lifted in 90 days because the way things have been going so far was not good. The proposed restriction against me, however, is something I strongly disagree with, but I can live with this (practical problems I see with this are address pragmatically by me on the ArbCom page). As far as I'm concerned, what I argued for in the Brews case is what ArbCom now has decided to do: Brews will soon be back productively editing physics and engineering articles. Count Iblis (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Carnildo, It's not quite as you have described. There has been a series of events going back to February 2010, beginning with an appeal to have Brews ohare's sanctions lifted. It looks now as though ARBCOM have finally got the message, and that Brews's sanctions will be reduced by four months. See here [17]. Any advocacy in his favour has obviously been successful. The damage to Brews has been done by those editors who have been advocating adversely against Brews, yet they are not about to be sanctioned, whereas those who have been going to great lengths to point out all the injustices that have been done against Brews are being labelled as 'disruptive' and are now about to be sanctioned for their efforts. This is a rather strange situation. It's probably quite unique. There seems to be some strange revisionist idea circulating in which those who helped Brews with his appeal were actually damaging his case, whereas the evidence points to the complete opposite. David Tombe (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Brews page had a picture of a vulva it would gather a lot more public action. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Brews O'hare Cult Looks Fun Where Can I join? Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Trust me it's not fun in the slightest. It's actually quite frustrating. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sidney Crosby

I was reading the Sidney Crosby bio. It reads in one part below 2008-2009 "At 21 years, 10 months, and 5 days, Crosby became the youngest NHL captain to hoist the Cup.[6] (The youngest captain to lead his team to the Stanley Cup in the history of the trophy is Mike Grant of the 1895 Montreal Victorias, who was 21 years and 2 months at the time".)Did they not hoist it? In 2007-2008 Crosby was captain from october 5 of 2007. The Pens went to the cup final in 2007- 2008. His age by my math would have be Younger by a year. Making him the youngest player ever to lead his team to the cup? Did grant win the cup? Teemartin24 (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article's talk page is --> this way. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How can I get admins to act on egregious personal attacks?

Jimbo, another editor has, on their user and talk pages, associated my name with threats to their personal safety. I view this as an obvious and egregious personal attack. I certainly do not intend to put anyone's safety at risk nor do I think I have done so, but since the allegations are vague and non-specific, it is impossible for me to answer them. This same user has been making increasingly immflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations, while at same time stalling on filing an RFC/U (which I have encouraged them to file so that their concerns can be aired and their accusations answered). Obviously I am upset by these personal attacks. I have opened a thread on ANI, but despite the nature of the allegations, nothing has been done to address the issue. Would you please take a look? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will review it for my general awareness, but I'm unlikely to personally take any action. I hope that we all act in such a way as to bring about an end to conflict in a way that helps everyone. It's unfortunate when things escalate further, if there is a way to defuse the tension.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. Appreciated. The allegations have been removed, which was my concern here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

two cent's worth

In re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/COI_edit_allegations

Users:Tim Lambert and John Quiggin

Statements concerning John Lott:

more guns equal less crime based on remarkably flawed econometrics (see Goertzel's analysis).

Ted Goertzel considers all econometrics remakably flawed, not only Lott's, but the econometric studies by Lott's critics Steven Levitt and John Donohue; follow the link and read the article (I created my own PDF of the article, and downloaded most of the articles cited in it).

(e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department even though Lott is an economist.) --TimLambert

16 Mar 2010 University of Maryland lists Lott as Visiting Senior Research Scientist in the fields of Government and Public Policy: Environmental Policy[18] and Business: Economics and Economy[19]. Lott was listed as published in these subjects in June 2003 (the last time I handled bibliographic data bases for JEL).

The Computer Science Department[20] does not list John Lott, although it does list Jim Purtilo, who Tim Lambert accused of being a sockpuppet of Lott along with a host of editors who were not John Lott.

Naaman Brown (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia giving incorrect medical information - Should health related articles be held to higher standards like BLP

I think that is quite dangerous, given Wiki's popularity. Please see: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 05:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a talk page discussion happening on this issue, and some other editors seem to disagree with you and your argument. That's not really a good reason to come over to Jimbo's talk page, rather you should continue to discuss with the other editors. It's very unlikely that Jimbo will weigh in on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is different than regular content disputes. That is why Jimbo might be interested. Accuracy of health related articles should be more important than accuracy of tv show episodes (an eg). Phoenix of9 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of health articles with a lot of disputes about accuracy. Jimbo is not a doctor (I don't think, it would be weird if he'd kept that a secret) or expert on these matters and is likely less qualified to address these issues than those discussing the matter on the talk page. You claim there is inaccuracy, others seem to disagree with you. If you want to get additional opinions, you might try setting up a request for comment. That should bring in some interested editors and will do you more good than bugging Jimbo about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This speculation of ours about what Jimbo might think or not is getting a bit silly but I'll respond. He is not a doctor but he might appreciate that incorrect medical information might be dangerous in wikipedia, given that wikipedia is very popular and it is open to minors. This is not only about the article in question (HIV). Its about all healthy related articles. We have higher standards for BLP articles. Why not health related articles? Phoenix of9 07:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You believe that the information is incorrect, others disagree with you. Personally I have no idea, and I doubt Jimbo will either. You are in a dispute about content, it may be important content, but you are in a content disagreement. Obviously you are convinced that you are right, but others apparently think you are wrong. Jimbo is not going to jump in and arbitrate the dispute for you or say, "yes, Phoenix is right" so that things get fixed your way, and he certainly is not going to make some sort of grand statement about all health related articles. Really, start a request for comment. Maybe you'll get consensus for your viewpoint. I strongly, strongly suggest you drop this matter now, at least here. Note that I'm not trying to make your concerns go away, I'm trying to direct them in the appropriate direction, which is not this talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP articles are held to higher standards, why not health related articles?. That is my point. You dont understand it obviously so please stop giving advice to me. Phoenix of9 08:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On that analogy why not law related articles too? Or furry fandom articles? Where do you draw the line?--ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The fallacy in the question results from the use of the word "higher" – higher than what? We should be striving to raise the standard of all Wikipedia articles, and medically-related articles are no exception. Raising a standard requires effort from many contributors and we are fortunate that BLP attracts sufficient input to allow us to set extra criteria for the content. To try to prioritise improvements from the point of view of consequences of misuse of information is to look at it from the wrong end. Volunteer contributors will each make their own decisions about where they contribute, and the only way to raise the standard of articles is to get people interested in them. In fact, medically-related articles already benefit from the remarkably active WikiProject Medicine and you have already raised your issues at the Doctors' Mess. I would also remind you of the very high standard of sourcing required for medical articles, as outlined in WP:MEDRS, and the additional criteria for content and style as documented at WP:MOSMED. That these exist is already proof of the willingness of Wikipedians to strive to improve our coverage of medicine. I would urge you to make use of our normal processes of consensus building in the AIDS article – there are plenty of editors willing to work on that with you. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Travel related articles - people could get lost! Let's not forget articles about other dangerous things like heavy machinery, weaponry, large animals, sports, aviation, mining, roofing, and carpentry. Wikidemon (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah-huh. Incorrect information about risks of HIV transmission (when researchers sound alarm about HIV complacency [21]) is comparable to large animals and carpentry. Very smart comparison there...

RexxS, we can ignore 3RR in BLP articles if there is an inaccuracy. Maybe we can have the same thing for health related articles. Phoenix of9 19:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If others are disputing about what is accurate, you're ignoring 3RR at your peril. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:BLP:

“ Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

Remove any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies on self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.

”

Phoenix of9 20:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to want to ignore 3RR so you can "correct" other editors' "mistakes". Unless you're dealing with obvious vandals, I don't think that's going to fly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All of us would be better off if we stick to 1RR – if something is wrong with an article, BLP or medical, you can find lots of other people at the WikiProjects who are willing to help you combat obvious vandalism and libel. WP:AIV and WP:BLP/N can deal with more contentious cases. There's really no need to get anywhere near 3R other than when combating a persistent vandal, and WP:RBI is the best solution for that. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I can comment on the general principles here. I do think that Wikipedia should adhere to a very high standard of quality everywhere, and particularly so where there is a possibility of serious harm. BLPs are one case and, yes, articles about medical issues are another case. (And there are others.) WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED are good policies and, like all good policies, should remain open for improvement over time as specific problems arise or are discovered.

Regarding the specific debate - I am not an expert and so yet again, I can only comment on some general principles which people may find useful to reflect upon. Understating the risks of HIV-infection could clearly be dangerous, if it leads people to believe that they shouldn't worry about it. But overstating the risks of HIV-infection could also be dangerous, if it leads people to shift resources from other, more immediately pressing, health needs. In the interest of quality, we should not editorialize one way or the other, but rather report as plainly and simply as we can, without bias, on what the reliable sources have said. When emotions run high, the work of characterizing the sources fairly can be difficult, of course. But I encourage all the parties to this and similar disputes to constantly praise and remind each other of our purpose of quality, and to undertake an exploration of ways of presenting the information that will be mutually satisfactory. In my experience, this is not only possible, but a process that - when we do it well - we can be proud of in the end.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix has fair reason to be suspicious of the table - it fails to discuss the difference between American and African infection rates for heterosexuals and such contributing risk modifiers as circumcision and ongoing infection with another venereal disease. However, deleting it is no answer. This is a problem that will not easily go away, because it is a fundamental principle of modern medicine to treat the patient like a child who cannot, for example, be allowed to buy a useful medicine without first getting permission from the physician acting in loco parentis. By contrast it is a Wikipedia principle, or should be, to treat the reader like an adult, i.e. as someone capable of reading and understanding the general disclaimer, and of avoiding going out and doing things just because an encyclopedia anyone can edit says they are no big deal today. There's not going to be any compromise from the physicians, who take a fee with every appointment; so we must be equally intransigent. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not following your argument very well at all. I'm not sure what public policy on prescription drugs has to do with what Wikipedia should say in this particular case at all. It strikes me as wholly unrelated. "In industrialized societies, many drugs are only available with a prescription from a doctor, therefore Wikipedia should include a different chart on the infection rates from AIDS." There must be a missing step in there somewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear ... I was trying to hit several unrelated points. I was conceding the table has significant problems without agreeing to deleting it or imposing any special standard for medical articles. And it is my impression from various news reports over the past 20 years that the AMA and other medical groups have at times desired to see significant restrictions on medical information provided over the internet. To me this seems a condescending attitude, just as requiring prescriptions expresses a lack of respect for the individual person; more so for the violation of free speech. The cynic in me wonders how much of the concern was based on the fear that patients would find the wrong information, and how much on the worry that they might find the right information and make their doctors look incompetent... anyway, my point is only that we should allow medical articles to be edited without any special restrictions, both here and elsewhere on the internet.

I'll add that I especially distrust a BLP-like policy because that policy has been leading to much obstructionism as it is. On Sarah Palin there's a huge argument that you can't have any mention of her policy about making victims pay for rape kits because you can only cite editorials that say she should have known about the policy her appointee initiated. On Johnny Weir there was (seemingly useless) 30-day RFC discussion (here) about whether it violated BLP to have a tag for the GLBT wikiproject on the talk page. Certain fast-reverting editors apparently believe that any mention of the tag, or of his being gibed at by certain moronic sportscasters, or of subsequent action by a gay and lesbian group etc. would be a violation of the policy. They're interpreting the policy to mean the editors are supposed to decide whether specific facts have been proven by the preponderance of sources before the mention of any one source is allowed, no matter how respected the newspaper. This is leading to edit wars and loss of content throughout Wikipedia as editors no longer compete with one another by adding sources with different viewpoints, but rather tear down each others' work. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody raised this issue. A friend of mine developed stomach cancer, so I went to the Wiki article, which says "By the time symptoms occur, the cancer has generally metastasized to other parts of the body, one of the main reasons for its poor prognosis." However, my friend has symptoms and was told by his doctor that it has not metastasized. I went to other websites and could find no support for this statement in the wiki article. Mind you I'm not a doctor and have no expertise on this, but I think that this point is well taken. These articles need to be written with care, lest their scare people unduly or give them false advice. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've edited Stomach cancer to summarize information from the ACS and various other sources on the stages of the disease. In one study just barely more people were diagnosed in Stage IV than the three previous stages combined, while in another it was somewhat less. While Stage IV is not always true metastasis, it is grim enough. Though the original statement about metastasis may have been both unsourced and untrue, I don't think Wikipedia significantly wronged or misled the public by including it until the matter was covered more carefully. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful, thank you. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following the HIV aspect of this thread, but as for the standard of Wikipedia medical articles, I am in favor of summary removal of poorly sourced assertions, and in favor banning all primary research results; i.e., relying solely on authoritative reviews and university level textbooks. Anthony (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC) We are playing with fire here. Anthony (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely opposed to such an idea. People want to know about breaking results, and Wikipedia should provide all the verifiably sourced information that is available. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Really recent stuff eh? Hot from the researcher's breathless lips? I don't think I agree. Varifiably sourced? I'm not sure I know what that means. Anthony (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the newspapers report that someone has found a new species of hominid or a new drug against cancer, we should not rely solely on the often vague and misleading press reports but should directly reference the primary peer-reviewed source. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Nice job on the stages of stomach cancer, by the way.Anthony (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved a comment of yours

Because I don't think you'll mind, I moved a comment of yours on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page into its own section to give it more prominence. [22] That was a very good suggestion to make on that page, and if people do what you're asking it will both help the article and increase trust. Thanks. (If you don't like the move, after I check back here a little later I'll restore it to its original place, or you or anyone can.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That was very kind of you, thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we kinda got off track in the discussion just a wee bit, at times (kind of like the time I was at a Nebraska rest stop and a woman who had just driven her parents all day long from Chicago was asking people just how far she'd have to go to get to her destination in New Jersey). But I think more people got the initial message and some might act on it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Protect page

Hello Mr. Jimmy Wales. I see your user page has been vandalized many times. () Why you don't want to protect your page ? Thanks for reading.  Kenrick  Talk 09:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is listed at the bottom of his userpage actually.--70.106.160.180 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Greeted with Hostility

(moved from user page) Dear Sir, I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I have only good intentions. I am a math teacher, economist, and supply chain expert. I noticed some things that I thought should be added, and did so. Each of my entries were met with hostility within hours of my initial creation. My initial two entries were marked for deletion before the first draft was complete. (Now I have come to know that there is a way I could have worked on the page off-line before posting, so perhaps this was simply a novice mistake.) But even after I was able to finish what I started, there seemed to have been a ganging up against what I have done. It has been extremely frustrating, and I feel that I am unwelcome. From what I have read, this is not your intention for newcomers.

I was also made to feel that the Wikipedia notability criteria does not reward entries that are objectively important in a field of study or particular industry unless there are a plethora of internet-available sources to show that it is. I am afraid that there are many important topics, private companies, and terminology that will not meet the notability criteria as it is written. If this information is excluded or deleted as a result, Wikipedia will remain less complete and less useful. Objective influence and historical importance should play a role in your notability criteria, even if most of the writings about the topic are found in journals, articles, dissertations, etc. that are not found on-line and may be unavailable without paying a fee, or may be now out of print. The notability criteria as written limits the depth of Wikipedia's reach, as there are many avid deleters out there ready to hit any new offender hard, and I have felt their blades.

My love of Wikipedia has been soured by my experience as a potential contributor. I wanted to share my feeling on the matter. Best intentions, Mathteacher69 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69

I'll take a look into undeleting and userfying this user's articles and ensuring he knows that offline or paywalled sources are welcome (despite online sources being more convenient). {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. I was a rollbacker doing newpage patrol and initially marked the page Petrolsoft Corporation for speedy deletion because no sources were cited. Mathteacher69 was still online and began to add sources in the best way he knew how and I continued to help him to build the article to the point it is now, however I am also very disheartened by the hostility that new articles and new article creators receive. After my initial attempts to contribute a year ago were deleted I instead worked on building existing articles. As an experiment, or perhaps a protest, I brought Heather Harmon out of deletion and of course the Afd for that was, well, interesting...

However, these recent experiences with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrolsoft Corporation leave me mystified as to what is really important for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please note; I'm NOT trying to sway the decision on this Afd, I think it's pretty clearly a "non concensus" and about to close. I was wondering if you could take a few minutes to look at this Afd and make a comment if you would? - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't intened to speak for Mr. Wales, but something about this drew my interest. If I may offer a bit of advice, much of this article's problem lies more in the writing style. This article is written like a sales pitch, and not so much like a neutral article.

To give an example, the first line reads ok. The second line starts out all right, but then goes into a run-on sentence that gets a little confusing. "Petrolsoft Corporation was founded in 1989 by Bill Miller and David Gamboa while both were attending Stanford University as Petrolsoft Software Group, and was later incorporated in 1992." (Now, were they both attending Stanford under the name Petrolsoft?)

Next line: "Petrolsoft brought demand driven inventory management to the Petroleum industry." This is something I'd expect to see in a brouchure or TV commercial. We need some specific substance as to what the company does.

Last line: Is totally irrevelant to the lede, so I wont even mention it. After going through just the lede, I still have no ideas what this company actually does. If I were to rewrite this out in a more neutral fashon, I'd go with somrthing more like:

Petrolsoft Corporation (1989-2000) was a supply chain management software company with a focus on the petroleum industry. Petrolsoft Corporation was founded in 1989 by Bill Miller and David Gamboa, and was incorporated in 1992. Petrolsoft produced software for the petrolium industry, for inventory control and distribution management.

The rest of the article also needs a lot of work. Multiple sources throughout a single sentence appears as OR and SYN. I suggest avoiding unencyclopedic phrases like, "turns out," and try to describe things such as the company and its product rather than intangibles like influence and significance. Also, a little less emphasis on what a great product it is, and perhaps this article can be put into a reasonable shape. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've frequently seen this kind of appeal made by new editors, whose rational response is to come to this page to seek some sort of resolution. However, in relation to what Jimbo does, it's inappropriate to seek this as a venue. Most admins who delete pages have a link to "Why was my page deleted?", and rather than clog up this page, it might be better if editors were directed there, or to the Talk page of the deleting admin. Rodhullandemu 01:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We're still supposed to be welcoming to newbies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

how they find this page is a mystery..... Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New Users Being Welcomed Into the Wikipedia Community, although normally the new users are all alone and the firing squad often merely maims.

Rodhullandemu, it's not inappropriate to comment here. Weaponbb7, was your comment ironic? It's extremely easy for any newbie to figure out that Jimbo Wales would have a user page and a talk page and then to comment here. It's harder to find A/N or AN/I. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that WP:ANI has a shitload of intimidating instructions at the top of it, guarenteeing to scare off any newbie who manages to find the page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps this, from Wikipedia:Starting an article#While an article is being constructed should be emphasized to newcomers when they're given that "welcome to Wikipedia" newbies template on their talk pages. This is the whole section, which is worth reviewing (and that {{newpage}} is worth remembering):

If you know that your article will require multiple edits and/or a significant amount of time to properly list references and/or make presentable, it is recommended that you place the template {{newpage}} on top of the page to signify to other editors that it's a work in progress. Articles tagged with the new page template are generally not subject to deletion except under certain extreme circumstances (e.g. blatant attack pages).

Another option if you plan to take time to construct a page is to start creating the new article in a subpage of your user page. This allows you to take as long as you need to complete a presentable article. When you feel it is good enough to not be deleted, you can then move it to the main article space.

Seems to me that if more newbies and new-page patrollers were familiar with this, it would save a lot of trouble and certainly avoid newbies and Wikipedia each getting a black eye. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do know about the newpage template and used it on Petrolsoft Corporation while working on proper sourcing with the newcomer Mathteacher69. I was hoping the newpage tag would give myself, Mathteacher69, and whoever else wanted to a full 7 days to continue working on the article's issues, however 38 hours later User:Ihcoyc nominated it for deletion as a contested A7. That's not really accurate because I withdrew my CSD but that's besides the point.

My main complaint is that Wikipedia has become a hostile place for new articles and new article creators. The devices that are intended to help allow new pages and new editors proper time to review the resources available to them like Newpage and Construction have been rendered ineffective. The editors who have responded to our complaint have all failed acknowledge these concerns. Bringing this to AN or ANI would also likely not be effective because this not an isolated incident nor caused by actions of a lone editor. I am requesting that Jimbo be asked to review this complaint and its associated Afd after it is closed. Respectfully, Stillwaterising (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Adamantine Tooth of the Tarrasque

There's probably some policy against awarding barnstars for stomping newbies into the ground with heartlessness above and beyond the call of duty, but if not, you should start here: User talk:VictimsWife. (though I wish I'd read about the newpage template earlier!) Wnt (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) privelidge

MY PAGE CANCELLED????????

I created a page for a Chicago music artist named, "E-TRAIN" from record label "E-TRAIN MUSIC GROUP" (Roxtar, LLC: Interscope/Geffen/A&M). When I tried to revisit, it was cancelled by:User:NJA/Admin

I AM NEW TO WIKI, please be kind to me and please let me know what I can do to reverse this cancellation? Thank you for your understanding. Best wishes, mj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimandolin12 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

mikeeTRAINmusic.com

This isn't the sort of thing that Jimbo normally gets involved with. However, your article was deleted because there was no indication of notability. For inclusion criteria for musicians please see here, and if you can reliably source any of these points, your article may be recreated,. but should not be promotional in tone. Please ask me or another admin if you have any further questions. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed this issue at some length at user talk:Wikimandolin12 after looking at the deleted article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit: obfuscated @ sign in Wikimandolin12's email address using {{@}}. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You Have Been Blocked

A very happy April Fools Day to you.--RM (Be my friend) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Annulment declaration of Wikipedia's principles and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in Japanese edition 2

Annulment declaration of Wikipedia's principles and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in Japanese editionContinuation

The authority of Wikipedia:Office actions is not applied to a Japanese edition by the result of the Wikipedia　Japanese edition community vote. If, it doesn't correspond about a Japanese edition even if an English edition is demanded.Mr.Jimbo admits this decision or wants the official opinion.It is assumed that it connived if not answering.

a Japanese edition doesn't accept these.The vote is excellent than the authority of WMF in a Japanese edition.Sysop has the authority to transcend jimbo and WMF.

In Wikipedia Japanese version, the document with the template of principle and guidelines up to the present time was operated from the start without obtaining the mutual agreement of the community. In Wikipedia Japanese version, the participant was doing principle and guidelines without permission until 2010. The community simply solved by the decision by majority without understanding Wikipedia 's principles until February, 2010.--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I'm reading this right, ja:wiki is repudiating the authority of the foundation that owns their website? Can we get one of the leftover servers for en: after they switch ja: off? We can always use another server. ;) Franamax (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese edition community thought that WMF was a lessor, and Jimbo was an honorary post. Naturally, they did not have the management authority, and Sysop had absolute sovereignty. The where to make contact of a Japanese edition is executed outside the management（not OTRS） of Wikipedia.The organization, the name of the contact person, and rules for running are secret.--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Revolution is all well and good, but not if you don't actually own the real estate that you occupy and can be kicked off at a moment's notice!  – ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to an English edition and jimbo. However, the community of a Japanese edition is doing so. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

By removing a previous version of this notice Jimbo has made it clear that it doesn't belong here because it doesn't relate to the English Wikipedia. Moreover, the previous version seemed to suggest that this is only a tempest in a teapot: Apparently the Japanese Wikipedia has renounced WP:IAR. Since such a principle doesn't have the same meaning across all cultures and Japanese culture is very special, I just don't see how this is relevant for us.

山吹色の御菓子: I think a better place to discuss your concerns would be somewhere at Meta. Hans Adler 14:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I found that 山吹色の御菓子 tried to discuss the same matter on the fundation-l mailing list. The version that came across on the mailing list was yet another one, totally different from what 山吹色の御菓子 said here, and also totally different from what 山吹色の御菓子 previously said here. I don't think we should try to understand what 山吹色の御菓子 means. I am sure there are enough Japanese editors who speak English very well and can help if this matter is of any importance at all. Hans Adler 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This was decided by the consensus of a Japanese edition.In fundation-l mailing list, it was a lot of dissenting opinions. Large majority seceded the senior user from the foundation of a Japanese edition. There is not the user knowing a lot about English edition.The meta participant is none at all. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I would be pleased to get 4-5 emails about this issue from Japanese Wikipedians of different viewpoints, so that I might understand what this is all about really. The Japanese community can't overrule the Foundation, for sure. I've nearly no ability to read Japanese, so overruling me personally on anything simply isn't an issue - I can't actually DO anything, so there's nothing to overrule. And so, as usual, I recommend against passing rules about things that aren't relevant in the first place.

However, based on my extensive experience with internal conflict in dozens of languages over the years, this is not likely to be the full story being reported to me here. I can only assume that one user, with a particular view on events, is posting here to try to get me to do something.

I think it is also worthy of a quick investigation. I have read a lot of English written by Japanese people, and it is at least possible that this is not English written by a Japanese person, but English written by someone who wants me to think it was written by Japanese people. The trolling concept is to post on my talk page that the Japanese are rebelling against my authority (whatever that might mean) in hopes that I'll wade over there and yell at them without having a clue what is going on, thus proving that I'm an idiot or whatever.

Or, there could be a huge problem in Japanese Wikipedia about which only one person has bothered to write me. Dunno. But I'm not getting too excited about it, either way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User leaving Wikipedia following RfA stuff

Jimbo,

I have been asked by Dusti (talk · contribs) to leave you a brief note here, to let you know they have sent you an email, and would very much appreciate a response - even if it is only to say that you have read it.

I do not know the details of the situation myself (yet); I am merely passing on the message, because they have already declared they've made their 'last edit'.

Best,  Chzz  ►  04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet, but I've been extremely busy doing an executive education seminar for the past 10 days... so I'm just about to start the long road to catching up on email.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will fix the situation:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EME44

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wikademia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag#User:EME44 - sock puppet?

Good luck. EME44 —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Wikiout

Please join us Jimbo. Outback the koala (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A Haiku

Some may call it 'coup'

or flattery; a bid to

take your role from you.

Olaf Davis (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April Fools Day nonsense

<vent>Jimbo, please can we put a stop to the annual April Fools Day nonsense on the Main Page? There are at least two spectacularly tasteless items up at the moment - the death of Winston Churchill in In the news, and the Cyprus/EOKA item in On this day. This isn't Fark.</vent> Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting it should be. What I am objecting to is littering the main page with inane, tasteless attempts at "jokes" in the name of trying to be funny. Why do we have to pander to the nonsense that is April Fools Day? If we have to, at least let's be tasteful about it - and, you know, actually funny. – ukexpat (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish people would stop using NOTCENSORED to justify things its not meant to. People have historically found amusing subjects on the Main Page (edit add: on April Fool's) to be amusing. Consensus can change. It may be that a relatively small number of editors know about or care to contribute to the April Fool's day version of the Main Page, so what seems smart and witty to a group comes across as in poor taste for the larger community. Just some observations. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It beggars belief that anyone found the Churchill hook funny. As for the EOKA hook - as I said on WP:ERRORS, make it a quip about some Troubles-related event on April 1 and see how many find that funny. – ukexpat (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that anything false as a joke on the homepage on April 1st should be treated as instantly blockable vandalism. I am strongly opposed to running fake items on the homepage of Wikipedia under any circumstances.

At the same time, I have always supported a more intelligent approach to the holiday. The front page should remain 100% truthful and NPOV, but should be amusing and surprising, featuring things that people might *think* are fake, but which are 100% real.

And regarding the matter of taste - I think it is crucial. Good humor need not be crude or offensive; intelligent humor seldom is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on falsies (my little joke) falsities, but the two items I referred to were not "false", but they are/were extremely distasteful. – ukexpat (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. They aren't there now, and I don't know what they said exactly. Winston Churchill's death being "In the News" isn't really offensive to me, but it also just isn't funny. I don't know what the other one was exactly so I can't comment. I should add: it's not right for me to be the final arbiter of taste, of course. I just encourage people to think about being in good taste as part of all editing, but particularly on the front page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I will show you the diffs if you really want to see them. In any event, they have been dealt with, but I have to question the review process that allowed them to get there in the first place. – ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be appreciated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't do them in regular diff format, but this is the text:

• "Winston Churchill dies nearly sixty-five years after the end of World War II."
• "Groups of Cypriots began a massive, nationwide campaign to exchange British yokes and other goods and services for Greek ones."  – ukexpat (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, those are lame. I changed my mind on the Winston Churchill one now that I get what it was about. That's painful to see.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The discussion that put it on the main page is here. I make no further comment on that. – ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Google does this kind of stuff, why can't WP? However, just as with Google, it should be made clear that it is indeed a joke, or at least be obviously implausible. I.e. if we wrote Wikipedia is being bought by Google and being renamed "Googlepedia," it should be mostly harmless. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's stupid, juvenile, jumping-on-the-bandwagon? But if we are going to do it, let's at least do it tastefully and make it funny and subtle - the best April 1 jokes (if we have to do them) are just that, the spaghetti harvest for example. – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I got lucky, I checked the main page after the lawyer thing was gone and the DYK's and ITN's had changed. I thought it was all very funny and I got to read some nifty articles checking that every single thing was true. The examples ukexpat lists are definitely more ungood. Franamax (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. The stuff I checked was mostly great and if not great, then at least pretty good. Ukexpat was right about those examples, but hey, it's a long day. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo

I decided to be bold start Wikipedia logo, but got this, stating that it was deleted in 2006, and its recreation is currently protected. It is a very visible and notable logo, has a long history, and, in my opinion, deserves a standalone article. Would you be so kind as to undo the protection so that I can create the article? Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked around a bit, and found this Wikipedia page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. Perhaps a redirect from Wikipedia logo to this page would do the trick? Looking at Wikipedia logo's deletion log, it was originally deleted as it was redirecting to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos when the page seemingly did not exist, but now it does. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects are generally not allowed. Also, the deletion log showed that it redirected to Wikimedia logos, a Wikipedia article, not a page in the Wikipedia namespace. Graham87 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about the links, didn't catch that. Ah, wait, now I'm confused :) The second deletion reasoning for Wikipedia logo is under WP:CSD#R1, so I'm assuming that it was first a redirect to "Wikimedia logos", but when "Wikimedia logos" was deleted, in was turned into a redirect to "Wikipedia:Wikimedia logos", where it was finally deleted. Anyway, in this scenario, in my opinion I think that a cross-namespace redirect would make the most sense. I'm going basic here, but if someone searches Wikipedia logo, I would think that the content they are looking for would be at Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. An argument against CNRs is that CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around, but in this case, the redirect would actually lead both the reader and the editor to what they're looking for. Unlike other project pages, Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos isn't really related to Wikipedia in terms of maintenance and policies, but rather, about Wikipedia itself in encyclopedic terms. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On a side-note, I'll probably bring this up at Wikipedia:Deletion review to generate a consensus (if no one else does before I get to it). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone that's reading is interested, I have opened a deletion review here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfair?

I really need your help with a very simple situation hidden in a mess of irrelevant but distracting misunderstandings over the course of three years.

In case you're wondering what I've done to help here, I've spent a majority of my time here illustrating our articles and believe me it takes a lot of time :) However this alows me to not only help the English wiki, but wikis all over the world. Here are some examples:Image Image Animation Image I loathe "tooting my horn" but it's important to understand that I'm not here to play games or edit war because I care about the project.

In 2007 I started editing here and began work on L. Ron Hubbard a bit later. At that time one of the Version of this page, as edited by BTfromLA (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 21 November 2006 secondary sources cited in the article included scanned US Navy documents in the public domain which I uploaded here. Later in 2007 I was involved in the first Scientology related case: COFS arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) where I was told to simply stay away from another editor, which I did. In 2009, after two years of trouble free editing, the arbcom topic banned me from editing Scientology articles after Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) citing the uploads and edits made in 2007-8. I had asked for your help right after the case during a time when you were understandably busy and I failed to clearly state what the problem was. After waiting about a year I went to the arbcom to see if they'd be willing to lift the restriction, and the request was archived without comment.

Regardless of whether I messed up in 2007, it seems unfair to ban me in 2009 for edits made in 2007 when there were no issues in the meantime. Please, please overturn the topic ban. Thank you for your time, Anynobody(?) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom threw down a lot of hard decisions with that case, as an illustrator i dont think it could be impeding you that much to avoid the topic of Scientology doing that. I could be wrong but i am inclined to think Jimbo would agree with me. Even Admins periphally involved in that case got topic bans, So your not sigled out by any means. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is right to treat editors who create useful, sourced content that supports their point of view in the same way as those who revert and delete the work of others to censor a point of view. I think that any edit at all expresses a point of view, though often people do not realize it is so. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7, please don't get me wrong, there was a lot of edit warring regarding Scientology and action definitely needed to be taken. However in this case they simply banned almost everyone ever involved in a Scientology dispute, which IMHO was like cutting off one's head to get rid of a headache. (I wasn't even actively editing Scientology articles when I was banned.)

Wnt I couldn't agree more, watching anyone remove well sourced material because they disagree with it is intolerable. By banning editors who stand up to that kind of behavior, it may not be long before people avoid any kind of dispute because they can be banned just for trying to keep valid/sourced material in a controversial article. Anynobody(?) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC):

Frankly the only reason you would need to be unblocked from that subject matter... is if you were going to do some more editing there. I think its in everyones interest if we let sleeping xenu.. er dogs lie with that one. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Scientology case was in many ways a landmark case, breaking new ground in some important ways. I continue to monitor the result, but so far I think it qualifies as a success. The goal here at Wikipedia is to write a high quality and neutral encyclopedia, not to provide a saloon for intellectual brawling. The normal procedure is to simply block people based on specific problems that are contemporary in nature. I was unsure about the wisdom of blocking people based on very old problems.

The difference, though, is that this group of pages had become notorious and difficult in an ongoing manner. This wasn't just a bar where a fight broke out one night, but a bar where fighting was happening every night, all the time. And finally the owners, fed up with it, decided to simply kick out any of the old customers who ever had a problem of any kind, and to turn the saloon into a quiet wine bar with ferns. OK, my analogy is silly and I've stretched it too far, but the point is, the ArbCom decided, and I support, that this set of articles had become unique and that the classic "whack-a-mole" approach wasn't working - it was time for a more wholesale housecleaning - and it has generally worked.

I think this approach is likely to end up happening in a number of other areas with longterm systemic problems. There are some topics where, over time, a set of participants on both sides of an issue begin to feel that the rules don't apply, that they don't need to try to be individually neutral, or that neutrality will come out of ongoing fighting, etc. If the ArbCom reviews such a situation carefully (and I will ask them to use a higher level of scrutiny than they would in any routine solution, and I will personally automatically review any such wide-ranging case) and orders all the sparring partners to take a year off... I will tend to accept it.

I don't think this form of remedy should be used often. But there are times when it is necessary to say: this is not what you're supposed to be doing at Wikipedia.

The downside is that some people who have done something bad 2 years ago, and behaved perfectly ever since - perhaps not even editing in that area at all - or who are noted elsewhere for being partisans - may find themselves subject to a restriction that is actually pointless, since they haven't edited in the area and don't intend to edit in the area. That's unfortunate, and so it should be understood that a topic ban in one of these highly unusual cases isn't automatically a negative judgment on the individual today. It's a procedural "zoning law" sort of issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Our climate change articles might be a good candidate to apply this solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to further digress in this thread, but in response to AQFK's comment above:

I'm so glad I'm not the only person thinking that! I truly wish I never would've read the global warming article six months ago. How could I have known that my simple curiousity about the subject would plunge me - headfirst - into such a deep rabbit hole?

It's like a bunch of madman conductors driving train car ^{(aka: article)} after train car into an already massive, smoldering wreck with the bodies of rationality and objectivity and neutrality strewn all around it*. I take in what I can until I'm sick to my stomach and then turn away for a couple days to mourn the losses and think, 'maybe when I come back someone will have resuscitated them'. But I return to find they have only suffered more.

I've made peace with the fact that just about everything relating to those articles will have to be cremated. And although I haven't contributed to them, my occasional, vocal concern for their state may well be enough to contaminate me as part of the fallout that would result from the fire. But I guess I'd concede my editing privileges everywhere on the encyclopedia if it was the price demanded to bring some measure of sanity back to such important general knowledge subjects.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

_{*I should praise A Quest For Knowledge for his efforts to better those articles. That he willingly jumps on one out-of-control train after another in an effort to hit the brakes is commendable...that the brake lines have all been cut is tragic.}

Yes, climate change as a subject area was very much on my mind as I was writing that. My personal experience in that area, quite brief, was extremely unpleasant, involving personal attacks and pretty surprising assumptions about my personal views on the matter. It is as though the main "mindset" there is not "we are good Wikipedians who may disagree about some things but check our bias at the door and try to work together to make something great" but rather "Which side are you on so I can know if I should fight you or not?" Painful - and unproductive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any assumptions about your personal views. But perhaps we are not referring to the same episode. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Comment from Dave Sousa being moved to new section so it doesn't get lost!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah its been pretty bad at Genesis creation myth‎ Lately, 3 Move discussions, 2 RFCs 2 SPIs and a smattering of and several pagelocks. all over wheater it is appropriate to use the title Genesis creation myth‎ or "Creation according to Genesis." Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7, with the greatest respect, this is article is about academic works in the field of Christian mythology scholars call the Genesis creation myth‎, it is not about the actual Book of Genesis. If you were to enroll in a college course on creation mythology you'd find Genesis creation myth‎ discussed with myths from all over the world like Hindu mythology, Jewish mythology, etc. Maybe Genesis mythology would be a better option as it removes the rather loaded word, creation, from what is otherwise a standard Category:Creation myths article.

Jimbo if we take the word myth out of Genesis creation myth then we are taking a stand against professional mythology textbooks, papers, and other academic studies because Christians don't like their beliefs being called mythology (which is what's driving the disruption described by Weaponbb7 above. I can guarantee there are no serious mythological books which would say Genesis isn't a mythology. (The flip side would be calling our article about the biblical Book of Genesis something like Myth of the Book of Genesis, where I can pretty much assume Christian sources don't call it that.)

My point is editor's feelings and opinions are irrelevant compared to what our sources say. Actually one could argue that we are taking a stand, for the sources. (PS I'm sorry for the delay in responding, between some new images, Easter and a couple of birthdays the past week has been incredibly busy.) Anynobody(?) 02:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

I'd expect similar problems anywhere religious and secular sources are both used. In this case it sounds like Christians, whether they will admit it or not, are offended that their beliefs are being called myths while editors without a conflict of interest could actually produce sources describing Genesis as a myth, such as a textbook on the subject The one that we find in the first chapter of Genesis is an artificial creation myth, where the world is originally made,... or several on this list of scholarly articles.

If I correctly understand neutrality, as an encyclopedia we shouldn't factor in concern over offending our subject when deciding on an article's title. Given the many sources out there we should keep the word myth in the article's title. We should also include relevant material discussing whether myth means fiction, as in this book The Old Testament world while being especially careful about how we use the word so as not appearing to endorse a negative connotation to a purely scientific/academic dialogue. Anynobody(?) 02:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is clear that you do not understand neutrality - and if there is anything on that page which creates this misunderstanding, it needs to be fixed. Neutrality means that Wikipedia should not take a stand on any controversial issue - it is absolutely the case that we should factor in whether or not people would be offended when working on an article title when that offense stems from the title making a controversial assertion with which they do not agree. The goal is not to "not offend people" but rather to ensure that Wikipedia is not taking a stand. Give the facts in the body of the article, give them in a manner that everyone can agree with, and name the article accordingly. "Genesis creation myth" is blatantly and obviously not neutral on the key question of whether or not this story is true. We should not, equally, choose a title which suggests that the story is true, for example "Creation" without a qualifier would be a bad title for this article. Or How God Created The World - very bad. But "Creation according to Genesis" or similar does the correct thing - it avoids drawing any conclusion about that bit. The key here is that there have been produced, as far as I have seen, no arguments against that title that have been persuasive at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We had very neutral title with "creation according to genesis," its not nessary to slap myth in the title. My concern at this point is the Battle ground mentality there. As an anthropologist i agree its a creation myth, the average layman looking at it sees it as an attack on thier religoin. Three or four people who are pushing it are people who are using it in a degoutory way, but hiding the behind the "acdemic use." Its really gotten out of hand. Like i said 3 renamings, 2 rfc, one RFC for user conduct, 2 SPIs involved at least 2 ANIs over it its way outa of hand. The Archive for the page are like 2005-2007, 2007- 2009 an then 7 archives for the past 3 months. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to observe that User:Anynobody, not only misunderstands WP:NPOV, but also misunderstands the very source she or he quotes: "the first chapter of Genesis is an artificial creation myth" [emphasis added].

Northrop Frye's lecture transcript explains, in context, his point of view that the first chapter of Genesis overlays and priveleges its own conception of the primacy of a "sky-father" over the historical background of other conceptions that saw the world in terms of an "earth-mother". This is a very well-known, popular and recent-ish view of Genesis 1, with a good deal to recommend it. Of course, it's not the only view, and who are we to say whether it is correct?

But my point here is that it is sad that, in a rush to settle an oversimplified question--"is Genesis a creation myth?--User:Anynobody overlooks that Frye is suggesting Genesis 1 is an artificial myth, not a genuine myth. In fact, Frye is a source against Genesis 1 as simply "creation myth". And Frye is no slavish Genesis 1 devotee, but an active critic.

Genesis 1 is accepted as a secondary source, relative to the literature that preceded it, by a consensus of modern scholarship. The scholars head off in a number of directions from there, Frye with his gender agenda, others with their agendas, but the main thing is: because Genesis is not the oldest cosmogonic story from its region, its relationship to prior works is a matter of scholastic questioning. It is not simply an independent creation myth, because it's almost certainly not independent.

I look forward to Wikipedia providing exemplary coverage of the history of scholarship on this topic, the current lack of which is, I think, the real cause behind recent confusion among editors. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7, with the greatest respect, this is article is about academic works in the field of Christian mythology scholars call the Genesis creation myth‎, it is not about the actual Book of Genesis. If you were to enroll in a college course on creation mythology you'd find Genesis creation myth‎ discussed with myths from all over the world like Hindu mythology, Jewish mythology, etc. Maybe Genesis mythology would be a better option as it removes the rather loaded word, creation, from what is otherwise a standard Category:Creation myths article.

Jimbo if we take the word myth out of Genesis creation myth then we are taking a stand against professional mythology textbooks, papers, and other academic studies because Christians don't like their beliefs being called mythology (which is what's driving the disruption described by Weaponbb7 above. I can guarantee there are no serious mythological books which would say Genesis isn't a mythology. (The flip side would be calling our article about the biblical Book of Genesis something like Myth of the Book of Genesis, where I can pretty much assume Christian sources don't call it that.)

My point is editor's feelings and opinions are irrelevant compared to what our sources say. Actually one could argue that we are taking a stand, for the sources. (PS I'm sorry for the delay in responding, between some new images, Easter and a couple of birthdays the past week has been incredibly busy.) Anynobody(?) 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines actually you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, my point is that the Genesis creation myth is a topic in mythology (in this case Frye's assertion against Genesis 1 as simply "creation myth" as discussed in many other sources). Since he's arguing AGAINST it as a simple creation myth it's appropriate for the article called Genesis creation myth‎, unless you assume that EVERYTHING in that article MUST confirm the traditional creation myth argument. (If you do make that assumption then you are taking a stand based on your own expectations rather than what the sources discuss.) Anynobody(?) 03:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am very practiced in misunderstanding people, and you could well be right, Anynobody. But I think we all agree with you that plenty of sources are happy to apply the term "creation myth" to Genesis, and documenting that is our responsibility, but in the title? as though it is the best, simple, unproblematic designation?

I do think you hit the nail on the head, though: Genesis rightly falls into the category of discussion of creation myths, also creation myths rightly fall into the category of things discussed about Genesis. But remember your Venn diagrams. Some sources (not Frye) think Genesis is a subset (one circle within another) of creation myths, but many don't (even ignoring literalist creationists). Most think Genesis overlaps (two overlapping circles) with creation myths. Tagging Genesis 1 with "myth" in the title suggests the "subset" classification is the normative and complete designation of Genesis 1. Why suggest that when it's not only not consensus, but unneccessary to define the topic or provide search terms?

Apologies if I'm still misunderstanding you, Anynobody. But since this is Jimmy's page, which I'm just about to unwatch, I'll be dependent on you correcting me at my own page, if you're interested in helping me further. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines no apology necessary, you're understanding is much closer to 100% and I have quite a bit of practice in being unclear :) The reason I think it's an appropriate title is simply because that's what the sources call it, you actually kind of made my point for me by pointing out Frye's disagreement with the simple creation myth assertion applying to Genesis. If other sources weren't calling it a simple creation myth he'd sound pretty weird arguing his point to a field that already agreed with him. Anynobody(?) 04:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to side with Jim here. Genesis 1-2 contains a creation myth/sacred history/allegory/foundational religious document/metaphor/a dozen other things you can call it. Mythologists will argue that it borrows from Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian sources, while biblical commentators will often as not argue it is an anti-mythological polemic. While the subject of Genesis as myth and in relation to myth certainly must be addressed, the title should be worded in a neutral manner. I'd add that the title should be worded in an accessible manner. The "Genesis creation myth" title has spawned at least a half dozen other forwarding titles because no one would think of looking for the subject under that title. While I do regard it as a creation myth, it would never occur to me to look for the cosmogony of a living religion under a title normally used for an extinct religion. If you have a title so bad that you need a bunch of forwarding titles to get you there, why not just use one of those forwarding titles?EGMichaels (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels I completely understand what you are saying, believe me I also understand how Christians could be offended by inclusion of the word myth in this title. This article, Genesis creation myth, is part of a series of articles about creation mythology in general. Mythologists call everyone's religion a myth* be they Native American (we have articles on specific tribal myths Navajo mythology and in general Earth-maker myth), Asian (Chinese creation myth), or any other non-scientific theory for how we got here: Origin myth.* Like it or lump it, in a mythology article respected sources on mythology ought to trump all other sources on the topic, it's either that or we start thinking of less offensive titles for the articles I just listed since I doubt Navajo or Chinese believers appreciate the word myth being used in relation to their beliefs either.

Jimbo this goes back to what I was trying to say about neutrality not being dictated by a groups of people being offended by outside studies of their beliefs. Otherwise, in this case, we let the Christians dictate terms to mythology scholars in their own field of study. In the subject of mythology all beliefs are described in the context of myth and if we remove "myth" from a mythological article we are taking a stand in favor of Christianity and essentially declaring myth doesn't apply to Christian culture despite what academic sources say.

Personally, I wish there was a way to make everyone happy but I can't find a mythology source which doesn't discuss Genesis as a myth. If some exist that I'm unaware of then we could explore other options, otherwise we're just tweaking the POV expressed in the sources we do have. Anynobody(?) 05:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)(*For example check out this Williams College page called Common Elements in Creation Myths. The Hebrew/Christian Creation Myth is discussed after the African Bushmen Creation Myth and before the Greek Creation Myth)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

I very much agree with your analogy Jimbo, it was very much like a constant bar brawl. Only this fight was borne of special circumstances involving people who seriously believe in their chosen religion, which is mostly maligned in our sources; recently we had a FA on one of them, The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power. I understand why Scientologists would have seen me as anti-Scientology by citing this article (the Time article not ours, can't source to ourselves ;), but I can only work with what's out there. I totally understand not wanting a situation like before, it was a very aggravating waste of time. However this could actually happen again, with different editors unless we make a slight change in how we enforce peaceful editing. Imagine three or four Scientologists decide that neutrality means not using sources that paint their religion in a negative way and start removing cited material from Scientology articles. With the current system, any serious editor just trying to follow the rules risks being in my situation simply by doing what we ask of them. (FYI I think neutrality, in a nutshell, means including all relevant sources regardless of how they make the subject "look". If Time published an article saying Scientology works exactly as advertised I'd work that into the article too because that's what the source said.)

All I want is to be able to edit any article, like I could in the beginning, and am acutely aware any edits would be subject to scrutiny. Beyond the ban being unfair, hasn't it been long enough?

K10wnsta I can't come up with the words to truly convey the affinity I felt in your post, How could I have known that my simple curiousity about the subject would plunge me - headfirst - into such a deep rabbit hole? That pretty much sums me up too. Anynobody(?) 02:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Banned?

I don't get it... how am I banned, yet not blocked and able to edit? And how did I not know until this morning? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, this April 1 stuff is pathetic... - ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet it's in the right place: in the user space. What's really pathetic is the people who try it in articles, noticeboards, etc. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to see the end of a good-natured day of silliness, but it can go too far; just take a look at WP:MFD for today; somebody has to waste time going through these and closing them, which is time that could be productively spent doing other stuff. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I stuck to my own userspace. Of course, I did highlight the joke on Jimbo's page, but nobody's time was wasted cleaning it up; I cleaned it up myself with a simple click of the revert button. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The end of Wikipedia

In w:el:Ελληνικό_αλφάβητο el:user:Kalogeropoulos blocked article on vandalized version and insists on keeping it in such vandalized state. Please revert him to last version by 85.25.73.57 - this is needed because I exhausted all local procedures. Administrators does not have right to work on behalf of vandals. This is against Wikipedia. 83.21.173.183 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am entirely unable to read Greek, and in any event this would not be the right place for this complaint. I suggest that you post on the equivalent of the Village Pump, or on the talk page of the article, explaining the issue in calm terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But he screwed table. So rather revert to this should be done instead. Can thou do this? Table still is screwed and no one cares. Note that today version from 18:18 is last good one with condensed references. 83.21.173.183 (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, some thoughts, hopefully for the good of this project...

Two more years, and Wikipedia will stop creating new articles...

The end of Wikipedia is close. Probably 2 more years under it founders into stagnation (see graph). Someone was dreaming of a wind of liberalization that could again unleash exponential growth on Wikipedia, but the system has remained the same, and has actually gotten worse. Administrators have become a tyranical entity (1 for 10 editors) which delights in harassing fellow volunteers. ArbCom is simply unable to bring any justice to the system. Editorial practices result in the harassment of creative or inquiring contributors, discourage the exhaustive compiling of the world's knowledge in favour of shortish synthetic articles which limit themselves to mainstream, generalistic, and often prejudiced, views. Rules such as "Undue weight" or "Consensus" are killing the development of knowledge forks and the enthusiasm of original, creative, contributors. To unleash creation, very simply, any published material should have the inaliable right to be represented on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about the compiling of all the world's knowledge anymore: it's only about making an ersatz of a paper encyclopedia, written by average people. Through outdated editorial rules, Wikipedia is totally missing the knowledge revolution: it is only becoming a web-based version of an 18th century encyclopedia concept. Wikipedia could have been the repository of all the world's knowledge, but unfortunately it is becoming an Encyclopedia Britanica bis, less the expertise. I wonder which newcomer is now going to catch this opportunity.... Just an opinion. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just stating my thinking, but referring to the graph, the decrease in the number of articles every year isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's only so much in the world to write about. I think Wikipedia is slowly entering more of a maintenance and expansion stage where articles are now more in the process of being expanded and maintained. If you wanted to measure the site's success (or demise) with a graph, a graph showing the number of active editors or number of contributions would probably be a better representation. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia's success should not be measured by the number of new articles created. I'd wager a substantial amount of our 3+ million articles could use substantial improving and/or quality expansion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• The end of Wikipedia is, a) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome the slowing in the growth in the number of articles. While any article which does not yet exist, but which should exist, should be created... growth for the sake of growth is absolutely the wrong metric.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a graph of quality, not quantity. I expect it would show improvement on all parameters, such as writing, sourcing and neutrality. The slowdown in new articles should give us a chance to keep improving the ones we have. Crum375 (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the original premise was somewhat flawed as relating only to article creation, and in the early years, one would expect a huge influx, not only as original editors create the obvious so-called "low-hanging fruit" articles, but also as the project develops and attracts newer editors with differing, and perhaps more specialist interests, who realise that the project has achieved validity and acceptance, and will spend the time making additions. After the peak, these effects will die down, but not necessarily as regards improving existing articles. In the world in which we live, new television series and films are made, creating new articles, and this I think will tend to become more of a linear than exponential increase as time progresses. However, we still have a poor record of Good Articles, let alone Featured Articles, but the reality is that for volunteers, these are hurdles that I perceive many editors to see as being more than their time is worth. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is to be expected. You can only write the article on World War II once, for example. I suspect that as time goes on (if it hasn't already happened) most new Wikipedia articles will be about popular culture and current events. It's possible that more 'serious-minded' (for lack of a better term) editors will focus on improving existing articles to GA and FA status. Out of curiosity, has anyone done any projection as to where Wikipedia will be 5, 10, 20, a hundred years from now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See this for more information on why Wikipedia is going to end soon. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Easter!} at 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Information or opinion? Oh, and my colour-blindness in an unusual way means that it's only now that I know to whom I am replying. Having read that, it seems to be the usual "doom and gloom" about the governance of Wikipedia. I don't think we were ever set up to have "governance" as such, because the initial premise that "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has been both our success story ("You can change this page right now"), and to some extent, our weakness in that such an invitation, particularly since our increased appearance in Google, attracts those who would wish to see us fail, and these people push the boundaries of our collective good faith. Despite increasingly technical measures to combat this disruption to what we are trying to achieve, it is still happening. What is worse is that relatively fewer and fewer admins per editor overall as time progresses are routinely castigated for occasionally making the wrong decision, regardless of their commitment to this project. Some things need to change: obvious vandals need to have fewer warnings; more importantly, we need to take a harder line with anon IP vandals, because they know they are unaccountable, whereas we who block them "too soon" or "for the wrong reasons" are accountable. That's an imbalance of power and responsibility that should not be tolerable. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea about arbitration groups presiding on matters of content and policy. This came up somewhere a few months ago, and I cast my vote in favor of it. I guess it didn't go anywhere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I proposed it before but it's not going to happen because anyone in such a group would become, de facto, personally responsible for the accuracy of content, and that would be an uninsurable risk. That's why all present foundation-supported mechanisms deal with conduct not content, and content is always remanded firmly back to the community. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Reports of its death are greatly exaggerated" -- Mark Twain on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Czech Republic publication preface

Dear Mr. Wales, sorry to disturb You again, but I have not receive any reply regarding my mail on behalf of Wikimedia Czech Republic mail from March 23. Please contact me as soon as possible as the publication is going to be ready for the publisher. Thanks a lot, with regards Okino (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I should get to it tomorrow morning!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A Problem with Michael Jackson's Albums discography

Hi Jimbo, i contact you because at this point, you're the only one who can end a dispute started earlier this year for the Michael Jackson's albums discography. After discussing for a long time, we came to vote, but at the end of it, we discovered that Wikipedia don't admits votes and so, we returned at the beginning. In the following link you will find the whole thing post-vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson_albums_discography#A_vote_is_not_a_reason_to_split_the_discography_page.

Here there are the split pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_(peak_chart_positions)&oldid=353524907

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_(certifications_and_sales)&oldid=353560821

Here the page merged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography&oldid=354042912

Thank you for your time SJ (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:Appeals to Jimbo. – ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unless there's some particularly special situation here, I prefer not to comment. These days, I'm mostly restricting my commenting - and it is only commenting in an attempt to encourage and facilitate quality work - to issues relating to BLPs and relating to "large difficult intractable areas", climate change in particular. Ordinary content disputes wouldn't benefit from my commenting, and indeed, my comments might just cause too much of a stir.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Block log

I was just looking at your block log. I noticed that you were blocked several times in the past. I didn't know that was even possible. Weird. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 21:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromised admin accounts perhaps, or admins gone berserk. I'm sure it happens. DVdm (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been Admin Phishing Attempts recently, Report that To ANI Pronto Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. DVdm (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the admins blocking Jimbo has been compromised, others could have gone insane. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, anyone can be blocked. No one is immune from blocks, but anyone with the block right can also unblock themselves just as easily. As of revision 64228 though, unblocking oneself will require the unblockself right (which admins will have by default). I imagine Jimbo would retain that right, even if the community decides it should be removed from the sysop group. Reach Out to the Truth 22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. :-) I hadn't actually look at that in a long time. A couple of those were jokes. A couple were compromised accounts or "suicide by cop". :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of those were "indefinite" with the exception of one that was just for 1 second. Clearly just a joke. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Username question

Is it possible to take control of a username that is not active anymore? I like to create an acount and the username i first chose is already is use, he has not edited an almost 2 years. Or do I have to chose another.173.203.100.79 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I may be able to help you with that. What is the username in question? --Deskana (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Monarch User Talk: Monarch, last contribution April 2008 173.203.100.79 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't possible for you to take over this name, because it has made edits which per GFDL must be uniquely attributable. There's nothing to prevent you taking over a similar username that hasn't made any edits, or to pick a username that isn't already taken. You can see Special:Listusers for this, and search from "Monarch" to see which might be available. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu speaks the truth. --Deskana (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine, thank you for your help. 173.203.100.79 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome (and sorry for the orange bar spam, Jimbo). --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional question

What would happen constitutionally if people tried to change the policies for the Wikipedia to include things that Encyclopedias specifically do not traditionally include??

I ask because there's always people that like individual articles on words and idioms, and slang words. But encyclopedia articles titles are always supposed to be nouns, and the literature says that a topic that is the words in the title, as opposed to a topic that is referred to by the title; that's usually the subtle line between a Dictionary entry and an Encyclopedia article respectively. (I actually found an objective test in the literature that is based on this: encyclopedia articles can be fully translated into an arbitrary foreign language).

I only ask because there's some signs that people are going for regulatory capture on the issue; there's language in WP:ISNOT that says that 'some' articles on words are OK, whatever that means, and its vagueness is being used as a blank check in AFDs; and at least one AFD was closed with the admin declaring that a potentially vast number of articles on words are fine."Current guidelines do not preclude the inclusion of articles about words, whether the article discusses the word itself of the idea represented by the word. As long as a particular topic can be verifiably shown, with reliable sources, to be notable, then it is acceptable for inclusion." This seems to be problematical because dictionaries are probably reliable sources, and even if we ignore that then there's the noun problem; the titles in encyclopedias are always supposed to be nouns, but lots of verifiable words/terms will be non nounal.

I don't have a problem if people WP:IAR a few articles in, (maybe swear words are OK, or whatever) but if the policy is basically written that word articles are completely or extremely often OK, then that potentially crosses the constitutional line. So I don't think the admin's theory can really fly, by and large.

At the moment I have visions of this escalating, the plausible route goes: a) add lots of words into the Wikipedia, b) once it's become the norm, change the policies, c) the wikipedia is now a dictionary as well. We seem to be somewhere around b) right now. So long term I can see this can damage Wiktionary.

I just think we're better off picking an objective criteria, and sticking to it.

Ultimately these kinds of issues are down to popularity, people may want something to be something it isn't, and probably can't be, but at some point you hit constitution, or somebody has to weigh up the pros and cons and make a decision that actually works (competing self-interests are rarely good at doing this).- Wolfkeeper 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not "some people" as it's been pointed out to you by many editors on many forums that your interpretation of WP:NOTDICT does not match the community's. From WP:NOTDICDEF: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness". This is why we have articles like Yankee and Thou. Most of the community can distinguish between an article which is a dicdef and an article which has encyclopedic content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now there seems to be no practical difference per the policy, since you can always argue that 'some' words are allowed, and the word/term-inclusionists seem to be trying to maintain these changes to the core policy which thus seem to be non constitutional. They repeatedly say that word articles are fine, and many of them edit war the policy on the grounds that word articles are never deleted at AFD. But if they're never deleted at AFD then we clearly have a problem.- Wolfkeeper 15:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles the community feels don't have enough encyclopedic content are deleted at AFD as you've pointed out yourself elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Developers being a bit bold?

This is supposed to be a 300-pixel-wide, 398 KB, self-running animation. It had achieved FA status in January 2007 and is used on six of Wikipedia’s technology-related articles.

Click here to see what the animation is supposed to look like.

Jimbo, what are the developers doing with Wikipedia’s animations? Many self-running animations, such as the one shown at right (and which is used on Thermodynamic temperature) worked fine for years but no longer do so. Note another self-running animation here on Non-uniform rational B-spline; same error. This is what it is supposed to look like in our articles. The animation on Thermodynamic temperature (and many other articles, including Equipartition theorem) was awarded FA status in January 2007. Now all one sees is a gray boxes saying “Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or image file with more than 12.5 million pixels.”

These animations broke only in the last day. I would normally assume it is just a code error that would be quickly remedied but see on Bug 23063 that a developer wrote:

Preferably we should thumb the first frame, render a "play" icon on top and always load the full GIF in the image description page, or something like that.

That suggests these guys are contemplating a change to self-running animations. I doubt the community perceives the need for this. Do you think Wikipedia’s CTO knows about this? Greg L (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail scaling for GIFs was recently re-enabled. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Re-enabled GIF scaling. Re-enabling it has of course revealed why it was disabled in the first place. Reach Out to the Truth 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I contacted Werdna and asked him to leave well-enough alone. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Foucault pendulum animated.gif is a animated image that works fine. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 17:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It apparently affects only animations that have pixel widths beyond a certain size. The one illustrated at right, while only 398 KB, is 300 pixels wide. Further discussion of technical matters best belongs here on Werdna’s talk page. Greg L (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say - keep me posted if this develops into a serious issue but if it is just technical accidents and wrangling, I probably am not the right person to meddle into it... :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a technical accident; hopefully a short-lived one. Since just one animation—the one shown at upper right—is in six articles:

Thermodynamic temperature

Kinetic theory

Elastic collision

Neutron moderator

Equipartition theorem

…and since it can reasonably be assumed that other animations have similarly been affected, a great many articles have been degraded by this. I should think whatever bit was flipped to turn on Thumbnail scaling be unflipped until a better solution can be found. Greg L (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Ww2 allied axis.gif

Animated map of the world showing the participants in World War II and their alliances over time. The Allies are in blues and greens, and the Axis powers are in reds and pinks; the neutral countries are grey.

It's true, I was just at Participants in World War II. This is all over. Outback the Koala (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of fraud, NPOV, and BLP (Climate Change)

Jimbo, I'm very sorry to hear that you found the experience so unpleasant, and I for one certainly made no assumptions about your personal views – your thoughts on issues are always welcome and I wouldn't expect you to be involved in detailed consideration of every topic. Since your responses do get brought up in subject areas,[23] I would be grateful if you could give your view in general policy terms on whether, when sources state that a specific group has made accusations of fraud, that it meets verifiability and original research policy to say that "various people" made these accusations, on the grounds that a small number of other people may have made similar accusations. Also, would NPOV require us to state that the same sources report that many other people say that the accusations are groundless? Your comment on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, dave souza, talk 04:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to answer this question with a specific opinion, without specific facts. In general, there are several principles at stake here:

1. First and foremost, BLP issues matter. An accusation of "fraud" is generally (though not always) a specific legal allegation. Even if it is not intended in a legal sense, it is always a serious allegation. Repeating serious allegations should be done carefully. For example, if the allegations have only appeared in blogs or tabloids, it may be best to avoid them. If the allegations have been widely repeated in mainstream media, then it may of course be necessary to include them.
2. Next, I would say that in almost all cases, phrases like 'various people' should be avoided. If we know who, we should say who. It is of course important to be careful to not give a misleading impression about the source of the allegation in either direction - for example, if we have an unpopular person or group making the allegation, and cite it to them, failing to note that credible people or groups have also made the allegation, we misrepresent the situation. In general, including more information will be useful to the reader and will make it much easier to reach consensus.
3. Finally, I would say that if there are sources who report that "many other people" say the the accusations are groundless, we should again report on just who is saying what. It is important that Wikipedia not take sides.

There are some other things that need to be handled thoughtfully. As I mentioned above "fraud" is a serious allegation, possibly the most serious one at stake in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. This extreme allegation (particularly in the narrow legal sense) has been refuted by the formal investigations. The participants in this email group are likely to be exonerated of everything legal or impacting their job status.

But notice that there is a really biased way to handle this, if we pretend that "allegations of fraud" are central to the controversy, and later simply report that the group was "exonerated".

I think for most people, the emails are simply a grave disappointment, whether they constitute technical misconduct or not. If you are a supporter of the views put forward by this group (basically pro-human-caused climate change), then surely their conduct was at a minimum embarrassing to see. Phil Jones called his own emails "pretty awful" if I remember correctly. And if you are an opponent, you're also disappointed in scientists and have further reason to doubt the veracity of the entire enterprise.

My point here, about the "fraud" allegation is that we should give full and accurate information, not just about fringe accusations, but about how mainstream commentators and important authorities responded to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to step in to make a quick point. I'm pretty new here and have never edited any of the climate change articles. But I'm increasingly of the opinion that this email controversy is a media circus and nothing more. I find persuasive Elizabeth Kolbert's article in this week's New Yorker, in which she describes the increasing public skepticism toward global warming, which she ascribes to the so-called Climategate controversy. She says "Climategate really is a hyped-up media phenomenon." As I believe others have pointed out, the CRU members were recently exonerated. Quoting from the New Yorker: "Insofar as the commtitee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the committee considers that there is no case to answer." In light of this, I think that efforts to name the article "Climategate" or to call it a "scandal" are misguided, and that this whole thing needs to be kept in perspective. When I have a chance I think I may expound on this further on my user page. ScottyBerg(talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "climategate" disproves anthropogenic global warming in exactly the same way Piltdown Man disproves evolution - the really weird thing being that there are genuinely people out there who think that it does. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's a good exemplar of Hanlon's Razor, in my opinion. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the thoughtful response, Jimbo. I fully agree about the BLP issues. The various serious allegations have been so widespread that we must cover them, but when the sources show statements defending the scientists concerned, in my view we must also show that the allegations have been contested. We've just been having a discussion about an edit which removed such balance, and was promptly reverted because of NPOV and BLP concerns.[24] Since then, another editor has made a series of edits which, while not so bad, removed the well sourced clarification of who initially made the allegations and who in whole or part rejected them, as well as using a blog as a source on this BLP issue.[25] Since the wording is questionable, I'm considering these revisions carefully, and have already commented on some aspects on the talk page.[26] As the article probation only permits one revert in 24 hours I'm reluctant to revert the obvious problems, but it's getting late at night here and that may be the best option.
  I'm neither a supporter nor an opponent of the views of the scientists who have been accused of malpractice, as a climate change sceptic I think all the science has to be carefully questioned, but as an editor my research has shown that their work is part of the overwhelming majority expert view on climate change. Their behaviour in certain areas has been foolish or even reprehensible, particularly their email discussion proposing deletion of their private emails which had been requested by an amateur climate change sceptic under the FOIA. However, many of the allegations don't stand up to scrutiny – the papers they supposedly suppressed were published, the papers they were rude about have been found to be substandard or defective, and there's no evidence that they actually destroyed any emails or data.
  The Science and Technology Select Committee press release and detailed report is well worth reading. The committee's demand for greater transparency and a significant change of practice in the climate science community is welcome on the face of it, but as they noted, "51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified." Re-publication of raw data which is already available from archive sources is being put in hand, but various governments have rules preventing this for good reasons such as commercial requirements and the aim of avoiding circulation of possibly corrupted copies, and have been slow to agree to such re-publication. Publication of computer codes is in hand, but opponents have been demanding every version used in developing the codes – the committee doesn't seem to address that point. So, problems with that need to be addressed.
  Your final point is particularly welcome, and will be worthwhile bringing to the attention of editors on the talk pages. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, part of the problem that we're having is that there was a wide variety of allegations from an even wider variety of people. Aside from AGW skeptics, allegations were made by the mainstream press[27], fellow scientists (including the Institute of Physics[28], Judy Curry[29] and John Christy[30]), and pro-AGW environmentalists.[31]. Even Michael Mann criticized Phil Jones for telling him to delete his e-mails.[32]

What Dave failed to mention is that the current dispute is about the summary. The article content is well-sourced and does specify which individuals/organizations make an allegation. However, with the lede, it's difficult to summarize such a complicated situation.

I'd also add that recent edits to the article have had the effect of whitewashing the scandal as if only AGW skeptics have found the content of the e-mails questionable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like progress is being made, and that a number of good and thoughtful people are working to find a widely acceptable consensus - when this sort of thing is working well, the result is astonishing and something we can all be proud of for sure. One small note, not intended in a negative way but just as a positive suggestion about language: while I agree with you that making it seems that only AGW skeptics have found the content of the emails questionable is not ideal, I think it best to avoid words like 'whitewash' in our internal discussions. The reason is that such words may feel like pin-pricks or jabs by people who are on the other side but who also don't want to whitewash. This can tend to generate the battleground mentality that causes everyone to dig in their heels.

What I encourage is that - to the maximum extent possible - we think of ourselves as Wikipedians first, and political or other activists of whatever kind separate. Our job here is to simply write down the facts in a way that a wide variety of people on all sides can agree about - so that newcomers can understand what the fuss is about. AGF is hard, and sometimes we may have to silently roll our eyes at the glow of the computer screen :-), but better to do that than to suit up in full armor for a battle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"write down the facts .. all sides can agree about" - that is the problem. One side deletes all the facts they don't like. It does not matter how reliable the sources are, certain facts are not allowed. Q Science (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree about comments like "whitewashing", that sort of failure to assume good faith does indeed cause a lot of the unpleasantness that we were discussing in the #Unfair? section above, and should always be avoided. Unfortunately, A Quest For Knowledge seems to have misunderstood my edits – care was taken to attribute allegations to those making the allegations according to the cited sources. The examples AQFK gives were taken fully into consideration, as they either express concern about information being withheld, as did several other people, or comment on the emails in relation to difficulties with getting work which goes against the scientific consensus through the peer-review process. Both views were covered in the lead version as of 23:14, 4 April 2010,[33] but AQFK then removed all views against sceptical allegations from the lead, in direct contravention of the principles we were discussing above.[34] The views of the Select Committee have since been restored, but as AQFK has asked us to attempt to reach consensus on the article talk page before restoring contentious BLP material, my feeling is that the best way forward is to remove the unanswered allegations and begin discussions. I'm hopeful that normal dispute resolution will reach a version that will be acceptable to everyone. Many thanks, dave souza, talk 08:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed way forward . . dave souza, talk 08:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, despite the post above where you say that the best way forward is to discuss this, you are now edit-warring to include contentious material about living people. Per WP:BLP, I've removed all contentious material from the lede until we can get it right. This is the safest thing to do until we can figure out how to resolve this dispute. Let's first discuss this at the article talk page before restoring any contentious BLP content, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, despite what I thought was a clear summary of principles by yourself which I endeavoured to discuss on the article talk page,[35] AQFK seems to hold a radically different view of BLP which involves deleting all content from the lead section itself saying that accusations are to a greater or lesser extent baseless, leaving only the allegations made by the climate skeptics.[36] This meant that the lead did not summarise the article. AQFK took that idea as a license to edit war to 4RR on a page with a 1RR sanction, and was blocked for 24 hours.[37] Very slow progress is being made at Way forward to reach consensus, but I'm pretty tired just now, and at present the article still doesn't show the balancing views which I believe are essential, everyone apparently being inhibited by the 1RR restriction. The sanctions only cover behaviour such as politeness or edit warring, so policy violations are not part of the issue there. No doubt arguments will resume when the block expires. I remain very concerned about this unresolved BLP and NPOV issue in the lead section of a prominent article . dave souza, talk 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Clarifications added . . dave souza, talk 15:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What a difference a day can bring! After proposals, discussion, and implementation followed by some further agreed improvements, we now seem to have an agreed and much more suitable lead section. Thanks again for the guidance on principles, dave souza, talk 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, you may wish to know that one of the people mentioned in the article, Michael Hulme, has (apparently) requested that a statement be changed.[38]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the offending sentence has been removed.[39] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At the margins

Inge Lynn Collins Bongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, VRTS ticket # 2010033010056574. For that full name I find 79 unique Google hits [40], but there is undoubtedly mention in a couple of weighty sources (Senate documents) as well as tittle-tattle. This is not WP:BLP1E but it is a BLP based on a few news stories largely in tabloids, with Wikipedia clearly blazing the trail in terms of presenting a formalised biography. I'd love to hear your take on this one, as previous discussions lead me to believe that you're particularly interested in the margins of biographical subjects. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's rubbish and should be deleted. Completely ridiculous. We have basically no information about this woman other than this goofball lawsuit story. Useless. It looks like the AfD agrees with me. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the uncensored version?[41] Question: is a majority and minority staff report from the Permanent Committee on Investigations of the United States Senate an unreliable primary source that should not be allowed to be cited in a BLP? Wnt (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is generally good to conflate the concepts "unreliable" and "primary", as this will likely lead to some confusion. There is no question that this is a primary source, and as such, it must be handled carefully. I would say that in this case - as it appears to be an expose and not a general-interest profile, it is likely to give rise to problems of undue weight. Remember: a solid biography is more than just a listing of whatever data we can find - it should be well-rounded and give a reasonably complete picture of the person. In some cases - and this is likely one, although I am unsure whether more sources can be found in due course (please try!) - it is simply impossible to write a proper biography based on the publicly available information, which is essentially BLP1E stuff.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unreliable" referred to scribd - this was per prior discussion at WP:BLPN. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. My point was just that in many cases, government documents of this sort - even when we can fully establish the provenance - are primary sources and can be very problematic. The classic kind of BLP example I have seen is for someone to dig up a court case which was never covered in any mainstream press but which, by writing even quite neutrally about it at great length, gives an impression that a company is shady. Whether or not a court case reflects negatively on a company, versus being a routine business dispute, is original research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The scribd document came from a .pdf at the U.S. Senate. I agree that a court transcript is a primary source, but a majority and minority report from the Senate implies that many eyes have reviewed the facts and come to a journalistic consensus. Though they may have their biases and limitations, I don't think that the Senate is a less desirable source for Wikipedia than every newspaper and magazine. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice that I removed the scribd copy and left the direct download from the .gov domain in place, in the first instance. This was per prior discusison at BLPN. We do use primary sources in some cases, but in this case the material is controversial and the interpretation of the extent to which it applies to the subject in question was, apparently, editorial on the part of the Wikipedia article writer. I completely agree with what Jimbo says below. Things such as discussing bamkruptcy with the sole source being a court filing, that is far more problematic and is probably never going to fly in a biography (see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu which touched on similar matters). You'll note also that I asked for the input of Francophone Wikipedians because my French is not great (see fr:utilisateur:JzG). Guy (Help!) 17:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted that hatchet job posing as a biography. — Coren ^(talk) 04:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny. According to your close the article "doesn't so much as list a birthdate".[42] The Google cache [43] proves that it says she was born December 15, 1960. You closed as CSD:G10, but that specifies deletion of "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." Yet in the version remaining after JzG was finished with it, it was not merely sourced but sourced with only secondary sources. Wnt (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(I still don't understand why People Magazine is an acceptable secondary source while a U.S. Senate report provides undue weight, but that issue is sort of moot now, isn't it.)

The problem was that it was a series of disjointed and not terribly major news stories, cobbled together into a faux-biography. I have long been of the opinion that Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish a formal biography of anyone. Interpretation of the Senate paper also requires the filter of reliable secondary sources, to avoid the temptation to quote-mine. I don't have an opinion on whether the subject's involvement in that issue was significant or not, reliable independent secondary sources should be our guide. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Of anyone living, I am sure you mean. I have found articles like Nikita Zotov to be some of our most interesting pieces, as it allows us to cover someone that even biographical dictionaries don't in detail. NW (Talk) 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of anyone living, you are quite correct. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One last comment on this case. My preference in such cases would be that we have a high quality biography of the person, if that is at all possible. Her story is an interesting one, although our biography was so incomplete and fragmentary that all we had was not enough. I am left wondering whether there do not exist more sources out there - perhaps newspapers in Gabon, magazines in Gabon, possibly even a book. Perhaps French Wikipedians could help.

There are many cases in which the "easy" biography is perfectly fine. Pick a random famous classical music performer with no controversies, and collect a half-dozen profiles and articles, and you'll end up with a basic biography that isn't FA status, but still, perfectly fine. But this is a case in which the "easy" sources are all based on pretty weird controversies of someone who, at minimum, appears to be quite a "character". And as the easy sources are all inflammatory and not general profiles, we're left with an article that is simply not a proper biography. However, what's interesting about the case is the tantalizing prospect that a good biography *could* be written, but it won't be "easy" - it'll be hard. It'll involve spending a few weeks at a rate of an hour or two per day tracking down sources, asking for help with translations by French Wikipedians, etc. I'd love to see that happen, but in the meantime, I've seen too many cases where the "easy" biography never moves forward to want to see a hatchet job like this remain up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But where does WP:BLP say that an article has to be a "proper biography" and not include only "weird controversies", if they are sourced? And if BLP bans the improper article throughout Wikipedia, where should an editor work on the draft in collaboration with French Wikipedians? Wnt (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is implicit in BLP and other policies as they exist today that a one-sided biography cobbled together from (mostly tabloid) media eruptions is problematic. For a case like this one, where we aren't directly concerned with libel, nor are we concerned with unsourced negative statements, but with the entirety of a biography that is problematic, work could be conducted safely in user space. A little note at the top saying something like "This is a work in progress. It's quite one sided because that's what the sources say. I have some leads on better sources, including working with French Wikipedians to find domestic Gabon sources that should be helpful. Please if you can help me, pitch in - a group of us is discussing by email. If I can't get this sorted by May 31st, I'll give up and delete it." Ought to be comforting to even the most diehard BLP defender (such as me!).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that WP:BLP#Attack pages greatly differed from WP:Attack pages, a policy I wasn't familiar with, as well apparently as other administrative decisions such as the deletion I protested above. I have changed "unsourced" to "no matter how throughly sourced" in WP:BLP to make it more honest. Wnt (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Vicki Iseman -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that looks like a classic BLP1E. And we have a separate article on the event. At least in this case, the article is mostly neutral because enough information was gathered from other sources to create a biography. But it is still a BLP1E.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... this touches on something I was thinking of writing a long screed about, but thought better of... Both the Carrie Prejean kerfuffle (see above, Jimbo's talk and discussion on her article), and my observation of Lloyd R. Woodson suggests that some apparently well-intentioned hard-working editors: a) conflate "coverage in RS" with "notability", unable to distinguish a "presumption" of notability with a grant thereof, and b) have no clue as to "encyclopedic tone" and think that once the notability threshhold has been crossed, every fact about a person that can be sourced is somehow allowable in WP (e.g. I was seriously asked by an experienced editor for a policy justification for removing a criminally accused person's former street of residence). I hesitate to use the phrase "public figure", but we simply somehow must distinguish between, say Barack Obama/Mel Gibson/Charles Manson, the clearly notable folks in the middle, and the volunteer-hamlet-mayor/tabloid-of-the-moment-media-figure/criminal-suspect who happen to have had more than transient national media coverage. I think we need a slightly more formalized framework for such judgments; simply asking well-intentioned editors to use their judgment is an invitation for those who lack it to make unfortunate mistakes, and those who are not well-intentioned to play games around sources. We've got fairly good guidance on WP:NPOV, with examples; we don't have much to tell us how to write "Babe Ruth" versus "Yogi Berra" versus "Steve Bartman". The best editors here have editorial judgment and know what facts simply aren't important for an encyclopedia article, and how necessary contentious material can be presented fairly and neutrally; we need a way to encourage others to develop that judgment, both by acknowledging that it exists, and by providing examples of it's application to representative editorial problems. In other words, if we want better editors, we need to train them. Studerby (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Lack of training had nothing to do with the case I cited. There were plenty of experienced editors who went over that article. The simple fact is that when political passions come into the picture, too many editors will say anything about anyone and fight to keep a smear in the encyclopedia. Some editors just don't look on human subjects of articles as human beings, I think. This is worth looking at (see first section [44]) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One possibly illustrative case is that of Time Cube. It took some time to gain consensus for the view that while Time Cube is a notable piece of kookness, Gene Ray is not an appropriate subject for a biography. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, and not intending to set off a fight anywhere, I think that's a great example because even Time Cube itself looks to me clearly not notable. The best reference is a brief mention in a Dvorak column making fun of crackpot sites on the net in 2004. The second best is a student newspaper. The third best? Well, there is no third best, because nothing else is really a third party source. A couple of announcements of lectures he gave, invited by students - not prestigious invited lecture series or anything interesting or notable, just student clubs inviting him to speak (probably to make fun of him). It's a sad little story but the main thing is that it is a very very little story. Nothing in the article event attempts as far as I can tell (am I missing something?) to justify importance or notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. You are missing that it's popular on Teh Intarwebs. Or something. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jessica Trisko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is another example. This woman is now a doctoral candidate applying for university teaching positions and asserts that the presence of the photograph and the year of birth in the article is impacting on her career prospects; she asserts that she has not given any concent to have this information published but it all comes from sources. Do we set up a policy Wikipedia:You should have thought about that before you signed the publicity waiver? This can't be the first time this has happened. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see the parallel. On a quick skim, this looks like a fairly tame and well-sourced article about someone who has willingly made herself a public personality; buyer's remorse notwithstanding. — Coren ^(talk) 10:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Czech Republic - book preface

Dear Jimbo, I am sorry to remind myself again, but the text is practically ready and I have not received any mail with reply You had written about recently. Thank You for Your kind cooperation. Okino (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions poll

You said when I asked three weeks ago that you were planning a refined version of User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll for a few days from then. It's been much longer than "a few days - possibly tomorrow morning"; any chance of this happening? Flagged revisions, flagged protection, or hell, even patrolled revisions are features that we need to implement systemic quality changes to BLPs across the project. NW (Talk) 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)