User talk:Jimbo Wales

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 18. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Homecoming

Hi Jimmy:

Alright, you're a Bama guy. You went to Auburn University and the University of Alabama. I know you know how it is in Alabama. I'm wondering, are you Navy Blue and Burnt Orange? or Crimson and White? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.12.94 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Pikminlover^Meep! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hi Jimbo

This is doug jensen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D-unit (talk • contribs)

Hi Mr. Wales

Dear Jimmy:

How are you? Could you tell us the topic interested you? And we also wish to know the time and place for the interview in Japan. can we make an appointment to discuss the detail of this interview by phone? We also have something for you. Please give me some feedback.

Best wishes,

Business weekly magazine

Hung-ta Lin

Disturbed User

I am disturbed by the Ockenbock sockpuppet craze from this IP. This is a school, and people like me want to edit positively without being blocked Sincereley, Catholic male

Question

I am from the AACD and posted the information pertaining to the Academy. Is that ok for me to do?

Thanks, Anna Velten

Brian Peppers

I believe today is the date you set for us to resume our discussions over the Brian Peppers article. Please can we continue discussions, and could you also please direct me as to where I should go to express my opinions, as I'm fairly new to wikipedia. Thanks!--Boris Allen 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly second this. The talk page should be opened up in accordance with your pledge of a year ago. The treatment of the subject was contrary to Wikipedia's principles; the article was deleted against the community's wishes, and then discussion about it was prohibited, which was even worse. Everyking 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has written an insightful comment on this. It is lengthy (& perhaps even a bit longwinded ;), but well worth the time. El_C 07:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read his comments on the subject before, and I think he's quite wrong on this. An article about Peppers should and would be done in a neutral way (as was done with the past, deleted article); there is nothing that makes it impossible to do NPOV in his case. (To accept this argument would in fact leave Wikipedia in some dire straits: we would have to accept that there are various things we cannot write neutrally about, which could have broad implications.) In fact an article about him would surely be supervised very strictly and written as cautiously as possible; many have in the past argued, not implausibly, that this could be seen as being to Peppers' advantage, considering the rest of his coverage on the Internet is overwhelmingly negative and damaging (with the exception of a few things, like the Snopes piece, which were used as sources in the old article). However, I feel it is a distraction to get into these issues, which are better suited for open discussion on the article's still locked talk page. The key thing right now is establishing the right to once again discuss the subject with respect to the subject's worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everyking 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And my 2 cents is that we put this on hold for another year. I've never seen so much of nothing made out of something in my entire time on Wikipedia. The world will not end without the article. Let it go people. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, at least, what's really critical is that we allow the community to have a voice on the issue (and ideally, that voice should be the voice), and that Jimbo keep his word. I lean slightly toward letting Peppers have an article, but I acknowledge there are arguments from the other side that have merit. It's the underlying principles that I really feel strongly about, not the article. Everyking 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. MER-C 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased to see a good discussion by the community at Deletion review, and it looks like the decision is pretty firm.--Jimbo Wales 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Rbj

I'll be to the point-I believe you made an error here. I made the initial post to WP:AN/I regarding Rbj's conduct, and I do believe that it was of concern, especially his restoration of legal threats against Physicq. Physicq was at least somewhat distressed by these threats [1], as almost anyone would be-the threat of a lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous, is something that gives anyone pause. As far as I knew, this was the entire rationale behind our policy against legal threats.

Rbj didn't need anyone to unblock him. He could've easily been unblocked just by removing the legal threat that, per WP:BAN, he chose to take ownership of by restoring. He was made well aware of this [2], but chose not to do so. He was well aware of the banning policy, he specifically commented that he "took ownership" of another of Nkras' edits when restoring it. Nkras' conduct has been very disruptive, and quite realistically, Rbj's has as well. Since being unblocked, he took to cursing at Coelacan, on AN/I and his talk page, as well as Bainer. He seems to think he can act with near-impunity now, and I'm afraid he might be right-anyone would be hesitant to block a user whose block you reversed, for any reason.

I don't believe that this case is one in which it was correct or necessary for you to unilaterally reverse another administrator. Certainly, no one doubts that you can do so, after all you do run the place in the end. But I'm interested as to why you think such drastic action was necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj is under no special protection from me. He needs to behave himself. However, I think that the facts in this particular case where nowhere near enough to justify an indefinite ban. He did not MAKE a legal threat, and construing his restoration of some discussion to his talk page as taking ownership of other people's comments in the sense of making them his own really stretches the imagination.--Jimbo Wales 10:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems contrary to WP:BAN: "Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." Perhaps you could comment at WP:ANI#My block of Rbj? What exactly can be done if a user is fighting to ensure that legal threats remain on Wikipedia? I'm not sure that blocking is the only way to handle it, but it seems like one possible reasonable measure if a user won't allow legal threats to be deleted. It's an open question, but I'm not sure what the other options are. The legal threats can't simply sit around. — coelacan talk — 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some guy with a disfiguring condition.

make it stop, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reckless edits by one of your former Arbitration Committee members

User:Jayjg keeps making a reckless edit to Quiverfull. In the article, he keeps insisting on calling Charles D. Provan a "holocaust denier" rather than a "holocaust revisionist" and has refused to explain himself. I have repeatedly pointed User:Jayjg to Provan's book No Holes? No Holocaust? where Provan specifically affirms it happened and takes on real holocaust deniers over the fact. It is very clear User:Jayjg has not studied the matter yet he insists on recklessly pushing his edit. User:Jayjg has also made a reckless edit to Charles D. Provan, placing a "fact" tag on material that should have been immediately removed, since Provan is alive.[3] C.m.jones 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're probably best advised to try wp:resolving disputes, as this is still a content dispute, regardless of Jayjg's status. — coelacan talk — 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss 0

Hello I am Big Boss 0. I am new to wikipedia and would like to formally invite you to visit my userpage. Please feel free to leave any and all comments on my talk page. Thank you! Big Boss 0 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Conference in Brazil

Hello Mr. Jimbo,

we are planning a Web 2.0 Conference in Florianópolis, Brazil, probably next September. Among the subjects, the Wiki Way and, of course, Wikipedia will are discussed.

Do you have interest in talk to us about your projects and experience?

Thanks for your attemption.

Marcelo Herondino Cardoso [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.180.4.107 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

HOA entry vanishes without any notice

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowners_association

I added to this article, a second time, info about the origins of planned communities and their mass merchandising under, The Homes Association Handbook section. Quick, read it before it vanishes without a trace as did my first post on this past Monday."

I am quite surprised by this event. An encylclopedia is bona fide if it publishes the truth, and not if it presents a consensus of individuals who have a personal agenda. My entry provides a balanced view of HOAs and uses verifiable materials from CAI and ULI. Its secretive removal is disgraceful and can only be an extreme bias by Wikipedia editors.

Please restore integrity to Wikipedia and keeo my posting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pvtgov (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

you've got e-mail

Hey Jimbo Wales, I e-mailed you about something I need. I e-mailed it to jwales@wikia.com. I e-mailed it yesterday. Thanks -chris^_^ 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

John Doe v. Josef Silny & Associates, Inc.

Good evening, Jimbo. As you probably have learned by now (and in case you haven't: see here for the article and here for the lawsuit filings), Fuzzy Zoeller is suing Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. on counts of defamation, invasion of privacy (flase light), and intentional infliction of emotional distress over an edit made by an IP address located at the business.

I was hoping you could comment on this situation, talk about possible implications, and discuss anything else you deem noteworthy for a possibly article in the Wikipedia Signpost. Thank you very much! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. The current draft design for the barnstar incorporates the Wikipedia Commons logo. Please let us know if there is a problem with this usage. Thanks very much, Johntex\^talk 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel brandt

Your input at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt would be very useful. This is causing a lot of emotion on all sides and has the potential to seriously damage wikipedia's reputation, SqueakBox 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandt Stuff

Is it possible that I will be able to contact you or anyone at the foundation about this? Yanksox 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to as well, SqueakBox 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, how will Arbcom examine this and will I be allowed to say anything for my own part? Yanksox 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiVERSITY - External recognition

Dear Mr. Wales

I've been actively involved in university life from undergraduate to post-graduate student, to researcher, lecturer and Prof. since 1975 (both in Europe and the Americas, in addition to industry-baseed R&D on both sides of the Atlantic). For the past couple of years I've been an active and enthusiastic contributor to Wikipedia etc (though far less than some dedicated individuals!. I had great hopes for Wikipedia, but it has, in many ways, exceeded my expectations.

I feel that the versity suffix throws us into a whole new, and very much more exigent and critical arena. (And rightly so. -I expect that the people who'll come here won't be seeking general knowledge but rather, expecting something much more advanced). I fully support the initiative, but feel duty-bound to express my concerns that contributors MUST adopt a very much more conscientious, rigorously self-critical and professional attitude than in other wiki-projects (be they formally "qualified" or not) when preparing their submissions, edits, suggestions etc. etc.

Versity-level respect and recognition can only be won by long, hard work, but can be lost in the blink of an eye ! WIKI does, potentially, deserve this level of respect, but will have to earn it.

Have no doubt, numerous representatives (probably the majority) of the traditional academic community will be very vocal in denouncing any error or misconduct, no matter how insignificant or short-lived. It would be an enormous pity to see such a noble project flounder under such criticism. (Wikityke 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

WikiVERSITY - INITIAL logo and motto

Dear Mr Wales,

If the misssion statement is still open to discussion, it's far too early to definitively decide on the motto and logo, surely !

It's more than correct to elect an INITIAL motto and logo, but please, shouldn't it be made clear that this should not be "written in stone" and should be open to change as the project evolves/matures. Wikityke 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Swedish wikipedia and neoliberalism

Swedish wikipedia has in the last few years beeen known as a neoliberal propagandaportal. I startades edeting wikipediapadges last year and soon found out that the reputation was true. Just this day an admin told me "Yes wikipedia is supoused to be a neoliberal propagandaportal" (in swedish). I started a discussion about it on a big swedish comunity and most people agreed.

Is this the way it should be??

Link? Jimmy might not be able to read Swedish, but there are others who can. ;-) // habj 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Thuresson#Blockad 130.243.190.107 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe! He made a joke... you asked a rhetorical question, and he gave you the answer you wanted. Actually, it is much more common that svwiki gets accused of being "leftie". If there is criticisms from both sides I guess it is somewhat OK. // habj 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No its not a joke of any kind. And there is no doubt about swikis obvious stand for neoliberalism among most swedes. Maybee its a try to be a bullie, becouse he knows the neoliberals have swiki and can do what they want, 130.243.190.107 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A favor...

Could you put your signiture on this page? It sounds like this person really wants you on their signiture book. Thank you! --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And so farewell

Last July I wrote here: "Wikipedia would be much better off if it had a quarter of the number of articles, and a quarter of the number of editors, but some system in place for ensuring that both articles and editors meet some standard of quality. Sooner or later this will have to be done, or Wikipedia will die a slow death as serious editors depart for more rigorously managed projects, and the cranks and illiterates are left to take over the asylum."

Now that Larry Sanger has started a new encyclopaedia project, one at which people have to edit under their real names and at which articles can be brought to completion, that moment has arrived, and I must take my leave. I am rather sad to be doing so, because I have had a lot of fun at Wikipedia and met a lot of admirable people, but I cannot justify spending my time on a project which is doomed to failure by its own ideological fetishes (actually, your fetishes, Mr Wales).

There are some aspects of Citizendium that I don't like, and I am by no means certain that it will succeed. But at least it has the basics right - no anonymous editing, due weight given to people who actually know something about the subject they are writing about, and articles which can be put before the public as accurate and reliable. That's what an encyclopaedia is, and what Wikipedia, by its own choice, cannot become. Adam 05:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of a quote...I don't remember the whole thing, but the basic point was "Humans should be able to do anything. Specialization is for insects", which is part of the beauty of wikipedia. WE aren't experts. No one on wikipedia is an expert, and no one on wikipedia gets extra weight as an expert. We just cite the experts -- feb^talk 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Most human occupations at the present are so complex they require specialization with years of training. SakotGrimshine 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See Competent man WAS 4.250 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, the Archbishop of Wales set out to build a new Cathedral. It would, he declared, be the biggest, most magnificent Cathedral in the world. It would outshine the Cathedrals at Salisbury, Chartres and Cologne.

“But,” it was said, “Wales is a poor country. We cannot afford to hire a great architect, or engineers, stonemasons, sculptors and artists. We cannot build a Cathedral to compare with these.”

“Nonsense,” said the Archbishop. “A Cathedral is merely a pile of bricks. We have all seen Cathedrals, so we all know how to build one. If everyone in the country makes a brick, and we pile them one on top of another, we will soon have a Cathedral. As to architects and sculptors and painters, there are many who will donate their time and talents without payment, for the glory of God.”

“But,” it was said, “the people are ignorant. They will place their bricks in the wrong place.”

“If someone puts his brick in the wrong place, someone else will notice and put it in the right place,” the Archbishop said. “This will be the Cathedral of the people.”

And so everyone in the country made a brick. Soon there were millions of bricks. The people piled them one on top of the other. There were arguments about whether the bricks were in the right place, and frequently bricks were moved. Some were moved many times.

Great towers of bricks arose. Some were Byzantine and some were Norman and some were Romanesque. Some were demolished and rebuilt in a different style. Some fell down under their own weight.

As the Archbishop had said, architects and artists came to offer their services. They worked away at different parts of the Cathedral, frequently arguing with each other about the right way to proceed. Often they obliterated each other’s work. Eventually many became frustrated, and they left. Others gained control of parts of the project, enlisting the people in their factions, and built towers in all shapes and styles.

Eventually the people succeeded in erecting a huge building, dominated by the many huge spires built by the rival factions. It was indeed bigger than any Cathedral in the world. Parts of it resembled various well-known cathedrals, while other parts resembled secular palaces, pagan temples or the mosques of the Mohammedans.

After several years the Archbishop asked when he would be able to consecrate the Cathedral and hold services there. “It is not finished yet,” the leaders of the factions said. “We are still building new and even more magnificent spires, to overawe those built by heretics. Until the towers of the heretics are demolished and replaced by theologically correct towers, it will never be finished.”

Finally the building became so large, and suffered from so many deficiencies of design and construction, that one day it collapsed with a mighty roar of falling masonry, and was reduced to a vast pile of bricks. The Archbishop was buried beneath the ruins. The remaining builders immediately started again, blaming each other and resolving to build even more splendid towers.

Meanwhile, the leader of the Anabaptists, who had fallen out with the Archbishop many years before, decided to build a new worship house for his small but growing congregation. He hired an architect and a master builder. Using some of the many bricks left over from the Archbishop’s Cathedral, they employed a team of skilled craftsmen, and built a modest but functional worship house in four months.

Adam 10:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an astounding cathedral, while it lasted. Did someone paint a picture of it? If so, can you upload a picture to Commons?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is there on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article page for Jimbo Wales, with both hands covering the crotch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.248 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Losing a good editor

Hi Jimbo, thought to point out the loss of another good editor, and his reasons thus. See User:Djegan for intelligent read. Taramoon 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the German Wikipedia

Dear Mr. Wales! I write this to you, because you as the founder of wikipedia are interested in truth. On the German wikipedia the history of Croatia and Croatian people during the Yugoslavian period is denied. They do not accept that in Yugoslavia lived many nations. Every scinetist, musician or anything else is declined as a yugoslav. As an example Ivan Meštrović. Everywhere he is a Croatian, only on the German Wikipedia not. Now there is a big discussion, but it is still the same. Just a few people, perhaps about 5 %, the admins allow to decline as a Croat. It is not only the Yugoslavian period, also when Croatia was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nearly everbody is declined as a citizen of that empire, but if you write down that he/she is Croatian it is deleted and you will be banned for this They do not accept other opinions and ban you. I do not think this is in spirit of wikipedia it is just a misuse of power of 4-5 users/admins. I hope you understand what I mean and you can help me. This is the discussion: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Benutzer_Theraphosis Yours sincerly Katarina K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.145.148 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

HELLO, MR. AWESOME!

I would be honoured if you signed my autograph page! --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book)

I'm totally against the idea of asking you this myself, but it would mean a lot to me if you could sign mine as well. // DecaimientoPoético 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ha ha! I wonder what Jimbo feels against me; I remember I was the first person to ask him this. Hopefully, he doesn't mind. But do keep in mind that Jimbo is a busy man; try not to pester him too much about it. Later, Jimbo! :) ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Awesome? :/ Not that he isn't, of course. And what's with the <big></big>? :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Success? or Failure?

- looking over the last couple entries, many interesting issues have come up with wikipedia, and I can say that even if it went down tomorrow it would have been a success, and that even if half the articles were of horrible quality and blatantly false it would have been a success, at least in several senses. Issues such as certain language categories of wikipedia influenced by one nation or another having particular biases is very interesting stuff when it comes to thinking about the nature of information, and even the "experts" can have their own idiosyncratic biases. The editor calling for a reduction to 1/4 the articles i cant understand, why??, the more info the better. calling for a reduction of editors too has its problems, an editor may be bad for most pages yet good on a few, and one of the advantages wikipedia has, is a very large number of people compiling information. The idea of no anonymous editors has its good points like accountability and likely fewer vandals, yet also its problems. There are of course issues with the system of wikipedia that are built into the concept, and an article compiled by one nations editors or even a particular generation of that nations editors could indeed look very different than anothers. Who is to say which is more truly accurate? NPOV & total accuracy is just not achievable, even by the smartest 100 people on this planet, or that will ever live on this planet, its not even achievable to the beings of your greatest omnipotent/omniscient imaginings, because NPOV doesnt actually truly exist, and can only be approximated. One editor might say swedish wikipedia is a liberal outlet, another might say it is hard right & english wikipedia is borderline fascist, it just depends on the reference point of the observer, and there are certainly hard right/left editors cruising wikipedia in all languages. Also 100% accuracy in a wide ranging compendium doesnt truly exist, even if we just take one subject article, its impossible on most articles to get 100% accuracy, you may even have 10 top experts, yet get certain key points incorrect or may mislead the reality, and to get 100% accuracy in the article you would just have to leave out a bunch of items that are worthwhile, and keep it as an 100% undisputed stub. It seems the best anyones encylopedia could accomplish would still need the tag "some of this is pretty accurate, the best we could do, some of it surely has problems", anything claiming more i would be suspect of, and is misleading 83.79.168.184 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos of living people

Hello. Perhaps examples of the "replaceable fair use policy" in action will help. Please look at the infoboxes for Jack Nicklaus and Benoît Mandelbrot. Is the first representative of a person who was at one time the greatest athlete in his field? Why is a photo of someone with their mouth open all right on Wikipedia and not in any marketing or communications department imaginable? Newly elected U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar was in similar shape until a day or two ago because a free image existed—a snapshot taken at a picnic and placed in her infobox until the time her official portrait is released. Why would a living person want to risk being in such an encyclopedia? -Susanlesch 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I hope these folks are a little upset by their images— upset enough to release high-quality portraits of themselves under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This would hardly require a great sacrifice on their part, and it would improve the encyclopedia significantly.--Pharos 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, "Wikipedia can use a lousy photo until and unless you give a free one to a user?" "Wikipedia can use any old photo until you are dead, when a user can then defend fair use of a professional quality photo?" In the meantime, this stuff is showing up in Google Images, Answers.com, derivatives and who knows where else. As a wise man once said, anything anyone posted to the Internet has already been copied and will be around forever. Thoughts? -Susanlesch 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• No matter how bad the picture is - and I don't believe that having someone's mouth open in a photo is a cardinal sin - that isn't a good reason to use someone else's copyrighted work in what is supposed to be a free-content encyclopaedia, legal excuse or no legal excuse. The photos listed look amateurish, that's undeniable, but this is an encyclopaedia written entirely by amateurs. If anyone is surprised by a poor quality photo then I would think it encouraging that we've managed to raise their expectations to that extent. I really doubt that subjects might actually be offended by low-quality photos of them, unless it showed something embarrassing like being caught yawning during an important political speech or playing footsie with the Junior Minister of Paperclips sitting next to them, in which case we obviously shouldn't use them (at least not at the top of the article). Most people only ever have amateur photos taken of them, except when they go to a wedding. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Sam. Yes, it is a good sign that people take Wikipedia seriously. And apart from the fact that some must because of the importance it receives from the Google PageRank algorithm. But. No, I think people are offended. While trying to get a better free image—the only way a poor one can be displaced, I called one of the subjects mentioned above and talked to their associate who said, "Oh no, I saw that again today. It is awful. Can you get it out of there?" My impression is they will be trying to circulate a free image but they don't have a presence on Wikipedia and are already too late to replace the image in question (it's around everywhere I looked). From the little I understand of the policy and dynamics of user contributions, what they consider to be an "awful" photo was irrevocably uploaded for all to see because Wikipedia added the "replaceable" requirement over and above fair use. Possibly more valuable than free imagery, goodwill might be gained by switching the defaults to say "it's okay to replace fair use images with free images that improve on them." -Susanlesch 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• You don't have to use these amateur photos. Having no photos on a page is also an option, until time comes when we get a high quality photo. --Aude (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The chances of a free use photo improving on a fair use photo are close to nil. Copyrighted photos are taken with professional equipment, possibly even a dedicated studio, and with the subject co-operating not just to take time off from whatever they are doing to sit still for a few seconds but to go through make-up etc, then have someone touch the photo up afterwords. To spend the time, money and effort to do all of that and then release it for free is fairly rare, and the US (and some other governments) are more or less the only large non-profit organisations who would bother. Individual volunteers equalling that, let alone improving on them, is pretty much not going to happen.
• Do you know the filename of the image that the subject's associate objected to? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• In any event, they have a simple solution to this, release a professional photo under the GFDL or an appropriate creative commons. (In fact, I'd say that if this continue, this might actually encourage people to do so simply to preempt the use of less satisfactory images). JoshuaZ 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The thing about the GFDL is that it allows derivative works, so if someone releases their photo under GFDL they give free rein for anyone to mock and deface it as they wish. Of course people do that anyway with celebrity photos, but actually making yourself complicit in your own denigration makes it very different. So I can understand why notable people might be understandably unwilling to release photos under free licences. Though I can't sympathise with anyone unable to bear the sight of their own face without makeup. (I'm speaking in general terms here, not specifically about the photo Susan Lesch mentioned that the subject's associate objected to, because I still don't know which photo that is and whether it really is that bad.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• At least in the US, fair use allows for parody and criticism anyway, generally anyone using a celebrity photo to ridicule or criticize would be protected under that. GFDL wouldn't make a significant difference on that note. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• What I said still applies - actually saying it's OK to do anything to a photo of you is very different from being unable to get away from it because of the legal system. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bomb on the matter, inspired by this thread. 72.144.241.142 11:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hi, Mr. Jimbo Wales. I am concerned that your user page is more likely at risk become vandalized by register users and IP anons. I really consider that you should fully protect your user page. If you would like to contact me, please visit my talk page. Thanks! — Meteoroid »  04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Given protection is always an imperfect solution and the number of people watching this page I would have thought protection a bad idea for the image it would give of the project, SqueakBox 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Hi Mr Wales I just wanted to know what are we suppose to do when Usernames are created just to chat with each other and there is no significant contribution to Wikipedia as a whole because I have seen a couple and I dont understand why is it being tolerated so Pliz can you elaborate on it a bit more and tell us what is to be done to those who are doing this and how can it be stopped..thanx..--Cometstyles 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation is a non-profit organization that has an educational charter so its money is not supposed to be used for noneducational purposes. So use of Wikimedia resources for mere chatting is not acceptable and wikipedia policy spells that out. Our fine admins have the task of enforcing these policies. So if you see this sort of thing going on, tell the admins and let them do their job of evaluating and acting. They may evaluate the situation differently than you do. In any case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is a place you can contact the admins with an incident report. WAS 4.250 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Housecleaning article images

Please undelete: Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg Image:Scrub sponges.jpg

Image:Yarn toilet brush.jpg

They are needed for the Housecleaning article I'm writing User:Chuck Marean/sandbox4. -- Chuck Marean 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Stable and Live versions?

Hey Jimbo, are we ever going to see some of the things you mentioned in this article, specifically, the part about "stable" and "live" versions of pages. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible back door to admin features

Let me first apologize if I have violated any rules, it didn't occur to me until after I just blocked a new user that I may have. I found my way into the new user logs through a link on WP:BLPN specificlly [5] in the logs I foundUser:Yourmotherisawhore and noted the instructions on the Log regarding placing a block. Afterward it dawned on me that only WP:ADMINs have that power. I'm still relatively new to Wiki software so please forgive me if I'm wrong and the user has not been blocked. Thank you for your time. Anynobody 08:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The user is not blocked. All you did was put a template for blocking on the front page. Anyone can do that but it is usually only done by admins after they have blocked someone. I don't think you've violated any rules since you did not intentionally pretend to be an admin. Either way, it would be nice if a real admin could block that username violating account. Gdo01 08:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good deal, thanks for the prompt attention. :) Anynobody 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rounded corners on boxes (using -moz-border-radius)

This page used to have rounded corners on the boxes, and I thought they looked nice. User:67.86.86.217 changed some things to make them no longer be rounded, but also broke the CSS formatting at the same time. I undid the changes, but 67.86.86.217 has done them again, this time mentioning they were intentional to remove the rounding. They are again broken tags. I don't want to get into an edit conflict on this, so I am asking public opinion. Should they be round or not? (for the browsers that show them rounded). Either way, the tags need to be fixed up, as they are currently malformed.(They either need the whole thing removed, or the other half put back, they were originally "-moz-border-radius:15px" and are now just "-moz-border", which is invalid since there is no value in the key:value pair). So, should they be rounded, and if so, could someone else please do so? See [the diff]. Kaldosh 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Translator question regarding the section about you on foundation:Board of Trustees

Business titles are often difficult to translate, since many countries/languages don't share US - or English speaking world? - conventions. In the best of worlds all the people translating would be experts on the stuff they translate, but reality will often be slightly different... I have been given two very different suggestions on what "Research Director" in your bio on foundation:Board of Trustees might mean. To help us translators choose, could you possibly provide like two sentences explaining it in context? Head of development department (if so it's easy), or something very different?

Most parts of that page will probably be around for a fairly long time. It can also be expected to eventually be translated to lots of languages. I am convinced translators of different languages will often have the same questions regarding the source texts, so we should probably create some page om Meta where questions from translators and answers to them can be compiled. For now, if you would answer here I promise to copy it to the relevant place on Meta once that place is created. // habj 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perth April 24

G'day Jimbo, the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia have been made aware that you will be in our City, we would like to invite you to a wikimeetup while here. The discussion is currently going on here. We recognise that your schedule will have limited time we are able to meet at a time and place suitable to you, please leave a message there or contact any of us directly via email. Gnangarra 13:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Please do not use cascading protection, as you did on Lucy Noland, unless applying full protection. See bug 8796 for details. --cesarb 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Constant Errors

Its been happening a lot nowadays whenever I click submit it asks me to donate money, and it says Wikimedia is having technical issues, so view the google cached page.

When are the board members of the Wikimedia Foundation, come together next inorder to expend some money for bandwith, hardware, servers etc etc. --Parker007 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It happens with me as well. --Meno25 09:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talkpage

Can talk pages be modifed so that persons commenting on it cannot delete/modify other persons' comments either by accident or on purpose? It can be made like a blog-in which replies appear below comments but comments themselves cannot be edited

David v Goliath

You might want a look at this guy's request for arbcom intervention:

[6]

He alleges an admin took community action without actual consensus and his arguments are persuasive.

Is this not David versus Goliath all over again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.101.44.34 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think David was quite this verbose...--Isotope23 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The New Yorker quotes you

The New Yorker has added a correction to the Stacy Schiff article in which they quote you. You apparently have no objection whatsoever to Essjay, one of your top administrators, lying to the major media. Instead you hire him at Wikia and promote him to the Arbcom at Wikipedia. Would you care to explain yourself? -Daniel Brandt 68.89.128.115 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Plain and simple Essjay was attempting to protect his physical person. Especialy with people like you who post personal info about wikipedians, Including their birth date and where they live. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that a Wikipedia administrator would be less than truthful about their anonymous identity. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Striking - ABCarter (below) has a point. Anonymity is one thing, exaggeration is another. Will try to stay out of this. --21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While it's important that people can remain anonymous, I am stunned that someone in a position of trust on Wikipedia misrepresented themselves and their credentials. I have to say this really concerns me that Essjay has checkuser and oversight permissions, as well as serves on Arbcom. It's important that I can fully trust people in those positions, but sad to say I can't. Essjay has done lots of great things for Wikipedia and I had great respect for him. It's real shame to see this. --Aude (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add... I'm entirely willing to forgive Essjay, but think these charges are serious enough that he should not be in a position of handling private information. --Aude (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I have always had issues with the amount of anonymity that is allowed on Wikipedia, I understood the rationale and accepted it. However this is no justification for passing off as true a persona that obviously exaggerates ones qualifications and to allow it to be quoted in a major publication is simply inexcusable. A B Carter (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This creates a credibility problem for Essjay since many people will be shocked at his display of a lack of personal integrity. Essjay needs to deal with this. WAS 4.250 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since qualifications don't matter here, who cares? WP:V and WP:RS are required both from PhDs and jr high kids if they're editing articles. As far as personal integrity is concerned, in cyberspace nobody knows you're a dog; people make up personae right and left around here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We enjoy our fantasy of an exclusively merit-based system, but it really is nothing more than a fantasy. If someone says he has a Ph.D., no amount of protesting the egalitarianism of the project will change the effect this claim has on other editors' opinions of him (or, in this case, the opinions of the New Yorker's readership, who are doubtless accustomed to put much stock by advanced degrees). He could easily have chosen a set of fake characteristics which did not carry such strong preconceptions if he wished to be anonymous. He has introduced a biasing factor -- I cannot say whether it was deliberate, but we cannot pretend it has no effect. — Dan | talk 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But unless he tried to persuade people of his views with respect to articles on religion (and I didn't check and don't know one way or the other) why would this necessarily matter? I wouldn't put extra stock in the views of a Ph.D. outside his particular subject matter. Most decisions on Wikipedia outside of article editing rely mostly on a person's common sense, which is often inversely proportional to his educational achievements. Even when editing, most people don't look at who made what edits to an article. Of course, people are free to draw their own conclusions about his integrity. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he "confirmed" the details on his userpage to the New Yorker, regarding a story on "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?", disturbs me. The New Yorker also talked with User:William M. Connolley who really is an expert in his field. And it bothers me that Essjay is a position of trust, on Arbcom and with checkuser/oversight. Someone in those positions needs to be held to higher standards of ethics. Essjay owes us an apology, should step down from those positions (until time he regains trust from the community), and Jimbo owes us an explanation. --Aude (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to mention that the only person the ArbCom answers to is Jimbo. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Several quick points:

1. Absolutely correct, if you write an objective, verifiable, coherent article it doesn’t matter if you’re a tenured professor or a fifth grader. So why put on airs?
2. If Essjay had portrayed himself as a character out of Warcraft I would have found it silly but OK. But if his self-description is not obviously false then I assume good faith and believe him.
3. What is unacceptable is that he was referred to by Jim Wales to represent Wikipedia, and he doesn’t tell the truth. Can you think of anything more embarrassing?

A B Carter (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For those with an interest, I've been trying to engage essjay about this for the last couple of weeks - because I think it's a serious issue too (take a look through my contrib.s...) . I've been unsettled by his refusal to engage in any kind of dialogue, and was also upset to see that in addition to the New Yorker thing, he'd also written to another college professor [[7]] compounding the mistake. I think essjay does great work, but just needs to step up now and say that mistakes have been made. I'm not sure he's a good pick for the arbcom right now..... Purples 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a really big deal, and needs to be dealt with. I concur: at the very least, Essjay doesn't belong on the ArbCom while this is being dealt with. This is a significant blow to the credibility of the project: in an environment where we are constantly defending the credibility of an encyclopedia anyone can edit, how do we explain when a senior administrator is intentionally misrepresenting himself and allowing those misrepresenations to get into the media? Something needs to be done here. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Read more of the postings below, and am ruminating. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this needs to be said: This letter by Essjay coupled with Jimbo's cavalier reaction ("it's no big deal") should be enough to get the Wikipedia Foundation to remove BOTH Jimbo and Essjay from the project. 70.146.32.22 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Larger issues of pseudonymity

I can understand how someone using a pseudonym on Wikipedia could yield to the tempation to exaggerate his or her real-life qualifications. It's an error of judgment, but an understandable one. The larger question is whether our encouragement of the use of pseudonyms encourages this sort of dishonesty. Personally, I'm very glad that I decided to use my real name when I created a Wikipedia account, in part because that prevents me from falling into the trap that it seems Essjay has. I'm increasingly of the opinion that we would have been wise to follow MeatballWiki's "UseRealNames" policy. I recognize the advantages of anonymity, but if anonymity leads to dishonesty we should evaluate the culture we've created.

I've invited Essjay to join this discussion and explain his actions. I hope that we can handle this like adults, without excessive finger-pointing and recriminations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay made up a persona to protect himself from stalkers. That one of his stalkers got upset when he found out essjay was doing this doesn't shock me. This should not be a problem. Wikipedians have a right to protect their real-life selves from online stalkers. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, if you go over to WR you will see a thread by Daniel Brandt where he triumphantly note the New Yorker correction. The thread begins in July with "he spends too much time on Wikipedia and I'm sure it's bad for his health and warps his mind." Later, when several people tell him they have no problems with Essjay, Brandt says "If I was competent, and in charge of propaganda for a competent intelligence agency, I'd form a small, tight committee to sign up under a single username, and avoid alienating everyone...I say he's a competent, professional spook who manages several employees to help him out on Wikipedia." Then after Essjay was hired by Wikia and disclosed his identity, Brandt sent a letter to a priest he thinks Essjay might know, asking to confirm details of his identity. This is sick behavior. Brandt has a web site dedicated to disclosing the personal information of every Wikipedia admin. I frankly admire Essjay's campaign of disinformation, which sent Brandt on a months-long wild goose chase. Essjay has commented on this issue extensively on his talk page, but because he archives so often you have to go looking for it. And he responded quite politely to Purples until it became clear that Purples wants his pound of flesh and nothing you can say to him will deter him. Thatcher131 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pop up here, but Thatcher's characterisation of me is so unfair i can't just let it stand. I've consistently just wanted to talk to essjay about this because i thought it could do damage to wiki's reputation. It muddies the waters horribly to start accusing me of being hostile or dangerous - i'm not. I just thought the behaviour was unethical no matter what the motivation and wanted essjay to recognise that. cheers, Purples 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I only just discovered the previous discussions on this subject, in Essjay's archives here, here, here, here, here and here. This does explain the context of Essjay's misrepresentation of himself. However, I wager that I'm not the only person who had this talk page on my watchlist and not Essjay's, and so learned about this matter only today. Other people may learn of this matter from other sources, and get an incomplete picture (as I initially did). Because of this potential for misunderstanding, it would be good if Essjay could make a public statement explaining his reasons for misrepresenting himself. It is not only important that we be honest, it is important that we be seen to be honest.

Essjay's "disinformation" campaign is understandable, given the obsessive nature of Brandt et al., but without that context it looks like someone inflating their credentials to seem more authoritative. Imagine a policeman who goes undercover, and in that undercover "role" commits misdemeanor offences. Now imagine that the policeman is up for promotion, perhaps becoming Commissioner of Police. The press gets wind of his previous misdemeanors, and makes a big deal of them. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the newly appointed Commissioner to make a public statement explaining his actions?

I now understand why Essjay did what he did. However, we should face the fact that when he extended his "disinformation" campaign to the New Yorker, a major media source, and it was subsequently revealed, the consequence damages Wikipedia's public image. The New Yorker correction doesn't give any context for Essjay representing himself as a professor of theology. Essjay should, and not just in his archives. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that Brandt has been browbeating the New Yorker for weeks over this, including contacting the author of the story, the author's agent, and the author's current publisher? All purely in the name of upholding the New Yorker's reputation , of course. Thatcher131 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that. And neither will anyone else who comes across that New Yorker article be. All the more reason why it is important, for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation, that Essjay explain his actions once again, in public. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought: even if this is a form of swiftboating, it's important that Essjay — and, frankly, Wikipedia as a whole — respond to it before it becomes more widely reported without context. Essjay's side of the story is currently buried in his archives, and not terribly easy to find. It needs to be told prominently. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone concern themselves with who anyone is off-Wikipedia? The only thing that matters here is what they do on-Wikipedia. If Essjay has been judged trustworthy enough to be granted the admin rights he has, and he has done nothing on Wikipedia to abuse that trust, then anything else is nobody's business, and repeated attempts to "engage" him on this topic are harrassment. Corvus cornix 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fear of stalkers is a good reason to adopt a pseudonym. It's not a sufficient excuse for waging a calculated effort to deceive people about academic credentials you do not possess -- especially since he lied to the New Yorker and to a professor he contacted regarding Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say this, because I'm a huge fan of this project, but if Jordan remains in a position of authority at Wikipedia it will show there's no accountability at all. Rcade 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. I'm unconvinced that essjay did this as a deliberate effort to appear have credentials he did not. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Does this letter by Essjay convince you? How can it not??? 70.146.32.22 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Look at this. Scroofan 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he did either — but it can certainly look that way to an outside eye. We don't just need to be honest, we need to be seen to be honest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still disgusted, even after reading his talk page archives. You can hide your identity and use a pseudonym without inflating your credentials. What Essjay did is unethical and I don't trust him, in regards to any arbcom, checkuser, or oversight matter. People in these positions are in a position of trust with the community. --Aude (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also quite shocked by this revelation. I would like Essjay to explain himself. Respectfully, Fang Aili ^talk 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I respect Essjay's right to anonymity here, it is unclear to me why Essjay would allow himself to be made a central figure of the New Yorker story in the knowledge that this would involve his false identity being reported as truth to a large audience. This cannot be defended on the basis of preserving his anonymity, because it would have been far easier simply to decline to participate. Certainly, it appears he approached that situation in bad faith. The ultimate damage to Wikipedia from the incident is probably of little accord, except that the media and other outside parties will be less likely to assume good faith of Wikipedians in their future dealings. The damage to Essjay's personal integrity, unfortunately, may be far greater, especially in the eyes of those who know him only tangentially. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this needs to be said:

This letter by Essjay and his statement to The New Yorker, coupled with Jimbo's cavalier reaction ("it's no big deal") should be enough to get the Wikipedia Foundation to remove Essjay AND Jimbo from the project. I hereby call for both to resign. 70.146.32.22 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For Essjay to maintain a false identity in the face of harassment is one thing, and I couldn't care less, but I find that letter to be of much greater concern, as it appears an attempt to use that false identity to project authority. Essjay has been a valued member for a long time, and I don't think we need a witch hunt over this, but it would be very helpful if he would choose to explain his actions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How can the Wikimedia foundation remove Jimbo from the project? At the very least they would have to buy him out as wikipedia belongs to him and not to anyone else, SqueakBox 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt, please go away. You're not helping. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He thinks we're censoring information, and he won't leave until he proves that we have. I don't give a damn if Essjay has a Ph.D. in real life or not; he's still a very helpful contributor. I respect him for his actions, not who he says he is. Maybe the New Yorker should do that too. Oh, and by the way, Essjay doesn't seem like he wants to comment on this affair, which is probably a good idea (see [8] and [9]) PTO 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Not convinced myself that a Florida based IP is Brandt, SqueakBox 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt's not stupid; I bet he knows how to use open proxies. PTO 01:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh there are plenty of ways to get an ip address that isnt one's own of which open proxies is but one (even Windows XP has a method whereby one can control someone else's computer with their permission let alone the various other softwares easily available on the net that will do the same) but I am still not convinced. Either way I dont think the anon should be taken too seriously, SqueakBox 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you the same person who just said Essjay might have faked academic credentials for years for innocent reasons? Rcade 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

Dear Mr. Wales,

I think the efficiency of wikipedia would become much higher if we can design new rules for controversial articles(a negligible percentage of wiki articles). A lot of our energy is wasted in dealing with these articles. In comparison with all wikipedia articles, they are not too many. If we can ask a couple of experts to form a board and we interact with them in writing the article(rather than writing them ourselves), that would be great. Can you please let me know your idea? Thanks --Aminz 07:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely that would destroy the whole wikipedia idea and all it represents, SqueakBox 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

99.999% of the articles can be edited using the regular procedure. --Aminz 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that would mean there are about 16 articles that couldnt be edited normally. Which ones? SqueakBox 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean there are 16 but a tiny fraction. I can generally think of "Criticism of X" related articles, or those talking about persecution or discrimination of one group towards others. --Aminz 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me (as a manager in my real life) that the volunteers here are the best resource wikipedia has and to exclude not particular editors but everybody apart from as chosen panel of experts from editing any article goes entirely against the principles of wikipedia and would be counter-productive as people are attracted to volunteer here precisely because of the freedom to edit any article that they are wish to, SqueakBox 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that and I don't suggest we give the whole process to experts. But on the other hand, in reality those who are emotionally involved in these issues would give a headache to others. These articles simply become a wiki-battle-war. I think wikipedia really needs special policies for dealing with these articles. The presense of an expert(who is not emotionally involved) is really needed. --Aminz 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these policies have been developed already over the years, eg WP:3RR. Nobody is forcing anyopne to engage in a particular article so if people are getting a headache they can choose to withdraw. I basically think the solution would be worse than the problem, SqueakBox 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, WP:3RR only prevents edit warring, it doesn't solve anything. There are many people who care about a topic, and that is basically the motivation of many wikipedians for joining wikipedia. So, we can not ask them to just leave. --Aminz 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, no. While I hear your concerns I think to go down the path you suggest would be a slippery slope that wouldn't do wikipedia any good in the longer run for reasons I hope I have stated clearly, SqueakBox 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, this converstaion may be more appropriate on one of your individual talk pages (Just a reccomendation though). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof please that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

I went to that article in question, and it offered little or no proof to back up it's premise -namely that Wikipedia is failing. However, and as aptly mentioned elsewhere in this page, Wikipedia is failing: I am the editor against whom an admin recently made a declaration of "Community Consensus," but when I added the votes up, no consensus supported any of the several sanctions that were lobbed against me. (I'm proclaiming my innocence here, but for the sake of argument, assume that we don't know if I am guilty or not.)

If an admin can make a proclamation that a "consensus" exists -when not even a slim majority supported his view on things, then this admin is clearly violating WP:Consensus.

The proof that Wikipedia has failed is that, even after many request for them to intervene by myself and numerous other editors, they did not -which effectively supports this rogue admin's illegal actions. ("Illegal" here means in violation of policy, not state or federal law.)

Thus, we can conclude that the many news stories we see about Wikipedia not being reliable have some (if not a lot) of merit.

Maybe if they paid their editors -you know, took out ads -then the quality of editing would improve! But, until then Wikipedia is not a reliable source -just a popular source of information.

Here's the proof to my tall tale.--GordonWatts 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo in Delhi - same as Times of India office

Hello Jimbo, I see that you are in India and Delhi specifically for another couple of days. I just noticed yesterday, that the Times of India, headquartered there, and apparently the largest daily newspaper in the world, has been plagiarising Wikipedia articles on cricketers. Some of them even copied some unsourced errors and even some OR by yours truly from when I was newbie! See User:Blnguyen for details. Apparently they ran an article just this week discussing the unreliability of Wikipedia! Perhaps you should have a chat to them. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)