Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:52, 13 January 2006

• WP:JIMBO

User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivedecember14

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Wikicities.com | My Website

Did you come here looking for something fun to do? Ok, now would be a good time to go speedy delete some images from "Images with unknown source" and "Images with unknown copyright status". According to the new speedy deletion criterion (I just changed it), these can be deleted on sight when they have been on the site for at least 7 days.

Dershowitz legal threat

Can you confirm that the "very strong complaint" you received was from Alan Dershowitz or his staff? - Xed 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if he doesn't, there's no denying that some dollar-hungry, savvy and perhaps fame-seeking (or -maintaining) attorney is going to eventually figure out that Misplaced Pages is low-hanging fruit with respect to a class-action defamation/libel suit...and how many Wiki articles are there, again...? (ka-ching!) And all-the-better that there's a constitutionality matter at hand regarding the supposedly legal protection extended to ISPs. Right...I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere. Perhaps the ever-useful Article 14...? ;-) --AustinKnight 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In the US, ambulance chasers usually focus on personal injury law, or (more recently) IP law. Defamation hardly even makes the grade. For every actual defamation suit there are ten thousand unfounded threats, which is why most people on the Internet don't take them very seriously. Times v. Sullivan poses a very high barrier to slander or libel suits by public figures. And the legal protections extended to ISPs are statutory, they have nothing to do with the Constitution. If you're implying there is a constitutional right to sue for libel, you're wrong. In fact, the courts (from Times onward) have routinely held that libel suits must be restricted in order to avoid a chilling effect on protected expression under the First Amendment. Firebug 22:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, counselor. But, do you truly think that, today, Herr Dershowitz is convinced of your line of reasoning regarding due process and equal protection? Or the former editorial-page editor & founder of USA Today...? Or members of the Supreme Court of the United States, such as Antonin Scalia (who has specifically spoken against your arguments)...? If you're assessment is wrong, and correspondingly Misplaced Pages does not take action to reel-in some of the over-the-top nonsense, and the courts (eventually) go against them...what then? Platitudes? "Sorry, that was such an unfair ruling."? --AustinKnight 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you are a bitter, bitter person. --kizzle 22:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I am a lighthouse. A fairly compassionate one. One which is steadily, cyclically, unrelentingly warning that there are shoals here that the unwary need to pay attention to, and which if ignored will result in tragic drama. I wish for nothing but succcess for Misplaced Pages, but see serious trouble in the offing. I'd be a bitter, bitter person if I said or did nothing. --AustinKnight 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

AustinK is right and his lighthouse is shining a lot brighter than Firebug's. Firebug is not telling the whole story. The barrier that the Supreme Court erected to protect free speech from the excessive pinch of libel suits in Times v. Sullivan requires a litigant to prove that the defamer acted with "reckless disregard for the truth." It should be clear that Misplaced Pages has been acting with reckless disregard for the truth. For example, despite numerous protests and requests that Wiki administrators stop a registered editor from posting libelous statements, he is allowed to continue. Just yesterday, he posted for the second time the false statement that I am under psychiatric care. Anyone who knows about libel law should know that, such a statement, if false is defamatory pro se and that it requires no proof of actual injury. And this is days after he edited an article removing the graduate degree from my name and posted as the reason that my degree was "phony." He later put it back in, admitting that he did that to punish me. Allowing a registered editor to repeatedly post defamatory statements in a campaign to discredit someone and ignoring the injured party's repeated protests, is in my opinion prima facie evidence of gross and reckless disregard for the truth. And, for Wikis who might not care about law or justice, it is no way to run an "encylopedia."Askolnick 13:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's per se, not pro se (pro se means a litigant who is representing himself), and defamation law is not quite as simple as you are saying, particularly when you consider that every state has its own laws on the subject. Further, libel and slander per se generally involve statements concerning plaintiff’s business or reputation, that the plaintiff has committed a crime of moral turpitude, a statement imputing unchastity to a woman, (in New York) a statement imputing homosexuality, or an imputation of loathsome disease (venerial disease, leprosy, etc). Also, regardless of whether you need to prove damages or not, you still have to show actual malice; a statement is not libelous per se if it is true or was made in good faith. You should re-read Times, since you are slightly mis-citing its holding. However, I will agree with you that allowing someone who has repeatedly posted false material to continue posting is reckless. Jrkarp 14:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Question...

I have a question; how come everyone but Jimbo Wales answers most questions? See above... Spawn Man 21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Because Jimbo is lazy! ;-) --Jimbo Wales 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What has the world come to!!!! Spawn Man 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of a quote -- "In fact, I think Linus's cleverest and most consequential hack was not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his invention of the Linux development model. When I expressed this opinion in his presence once, he smiled and quietly repeated something he has often said: 'I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do.' Lazy like a fox. " - Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s03.html

Start a world tour, and appear on international news networks, and then tell me why you don't answer every question on your user talk page. -- user:zanimum

Okay.... Wait done that..... Well I manage to reply to everyone.... =) Spawn Man 07:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Xed

You may misunderstand my argument... the point is not that Xed is acting in bad faith, but rather that it is an assumption of bad faith on Xed's part to write off concerns with the article on the grounds that the complainer is Dershowitz - particularly when that is not clear. This has been the issue with Xed in both of his arbitration cases - that his default assumption about anyone - particularly anyone who disagrees with him - is that they are acting in bad faith.

Oh, and you shouldn't edit people's evidence sections. ;) Phil Sandifer 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please move my comment to where it should be, I'm sorry. I'm not very experienced at RfC's actually. --Jimbo Wales 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

lol. I'll just file under "Jimbo can do whatever he wants." Phil Sandifer 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As someone has mentioned to me, there is a difference is between "assuming bad faith" and "reasonable suspicion". Snowspinner seems to assume everything I do is in bad faith (bad faith in itself). The bullying has to end. - Xed 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Xed. Give us a break. You aren't being bullied, and you very often show bad faith and you very often do things to be disruptive. No one, least of all Snowspinner, assumes that everything you do is in bad faith. But enough of it is that we're getting sick of it. --Jimbo Wales 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Without taking any position on Xed or his behavior (about which I know little and care less), I think his question is reasonable, and I want to hear the answer. Did Dershowitz threaten us? Firebug 22:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Dershowitz did not threaten us. In my opinion, there was a misunderstanding here. But there was no threat.--Jimbo Wales 00:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

He did however contact Jimbo with a "strong complaint". Dershowitz, or his assistant, edited his own article, removing unflattering info and adding flattering info. Then he was banned. Presumably, he then complained to Jimbo, who deleted most of his article and allowed only admins to edit it.

Looking thru the history of Alan Dershowitz (note:older edits have been moved to Alan Dershowitz/old for unexplained reasons), you'll see on the 5th, 6th and 7th of December several edits by three users:

• User:140.247.219.49
• User:140.247.238.185
• User:140.247.201.190
• User:FakeName

The IP numbers come from Harvard University - probably Dershowitz or his assistant Mitch Webber. A member of Misplaced Pages has identified "FakeName" as the same person as whoever the IPs are. FakeName has been banned, see his talk page

"FakeName" makes a legal threat here:

These are a couple of edits that the Harvard vandal makes:

• (Lengthy addition of all awards he has received and how wonderful he is)

• (removed info on conflict with finkelstein)

Other edits from the Harvard vandal include complete or partial blanking of the article

-Xed 00:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are different kinds of threats. I doubt that Jimbo would react positively to a lawsuit threat. But hypothetically if somebody said, "last year I gave the Misplaced Pages foundation $50,000, and if you don't fix this article I'll stop giving and tell other people to stop giving", that could be more persuasive. I don't know if something remotely like that happened, but it would explain things. Mirror Vax 11:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that happened. Dershowitz is a man with powerful friends. He can also muster up a legal argument where none really exists (he did get OJ Simpson off the hook after all). Jimbo is probably just a bit over-awed. It just means less powerful people can't alter their articles, but if you are powerful - well go ahead and vandalise it and afterwards we'll make sure you like it. I should note that I now have evidence that Dershowitz, or the computer he usually uses, was the source of some of the vandalism. - Xed 11:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no - Dershowitz never said boo in the O.J. case, that was all Johnnie Cochran. Dersh just sat at the ready with appeals that were never needed. BDAbramson T 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A sincere question

On Talk:Alan Dershowitz you asked to "verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article." Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines were apparently designed to provide rules and guidance so as to ensure content integrity which in turn should be a clear reference point to eliminate or at least minimize unnecessary discussion. However, the reality is that these policies and guidelines are frequently ignored or given their own spin to suit an agenda. Policy isn't worth much if there is no mechanism to enforce it, hence my sincere question is: Why not draw upon the considerable (volunteer) expertise of Wikipedians who have demonstrated the capabilities and an NPOV history, along with any volunteers from those who made the substantial effort to create those policies and guidelines, to form a policy review/referral committee? The formation for such a Committee could be done in the same manner as you proposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm at it, Mr. Wales, a Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct is urgent and essential. Like professional codes, or those required by many corporations and organizations, it must be simple and straightfoward and anyone who serves on the committee must first acknowledge the Code and agree to abide by it. (Note: Since I posted this, someone created the article without my knowledge.) - Ted Wilkes 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This user has been involved in several other activities Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. Most of this involves attempting to impose rather strict standards on other users. In the Onefortyone cases this involved deletion of all information which related to homosexual or bisexual activities of several celebrities regardless of the source cited. In the case of James Dean a google search for "James Dean" and "bisexual" returns over 100,000 hits which probably justifies some mention of rumors. Fred Bauder 02:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, User Ted Wilkes now tries to create a diversion from the fact that he is constantly deleting well-sourced contributions by others simply because he doesn't agree with them. Ted Wilkes has been harrassing me for months. He repeatedly deleted edits which were well sourced (see , , , , , , , , ) and aggressively attacked users and even administrators and members of the arbitration committee if their opinions were not in line with his personal view. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See, for instance, . There is much evidence that Ted Wilkes is identical with multiple hardbanned User:JillandJack alias User:DW. This is of much importance. Both users have very similar editing interests and the same aggressive attitudes. He repeatedly called me a vandal, a liar, etc. and falsely claimed that my edits are fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. For a summary of the facts, see . What makes me so sure that Ted Wilkes is identical with User:JillandJack alias User:DW?

• On 7 November 2003, User:NightCrawler, another alias of DW and obviously an Elvis Presley fan like Ted Wilkes, deleted a passage relating to a claim by David Bret that Elvis may have had a sexual relationship with actor Nick Adams, a claim also supported by some other sources. See . The same user added some denigrating remarks on Bret's book to the related discussion page, which were similar to those later written by Ted Wilkes. See .

In November 2003, NightCrawler was hardbanned. See . But NightCrawler reappeared as User:JillandJack creating a new, denigrating article on biographer David Bret. See . This biased article was rewritten by me on 4 April 2004. See . In the meantime, JillandJack was hardbanned.

• On 20 April 2005, some different comment concerning author David Bret and his book was added. See . This was repeatedly deleted by IP 66.61.69.65. See, for instance, , , . Administrator DropDeadGorgias was forced to restore this comment. See .
• Since May 2005 there was an edit war between Ted Wilkes and me concerning the article on David Bret and particularly his book, Elvis: The Hollywood Years, presumably because of Bret's claim that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings - a claim Ted Wilkes didn't like from the beginning. See .

On 5 May, Ted Wilkes reinstated, without further commentary, the biased version by JillandJack thereby deleting a link to a positive Guardian review of a book written by Bret. See . Significantly, Ted Wilkes repeatedly reverted the article to the version he preferred, i.e., exactly the version JillandJack had created, accusing me of distortions, fabrications, being a vandal, etc. See , , , , , , , , , , etc.

• Further, both Ted Wilkes and JillandJack contributed to many articles on American singers and entertainers such as The Canadian Sweethearts (see ), Bill Dees (see ), Freddy Cannon (see ), Lefty Frizzell (see ), Louisiana Hayride (see ), Doug Kershaw (see ), Joe Melson (see ), Yvonne Printemps (see ), Tommy Roe (see ) and Bobby Vee (see ). They also contributed to very specific articles such as In Dreams (album), The Fastest Guitar Alive and Roy Orbison's Greatest Hits (see , and ).
• Both Ted Wilkes and JillandJack seem to be interested in horse racing and contributed to the article, Horse of the Year (see ).
• For much experience with the aggressive behavior of User:JillandJack alias User:DW, you may ask administrator Angela. Onefortyone 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to definitely verify Onefortyone's contention that Ted Wilkes represents the same person as DW. DW has not edited for a very long time. He logged in from Canada and was especially interested in French and Quebec subjects. Ted Wilkes does not seem to share this interest but checkuser shows he does log in from Canada. I'm not sure I trust the chain of users Onefortyone puts forth as proof. Fred Bauder 14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that DW used different nicknames to write about different subjects. For his contributions on celebrities, he especially used the nicknames of "NightCrawler" and "JillandJack". Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See , , , and . Onefortyone 13:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My thought is that the concern he raises is important and should be taken seriously, but not to the extent he has carried it in his struggles with Onefortyone, who I should point out is currently on Misplaced Pages:Probation due to advancing information which was either original research or back by unreliable sources. Fred Bauder 14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder - Your committees unanimous conviction of Onefortyone has nothing to do with my suggestion. I'm saying that such a Committee is badly needed so as to institute the kind of measures essential to restore Misplaced Pages's rapidly declining reputation. In my suggestion on this page to Mr. Wales, I never mentioned "views." Such a Committee would be there to enforce/rule upon existing policies and guidlines - not, mine, not yours, or not anyone who uses Misplaced Pages for Spamdexing. Look at those policies, some very sincere contributors went to a lot of work creating them, but they are repeatedly being ignored and are meaningless. It needs thought, planning etc, but this Committee might also elaborate/modify policies as required or consider new, articulated proposals -- all designed to create Misplaced Pages articles of integrity. - Ted Wilkes 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

He just needs to be on notice regarding your history. Fred Bauder 19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't his idea stand on its own merits? (SEWilco 05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Defamatory page histories

Jimmy, please look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_libel_from_edit_history. Fred Bauder 02:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Emergency!

Jimbo! Thank god you're all right! I rushed over here as fast as my megabytes would carry me! On your userpage, you say edit your page to get it to look as good as Angela's. Nonsense, Mr. Jimbo! Your page should look like mine and Cool Cats! Now, those are perfect userpages. Carefully crafted and sculpted to the upmost quality...Full of beautiful info boxes...and most important, have a sense of humor and attiditude! Please reconsider that statement and join the dark better side of userpage designs. :) -MegamanZero 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Account Deleation

I would like my account deleated pleas. My account is Admiral Roo. Thank you.

Wikinews Germany

Dear Jimbo Wales, as I first heard of your wiki-projects I thought for myself: That's kinda good thing! Really! But after I worked for 4 month at the German Wikinews I was told, that there are no rules, that have to be followed. Even if the community itself decides its own rules by discussion and by election, they have never to be followed by all users. I'm sure, that not all users want to follow rules, but that should never end up with a unwritten law in a wiki, that every user may edit every page as he wants to without having to respect the rules the community set up. If a user has a problem with one or another rule, he should try to discuss it with the other users and should try to change the rule by discussion and election. If he does not and just ignores the rules, he should be stopped by Administration Force. I told the folks at the German Wikinews my view, but they always said: "We are a wiki. Everybody may change what he feels like". That's something I can't believe. It means, that nobody can be stopped violating pages, because he is free to do, what he wants. With best regards --80.171.92.179 13:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Rule Idea

Hey jimmy just an idea, and maybe this rule is already in place but why not require registered users to caegorize or at least link there articles in some, way, shape or form. this way bum articles might stand a better chance of bieng picked up.Briaboru 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)BriaboruBriaboru 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. --BRIAN0918 20:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We should have forums!

Jimbo, I think that Wiki should have an official forum where people could discuss different topics - including off-topic discussions. I believe this would benefit our community, because:

1. The community would get closer and grow as members would learn to know each other better;
2. Discussions would be posted in a chronological matter, instead as we have now on the talk pages, where everyone can add their comment anywhere in the discussion;
3. The forums would serve some of our needs to socialize and relax; and not just discuss article-related topics or things that only relate to Wiki;
4. Since we unite many of the members into one compact place, we would have better resources at our hands; members could organize themselves better and agree on Wiki content. I did this by starting a , and, in less than one week, we had 25 members contributing and helping each other out. A forum would intergrate all kind of members into one single portal!

If you worry about bandwith, then you should choose a free forum, but let it be a decent one. What do you think? --Anittas 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what IRC is for. Raul654 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC is a chat software that I do not like. Isn't it Applet, or something? Besides, in a forum, you can keep track of things that have been said. You can post your thoughts in an organized matter; and you can post a lot of info at once. In a chat, it's more about personal interaction between members. Everything is spontaneous. IRC is fine, but it can't replace the forum. --Anittas 21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not mind if talk pages were replaced in forum formatt for ease of reading and NO EDIT CONFLICTS...yay!!!:)Voice of All 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

But you never get edit conflicts if you do "add section" instead of "edit". Forums aren't usually more flexible than "add section". — David Remahl 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• And that's what we have 'talk pages for. -MegamanZero 21:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally, we stay on topic for a while and indent, instead of created hordes of big ugly titles for each posts. That is were the edit conflicts come in. Having the forum option to make a post that anyone can edit would be useful for vote tallies though.Voice of All 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There are various portals (see Misplaced Pages:Community_Portal) and (no offense but) I think this talk page has evolved into the most watched noticeboard. +MATIA ☎ 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so where's the forum? Where are the discussions? That page is only to advertise for projects, etc. In my opinion, it would be good for the members to have a place where they can debate anything. --Anittas 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many portals and noticeboards related to various topics, but not forums. +MATIA ☎ 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I knew that already. Forums would have a different role in the interaction between members. A forum is more flexible to these things, instead as we're having it now; a whole big mess spread everywhere. --Anittas 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting a professional vBulletin or Invision Power Board would be a great idea, Misplaced Pages is not so suited towards debates and discussions because of the fact that talk pages are well, not very organised definitely not as much as forums with easy to read different threads and forum subsections, and the fact that people can edit other peoples' posts

I think it would be a really good idea too and would encourage a lot more debate and contributions/growth to Misplaced Pages --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

ATTN: Non-encyclopedic content

Category:Computer and video games in production contains many articles that are not inherently encyclopedic. I think this is obvious. Just bringing it to your attention. Adraeus 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

May I kindly ask why..? It is incorrect conjecture to think Jimbo will edit the articles or anything to that affect. Why not talk to members who participate in the constuction of articles such as this..? I would be glad to discuss the issue with you; I am working on that situation right now. I don't think this is the right place to discuss something like that.-MegamanZero 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wales recently deleted a large portion of a certain Misplaced Pages project due to non-encyclopedic content. Moreover, many people visit this talk page, and so Wales' Talk page is more like a bulletin board than a Talk page. Adraeus 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I haven't recently deleted a large portion of anything anywhere. Perhaps you were told wrongly?--Jimbo Wales 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question though...what will Jimbo do to remedy the situation..? This is not an area of paticular interest (or expertise) for him, and this is something you should really bring to someone's attention who dabbles in the construction of these paticular articles. This may have "transmogrified" into a "bulliten board", but that doesn;t mean its meant to address every little thing that comes to mind.-MegamanZero 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What Wales does is up to him, wouldn't you agree? By the way, I've found that editors of primarily entertainment articles aren't oriented towards developing the encyclopedia. Most are simply not qualified to add content to Misplaced Pages. Since most of these editors do not pay attention to editing standards, this Talk page is effective for reaching the right people. And I'd say that the issue of Misplaced Pages turning into an FAQs archive for every little piece of data regardless of notability is of great importance to the founder. Adraeus 07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I do, but not everyone is "un-qualified" as you put it, and some of us really do try to check sources, evaluate thesis, write proper conjecture, etc. I am only saying Jimbo will most likely not address this- look at all the new mail aon this page; some of the above haven't even been answered by him yet. I just think this is the incorrect place to post if you want something done about your situation. On the other hand, I will be glad to work on those articles when I goet the time.-MegamanZero 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  It's not a matter of adding to articles. It's a matter of removing articles that are non-notable. This means going through a lot of red tape, courtesy of the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy. Adraeus 07:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then this is the wrong place entirely. For that, go here.- MegamanZero 07:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  I really have neither the time nor the patience to go through the red tape; hence, this message to Wales. Adraeus 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand. If you have nethier the time or the patience to deal with a problem like this, then you shoudn't have brought it up. I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, mind you, but if you can't do something about it, why make a thesis..? Make an effort first, then ask for help. Also, if you're interested, I would be glad in helping you put them up for deletion- there are thousands of people on wikipedia, and Jimbo is not the only one who can help with a situation like this.-MegamanZero 07:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am concerned about such articles to an extent, mostly on the grounds of worrying about whether they can be adequately verifiable, but I'm of course not about to mass delete anything just because I'm personally not sure I would vote 'keep'.--Jimbo Wales 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the category, looked at a random article listed in it and saw nothing "obvious"ly wrong. Besides verification, the only real problem with fancruft is if they include TOO MUCH data, they could limit the market for derivative works by the copyright holders (and thus be a copyright violation). With regard to this: as long as on balance we are more of an asset to the specific copyright holder than a liability, we should be ok. WAS 4.250 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Making the internet not suck

What do you think? I made it to appeal to the MySpace crowd and such. I'm not sure if it should go into Misplaced Pages:Banners and buttons. --LBMixPro 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of different fonts :-) It's a great idea. Could you also try one with just one or two "boring" fonts? Counterintuitively, if you do it just right, it might actually look even cooler. Kim Bruning 07:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's too POV. Michael Hardy 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you got a source for that? :-)Skittle 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk to me?

People (en:User:Mindspillage ( and en:User:Uncle G () have kept saying that I should talk to you. I'm not convinved that you should get involved, but they know better than me. About , this, but mainly This. Yeah, well that was all a rather bad idea. I guess lots of editting takes it toll after a while. So I make things lite-hearted, with little jokes to fool my fellow editors, testing the system and all that. Yeah it's immature, sure. I obviously don't take Wiki as serious as others, but that was all I editted for anyway, was to curb boredom. To be honest, I wasn't treating it like you were, as the future of encyclopedias or anything. Just as a bit of (intellectual) fun. Maybe I should take another wikibreak for a few weeks again? That did the trick for a while last time, and when I came back I had new projects to do (This one mainly). So I guess I'll be back in the new year. And will try to resist the temptation of making new sockpuppets (which, to be honest, I could do quite easily, I got a "roaming" (at least i think that's what it's called) IP adress AND a university owned one which has other learned users sharing it, which they've been unwilling to keep blocked.

I copied this from Meta for Wonderfool. --Shanel 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview, re: language versions other than Enlish

From the Wikinews interview:

I would imagine that every language version has someone who can represent it in discussions about issues that affect it, and all of Wikimedia. You saw what happened what happened with Seigenthaler. What if a similar issue were to arise on the Japanese version of Misplaced Pages. Could someone from the Japanese wiki go on NHK and defend the wiki much like you just did on CNN? Like you said, "it's just news", and gives us more publicity, but still, projecting a professional image to the media will only encourage people to be more intrigued by Misplaced Pages, and other Wikimedia projects. Jacoplane 23:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Class action prep against Misplaced Pages

This Class action preparation is outrageous, can someone please stop it. It even has a logo abuse. Longbow4u 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

www.wikipediaclassaction.org redirects to some newswire, albeit one with the Seigenthaler scandal high on the list. No doubt Willy on Wheels would join that thing. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop what? How could anyone stop that and why should it be stopped? They have the right to criticize Wiki. --Anittas 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this your web site? Mirror Vax 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or to Ricky? --Anittas 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As indicated by the indentation level, I was talking to Longbow4u. Mirror Vax 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I only take seriously class action lawsuits from people who can use commas properly. Phil Sandifer 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense for Seigenthaler to write the site, as he said he wasn't gonna sue Chase, so why would he sue Misplaced Pages? Brandt could be the author, and if he is, who cares? Not to bait him or anything, but he's a guy who runs an organization for internet privacy and then he tracks down editors to find their name and location. I doubt he has much leverage. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also discussed at WP:VPN#Wikipedia_Class_Action_Lawsuit. This looks like hot air to me, and I can see that the website has since been removed. Thue | talk 11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's still up as of my timestamp. 23skidoo 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, it is up again after having been down. Thue | talk 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Another story picked up by Google News, from ZDNet, on this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE: This class action lawsuit is by the scammers at BAOU Trust the people behind the fake indonesia quake charity QuakeAID. Per whois:

Registrant Name:Jennifer Monroe

Name Server:DNS1.BAOU.COM

Name Server:DNS2.BAOU.COM

Name Server:DNS3.BAOU.COM

The reason this is popping up everywhere is because they run their own "newswire" which is carried by Google's News service. We at wikipedia are a target because we exposed them for the fraud they are.  ALKIVAR™ 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if it weren't authored by scammers, there'd be no credible threat of a class action here. A class action is appropriate when the putative class has a large number of members and, in the adjudication of those individual claims, common questions of law or fact will predominate. I don't think that the number of people bringing defamation claims would be large enough to meet the numerosity requirement. Even if they were, defamation claims are obviously ones in which individual questions predominate. The issues include: What statements were made about Siegenthaler (or Ellison, or Sollog, or whoever); were the statements about this particular plaintiff true; and to what extent was this particular plaintiff damaged by any false statements that were published. The only rationale for slinging around the term "class action" is that it might get the threat more attention. (Although I haven't researched this particular issue and this comment isn't an opinion letter, I'm a lawyer who's been on both sides of class actions -- trying to get a class certified, and trying to block certification. In this hypothetical lawsuit, I would much rather be opposing certification.) JamesMLane 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The language sounds like Daniel Brandt. 66.98.131.109 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was merely indicating WHY we are their target... not that they have a valid claim!  ALKIVAR™ 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just what would be the actual defined class for the suit? Normally, in class actions, it's something that's clearly, objectively defined, such as "Persons who purchased between ", and it is alleged that they all suffered similar harm as a result of the defendant's actions. But what would it be here? "People who have been defamed on Misplaced Pages"? But it's up to a judge and jury to decide if something is defamation in each individual case; there's no grounds to presuppose it in advance to build a class action. Or is it "People who have been mentioned on Misplaced Pages"? But most of these people haven't suffered any harm, or have any actionable claim; many are actually happy that they are mentioned in this site, as it strokes their ego; many others don't care one way or the other. I can't see any judge accepting any such class. Nor can I see any judge doing what the site in question wants them to do, that is imposing prior restraint on future speech by Misplaced Pages editors through court-mandated changes in Misplaced Pages policy. That would be struck down as unconstitutional by the appeals courts if they did it. *Dan T.* 02:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment, not on class action, but personal action. If a person in, say, New Zealand is defamed on Wiki, and the contributor used his own genuine name in his sig, then the contributor who is living in NZ can be personally sued for defamation in NZ. No? Moriori 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:NLT before doing anything else. Then see if you have a friend or colleague - perhaps at work - who is somewhat knowledgable about local defamation law, who can tell you if it's worth an initial consultation with a lawyer.-gadfium 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with gadfium's implication that the answer to Moriori's question would depend on New Zealand law. I should have specified that my comment above was based on U.S. law, specifically on class actions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the analogous state rules. JamesMLane 06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The legal form posted on the website mentions ``the entering of an agreement with Plaintiffs’ counsel concerning attorneys’ fees and costs. This may be a scam for people that do register for the lawsuit, as no specific dollar amount is mentioned.

myopinion

Jimbo et al, in an ideal world wikipedia would be ideal. However, the world sucks and is populated by idiots and a$$holes. You need to get something working on this site so that only authorities can publish articles. I dunno, maybe a universal student number or letter of verification that an editor is indeed someone in the academic or research community.. whatever... But like I said, in an ideal world.....

Czech Misplaced Pages

Hi Jimbo. On Saturday I was on Wikimedia Poland plenary assembly and one of polish colleague told me, you recently told, you have no contact to czech community and asked for contact to anybody on czech Misplaced Pages. Well I was quite surprised, because I visit #wikimedia every once in a while. Maybe you just didn't know, where I am from.

So, I am sysop of cs.wiki and I am also ambassador of czech Misplaced Pages for polish and english language users. Feel free to contact me anytime you want; preferably on my czech discussion. Live long & prosper --Zirland 09:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism

Hi! One thing I wondered about for a while: you have the Che Guevara image on your user page. Are you a communist or something? --Heptor 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Che was more better known as a revolutionist than just a communist. Pic's cool nontheless. :) --Andylkl 15:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Err, it's just a joke. At least, I think it is. :P --JiFish(/_Contrib) 15:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly hope it is :) Still, I would say that Che is well-known as a communist revolutionist. --Heptor 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo is a man of the Right. A "gun rights" supporter, capitalist and Ayn Rand fan. He certainly aint no Che. — David Remahl 16:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with the "aint no Che" characterization, the Che is not usually remembered for his little-known "keep guns out of the public's hands, for fear they'd start a revolt" policies, so the "gun rights" bit isn't helpful in distancing Jimbo from Che. The Ayn Rand part works though ;) -- Anonymous Coward 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope it's a joke, but please, change that image. (Italian user)--81.208.60.196 23:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Election

Um, hey. What's going on with that? karmafist 17:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm worried that waiting any longer may result in a strong selection bias for however the election goes, unless it is moved to 2006. A number of students end up going home around this time of year, with limited internet access, and a number of adults are going to be paying more attention to the holidays and turning of the year than wikipedia. I suggest you either close the poll and get the ball rolling, or announce that the elections will occur in January. --Improv 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Time is running out... Titoxd 21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • With all the recent bad publicity, can't decide if you want the same old gang of troll coddlers re-elected, eh Mr Wales? :) Wyss 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, in all seriousness, there is no realistic way to do this on a proper timetable unless we use the old process. We can discuss changes in the process all through next year. Everyking 04:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I disagree with EK that last year's process is precisely the way to go, but we need to decide this quickly, clarify, devise a process, and implement. That is, if this is gonna happen this year.

I'm willing to assist with whatever mode is chosen and to help organise: I've mounted broad discussion and votes for issues before and planned implementation, with self-evident results ... this took a couple months in total, so ...

What say you? :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Communication and site changes

I agree that people need to try and assume good faith more often with you and the changes you make on the site. However, I think that a lot of people may be reacting with hostility because they perceive the user base as hearing about major changes through the news media before they hear about it from you/from wikipedia. Maybe there is some way this could be improved on, such as a feature similar to the new message notification which alerts all editors to new announcements, and you could then use that announcement channel to notify us about new features (hopefully before the media does :)? Kit 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hasenjagd

• Have fun with this special kind of new (or old?) German bolshewik humour:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Vandalensperrung&diff=prev&oldid=11367727#Unscheinbar

Version vom 01:23, 6. Dez 2005 Jesusfreund (Diskussion | Beiträge) PRUUUST - verschoben ins Humorarchiv, Überschrift "der ganz normale Wahnsinn im Adminalltag". Selten so gelacht...

cu 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• And now an anti bolshewik joke:

Ich sehe das nicht so, denn Hans Bugs Kritik hat eine wichtige Funktion. Sie stört einzelne, aber für das Wohlergehen des Projekts ist sie wichtig. -- Weiße Rose 15:46, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)

Ahja? Also mir hat seine "Kritik" bei der Erstellung einer Enzyklopaedie noch nie geholfen... --DaTroll 15:47, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)

dito. --GrummelJS8 15:48, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)

Nicht überraschend. Die Funktion ist die eines Kammerjägers. Ungemütlich für das Ungeziefer. --Frisch From Fröhlich Frei 16:26, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)

Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11421707#Meinungsfreiheit

Have fun 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• And now a real big bundle of German bolshewik humour. Follow the first link and have fun. Great! 14:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Entadminisierungsanträge sind seit neuestem nicht mehr zulässig. (Vergleiche die Versionsliste der entsprechenden Seite). Botswana 13:38, 8. Dez 2005 (CET) =

Source:

• Oops, a problem. Towarisch de:Peterlustig has started with communism in de, but bourgeois people like Hans Bug has caught him in flagranti and call that "copyright violation".

"What to do?"(Lenin).

Karl and Rosa have a classic de-idea:

No Hans Bug - no problems .

A reason? (sorry, that´s a silly bourgeois question!) "Belege: Statt aller zunächst pauschal Benutzer:Hans Bug, Benutzer Diskussion:Hans Bug" (Stechlin).

Live show: http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11470758

btw.: Some commies name reasons: "Hans Bug nervt" or "he´s boring".

Have fun 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Trying to get prominent for 15 minutes (Andy Warhol).

Admin Anneke Wolf (aka "Rosa" or Rosa Luxemburg ) doesn´t like this current result:

Der unheimlich starke Abgang der de:Benutzer:Anneke Wolf:

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administratoren/Probleme&oldid=11561304

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?...

Have fun 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• 5 hours - new German bolshewik humour

7:50 , 14. Dez 2005 (CET)

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11626536#Abstimmung (finished)

The votes: PRO banning : 69 | CONTRA banning: 50 (and some more)

13:36, 14. Dez 2005 (CET) - 5 hours later

http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Vandalensperrung&oldid=11626941#.C3.9Cble_Nachrede

Have fun 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oldies but Goldies.Or Redies? :-)

http://de.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ich_brauche_Hilfe/Archiv/2004/November/8#Fragen_zu_Mutter_Erde

Have fun 13:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls

Even as the Seigenthaler scandal was breaking in hundreds of news reports across the world, arbcomm member and suspended (in effect, apparently disbarred) lawyer Fred Bauder voted to endorse the statement that my sourcing standards were "unrealistic," as in, "Why bother for accuracy? Any tabloid crud will do!" Over at the village pump, Zoe accused me of "whining."

Here's what the Register has to say today about Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards and credibility:

Calls for responsibility, we learn, in that unique strangulated prose style that is truly Misplaced Pages's legacy to the world -

"... often form a pejorative means of attacking political opponents. This habit of demanding behaviour aligned to one's own desires also occurs in other arenas: one expects "responsibility" from children, parents, spouses, colleagues and employees, meaning they should change their attitudes to suit the speaker."

From which the only thing missing is:

".... booooo big bad teecher - I'm not going to skool today. fuck you!!"

Which is terrific stuff.

Now a picture of the body behind the "Hive Mind" of "collective intelligence" begins to take shape.

He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb.

Yep. Misplaced Pages's vaunted Hive mind happens to behave like a clueless, irresponsible 14 year old boy. Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls. Also from that article:

Involvement in Misplaced Pages has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed. Such voices could be heard on the Misplaced Pages mailing list, speaking up for quality. Misplaced Pages is losing good editors at an alarming rate, but who can blame them for leaving?

Hint: It's not all the bad publicity. Wyss 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother complaining. All criticism of Misplaced Pages is now regarded as shrill hyperbole by the faithful. The worst thing is that the 14 year old with acne has not got trouble with authority — on Misplaced Pages in many cases he IS the authority. And recent criticism shows, the quality suffers as a result. - Xed 21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to Jimbo for providing Misplaced Pages to those eager to learn! Angel

My Brilliant Idea

Here's my idea -- give every unemployed person a computer with an Internet connection and teach them how to use Misplaced Pages. At least they'll have something to do, something to keep them busy...imagine the possibilities!

There's a lot of intelligent, educated, and otherwise bored people right now -- smells like civil-unrest to me! In this respect Misplaced Pages is a genius-idea! (if the French or German goverment happens to be reading this right now, implement this brilliant program NOW and gimme some CASH for my idea!)

Have a Digitally Enhanced Good Day!

64.12.116.69 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can suggest a grant that would cover this, we'd gladly consider, however we only have enough money to fund our current projects so far, not enough to fund experimental projects like this. -- user:zanimum

Message from Ta bu shi da yu

Jimbo, I'm having some issues editing Misplaced Pages from home (can't submit pages), but can you please email me in regards to . I am not a pedophile and never have been. I need advise on how to deal with this. This is serious. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (posted by Mark on user's behalf due to ongoing technical problems preventing Australian Optus subscribers editing articles)

Well, that article doesn't actually say that he's a pedophile, just that he "commended" another contributor who was one. But that's an interesting link... the attacks on Misplaced Pages just keep coming from all directions now, and now we're apparently being accused of being a gathering spot for pedophiles. *Dan T.* 18:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, that anti-Misplaced Pages article commits the common error of getting our URL wrong... it says wikipedia.com rather than wikipedia.org. Do they think we're a commercial site? *Dan T.* 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We have sorted out the issue now... Linuxbeak spoke to them and posted a brilliant response. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I see they've added a footnote that says:

"Factual note: Wiki admin Ta bu shi da yu contacted us with links to his attempt to get the "childlover" Wiki article deleted. As this is probably the most pro-pedophile article on Misplaced Pages, written by pedophiles, the idea that Ta bu shi da yu is in favor of pedophiles doesn't hold up in view of his edit history. While he did thank for sourcing, that is a common "polite" practice on Misplaced Pages. It does not mean someone is pro-pedophile. Additionally Ta bu shi da yu states that he is not a "liberal marxist" but an evangelical Christian. His editing history shows that he is not a pedophile, not in favor of pedophilia and has done a great job in the past of editing pedophile-related articles."

The initial comment that leads to that footnotes says that you commended a user's actions - it's a bit like commending Hitler on building the autobahn. Just because someone's bad doesn't mean everything they do is bad - hopefully most will see through that. Also, they didn't publish TBSDY's real name, which they quite easily could have found and done if they had something against him, jguk 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiFuture...or WikiNot?

Constructive criticism & suggestion for the day:

Someday, perhaps soon, Google Print and its controversial Google Print Library Project initiative are going to be settled. And my guess is that they will go forward, either such as they were originally conceived or in a fashion similar to how MPEG music has come to be legally ubiquitous (provided freely on a selected basis as determined by the author), but in any case a commonly accepted practice and a profound knowledge-tool.

When this happens, "whither Misplaced Pages?"

The quality differential alone will crush Misplaced Pages in terms of relative interest & traffic, making it more exclusively a haven for the disenfranchised-14-year-old mindset. Users new (or old) to Misplaced Pages would do well to read Wyss' well-formed thoughts regarding the many-fold problems with Misplaced Pages that continue to go unaddressed or otherwise evaded with respect to effective corrective measures.

Google's corporate motto alone, Don't Be Evil, is fairly clearly indicative of where all this needs to head. Granted, Misplaced Pages is today a non-profit entity, and may remain as much despite the Wikia initiative, but turning over the reins to Google management...either in whole or part...would no-doubt result in the much-needed, dramatic course change that Misplaced Pages is in need of before it lands crushingly on the rocks of its own ego and becomes crab food.

Constructive suggestion: either 'sell' Misplaced Pages to Google outright -- an option of today's Misplaced Pages board -- or can the board outright and bring in Google's management team to restructure the content-creation processes to make them truth- & quality-driven rather than traffic-driven, thereby enabling a real future for Misplaced Pages.

"Or not."

--AustinKnight 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Unless Google Print allows editing, it'll always be inferior in terms of coverage. It takes at least a year for books to start covering something new, and usually at least a decade for encyclopedias. We can start covering something as soon as major media cover it enough to provide us with sources. --Carnildo 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that WikiCities goes out of their way not to allow wikis that would compete with Wikimedia's wikis. So that, at least, shouldn't be a concern. Also Google Print isn't creating original content (to be sure, they're publishing conteet by others, just like any number of print publishers, and Project Gutenberg, do). -- Pakaran 20:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

John Siegenthaler

Hi. Can you tell me his email address? Thanks. Michael Hardy 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Are personal attacks now acceptable?

Suppose I were to send a hoax email to the subject of a Misplaced Pages article, and then write up the results (haha! got him!) on the talk page and in the article. The subject of the Misplaced Pages article also happens to be a Wikipedian.

Would that be: (a) good traditional encyclopedia research, or (b) an egregious personal attack?

I say (b), but the Misplaced Pages community (including several admins) says (a).

Oh, and the article subject/Wikipedia user happens to be very unpopular (in fact has been blocked from Misplaced Pages). Does the answer depend on that? Should it?

See User:Grue/Brandt for details. Mirror Vax 22:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No it is completely unacceptable behavior. Very disappointing. We are Wikipedians and for me that means something.--Jimbo Wales 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Siegenthaler case

Is this statement correct? "On December 6, 2005, the two were interviewed on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation radio program. There Wales described a new policy he implemented preventing unregistered users from creating new articles on the English-language Misplaced Pages, though they continued to be able to edit existing articles as before." If so, it is the best news about Misplaced Pages I have heard since I first became involved. I congratulate Mr Wales on finally taking the first step to making Misplaced Pages a real encyclopeadia rather than an adventure playground for cranks and (as has now been demonstrated) slanderers. But it is only a first step. The next step must be banning anonymous people from editing at all, requiring all editors to have verifiable contact details, and protecting completed articles from random editing. (See User:Adam Carr/proposal for more on this). Adam 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, then after that we should have mandatory biometrics identification, and psychological purity exams. Special NPOV chips could be embedded inside the brains of would-be editors :) Jacoplane 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Worth looking into. Adam 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be simpler, and best, if Adam would take care of whatever Misplaced Pages editing is left to be done; the rest of us could use a vacation. ;-) Really, though, I treasure my complete Misplaced Pages anonymity pseudonymity; eliminating it by requiring "contact details" would be one of the few changes around here that would drive me off. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Define a completed article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am aware that the changes I favour would drive some people aware from Misplaced Pages. But the object of this exercise is to write an encyclopaedia, not to keep the entire computer-owning population of the world amused. As the Siegenthaler case (among many other things) demonstrates, our present structure is not optimal for achieving that objective. Therefore it must be changed.
• A completed article is an article which says what needs to be said about a given topic, comprehensively, accurately and impartially, as determined by those knowledgeable on the subject and working on the article.
• I still want to know if the above statement attributed to Mr Wales is correct.

Adam 04:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Anon page creation? Yes. Titoxd 04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So when will this change come into effect? Adam 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• It already did. See WP:AFC. Titoxd 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Appeal

Once again I want to appeal my arbitration ruling. You seem to be deliberately ignoring me, and apparently you deleted my old requests from this page, so I figure I need to request again. Everyking 05:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not ignoring you, just swamped. I will get to it soon, I promise.--Jimbo Wales 15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK well, again, what I'd really like is an opportunity to talk with you about it...we can talk about it through e-mail and you can respond at your leisure, or IRC, or here if you like. I just want a chance to make my case. Everyking 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Page creation restrictions

I think we should reinstate the ability of anonymous users to create talk pages, so they can comments about articles, ask questions, explain their edits, etc. Captain Zyrain 12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Systematic bias in Misplaced Pages biographies

One thing I've noticed about biographies on Misplaced Pages is that they tend to be heavy on negative opinion. There is often a section titled "Criticism" which can be quite large. There is rarely (I've never seen it) a "Praise" section that documents positive opinions. Anything positive gets filtered out as "POV", while negative opinions stay.

I'm not saying that criticism should be balanced by praise. My preference is to keep opinions out as much as possible.

Interestingly, there is no "Criticism" in Adolf Hitler. If a bio can be written about the most criticized man in history without a "Criticism" section, why not for others? Mirror Vax 13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a question for the community, not Jimbo. Why don't you post it to the village pump? Fredrik | tc 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

israel wikipedia freedom under terror attack

in the israeli wikimedia their are person that is one of the responsible is nickname is "gilgmsh" he blocks every body their he do not give to many pepole that give an important informastion and equal to the wikipedia in english, this person block me when I want to transfer what he did to me when I scription the artical on the "celts" (currntly it's fit to children)

when I want to past what he did to the other responsibles

the problem is that even in the forum all of them know each other this is gilgamsh the responsible domain and this is the responsible domain of the israeli wikipedia this is the reason I passing to you thankes on the listening "splendor"

There isn't an "Israeli Misplaced Pages" any more than there's an "American Misplaced Pages"; editions are by language, not country. What you're talking about is the Hebrew Misplaced Pages. This is an important distinction, as it prevents people from claiming that a particular edition is supposed to represent or be controlled by one country (e.g., if the People's Republic of China were to demand control of the Chinese Misplaced Pages). *Dan T.* 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

I think deciding the election procedure based on a straw poll, which is designed to get people's feedbacks on a range of available options, with around 40-50 people participating in total (which isn't significantly larger than the number of people standing for the Arbitration Committee) is a inherently bad idea. It's not like there was a significant majority in favour of any one of the proposals, either.

The result of a straw poll is not to use the procedure with the most support, it is to find out why other people didn't like that proposal, and work on improving it so that people who didn't support the original idea will support an improved version (or at least, not oppose as much). Talrias (t | e | c) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to move forward. We do have the luxury of ongoing investigations as we move forward, and flexibility to analyze what works well and doesn't, for next time around. --Jimbo Wales 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A serious suggestion to Mr. Wales

An article in wikipdia is like any other piece of software. It needs to reach stability, pass some Beta test before it can be "published" or exported to the world at large.

Here is a simple suggestion:

Each article will include two versions:

1. The public, "published" version.

2. The internal "under development" version.

Edits, as we know them today, will take place on the internal version. Vandalism (even a sophisticated one) will be removed. Facts checked. All without the public at large exposed to that ever changing version of the article. In software lingo will be the non stable nightly build .

Only after an article stabilized (frequent edits stopped) Versification of facts by team of experts who would certify the article th article will be published and that is the version that will be available to the public and mirrored all over the net and would remain this way until the next stable revision of the article (could be few month or weeks)

It is suggested the members of each articles' "Verification team" will be people who will use their real name and real identity hopefully experts on the subject matter - as much of the abuse allowed on wikipedia comes from the anonymity (even of resisted users as you surly know).

This verification process should not be hard. If Misplaced Pages policies are followed all the material should be sourced (99% over the net anyhow) and no Original research is used.

I am sure you will get objections to this policy. Mostly from people who are using "gangs" to PUSH a certain POV into articles. I have ran into such a gang lately and see how Misplaced Pages policies (when not enforced) leads to very poor encyclopedia articles. I am sure that articles in which Misplaced Pages policies have been followed will be easy to verify and certify. Also the fact that the internal version of the article is only available to few thousands volunteers (instead of to millions) would reduce significantly the use that some groups today are making in Misplaced Pages is spreading their propaganda on a daily basis. Zeq 15:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is already being developed. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-14 15:55

Please explain and give details, cause i am tired fighting with all the POV pushers. I want to work on an encyclopedia not to fight those who use Misplaced Pages to spread propeganda. Zeq 15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it. Academic editing standards are likely not conducive to high mega-mega traffic consisting largely of bickering fools and trolls donating time and money to an open, Google-visible site pointing to the misleading text and keywords they insert into thousdands of articles. Wyss 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not "all about the money", even if you've seemed to convince yourself of the contrary. The inertia is attributable to three things: the fact that Misplaced Pages isn't failing, but just not working as well as it could or should; the fact that pushing Misplaced Pages one way means pushing the developers (few in number) and the community (anything but); and the fact that a novel construct like Misplaced Pages faces novel problems requiring novel solutions.

Of course, we can also believe Jimbo and the board are just evil. Eventually pictures of them eating babies would leak to the public, though, and then Misplaced Pages will fork. JRM · Talk 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

See Article validation. Titoxd 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I never said it was "about the money," nor did I ever say (or even think) Mr Wales is evil. I did say it was about traffic. Meanwhile, you guys might want to brush up on your reading skills. Your responses are typical of the careless, knee-jerk and ill-considered remarks sincere and skilled editors around here have to endlessly waste their time on. Wyss 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  No, not in this case. You don't have to. JRM · Talk 02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Typically evasive answer, substituting a flip, put-down remark for substance. Which is to say, as an editor, I most certainly did have to, always and without end. Wyss 14:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

JRM, your answer is a waste of key srokes. If you want to answer use words we can understand as (at least me) not as smart as you and can't really tell what you want to say. Zeq 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Wales: I am wating for an answer. What troubled me most was that you were recently quoted as saying "Don't quote Misplaced Pages". Do we have a serious encyclopedia (even on serious subjects) or not ? Could for example someone look up "Hebron Massacre" and finds complete set of facts instead of Palestinian Propeganda ? Or do you have another method to fight the Anti Israel systematic bias on Misplaced Pages. Do you know how many articles in Misplaced Pages (about the conflict) present only ONE side POV (and not both as policy demands)? You see the current policies don't work. How are you going to address this aspect of Misplaced Pages success ? This aspect which is called : Verification ? Or maybe you think that the current methods work and all it takes is to get everyone to registed instead of editing with IP addresses ? Zeq 20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts

On 02:52, 15 November 2005, the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy "decision" was made to push out a rare proven topic expert on polygamy, while giving free reign to a hostile proven anti-polygamy editor to misinform Misplaced Pages readers with propaganda POV. Unfortunately, their anti-expert "Decision" was made completely without any consideraton of the facts or fairness whatsoever. Truly, the evidence testifies (to any honest observer) against the making of this "Summary Judgment and Execution" where considering the facts had never been allowed or performed.

Could you please take a look?

Sure, I'll take a look sometime in the next 3 weeks. I deleted the rest of what you posted here, but I'll read that too. --Jimbo Wales 16:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Today is three weeks later since you made that last post. Coming back today to see if you've had the time yet to fix this anti-expert railroading problem, I unfortunately discovered that someone else had completely removed this section of mine from your TALK page. So, for your review, I put this back back and I ask for your urgent assistance still.

At 18:36, 16 November 2005, I posted that original complete outline, as follows:

• Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts
  • Polygamy Arbitration front page
  • Evidence page
  • Workshop page
  • Evidence TALK page
  • Proposed Decision page
  • Proposed Decision TALK page
  • I proved that Nereocystis is a hostile anti-polygamist
  • After the "Decision," Nereocystis's first edits proved I am correct again
  • If injustice not rectifed, Misplaced Pages is just a community of anti-experts

At 16:53, November 23, 2005, you replied here.

At 02:04, 14 December 2005, that entire section was then removed by Adam_Carr on your TALK page here.

Anyway, I really do hope you will fix this problem. Pushing out proven content-experts on rare topics by unknowledgeable biased wiki-process-experts leaves Misplaced Pages misleading the marketplace when it calls itself an "encyclopedia." I know you're busy, but I do hope you will solve this horrendous "Summary Judgement and Execution." After all, I was the one who asked for the Arbitration. Yet never once, not a single time, did any one consider any part of any of MY evidence in any way whatsoever. They gave me no mercy, nothing. They went straight to user-execution, without considering the overwhelming quantity of abuse I had received. It was the pure definition of kangaroo court. From the beginning, it was clear that the head arbitrator's demonstrated bias against the topic should have caused them to recuse themselves. Instead, a pure kangaroo court ensued, designed only to push a rare, proven content-expert of a rare topic out of Misplaced Pages altogether. It was a complete railroading.

I have believed Misplaced Pages was better than that, so I am hopeful that you will rectify this as soon you can. (The outline above is intended to help you on that.) When you do fix this, you will truly be helping the readers of Misplaced Pages find actually correct, accurate, and NPOV information about the rare and little-understood polygamy related topics. That, itself, will then help Misplaced Pages to not lose its credibility as a hope-to-be "encyclopedia," by recognizing that proven content-experts do have a value in preventing misinformation. I am hopeful for goood things about Misplaced Pages, so I am hopeful you will fix this tragedy soon. Thank you. - Researcher 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional: I just now discovered some more evidence of arbitrator-bias that I had not seen before. I just found out that, on October 10, 2005, while I was distracted with the ongoing dispute at that time, User:Neutrality had deleted the entire explanation about the subtopic of Christian polygamy in the polygamy article. They disguised their extreme bias attack with the absurdity of calling the content an ad, but only an anti-polygamist would suggest that about the NPOV content they deleted. (Please read the deletion for yourself. Without that now-deleted content, the polygamy article now gives no explanation about that subtopic whatseoever, misleading the Misplaced Pages readers to think that there is no such separate thing as Christian Polygamy, and that it is somehow the same as the totally separate subtopic of Mormon Polygamy.) As I explained in my opening Evidence comments, it is repeatedly proven that anti-polygamists do not want others to know about Christian polygamy or what it is really about because that new subtopic situation has so powerfully changed the discussion about polygamy in general. (See the Sunday, Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Washington Times, here, as one example to see what I mean.) Later, instead of recusing themselves for their obvious bias against the topic, though, (the obviously NON-neutral) arbitrator Neutrality instead cast the last outrageous vote to execute me in the "Summary Judgment & Execution." This is just another example of the outrageous railroading that has occurred here, a kangaroo court. I repeat my hope that you will be able to fix this tragedy. Thank you. - Researcher 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow, it will be a month since I made this last post. The day after tomorrow, it will be 2 months since the Summary Judgment & Execution was wrongly implemented against me by so-called "arbitration." I really am trying to be patient. Could you please help? As I had repeatedly pointed out throughout all the stages of the dispute that ultimately railroaded me into the so-called "arbitration," the anti-polygamous attackers against me were never really interested in the content of the polygamy related articles. I had stated correctly that they were faking their "concern" for the content. I had also correctly explained that they were only anti-polygamists whose intent was to railroad me through the process to get me removed. They were Misplaced Pages process-experts deliberately gaming the system to railroad me through the steps on up to so-called "arbitration" in order to deprive Misplaced Pages from my expertise as a proven content expert on this topic.

I have been proven completely correct about that ever since, too. Please inspect their actions, particularly this anti-polygamist's history, ever since they "won" their agenda to get me removed via the kangaroo court of the Summary Judgment & Execution." Except for only a couple of posts made immediately to the specifically disputed polygamy articles after they "won," their posting history from then until now shows that they have not done anything for the content of those disputed articles. None of the involved anti-polygamists who ganged up with them against me have been back to fix the disputed articles! So, I was right, of course. They got what they wanted. They got me removed. After the biased kangaroo court's Summary Judgment & Execution against me in the so-called "arbitratation" (that never once listened to my case or issues) banned me from ever posting to the disputed articles, the anti-polygamists' posting inaction for the content of the disputed articles afterward proves that I was right.

The disputed articles still need to be fixed and I have been wrongly banned from helping Misplaced Pages fix them. Could you please fix this obvious error? Not fixing it currently harms Misplaced Pages both in articles' content as well as in how it affects content experts from participating when they get run off by Misplaced Pages process experts cleverly gaming the system. Simply, could you please override the kangaroo court's Summary Judgment & Execution against me? Since I have been proven correct, could you please officially authorize me to be allowed to post to the polygamy related articles again? I really would like to help Misplaced Pages benefit from my content expertise. Your help will be truly appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Journal Nature investigation

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438890a.html PLEASE scream about this from high mountaintops. Please try to get a wirestory about this. We must correct public perception:There are abysmal entries on Misplaced Pages but there is also good work. Last week's media travails created the impression that Misplaced Pages is malicious and chaotic. We must push the moderate view. Lotsofissues 20:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's funny coming from you. Mirror Vax 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From Nature magazine

They have written (about William Connolley):

"It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense"

Does this mean that you disagree with ArbCom? Interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware that the ArbCom would disagree with that statement at all. Why should they?--Jimbo Wales 11:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't he sanctioned by the ArbCom before? I think there was something associated with revert warring; correct me if I'm wrong. Everyking 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

They also sanctioned his opponents (more severely) and acknowledged Connolley's subject matter expertise. None of this is particularly inconsistent with Jimbo's statement. Connolley has continued his good work and caused no problems since. --Michael Snow 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was just asking. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nature's results examined

I've looked closer at Nature's results: WP averages about 1 error every 2 KB, and the average article size is 6.80 KB. Britannica averages nearly 4 errors every 2 KB, and the average article size is 2.60 KB. See also: table of data. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-15 05:45

Please don't quote these figures. Nature says it compared articles which were roughly equal in size (editing out references and other things if necessary to acheive parity). We don't know which versions of articles they used, so though these figures are interesting for internal use, we shouldn't use them for media lest we be accused of data manipulation/inaccuracy. We're hoping someone at Nature will give us a list of problems they noted. P.S. I thought you were great in the podcast. - Nunh-huh 06:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I also edited out references, external links, see also, TOC, and any tables. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-15 07:06

The update is that Nature is in the process of readying the information they can share with us regarding errors. Probably to be available in a week or so. Whee! - Nunh-huh 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages tagline

Hi Jimbo. There is debate going on at MediaWiki talk:Tagline over the change to the tagline you requested. Your input there would be appreciated. - Mark 06:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gross and flagrant abuses of power

Dear Jimbo Wales

I am using this medium to bring to your attention, flagrant and severe abuses of power, exercised by some of the administrators of Misplaced Pages. I am specifically talking about the Muslim administrators. Allow me first to say that I am not a religious fanatic. I was a left-winger all my life believing and fighting for multiculturalism, something I still believe in and defend. I converted to Islam and remained a Muslim trying to promote it for five years. During all this time I noticed that what I had been told and read about Islam prior to my conversion was a world different from what I came to see. 9/11 was the turning point for me and after investigating the facts I realized that everything I had read about Islam were lies and I had been duped into this religion. I assure you there are many others who also converted to Islam and today defend it tooth and nail, just as I did, but if they come to see the truth, they too will leave Islam horrified. These lies have produced many victims. Perhaps you remember John Walker Lindh the American kid who become a Muslim and went to Afghanistan to become a terrorist and fight against his own country. But a more tragic story is that of the Belgian woman Muriel Degauque who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, killing six people and injuring several more. These people, my self, and thousands more, are victims of lies. If I knew the truth I would never have converted to Islam. The same is true for many.

The pages of Wikipdia discussing Islam are filled with lies. Anytime I tried to post something, completely complying with the rules set by Misplaced Pages, my contributions were reverted as soon as they were posted, and guess by whom? By Muslims of course! These friends stand on guard, 24/7 and will revert any statement made critical of Islam. If you complain, they ban you.

Muslims’ abuse of power in Wikipeia has gone too far. I was banned by gren for 24 hours. The reason for that? He appointed himself to act as mediator between me and a Muslim who was reverting every message I was posting with inane and invalid excuses. Gren used a very authoritative language ORDERING “both of us” to refrain from insulting each other as if talking to two kids. That was surprising! Not just his pompous tone was inappropriate and puerile, but the warning itself was completely uncalled for. There was a strong disagreement between this Muslim editor and I, but no insults had been exchanged. We were two grown ups disagreeing strongly, but respectfully. At the same time Gren, took completely the side of my opponent. Upon clicking on his username, I discovered that he is also a Muslim.

I came back and told him that as a Muslim he can’t be an impartial mediator. His mediation would be conflict of interests. He can’t be unbiased in matters that are so close to his heart such as his faith. I suggested that it would be ethical for him to step aside and let a non-Muslim mediate, if mediation is needed and either one of us calls for it. As it happened neither one of us had asked for gren to mediate between us. He had self appointed himself for the job. He was offended by my blunt remarks and banned me. You can read our discussion in my talkpage

Gren claims that his beliefs should not be brought into equation. I beg to disagree. This is absurd. Does he think others are so naïve to agree that one who has placed his faith in a religion can be impartial in matters concerning his faith? Despite this he demanded “compliance”.

This is a flagrant abuse of power. The above mentioned person acted dictatorially and when I protested he used his power to silence me. He accused me of “disruptive behaviour”. In other words, his unethical conduct in assuming the role of a mediator in matters where he has vested interest is not disruptive, but if you protest his abuses of power, you are the disruptor. Isn’t this how dictatorships operate? Is such behaviour acceptable? The dictators abuse their power and punish the protesters accusing them of “disruptive behaviour”. That is what gren did.

But why am I bringing this to your attention? Because the problem is not limited to Gren alone! This was not the first time that I was abused by Muslims in Misplaced Pages. A couple of months ago a similar incident took place when my contributions were reverted as soon as I posted them by another Muslim called Anonymous editor. Then he called SlimVirgin who did exactly what gren did. SlimVirgin, a Muslim administrator who at the same time was nominating Anonymous editor to become an administrator, accepted the invitation of AE to mediate between me and him. Naturally, she took the site of AE completely. I complained that if she is a Muslims and so supportive of AE, she can’t be an unbiased mediator. Her response? She banned me.

These are flagrant abuses of power. If you protest, these people will ban you for good. In fact in my talk page, you can see a user called Absent applauding me for standing against bullishness and dictatorship. If you click on his username you’ll see that he is banned indefinitely by SlimVirgin.

Dear distinguished Jimbo Wales: This is a problem that has to be addressed. The abuse has gone too far. What is at stake is the very credibility of Misplaced Pages. If this problem is not addressed, the impartial and competent editors will become fed up and leave and this encyclopaedia will be reduced into another apologetic site for Muslims. The consequence is that more people like me, Muriel and John Walker will be fooled and more terrorism will take the lives of innocent people. I did not become a terrorist, but I can say that without knowing, I started hating everyone who was not a Muslim. The brainwashing is so intense and subtle that you will certainly become affected by it. I lost a lot, including the woman I loved because of these leis.

This is not fear mongering, but harsh reality. It seems that even the government of the USA has got the message that the engine of Islamic terrorism is Islam itself. See I also invite you to see a site created by ex-Muslims and see the warnings that these people have for the world.

I heard many times both in public sermons and in private discussions that the non-Muslims deserve to die. Virtually everyone agreed with 9/11 in private and denounced it in public. I was no different. I too took part mindlessly in that game of deception. Hypocrisy was expected and praised. Everyone lied and bragged how they deceived the "filty kafirs". I can’t explain why I played along despite my conscience. Once I bought in to the lie that Islam is the true religion of God, I was then easy prey. I was pressured into conformism and did what others did, without thinking. Muslims lie. This is not “stereotyping” this is what Islam teaches them to do. What I learned also is that Muslims use anyone including the neo-Nazis to acheive their goal. See this

I plan to speak out. But it is very likely that I will be banned again and most likely indefinitely. If you can, please intervene. Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is lives of many innocent people that is at stake. Please do not let evil win through bullishness. Defend my right to speak. Protect Misplaced Pages to remain impartial. If you don’t, you or one of your loved ones could become their next victim. Thank you for reading this, and thank you for defending righteousness against tyranny. Kind regards OceanSplash. 15 Dec. 2005 07:03

Dear Jimbo Wales, do you despair about Mankind as often as I do? Sherurcij 14:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Senor, it, I feel is true. I think, Mr. Wales, that the honourable Muslim Wikipedians are being maltreated and persecuted. As wikipedia is multifaith, I think, we should hear from both sides and incur a penalty on those who stop this very democratic and liberal culture. Justox dizaola 06:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election and consensus

You asked that a process similar to RFA be set up as part of the ArbCom election process, and your proposed criterion is 50% support. But half of all votes hardly makes a consensus, which of course is used in most other Wiki processes, including RFA itself. Would it not make sense to hold ArbCom polls on the principle of consensus rather than simple majority?

I realize that RFA's criterion (~75%) would be rather difficult to achieve, but 60%-65% sounds workable. It would be rather easy for any established user to garner at least some support, and given the importance of the ArbCom I would prefer if they were backed by more than simply half the community. Radiant_>|< 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see how well it all goes. It's possible that if we see a lot of candidates making the 50% threshold, and a lot of candidates going a lot higher (80%+, for example) then clearly it will make sense to focus on a higher threshold. On the other hand if a 'typical' candidate is getting 55% or so, it wouldn't make sense to end up with no arbcom just because we can't get to admin levels of consensus. And then finally I would say that if we can't find any (or enough) candidates who get 50%+ support, we'd better throw in the towel on the concept.--Jimbo Wales 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Jimbo, we know how it is going to be done. Now the question is: When? When are the ArbCom elections scheduled to start? Titoxd 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please begin the election already. karmafist 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt hoax

Ouch, that was harsh! I'm not the author of the prank and I saved it to my subpage only because it was repeatedly removed from it's original location. I agree that the prank was in a bad taste but the result was quite entertaining. I should also add that I never used any sockpuppets on Misplaced Pages, and I tried to keep my behavior within acceptable norms all the time.  Grue  13:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true, you got the wrong user. The hoaxer was User:Callum Derbyshire. --JiFish(/_Contrib) 13:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say, for the record, that I didn't have a problem with the hoax. I suppose, however, this is wrong. I feel somewhat ashamed that I felt good about the fact that Daniel Brandt, who has listed my personal details on his website, should be shown to be a hypocrite through trickery.

I'd also like to note that as far as I know, it wasn't Grue who posted this, unless of course Jimbo has some inside info I am not aware of. Jimbo? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did it show him to be a hypocrite though? It just showed that he was trusting. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Brandt complains that we a) violate privacy, and b) don't check our facts. This (was) precisely what he was doing. I notice he's taken down people's names from his shitlist now. Perhaps the controversial behaviour had a positive effect. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, He has not taken them down. Just now I was able to see several editors names and the towns from where they came, including you. --Irishpunktom\ 16:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I offer my most sincere apologies to Grue. I got this one completely wrong. I still think it is in poor taste to archive it on Misplaced Pages as if we are proud of it. But, I'm sorry Grue, I screwed up.--Jimbo Wales 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Jimbo, this has been listed for the 8th time. This is getting ridiculous. I have closed the vote, removed the afd tag and locked the page to stop people from reverting me. I realise that you may not approve of this action, however, so I'm telling you directly. Do with this what you will, however may I note that relisting is a complete waste of everyone's time and will cause more disruption than ever. I also wish to note that listing it again is a form of pushing for the article's deletion by attrition. Do we really have to keep on having the article listed on AfD?! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wow! That means that Misplaced Pages:10 GNAA VfD nominations pool is now closed according to the official rules! — David Remahl 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I feel that closing it is a violation of due process, until and unless we create a policy handling things that have been on VfD that many times. Political systems are not bound, like a straightjacket, to past decisions, and in this case especially, politicking played a major role in the votes. It is worth noting that this holds for any article where there is a judgement call involved in its suitability for VfD. --Improv 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Improv's comments above. There is no good reason to make this article immue from normal procedures, and there is no policy or guideline which supports this action. DES 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I also agree. Locking up an article and "protecting" it from an procedure, giving the concensus "This is getting ridiculous" seems POV. It is my humble opinion that Ta Bu is not using his aminintrative powers in good faith.-MegamanZero |transerver 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• While I would vote to delete it, myself, I must say that Ta bu shi da yu has a very good point here. "This is getting ridiculous" isn't always POV, sometimes it is just simple fact. This is getting ridiculous, and I say this as a person who would very much love to see this article deleted. I would support a policy change which says something like "after N survivals of VfD, a new VfD can not occur for a full year". In this way, we could have an annual holiday every here, GNAA day when we try again to delete this article. :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this an official proclamation that 15 December 2006 will be GNAA day? ;) Thryduulf 11:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's a difficult question. It's a borderline article in terms of notability...the question arises, are you just renominating repeatedly to get the result you want (delete), and then it will all be done with? The problem, of course, is that if you're for deletion, you only have to win the vote once; if you're for keeping it, you have to win every time. That makes it seem unfair for those in favor of keeping it. On the other hand, if you bar any further attempts at deletion, it seems undemocratic, because you're not letting people have a say on it anymore. I think the answer is something like Jimbo mentions. We should have a system in which surviving AfD once means renomination can't occur for a month (or two?), twice means not for 6 months, more than that means not for a year. A system like this (the numbers could vary depending on general opinion, of course) would give us a more orderly and uncontroversial way to deal with these cases. Everyking 05:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Going over the more recent history, it seems the 7th nomination was cut short (only 3 or 4 people managed to vote before an admin closed it), and the 6th nomination resulted in no consensus (with the default action being to keep it). I think (should go double check) the 6th AfD was back in June, so it's been at least six months since we've really debated this... —Locke Cole 10:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That is not correct. I started that VfD (when it really was a vote) less than 6 months ago. - Where the page is now, I have no idea. I hope that Firebug didn't just copy and paste over it... Ta bu shi da yu 11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The 5th nomination was closed early with the closing comment by you. You noted that it was removed from VfD by a user you hadn't yet determined. You also noted you were creating a new nomination, which is here. This 6th nomination resulted in no consensus, this was back in July (so I was a month off). A 7th nomination was made in October at some point, but it was prematurely closed. An 8th nomination was just made, which you prematurely closed. It's been at least five months since the last full debate of this article at AfD/VfD, so why close it early? —Locke Cole 11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Apologies, you are correct (there have been so many nominations I'm beginning to lose track - my entire life doesn't revolve around the GNAA!). From memory, someone delisted the 5th attempt early, thus causing people to say that it was an invalid VfD due to this problem. That's when I listed it for the 6th time, and sectioned it up in ways that made it easier to admin. Apologies for the mistake. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It's okay, for all I knew the nominations had been overwritten at some point and I wasn't seeing the "real" nominations. =) —Locke Cole 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why the procedure is being closed at all..? -MegamanZero|Talk 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, I just went to put this policy forward as a proposal, but it appears that nobody wanted it. See Misplaced Pages:Repeated AfD nomination limitation policy. Your advise about the best way to revive it might be nice... sorry to keep harping on about things. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I liked "Dec 15th is GNAA day".  :) Your proposal might be a little agressive. Do you really want to limit relisting of a brand new article? You could just say "Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/VfD" is a place for permanent votes, i.e. anyone wishing to vote once and for all on GNAA can add their vote to this page, and the votes on this page will always be counted. Alternatively, Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/VfD could be used as a permanently active pre-VfD on GNAA, people could vote if GNAA should be up for VfD, and solong as there is a concensus for not listing GNAA, any editor may remove GNAA VfDs, but if people change their votes on Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/VfD, then GNAA can once again be listed for VfD. etc. But "Dec 15th is GNAA day" is the cutest proposal.  :) JeffBurdges 07:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More news-based questions

The Times says:

Jimmy Wales, who is still very much alive, said: "We’re very pleased with the results and we’re hoping it will focus people’s attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good." He said that Misplaced Pages plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles from next month.

What mechanisms will these be, if I can ask? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I've understood other conversations correctly, the long delayed article rating system is hopefully going to come online in January. Dragons flight 03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See: m:Article validation feature. Jacoplane 04:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah... cool :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection policy needs your input

Heya Jimbo, juet letting you know that we've come to a pretty solid consensus (98 support votes to 4 opposing) on a proposed Semi-protection policy. We feel with all of the heat we're facing right now, it might be a good time to enact something like this. Please check out the discussion and give any input that you can. It'd be much appreciated. --Woohookitty 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Has someone talked to Brion about implementation?--Jimbo Wales 15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not him specifically. However, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason did comment on it, though he commented on it before we had the current proposal, which is here. Right now, accounts only a certain age or older can move pages. The consensus on semi-protection was to use the same function of the software for semi-protection. We intentionally did that because the thinking was that if we used an existing function of the software, it'd be easier to implement. We envision it only being used for 20-30 articles tops, but it would be our most vandalised articles, i.e. George W. Bush, Daniel Brandt and others. If you could leave a note with Brion to take a look, that would be wonderful. I tried to find a place to leave him a note, but could not. Since it's using something we already have, I wouldn't think it'd be that difficult to implement, but of course, I'm not a developer. :) --Woohookitty 15:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, you mean the same software as for page moves, right? Titoxd 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(crossposted from my talk page)

Brion has commented briefly , so he is at least aware of the proposal, and has presumably read the front page. Note that the comments he made were on those features we presently opted to avoid for exactly the reasons he mentions. -Splash

If you want, you can just pull a Jean-Luc Picard and say "Engage!". --kizzle 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Count me in. Enthusiastically. But of course we need to get the technical details sorted with Brion.--Jimbo Wales 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

K, thanks for chiming in. We'll work out the details, I already re-posted the request on Bugzilla, if any developers could let the editors involved in creating this policy on the Semi-protection proposal page what needs to be done from our end and update us what's going on on your end, that'd be greeeeeaat. --kizzle 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler

I've submitted an op-ed piece to USA today, which I hope can reassure John Seigenthaler, Sr. I don't want to post it here, but I'd like to email it to you and see what you think. I've got two or three email addresses that you've used from time to time, but I'm not sure how current they are. Where should I send it?

Also, I emailed it to someone who says he's forwarded it to Seigenthaler (I still don't know Seigenthaler's email address. His home phone number is easy to find, though). Michael Hardy 03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration clause

I have proposed at MediaWiki talk:Edittools to add the following to the bottom of that section of the edit page:

By clicking to save the above edit, you agree to the binding resolution of any disputes that arise as a result of your participation in Misplaced Pages through the dispute resolution processes available here .

As I stated there, I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. I plan to get wider input from the community before implementing such a change, and I thought you might want to run it by the foundation's lawyers as well - currently, nothing binds disputants to our internal dispute resolution processes, which I think would be to our benefit. BDAbramson T 04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So anyone can edit Misplaced Pages, except noobs, those who disagree with Snowspinner and anyone who doesn't think the cabal is always right? Jeez, what next? There used to be a wiki here, of sorts, now it's getting like Talibanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.87.165 (talk • contribs)

• It would not prevent anyone from editing (any more than the automatic GFDL license already does) - it would only reduce the likelihood of people taking legal action against Misplaced Pages based on disputes that arise from their participation here. BDAbramson T 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes disputes arise which are beyond the ability of the Arbitration Committee to deal with, for example, those which involve facts not available to us. We are good with behavior which is accessible as a diff, not necessarily with such questions as whether someone murdered Kennedy, or whether a reference is adequate to support such an assertion. Fred Bauder 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'd rather see such disputes resolved somewhere other than a court of law - that's what an arbitration clause forecloses. BDAbramson T 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've copied the above discussion to MediaWiki talk:Edittools - please keep the discussion on that page. Cheers! BDAbramson T 03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your name in vain.

User_talk:Monicasdude#Vote_change.3F

I cannot find an appropriate place to mention this sadly puerile behaviour from Spawn Man. Since he is doing the entirely boring "I'm a-gonna tell Jimbo! waaaaaah!" bit, mentioning the event here seems like a viable way to bring it to the attention of someone (or someones) who can address it.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True Protection

Hi, Jimbo. Then where is the answer of Jimmy Wales to me(LoveandPeace,"Please please Jimmy Wales" Nov 13)?

• Probably,I think, the true problem of Misplaced Pages is revert-deletions or page-deletions forced by adminstrators without enough conversation or clear explanation.

I think the resolution of above issues is that:Misplaced Pages should set the short term(for examples 3 months) to all the admins and Every 3 Months Misplaced Pages should have all-admin-election. Please tell Jimmy Wales this resolution if you can understand.

• Where is the answer by Jimmy Wales to my request November 13 ? Where is my request to Jimmy Wales November 13 ? These are the true prime cause of Misplaced Pages's problem. I mean revert-deletions,page-deletions and blocks to contributors get the situation of Misplaced Pages worse and worse and worse. Do you think it is natural consequence? --LoveandPeace 08:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Giving some lessons to a new admin

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.#I_expect_your_excuse

I think he´s not hopeless :-)

Greetings 14:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Jimbo, is you're e-mail address really jwales at wikia dot com or is that meant to be at wikipedia or wikimedia dot com or dot org? Jasongetsdown 15:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Quote from Slashdot/SP page:

I see that some news media have picked this story up as if it is important. Please please please don't do that. This is one of many changes to the software which are coming soon, including the ability to put pages into a 'validated' state (better name should be determined) and so on. Treating this as a major policy change is therefore a huge huge error being made by people who have no understanding of how Misplaced Pages works.--Jimbo Wales 16:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As the one who submitted the story, sorry for characterizing it as a "major policy change", I think I just got a bit excited as I've been trying to get this idea accepted for a long time :)... hope I didn't cause too many ants in your pants. Also, is the community participating in developing the concept of validated/non-validated articles or is this left purely for the developers? It would seem to be that such a process would have prima facie issues of getting content OK'ed by admins. --kizzle 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As best I understand it, it is being designed in a sufficient flexible way that policy can be developed around it. This is the best way, of course, the wiki way, which allows the commmunity to determine policy, with the software merely providing more flexible tools.

The "protection for X% of users" is one such tool. A system for allowing even those edits to take place, but to not be "pushed" to the front view is another. Putting together several such things will allow for a precisely defined policy which tries to raise the cost of doing bad things while lowering the cost of doing good. The Wiki way. :-)--Jimbo Wales 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Jimbo - I request that you look at the decision to desysop Ed Poor. You have made comments indicating that we should be more aggressive in identifying and blocking disruptive users. Ed did this, and in retrospec he may or may not have made a mistake, but if we can not allow admins to make mistakes without fear of reprisals and desysoping, then we will never as a community have control over both vandalism and disruptive editing. I support banning users more quickly (less "due process") since they can assume a new identity in minutes - and as long as they don't repeat their previous behavior - no one will care enough to investigate and ban them again. Please comment on the proposed decision. Trödel|talk 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Forbidding the citation of specific sources?

There is a fierce debate regarding citations of Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (religioustolerance.org), and I wanted to see if you had any input on this. User:Jguk, who has previously been convicted of edit warring by Arbcom, created the page Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, in which he claims that the site is not credible because its authors do not have degrees in theology. He also claims that the writing is sloppy and inaccurate, though he has yet to provide specific examples of this. He contends that citing OCRT is just like citing a blog, and thus out of bounds. Defenders of citing OCRT (including me) point to the site's significant popularity (millions of hits per week), its long tenure (it's been around for 10 years), and the fact that the site's articles do cite their sources and are thus not just opinion pieces. When jguk started mass-removing references to OCRT citing the above page as policy, I nominated it on MFD as likely to cause confusion (masquerading as policy). (A {{proposed}} tag was later added.) I think it would be horrible precedent to start making policy on whether certain specific pages should be cited as sources or not. We'll have POV axe-grinders challenging every source they don't like. Firebug 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebug, it's quite proper that we challenge whether references are reliable and reputable, in the same way that we should challenge unreferenced material. If you look at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org you'll see that many people share my concerns. Number of clicks on webpages do not a good source make. In this case we have a website containing information almost all of which comes from one man, Bruce Robinson, who is quite open about having no academic standing and whose essays have never been reviewed by an academic. A number of us on the talk page have already expressed concerns about how Robinson uses sources as well as his lack of academic approach. That's why we're having this discussion as to whether it is suitable to reference the religioustolerance.org website. Remember, if information currently referenced to religioustolerance.org is correct, it should be possible to find a better, reputable source for it (indeed, since Robinson quotes his sources, if you trust his essay you should also be able to go back to his sources and, if those sources support the information in the WP article, cite those instead), jguk 08:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to be overly harsh, but I found that Jguk approached this in a seemingly underhanded and rather aggressive way. Failing to add a {{proposed}} tag to the unilateral policy, and using it immediately as a basis for tens of reversions (which would be more difficult to do, appearence-wise, with a proposed policy). That it related to citations linked from that site is inconsequential, since this webpage did provide verifiable references for at least some of these. His en mass deletion, waving the would-be policy piece, seems questionable. El_C 10:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I admit I was a bit bold in how I proposed this and following WP:BOLD, which I'm a big fan of, isn't always a good idea. However, I never marked it up as policy and have been quite open about everything and the comment about being underhand is uncalled for (I'm also a big fan of WP:AGF). This should all be water under the bridge now anyway as any faults in the process have now been retectified - we have a proposal page that is marked up as a proposal page, ongoing discussions on its talk page, links on the talk pages of many of the affected articles (and if I've left any out, please add them), and a link on RfC to the discussion page, jguk 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I said seemingly, meaning I am trying very hard to assume goodfaith, and I am far from finished with such an assumption here. Nevertheless, Jguk cannot simply discount it being presented as policy, since it was sectioned off of WP:V (again, without a {{proposed}} tag), not his user space. I'm also afraid that the above dosen't respond to the en mass nature of the reversion prior to —and during— the discussion (at least the one I was privy to). El_C 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To provide my $0.02 here, I think that jguk approaches this with a specific axe to grind: he wants religioustolerance.org excluded because they disagree with his pet issue of BC vs BCE for dates. That being said, I am in favor of continuing this discussion in its present form because I think there's an important issue at stake here, which is that Misplaced Pages should always favor primary sources over secondary sources, and secondary sources over tertiary sources, etc. Religioustolerance.org is a great example of a tertiary (or lower) source: it is essentially one man's (or a small number of men's) opinions, citing generally better sources for the factual content contained therein. I think we should not be at all shy about using the primary and secondary sources cited by religioustolerance.org for the benefit of our readers. I think we need a compelling reason to cite an opinion site in favor of doing the work of synthesis ourselves. If we used religioustolerance.org sparingly, in a few places, to demonstrate certain opinions, that would be one thing. But Misplaced Pages is littered with quite literally hundreds of references to them, often in places where superior verifiable and reputable sources exist. I view this as indicative of a problem, and despite my personal beliefs about jguk's motivation, worthy of serious discussion. While agreeing with El C's concerns about the way this was done, I find the attempts to shut down debate on this topic prematurely to be disturbing. Nandesuka 16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple English Misplaced Pages account

Jimbo, can you please confirm whether this account (simple:User:Jimbo Wales) is you, or an imposter. I'm going to leave it blocked until you either confirm, or until you've contacted a developer in order to get the account handed over to you. Please contact me here on en: Misplaced Pages. -- Netoholic @ 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Not me.--Jimbo Wales 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Users engaging in criminal activity in the name of Misplaced Pages

Daniel Brandt has gathered proof that User:Vilerage sent to him a Denial of Service attack on to his http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ web site by using http://www.brandt-watch.org/ with the script running from http://www.geocities.com/visualrage/ with evidence documented here: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html . I asked the user in question to explain his actions and he refused to. I have posted on the administrator's notice board here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Vilerage in the hopes that it could be dealt with, however administrators have mostly supported his actions and Vilerage eventually denied that he had done it (in spite of previously confessing). This has the potential to put Misplaced Pages in to enormous disrepute, if it is seen that Misplaced Pages is supporting criminal activity. Whilst individuals might feel that Brandt deserves what he gets, the fact that this person did this with reference to his Misplaced Pages account and as a Misplaced Pages editor means that for all intents and purposes he did it here. I implore you to action against this user before it gets out of hand. Whilst I am not sure of the liability of Misplaced Pages with regards to protecting or encouraging criminal activity, I imagine that regardless of that, as this is the 2nd such incident (alongside the "hoax") there is a very good chance that the media will use this to portray Misplaced Pages in a very bad light, and that could be more damaging than any criminal charges. I had hoped that admins would react to stop this, but it seems not, and that is making things even worse. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to note that what a Wikipedian does, is not reflective of Misplaced Pages, if it is done off-site. His alleged DOS attack did not utilise WP in any way, and the media is smart enough to know that they'd be facing potential libel suits if they portrayed it otherwise...combined with the fact no respectable journalist is able to say "a hacker from geocities" with any shred of seriousness ;) Obviously WP condemns criminal action, but I can't imagine we're in any way facing liability, or even media condemnation, for the criminal actions of somebody who owns a WP account. Sherurcij 15:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation authorizes anybody not on its board of directors to speak for Misplaced Pages or any other Wikimedia project. Thus, I don't see how they would incur any liability for somebody's outside actions, even if they are claiming to be doing it on Misplaced Pages's behalf. *Dan T.* 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course we can't be legally liable for something like this, but we don't have to accept it either. I condemn this sort of thing in the strongest possible terms. It is unacceptable. We want to really strongly put out the correct and true story about our community, and this sort of things gives a very bad impression. We are Wikipedians. This means that we should be: kind, thoughtful, passionate about getting it right, open, tolerant of different viewpoints, open to criticism, bold about changing our policies and also cautious about changing our policies. We are not vindictive, childish, and we don't stoop to the level of our worst critics, no matter how much we may find them to be annoying.--Jimbo Wales 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And I also wanted to note that it is not just Daniel Brandt's word that he did it. Aside from confessing, and there being direct links to his user page, Brandt has put systems logs on his page for anyone to view, to prove that it really happened from that address. I have noted a few people saying "Daniel Brandt is unreliable" but I think that if you have systems logs and confessions then its pretty much a definite. Anyway, he seems to have left indefinitely, and he has put something akin to an apology on his page, and you have made your stance clear, so thank you. And I hope that we don't get a third such attack to have to worry about. I hope that we can all make peace here. I know that a lot of people think that Brandt is a crackpot, that his views about the CIA being everywhere are silly, but he does do a lot of research on to these things. He is quite correct about the scrapings, and that Misplaced Pages, due to its mirrors, can be used for scraping. I am not convinced though that Google and Misplaced Pages really are linked, and if they are, I am not convinced that Google pays Misplaced Pages to scrape. Nor am I convinced that there's little CIA agents running around here trying to control Misplaced Pages. Oh, there's probably CIA agents that use Misplaced Pages, and they probably look at posts to do such things as to find out if anyone is a terrorist. But I doubt that its quite as sinister as he suggests. However, that's his opinion. I've also suggested what I think would act as a solution to the biography issue, if you will. I think that what would be a great addition is to add a part of the talk page called "Ask the Expert", and then, for biography pages about real people, if the real person wants to participate, then they can be asked questions about key data there. For example, we can ask them for sources for things that we can remember them saying. We can also ask them if there is more to something. I think that this would work wonderfully well. And it can apply to businesses and practically anything. Whilst we could do it just in the regular old talk page, I think it'd be good if it was a separate section. Then we can still have the rule that you can't edit your own biography, yet their voice is heard? What do you think? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, just to give you a view from the other end: User talk:Daniel Brandt#Hi Mr. Brandt. - Brandt has confirmed here that Zordrac is not working on his behalf, nor has any authorisation from Brandt to pursue any matter. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we had something of a falling out the other day when he told me I was "prematurely ejaculating" over this. In his opinion, he doesn't think that I should have made such a big deal out of all of this, and he thinks that its A OK for people to behave like this towards him. He criticised me for all of the effort I did to support him. And I guess that I do have a habit of going out of my way for people, some of whom (like Brandt) don't appreciate it, and others who don't deserve it. So there you go. I still say that my work helped him but hey, he doesn't appreciate it so that's his business. At least he agreed with me to take people's real names down, although because I asked him to do that I got some guy harassing me and threatening me because of it. I feel stupid for sticking my neck out now. And I wonder if it was really him that I met on Live Journal in 2002 anyway. The guy I met was nice. Maybe there's another Google Watch somewhere. Maybe I was talking to one of his secretaries then. I don't know. I am through with supporting Brandt. Its not just that he attacked me, but he did it publicly. Whilst maybe I made mistakes, he should have e-mailed me rather than just smearing my name in public like that. He should have seen my intentions if nothing else. So yeah, I've seen what he's really like now. But that doesn't change my opinion about Vilerage. Brandt might think he's okay, but I don't. I think that Brandt has a lack of knowledge of legalities. He forgives people far too easily for criminal actions and doesn't see the repercussions. He also stuffed things up with Seigenthaler - Chase DID NOT libel Seigenthaler. I've tried to convince him of that but he doesn't seem to figure that one out either. Every legal opinion in the world has confirmed this. But, on the other hand, Misplaced Pages has libelled Brandt. But oh no he insists that they haven't. I think its just daft. Someone writing in there the "Outing" thing is obviously libelling him. You can't get any more obvious. The fact that people are going around saying that he is "a guy who makes money at the expense of people's privacy" when he's actually a privacy advocate is proof of libel. Who is responsible is another matter. But Brandt insists its just a privacy invasion. I think the guy doesn't know what's what and barks up the wrong tree. But the problem is that he attacks people, like me, who went out of their way to help him. Just see some of the comments I had to delete off my talk page to see that it wasn't easy for me to do this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Class Action Suit

I heard about this from another user. I was shocked! Why the hell is everybody ganging up on us this way? How are you planing to fight this? I would sue these people, whoever they are, for trademark infringment, as they are using the Misplaced Pages logo on their site, and for defamation. --Mb1000 20:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We should stop advertising for wikipediaclassaction. It is pretty obvious that their claims are baseless, and all we are doing by mentioning them so often is boosting their Google AdSense revenue. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Twas I who noticed the possibility of the illegal use of the logo, and twas I who added the sentence to Misplaced Pages Class Action. I think Misplaced Pages needs to always maintain NPOV, even when writing about itself and it's enimies and detractors. --Nerd42 21:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The same kind of thing happened en force on LiveJournal in 2001. They eventually had to hire lawyers on a virtually permanent basis to deal with all of the legal implications. I think that Misplaced Pages will have to do the same. Misplaced Pages is now about the same size as Live Journal, so I think its time to do this. All of the major policies should be worked over by lawyers (not just Misplaced Pages users who are also lawyers, but actual paid lawyers), especially such things as Misplaced Pages:No legal threats, Misplaced Pages:Libel and Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and any other applicable rules. And then any major issues. In my opinion, we cannot forbid legal threats if Misplaced Pages is to remain a legal business. It might be disruptive, but actually breaking the law is a lot worse than someone accusing you of doing it. Being libelled is worse than someone accusing you of libelling. It should be discouraged if it is frivellous, but it shouldn't be a bannable offense. It should be on the same level as a personal attack Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and that's about it. That's my opinion. I have written a proposal for how to deal with this kind of issue here: User:Zordrac/experts which you may wish to adopt, or propose for a consensus. I think that this would work to avoid all of the current legal issues. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hey now, don't discount the "users who are also lawyers" - I'll take Misplaced Pages pro bono publico anytime (if my firm will allow it). BDAbramson T 18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• For those who may be interested in seeing what this is about (whether just curiosity or NPOV), here is the link. WCFrancis 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

somebody's fakin yo name again

http://uncyclopedia.org/User:Jimbo Wales isn't really you, is it. --Nerd42 03:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While this is a parody project, I advise you stop them from using your name, seeing how you own Wikicites. -- user:zanimum

How about http://uncyclopedia.org/User:Jimmy_Donal_Wales? Is that some impostor? 09:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Wikinews

What is currently going on as regards Chinese Wikinews? I remember a while back, there were concerns that the Chinese might block Chinese Misplaced Pages in response to Chinese Wikinews, but since the Chinese Communists have decided to block Misplaced Pages anyway, I see no great reason not to start the project. More than enough users (including myself) have expressed interest. A huge swathe of Chinese readers in the US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, etc. would benefit from the project, even if it were not accessible to mainland Chinese. I see no reason for it not to be started, and in fact, I consider it to be a violation of Wikimedia principles for one not to be started. What is the current status of the project, and when do you (and the other members of the Board) intend to allow the project to go ahead?

--Ce garcon 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation/Wikipedia as a registered charity - Would ENABLE TAX DECDUCTION FOR UK

If Misplaced Pages/the Wikimedia Foundation registered itself as a Registered_charity (see Charitable trust#United Kingdom) with the UK Charity Commission (website: www.charity-commission.gov.uk) it would enable Misplaced Pages users and possible patrons to donate tax-free to the Wikimedia Foundation.

I really suggest you look into getting yourself approved as a Registered Charity in the UK, it would save you a lot of money it seems!

From http://wikimediafoundation.org/Deductibility_of_donations it appears at the moment the only other countries apart from the US where donations are tax-deductible is Germany and France! --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at m:Wikimedia UK you'll see that a group of us are trying to do something very similar to what you suggest. A UK charity should be fully registered by the middle of next year, jguk 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Do you a lot of know information about every user? Could you ban someone for an arbitrary reason?

I don't know a lot of information about every user. I do not ban people for arbitrary reasons, and if I did it would surely cause a huge community scandal.--Jimbo Wales 23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a joke question, Lord Jimbo, why even entertain it..? :) -MegamanZero|Talk 23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh noo!

Look at this

How is that possible, Britannica even coming so close to a 💕 with vandals and trolls! The world must be coming to an end!(note sarcasm):-)Voice of All 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your blog is liek, brokenomg

See http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2005/04/08/encarta-goes-wiki/#comments. ;) :p --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales for Global Emperor

I moved this from Talk:Jimmy Wales. Feel free to delete it.--Eloquence* 10:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, the resemblance is startling:

Kane	Jimmy Wales	Kane
File:Jimmy 'Jimbo' Wales, CIA mugshot.jpg		File:Jimmy 'Jimbo' Wales, CIA mugshot 2of2.jpg

--Mistress Selina Kyle 16:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Shhh... it's a SIKRIT.
  • Jimbo = Misplaced Pages
  • Misplaced Pages = Knowledge
  • Knowledge = Power

Beware the CABAL. --CBD _☎ 17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn. We're all in trouble now! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Peace through power! --Cool Cat 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC) NOD

In the name of Kane! For the Brotherhood!Voice of All 18:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In The name of Kane! --Cool Cat 15:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's just a classic. —Ilyanep (Talk) 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jimbo reminds me of millionaire Jordan Collier from the 4400. Arno 05:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

How come some are given the power to say what is and what is not allowed on this stuff? Look at vending machines as some are able to list their sites and some are not and are being singled out If only some are able to be listed then this sis a very bised site and is not a good sorce of info - posted by User:Vendweb

Oh please. Have a look at this contribution, which involved wiping out all external links with a link to another external website. I'll respond on his/her talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

OK, there does seem to be a dispute about the founding of Misplaced Pages (I've never really bothered to document Larry's life history, nor your own). I've posted a quick note to Larry Sanger's user talk page saying that I'm going add that he believes he founded the site, but that you don't agree. Don't worry, I'll source things. I know it's not really what you want, but given that things are disputed I really think that application of WP:NPOV policy tends to apply here. Note that I won't take a position on the argument, just document what the parties say. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say that isn't what I want? It is exactly what I want.--Jimbo Wales 14:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it was a silly comment. I apologise unreservedly... now let's get that article up to scratch! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal threats to Misplaced Pages users - when to ban?

On December 18, 20:54 User Verrekijker was banned from the Dutch language Misplaced Pages for a period of 6 months by sysop Waerth. He gave as reason: (Translated) "Threatening with legal steps. Is not permitted according to Jimbo and punishable by a ban".

At 20:58 Waerth wrote in 'De Kroeg' (the "village pump" on nl:wikipedia)

(Translated): Jimbo Wales once said that threatening with legal steps to 'win' a discussion brings about a denial of your right to participate in wikipedia. So, herewith Verrekijker is banned.

Waerth added at 21:13 (CET) on nl:Misplaced Pages:Blokkeringsmeldingen:

(Translated): For threatening with legal steps to decide a discussion to her advantage the user was banned for a half year; this in accordance with the rules of Jimbo.

Background

Shortly before that, user 'Verrekijker' wrote in 'De Kroeg' (the "village pump" on nl:wikipedia) an ultimatum. She threatened to sue "the users that spoke in a discriminating way" before the 'Commissie Gelijke Behandeling' (Dutch authority judging cases of discrimination) and report everyone at the police for discrimination, except those that would retract their words by email before 2006.

Verrekijker reacted in particular to a remark that she considered to be discriminating towards people such as herself, that have undergone a sex change. In my personal opinion, there was not much wrong with the remark and she grossly overreacted. Of course, she thinks her civil rights were violated.

My question

I remember having read before something about that "threatening to take legal steps can bring about a ban". However, I would be surprized if that would imply that someone that believes that statements on Misplaced Pages are "discrimination" against them, and want to appeal to some legal authority to 'defend' themselves, can be banned.

I won't ask you for an opinion on this particular case, but I would like to know your opinion on whether all kinds of legal threats constitute a valid reason to ban a user. Johan Lont 13:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. From that page it becomes clear that although a ban can be the result, it has to be looked at on a per-case basis. Also, this is a policy on the English Misplaced Pages, and I think that does not necessarily mean that this policy automatically applies to other languages. Jacoplane 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. Johan Lont 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Verrekijker's Points of View

So what about me? I just promised Radio 10 Gold a few days ago to include information about all artists in their Top 4000 (now on Internet) and now this happened to me! Denouncing talking in a disgraceful way about transsexuals has caused me to stop editing for half a year! I feel treated as an ordinary vandalizer! Now my comments are moved to 'Het Achterkamertje' (Backroom) where Wiki-people show a lot of tunnel-vision mentality. Anyway, I can't defend myself anymore. Verrekijker 22:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant talking about transsexuals as it as if one is a thing, not a person. Verrekijker 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not responsible for your promises. In fact, because it is a group project, it is unwise to promise anything about the content of Misplaced Pages to any third party. It's not yours, and if the community for any reason decides to edit or remove what you add, that is their perogative. --Improv 02:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even have the chance to start my project. But why doesn't anybody react against the perogative to decide upon my Dutch legal rights to be called a female one instead of being a 'thing'? Or is that a Misplaced Pages-point of discussion? For me it seems that Nürnberg-laws (1935) are back!

1st of January 2006 is the time-limit I suggested to turn back fully this decision of blocking me. I had been blocked 6 times now, not for my contributions, but for community discussions. Is this an online encyclopedia or a community that excludes people because they have a different background? Verrekijker 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Digital Universe

Did you read CNET article did you believe that Digital Universe will kill Misplaced Pages?

Re: Wired article on your editing your own article.

Umm, how is that newsworthy? I swear, this has been the month of nitpicking Misplaced Pages. --kizzle 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration policy proposal

According to the arbitration policy changing policy, Arbitration policy is not open to amendment by the community. So I am posting my suggestion here. It seems that the Requests for Arbitration page is growing explosively, and there are well over a dozen cases open at any one time. That's a lot for a single arbitration committee to handle and do a thorough job, and as Misplaced Pages grows, that demand is only going to get bigger and bigger. So I propose a more scalable approach which would be more in line with the wiki philosophy. Convert the Arbitration Committee into an Arbitration Oversight Committee which decides when a case has merit, and then for the actual arbitration, the Arbitration Oversight Committee assigns each case to a different arbitration panel with nine members selected completely at random from a volunteer page. This would provide distributed arbitration by peers, which is more in line with the "many eyes" philosophy, and would allow more thorough and specific attention on each case, while still allowing the Arbitration Oversight Committee, elected in the existing fashion, to decide which cases merit arbitration. I expect cases would be concluded more rapidly and the explanations would be more thorough. This has an added benefit of converting any systematic bias (or allegations of systematic bias), into a more distributed balance. What do you think? FRJohn 01:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Satire

It suprises me how many users (espcially British users) use satire. They constantly confuse and (sometimes) mislead me. Is there a policy? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes...and, quite thankfully so, particularly in regard to the British. The policy states, rather eloquently, words to the effect that:

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It goes on from there, at some length, but you get the gist. Golly, that Misplaced Pages really outdoes itself sometimes...doesn't it? Satirically yours, --AustinKnight 14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy

He had some problems with the user User:Node ue. On the page Moldovan language he was always a trolling character. He was always alone in his positions and he was always against any consensus. Now the page is blocked because of him. Now, he transfered his hatred also on some pages that I created where he comes everyday to revert my work. What can be done? I think more than 100 people told him to stop but he continues his trolling again.

I am adressing to you as a last chance to solve this out. Bonaparte talk 15:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the GPL free enough?

I'm working on some Wiki-related software that is licensed under the GPL. Can I post this source to a Misplaced Pages page and keep it exclusively licensed under the GPL? As far as I am aware the GFDL is not specific to software and doesn't protect software rights as well as the GPL. If it's not possible to license content on Misplaced Pages under the GPL I suppose I will have to remove it to my own webpage and link it externally. Thanks! --Cyde Weys _talk 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP!

I keep getting sent to this page

"Wikimedia needs your help in its current fund drive. See our fundraising page for details. Please help translate this message for your local site."

almost every time I try to view or edit anything.

What's happening? Is Misplaced Pages dying? :| --Mistress Selina Kyle 06:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fundraising

Okay, so i'm a fairly large contributor to this site, i love it, i put huge amounts of time into it, and it has served me well. Anyway, I want to contribute some funds, but my worry, as always, is how does wikipedia plan to maintain its ideology? I heard that a paper edition of the encyclopedia is possibly coming out. So my question is, is somebody going to get rich off of this project (wikipedia), and if so, then why should i put money into it (i already put enough in)? I mean, is there somewhere i can go to see what the funds are, what is needed, how much is paying someone's salary, etc.? Sorry to be the realist; and sure, the early bird gets the worm, but i'm here to serve a different purpose, and unfortunately, in my world, the dishonest are reigning unchecked and i'm poor as hell - so could we address this? Anonymously yours, 67.166.51.134 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You might find the budget page of the Wikimedia Foundation useful to answer your second question.

To answer the first question—anybody can do that now. Since all of Misplaced Pages's content is licensed under the GFDL, you or I–or anybody–can download all the articles, print them, bind them, and sell them. Basically, the distributed copies must remain under the GFDL, and the authorship information for the articles must be preserved. If you think you can make a go of it, there's nothing that prevents you from being the one who gets rich...or possibly losing your shirt. Publishing a new paper encyclopedia isn't a nontrivial endeavour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

User:Francs2000/Christmas

-- Francs2000 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Current Alexa Ranking

Current Misplaced Pages.org hit ranking by Alexa is 34. I tried to get the hit ranking of this discussion page, but it defaulted to the domain.  :-) Otherwise, I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas! 152.163.100.69 13:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it's any help, the PageRank of this page is 6/10.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How long should an article be semi-protected?

I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 15:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas is losing FARC vote, yet still in place for mainpage on Dec 25

This article does not look to me like it's ready for prime time, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Yet my attempt to generate discussion about the wisdom of running this on mainpage with User:Raul654 seems to be getting nowhere. What's your view on this? BYT 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions

I feel it's generally important to avoid a direct appeal, but given that I believe it aligns well with your recent public statements, I feel some of the ideas being discussed on that talk page are important enough to warrant it. I don't think the article validation can go far enough, but a proper implementation of branching could be the system that allows Misplaced Pages to trancend the current system in quality and have no significant drawbacks. - Taxman 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

nobs

The case of Nobs01 and others is becoming a little embarassing for an ArbCom candidate ; I'd be happy to discuss privately a possible appeal with you or a newly elected Committee, before any more interest in the matter is kindled. Please note, I have been a user in good standing, never once recieving a 3RR warning, before being tarred with guilt by association smears by ideological purists who brought the case. I only ask for a fair hearing on my separate matter. nobs 19:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This guy is bad news Fred Bauder 21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

nobs03@gmail.com I'll be available after Tuesday 27 December. nobs 22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism of Misplaced Pages by a newspaper

Could you have a quick look at the thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_plagiarism_by_newspaper? At first glance, it appears that a Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter may have been using substantial chunks of Misplaced Pages content in one of his articles without attribution.

I'm not sure how to best approach the situation and I'd be more than happy to turn the matter over to you and the Board. I'm an academic so my natural inclination is to have the guy drawn and quartered, but it may be possible to put this incident to more productive use. If you can see a good way to turn this into a net plus for Misplaced Pages, have at it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As a journalist, TenofAllTrades: I suggest this approach: call the city editor. Ask that a correction be cited on the article, and give the editor the Misplaced Pages material link. Then, after you have said this - email him with it. Ask that any Misplaced Pages material be cited in any article where reference material has been copied. This can easily be done by the journalist, by just writing - "according to Misplaced Pages, the online encylopedia..." Hope this helps.Theo 00:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the big deal? I'm happy if somebody's putting the info to use. I contribute to help people and it would make me angry if I saw we were going after people who were using our information. And pursuing them based on a technicality in the license would just be small-minded, in addition to being unprincipled. Everyking 05:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the Arbcom ruling was that Everyking was supposed to at least acquaint himself with the facts before commenting? In a nutshell, the issue isn't licensing, it's plagiarism: the use of someone else's work and passing it off as one's own.

Some entries from various newspaper codes of ethics might be instructive :

• Beaumont (Texas) Enterprise
  • Plagiarism is the act of lifting the words and work of others and representing it as one's own. It will be a firing offense at The Enterprise.
• Detroit Free Press
  • When material is used in a story from sources other than the writer's own reporting, those sources--other publications, previous Free Press stories, radio or TV newscasts, etc.--should be indicated in the story. That attribution need not be made for simple, verifiable facts like dates, but is essential for information that goes beyond simple fact-quotations or descriptions not heard or seen by the current reporter, characterizations or other generalizations not based on the writer's own reporting, etc...
  • Using someone else's work without attribution -whether deliberately or thoughtlessly--is a serious ethical breach. Staff members should be alert to the potential for even small, unintentional acts of plagiarism, especially in the reporting of complicated stories involving many sources.

Lots more on that page. Or maybe this column courtesy of the Poynter Institute will prove instructive.

I mean, does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell? That admittedly was a particularly bad case, but the principle is the same.

And in academia, note that Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin got in pretty hot water over minor plagiarism accusations. This is a serious issue, and the "licensing" and free information" stuff are red herrings. --Calton | Talk 06:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I nearly forgot my new favorite blog, "Regret the Error", which recently posted its Plagiarism 2005 Round-up. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I'm reasonably well acquainted. I can always benefit from education from someone so wise as yourself, though. Everyking 06:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I'm reasonably well acquainted. ArbCom, in its most recent case against you, disagreed with that. Nor has Jimbo, directly, calling what you do "carping" seemed to have left a dent in your unearned sense of entitlement.

So now, do you actually understand the difference between attribution and plagiarism? Signal yes or no. --Calton | Talk 12:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you communicate like this in real life? If so, how do people react? Everyking 06:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean providing clues to the clueless? Yeah. Do you whine and stomp your feet this much in real life? If so, how do people react? --Calton | Talk 21:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever seen you say anything civil on Misplaced Pages. And that's pretty astonishing, since it goes back about a year. Every single thing you say includes insults, sarcasm, or angry criticism of some kind. As for me, I don't think I stomp and whine very much, but even if I did, that is at least a little more socially acceptable than verbally attacking everyone you come across. Everyking 04:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To paraphrase Mary McCarthy talking about Lillian Hellman, every word you just wrote is a lie, including "and" and "the" -- especially given that you're the one with the 0-3 ArbCom record, not me. But since you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be utterly self-unaware -- or at least to behave as so -- even after tens of thousands of words directed at you regarding your behavior, I'll let the record I've just referred to speak for itself and let Jimbo have his Talk Page back. --Calton | Talk 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, boys, play nice. Both of you. --LV 15:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, what happened to Misplaced Pages as free information for humankind? It shouldn't matter if people use the work on Misplaced Pages elsewhere, if it is useful to people Misplaced Pages is working! --Mistress Selina Kyle 05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to register my strong objection to the statements by Everyking and Mistress Kyle. I contribute to Misplaced Pages in the full knowledge and expectation that my efforts here are traceable back to me and that our collective product must always be recognized as the work of Wikipedians. Failure to do so is theft and shows severe disrepect to myself and other contributors. If I believed that the right to recognition, in the limited form enshrined in the GFDL, would not be respected and defended then I would have to seriously reconsider my participation in this project. Misplaced Pages is free, and I am happy he found it useful, but if he is going to lift multiple paragraphs from us he damn well ought to give Misplaced Pages a line of credit. Dragons flight 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Individual editors retain the copyright of the work they put into Misplaced Pages and are responsible for defending it (the Foundation can't do it for you). You are free to pursue your copyright in court even if other editors choose not to. — David Remahl 06:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly right DragonsFlight. Newspapers are quite used to attribution, and it should be the same when quoting from sources as Misplaced Pages.Theo 06:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think attribution is sufficient for print media. The GFDL specifies that the license text should be reproduced in full in derivative works (if I recall correctly). Misplaced Pages has been pretty clear that it believes that link-back is sufficient for compliance, at least on the web. I don't think that extends to print. — David Remahl 06:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, the information is just free. It's out there, it's yours already, it belongs to everybody. We are giving it away; we shouldn't be clinging to copyright neuroticism. Everyking 06:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you can go start the truly free encyclopedia, cause mine is governed by the GFDL. Dragons flight 06:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The GFDL seems pointless. Why not just have stuff in the public domain FOR ANYONE? --Mistress Selina Kyle 07:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Selina Kyle, the GFDL contains an anti digital rights management clause. This will prevent any censorship by the authorities or the corporations. -- Natalinasmpf 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a professional academic. Sometimes I contribute work to Misplaced Pages which had been prepared for other venues at other times, when such work is both appropriate and legal (e.g. not in conflict with the rights owed to a prior publisher). Without an auditable trail connecting this work to me, the risk that my real life efforts could be percieved as plagarism is simply too high. I favor the spread of human knowledge, but the attribution requirement is absolutely essential to the work I do. Dragons flight 08:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Although IMO the primary concern is having the information stay free (as in freedom!). -- Natalinasmpf 00:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the quetsion of copyright, it is generally considered improper, both in journalism and in academia, to use or quote someone else's work without attribution. Even Fair-use normally requires proepr attribution. I don't see that a full copy of the GFDL license text should be required in such a case, but a citation in some form should surely be. DES 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking: I trust that means you'll be replacing the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} tag on your userpage with {{MultiLicensePD}}? --Carnildo 08:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable about the finer points. Is that what I should do? Everyking 12:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to put your work into the public domain yes. However there are a number of dissadvantages of doing so. People who use your work to create derivative works will then be able to copyright the result.Geni 12:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I want my contributions to be totally free without restriction, so that's what I'll do. I'm not interested in holding any claim over them. I feel that contributions to Misplaced Pages should be thought of as gifts, with no rights reserved. Everyking 13:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Insisting that newspapers provide attribution is a help, not a hindrance, to the cause of making information freely available to everyone. The attribution doesn't severely restrict the use by the newspaper. It does, however, call Misplaced Pages to the attention of more people. Every mention in a newspaper can be expected to result in the recruitment of new contributors, who would add some knowledge to the sum of information that we make available at no charge. JamesMLane 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Attribution is cool. Going after people for not attributing is uncool. For us to act like copyright neurotics trying to drag people down when they use info from the free encyclopedia seems to me to totally defeat the purpose of what we are doing here. We need to keep a focus on helping and not hurting. Everyking 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Going after people for not attributing is uncool. Going after people for not attributing is an absolutely standard practice, here on Misplaced Pages and (as has already been explained to you) in journalism. This is so obvious, I can hardly believe it's ignorance and not contrarian disingenuousness.

Speaking of attributing, the Star-Bulletin added a correction acknowledging that text came from Misplaced Pages, via reference.com, so Misplaced Pages's interest in this story has been dealt with. How the Star-Bulletin handles the rest of the plagiarism is their business, not ours any more. --Calton | Talk 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another warning regarding an ArbCom candidate.

I've only today became aware of Karmafist (talk · contribs), and have been the victim of harrassment from him. (Of course, he is accusing me of harrassment. I'm happy to let the evidence speak for itself.) Today, I formally identified him in a WP:RFAr and have discovered some disturbing activity around him. Several of the current ArbCom members want to see Karmafist desysoped, and for my money, it's not hard to see why. His words and actions epitomize hypocrisy (he's a "bully for bullies") and his written correspondace displays an attiude one might identify as malignant nacissism. Similar to Ross Perot, he claims he doesn't "really" want to be on ArbCom, but is running nonetheless. Please be very careful and very wary of this person vis-a-vis the ArbCom. For someone for whom there is real debate as to whether he should even be an admin, it's hard to be confident of his fitness for the ArbCom. I believe the evidence (please check his contribs, his talk page and my talk page for the latest) demonstrates that he would be poisonous for the ArbCom. Thank you for reading this. r b-j 08:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd update you on the patronizing that he's now turning on:

Helping You Out

Now I see that your behavior might be more from inexperience rather than anything else, so here's some advice.

1. The arbcom is too overloaded to listen to anything unless it's gone through the proper channels first or it's an emergency. Your thing is neither. I assumed last night that you were talking about the POTW case.
2. The comment to Jimbo Wales is funny since I guess you've never heard of JamesMLane's Law. That probably helped me more than anything since whining to authorities rarely helps you, often it hurts you. However, since the arbcom selection procedure is still up in the air, your words there might have meant nothing at all.

Seriously, head over to Esperanza. I still think we can still cure you of your personality affliction rehabilitate you into the general community before it's too late. karmafist 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, best regards, r b-j 17:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but of course you can vote in opposition to Karmafist in the upcoming elections. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

i've looked around, but i haven't seen where the elections are held. also it seemed like they were somehow canceled or postponed or changed in some way. i haven't been able to decode the wikispeak. seriously, Talrias, there is at present (and it will only get worse if the leadership - Jimbo + whomever - don't act soon about it) a crisis of credibility at Misplaced Pages. and i don't mean the stuff we're hearing on the news John Seigenthaler, etc. that stuff is par for the course. i would expect things like that to happen (and eventually get corrected). the crisis of credibility is that a bunch of young (college-aged or thereabouts) and self-satisfied wikiheads have been inadequately vetted (or maybe the vetting was as good as one could expect) and vested with adminship when they are too immature to take on the responsibility and do it responsibly. these are nasty kids who have let the power of adminship go to their heads to the extent that they don't believe the civility rules apply to them. they are naked hypocrites who act as trolls and harrass editors and accuse anyone who confronts them about it as being trolls and for harrassment. they demand respect, but they do not offer any. WP will necessarily lose a lot of talent if the cops here treat them so badly. it will become a real crisis, but i believe it has already come to that point. regards. r b-j 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

They haven't been held yet, they will (hopefully) be held soon. At the moment there is just a chance for candidates to submit statements and be asked questions about it. When the actual voting starts you can vote for/against whoever you like (as it should be).

I don't agree with you that people are inadequately vetted for adminship. Out of the 700+ admins, you can count on one hand the number of admins who have had their adminship revoked. I'd say that the current procedure does a pretty good job of making sure inappropriate people don't become admins. And if admins do abuse their power, they do face the consequences. You can see this on requests for adminship right now - Stevertigo, one of the few people who had his adminship removed, is currently re-applying for adminship and is facing significant opposition.

If you think arbitrators are going to have an easy time in this upcoming election, you can think again. There aren't many people standing, and the arbitrators elected will have their position for a considerable length of time. Other people will be scrutinising their statements and their past contributions carefully, and I don't doubt they won't hesitate to ask pointed questions. Yes, controversial candidates have their supporters, but I would be surprised if anyone unsuitable for the job got it.

Yes, some people are uncivil. Some people might think that being an admin means they are "better" than non-admins. They have completely the wrong attitude - and they won't become arbitrators. If you feel you've been treated badly by an admin (or any user, in fact), they've been rude, uncivil, dismissive, then I recommend requesting mediation. For every bad Wikipedian there are plenty of friendly ones and I have faith in the community to be self-regulating and have a positive effect. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

one question: you say "They haven't been held yet, they will (hopefully) be held soon.", but that still begs the question about where we need to be and when we need to be there? how will we know? there seems to be no general announcement about it. (frankly, i only figured it out from veiwing Karma's user page, otherwise i don't think i would have stumbled upon any such information.)

a couple of observations: "I don't agree with you that people are inadequately vetted for adminship. Out of the 700+ admins, you can count on one hand the number of admins who have had their adminship revoked. I'd say that the current procedure does a pretty good job of making sure inappropriate people don't become admins." That seems to me to be a convenient position of someone on the inside looking out. the CEO's and management of many companies and institutions, the leadership of governments, churches or other social organizations often believe the same thing even as those companies/governments/institutions are crashing and burning. it's unbelievably optimistic to think that some 99% of the admins are all just fine and good and executing their duties effectively and responsibly. no human organization or institution can (accurately) boast that level of efficacy. if only 1% of any organization this large gets washed out, either WP can claim an historically successful social experiment or, alternatively, it isn't cleaning house enough.

it is simply not safe to assume that all those who "have completely the wrong attitude ... won't become arbitrators." some have certainly become admins and they flaunt their completely wrong attitude with enough of a blind eye that they have no encouragement to reform. if karmafist is one of the few candidates left standing, there is a serious reason to take pause.

i don't know if User:FuelWagon was a bad editor or not, but his parting words have some serious credibility (with me), since i can verify many of them first hand. if you take honest exception to an admin's behavior, you are liable for severe incivility, trolling, patronization while being accused of the same by either that admin or an admin friend that is solicited. some admins believe they can do no wrong. that they are untouchable and they can be as rude and intellectually dishonest as they like and no consequence will befall them. after looking the dispute resolution process over a bit, i might be able to name a few, but it might be libelous since i hadn't directly interacted with them and i do not know first hand. but with karmafist, it is not libelous because the truth, even if defamatory, is not libel. you take a look at that RFAr, karmafist's words on my or his talk page (if he hasn't erased it), Phroziac's page (to see how i alledgedly harassed her) and look closely at the time stamps and it is clear that the only person between these three who has been harassed, is me. read what karma says about USENET, trolling, harassment and try to objectively decide who is the troll, the harasser, the patronizer, who is uncivil, dishonest, hypocritical. it really shouldn't be hard, the record is there.

i see no reason to share your optimism of the process or for all of the people involved. something is very, very sick here. turning a blind eye to that will not bring healing. i am not an alarmist, i hate alarmism, but Jimbo needs to be aware of a cancer growing here. and, regretfully, i dunno if this has his attention. and, more regretfully, if he "misunderestimates" the cancer and under-reacts while it gets bigger, it could get very, very bad for WP. loss of resources and eventually of credibility.

i was involved in an RFAr before and i believe that, once they invest the time to really look into a case, the present ArbCom is and can be pretty fair. i think Fred Bauder's considered judgement is mostly very fair. but if he, because of time constraints, is relying on the information and evaluation of his admins, in this case, without checking out the veracity of what Karmafist has said (as an axiom - read what he writes - he makes no effort to justify his charge of my alledged harassment, but is writing as if it's a given), then Fred and the ArbCom will fail to do the right thing. we're dealing with an immature, mendacious, rude, arrogant troll whose defense is the old children's offensive technique of simply accusing their opponent of precisely the sin they are guilty of and expecting to be held above reproach (since Karmafist, in his righteousness, is the one picking slivers out of eyes). it's an old tired technique. you may certainly wonder: am i not doing the same thing? am i not accusing karmafist of what he is accusing me of? and that is where you need to check out the evidence (starting at the RFAr and then to the talk pages). it's all there. r b-j 06:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sorry but I'm weak on English. Marry Christmas from the biggest troll on pl wiki (me ;). I want talking you that admins on pl wiki are very bad, they blocking me often though I don't trolling already and never I've been admin. The worst admin is TOR. Please for interference - Pietras1988 TALK

I would also like to wish you a Marry Christmas. --Wasabe3543 11:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Would be nice to know

Wikimedia Foundation says "Personnel (2 full time & 2 part time)" are currently employed. It would be nice to know when I'm talking to an admin or voting on arbcom if they are one of these four. WAS 4.250 19:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the full-timers is Danny (user:Danny), and the part-timers are user:Brion Vibber and Kyle (the intern who helps physically maintence the servers) Raul654 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

See job openings - it has a list of current employees - it says that Brion is now full-time, and I think the 2nd part timer is the open job listed there - that was annoucned as filled today on the mailing list by Delphine Ménard User:notafish Trödel&#149;talk 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Defamation of Fanboys

Jimbo, just look at Ken Kutaragi, a article with POV pushing, the User:Doom127 is using our Misplaced Pages to spreading POVs and making revert wars.

Merry Christmas!!

Happy Christmas Jimbo

12:20am, first to say it officially.

Talk:Bomis#The Babe Engine has a bit of an anti-present for you from Eloquence. "HUMBUG"?

Would be interested in your view on this.
--Mistress Selina Kyle 00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

From me too, from German WP!

--Cascari 15:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!

This is my first time reportning, i ashamed to do this Dyslexic agnostic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for atarters, ths stalking harassment-lover has emptied the Bat-embargo page, insulted me and my editions directly, i've tried to make peace repeatedly, explaining him that i feel ofended, vandalized my own page writting sturr i repeatedly told him not to, i got out of control and swear indirecty at him in that very space. lately he reverted my editions writting insulting summaries in the Batman, batman villains and superman articles. Please, at least make him stop or met me in the middle point or something. He is also confused about article sizes. i've not been that smart daling with him but i think i deserve beter--T for Trouble-maker 09:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)woow i saw what he has been doing with everythink i write...scary

An ArbCom Case to Review: Wyss

I realize that you (Jimbo Wales) are busy. I would like to ask you to review one ArbCom decision that is very unfortunate. That is the decision against Wyss. As you will see, Wyss was only trying to enforce a high standard of verifiability with respect to an editor who had been placed on probation for making poorly verified statements. The ArbCom decision should be seen in three parts. The first is the statement of principle that a different standard of sourcing applies to celebrity gossip than to history. The second is the decision that the biographies of certain deceased entertainers should be considered celebrity gossip rather than scholarship. The third is the remedy to place Wyss on probation and to ban her from editing articles involving issues about the sexual orientation of celebrities.

The first part of the case is not in itself wrong, but it is worrisome. It appears to say that a report in the National Enquirer should be given the same weight as a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer, or that a report in Weekly World News should be given the same weight as a report in Newsweek. It is true that some stories do require different standards of verification than others, and maybe that is what the ArbCom was trying to say. However, it is a statement of principle that is far from fully stated, and will need to be worked out over time. Its timing is unfortunate in coinciding with the Siegenthaler incident, which I would see as meaning that we need stronger verification, not weaker verification.

I disagree with the second part of the decision, that biographical information on James Dean and Elvis Presley should be subject to the lower verification standard of celebrity gossip. When a former celebrity has been dead for a quarter of a century, a literate world is entitled to a scholarly sorting out of truth from speculation. Elvis Presley and James Dean are no longer mere "celebrities". They are historical entertainers.

The third part of the case, imposing penalties on Wyss, who was in any case acting in good faith, is an injustice and should be reversed. It would have been sufficient for the ArbCom to instruct Wyss to follow the new, weaker standards of verifiability. Instead the ArbCom enacted an ex post facto law and punished Wyss for her disregard of the ex post facto law. If the ArbCom thought that a mere admonition to Wyss was insufficient, it could have ordered mediation.

I acknowledge that the ArbCom was acting in good faith in this case, but the result is an injustice. I hope that you will reverse it. Robert McClenon 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom Cases Not to Review

You are commonly asked to review ArbCom cases. There is at least one case that you said you would look at. It is the case of Researcher99. I suggest that you look at it only to confirm that the ArbCom was right. It began as a content dispute, but then Researcher99 began complaining that he had been treated with disrespect. Mediation was attempted, but the mediation failed because Researcher99 said that he was not willing to mediate article content until his claims of being treated with disrespect were mediated. Since the mediation was intended to resolve the content dispute, and one participant refused to discuss content, the mediation failed. The case then went to the ArbCom, which found that Researcher99 was being disruptive. Since the objective of Misplaced Pages is to build an encyclopedia, failure to discuss content is disruptive. I suggest that the ArbCom be commended for a good decision.

I have looked at most of the other recent ArbCom decisions, and the only one that is misguided is Wyss. Robert McClenon 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A More General Problem

A more general problem that only you can deal with needs to be addressed soon. Wyss is correct in her criticism of Misplaced Pages that it takes too long to deal with "wankers, trolls, fools, and flamers". On the one hand, giving greater authority to admins to block troublemakers unilaterally will only add to a feeling that there is a culture where admins are free to abuse their powers and bite newbies. On the other hand, at present it takes months between the time that a flamer who disregards consensus disrupts the editing of an article and the time that the flamer is disciplined by the ArbCom. The EffK and Benjamin Gatti cases, both now in arbitration, are typical examples.

There should be some way to deal with problematical editors more quickly than is now the case. My own suggestion would be to have preliminary arbitration either by one arbitrator or by three arbitrators with simplified rules of evidence, followed, if approved by the full ArbCom, by an appeal to the full ArbCom. The ArbCom is already acting like a court of appeals, deciding which cases to accept and then hearing full argument. What is needed is courts of first instance, trial by one judge, with procedures similar to those of a traffic court: fair, but expedited. (Most violations of Wikiquette have the nature of red-light running and speeding, and the more serious ones have the nature of reckless driving and collisions.)

As the size of Misplaced Pages increases, the number of conflicts is increasing in a non-linear fashion. Consensus is not likely to find a way to resolve disputes more quickly. Only you can deal with this problem in a timely manner. Robert McClenon 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Remark: the thought had occurred that maybe we need a step in between (a) average admin sees user that needs sanctioning, and sanctions him; and (b) Request for Arbitration. There's just such a huge gulf in formality there, maybe there's something that belongs in the middle. It could be a sort of WP:AN crossed with ArbCom, like this: actions that may be controversial (or are being challenged) should be listed on a separate new page (Misplaced Pages:User Sanction Review?), and an action considered supported if 2 admins explicitly support it (with comments indicating they've considered the matter), or conversely, if other admins question the action the decision can be reviewed by debate. Not overly formal, but with some thought it could be a forum for handling controversial sanctions that haven't gone through full RfAr process, separate from the more every-day incidents that crowd WP:ANI and WP:3RR. Rd232 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For a long time, I've been arguing that questionable blocks should only be done with the consensus or at least a strong majority of admins on AN. This gives you three categories: obvious blocks, blocks that require general admin approval, and blocks that require an ArbCom decision. This always met with fierce opposition whenever I suggested it, but I think we will either need to implement something like this eventually, or expand and reform the ArbCom's role to cover things like this somehow, so that it could deal with things in the second category as well as the third. Everyking 00:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is right in its decision

The arbitration committee acted correctly. Wyss has been harrassing me for months, working together with User:Ted Wilkes in removing my edits. This user repeatedly deleted my contributions to several articles (see, for instance, , , ) and accused me of abusing Misplaced Pages pages, of being a vandal and a troll, etc. After being informed by arbitrator Fred Bauder that Onefortyone is "not banned from editing celebrity articles" and that "automatically reverting his contributions on the basis that he is 'banned' is not justified," Wyss made absurd accusations, again calling me a vandal and claiming that Fred Bauder "is only the latest in a long line of admins and bureaucrats to have been manipulated by him" and that I am "as disruptive as ever. He has wrought and continues to inflict true damage upon this encyclopdedia." See . These false claims were only made because my contributions, based on several independent sources, were not in line with the personal view of this user.

Here are some facts: On 17 November 2005, Wyss calls me a vandal and says that he uses the term formally. See . He/she also says that I am "a talented and knowledgeable vandal and hence immensely more destructive to WP's credibility." See . See also . Again, Wyss accuses me of using the tactics of a vandal and those of a troll. See . Wyss further states that he/she agrees with Ted Wilkes "that a Misplaced Pages user who represents himself as a retired lawyer on his user page and serves on arbcom, but who has not disclosed that he was disbarred, may be abusing Misplaced Pages's well-established practice of assuming good faith on the part of all users." See . On 18 November 2005, he/she denies having harrassed 141 and accuses Redwolf24 of harrassing him/her. See . For similar statements, including the claim that Redwolf24 had abused his admin status, see also , , . Wyss falsely accuses me of abusing Misplaced Pages pages (see ) and says on the User talk:Redwolf24 page that "my name ... in your RfAr concerning 141 ... is reprehensible, a form harrassment in direct violation of WP policy and an abuse of your admin status." See . On 27 November 2005, on the User talk:Wyss page, Wyss still accuses me of "using Nick Adams as a wedge from which to seed the Elvis Presley article with Google friendly keywords which would lead readers to tabloid books by a certain dodgy author." See . On 29 November 2005, the same user continues to attack several members of the arbitration committee claiming that "arbcom's agenda is revenge against Ted Wilkes" and that "they're coddling a troll." Furthermore, arbitrator Kelly Martin is being accused of a "flip and sarcastic reply." See and . On 1 December 2005, Wyss even went as far as to denigrate the whole Misplaced Pages project attacking its founder Jimbo Wales to be a mere marketer: "he more or less means for Misplaced Pages to be this way. Cranks, trolls and conflict marketed under the label "Internet Encyclopedia," all enabled by wiki software, happens to equal traffic and donations, an easy enough tale." See and . On 25 December 2005, Wyss continued to attack several arbcom members and accused them of vandalizing his/her user talk page. See and . His/her frequent aggressiveness against other users, administrators and arbcom members speaks for itself. Onefortyone 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Follow-Up to Onefortyone

Since I was not one of the arbitrators, I had (fortunately) no duty to read the lengthy record of the evidence. I was assuming that the final order of the ArbCom spoke for itself and presented a reasonable summary of what the evidence showed. If Onefortyone is correct in his summary (and I neither agree nor disagree at this time), then the ArbCom based their remedy on issues that were not summarized in the Findings of Fact. That is, if the ArbCom was correct in their decision, then their ruling does not speak for itself. Onefortyone speaks of harassment and of a pattern of personal attacks. The ArbCom did not find as fact that Wyss had harassed Onefortyone or engaged in personal attacks. Robert McClenon 14:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I was aware of Wyss's recent criticisms of the whole Misplaced Pages concept. I do not see those as a basis for disciplining her. Also, I have not reviewed the timeline to see whether those criticisms preceded the ArbCom decision.

If the ArbCom was substantively right in its action, then it failed to document the reasons for its action. I am aware that the number and complexity of ArbCom cases is increasing, and that the ArbCom is backlogged by increasingly difficult cases, so that this statement should not be taken as an attack on the arbitrators, who are doing the best that they can. Instead, it illustrates my previous observation that Misplaced Pages needs to expedite the resolution of disputes. Robert McClenon 14:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On his/her user page, Wyss denigrates the whole idea of Misplaced Pages, saying that it is "a mega-traffic, interactive role-playing community which deliberately feeds wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls with a million entries of content meant but to trigger high page rankings on Google. If there is a solicitation for donations to Misplaced Pages on this page, please consider donating funds to a legitimate scholarly or academic project instead." See . No further comment. Onefortyone 10:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tools

We talked about tools that editors need some time ago. I don't know if we mentioned that users have wrote some tools, some of them are quite widespread. If you haven't already, you should try the brilliant navigation popups and other tools by Lupin. For user experience improvements, I'll shamelessly plug my picture popups. Zocky 23:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

IMPORTANT!

Hi there Jimbo, hope you had a good Christmas. Anyway I know you have a million and one things to do, but I thought I'd remind you that 2005 is drawing to a close and AFAIK you haven't declared a new Misplaced Pages holiday this year! (Told you it was important ;-) the wub "?!" 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought he did when he suggested creating an annual GNAA AFD nomination? =) —Locke Cole 00:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Significant copyright issue

I'm not completely sure where to put this, but I figured this is probably the best place.

I have just incorporated content into this page that includes the work of Ian13, Djr xi, and Elvarg. There is no notice anywhere on the page, in the page history, in the edit diff, or anywhere else that in any way indicates where I got this from, and this is a clear violation of the GFDL (or would be if not for paragraph #4). Template substitution happens probably hundreds of times a day at Misplaced Pages, and except in a case where the edit summary includes a link, every single one of those violates the GFDL, and by hosting this content Misplaced Pages is breaking the law. I think this might be a slight problem.

Obviously the Wikimedia Foundation is unlikely to get sued over this, particularly since damages would be zero in pretty much all cases. Nevertheless, I hope this can get a software fix (e.g., auto-incorporation of a list of substed templates in edit summaries) sooner rather than later. I expect a retroactive fix is impossible, but best not to keep this kind of problem around.

To make sure I'm not breaking the law here, I'll note that the box above is from Template:Userbox, of course, and the appropriate history can be found there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yey! I've had my name metioned in Jimbo Wales' usertalk page! I hope in a good way. That template move was for a reason ;) Ian_ID:540053 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is awesome. But am having endless problems with a troublesome vandal

My name is Jon-Erik Beckjord, and I have an article page on my name (Erik Beckjord) in Wiki. I find a huge amount of false or bad info in the Bigfoot page (also Nessie page) and I find this false info is being guarded by reverts by one DreamGuy, who has a questionable article page called Mythology. This guy reverts every day any changes I make to the Bigfoot page, even when sources are quoted. I have 30 years experience in this, and have info that is NOT YET published in books, but which is on websites. After all, Wiki is a web-based pedia. DreamGuy is a skeptic who takes the view that Bigfoot is a myth, even though I have seen it 5x and have taken 17 photos, and have analyzed for years the Patterson Bigfoot film of 1967. He disallows any references to sites where witnesses can relieve their trauma, even though this is done on Wiki in FIRST AID, BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AND UFOS.

Bigfoot is the same as the UK Grey man of Ben McDhui.

A comment on what I see above re consensus in editing. This allows non-experts to overide experts. I think that is wrong. Should people who do not know Chemistry be allowed to overide a profesional PhD chemist who edits on wiki? Etc,etc.Ditto other fields.

I'd love to get your help. This DreamGuy reflects badly on wiki.

Phone 510-633-2526 email rudy(at)stealthaccess.net

beckjordBeckjord 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood something. However, is DreamGuy reverting original research? I thought that original research was not permitted, and so reverting it was reasonable. Robert McClenon 14:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing. We actually have a Bigfoot guy on here. So, uhhh, you know Bigfoot died on November 26, 2002, right? His name was Ray Wallace. And I really doubt that you photographed him 17 times. --Cyde Weys _vote 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Suppressed Non Wiki Source

Once, I have placed a non-Internet bigfoot source on the Bigfoot article myself, user:Dreamguy removed it. This source is: The Ten Creepiest Creatures In America" written by Allan Zullo, published in 1997 by Troll Communications. This is a non-fiction soft cover book. This is not "original research". It discribes Bigfoot, and some of the other reported creatures, depicts some of the ridicule, abuse witnesses often go through, such as that above. When I saw User:Beckjord's claims of people ganging upon him, I though that a violation of WP:CIVIL,WP:AGF,WP:NPA, protocol was going on. I do apologise for inconviencing you with this matter, boss.Martial Law 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of the aforementioned reference, boss. Again, I apologise for inconviencing you at all with this matter, boss. Martial Law 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Been shown Wiki protocol concerning this matter( The non-wiki source). You may consider this matter settled, my complaint settled. I Apologise for this inconvience, boss. Martial Law 06:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

unblock the UAE

Perhaps you can help with this; Someone keeps on blocking entire IP ranges from the united arab emirates, failing to realise that when they block the IP ranges, which they have repeatedly labeled as being from an "open proxy", they block over 4 million people in the United Arab Emirates from editing wikipedia. for instance the IP address 213.42.2.25 is currently blocked. thanks for any help

I've unblocked this IP address as it appears to have been blocked in error. This IP is a source of a significant amount of vandalism, but valid edits also seem to come from it. However, given the amount of vandalism which comes from this IP, I expect it will be reblocked frequently. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy question about the Korean Misplaced Pages

Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Question: I suspect you will have a much better answer for this person than anyone else I can think of will. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

a friendly reminder for when you are dealing with other users

Jimbo please remember to use template tags when dealing with users especially when blocking. In the case of indefinitely blocked users the most appropriate tag for use is {{indefblockeduser}}, also please remember to subst: templates as well when using ones that are likely to be permanent or long term. Thanks. Jtkiefer ---- 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Account Deletion

I would like my account deleted please. My account is Pnikolov. Thank you. Pnikolov 05:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:*drew

Hi Jimbo. I've been reviewing *drew's contributions since you blocked him. It really looks like he made mistakes when he was a newbie, but has learned not to upload copyvio material. There are even some edits where he reverts others' copyright violations: , http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bhuj&diff=prev&oldid=26348550. He appears to be quite conscientious about tagging image uploads properly, as well. You said that he is banned "unless and until I am convinced you will not do this again." I am now convinced of this.

Of course, it is still necessary to root out the copyright violations that *drew committed before he learned not to. Hopefully he'll be able to help with that. But in my opinion, now that I have reviewed his (prolific) edits of the last couple of months, it would be perfectly safe to lift the ban. FreplySpang (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We now have a block/unblock war - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:.2Adrew. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary use of power privileges

There are two very important aspects that some Administrators continue to ignore them:

• the illegitimate use of Admin power for private purposes, (eg. gain position in debate talks)
• arbitrary use of power privileges

Again there has to be the rule of law rather then rule of rulers, there are some constraints of the arbitrary use of power, and has to be implemented the rule of law rather then rule of rulers.

I am against the arbitrary use of power privileges.-- Bonaparte talk 08:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but maybe it would be helpful if you provided examples? And perhaps start up an RFC instead of bothering Jimbo? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many examples and when the time comes I will provide them. But, for the time of speaking is important to state first the principles. I think that we should start a debate of the topic that I propose and only after that to draw out the conclusions. This is one of the pillons of the Misplaced Pages's principle of work. -- Bonaparte talk 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you don't need to state the principles. Everybody knows that admins must follow policy, to the extent that the poll I just linked to was taken as a joke. It is stated repeatedly. Just collect evidence in an appropriate place, such as a subpage of your user page. I assure you that I would watch the article and undelete it if necessary, protecting you from the supposed Wikipedian tyrant admins. r3m0t 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unless you can cite examples, this is just FUDding. Radiant_>|< 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:User Bill of Rights: because abuses are already creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt. (SEWilco 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
    • One more time, please provide evidence of these alleged abuses? Radiant_>|< 12:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

1.800.Vending

Jimbo, you have just placed a {{vprotect}} tag on this article, but didn't actually apply any protection to the page. Was this an oversight? Owen× ☎ 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I just realized this was a revert to your older version. However, since then the page apparently has been unprotected. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another appeal

Jimbo, I need to appeal again. The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year. While, as you know, I don't think highly of some of your decisions, I still feel you are more reasonable than the current arbitrators and I hope you will help me correct this situation. Everyking 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year.

What the arbitrators actually said:

The Arbitration Committee has amended its ruling in Everyking 3 to include the following provision:

Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Misplaced Pages. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.

Any adminstrator, other than Snowspinner, may enforce this provision. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The only way that the sentence ("The arbitrators are now looking to ban me for an entire year") makes any sense is if it's inevitable and unvoidable that Everyking is unable to stop hounding Snowspinner. Given comments like this and this, it may, in fact, be true. But whether Everyking gets banned is entirely his responsibility and not the arbitrator's. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never hounded him in the first place. What I've done is respond to, question, and sometimes criticize some of his more controversial administrative actions and ArbCom involvement. This "hounding" you speak of invariably refers to me responding to his hounding of others, including me. This is someone who basically serves a prosecutorial role for the ArbCom, most of whose activity on WP consists of hounding people. The claim that I am hounding him is comical. Everyking 06:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

...his hounding of others, including me... Explain this and this, then, as him hounding you. Explain why this was enacted, especially the above amendment. And finally, explain how ArbCom telling you, "Don't talk to or about Snowspinner" = "The arbitrators are now looking to ban for an entire year," and why, if you're not hounding Snowspinner, an order not to hound Snowspinner is either leading to your inevitable ban (as you imply) or such a horrible imposition on you personally. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Link 1 was an attempt to get him to respond to a question about an aspect of his problematic and abusive behavior and attitudes. Like 2 was me trying to defend an editor who had been banned by Snowspinner unilaterally, without any process. The ArbCom ruling was enacted because the ArbCom does not like me to criticize certain things, or to disrupt practices of administrative elitism, and always shows special favor to Snowspinner ("trust" as they call it). As for the last point, we both know that the ArbCom will count things that aren't truly hounding as hounding—if they didn't, the whole thing wouldn't be an issue, because I've never hounded him in any real sense. Everyking 07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"because I've never hounded him in any real sense" - I think at this point it's safe to conclude that reality has officially left the conversation. So you can believe Everyking's Rube Goldberg-esque explination of his actions; or the much simpler one - that any measures which allow admins to punish Everyking for harrassing Snowspinner is tantamount to permanently banning him from the project, because he is (almost by his own admission) utterly unable to keep his mouth shut. Raul654 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Usually, generally speaking, I will keep my mouth shut, because the stakes are relatively low, or because I haven't been provoked to an extreme degree, or because an atmosphere of severe antagonism hasn't developed. In life, as a rule, I believe in tolerance and acceptance of others, and I'm a very passive person. About as passive a person as you'd ever come across, actually. But on Misplaced Pages, you've got something extremely important—something I consider much more important than anything that goes on in my normal life, because it affects many more people on a much more important level, that of education and knowledge—and you've got a situation where I've been repeatedly provoked in all sorts of ways, to increasing degrees, with an ever-building atmosphere of antagonism that infects everyone, sadly including myself, and drags down civility. So, you know, I've been severely wronged, many times, I watch somebody wrong others on an almost daily basis, and there is no way to have any kind of reasonable discussion about any of it because the other person has such a severe, Spartan attitude about everything. And this builds and builds over the course of a year, and after a while, I suppose, it becomes utterly impossible to see things from the other side—that's why you've got Raul saying "reality has left the conversation" and my arguments are absurdly complicated, whereas to me it looks like it's Snowspinner and the ArbCom who are being unrealistic, and my own arguments seem rather simple and consistent. The obvious, logical answer to it all is some kind of reasonable discussion—but that requires some sort of politeness and kindness, some willingness to make concessions, which are things I've tried to do, but they've never been reciprocated. This is what I mean when I say the atmosphere gets progressively poisoned by bad attitudes. Everyking 08:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

...the atmosphere gets progressively poisoned by bad attitudes. Which is what ArbCom was saying was the effect of your constant knee-jerk sniping, but you seem to have ignored that. And to call hounding someone "not really hounding" someone means that, yes, reality has left the building. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside Comment

I have not researched what the original issue was between Everyking and Snowspinner and so cannot judge how this started. However, seeing how Everyking won't stop complaining about the unfairness of the ArbCom decision, it appears that he is doing a lower-intensity, but equally persistent, version of what got FuelWagon banned. FuelWagon would not stop complaining about how he had been wronged by SlimVirgin and Ed Poor. Everyking will not stop complaining about how Snowspinner is wrong and how he was wronged by the ArbCom.

Everyking: Your persistent appeals are making you into a vexatious litigant.

The more people clutter Jimbo's talk page with trivial appeals, the less time he will have to deal with real problems. Robert McClenon 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks. Radiant_>|< 22:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Over Security Risks On Misplaced Pages

I feel this template below is an important and integral part of the development of Misplaced Pages. As an important part of WP, would you please comment on the matter? The ongoing addition of information that may cause serious security risks to the safety of not only Wikipedians, but citizens of the non-digital world as well is an issue that needs to be addressed. PeterZed 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Security Risk

Oh lord. To save you some time, you should know that an example of a "serious security risk", as asserted by this self-proclaimed "security specialist, web designer, graphic artist" PeterZed (talk · contribs), includes the listing of the street address in the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. article, despite the fact that the Embassy itself does so at the top of its own home page.

You should take this guy's assertion of security expertise and what constitutes a "security risk" not with a grain of salt, but about pound-and-a-half.

Sorry to keep popping up like this, but I keep encountering new things when I go to check and possibly follow-up on old stuff. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(the above was overwritten by PeterZed (talk · contribs) with text below)

Mr. Wales,

Let me bring the following information to your immediate attention:

Template:Security Risk

Is it fair to say that the recent deletion and editing of this discussion page - specifically related to bringing to your attention certain security risks here on Misplaced Pages; and the ongoing controversy related to the deletion and vandalism of materials related to law enforcement and international security (Including Valérie Gignac, Mark Bourque, Template:Infobox Police Officer and Template:Security Risk) is an indication that this project may be spinning out of control? Having recently edited several articles (including (Animal Liberation Front - a known terrorist group) to bring necessary security-related information to your administrators attention, I found myself blocked temporarily from this site. What gives?
PeterZed 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV statement

Hi Jimbo, the following is from NPOV. Where did you first post it? Bensaccount 23:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

--Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages founder

Controversy Over Security Risks On Misplaced Pages

Mr. Wales,

Despite the fact that this information is continually being deleted/vandalized, let me once again bring the following information to your immediate attention:

Template:Security Risk

Is it fair to say that the recent deletion and editing of this discussion page - specifically related to bringing to your attention certain security risks here on Misplaced Pages; and the ongoing controversy related to the deletion and vandalism of materials related to law enforcement and international security (Including Valérie Gignac, Mark Bourque, Template:Infobox Police Officer and Template:Security Risk) is an indication that this project may be spinning out of control? Having recently edited several articles (including (Animal Liberation Front - a known terrorist group) to bring necessary security-related information to your administrators attention, I found myself blocked temporarily from this site. What gives?
PeterZed 06:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr Wales - Your comments, please...

"I am not supportive of your template." I am confused by this comment. Does that mean you are not supportive of the template in its current form and would advocate for its total exclusion or simply a modification? Or are you suggesting that the idea of allowing editors to flag certain articles as security risks be completely disallowed here on WP...How can we work together to clarify this issue and especially how can we ensure that administrators here on Misplaced Pages are capable of identifying information that may pose a risk to citizens outside the community of Wikipedians? Will you offer a vote on the issue in the appropriate section to satisfy both myself and the other Wikipedians who voted to either KEEP or DELETE this template? PeterZed 07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PeterZed, the vote was 44-1, not counting the admin who put the thing out of its misery with a speedy deletion -- with you being the sole KEEP vote -- so blathering about the other Wikipedians who voted to either KEEP or DELETE is nonsense: there were no "eithers". There are no two equal sides, there are no opposing groups: it's just you versus everyone else. There is no one to satisfy, no compromise to reach; trying the circumvent the utterly clear will of the editors is not going to work. --Calton | Talk 12:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Say it ain't so, Jimbo!

"The combination of ultra-low overheads and massive readership would excite any media executive. And while the site does not carry any advertising, Wales admits it might. "There is a great deal of resistance to the idea, both from the community and from me. But at some point questions are going to be raised over the amount of money we are turning down," he says."

I suspect you've been quoted out of context. I can't see us getting advertisements. Unless we are about to go under, I can't see that this will ever eventuate! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly hope so... but there are other sites out there that have gone from no ads at all to the most obnoxiously intrusive popups / popunders (gimmicked so they pop up even in browsers like Firefox that try to block them) overnight. *Dan T.* 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course if Misplaced Pages ever did that, we could just take a database dump, raise $100k for equipment, and create the "New Wiki Encyclopedia". Of course, it would be rather dumb if the First Great Fork was caused by something as lame as advertising. Dragons flight 16:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the story, not the headline. :-) I said to this reporter the same thing I have been saying to everyone for years. Nothing has changed. What I have been saying forever is that I think we will eventually, as a community, face the question of whether the amount of money we are turning down, and the amount of good we could do with that money towards our charitable mission, is worth more than our pride in being ad free. The way I like to put this is as follows: it is easy for us to sit in our safe Western wealthy nations with broadband internet connections and pat ourselves on the back for not having any ads, but if, for example, having some google-style ads on the search results page only could bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars per month, and that money could be used to bring Misplaced Pages to millions of people who currently have no access, I think that we, as a community, have to be serious and thoughtful about that decision.

Having said that, I personally remain opposed to having ads in Misplaced Pages. It's just that a serious NPOV discussion of the matter necessarily would involve us being really serious about what we are turning down and why.

This is exactly what I've been saying for years. If you know why the press likes to run inflammatory headlines every few days, well, please let me know. I find it all a bit baffling to be honest. A statement from me "I am personally opposed to having ads in Misplaced Pages" somehow becomes "Misplaced Pages chief considers taking ads". --Jimbo Wales 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know why they do that? Because Misplaced Pages is becoming an ever growing presence in the news media. More and more people turn to WP or WikiNews for their news. We can update things a lot faster than some news orginizations, so they try to take pot shots at us. That's as simple as I see it. Maybe I'm wrong. --LV 16:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As an addendum, notice how the press circulation rates have fallen off greatly in the face of the Internet revolution. They raise their prices, and people generally have a malaise when it comes to printed media, so people turn to us. The press can't really compete anymore, so they feel it necessary to try to hurt our reputation. And again, that's just the way I see it. --LV 17:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

LordV, I don't think they're out to get us. They're out to boost their own circulation/viewership because that determines what they can charge for ads -- and they do take ads. Mass media have been hyping stories since long before there was an Internet. "News" organizations need something new to report. "Misplaced Pages Didn't Take Any Ads This Month, Just Like the 58 Preceding Months" won't grab many readers and therefore won't sell much deodorant. JamesMLane 17:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I blogged about this, and did so in a pretty balanced way. There's a part of me that is glad that you've said this, and there's also a part of me that didn't really see it as practical. A lot has been said on this topic here already, but something I think is important hasn't been: Adding advertising probably wouldn't generate enough revenue to sustain the Misplaced Pages, and the NPOV issue - as you mention - wouldn't help. --TaranRampersad 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As we continue to grow in size and significance, Jimbo, you're going to have to be increasingly careful about your choice of words. There are many people out there who would be pleased to see the project fail, and have no compunction about giving the impression that we are in the process of executing that failure. – ClockworkSoul 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Wikimedia Foundation do the inverse of what Dragons flight suggests and create our own parallel Wiki that does take ads? Although there's no lack of imitators, we could still make (some of) the ad money while keeping the ad-free sanctity of Misplaced Pages. BDAbramson T 16:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know about Wikicities, right? Dragons flight 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe he means a non-editable mirror of Misplaced Pages. — Dan | talk 19:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities is essentially a licensing setup - the projects therein are not controlled by Wikimedia, and they may not compete with Wikimedia projects. I'm talking about a Misplaced Pages mirror that is editable, but in a very limited and controlled sense. BDAbramson T 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, the reason you are being misquoted/misunderstood on the ad question is pretty clear to me: for a couple of years, when it comes to the topic of ads, you have always stated in one short sentence that you and the community is opposed, and then you spend about four sentences explaining why ads might be a good idea. I suggest that in the future you turn it around and spend four sentence explaining why the community including you is opposed to ads, and then spend one short sentence on why they might be a good idea.

Incidentally, your argument for ads is not convincing: if we ever get our act together and produce anything worthy of distribution in poor countries, money won't be a problem; there are plenty of philanthropic foundations around which would be eager to fund such an enterprise, all it needs is a grant proposal. AxelBoldt 08:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

and all it needs is a volunteer to take care of the grant proposal :-) Same for looking for sponsors. Anthere 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the foundation paying someone to develop grant proposals? In any event, all this is a non-issue since we have nothing to distribute. AxelBoldt 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Axel, a lot of philanthropic enterprises are still not 'sold' on the Misplaced Pages, which is one of the reasons any time Jimmy says something we see it in the press. The Misplaced Pages is newsworthy, but some do not yet think it is trustworthy - and they have the money. And as far as distribution in poor countries - well, if they don't have internet access, that is the real problem and making a distribution that they cannot edit is something of questionable value. If they can't update and participate, we've reinvented the wheel. I looked down that path a year or two ago; I've been heavily involved with NGOs and even WSIS. At the core, infrastructure is needed more than Misplaced Pages in most places, and once the infrastructure is in place the Misplaced Pages can be 'distributed'. Thus, the same funding that these philanthropic and funding agencies would give toward it could be given now. And proposals? Just mail out the charter. :-)--TaranRampersad 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal-Attacks, Anti-US Bias of Misplaced Pages

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Misplaced Pages is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Misplaced Pages.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Misplaced Pages who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Misplaced Pages, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Misplaced Pages executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Misplaced Pages itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages *is* being blocked from some legal jurisdictions; they're called China.  :-) 64.12.116.69 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect many of the people who voted to delete your template are in fact Americans themselves; I think the reason for their votes is that they think your template was a bad idea, not that they are "anti-American". And if publishing the publicly-known addresses of embassies is a security risk, then I guess the phone company is un-American too. *Dan T.* 23:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have (hopefully temporarily) blocked User:PeterZed with the hope that he will acknowledge and respond to others' comments instead of posting increasingly inflammatory messages around Misplaced Pages. He can still edit his talk page and I will discuss this matter with him there. I would like to unblock him soon once we can get these issues straightened out. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Death threats? (Jimbo)

This was copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Death_threats.3F_.28Jimbo.29:

What's our policy on these?  Do we followup with the ISP?  Cops?

Here.

-- Curps 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zach 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's all that serious. I'm an international man of mystery who jets around the world drinking martinis like James Bond. It'll take something more than a twit who can't even figure out a caps lock key to kill me. ;-)--Jimbo Wales 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ya... but we do get concerned when people do this. I know I do! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Marsden

With this, can we consider Marsden banned? Because a few people are still disputing it.--Sean|Black 00:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Relevant discussion being under "Marsden" and "Marsden Redux" on WP:ANI. Rd232 08:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Quoting the conclusion of my comment on WP:ANI (diff): "Perhaps you could suggest some changes to Misplaced Pages:banning policy to help clarify these kinds of situation in future." Regards, Rd232 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Zoe and Fplay

Zoe blocked Fplay. Emact put this report on WP:AN/I but the boys were not interest in the facts and other admins immediately yanked it as if they are afraid of the truth, or something.

Let's examine Zoe's actions in more detail, the way Fplay would examine the fairness of the process. Fplay was running a program in an attempt to address a specific but minor problem. Just as his program finished...

...

1. 23:03, 30 December 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zigkill (Fplay robot: Touch for page name update) (top)
2. 23:03, 30 December 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zoney/Welcome (Fplay robot: Touch for page name update) (top)
3. 23:04, 30 December 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zuckowski (Fplay robot: Touch for page name update) (top)
4. 23:04, 30 December 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zuytdorp Survivor (Fplay robot: Touch for page name update) (top)
5. 23:04, 30 December 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zz (Fplay robot: Touch for page name update) (top)

Msg to Fplay: What are you doing? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

1. 23:04, 30 December 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fplay ("Fplay robot: Touch for page name update")

1. 23:05, 30 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (User:Fplay blocked)

Msg to Fplay: If you can explain to my satisfaction what you're doing, and why you're not doing it with minor edits, I'll unblock you. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So clearly, Zoe either, by coincidence put her infinite block in moments after the "bot" hit "Z", or she deliberately waited for some reason. Apparently, she gave Fplay 60 seconds to reply and then used her priviledges to block him forever. That was not a serious attempt at dialog. Why she did not wait longer? Did she fail to recognize that the robot had ceased or did she deliberately wait? She was certainly aware that it was doing no meaningful harm (and let us not waste our human bandwidth arguing about "system resources"). By her own admission, she knew for certain that there was no danger and she was able to recognize that the edits were minor.

Did Zoe know that the "robot" was finished before sending her first message? It seems as if she should have.

Is 60 seconds a serious effort at dialog?

What is Zoe waiting for? She should unblock Fplay immediately. That is, unless the problem goes beyond the simple facts of the matter. -- Emact 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Background for this issue: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fplay. Also of note is this edit. --cesarb 05:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And more of the same...

It seems that Sean Black, the one who destroyed the record seconds after it was introduced to WP:AN/I has, like a broken record, stepped up and blocked Emact w/o any dialog. Some of the admins need some re-training on time-delaying their own discreationary actions. -- 69.236.110.143 05:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

if you have a problem with my actions or contribs, please leave a message at my talk page. No-one has undone the block, nor do I expect them to. A note that This user is probably the same as Fplay (talk · contribs) and Emact (talk · contribs). Related to the stuff at WP:AN that CesarB posted above. Sorry about setting off your new message bar, I'm sure you have more important things to do.--Sean|Black 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo: Did you ever watch that movie The Killing Fields (film)? Do you remember how despirate the Khmer Rouge to find out who the experts were? There were just a lot of young, well-armed and trigger happy people in charge. It is just like in the Cultural Revolution in China. The experts just did not do very well in that environment and it was very, very difficult to to entice them back later. Look at the logic on WP:AN/I . Despirate attempts to avoid the obivous: "Zoe was wrong and will not admit it". Especially not in the log itself. Every Galahad will fall all over themselves to shield her from examination. A rather familiar story, don't you think? Perhaps you should find out what she did when and what she knew when. And what happened when a dialog was occuring? She just walked away, leaving the account stuck. It seems that on WP:AN/I, any lack of subordination (which, of course, does not any brains) to these abrupt displays of authority is transformed through some kind of new-speak into "vandalism". Eastern Europe an Russia. And of course, references to people's psychiatric problems. Sounds very familiar many politicians who came in second place in Eastern Europe. And you wonder why you are forced to acknowledge your quality problems. You are reaping the fruits of this recognizable tradition: mediocrity. -- 68.122.124.33 07:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing me, Android79, SCZenz and Zoe to Cultural Revolutionaries? You've lost it, dude.--Sean|Black 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Fplay/Emact has a serious problem with women, considering the explanation on Emact's User page as to what his name means, and his repeated referring to me as "of a certain demographic", and then the references to "Galahad" above. User:Zoe| 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, all it would take for the Fplay account to get unblocked would be for him to state on his Talk page, "I have stopped running the bot, and won't run it again without getting permission on the bots page". And the claim that the bot was finished is proven wrong by looking at the Block log, which shows two more edit attempts made after I instituted the block. User:Zoe| 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Brandy Alexandre (porn star) edits

I have spent several hours doing research to source and properly cite the Brandy Alexandre (porn star) article.

As you correctly said on the article talk page yesterday, it was almost completely uncited. Although a good deal of Misplaced Pages's articles are similarly uncited, that does not excuse the deficiencies of the article (especially given a direct complaint by SavvyCat).

I have included a detailed description of my work on the article talk page. Given that both you and SavvyCat were directly involved in the removal of much of the content there yesterday, I felt a courtesy notice of my work and edits was a good idea. I have included an almost identical note to this one on SavvyCat's talk page as well.

Thanks, --Krich (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal appeal

You forgot to write it first before making a link !

Nah just joking.

The problem is you've linked to "Peronal appeal" instead of "Personal appeal". ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion / request from a relative newbie (I joined 6 months ago, but have had limited time to contribute) ... some place easy for folks to find, give an address to which donations can be sent via snail mail.

I have had a personal aversion to using credit card on Internet due to security qualms.

A few months ago I managed to screw up my credit card debt due to a combination of personal procrastination and the credit card companies off-shoring their customer service to personnel who not have a good grasp of key nuances, in consequence of which when my credit cards expired, they did not send me replacement ones ... I have been operating for the last few months with checking account, cash, and finding out where traveler's checks no longer accepted.

User:AlMac| 19:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I found it. I must be blind as a bat today. Not a good start to my end month end year work day (which will last 2 days). User:AlMac| 20:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re personal appeal: we're entering our sixth year, not our fifth. Pages that can't be edited are really irritating. AxelBoldt 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed that, thanks for the heads-up Axel. Dan100 (Talk) 09:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Big mess with userboxes

We've got a war currently brewing on Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin. Firebug 01:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would venture to say "raging", not brewing. —Cryptic (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

File:Jimbo the Woman.png

I took ages to photo manipulate this picture to put on your funny pics userpage, then all the sudden without notifying me or anything, it has been there for months - until some nasty admin just deletes it! Some admin just go and delete my pic at the press of the button and gone!... all my previous time. This is admin abuse... Some admins feel like power and do whatever at well, I do not believe that Misplaced Pages should be plutocracy. Squash 02:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, not all admins follow policy dictated by wikipedia and utilize their administrative capabilities in good faith. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats in the future?

Hey Jimmy: First of all, Happy New Year 2006, may you get everything you wish for and your loved ones too.

I need to ask you, what will happen if we don't reach the amount needed by January 6? Will wikipedia go down?

Let me know ASAP, please.

Thank you, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Wikiworried Martin

If the situation was that desperate, I'm pretty sure there would be contingency plans. Remember that there's always the escape valve of advertising: while it's extremely unpopular, if it comes down to Jimbo looking at the accounts and seeing that either he puts up Google text ads or shuts down Misplaced Pages, I think the outcome will be fairly obvious.

In all probability, Wikimedia has enough money stored up to keep running Misplaced Pages for a month or two at least. Fundraising targets are generally ploys to get people to donate more rather than actual statements of bare necessity. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2 questions

• Why not record your voice for your personal appeal message? Some articles can be listened to, so should be your appeal.
• Have you any plans to have a kind of lecture at a Russian university? I would suggest South Ural State University, which is one of the 10 largest in Russia (among > 90).

Thanks, Anthony Ivanoff 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Misplaced Pages policy

Hello Mr. Wales: First time I am writing to you directly in my three years on the good ship Misplaced Pages! Finally, a discussion of possible policy changes has begun in an area close to my heart. Please see Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Misplaced Pages policy. I have posted all sixteen points formulated by myself and User:SlimVirgin. Thank you for your input and help. Best wishes for a Happy and Prosperous 2006! IZAK 13:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion. IZAK, I don't think you ever got back to me on adopting the Hebrew Misplaced Pages's model (if you did, my apologies). El_C 13:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No intrusion at all. I did not get into it. Could you please, for everyone's benefit, present a summary of it at the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks. IZAK 13:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, see here. El_C 13:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox situation

The infobox situation needs immediate attention. Not only has it created significant strife on Misplaced Pages, but this has degenerated into blocking wars. At least two administrators (User:Cryptic and User:Snowspinner) have blocked users for protesting against the mass deletions of userboxes - a clear violation of WP:BP. I strongly suggest that User:Kelly Martin be removed from the Arbitration Committee pending further evaluation of her actions, which were a clear and blatant violation of community consensus and for which she has shown no remorse. Firebug 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Misplaced Pages

Until such time as administrators are required to exhibit at least a modicum of respect for Misplaced Pages guidelines, I am leaving the project. It was great while it lasted, but I will not work under conditions where I am subject to the whims of anyone who happened to pass a RFA at some point, with no restraints on their behavior whatsoever. Contact me at mapperlord<at>yahoo.com if you must. Firebug 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Kelly Martin controversy

Dear Mr. Wales,

I would like to second, and further urge you, as Firebug did earlier, to rescind Kelly Martin's admin status and Arbitration Committee status here on Misplaced Pages. There is no doubt in my mind that she will simply wait for the fuss to die down over political userboxes (especially those that she disagrees with) and then do her mass-deletion process. Many Wikipedians are in strong consensus that Ms. Martin is abusing her powers and is therefore no longer a strong asset to Misplaced Pages.

Happy New Year,
CJ Marsicano 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'd avise treading with caution. "Strong consensus" is hardly true, if you look at Misplaced Pages:RFC/KM... consensus perhaps, but not an overwhleming one. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, IMO, seems to be growing stronger. --Cjmarsicano 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a general view that what Kelly has been doing is quite out of line, but she does seem to have some minority support. That said, I feel that such unilateral, controversial actions, combined with the opinion she summed up by saying "screw process", is very unsuitable for an admin, and even moreso for an arbitrator. Consensus and process are what keep this place functional; we can't have powerful users rejecting them and using the special powers that have been entrusted to them to undermine our processes. Everyking 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Burn her! Burn her!"... oh sorry, I thought we were doing a Monty Python sketch.
Kelly did something which probably should have been discussed first. People objected and reversed what she did. Kelly talked to people about it. There were some unfriendly things said all around. End of story. No great abuse of powers. Anyone want a popsicle? --CBD _☎ 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather have a Kellywich, with habanero seasoning please. ; --Cjmarsicano 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a gross understatement of what's really going on, CBDunkerson. -- Миборовский 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing is Kelly didn't talk about it after. Even in the RfC she said she would continue. She shows no remorce, and is still highly uncivil in current discussion. I feel not one ounce of trust in her, since she stll attempts to dictate what is done. I understand I am bias, founding the WikiProject and all, but still, an admin going around threatening people, and forcing (so far 2) people to leave the WikiProject is hardly responsible. Admins should be at service to the community, and undertake tasks for it as responsible members, not to dictate what the community should do, admins should be treated with no higher status in my opinion. Ian_ID:540053 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think at this point we're unlikely to get a reform in this area; I don't even know if Jimbo will read any of this, much less consider it. We've basically got a class of empowered users who we have to work around in order to create an encyclopedia and function as a community; we have to do these things in spite of these users. It is sad that Misplaced Pages is so egalitarian as its core, yet we have no real way to remedy this situation, at least not yet. Everyking 13:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Removeing adminship is a matter for arbcom and perhaps the stewards anyway. I don't think we have a process for removeing people from arbcom other than not voteing for them at the next election.Geni 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has the legal authority to regulate virtually all aspects of Misplaced Pages's functioning. They could, at their discretion, remove any member of the ArbCom. I suspect that the Board would be unlikely to get involved unless there was broad agreement in the community that an Arbitrator needed to be removed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Everyone Who Is Not Kelly Martin Controversy

Dear Mr. Wales,

I would like to second, and further urge you, as I don't think anybody else did earlier, to just declare Kelly in charge of everything, because she demonstrates common sense and a good head. There is no doubt in my mind that she will continue to hold to what is sensible and good for Misplaced Pages no matter how many malcontents criticize her and try to stack RfCs against her. Many Wikipedians are in strong consensus that Ms. Martin totally rocks and should just be in charge of everything..

Happy New Year,
Phil Sandifer 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think Kelly would do well at that. But I also think users like the idea that their opinion matters on Misplaced Pages, and our users being happy helps our mission; that's why a little bit of live and let live seems to be in order. -- SCZenz 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Mythical Man-Month

Dear Sir,

I suggest that when your time permits, you read this book. I believe there are lessons there in project management which can be applied to improving Wiki dispute resolution. I am also thankful that you are a parent, because it gives you relevant experience in dealing with your loyal fans who sometimes behave a little like children, when we disagree with each other.

My comments inspired by the fight that started with userboxes, illuminating many other problems. Eliminating the suerboxes will not eliminate all the related problems. But I believe all the problems can be solved, the community re-united with new year's resolution to benefit Wiki, and that ideas within The Mythical Man-Month can inspire this resolution. User:AlMac| 09:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I need help

Is Misplaced Pages related to Wikimedia, or are they two different links? Whopper 03:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit corporation that owns and operates Misplaced Pages and its sister projects. —Guanaco 05:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved by donation writing

I was really moved by your personal appeal for donations, and wanted to thank you for writing it. The last portion was especially moving - I have always loved Misplaced Pages, and always known that it was special, but when I read what you wrote about sharing knowledge throughout the world, I truly realized what an awesome thing it is, and what it can do for the world. I'm sure that like myself, many people will be touched by your words and donate. Thanks. -- Natalya 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Paypal?!?! http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/ They're lucky paypal hasn't frozen their account. All this money coming in. Paypal loves to take people's money. http://www.paypalwarning.com Oh and with paypal's fees, it's getting a 5% cut on the donation commission, especially since the average size is $20-30 -- that gets the highest % from paypal. Imagine someone donating less than 30 cents! That takes money away from an account because paypal's fees overlap it. At least they use moneybookers, where the person sending money pays. That $2 million is all wikipedia's. Hmm... what's "CafePress Commis" Resembled "Commi's"? Who made that abbreviation?

Odd, a lot is coming from Japan. The land of kancho. (and yes, there's an article for that, too.) DyslexicEditor 12:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikidating

Since we obviously need a steady cash flow to supplement fundraising, why not setup Wikidating? It would of course have advertising. An online dating service based on Wikimedia software; with Portals for cities etc. - RoyBoy 07:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I just look on the bulletin board in my neighborhood Wikisnackshop, where everyone can brew a custom cup of coffee. (SEWilco 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Proposal to ban intellectuals

There is a proposal to ban users from contributing to articles in the Wikepedia for areas in which they have published. At least one Arbitrator has formally proposed that a current Misplaced Pages user now be subject to such a ban. What do you think?

I doubt anyone is saying this seriously. I'm guessing that the point here is that we don't treat experts well, or well enough. That goes along with our anti-elitist philosophy, but I think it's the right philosophy, with logical limits, of course. I think we have to be careful, on the one hand, to embrace experts in general, while at the same time preventing them from ruling dictatorially over content. It's important to note that experts are not necessarily going to be any more neutral than the average person. They may be highly informed and they may highly favor one point of view (and in holding these points of view they may, of course, be quite right—or quite wrong), so you don't want to abrogate NPOV in favor of expertise. But you don't want to reject expertise in favor of NPOV, as if the two can't co-exist, either. Basically, they should be treated about like anyone else: let them contribute, let them cite their contributions, and let them participate in discussions on an equal footing. We have to rely on the process to eventually favor the people who are right, and if those people are experts, then experts should be generally favored by the process. Everyking 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The following question is being addressed in the current arbitation :

• Will the Misplaced Pages, de facto, adopt the policy that Misplaced Pages editors are banned from contributing to articles for subjects on which the editors have published outside of the Misplaced Pages?

Regards,--Carl Hewitt 12:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the Arbitrators has stated that the above stated policy is a "guideline" for the Misplaced Pages.--Carl Hewitt 00:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

CarlHewitt has misunderstood a (proposed) arbitration remedy applying specifically to him and his behaviour has being a general policy proposal. Existing practice (flowing partly from WP:AUTO and related policies and partly from common sense) is to bar editors from articles about themselves and their work if they cannot contribute constructively and cooperatively. I–and many other editors–contribute quite successfully and with a minimum of fuss in areas where I have published; I don't see that changing any time soon.

I hope that clears up any confusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The question on the table is as follows:

... should people be allowed to document their own work in Wikipeida at all? Commenting on the talk page and draft proposed updates to articles in their user space could (and probably should) still be permitted, but the outright edits in the article space should be left to others who at least in theory would form a community having a more reasonable POV.

Regards,--Carl Hewitt 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; I missed that proposal. That said, the proposal has not seemed to draw much support, and it was presented by one of the parties to arbitration rather than by any of the arbitrators. The only restriction that seems likely to garner acceptance is an affirmation of a much narrower restriction as I described above—editors who fail to edit contructively and cooperatively (even when writing in areas of personal expertise) can be barred from participation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a flat ban on people editing things about which they have direct involvement is a bad idea, as it would cut out many of the people with the most knowledge about, and motivation to edit, the things in question. However, if they show inability to stick to NPOV and NOR, some individual sanctions might be in order. *Dan T.* 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds right; it also seems to be pretty close to existing practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to evolve Misplaced Pages:Autobiography to clarify these points?

I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography#Not_banning_intellectuals.

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Carl Hewitt is the subject of an active arbitration (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt); no one is proposing that intellectuals be banned; rather, the proposal is that Carl be banned, for being generally disruptive. It seems that the above is an example of the kind of disruption and confusion that Carl likes to spread. linas 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

CAT:NS is now down to 350 images!

A few months ago, you asked us to clear out the backlog in the unsourced and unlicesed image categories. At that point, the no source category had 12,000+ images in it. As of now it has ~350. Job done, I think. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Make that 151. Also what I encountered frequently is that the uploader cited their source later, but didn't remove the nosource tag. We should make it clearer that if the tag shows up on an image one downloads, one should remove it after satisfying the requirements, but not if it the license is disputed. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User page?

Wasn't your page a brownish color for a while? You like blue any? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "Personal Appeal"

You're not getting any of my money if you don't tone down the religious zealots who go after every islamic-related article and POV war while the admins stand by whistling. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs)

WMF files

I'm sure your not who I'm supposed to talk to about this, as I couldn't find the appropriate technical venu, so I'll just post it here, and hope that someone notices. Commons accepts uploads of WMF files masquerading as OGG files, which might make wikipedia a vector for windows trojans/worms using the 2005 WMF vulnerability ( wikinews, comments ). JeffBurdges 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

About the Personal Appeal

Beatifull words, I would like to donate but abusive things like these show that Misplaced Pages isn't a right place to invest. That is. --Dungeon Siege 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Sandbox

See the section titled "These are the voyages..." what do you think? This is the raw table, I havent started beultifying it. --Cool Cat 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo - Your name is being taken in vain

Jimbo, I assume that you yourself are keeping up with the userbox mess. However, in the major arena of mudslinging over the conflict, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin, your name is continually being taken in vain - by both sides - and things you said are being twisted - again by both sides - to mean absolutely anything. It's painful to watch the community bicker over 50 words you may have written or spoken, and as much as I know you like to stay out of these things, i think its time to find out the Original intent of your words. Before one of these users slits another's throat. --CastAStone 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. if you are going to speak, i suggest you run a find search on your name on the RFC to see just how broadly you are being invoked.--CastAStone 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006

There have been concerns regarding the open vote style proposed for the coming elections. I myself have concerns (and evidence for them) that there will be retaliation, cliquism, and bad blood resulting from an open vote that would not occur if the vote were conducted anonymously. If the voting software used last year is inconveniant, perhaps we could vote by email, by IP proxy, or some other anonymous scheme.

To give you a personal example, I recieved 92 votes last year, despite the fact that I asked supporters to retract their endorsements, due to personal attacks and harassment against them. I don't mind putting myself thru all of that, but how can I ask every one of my voters to do so? There is a reason why since its invention, the process of voting has nearly always been conducted anonymously. I urge you to provide a secret ballot. Sam Spade 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi sam, I do appreciate those concerns. But here's an interesting counter-argument: we conduct admin elections openly and publicly and they don't generate much animosity in the end. My suspicion is that it won't be so bad, outside of a few trolls who will thereby reveal themselves quite thoroughly to be trolls. Legitimate complaints can be stated and heard and responded to, etc. I hope it goes well. And if it doesn't, well, we can always go back to the secret ballot method.--Jimbo Wales 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've long thought that there's serious problems with the RFA process, and talked with plenty who share my sentiments. Aside from the fact that voting is evil (since the same is true for secret ballots), and that it discourages true discussion towards consensus, by quarantining names-next-to-numbers in their own sections. The fact is that trolls have derailed a few worthy nominations, that more than a few nominees have left Misplaced Pages after the ordeal of a nomination, and that even well-intentioned editors, when faced with a situation where they have not just the facts, but a current vote, are often swayed to pile-on. When you have public RFAs that are votes, so that the determined troll or POV-pusher can affect the vote-count despite having a poorly reasoned argument, or none at all. It's a grreat way to take a potshot at another, and generally create a poisonous atmosphere. Especially considering our rising factions, vote-soliciting (even oppose-votes from POV-motivated voters) is only going to increase. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this though, is to read through one of the most disastrous failed RFAs in recent memory, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor, which is full of blatant Islamophobia, trolling, sockpuppeting, vote-soliciting, and even piling-on by good editors. Interestingly, Anonymous editor is currently on RFA heading to be one of the most successful candidates ever (and was certainly worthy back then). Plenty of other candidacies have been plagued by pile-ons (especially some unnecessarily overwhelmingly successful ones, too). These are not necessarily reasons to throw out the process, but I think statements like "they don't generate much animosity in the end" should be approached with caution. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I go further in saying the RfA process is terrible and should be thrown out, but I also acknowledge Jimbo's point, and concede its a rather late hour for changing the voting procedure this month. Lets hope all goes well, and lets rethink the RfA process, shall we? Thanks for your reply, and your 💕, Jimbo! Sam Spade 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are also bureaucrats on the other side that can choose to discount the POV pushers and trolls if they feel consensus is on the other side, whereas in this election we're looking at you have to get 50% to move on. In addition to that, The ArbCom is more important than an admin IMO. I am of the opinion that we should have a secret vote and then you can approve all candidates that have a certain threshhold, however I understand it may be too late to do so. So my famous last words before I get slaughtered will be: It's been nice knowing you, Jimbo. —Ilyanep (Talk) 16:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Marsden (2)

In the interest of (dis)closure, I would like to redirect to you my (failed) arbitration request in case you haven't spotted it the first time. My particular grievances are with the hush-hush of Marsden's original blocking and the subsequent conduct by certain parties. I welcome any feedback. In order to prevent such a thing happening in the future you might decree a limit to block durations in absence of ArbCom decisions, except in cases of obvious vandalism, because the ban reduction to one month done by dissident administrators here was very reasonable from the way I looked at it. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia? Yeah, right.

We're here to build an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin has effectively already split most, if not all, active users in half; deletion and block wars have taken place; and civility is at an all-time low on both the RFC and its corresponding talk page. This does not help build an encyclopedia. While most agree that we don't want you to come in and stop this RFC with a dictate, we agree - both sides - that you should perhaps give an opinion. I expect your opinion to be twisted by both sides to suit them, but if you could provide a neutral opinion on this matter it would go a long way to help everything and everyone settle down and cool off. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin may have acted recklessly, but her action was taken because the purpose of the project is to build an encyclopedia. The userboxes were dividing Misplaced Pages into factions. The factionalism was a major factor in the incivility. Kelly Martin wound up directing much of the anger of people on various sides onto her. I agree that Jimbo needs to review this controversy. I would urge him to address the disease of the factions, of which the userboxes were a symptom. Robert McClenon 12:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He's likely not listening, apparently he's too busy right now asking for money, and ultimately, any unilateral actions by him will just make things worse anyway. karmafist 15:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm listening. Quietly listening, reflecting, trying to understand everyone's perspective and find a way forward which is mutually pleasing to all of us. It is better (for all of us) to think first, quietly and with respect for others in our hearts, before speaking too quickly.--Jimbo Wales 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree--those are the principles behind my recent refactoring. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The RFC have now restarted (?), a quote from User:Philwelch:

I've decided to archive the original RfC and attempt a refactoring of sorts. The original RfC produced a result of approximately 150 votes of censure and 50 votes of support, but the voting had become confused and split into multiple sections. This is a controlled attempt at trying to glean out the genuine complaints and concerns of those involved while filtering out vitriol and incivility. To this end, I'm formatting it differently from a regular RfC. For one thing, *there will be no endorsements or "me-too" signatures*. Do not add outside views.

Those aren't entirely my words, they've been edited by others. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't the way to go, but you might want to comment.

This quote from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 I think summarize the problem at the moment :

Snowspinner and Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) (their two current rfcs are fairly connected) are just a symptom of a bigger problem: Our policies and guidelines have lost virtually all their meaning, largely due to the lack of transparency or process towards forming them, reforming them or annulling them. Due to that void, a Wild West atmosphere arises where people feel like they need to act in an extreme nature in order to have a hand in improving Misplaced Pages's internal workings.

_→AzaToth 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And now Mr Sidaway has taken it upon himself to do exactly what Ms Martin did. Mr Wales, these actions have already split apart Misplaced Pages far more than some petty userboxes ever could. I hope you take the right action. -- Миборовский 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• t's not so much the pretty little box that makes these userboxes so toxic, it's the ease of adding the box, which adds the editor in question to a category that we know will be abused by POV-pushers, because it already has been. This isn't about stopping people having a "bumper sticker" on their user pages, it's about stopping the category system being abused to destroy the neurality policy. El_C 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue has absolutely nothing to do w userboxes, and everything to do w admins who ignore all rules in a demeaning manner. Both Kelly and Snowspinner have something in common with Ed Poor in that they bend the rules. What they do not have in common w Ed Poor is his humble, agreeable manner. A number of Kelly Martin's statements have gone over very badly, and its become rather a P.R. trainwreck. I think this sums the matter up well. Sam Spade 13:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Absolutely nothing" may possibly be just a tad bit of an overstatment. Sadly, unlike the recently neglected (but lovable!) WP:ENC. Which brings us full circle to the pressing question at hand: so, once I become a member, where do pick up vote for my free drugs? El_C 14:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistical Information Request

Would it be possible for someone to cite an authoritative or reliable source for current Misplaced Pages usage statistics. In particular I am trying to find hard numbers (or good approximations) for visits per day and for page requests per day in all languages and in the English language. The tables available through en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/ provide no data on these numbers after October 2004. The graphs available through reqstats are really nifty, lots of colors, and are possibly indecipherable with regard to the statistics I am trying to find. I know that the Misplaced Pages is doing very well with regard to the Alexa rankings. I don't much care about that since that's comparative. I am far more impressed by what the Misplaced Pages appears to be in its own self, so to speak. Thank you and sorry for the intrusion; I did not know where else to post this request. Marcopolo 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Robsmommy

Dear Jimmy,

I only wanted to post a 'Thank You!' from my family for creating such a tremendous educational resource. I am quite wide-eyed however on viewing some of the other postings. Take care. We think Misplaced Pages is great. Robsmommy 19:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Be on guard, Rob, your mother is here... :) Who's next? MegamanZerosmommy..? I hope not... Welcome to wikipedia, ma'am. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You must take action

Hello Jimbo,

I guess this isn't exactly news to you (or anyone for that matter) but try as one might it is very hard to write and maintain an article on a neutral outlook when the subject at hand is politically charged as for example the Holocaust is. Take the German site for example where this problem is rampant. I have seen people try to introduce into the Holocaust article the important legal fact that it is a felony to deny the Holocaust in Germany with a reference to the legislation in question (Article 130(3) of the German Penal Code). A team of individuals with adminstrative accounts deleted the information each and every time, over and over. Even though some may find it embarassing that not everybody readily believes in the Holocaust and that therefore legal protection against attempts to debunk the Holocaust is required, a wikipedia article must never be a "temple" or "monument" to any subject at hand but a factual summary of the most pertinent information.

In connection with this, Misplaced Pages articles on certain revisionists of history, especially holocaust revisionists are written in a manner and employ a terminology that is disrespectful and insulting. Take the articles on researchers like Fred Leuchter or Ernst Zundel and you will find these people insulted as "Neonazis". They are not. Few if any of the revisionists crave for a socialist regime and many abhor nationalism for the same reason and yet the epiphet is slapped on them. Attempts to correct the articles accordingly are met with the same kind of religious fervor displayed by the group dedicated to the maintenance of Cuba's Maximo Lider Fidel Castro's image on Misplaced Pages (This has been reported in the media).

I could go on and fill this page with hundreds of examples more of the abuse that is hurled against people with unpopular opinion. None of that abuse belongs into a Misplaced Pages. The responsibilty to stop that falls squarely on your shoulders, Jimbo. You must take action. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.160.206.115 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo generally doesn't take direct action on things like this. There are community processes that handle this sort of thing. If you have a problem with a specific user's actions, I suggest you register and then start up an RFC. If that doesn't go that way, you can put in a request for arbitration. Of course, if everyone is really as biased as you say, you'll fail on both, but if that's the case there's not really any hope for the matter. It's not like Jimbo is going to personally police every Holocaust-related page. Especially not in German, which he only has a basic knowledge of according to his user page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Holocaust revisionism" = Holocaust denial --Mistress Selina Kyle 09:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-blog/copyright laws

I am thinking about starting a weblog full of articles deleted from Misplaced Pages. Would there be any copyright law complications?Canadianism 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you copy content from Misplaced Pages, you must link to the edit history and note that it's licensed under the GFDL (with a link to that). Be aware that deleted pages have edit histories inaccessible to most people, so if you want to copy over a deleted page, you must copy and link to its edit history as well. Other than that, it's absolutely fine. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to respond to this?

(moved from Talk:Jimmy Wales):

www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html?c=on: It's really the reason why I'm not donating. On other web page articles, they mention that if you complain about the behavior of a wikipedia admin you get banned -- they gave the name Ed Poor a lot for this. Tempoo 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true too. See the top of my talk page -_- User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

I want to point out that it isn't just a matter of being an admin: I'm an admin who has suffered some pretty severe sanctions for complaining about the behavior of other admins. The point is correct, but the elite circle is much smaller than just admins in general. It saddens me to read the observations on that site you link, to see how widespread the awareness of the problem is and yet how little we are doing to fix it. We need policy, process, and reliance on the community—we do not need the dictates of a small circle of admins. I have stayed at Misplaced Pages, and I intend to continue to stay, in part because I believe we will iron out this problem, like all our other problems, past and present, but I must say it is discouraging to see how little progress is being made. Everyking 09:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That linked article is just another of the dime-a-dozen anti-Misplaced Pages whines and rants that are proliferating these days, usually just sour-grapes from people whose trolling wasn't accepted here. In this particular case, there's even some ugly anti-Semitism, in the comment posted in the discussion there to the effect that "American Jews" control Misplaced Pages. *Dan T.* 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah, some real nazi freaks there. Really surprising to see posts from fascists on an "independent news" site that's against stuff like that, or supposed to be: But most of the other posts are pretty relevant. --Mistress Selina Kyle 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is over-the-top, but it certainly strikes a chord. I went to a pretty rough middle school, but the amount of misbehavior, cliquism, abuse and degrading treatment that goes on here is a good deal worse. The problem is the power structure, and the method whereby powers are given out. If you fix RfA, it would go a long way. We need an apprenticeship program, not a popularity contest. I'm not alone in my concerns about RfA btw, see this mailing list thread. Sam Spade 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all too true. It's all very well saying "it's not a democracy", but when it isn't, you empower antidemocrats. Never a great idea in any community. You end up with far too many people who are doing little more than thrashing other people. Has it helped build an encyclopaedia? It depresses me to see that you think so, but I think you abandoned the ideal a long time ago. Pity, it was a great vision. -- Grace Note.

Anon user still creating new pages

I'm not sure where to put this, but I'll try here. We have an anon user going round creating new short-stub articles on cricketers on talk pages - as the article page does not exist he cannot create them in the main article namespace. (This user also goes round adding spurious claims that various people are vegans and various non-cricketers have played cricket - so it's all rather odd as to why he doesn't create an account, join WP:Cricket and cut out the vandalism.) Could the functionality that doesn't allow anons to create articles be extended so that they can't create talk pages (or at least can't create talk pages where the article does not exist)? jguk 12:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish you made a quiet inquery to a dev and not such a public post -_-' --Cool Cat 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of anons point out errors by posting on talk pages, they probably wouldn't bother signing up and are likely too timid to edit the main page. Kappa 14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not on the talk pages of articles that don't yet exist, they don't! jguk 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that anons should not be allowed to create talk pages for nonexistent articles. I'm moving this discussion to the village pump. Please make further comments there. --TantalumTelluride 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales/These are the voyages...

All done, some information (such as the first few trips also a "vacation" which I presumed was on earth :P) was missing so I couldn't complete those parts. If you could complete those parts it will be nicer IMHO. Neways hope you like it. I haven't added your 2006 plans to it as I am not sure how much it is going to change. --Cool Cat 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

New user

This is the best website ever,witout it i would spend hours searching for information on other sites with no luck. Keep up the good work:)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolololo (talk • contribs)

Moved from your User Page  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A New Idea for an Interactive Flow Chart for Misplaced Pages

Jimbo, take a look at this flow chart image someone uploaded to Misplaced Pages: I think it would be tremendous if a flow chart capability could be programmed in Misplaced Pages --one that everyone could edit. What do you think? RJII 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There may need to be a policy on how much stuff is legitimate to put one place in it, so as to avoid server load, and be reasonable for human brain to absorb. User:AlMac| 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Average End Quality Hypothesis

Hi Jimbo. I've developed a simple mathematical model for the rate of improvement of article quality, and drew a few conclusions from it. You might want to take a look: User:Nikodemos#Average End Quality Hypothesis

Of course, it's just a hypothesis for now, but there is a way to test it, as I explained in the last paragraph over on my user page. I'm hoping to initiate such a test (in the form of a survey) sooner or later. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ludicrous. Your proposition contravenes the whole philosophy of Misplaced Pages. Instead of the judgement of quality coming from individuals, that judgement would come from a board of elites that would close an article from further editing when they decreed it to be good in their eyes. Take your information fascism somewhere else. RJII 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo is more than capable of reading a short essay for himself and making up his own mind, even if you apparently disagree. If you dislike my conclusions, then please point out the flaw in my reasoning, as opposed to simply dismissing it for dogmatic reasons. Note that I am proposing a change that would only affect featured articles, which together make up less than 0.001 of wikipedia. Also note that my hypothesis can be either confirmed or denied by experimental evidence (the survey I was talking about). If the experimental evidence denies my hypothesis, that's the end of it. If it confirms it, on the other hand, my recommendations should be taken seriously. Our goal here is not to follow a certain immutable "wiki way" with religious reverence, but to achieve a result: A free, open-content, quality encyclopedia. So far, the current "wiki way" has done a pretty good job of getting us towards that goal. But there is room for improvement. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes he can speak for himself, but he has to maintain a certain level of public decorum. I don't, and can't tell you straight out what you should be told. RJII 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're Jimbo's personal spokesman now? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, RJII, are you implying that there is no such thing as objective quality? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no such thing as objective quality. Quality is a value judgement. One man's treasure is another man's trash. Maybe that's your problem here. You think there there is objective quality and that some board of elites has exclusive access to the knowledge of this mystical objective quality, and can then decide for everyone else what quality is. Only an individual can judge quality for himself; he can't impose his quality judgement on others. That's what Misplaced Pages is about. If just one individual thinks something is bad quality he can go in and change it, with no credentials (or democratically-elected office) whatsoever. RJII 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So if the article about the Moon said that it is made of cheese, that wouldn't be objectively wrong - it would just be a matter of opinion? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be objectively right or wrong (right and wrong aren't value judgments, but quality is). But the opinion on whether it was right or wrong would be subjective of course. Do you let others decide for you whether something is right or wrong? I sure don't. The idea of a board of elitists making that judgement for everyone by locking an article for no further edits is not consistent with the individualistic philosophy of Misplaced Pages. If you want that, go work for one of the old-school encyclopedias. Reply if you want, but I don't want to take up any more space on this guy's talk page. RJII 02:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you let others decide for you whether something is right or wrong (in the sense of true or false). You cannot personally verify all the things that scientists hold to be true, but, for the most part, both you and everyone else will trust physicists (for example) to tell us what is true about the physical properties of the universe. Btw, I am not suggesting locking any articles and preventing further editing of them. What I am suggesting is that further edits on the 0.001 of wikipedia that is composed of exceptionally good articles should be subject to some sort of review process. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is tending toward several qualities, one of which is verifiability. As verifiability flourishes, objective research into other qualities, such as factual accuracy, are made easier and more relevant. --Dystopos 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Español

Hola que tal, tengo una duda, si sabes español respondela, por que tenes la cara del Che si tu eres objetivista, soy de la Misplaced Pages en español ], saludos. Kaser 22:49 4 ene 2006 (CET)

Translation: Hi, how are you, I have a doubt, if you know enough Spanish to respond to it, why you have the face of Che if you are objectivist, I'm from the Spanish wikipedia, regards, Kaser. --Taichi 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

An admin of yours is in violation of US Copyright laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Gamaliel In addition, this admin is part of a group of editors who push left wing views, one who openly brags. "Hostile to the right wing" If your concept is to last the test of time, better controls need to put into place. I can see why others have left angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)

Additional copyright violation by http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Gamaliel,

As one of the targets of this anon's attack, I respectfully request that other editors not remove his comment. Jimbo doesn't need to be protected from his views. JamesMLane 23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this, although I quite frankly believe the anon's comment to be absurd, it is a comment (as opposed to vandalism) IMO, so I dont think it merits deletion. -Lanoitarus .:. 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To comment a bit more accurately, the copyright violation is that User:Gamaliel is using a image on his user page which is only allowed here as fair use on the article refering to the same subject, so it wouldnt be kosher on user pages. So although I personally feel 24.147.103.146 is being a bit excessive in taking this to such levels (and besides, the correct place for copyvio issues is WP:CP, as i have told this anon many times before), he is not actually WRONG in this particular accusation. -Lanoitarus .:. 05:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What image? The Yellow Kid? The peace sign in the user box? The first is, as I understand it, out of copyright, and I'm not certain of the second. I don't see any sign that the anon is RIGHT in this particular accusation, just that the anon is angry at being unable to vandalize/warp articles on Ted Kennedy and family. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartonl, look here, The other stolen image has been removed. Do you now see"any sign that the anon is RIGHT in this particular accusation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)

There were a couple others at times, too. Go through the history of his page and youll see :) Lanoitarus .:. 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New twist, when I put up a copyright infringment notice for Crusades I was blocked by admin Adam Bishop. No wonder there are admin abuse threads. Just makes me want to advise more folks about sending complaint to Abuse@Cogentco.com and the FBI investigative team at http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp

My actions over Marsden's block duration

Hi, Jimbo Wales, I have created an RFC on myself so you can express any comments you have about my actions regarding the block duration of Marsden. I've attempted to fairly summarise the events and I've justified my actions. Based on the outcome of the comments given on the RFC, I'll take appropriate action afterwards. Thanks in advance for any comments you make. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jimbo!

I would like to ask you a question regarding the status of the blocks which you impose. Are they to be regarded as definitive in general (meaning that they may only be lifted by you), or definitive only if you say so (meaning that unless you say otherwise, they are open to review by other administrators who may choose to unblock.) I am asking this in relation to the blocks against *drew.

From the nincompoop who thinks that your articles can be deleted..., Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete that, anyway? Everyking 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean, look at it. It was empty. "He won the Nobel Prize" was the only thing on the page. Valid speedy, regardless of who wrote it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages problems with abusive admins

To the earlier thread, yes any complaints about admins here and here is the problem...

• 1 Admins can be as abusive as they want with no one to check up on them
• 2 Admins don't have to talk to anyone.
• 3 Admins can delete any criticism against them instead of addressing it.

Now on that thread, Everyking complained about admins. Well, guess what, I looked him up in the ban log and I saw him banned. So I looked up who did it and this is what I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ambi&page=

I also found Ambi listed on the vandalism warning page. Well since she's an admin, she banned the person who did it. And I see from the comments page, she refused to talk to this person and just banned them. The next user up, she claimed was a sock puppet of the user before, http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Crayolacrime but it turns out this was a lie (Ambi found no suckpuppets for Ebnocuj so she faked a claim). The only thing this Crayolacrime did was to report another user on Vandalism in progress, Dysprosia and warn them who likely is a sockpuppet of Ambi. Neither two accounts made any communication. Furthermore, shortly before the ban user Ambi had stopped used her Ambi account and used her Dysprosia. The accounts have exact gaps in time switching back in forth. See Dysprosia (contri) and Ambi (contri)/ Additionally, notice User:Dysprosia This sock was too lazy to even create a user page!!

This leads me to:

• 4 Admins use sockpuppets thoroughly
• 5 Admins never follow the rules (to prove it, name one who follows 3RR. None.)
• 6 Admins can give dishonest reasons for bans and no one questions them. Most articles are controlled by an admin and a few number of the sockpuppets by the admin. When many people at once don't like their edits, they ban them. The easiest way to ban without reason is claim someone was banned before, falsely.
• 7 No identity verification on admins. Please see #4
• 8 From #7, admins should be at least 21. Vandals are children or teenagers. For example, on Ambi's user page, it had said she is a teenager. But before the admin nomination, she hid this.
• 9 People banned unfairly need to access a forum where they can protest. No such thing exists. No one reads their talk pages.
• 10 Admins should be requires to speak to someone before banning them. Most (take my example if you want proof -- Ambi does not respond to talk) admins rarely warns anyone before banning.
• 11 Admins should be banned for erasing complaints about themselves or other admins. Covering up dirty words is okay, but not anything more. On Rfc sort of pages, they ban anyone who has a complaint over admins. Other admins, hide any talk page comments about them, any my example does not fall short there, nothing but complaints in archive.

Just so I can get contact, you can email me here starygostyn (AT) yahoo (DOT) com. Most people are afraid to speak out against the abuses here so perhaps if we all get together, we can complain as a group. 201.225.21.163 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I broke up your email, since spam bots like to harvest wikipedia for email addresses. -Lanoitarus .:. 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuck... I hate "obfuscated" e-mail addresses... something about them just offends my aesthetic sensibilities... probably out of the antiquated notion that things on the Internet should be open, straightforward, logical, and consistent and not intentionally (or accidentally) obfuscated in any way. *Dan T.* 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lots of this is radically overgeneralizing. Speaking for myself, I like to think I follow the rules, that I talk to others, don't use sockpuppets, give honest reasons, and read the talk pages of people I block (often explicitly telling them I will unblock them if they'll just promise to be good). And so on. So this overgeneralization is useless. You need to concentrate on specific admins who are troublemakers; you can't attack the whole group, they're basically the people keep the place functional. Everyking 09:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

201.225.21.163 can speak for me. This is one of the main problems. Admins and editors form groups and either ban or constantly revert those with other POV's. They are abusive and drunk with self praise. The mediation process is a joke. It's due to these folks that Misplaced Pages is known as an "almost". As to keeping it functional, that's no excuse for the bad behavior. That's like saying Hitler did a good job of keeping his troops in line. 24.147.103.146 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More weblinks on the subject:

• http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html How complaining about admins in Arbcom never works
• http://www.network54.com/Forum/161117/message/1134455309/Another+victim+of+Wiki+paranoia+sends+this+info
• http://www.network54.com/Forum/161117/message/1134460123/More+Misplaced Pages+bullcr%2Ap. Oh dear lord it's Ambi again! And I wasn't even trying to find her. And this is only three google links down for "wikipedia abusive admins"!
• http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/

Okay, this is going to take all day and night to list every one. Just keep going down google. http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+abusive+admins&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&start=10&sa=N

Ambi is clearly an abusive admin. Notice how all her unfair bans are infinite, but bans for clear vandalism aren't. Ed Poor keeps coming up on google, but I see from his talk page he's been de-admined. I think the first admin to erase this section (they don't want Jimbo Wales reading it) is, as well.

Right now the fundraiser shows about $326,000. I will never make that much in my life at my job. Misplaced Pages could hire someone whose sole job is to police admins. Pay them $10/hr and that's only $20,000 a year. You can also write a script, like if an admin bans someone and they don't say anything on their talk page first, then the admin gets written up.

I'd also like your comments on my identification thing. If the admins send in driver's license, background check (and yes pay for the background check themselves), proof of identity, that may help. I'd go so far as that they own a webcam and have a random inspection at some point and also have to send in a video (camcorder) for interview.

starygostyn(AT)yahoo(D0T)com 201.225.21.163 10:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Must... Not... B...J...A...O...D....N...! I must Assume Good Faith! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at those User Ambi banned and the last few look like they have a bunch of comments from the users and nobody talking to them. This is odd and one was not spoken to. Both had request to discuss and were never answered. I went through the block log for the last day and I saw only one other person talk on their page and they were unblocked. My experience with admins has been they always talk to you. DyslexicEditor 14:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was too funny. If anyone seriously thinks Ambi and I are sockpuppets are welcome to use CheckUser, but I think that would be a waste of time. Dysprosia 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that Uncyclopedia promotes vandalism of Misplaced Pages?

Okay, not precisely (you know how wikis are), but it has a page on it. This gives quite good instructions for effective vandalism (doing many pages at once, registering first, making sure your username isn't redlinked). For the time being, I've made an effort at making the page less informative and more amusing, an approach that has the advantage of actually promoting Uncyclopedia's goal as well as Misplaced Pages's. However, you're the founder of Wikia, which provides hosting to Uncyclopedia, so possibly you'd want to talk to the admins there about getting rid of the page altogether? Or perhaps not. I just wanted to tell you, in case you wanted to know. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia and the other one just aren't funny. Shameful. DyslexicEditor 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is no more shameful on the part of Uncyclopedia as a whole than Siegenthaler was shaameful on the part of Misplaced Pages as a whole. Has anyone actually talked to an uncyclopedia admin about this page? Phil Sandifer 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

They also promote kitten huffing, maybe we should raise a stink about that too....

Anyone dumb enough to take uncyclopedia's content seriously (see Encyclopedia Dramatica) deserves whatever scorn or punishment they may get. karmafist 00:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner: Three different sysops (Famine, Carlb, Flammable) did edit the page, thus tacitly approving of its existence. Of course, this still doesn't mean that the head honcho (forget his name) approved of it.

Karmafist: There's a difference between promotion and facilitation. The old version of the page facilitated vandalism of wikis by giving good advice on how to effectively vandalize. I do think the current version of the page is harmless, looking back, since all it does is promote vandalism (and, as you point out, that's not really any more harmful than promoting kitten-huffing). So this doesn't really need to have been put here, on second thought. Oh well. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Donations

Jim,

I was going to donate $1000 to Misplaced Pages, but until people start pulling their heads out of their behinds insofaras the fair use debate with regard to userbox images, I'm going to find something else to do with the money.

Sorry to do this, but as much as I support Misplaced Pages, I believe in free speech more.

--　CJ Marsicano 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of donations, User:Gazzareth was vandalizing Jimmy Wales. I asked him why, and he left this note on my talk page:

"More than the required funds were removed from my credit card, i myself doanted $500 to the fighting fun and several thousand were billed to my card. It is illegal and remains illegal for non profit organisations to acquire more money then is required to meet there operational costs."

He doesn't seem to be active right now, but I thought I'd leave this here before he starts to vandalize again.--Shanel 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If the donation processing system is somehow charging people's credit cards more than they authorized, that certainly needs to be looked into right away, and any funds taken in that way refunded. However, vandalism is hardly a productive method of getting this redressed; has he tried contacting Misplaced Pages / Wikimedia Foundation in any less destructive manner? I presume that Wikimedia is not intentionally charging excess amounts like this, so it is merely a technical glitch of some sort and not a criminal act as he seems to be implying. This, of course, has no relation to whether the funds being solicited or collected exceed the operational costs; this is a budgeting issue, and the nonprofit organization law is considerably more complex than just to say that the money taken in must not exceed operational costs. *Dan T.* 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation is incapable of "overcharging" people who donate and does not have access to their credit card information to do so. Credit card donations during the fundraiser were handled primarily by PayPal, and they would be the ones to contact, not that I would actually believe such claims from a Misplaced Pages vandal. --Michael Snow 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he donated in the wrong currency by mistake. For example, maybe he intended to donate 500 Argentine pesos, but actually donated $US500. He would have been billed over 1500 pesos. If so, there isn't much we could do about that. I think it's unlikely that he actually donated several thousand US$ to wikipedia. We received very few donations of that magnitude.-gadfium 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you hear it from someone else...

This new category, Wikipedians who do not trust Jimbo, may be slightly tongue-in-cheek. Deltabeignet 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative power

Dear Jimmy: I would like to present a formal complaint against JtkieferT who is seeking to become arbitrator of Misplaced Pages. He blocked me for one week with no just cause. He also accused me of impersonating another user Nosharia which is a lie just because that user shared my views. This is libel and character assassination. His action has been arbitrary. Where is his proof? He also blocked Nosharia indefinitely. The reason JtkieferT has been hostile to me is, I believe, for the same reason other Muslim users and administrators of Misplaced Pages have ganged up against me and as such hated by Muslims. The punishment for apostasy in Islam is death. Since that is not possible through Internet, the respected Muslim administrators of Misplaced Pages have engaged in a campaign of character assassination and harassment of any person who voices an opinion contrary to Islam calling him Islamophobe, racist, hate monger and all sorts of names. They revert his contributions and block him. I hope my petition is taken seriously and an impartial committee (not composed of Muslims) take a closer look at this ongoing harassment and abuse against all critics of Islam in Misplaced Pages. I noticed JtkieferT is seeking nomination as an arbitrator. I believe before he is chosen his impartiality should be investigated. I also wrote a complaint against another administrator who clearly abused his powers (see entry "Gross and flagrant abuses of power" in this page) I remain sincerely yours: OceanSplash 6 Jan 2006 07:22

Add Adam Bishop to this list as an abusive admin. Adam blocked IP address 24.147.103.146 when 24.147.103.146 put up a copyright infringment notice on the crusades page. The copyright violation which begins "The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s" has been removed. No apology from Bishop and the IP address remains blocked. I suggest this admin is removed.

Hye Jimmy

I suppose that you have no a lot of time to spend on the User-talk page but if you wanted, I've just one question: -After seeking about somethings in Wiki, I've found in wikimedia a page about products, my good vision allowed to see a panel like Made in USA, the problem for me isn't there but in the fact about the other clothes presented. Where were they producted? You sure guess I think to young people or old unfair payed in china or in other place.Thank you for your answer jonathaneo

Sensei Ashida Kim

Why don't you delete the page for Sensei Ashida Kim. It is not my place to tell you what to do but I'd like to know why you insist that the page not be deleted???? Batzarro 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jimbo tried to get this deleted, but he didn't get community consensus. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination). Kappa 16:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User allow fairuse

You deleted this. I urge you to undelete it and allow the TfD to run its course. (Had anyone but you deleted this I would have undeleted it as an out-of-process deletion.) it is my strong view that this template does not violate U.S. copyright law, nor does it urge anyone else to do so, nor does it urge anyone to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Rather it urges a change to Misplaced Pages policy that is at least argubly permisable under US copyright law. Current Misplaced Pages policy absolutely bans the use of images with a "fair use" license in templates and on user pages. However, U.S. Copyright law could permit such use in proper cases. Granted that it is easier to have a clear fair-use rationale for article usage, I think that in particular cases a perfectly proper rationale can be articuated, and that in such cases (and only in such cases) wikipedia policy should permit such use. I also think that deleting templates that express an opnion about wikipedia policy, and do so in a civil and non-disruptive way, is a very poor idea. DES 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for putting it this way. I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team. --Jimbo Wales 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess this mean we can now vote to permit "with permission" images, since they would be allowed in Misplaced Pages by US copyright law? Fun. Oh, and next week we'll vote to permit MP3, after all it's more IPOD compatible, and the files themselves don't run afoul of patent law. --209.11.111.66

No, actually, none of those things are up for a vote.--Jimbo Wales 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mr Wales. If the foundation's legal team has issued an opnion on this matter, I have not seen it. Any such opnion should indeed settle the matter for good, at least if the opnion says that it would be illegal or legally unwise to do this. (Obviously even if the opnion says that it is legally ok, we could still choose not to permit such image usage on wikipedia). If there is such an opnion or if one is issued in future, i hope you will post a copy or a link in proper place, perhaps on the Fair Use wikiproject page. But if the legal team has not spoken, this seems to me to be a matter where community consensus ought to have at least some input, pending a final decision by you or the foundation Board. DES 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

DES, you speak of community consensus yet you ignore it. The standing practice has been to forbid fair use images in user pages (it's even a CSD criteria for the image if only used in a user page). Furthermore, it has been standing practice to remove fair use images from templates ... their use there is strongly discouraged (see WP:fairuse) because of the great frequency where use in templates leads to unjustifyable usage. Now you insist we must go through a vote on a matter which is clearly cut and dry because this specific combination of forbidden/discouraged behavior has not yet been subject to a dead horse-beating. After this is closed, will you then demand the community vote on every other combination of fair use abuse until all the editors who support making this a 💕 get tired of wasting their time in endless voting, and give way to the mob demands? --209.11.111.66 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not insisting on a vote on any policy issue -- although one should note that all but the most basic policy issues are always subject to change by consensus, which can change over time. Indeed I am not insisting on anything. I am strongly urging that a template which expresses an opnion on wikipedia policy not be deleted without going though the normal and proper deletion process. This template does not IMO qualify under any of the speedy delete criteria and so in my view should not be deleted except in accord with the proper deletion process, unless there is an emergency of some sort -- and I don't see one in this case. I am in no way "ignoring" consensus, or at least I don't see how I am doing so. I am at most advocating a cahnge in policy -- mostly i am advocating protecting the ability of other users to advocate changes in policy. Jimbo obviously felt that my argument had merit enough to reverse his own action, although not enough to favor retention of the template permenantly. I might add that I did not create the template in question, nor did I nominate it for deletion, thus starting the "dead horse beating". It also occurs to me that you sound like an experienced wikipedia user, and i wonder why you do not use your UserID to sign your comments. DES 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that legal policy is a matter for the wikipedia legal team. However, having an opinion on a legal policy should be perfectly acceptable.--God of War 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Jimmy Wales

This section is for content unrelated to the article on Jimmy Wales that was added to that article's discussion page. --Mr. Billion 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Pompadour Hairstyle

What's with this pompadour high hairstyle of Jimbo Wales ?

Is he trying to look Victorian ??

Image deletion

user:Zscout370 claims that he is deletely all non-tagged images (without informing uploaders) on your direct instructions. As a consequence, images I uploaded some time ago, before the present tagging system, marked as my personal photographs, have been deleted without any opportunity for me to add a PD or GFDL tag (I've never watchlisted images because I didn't anticipate this).

Whilst I understand that copyright can be an issue, it seems crazy to give this schoolkid and others the authority to delete other's photographs, clearly marked as such, without checking that they are active contibutors (nearly 20,000 edits in my case) or asking the uploaders to add a formal tag as well as a "my image" or similar. If you look at Zscout's talk page, you will see the resentment that the high-handed implementation of your dictat is causing.

Surely it is not asking too much to require your underlings to follow these steps if an image is marked as my photo or similar (or are clearly likely to be):

1. check that the contributor is active
2. if so warn the contributor that the image needs tagging
3. only after a decent period of time to delete personal images.

I should add that there are admins who have behave much more flexibly than just following your orders. Some have tagged images for me, and others have put a message on my talk page to warn of problems - and I've never uploaded an image that I didn't believe to fit the Misplaced Pages requirements. jimfbleak 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I sympathise. Please copy this to User_talk:Jimbo Wales to make sure he sees your complaint (you are not the only long-standing contributor to complain there but every little helps). Pcb21| Pete 12:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic logouts

There has been a problem with Misplaced Pages lately: it's been automatically logging me out of Misplaced Pages once every few user pages or so. What gives? User:Rickyrab — Rickyrab | Talk 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardly a question for the encyclopedic article about Jimmy Wales. Try the Village Pump. — David Remahl 20:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

NOR policy update needed

I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Misplaced Pages unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.

Flickr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:

Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".

Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.

Rex071404 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Cousin Wales

Repeatedly, Jimbo Wales removes links to his ancestor memorilalized in the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Please Please Jimbo Wales

All Bureaucrats and administrators in Japanese Misplaced Pages should be eliminated because they are not considered suitable for their official power and duty of Misplaced Pages. They are not only Wikipedians, but also so much insane(anti-social personality disorder)NEET that they don't tried to talk with Wikipedians about the problem that is made by themselves. They don't only achieve accountability but also eliminate Wikipedians who think "admin here is cruel or stupid". They are only mad fascists. Of course they don't try to hold election.

They are all mad fascists and continue to abuse their authority that was given only by Steward, not by japanese Wikipedian's community. Japanese community in 2 channel (that treats the problem of insane administrators of Japanese Misplaced Pages)have solid consensus that all bureaucrats and administrators in Japanese Misplaced Pages should go to psychiarists(mental hospital) before they carry out terrorist attacks in the real world, because they are all haunted by delusions that others are always abusing themseves unjustly and delusions of grandeur that they are perfect noble and , what is worse, they bear abnormal malice to society.

Yesterday(November 12, 2005) one of them stupidly confessed that there are only one or two person using innumerable sockpuppets(multiaccounts) for illicit purposes. This one or two person (Suisui,KMT) have 31 sockpuppets for administrators and thousands of ones for general wikipedians, so that he or they have continued to fabricate the general consensus among all Wikipedians.

Apparently they are in the identical evil delusions, all of Wikipedians in Japan ignore them or sometimes protest against their cruel way and immediately get unreasonable block for a long long time. It's so absurd. Administrators in Japanese Misplaced Pages are not Wikipedians at all. It was a serious mistake to trust them as human beings in the first place.

Anyone have not wanted to run for administrator of Japanese Misplaced Pages, because Japanese Wikipedians use the word "administrator" as a synonym for cruel person ,e.g."mousou-afo-kanrisha(「妄想アフォ管理者」in Japanese)". Do you understand the state of Japanese Misplaced Pages?

You or the substitute who you appoint should overrule the decision of Steward and remove all bureaucrats and all administrators of Japanese Misplaced Pages permanently and manage fairly democratic election. Thank you. --LoveandPeace 08:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, i have to say the very important thing. Japanese Wikipedians' community in 2 channel(which has the most powerful influence to Japanese internet users) suggest bureaucrats and administrators of Japanese Misplaced Pages are obtaining contribution money fraudulently. In fact, the page that requires visiters to contribute to Japanese Misplaced Pages is very often unnaturally displayed after editting or a click. I think that the doubt as to whether they are the group of swindlers is very very natural. In any case they are too suspicious. Thank you again. --LoveandPeace 09:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a problem of Japan, not Misplaced Pages. I don't wait better thing from the japanese internet guys (seriously, don't take this as a offence). You should try resolve this or simply abandon japanese wikipedia and leave the bugs eats.

$100 computer

I suspect you're already aware of this project. I wasn't, until reading they'd rejected Steve Jobs' offer of free OS X in favor of open source software. I imagine it would be good for Misplaced Pages to see whether there is a role for us in this initiative. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Joke?

http://simple.wikipedia.org/Main_Page

Is this a joke?

Nyikita 21:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so, it almost looks like Jimmy's trying to sell-out or something

Excuse me, but the simple English Misplaced Pages is a very important work. Not everyone has as clear a grasp of the English language as you both, clearly, do. I fully support the project, and wish to encourage all those who contribute to it: you are doing a great job! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No it is far from a joke. I go there, and I work hard there, don't call it a joke. It's very helpful to people. I showed it to some of the people here in rehab and they use simple english wikipedia. You people are mean, its just for help with young children, and people like those that take part in ESOL. Quentin Pierce 22:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sell out? Why would you say that? The simple English Misplaced Pages has great potential for people that have English as their second or third language. — David Remahl 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Learning English should be a challenge and it is much better to learn with proper articles because then you are forced to look up words that you do not know. To cater for people in this way only limits their potential. English is English and Simple English isn't. BlueKangaroo 13:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidently you are not someone who has ever worked with immigrants. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I work as a legal advocate (in the UK) and Simple English is becoming much used for helping people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties understand their rights and responsibilities. So why deny people the joys of Misplaced Pages? But this is hardly the page for this discussion Manmonkey 00:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Noo, You are misunderstanding me! This is the bad joke: . I'm sorry my inaccuracy. The simple English Misplaced Pages is a very important, of course.

Nyikita 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• SCOWLS* That's not work-safe Chris Martin 10:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Esquire Misplaced Pages test?

http://www.smartmoney.com/esquire/index.cfm?Story=20051215wikipedia - supposedly, they posted some sort of article, but I can't find it anywhere. --AySz88^-^ 06:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This was answered thusly on AySz88's talk page: - Mark Hurd 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The esquire article you inquired about on Talk:Jimmy Wales (not a good place to post such questions) was Misplaced Pages:Improve this article about Misplaced Pages Raul654 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Banned for an "inappropriate username"

"(I am ♀) Nude females ARE NOT PORN, it's art."

- How is this "inappropriate"? How does it warrant banning for a whole day just for choosing a username saying something I believe in (THAT IS TRUE, really..)? This was by User:HappyCamper. I'm new here, but surely this is admin abuse? --69.49.99.19 00:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Using slogans as names is generally frowned upon, and is inadvisable anyway - for anyone and any slogan. See Misplaced Pages:Username for some details - it notes that "The user name is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement.". There was quite a bit of controversy about User:Jesus is Lord! which you can see at User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange. Morwen - Talk 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the nickname, but these housewives will do anything to get a kick - including banning innocent people. --Anittas 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that sentence is offensive on so many levels. I salute you! Morwen - Talk 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

From now on, the famous phrase should be changed to "Misplaced Pages: Unemployed PhD housewife deathmatch". Pcb21 Pete 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the "♀" character was part of the name, that's what's wrong. There's a general consensus that usernames must be typeable on a standard keyboard. --Carnildo 06:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy

He had some problems with the user User:Node ue. On the page Moldovan language he was always a trolling character. He was always alone in his positions and he was always against any consensus. Now the page is blocked because of him. Now, he transfered his hatred also on some pages that I created where he comes everyday to revert my work. What can be done? I think more than 100 people told him to stop but he continues his trolling again. Bonaparte talk 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fundraising

Okay, so i'm a fairly large contributor to this site, i love it, i put huge amounts of time into it, and it has served me well. Anyway, I want to contribute some funds, but my worry, as always, is how does wikipedia plan to maintain its ideology? I heard that a paper edition of the encyclopedia is possibly coming out. So my question is, is somebody going to get rich off of this project (wikipedia), and if so, then why should i put money into it (i already put enough in)? I mean, is there somewhere i can go to see what the funds are, what is needed, how much is paying someone's salary, etc.? Sorry to be the realist; and sure, the early bird gets the worm, but i'm here to serve a different purpose, and unfortunately, in my world, the dishonest are reigning unchecked and i'm poor as hell - so could we address this? Anonymously yours, 67.166.51.134 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hello Unknown, I surely doubt that anyone from this community will ever make big money with it, as it is managed by the non-profit organization Wikimedia and its local chapters (Wikimedia Deutschland, France etc.). There is much money involved in this project, as a site this big has to have many servers and people who manage them full-time. All finances and budgets is documented and you can read them at wikimedia.org (sorry too tired to put link up). However, since all this stuff is licensed under an open license, you *could* make some money as people already do by presenting the stuff together with ads or selling it on paper for the distribution costs. This is the only (minor) downside to the idea of really free information, and as such unavoidable. Be assured that nobody here except the full time staff will ever make money from Misplaced Pages, and those are paid industry standard wages as you can read for yourself. I sure do trust this community, and couldn't find a better investment in the future of mankind.

Greetz from Berlin, Endymi0n 07:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't think there will be a paper version. There will be CD/DVD versions, which are mainly to allow people in developing countries to have access to information where they may not have internet access (and probably in ratios of hundreds of users to one computer). -- Natalinasmpf 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please address the following Wiki-issues:

Misplaced Pages's concept seems flawed. This issue has been addressed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Misplaced Pages regarding:

' the lack of information on most people. Everyone on this planet is notable, yet the censors seem to think you have to be in the news to be included. The idea that most people are not notable is highly offensive to people who value every life and want to hear about them.

' the censorship that is labeled vandalism. Everyone can edit a page, but opposing viewpoints are not tolerated, even if they are very important to some people.

' the lack of detailed information on most topics. The Internet can be readily searched to find detailed information on everything. Misplaced Pages lacks a lot of detail, because frankly there is too much information out there to filter out.

If the content of wikipedia were left alone, and yearly moved into 'static approved content' pages, the quantity of work required would illustrate how preposterous the whole concept is.

Hello Unknown, let me add my two cents to your arguments:

' the lack of information on most people. Everyone on this planet is notable, yet the censors seem to think you have to be in the news to be included. The idea that most people are not notable is highly offensive to people who value every life and want to hear about them.

• This site isn't called "Wiki" but "Misplaced Pages", simply because it strives to be an "Encyclopedia" which limits itself to list "important" people only. If in your average printed encyclopedia there was an article about every human being on earth (living and deceased, to be really "fair"), it would weigh more than the Empire State Building and would be completely unreadable. If you value people so much, be free to host a page where everyone can make an article about anyone - the Wikimedia software is open source. Beware of the server costs though... =)

' the censorship that is labeled vandalism. Everyone can edit a page, but opposing viewpoints are not tolerated, even if they are very important to some people.

• Here you seem to confuse vandalism and differing points of view. Blanking pages and adding bullshit is in no ones interest and could hardly be interpreted as censorship. If you have a differing viewpoint, you can add it as long as you do not censor the viewpoint of others, which is often the case. Often there is a minority which does not want to be one, so they label good NPOV-sentences like "The general consensus is that this is A, but several people believe it is B" as censorship, which it is not. There is no absolute truth in most cases and you can surely add your own point of view, as long as it makes sense and respects the values of this community. It doesn't matter to me if you believe in Voodoo, Intelligent Design or the nonexistence of Nazi concentration camps, but if you state it as the truth (accepted by the majority of people), it is correctly labeled vandalism.

' the lack of detailed information on most topics. The Internet can be readily searched to find detailed information on everything. Misplaced Pages lacks a lot of detail, because frankly there is too much information out there to filter out.

• I cannot follow you here... 1. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. If encyclopadiae had the ambition of being the most detailed source of information in every case, you wouldn't need the rest of the library/internet, right? So they don't. An encyclopedia provides a general overview about a topic. If you want to know everything about it go read every book about it. 2. Most other internet sites are on the average authored by one person. Chances are that not all of these are professionals, so when I search on the net on the average I see a *lot* of bullshit with often widely differing points of view. So wikipedia provides a revisioned extract which is not a bug but the feature.

Just my humble opinion, Endymi0n 16:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why is the discussion in this section on this page? --JWSchmidt 16:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone mentioned Misplaced Pages = Web 2.0, but "Beware of the server costs" was never an excuse for the Internet.

Controversy Over Security Risks On Misplaced Pages

Mr. Wales,

Let me bring the following information to your immediate attention:

Template:Security Risk

Is it fair to say that the recent deletion and editing of this discussion page - specifically related to bringing to your attention certain security risks here on Misplaced Pages; and the ongoing controversy related to the deletion and vandalism of materials related to law enforcement and international security (Including Valérie Gignac, Mark Bourque, Template:Infobox Police Officer and Template:Security Risk) is an indication that this project may be spinning out of control? Having recently edited several articles (including (Animal Liberation Front - a known terrorist group) to bring necessary security-related information to your administrators attention, I found myself blocked temporarily from this site. What gives?
PeterZed 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition , repeated deletions of the nefarious connections of the Wales family (see The Outlaw Josie Wales) raise the same subject of huge manipulations of the wiki articles , esp by a coterie / troop of apparent sadistic persons of the ancient persuasion.

And, we recently see that NSA (National Security Agency) scans all internet writings/ typings including those of wikipedia for key words - those key words chosen by rantings of the dazed NSA analysists in their own "raves" room high on who knows what. And proving the ongoing national security manipulations of a WMD as wiki by the sycophant pawns.

Birthday

When is your birthday (if you don't mind my effrontery)? CliffHarris 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

See Jimbo Wales. His birth date is in the first line. Please post at the bottom of talk pages in future.-gadfium 02:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...is this OK or should I move it back? CliffHarris 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Boss

Are you OK ? I've seen a really sick rumor concerning you. You all right ? I've seen the rumor while I was on my way here. I was told it was satire. If that is satire, then what is comedy ? I call it sick. The rumor is found here:[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia Jimbo Wales Shot Dead] I really hope you are doing well boss. Martial Law 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you were to read further down: "For the record, The Register must note that the ubermeister of Misplaced Pages appears to be alive and well. ... The "news" of his death consisted of a random edit to his own, particularly fulsome entry on the encyclopedia he helped create." Obviously this is a work of satire from someone who has a bone to pick with Misplaced Pages for some unknown reason.

Agreed, boss. Hope you're doing well boss. Martial Law 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against scientology

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention... don't know if this is the kind of project you were originally trying to foster. But it looks like this is what it is devolving into.

Template:User against scientology Gateman1997 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't bad templates be deleted? Vote to delete it if you think it's bad. This shouldn't be a problem. Everyking 08:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have is that the admin team is playing favorites. A similar template being Template:User against jews, was speedied. Where this is being allowed? Seems like a double standard to me. They'll protect Jews but not Scientologists on the basis they like one religion more then another?Gateman1997 08:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the difference is that Scientologists are a purely religious group, whereas Jews are identified both in ethnic and religious terms. Also opposing Jews is a rather touchy historical issue, involving mass murder and persecution; there isn't any reason to be so sensitive about Scientology. So the template against Jews would surpass a certain limit of outrageousness that an admin might feel justified in deleting it outright, whereas a template against Scientology might be something that you'd predict could be legitimately controversial. Everyking 08:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit that the racial aspect may be possibly where they get their justification, but what if I made a similar one about Catholicism or Islam? Where is the line drawn? Because this is hate speech no matter how you slice it. It's soft hate speech, but it's hate speech.Gateman1997 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not hate speech. It's more along the lines of uncivil and it's wikipedia being the judge of what justifies legitimacy in religion if one is kept and the other is not. gren グレン 12:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages determining what is a religion violates WP:NOT because we're not a primary source.Gateman1997 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is NOT a religion in most countries. The governments of Germany and Belgium officially regard the Church as a totalitarian cult; in France, a parliamentary report classified Scientology as a dangerous cult; in the United Kingdom and Canada the Church is not regarded as meeting the legal standards for being considered a bona fide religion, and elsewhere, apart from America, it's just ignored as "yet another cult". --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a "bona fide" religion in your estimation? Because it is officially recognized as one in the US and granted the same protections as Judaism, Catholicism etc...Gateman1997 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Incredible as it is that it has gained recognition as a religion in the US, the template violates Be Civil in WP:EQ. It doesn't matter if its a religion, a race, or whatever. Jasongetsdown 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Founder box

Hi Jimbo, I placed this on your user page at one point but it was very quickly removed. As I don't like loose ends and it's in your user space I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do with it. -- Francs2000 12:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New Group

The help group which I informed you about has now been given a name: the "Helping Hand Group". I have asked Elf if she can add a link on Template:welcome. Just thought you should be informed. The Neokid 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology and Assistance with Pauley Perrette

Thank you for your message above, I had forgotten about the discussion we had once on IRC about the ad controversy. Then again, it's easy to have a short attention span in this place considering how much content there is, I alone had over 3,300 edits last month. I'm incredibly concerned about the all too often contradiction with policies and guidelines and how these are updated(usually through shouting matches, often conducted off of Misplaced Pages.) You can help save the day if you'd like by starting a dialogue about this(we've had a smaller version of such things at Esperanza), but until then i'll try to follow the intent of things and shadow those who are intimidating others or acting in a disruptive manner.

Also, on Pauley Perrette, all you need to do is put a {{protected}} tag up there. Please let me know if I can assist further in the future. karmafist 02:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy Wales

I just gave $10 to the funding appeal (and just spent $700 rebuilding the computer of a local poor artist.) Someday I hope to be profitable enough to make the $700 contribution to Misplaced Pages. There are not enough servers on your site to hold the commentary I could make about your idea. I'm a Mammoth Cave explorer, and before I knew about the web (1993) I conceived the near equivalent of Misplaced Pages to hold the human knowledge of the world's longest cave. I was going to name the project "Bibliographic Indexed Spelean History Object Project" See Stephen Bishop (cave explorer) for why I might have chosen this Bacronym. In this comment I just wanted to give specific thanks and appreciation to you for truly making the web all it can be. Your accomplisment (including the social aspect which makes the NPOV process work) ranks with: the Sumerians, Hannah Arendt, Max Muller, Tim Berners-Lee, Jon Postel, Vinton Cerf, Eric S. Raymond, Donald E. Knuth, Grace Hopper, John von Neumann, Alan Mathison Turing, Nathan B. Stubblefield, Lord Kelvin, Alexander Graham Bell and Samuel F. B. Morse, and a random sample of your soon-to-be 900,000 page encyclopedia reads like Virginia Woolf meets Douglas R. Hofstadter. Kudos and Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages, the Retcon Reason the Internet Was Invented: wikipedians are here to stay! Alan Canon 07:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Louisville

Quotes from election discussion

Hi, Jimbo! Could you take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 and try to alleviate some of our concerns? :) Below is a collection of quotes I selected from that talk page. - Haukur 10:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"I believe that an RfA-type poll is the worst possible option." - Filiocht

"I am completely opposed to the notion of an open (RFA) style election." - Kelly Martin

"I am very very concerned about open voting." - ]

"It strikes me as extremely unlikely that anything other than bad-blood will ensue from a public voting process." - Splash

"This is an insanely bad idea, and needs to be changed promptly." - Sam Spade

"I strongly object to a procedure modelled on RFA" - Haukur

"This is a very poor idea." - DES

"Is this some secret plan to cut off our nose to spite our face, and I haven't read the memo?" - Kim Bruning (comment since stricken)

"apparantly we're very suicidal" - Ilyanep

"I stood against this every inch of the way." - Geni

"By having an open vote we're backsliding over a century." - Mackensen

"Why are there oppose links on the voting page? I thought we were going to avoid the "disendorsement" silliness this year." - Tony Sidaway

Might this be a good time to archive?

This page is getting really large, and now there seems to be 2 sections for some reason. Rx StrangeLove 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderfool

Copied to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Wonderfool, in xyr latest incarnation as User:Fooled...err..1, has just placed the following on my talk page, after I added the account to Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Wonderfool:

So what if I'm Wonderfool? I've admitted all my nihilartikels (OK, to be fair, I misused the word nihilartikel - what I meant was "articles that I thought don't warrant an entry in Misplaced Pages". So all should be cleared to have me reinstated now. And I've apologized alreadt too. In various pages under various names. But I'd like to stay put and NOT be banned please, otherwise I'll only just get another username and edit anyway. Cheers Uncle. --Wonderfool 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This situation appears to be stuck in some kind of Limbo, with Wonderfool stating that xe has apologized and named all of the nihilartikels and the Arbitration Committee stating that the ban is still in effect until an apology is forthcoming and all nihilartikels are named. Unfortunately, the two do not appear to be communicating directly with each other. Please resolve it. Uncle G 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election controversy

Hi! Could you please clarify whether neutral votes are prohibited or not? As it stands currently, only support and oppose votes are counted, and extensive commentary (which neutral votes in most cases contain or consist of) is prohibited; however, at least one user is unhappy with this and/or claims that neutral votes are okay per earlier consensus and/or your approval. I only joined the ArbCom election administrating team very recently, so I frankly don't know what's true. Could you please get yourself involved, soon? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 18:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. If it's an election how can their be neutral votes? You are either for or against something. If you're neutral you should not be voting would be my argument.Gateman1997 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'voting is evil' is one of our oldest and most wise sayings. Instead what we have found over time works best is a process of positive, honest, thoughtful dialogue in search of a consensus. In a dialogue, even 'neutral' is a valuaable opinion, and keeping them right there where others can easily see them seems important.--Jimbo Wales 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not the best use of a "funny image"...

...but you'd be glad to see the best parody I could come up with, in regards to your name. File:JimboPrinceofWales-1-.jpg

You are hereby, "Jimbo, Prince of Wales." Forget that impostor : ) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Carlos, el principe de Gales. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Rose (show)

Would you ever consider going up to Newark NJ sometime, to appear on Charlie Rose (show)? I had never heard of it until recently, as Google Video Marketplace is going to sell downloads of all the episodes. Along with random business people, he's interviewed hundreds of world leaders and luminaries, good company for you to keep, should you desire. I'm willing, as Canadian press contact, to try and contact the show, and see if they'd be interested in booking you. -- user:zanimum

Super Nintendo

Hi, Super Nintendo Wales! --68.75.37.49 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

Mr. Wales, would you please extend the duration of a nomination(Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Anglius) by a few days without 'deleting' it(I do not really possess a sufficient quantity of time presently to reply to their accusations and comments.)--Anglius 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Appeal (yet again)

Jimbo, it's been two months now. Please, will you hear my appeal now? Everyking 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of transparency

Hi Mr. Wales, I´ve noticed that inferior users are not longer able to understand the actions/manipulations of the admins. So I ask you.

Who has deleted the following pics? For what reasons?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/Image:Justine's_Red_Letters_(cover).jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/Image:SwanMarch02.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/Image:BlakeJustine.jpg

• all pics from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Justine_Joli&diff=next&oldid=32609911

Greetings 13:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Two went through IFD and one was orphan fair use.Geni 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, thank you. Would you please tell me the date of the ifds? Anyway, I see these pics were no fair use-abuse/copyright violations (as the orphanator - User:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr. - prefer to claim) Greetings 13:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since this is not a policy of wikipedia and I didn't find anywhere else to suggest it, I though I should reccomend it directly to some high patented wikimedia hiearchy officer such as the wikipedia founder. Feel free to correct me and maybe send this proposal to the right place it should be. Sorry for the trouble. I wrote it in my profile, won't paste it here to avoid flooding you talk page. Bruno 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Inactive BCrats

Please read this note I dropped to Angela.Voice of All 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Further question on policy change

In response to recent events, Wales has made a few changes to better police the site. In addition to implementing a "semi-protection" policy where pages facing vandalism problems can only be edited by registered users with accounts older than four days, site administrators will add a delay to high profile pages, such as the President Bush page that is currently closed. The delay, similar to a "dump" button in radio that gives producers a few seconds to prevent something like crude language from hitting the airwaves, will mean that online vandals cannot quickly amend a page on a breaking news article, such as those posted when the Pope died. Wales notes that the length of the delay will be decided by the community on Misplaced Pages. "We have hundreds of people monitoring the site all the time. They will figure out the community norms."

from Can Misplaced Pages Survive Its Own Success?

Are we really going to be getting delayed editing, or a) have I misread this, or b) have you again been misquoted? Btw, I think the idea has merits. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear about this. Misquoted again? —Ilyanep (Talk) 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny picture

Now that I've finally learnt how to upload a picture, I thought I'd show my appreciation of this wonderful wikiworld you've created for us by making a funny picture of you which I've placed on the funny picture section. I hope you like it. By the way, how do you manage personal life when you've got such a big task of keeping everything in order here? Could you please reply on my talk page, it would be awesome to have the Jimbo Wales reply on my talk page. Thanks. Spawn Man 02:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The perverse uses of obnoxious userboxes

Obnoxious useerboxes (like Template:I hate X) have their uses. If User A puts one on his homepage,

• Other users can immediately conclude that A genuinely does hate X, and discount A's comments and edits on X accordingly, avoiding a long and unpleasant experience.
• So can ArbCom, when deciding to limit A from e.g. editing pages relating to X
• Deleting the template dpesn't prevent X from having an uncivil userpage; it just makes it harder for the rest of us to know about it.
• A is not civil because he is forced to stop using the userbox; A is civil when he is persuaded to voluntarily remove it.

(If B puts a userbox on A's page, that's vandalism.)

I would be honored to be shown where this is wrong. Septentrionalis 05:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole user box thing seems to be a craze that has gone out of control. Perhaps a clamp should be placed on all new user boxes. Arno 05:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages a patriarchal site?

Is Misplaced Pages a patriarchal site? If it isn't, may I then ask why a photo of a woman reading the Quran is constantly removed by Islamists and no-one bothers to do anything about it? I hope you are aware that this encyclopedia is opened to all people, including extremists and even terrorists. Why do your admins allow these extremists have their way? They argue that if certain people are offended of seeing a woman reading the Quran, then perhaps the photo should be removed. Even the photographer has been convinced to have the photo removed and now he thinks it's his fault. Here's what he said:

My wife is particularly saddened that a picture of her is causing distress - she compares it to an image of a woman in a small bikini holding a bible in the Bible article - and she has asked that the photo be removed from the article. I personally feel that the image belongs in Timur, where the woman is needed in the image in order to show scale (at least until a replacement image of the folio with a different person is found), but that it is inappropriate to include it in the Qur'an article.

Does this sound normal to you? So if these extremists, whom I dared to call Talebans, are offended by women, then perhaps we should not have woman editors, admins, etc? I suggested to you a month ago that you need to impose more Liberal standards to Wiki and enforce them with the sword! Ban these people, please! Your admins removed my line where I called these extremists for Talebans. How shameful! Here's the photo. Oh, no, we see a couple of hands and a head - with hair on it! -Related link- --Anittas 06:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)