Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 15 January 2013 (→‎Commons is broken - File:Genitals of a teenage boy.jpg: reply to Delicious carbuncle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


(Manual archive list)

No I, We are have a problem !

Please !!...78.183.218.42 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can post this, just don't spam it. Prodego talk 05:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This really does seem like something that needs to be looked into, if the admins on Turkish Wikipedia are indeed banning anyone that disagrees with them or supports any sort of action against them. And, unfortunately, it's not something the Turkish Wikipedia community can fix, since...well, the admins there would just ban them if they tried. Someone from the Foundation needs to step in here. SilverserenC 10:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Seren said. I have no real way of knowing what's going on over there, but something obviously needs to be done. Who it needs to be done to is what needs to be worked out. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Wikipedia have too problems, this is Real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.183.44.37 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a cursory glance at this page shows a wide consensus that there is a problem that can and will effectively shut down Turkish Wikipedia. A group of sysops have essentially written a manifesto and hijacked the Wiki. You have not contributed, Jimbo. Please do so. This is important, and needs to be resolved. If it is reposted 100 times, it will not be spam. 174.51.31.120 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I don't read Turkish, but if Google Translate is to be trusted, there is some awful shit going on over there. I still don't think it's been properly summarized in English, though. I haven't been able to find the aforementioned "manifesto", for example. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem sensible to me for us to ask the Turkish Wikipedians to come here and comment. Over the years, I have heard similar claims about many languages - claims which, upon deeper investigation, turn out to be not true. (Experienced English language Wikipedians can surely imagine what some banned users might say - claiming that "admins on English Wikipedia are banning anyone that disagrees with them". At the same time, if people I trust (Silver seren) have looked into it and found something to be concerned about, then I think it's worth having a closer look, so I shall do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've looked into it, and yes, this looks like a real problem. Reminds me vaguely of some internal wars in other wikis in the past. I'm going to keep studying this and will try to reach some people by email for private conversation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to The Devil's Advocate for finding these links. This edit appears to be the one where an official statement was made by the five admins that were a part of the "Manifesto". (Maybe this edit is that?) Either way, it seems to be the official comment from the five of them on why they blocked several users that had openly criticized them for blocking the other two users (Regarding the two original users, one (User:Nazif Ilbek) appears to have been blocked because he had been doing outreach with universities in Turkey and presented himself as a representative of the Turkish Wikipedia to try and get more people to edit and had put links on his userpage to represent this and the admins in question felt this was self-promotional, so they blocked him. And the other (User:seksen) appears to have been blocked because he angrily questioned the, apparently normal, process on Turkish Wikipedia where RFAs and RFBs can only be voted in by admins and not the general community.)
As for the official statement itself, at least from what I can understand from Google's pretty bad translation of Turkish, it seems very...pontificating to me. I would almost call it backpedaling and trying to cover one's tracks if not for the air of they can do no wrong. From what is said there, it appears three further users (Users Bermanya, Stultiwikia, and Rapsar) were blocked for criticizing the blocks of the two I just discussed. The blocking reason for them was "trolling", whereupon I guess criticism of admin actions is trolling? Yeah, I think there's problems here. SilverserenC 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that Asaf Bartov of the WMF made a response regarding the user blocked for self-promotion, saying that they had been working together and that it was all proper, above-board outreach efforts with universities. You can read his statement here. SilverserenC 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the community discussion of Seksen's block, where a number of users questioned the appropriateness of the permanent banning. Of those users, Bermanya, Stultiwikia, and Rapsar were among the commenters and, after this discussion, they were blocked for "trolling" about five hours after that discussion, which is when the five admins gave the big response. SilverserenC 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am gonna have to correct you on what you are saying. User:Seksen was objecting to a page that discussed the voting at RfA-type processes. That is, the sysops responsible for determining the outcome of said process discuss the voting to determine whether it passes or does not. What was criticized is that only admins could weigh in on this discussion, as enforced through page protection. Seksen appears to have created an additional discussion page as a sub-page of the page-protected discussion of the voting process to object to non-admins being unable to participate in that discussion. The community there still votes on adminship.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really acceptable? No sysop can overrule the block of another. No "ordinary" user cannot participate in discussions on RfBs. Wikis aren't meant to be ruled by sysops or b'crats. Sysops and b'crats are there strictly to comply with community consensus as well as keep checks and balances on each other. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's not acceptable; but it's good to remain accurate when what's true is bad enough. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jimbo. Peace left in the Turkish Wikipedia. I can low speak English but Everything became clear. :) --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have victim but friends the priority. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These barriers are disturbed community in by Turkish Wikipedia. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of changes to these simple Username: İncelemeelemani denied! --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silver seren made a good explanation about the situation. We (Turkish Wikipedia community) tried to make a discussion on Meta, but none of these admins joined that. I think vote of confidence is the best way to bring justice to Turkish Wikipedia.--Rapsar (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some awful stuff going on over there. I would say an emergency desysop would be in order of the blocking admins pending further investigation. How did that Wikipedia even come to that?—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Cyber. An emergency desysop will be needed. We cannot afford to have a Coup d'état on the Turkish Wikipedia. Any steward or Jimbo himself should perform this as soon as possible as a preventative measure before more unjustified blocks are issued. — ΛΧΣ21 17:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made many contributions to Turkish Wikipedia years ago. It was nearly five years ago and the same group of admins were also behaving editors like dictators that time. I have opened a discussion about if we would make a policy about vote of confidence or something like that. I told everyone that it is impossible to do anything if Dr. Jekyll becomes an admin on Turkish wikipedia and then returns into Mr Hide. Guess what? I was a troll in a moment. They blocked me infinitely. Not only me but hundreds of really talented and hardworking users were blocked whenever they talked on the same issue. We were guilty because we started a discussion about if the adminship would be for life time or not. Then i supported Ansiklopedika which is a website built by some friends who were protesting the dictators of Turkish Wikipedia. And also not hard to guess but they put the name of ansiklopedika.org on spam link of Turkish wikipedia. Its forbidden now to show Ansiklopedika.org as a source on Turkish Wikipedia. Why? Because these dictators dislike the new project. Any spamming history? Definetely not. The head of the gang is now user:Kibele who uses the name of the god kybele as her username. By the way using a god's name is against policies in Turkish Wikipedia but who cares? She and her team is over policy. Well there are millions of words here to write but no time and we need no more headache. I want you to believe that theres really a big big big problem in Turkish Wikipedia for years. 5-6 people are modern dictators. They did not let anyone to be an admin for the recent years. People that have interest on Turkish Wikipedia are unhappy. I have seen hundreds of them leaving the project saying that i will contribute on English Wikipedia but never step on Turkish Wiki once again. Pls help Turkish Wikipedia and protect your project. Thank you.Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Confidence rating is no longer disabled. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 20:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism was even the cause of obstacles! --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 20:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, what's the next step?

Has there been any response from the people you tried to contact yet? I would suggest that Asaf Bartov be one of those people, as he was directly involved and should be able to give the Foundation some better insight on what occurred. But, clearly, something needs to be done soon before Turkish Wikipedia gets overrun completely, if that hasn't happened already. SilverserenC 07:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your plan. Mr. Jimbo. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 21:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to say something about the issue. That is my fourth request for adminship which a user made for me in 2 June 2012. Kibele, one of these five admins that mentioned above supported me in this page (then took back that support). If I was a troll, why she/he supported me first? It make no sense to me.--Rapsar (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark from A Certain White Cat

While there is no emergency to resolve the matter overnight, the issue has remained as an unresolved problem since last July (June if you count the Turkic Wikimedia Conference case). First off, despite everything that has happened I still do not want to take sides. Blocked users may indeed need to be blocked or unblocked depending on long overdue community discussion and decision. I feel we should still avoid any kind of mass action (mass blocking, mass unblocking, mass desysoping etc.). The RfC at the moment has overwhelming support for the unblocking of the four users. Other related blocks (including the recent block of a Sysop that attempted to enforce the already linked RfC) have indeed happened since but weren't discussed at the RFC yet. Also RfC wants to hold a vote of confidence for the existing sysops which I think would be fair.

The actual problem I observe is the absence of due process. People are being blocked for non-routine reasons such as trolling without an adequate discussion or presented evidence. With unacceptable rules such as "only the blocking sysop can unblock users" it is very hard to have any kind of oversight as it defeats the entire point of having multiple sysops, checkusers and oversights to check up on each other. I tried to take initiative in the Turkic Wikimedia Conference case but it did not generate the level of discussion I had hoped. I think facilitating such discussions would be more than helpful provided participants aren't blocked essentially for participating.

One other problem I observe is Steward disinterest in looking into the matter. I am broadly oversimplifying the actual communication to give the overall feel of things. Some (not all) stewards feel interfering with such incidents aren't part of stewards tasks - some stewards I had contacted have directed me towards WMF board/staff whom in turn have directed me back to stewards and/or board of trusties. As a future idea beyond this particular dispute, in all my communications with stewards and WMF staff there has been a general agreement that a body is needed to handle such matters - perhaps a separate committee or sub-committee.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

If desysop operations will be made then everyone's infinite block in the Turkish wikipedia should be removed. Because everyone disagreed with them were called a troll and was blocked infinitely in the past years to date. Thanks.95.10.220.167 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird things going on with the Ansiklopedika.org article on English Wikipedia

This might be some kind of a spillover from that controversy here. There was, until recently an article on the Ansiklopedika.org, which, as best as I can tell, was some kind of an alternative wiki that was set up as an alternative to Turkish Wikipedia after the above controversy. Apparently the original page was speedy deleted in 2011 [1]. It was restored by long time admin User:DGG. I've had it on my watch list for like the past three days, after noticing it being mentioned here, so I don't know the whole story. There was a couple of sketchy accounts which kept adding the speedy deletion tag to it, other users (legitimately, or so it seemed to me) contested the speedy. Rather than going through an AfD, the page was just speedy deleted again by User:Amatulic, [2]. Now, like I said, I've only been watching this for the past few days or so, but the situation definitely raises a lot of red flags. Looks like there's some folks really intent on having this deleted, it's related to the controversy on Turkish Wikipedia and the latest speedy deletion was clearly done against policy (formerly deleted pages are recreated all the time when people dig up new sources). It does look like something that should definitely be looked into.Volunteer Marek 00:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we deal with one dispute at a time please? :/ -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I put the G11 speedy tag after seeing it linked here because it seemed to be an article that was created to promote a non-notable site. The individual who created the article tried to remove the tag and a bot restored the tag. Some IP jumped in to delete the tag and there was some edit-warring over that until GregJackP restored the tag. Then DGG deleted the article as a copy-vio, before realizing it was actually not a copy-vio (it was basically a copy-paste job of an English version of the official page that was released under a compatible license) and then rejected the CSD as being "informational" and not "promotional" only to have a steward restore the tag. I was going to add the "previously deleted article criterion" onto the tag when you removed it and so I went ahead and added it after you removed the previous tag because the G4 was a different criterion that was just as valid. Sorry, Marek, no big conspiracy here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy article and the parody of Neutral point of view

I always wanted to ask you how is it possible that controversial articles like homeopathy make neutral point of view looks like parody? What is wrong and how it can be corrected - I have no idea - I have no ....conflict of interest but I did and do have good intentions. For a curious editor, it would take 15 min to understand the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Heavily_Biased_article. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a problem for many years. The basic problem with the homeopathy article is that it attracts extremists from both sides: Practising homeopaths who want to present Hahnemann's Gospel as the truth, and enthusiastic members of the "skeptic" community who don't appear to understand science. It's the latter category that really shocked me when I first went to the article under the expectation that I would have to help taking the pseudoscientific garbage out. I had no idea that there is such a thing as hooligan followers of science, and as they bring 'my' side into disrepute I am more annoyed at them than at the homeopathy supporters.
In this environment it is actually rather hard to give sensible, neutral information about the history and practices of homeopathy. Nobody seems interested in that. Everything is considered under one aspect only: "Does it help 'us' or the 'enemy'?"
The Citizendium article, not unlike homeopathy articles in many established encyclopedias, is a disgrace because it is too openly pro-homeopathy. (At least it was last time I looked.) But our article goes too far in the other direction. Consider the current last two sentences of the first lead section:
"Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery."
The first sentence says everything there is to know. The second sentence adds nothing but insult, and even with weak sourcing that does not seem to remotely meet the high standard of WP:RS/AC. It also flies in the face of surprisingly large numbers of regular doctors worldwide who administer homeopathy in one way or another. (The number differs a lot from country to country, but is quite high in Germany and probably still in the UK.) Most likely they use it as a placebo, but I doubt that they think of themselves as quacks. That is not to say that there is no quackery among homeopaths, quite possibly more than among regular doctors.
Our readers have come to expect from Wikipedia an excessively neutral and dispassionate tone. This article, however, shouts right into the reader's face: If you believe in homeopathy there is no need to read on, as we are going to try to teach you otherwise. A neutrally written article will teach such a reader otherwise, and it will not prevent them from reading by using poorly supported insults.
Disclaimer: I have been mostly inactive for almost a year and didn't look at the homeopathy article or its talk page even longer. But my quick research showed that nothing much seems to have changed. Hans Adler 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization of homeopathy as quackery has in the past been overwhelmingly supported by MEDRS secondary sources, so perhaps the talk page archives and/or article history needs to be examined to find them. It is not an insult any more than characterizing anti-vaccination activists as presenting a danger to public health is an insult. Stark terms are called for when failing to include them is likely to cause harm or even fail to prevent harm. 71.212.238.208 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. There are several other high quality sources which depart from this point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, those are a WP:PRIMARY source (of which at 5% are expected to be significant at the p<0.05 or better level), and an opinion letter to the editor. Neither are the WP:SECONDARY sources to which I was referring and which continue to overwhelmingly characterize homeopathy as quackery to this day as they have for decades. Please read WP:PSTS and WP:RS. 71.212.238.208 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shows need for fringe content-forks: There have been many controversial subjects, with POV-edit-wars, in trying to force a single article page to represent each side's concept of "neutrality". The best solution, while balancing wp:SOAPBOX concerns of wp:GRANDSTANDing in a major, heavily-viewed article, is to create a valid, sourced but fringe-level subarticle (wp:Content fork) where questionable ideas can be explained without tainting the top-level article with too much fringe text as "top-billed" hokum. For example, in a murder article, suppose there were many experts who concluded the major suspects might be innocent, but some other person, acting alone, was the real culprit (as documented by reliable sources); in such a case, there could be a sub-article "Murder of X lone-wolf theory" which could explain the unusual (but heavily-sourced) viewpoint that one guy, acting alone, committed the murder and clean-up, as returning to the scene of the crime to see "did that person really die" and then performed extra clean-up when confirming the death was real. By having such fringe-level sub-articles, then sourced, "minority report" opinions can be explained without flooding the major article with all the details needed to clarify how such a fringe concept actually fits the many facts as a plausible explanation. Overall, it is a balancing act, to provide a voice for credible fringe concepts, but not wp:GRANDSTAND those ideas with "top billing" at the search-results level of a major article. In later years, as a fringe concept becomes more mainstream, then the fringe sub-article could be summarized with a greater presence in the main article, but until then, each subarticle is dedicated to a specific (sourced) concept which ensures full details without (as many) edit-warriors trying to slant the text to emphasize some other viewpoints. That tactic really seems to work, as edit-warriors seem more obsessed with slanting the main article, then the less-read subarticles. Albert Einstein (translated in Out of My Later Years) advised a similar tactic in world politics: to have a confederation of different cultures, each as a sub-page of world culture, but acting together as united nations where each could maintain a different culture supported by a minority group, yet all loosely joined in the overall confederation. His idea made me think of the Swiss university, the "Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule" (the Swiss Federal Polytechnic) as a conferation of different university departments, each a minority to the others. After years of analysis, I really think the tactic of "confederated subarticles" is a good solution (whether Einstein liked it or not!). Anyway, Hans, welcome back, and I think other areas here have improved during the past year. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no - the last thing Wikipedia needs to do is become a platform for fringe theories. Our articles should represent the balance of consensus of material from mainstream reliable sources. Permitting 'fringe-forking' is a guaranteed way of giving such material more credibility than it deserves. All articles must conform to Wikipedia standards regarding NPOV, weight etc - to act otherwise is totally contrary to the encyclopaedic objectives of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've concluded that where science conflicts with a belief set, the compromise should be to present the science in a calm way without making a point of bashing the belief set. A more common place for this is religion. I've run into the same situation as Hans Adler. I'm a scientific atheist, but I often butt heads with folks at articles that have my same RW POV / are of scientific bent because they often want to turn articles on those topics into nasty attack pieces that make a point of bashing the belief set. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikipedia supposes to reflect the scientific consensus or any uncertainty or controversy as long as it appears in a reliable source.

According to the NPOV, the weight of every review is NOT judged by the wikipedia contributors evaluating if their content is "correct" or not, but by typically and better, solely by the significance and importance of the journal.

For instance, whatever review or information has been published in the Lancet or the Annals of internal medicine about the X subject ( Homeopathy for instance ) not matter how pro and anti homeopathy the conclusions or the information are , HAS to be reported. In the latest dispute, the group of the editors who control the article while finally accepted ( at least some of them ) that there are several high quality mainstream sources which don't say that Homeopathy = only placebo= quackery, they refused to report their findings because they are NOT consistent with what THEY believe is the scientific consensus.

This the perfect parody of Np of view. The current homeopathy article is a graphic example of what a wikipedia editor should NOT be doing and how should NOT be behaving. --Motorola12 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With only 1 page about the topic, then edit-warring can be intense. There were similar edit-war problems in 2006 with article "Search engine" which was often severely trimmed to omit Internet search concepts (as considered irrelevant), until the article was forked, and then subarticle "Web search engine" was expanded to contain numerous details about each type of Internet "search engine" database. The result of subarticles, after years of struggle, was almost like magic to reduce edit-warring and broaden details. It's just the rules of "[p]article physics" to reduce conflicts. In some cases, a disambiguation page can also promote similar branched articles, rather than continue conflicts. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikid77, you seem to be under a misapprehension as to what Wikipedia is for. Forking articles might possibly reduce edit-warring (though I see no particular reason that it should), but if it is done with this objective in mind, at the expense of violating WP:NPOV within particular articles, it is contrary to the objectives of the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is here to provide neutral and balanced material to our readership, and violating this principle for the convenience of contributors is just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MEDRS, we don't allow contributors to cherry-pick a few random primary case studies to 'disprove' overwhelming scientific consensus - have you any evidence that this consensus has changed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. (And this just in: Earth still not flat!) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See: "Flat Earth" or "Cardiff Giant" as examples of how Wikipedia handles fringe topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could have read more carefully what I wrote - There are NOT primary case studies but reviews and meta analyses published in first rate journals - see above ( The Lancet, Annals of Interval Medicine and more) . There is not clear consensus among the researchers - Several reviews published in first rate journals contradict each other. Can you justify why you don 't want to apply the NPOV principle "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers". Why don't you w ant readers to know for instance about these ? --Motorola12 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to see Hans commenting again. "Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery" is wrong because, as Hans points out, lots of doctors don't think it's quackery, sadly. Within the medical community homeopathy is considered by most to be quackery. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modern medicine has made great advances since Hahnemann's time, when homeopathy was actually more successful than regular medicine simply by feeding patients well, keeping hygiene (medical doctors didn't believe in it) and not poisoning them. However, it still has its limitations, it has some problems with quackery both in practice and in science (in a famous 2012 Nature study, 47 of 53 cancer studies were not reproducible, and some authors new about this! [3]), and it totally neglects patients' spiritual needs in a way that many providers of alternative and complementary medicine such as homeopathy don't. Therefore they provide a useful service even if they are obviously worthless by medical efficacy standards. Some doctors know this, others are just naive, and the same applies to lots of nurses and midwives. All part of the medical community. But even the scientific medical community chooses its words carefully. Scientists, when making official statements, use understatement, not swearwords.
"Quackery" in the homeopathy lead was once sourced to a polemic article in a Nigerian journal that only discussed the situation in Nigeria, because there was nothing better. The present sourcing appears better than that but still quite poor.
The word "quackery" doesn't even appear in Christian Science. (Nor anything like it last time I had a closer look.)
A judge in Berlin decided that referring to the Catholic church as "the child fucker sect" is fair commentary. Do we find this in the lead of the Catholic Church article? No. There is only a one-paragraph section on sex-abuse cases right at the end of the article, mentioning in general that the church "was criticised". Following someone's argument a bit further above, we would need a lot more space for this topic because being Catholic can ruin one's children's lives in the same way that believing in homeopathy can ruin one's health. If you happen to deal with a priest who doesn't have his sex drive under control, or with a homeopath who doesn't understand the limitations of his faith.
It appears to me that for certain editors putting strongly worded statements about quackery in the homeopathy article functions like capturing and desecrating the opposing team's flag. (Some of the same editors jealously protect the Stephen Barrett article against any and all criticism and everything that might undermine the notion that he is an ultra-reliable medical science expert.) Hans Adler 18:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Hans and Hans but please allow me to underline the most important issue here. It is not only a matter of elegance , style and kindness. Wikipedia supposes to report the scientific literature about Homeopathy including controversies and uncertainties . Even if the NPOV didn;t require that, which it does, we had to add it in its definition. The criterion for reporting is solely the weight and the importance of the journal the info is reported ; NOT whether we personally believe that the information is worth reporting or not. If there is no clear consensus or there are several conflicting views in first rate journals, one should report exactly that and not to edit out whatever it does not comply with his her preconceptions. Otherwise the NPOV becomes a parody, the way it is in the homeopathy article. --Motorola12 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola12's comments here are a demonstration of the problem caused by an article whose tone is (in the first paragraph, which is the only thing many readers read) seriously non-neutral. One homeopathy fan after another will notice the problem, realise that it is so bad that Wikipedia will ultimately do something about it, and will believe that in the process the article will also be 'corrected' in the sense of, for want of better words, 'teaching the controversy'. Even though that last goal is totally unrealistic, reality-oriented editors will have to support them in part, and this will get their hopes up. Hans Adler 22:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I would not even think of suggesting to include controversies and uncertainties if they were not so strongly apparent in first rate journals. I just got inspired by reading the definition of NPOV in wikipedia. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For various reasons which the medical community does not seem to be addressing, all kinds of extremely poor studies get published in medical journals -- even in the best medical journals. That's one reason Wikipedia has WP:MEDRS, which stresses that whenever possible one needs to use high quality reviews of studies rather than infividual studies. As I mentioned further up, one study reported that about 94% of the important cancer studies they tried to reproduce were highly misleading. I don't remember the details, but I do remember that such metastudies exist for homeopathy and that the result is that it simply doesn't work better than placebo.
I am not saying that homeopathy has no value. But any value of homeopathy apparently cannot be proved by double-blind studies. (Or theoretically it could be restricted to some very specific patients and/or conditions.) It becomes clear that this is an important distinction if you consider operation such as amputating a limb. Its efficacy after a snake bite can't be proved in a double-blind study any more than its efficacy as a measure against the common cold. Hans Adler 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation of meta analyses varies and depends on the authors point of view. There are reviews they have found homeopathy = placebo and they have been criticized by other authors in high quality journals and reviews which arrive in different conclusions. Click to see yourself. But you are right - homeopaths say that the individual character of the method cannot be properly tested with the standard methods. The main question is why the contributors of this article refused to report this information not as the truth but as a part of the discussion in the scientific community. ?--Motorola12 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not put on airs - we're no better than medical journals. If something gets published there, we should cover it here, "MEDRS" be damned. Though we should, of course, be clear about the limited nature of such evidence. Contradictions are good, because they tell the reader where there is interesting reading to be done. We should not allow snap prejudice to get in our way when a little creativity quickly reveals we can't be so sure - for example, it is possible that Zicam is not the only manufacturer ever to slip an effective (and/or dangerous) remedy past the medical cartel by labeling it "homeopathic". Perhaps some of the studies that found an effect were positive for this reason, or for some other reason we haven't thought of. We are here to direct the reader to the sources he wants, not to herd him. Wnt (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A community loss

Hello Mr. Wales. Our community has diminished by the untimely loss of Aaron Swartz, internet activist for free knowledge, co-creator of RSS, and Wikipedia User:AaronSw. It would seem proper that you should know, and we. See the Wikimedia blog --My76Strat (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)(add condolences)[reply]

Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadening coverage of suicide: Many related articles can be expanded, as from the navbox below. Aaron has already been added to "List of suicides". More discussion after navbox.

Many articles from the above navbox {suicide2} even need simple copy-edit work for commas and spacing, plus any small expansions will help improve coverage. Because Aaron Swartz joined at age 16, in 2003, I think teenagers should know that Wikipedia might provide some answers to many of their concerns, or help explain methods of intervention. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that counting him on a so-called "list of suicides" seems to offend proper BLP (BRDP) (as may the list itself), because we don't know he was a suicide. The sources for the most part carefully call it an "apparent" suicide. After all, probably most murders are committed by idiots, and the rest are accidents or suicides. While Swartz might have had much to lose in a trial, it is also possible that some well-heeled interests would lose a lot of money if some principle established in the case or appeal made copyright law more difficult to enforce. I don't want to push a so-called "conspiracy theory", but I think we should keep an open mind about the cause at least until the coroner returns a final report. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is broken - File:Genitals of a teenage boy.jpg

File:Genitals of a teenage boy.jpg was uploaded to Commons in March 2011. It went through a deletion discussion in December 2011. The result of that discussion was "keep". I had it on my watchlist. It was deleted a couple of days ago by Commons admin Russavia withe the comment "contact me for further information if required". I did, but my questions were ignored. I have asked on COM:AN about this deletion but thus far the only answers I have received are bafflegab. Without knowing why the image was deleted, it is ::difficult to learn anything from this episode and prevent future similar issues. Jimbo, perhaps you could take a look at this one and possibly ask for some guidance from the WMF's legal department (if that is necessary, which is difficult to know amid the vortex of misinformation)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're aware, I have zero sympathy for your views here. If you said that it is a damnable shame that it tooks commons this long to do something about an image like this, then I'd agree. If you're moaning that something like this was deleted, well, go moan to someone else. I don't care.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's the former, it's just that he doesn't understand what prompted the later deletion (though it was a good thing it was deleted) and Russavia won't explain what led to the deletion decision. If the reasons are known, then they might be better applied in the future to obtain the proper deletion of other files separate from the obviously broken Commons XfD process. SilverserenC 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you complain when we delete stuff, and complain when we don't. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure DC is just looking for attention. Resolute 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There it is right there - We - a handful of users, four or five only. all supporters of free pornography, homosexual seems to be a focus for them, especially controlling and dominating the commons project, to name and shame them, they are , User:Russavia, User:Cirt, User:Mattbuck - any foundation member could and imo should just globally ban all three of them.Youreallycan 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually down with DC highlighting the shortcomings and flaws of Commons and its deplorable despots admins...the 3 named above are particularly reprehensible...but this is a bit reaching. If something that should have been deleted was actually deleted, then call it a win and move on. Browbeating the admins further is pointless. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that I do regret that {{vk}}, although I should also that I do believe nudity is not equivalent to sexuality. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A dichotomy which would surely interest defense attorneys in the US when faced with clients found with "teenage boy genitalia" photos on their computers. Collect (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, I am a bit taken aback by your comment. My views on these things (if "these things" are explicit images of an underage person) should be very clear to you by now and I would be very much surprised if we disagreed. Is that the case here? I don't know and no one will tell me. If it is the case, we should look into what we can learn from this to prevent recurrences. An IP editor put this image up for deletion -- something IP editors can no longer do on Commons -- and it was kept. Given the filename and the fact that it was uploaded by a brand-new user, should we have erred on the side of caution? Again, I do not know that the person pictured was underage and it would be a mistake to assume that this was the case. It may be that is just another exhibitionist uploading naughty pictures and placing them into WP articles (see the contributions of User:Hank1357 and User:123.204.250.191) and he has changed his mind about having those images on Commons. I strongly believe that people should be allowed to remove their images from Commons, but everyone should be afforded this courtesy and there is no need for a veil of secrecy in such cases. It is difficult to learn anything from this case other than which questions not to ask. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. But really, I think you're being counterproductive here. A bad image is gone, for any number of reasons that we can imagine, and you are making it hard on the deleter. I have no sympathy for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. The problem here is that we don't know if this image was a "bad image". And we don't know why it was deleted. Russavia has previously made out-of-process deletions as a favour for an associate. Is this another case of the same? Is this "child porn"? I don;t know and neither will anyone else who has taken this freely licensed image from Commons and re-used it. That doesn't sit well with me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to look at is the title of the image and the fact that it is the only upload of the uploading account to know that the world is not materially worse off that it is gone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JImbo, that user uploaded half a dozen images which were deleted at the same time. File:Penis licked by a dog.jpg was deleted after only three days on Commons, with no warning or other message being given to the user. I think the clues were there, but Commons does not seem to be very reactive to such things. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there always someone on Jimbo's page complaining about porn, but never on Eric Schmidt's page? Google has several orders of magnitude more porn and more explicit porn than Commons or Wikipedia. And Eric can actually do something about it fairly easily, unlike Jimbo who, well, you know what happened last time he tried to delete cartoons or whatever. Theories? 75.166.209.160 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, a search engine doesn't host anything, genius. Not comparable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what a thumbnail is? Imagine if Jimbo went to North Korea. The Wikipediocrans would be all "OMG SUPPORTING STALINISM!" 75.166.209.160 (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Commons missing some type of porn? I'm sure if you can point it out here, someone will rectify that just as soon as they can Flickrwash a few images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying the problem usually originates from Flickr? Ever tweeted Marissa Mayer complaining about it? Why bother Jimbo instead of the source? 75.166.209.160 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the discussion at Commons AN that the file has been saved on our Florida server and is viewable at will by staff, oversighters and stewards. How many people does that represent? Does the complainant know the image has been saved on our server and is still being viewed? Is there any reason to save this image on our server? On its face, this seems very wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That question was asked, I didnt see any response beyond the 'omg its deleted stop questioning us already'. If its been deleted due to a legal issue, it needs to be gone completely. Not viewable by anyone. If its been deleted out of process because someone thinks there is an issue, well there are questions that should be answered. More importantly though - it was on there for 2 years and survived a deletion discussion! Great that it has now been deleted, there are lots of people who would like to know exactly how and why so the method can be applied to other suspect material on there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a knee-jerk reaction by a cadre on Commons that any thing with a hint of nudity, or sexuality MUST BE KEPT no matter what. They are supplying a bungy rope to ensure that Western Civilisation is protected from sliding down that slippery slope back into the days of the Inquisition. John lilburne (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And they're entrenched at Commons and have the buttons... Carrite (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Are some these people who obsessively save porn on Commons able to view that "deleted" image? I'd still like to see a list of people who have free access to the image. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you who can see it, but I can tell you that I (an admin) cannot, so I would assume it was oversighted or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'd like nothing better than to see (at the least) the removal of +sysop from some of the Commons porn-enabling admin clique, the fact that someone has actually made a correct decision seems a slightly bizarre way of pointing an issue out. Though frankly anyone who voted "Keep" on that original deletion discussion (which includes, surprise surprise, Mattbuck) shouldn't be allowed near Commons, let alone the buttons. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you do something about this? I mean could you at least start a desysop request on Commons? Mattbuck has been a disgrace on Commons long enough. It is about time to kick him out.76.126.142.118 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support more good users getting involved on commons, to facilitate reform. Just FYI, I'm unable to see the image on commons. As far as I am aware, my 'founder' flag gives me universal 'read-only' access to everything. So there are three possibilities. One, I'm just confused about what access I have. Two, the file has been deleted in such a fashion that no one can see it anymore. Three, I'm just not seeing how to look at it (I have little experience at trying to look at deleted images).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't you founder flag removed? 76.126.142.118 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't, though I believe its definition was changed. Looking at commons:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/founder, Jimbo should be able to see everything, so either the image was nuked at some really high level - whatever's above oversight or something. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I've 42K edits here, I've got about 3 at Commons - the only time I ever edit there is to post copyvio notices on obviously infringing images. I hardly think they'd listen to me - it either has to be the Commons community (yeah, I know) or something from higher up (i.e. Jimbo). I don't know, given his obvious POV on this, why he's so reluctant to take action. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting useless drama--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just an FYI, Jimbo's opinions hold very little sway on Commons, for the same reason that his rights on Commons were revoked. Put simply, we didn't think he had the best interests of the project at heart. We're not averse to deletion of content, we just want to see a good reason for it. As those of you who follow me closely know (but possibly do not admit), I do sometimes vote to delete sexual content, but not when there is no good reason for it to be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is the time and place for this. We really do not need more drama than already is present on this thread. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well Matt, the last resort is always the ol' WMF Office Action, something that gets called in when the Commons admins are unable/unwilling to clean up their messes. This time, thankfully, it wasn't needed. But I fear this small dose of common sense by your crowd will be the exception rather than the rule. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious carbuncle, I think it's dangerous of you to re-open a discussion that was closed due to behavior from another editor similar to a thread you started here that you nearly got blocked for, but, if you really want to keep this going, you at least can't let this portion stand. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Put simply, we didn't think he had the best interests of the project at heart". Whereas the promoters of underage pornography (including Mattbuck, who has just described the image in question as 'sexual content') do? It strikes me that comments like that are quite sufficient evidence to suggest that commons should be put under the direct control of the WMF, until such time as these individuals can be removed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked not to further this drama, so I have removed a comment I made here. However, I do not promote underage pornography, and your accusation that I do is a gross personal attack which I would ask you to apologise for. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No - your postings speak for themselves. You described an image on Commons portraying 'genitals of a teenage boy' as 'sexual content', and voted for it to remain on Commons. That seems clear enough to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is sound reason for Commons to oppose a knee-jerk reaction to suppress every underage genital image. For example, if a PLOS article includes a series of photographs depicting development of infants with hypospadias caused by various genes, it is educational and a public service for Commons to make this information readily available to the public. (PLOS does this itself, of course - but the Commons version might have far more readable annotations than an article written for geneticists) Or, to take the most long-standing case, which predated even Sanger's call for an FBI investigation and which they apparently didn't want to touch, Commons hosts a series of explicit photos by Guglielmo Plüschow and Wilhelm von Gloeden of young boys they were actually sleeping with, because they have an established historical importance in early photography.
These, mind you, are exceptions of the highest importance, because the U.S. Supreme Court has managed to avoid the issue of whether the Miller Test applies to child nudity, or indeed in Gloeden's case, out-and-out child pornography; but taken to court, one hopes that they would make the right decision and realize that the freedom of the press overrides the arbitrary dividing line which they have used in previous decisions. It would be worth considering whether Wikipedia should actually go on the offensive (working together with the ACLU, one should hope), demand a clarification of the law by court action, rather than wait passively for prosecutors to pick out the worst possible test case. Ultimately, as we see from [4], our country has been approaching this issue in a way which is out and out insane, which gets a lot of people paid huge salaries to expert-witness about pictures, give lifetime treatment to people they say aren't treatable, and prosecute kids for sending each other their own pictures while the streets are flooded with child prostitutes nobody wants to help at all (except maybe by throwing them in jail). Wikipedia should be a place where our society's flaws become known, and people begin to look for solutions. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least you have the honesty to admit you are using Commons to push your agenda, WNT. Meanwhile, a question. Is it appropriate for a Commons contributor to include photographs of infant male genitalia in a gallery named 'sexuality' - the said gallery also including erect penises, and what appears to be autofellatio, amongst other sexually-explicit imagery? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using Commons this way, and indeed, did not even participate in that AfD or contribute any of this content. I merely admire their intellectual integrity in standing up against a knee-jerk censorship. I should, however, say that in any such case - whether uploading the photo or merely displaying it on another page - I think it is extremely important that contributors make a maximum effort to ensure that their use is educational, indeed, ensure that even an unsympathetic viewer will understand that the use has "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Deletion of such material when it is arguably out of scope may indeed be prudent. As I said, I don't want Wikipedia to suffer from a bad test case. However, such caution is the business end of a "chilling effect", and Wikipedia has the right to seek redress in the courts clarifying or overturning unconstitutional law so as to be free from such chilling effects. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the question I asked wasn't directed at Wnt directly, and I have no reason to suspect that Wnt has any such images in such a gallery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this as well. It might also help to draw clearer lines for our projects, so that we don't waste even more time watching "parties" of any kind bending any rule as they see fit. That goes both ways, even so i have to admit that i see the same knee-jerk censorship affiliates way to often. Sad days for anyone that has to deal with them. :-( --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, if you talking about this or similar pages, you should keep in mind that Mattbuck relies on a bot to collect the images based on categories that editors have applied to the images. I do not know why he does this, but he is not personally selecting these images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, someone, somewhere, is including such images in a category, or list of categories, that has ended up described as 'sexuality' in Mattbuck's user space - and if he isn't responsible for the categorisation (I'll take your word for it that he isn't), something seriously needs attention in the way Commons contributors are categorising images. Bots don't apply categories... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some bots do add categories when uploading Flickr images by attempting to parse the tags applied to the image, but let's look at the other situation with an example from here. File:Webbed penis 01.jpg was added (probably wrongly) to the category "Micropenis" by the uploader. "Micropenis" is in the category "Human penis" which is in the category "Male human genitalia" which is in the category "Human genitalia" which is in the category "Human sexuality" which is in the category "Sexuality". Wasn't that fun? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So an image from a medical journal is stripped of all its context, and dumped into a category of images labelled 'sexuality'? So much for ethics. Oh, but Commons doesn't do ethics, evidently... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no foot in this and I don't care. Russiva probably had a good reason to delete whatever he deleted. Most folks don't wield some awesome sword with arrogance knowing it can be taken away. That said, let's all remember that "teenage" is not limited to 13-17. 18 and 19 are also "teenage" and are legal age (I think in most places). The word "teenage" by itself is not altogether damning or a sign of underage. Maybe "boy" coupled with teenage is firing off the alarms, but the name by itself isn't definitive. That said, commons isn't any worse off with 1 less penis image.--v/r - TP 01:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you TP, except that calling him a boy has a pedo allure if nothing else. Otherwise I suppose they would belong to a young man. --My76Strat (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the age of the individual in the 'Genitals of a teenage boy' image, Mattbuck wrote in the (failed) deletion request "No details on the image, ie age, nationality, reason for the rather weirdly shaped glans etc". No details of age? Labelled 'teenage'? Not a single comment on the appropriateness of including an image of an unknown teenager for whom there is no indicated age, but instead comments on the shape of his glans? Something seriously wrong there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due weight

Jimb, do you think it is due or WP:UNDUE weight to give medium-sized religions such as Unitarian Universalism and Wicca their own subsections on articles such as afterlife? This has been a recurring issue and the latest occured here and here, but i am seeking a more general feedback. I already touched upon this previously in WP:ADHERENCESTATS where i pointed out that i think wikipedia articles are too focused on judeo-christian faiths. Current WP policies do not sufficiently cover issues like this so your reply might set a precedent. FYI, Wicca and Unitarian Universalism are the 6th and 7th largest religions in the US. Pass a Method talk 03:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment from a random talk-page watcher: I don't think the main issue here is due/undue weight, as the issue is not whether the text should be in the article, but what the section headings should be. (Although I notice that in the Afterlife article there also is an issue of duplication of material.) On the section headings, I think the main issue is not the "size" or "importance" of the respective religions, but the amount of material in the sections. Especially in Religion and divorce, it is odd-looking to have a top-level section header for a single, very short paragraph. Your suggestion on one of the talk pages, to compromise and have these smaller subsections under a second-level heading (with the top heading of "Other Religions", I assume) seems like a good way to go. In the Afterlife article, the first mentions of each of the two religions could be moved down and merged with the separate subsections, again under a second-level heading. You may also want to have a discussion on the talk pages of the articles themselves, so "watchers" of those articles can get involved; you seem to have started a discussion one of the talk pages, but not the other. Neutron (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When i made the WP:cHRISTIANPOV essay, the majority of respondents agreed there was a christian bias on wikipedia. I was merely trying to balance this bias by introducing non-Abahamic faiths, but as you see above, i get reverted by God knows who. Pass a Method talk 20:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what Neutron is saying is that article development comes before section headers (section headers reflect what's already there, not what "should" be there) and that because we do things collaboratively, letting people know/starting discussion on the article talk page can help facilitate article development. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone interested in the follow-up, see this thread Pass a Method talk 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanmıyorum/I do not think

Englsih: (Google Translate) -Keep in mind this topic. But I do not believe that to solve the problem now.
Türkçe: (Orginal) -Bu konu unutulmamalıdır. Ama ben bu sorunu çözeceğinize inanmıyorum artık. --This unsigned article written by: User:Aguzer 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Aaron Swartz's partner and WP:BLPNAME

I rarely appeal to you for this sort of help, but would you please weigh in here. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=533152689"