View source for User talk:Jimbo Wales

{{Calm talk}}
{{usercomment}}
 
</div>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 47
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=2|target=./Archive 47|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
{{archives|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archives list|small=yes}}

== Message of an anonymous on your user page. ==

I find that Wiki's are very helpful. I and other gamers that I know use Wiki for our gaming needs. Thanks Jimbo for creating a user friendly source of information.. DT <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=290303703&oldid=290284581 129.71.117.210] 10:15, 16 May 2009</small>

== Friendly Message from Shane91c ==

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[File:Pearl Milktea.jpg|100px|left]]

[[User:Shane91c]] has given you a [[bubble tea]]! Bubble teas promote [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking! 

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{tls|bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shane91c|Shane91c]] ([[User talk:Shane91c|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shane91c|contribs]]) May 18, 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
</div><!-- Template:Bubble tea -->

== "Writing for the enemy" vs. Writing for the opponent" ==

At the proposal page [[Wikipedia talk:Neutrality enforcement]] we are discussing more NPOV ways of writing for Wikipedia and a user keeps using the phrase and referring to [[WP:Writing_for_the_enemy]].  I object to the phrase, and wrote on the talk page (updated slightly): ''To assume another editor or a reader is an enemy does not assume good faith. Plus saying the word "enemy" brings up visceral negative reaction making it more difficult to write for that negatively visualized person. However, the word "opponent" makes it sound more like the intellectual battle editing Wikipedia often is and is a more respectful term which is more likely to get people thinking in positive terms.'' I then was told you originated and liked the phrase.  If true, I’d like to suggest you think about replacing “writing for the enemy” with “writing for the opponent.” [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with your suggestion.  I am opposed to a model of Wikipedia as a battleground in the war for ideas.  I think every editor should write neutrally (as best as he or she can) at all times.  I am favorably impressed by the attitude embodied in proposals like this one: [[Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement]]. --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:Great! Will inform [[Wikipedia talk:Writing for the enemy]] and see if they want to change the name of article. Note that I got the idea from a great little book called "Fighting with Gandhi" which purposely uses the word opponent. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== I want the desblock in spanish wikiquote ==

Hello dear Jimbo, my IP adress is blocked because a mistake, I`m a innocet user, but Drini hates [[Jehova's Witnesses]] users, and he is a proscriptor and a very bad enemy of us. I want, please, the desblock in spanish wikiquote, because I`m working constructuvely. Can you Speak with Drini the Ip's policeman an say him I'm innocent an I`m not a vandal? Thank you very much. --[[Special:Contributions/87.220.31.209|87.220.31.209]] ([[User talk:87.220.31.209|talk]]) 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, I wait for a response. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/87.220.31.14|87.220.31.14]] ([[User talk:87.220.31.14|talk]]) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

General note for everybody: Drini is a steward who has confirmed that the above IP belongs to a sockpuppeteer. [[User:Griffinofwales|Griffinofwales]] ([[User talk:Griffinofwales|talk]]) 02:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppeteer. Drini hates Jehovah's Witnesses users because he likes Maya's gods. I was working constructively but he hates Bible quotations in the proyect. If I'm writing here is because I'm innocent. I want the desblock. --[[Special:Contributions/87.220.31.238|87.220.31.238]] ([[User talk:87.220.31.238|talk]]) 10:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:What does "desblock" translate to in English? --[[Special:Contributions/64.85.222.62|64.85.222.62]] ([[User talk:64.85.222.62|talk]]) 12:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::"Unblock", (or "disenblockify", if you're not into that whole … brevity thing). <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">[[User:Pablomismo| pablo]]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">[[User talk:Pablomismo|hablo]].</sub> 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== Orwellian Changes To Words ==

I do have a question (actually, more of a concern). I think you have distorted the meaning of the word 'vandalise'. Sure, some people do vandalise Wikipedia pages - in the real and proper sense of the word - but others just tweak things for fun, or to prick pomposity, or to hint at a more serious flaw in an entry. I think it is wrong to call such 'tweakers' vandals. A vandal is in many societies a form of criminal yet many of the so-called Wikipedia vandals are no such thing. 'Vandal' is also an emotive word and should perhaps be reserved for those who fall at the extreme end of the scale i.e. those who recklessly despoil and ruin an otherwise valid and accurate entry. Some thought needs to be given to creating more accurate names and terms on this issue or else you risk irritating and alienating people. Indeed, they might even become the thing they are accused of if goaded long enough. Finally, from a Devil's Advocate position, I think it is bad for language and social progress to distort and twist words. Orwell showed us how this can lead to a form of creeping, pernicious thought control. So besides objecting to the catch-all use of the word 'vandal' on the grounds of grammatical pedantry, I also worry where it might lead, what with CCTV and IP traces. Who knows, in five years time somebody could theoretically be convicted of Wikipedia vandalisation, and possibly imprisoned. One need only reflect upon relatively recent events in Stalin's Russia and contemporary events in China to realise that is not a far-fetched concern. Most of us live in a 'free' world now, but who's to say what might happen in a few years time? The controls and systems currently being introduced via new technology would hand any future dictatorship complete control over our lives. [For example, although I am posting without a user name, I am certain that my comments will be quickly logged, filed and linked to my IP address.]  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.16.208.83|92.16.208.83]] ([[User talk:92.16.208.83|talk]]) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I think that 'vandal' is a perfectly appropriate term, used very gently here at Wikipedia.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Tried to send you an email ==

But it kept saying "mailer error". Thanks  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.233.68.44|220.233.68.44]] ([[User talk:220.233.68.44|talk]]) 05:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Admins unwilling/unable to deal with abusive edits by other admins? ==

You might want to check out [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bishonen_using_status_as_admin_to_control_others_while_violating_our_civility_policy]] if you have a moment. [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]]) 01:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thankyou, I'm sorry I had to bring you into this but I could not see any other means to get this dealt with effectively. [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]]) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== Block of Bishonen, question ==

Is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=User%3ABishonen&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 this] an endorsement of the long absent ideal that any user, from the newly registered user, to the Arbs, up to yourself, are held to identical requirements of adherence to policy? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:Using this a platform to push your views forward, eh, Rootology? A bit uncouth and unnecessary. Jimmy: It's customary to leave a note on the talk page of the person you've blocked. (Though I imagine you're doing this as I'm typing, surely.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::No, it's a serious question. Are all of us supposed to be held to matching standards? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm reluctant to answer the general question because I'm not sure of what baggage it is intended to carry.  My block is an illustration of the concept that admins are expected to behave in a particular way, a way that doesn't include that kind of thing.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::There's no baggage. A '''lot''' of commentary of late has been floating around that we admins are 1) above the rules, or 2) held to different standards--looser standards--than non-admins. The question is literally what it is--are all users here supposed to follow the policies the same, with the same levels of repercussions if they don't? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Basically, yes.  Indeed, I would say that admins should be held to a higher standard.  ArbCom members, to a still-higher standard.  And me - to the highest standard.  This I say with an acknowledgment that we are all capable of error and folly, and should be forgiven such if we are acting in good faith.  Nothing is simple.  Justice is complex and thoughtful.  Kindness is a lifestyle not an algorithm.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::You and I disagree on a lot of stuff, sometimes in private, sometimes in public, but we're on the same page on this. Thanks. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:My opinion - not that anyone asked - is that Jimmy has this one precisely correct; those who know me know that I disagree with power as often (or more) than I agree with power, so this isn't a sycophant-like moment for me.  The truth is, Wikipedia (particularly this one) has been far too tolerant of toxic personalities that create a hostile environment.  The damage they do is so much more than just hurt feelings; it pollutes the whole project.  When we allow people to treat others in a way that is less than polite; less than considerate, less than peaceful, and less than just, we foster an atmosphere where those values are diminished.  That is not the WIkipedia that I fell in love with.  Justice used to - and should - and will again - be one of our very core values.  It was unspoken, but it was there.  We are, generally, a peaceful people who occasionally lose our way and fall into madness.  When that happens, we, the community, need reminders of whom we are. I appreciate Jimmy for taking the hard road, and for saying "The behavior was unacceptable.  This is who we are.  This is where we stand.  We can do no other."  

:One of my favorite quotes is this:  "I believe that what I do becomes part of me.  When I'm brave and strong and care for children or the sick and the poor, I become a better person.  And when I'm cruel, or cowardly or tell lies, I turn into someone less worth, and I can't respect myself.  That's the divine retribution I believe in."  (Ken Follett, ''World without end''; p.725)

:When we care enough to create a loving, justice filled community, it becomes a part of us.  When we are cruel, or mean, that becomes a part of us too.  I applaud Jimmy for his actions in supporting a loving community.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">[[User Talk:Philippe|Philippe]]</font></font> 09:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::oh philippe - that's a reasonably well written, and no doubt heartfelt, post - just please remember that the noble sentiments you express are in truth far more than skin deep. Sometimes loving a project means telling someone who's being a little shit that that's what they are. This is true regardless of the little-shitiness of the user in question. Beware of the stifling of reason, and dissent, and especially beware of the establishment of two-bit 'rules' ahead of the principle of creating an awesome collection of information and knowledge. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, right? - you're no doubt aware that 'love-bombing' is a sure sign of a cult.... something we must never become..... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 10:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::That may be, but bad words are being thrown around far too easy lately. We all get upset and say things we shouldn't have said, but people also need to start realizing again, that at some point such behaviour will get them blocked or thrown out. An incident != a toxic environment around a person. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 10:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy, for what it's worth, I was dismayed when I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291531110 this edit], and wished you'd mentioned 'conduct' rather than 'editors', especially considering the circumstances of the block. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:You are right that it would have been more gentle to talk about toxic "behaviors" rather than "personalities".  And to be clear, I do not think that Bishonen is a toxic personality.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== Shaven Genitalia on userpages ==

G'day Jimbo - just by chance I happen to have sent a post to foundation-l about this one a few moments ago, and swung by here to see that you're in blocking mode! I wonder if, given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=284543731 this], you might be inclined to do anything about [[User:WebHamster|this]], this evening?

Ps. If you're struggling to cope with the backstory of the latest broo ha ha, you should probably at least be informed that the catalyst was a problem with a user who recently became an admin, and, it transpires, had posted your personal details (name, birthdate, address, and information about whom you share your residence with) on IRC, garnered from private access to some sort of electoral database. In all seriousness, the toxic personalities may not be so obvious, and calling folk 'little shits' is far less serious than plagiarism, and the breaching of trust on privacy issues, I reckon... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 02:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:pps. the other small problem is that the user in question was behaving in ways which might lead a reasonable person using straight forward language to describe as behaviour a little shit might exhibit. Wouldn't dream of doing so myself, 'cos I'm too nice, but I thought you might like to know.... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::While I am sure [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] will recall commenting on this matter previously on [[User talk:WebHamster|Webhamster's]] talk page, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:WebHamster|here]] is a link to the subsequent community deletion debate which closed with a [[WP:SNOW]] '''Keep'''. It would not be nice to fail to provide full references when requesting action. [[User:Bielle|// BL \\]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 03:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez, this again? '''-''' [[User:Allstarecho|'''A'''LLST'''✰'''R]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] @'''</sub> 04:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

PM, to mix two sayings, you're beating a dead horse about the bush. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 10:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:heh! - well I've been accused of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sexual_content/old&diff=256553568&oldid=256552797 'equine necrophilia'] a few times, but never in a specific physical area (your post has the great advantage of actually being witty, mind!). My hope here wasn't really to drag up the issues, but just that Jimbo might have been in the mood to act upon his stated positions... we'll see if that's true or not! cheers, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 10:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC) <small>ps. pictures of shaven women's bits don't really belong on userpages - I think you'd agree?</small>
::The problem with that userpage isn't the nudity, it's the political statement. Someone's opinions of a former US president are not appropriate content for their Wikipedia userpage, regardless of how they express those opinions. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 10:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)