User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 May24 - July 2006 July 2006 -

Template:Trollwarning

Hi just a note to say that it has reached 200 in favour (with just 14 opposing) which seems to be a good time to implement for most people. Just wondering if you could find out how as you have a position on the board (and if it is allowed) Lcarsdata 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

hello,

I believe that you are the owner of wikipedia no. I have understood that your you can clear an administrator of its functions, then this user I want that you see what puts: [1]

[2]

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Sobre_el_n%C3%BAmero_m%C3%ADnimo_de_ediciones_necesarias_para_tener_derecho_a_voto#Propuesta_7_.28angus.29

the author of this message is:es:Usuario:Rossoneri 100%

Themindset is reverting from actual quotes out of the source material to biased NPOV violating rhetoric which is not contained in the text of the source article.

See Talk page for details.

I am Reeves Guy and Wales has been more understanding than anybody else, the point now is, to make him believe it was makemi, herostratus and few other administrative vandals who made things worse, not me and worse... releasing names of my former club, people who have nothing to do with this, great detectives you all are, when I improved paul bern site with correct bio, same for rocky, corrected links, that was reversed, then it was reversed again after I was prooven right, but nobody said anything... as usual!

Hey, hmm, I do not think you are any better than your administrative vandals, who joined together, all of them, against one or two people, but worse are those who believe them...

I thought you might like an update on the status of the spoiler tag discussion. It's been moved to this RfC. Take care. Ryu Kaze 13:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm back again, 'cause there's something I have to say. Please hear me out. This is probably out of place — maybe even out of line — but I have to put it out there. I really feel like you should read some of the stuff in this discussion, even if you don't have time to read it all and even if it changes nothing.

Having been part of this discussion for as long as I have, obviously I'm tired. Obviously I want to see a conclusion. And obviously, I don't think there's going to be one. I don't want to see a conclusion just because I want the matter to be over with for my own sake; I want a conclusion because discussions like this are nothing new. This one has evolved further than others on the matter and new points have been presented opposing spoiler tags, but this issue itself isn't new and I don't think it's going to end now. It'll just happen again sometime down the road.

Really, I feel like nothing's changed even now, even after all this talk. I believe the spoiler tags are more than likely going to survive this discussion, that the last month or so spent discussing the matter will amount to no change from the status quo, and that Wikipedia will remain the cauldron of hypocrisy that it already is. There, I said it. I love the place. I really do. I love the mission and the practice. I really mean that. I've loved it. But if it's going to be an encyclopedia, I want it to be an encyclopedia. Could you please read this and this? Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from. Maybe you already do but don't want to take action for reasons that I've guessed (see what I linked to for those guesses). Maybe you actually can't for some reason or another that I'm not aware. But I think you should read this and — just in case you don't already — see what the issue at stake here really is. This has been a wonderful project, and I've loved being part of it. I'd like to continue to do so, and will, whatever happens. But I think that it's failing.

By the way, this isn't a request for intervention. I just want you to be aware of what's going on and what it means. Whatever you choose to do (or not to do) is, of course, up to you. If nothing else, thanks for your time. Have a good one. Ryu Kaze 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu said "I want to see a conclusion... I don't think there's going to be one... I believe the spoiler tags are more than likely going to survive this discussion..." I think what Ryu is really saying is that he may find himself in the minority and that the community is in favor of keeping the spoiler tags he dreads so much. Reaching a conclusion that Ryu disagrees with is not the same as failure to reach a conclusion. Johntex\^talk 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Ryu is really saying is exactly what Ryu said: that this is just going to be another episode in a program that's been running for a couple of years. Somebody needs to step in and say either "Spoiler tags will be here forever, they're going to become a part of policy and to hell with everything else" or "Spoiler tags are not going to be here, we're going to focus strictly on the mission and everything else be damned".

And I think it's worth pointing out that there was a compromise we'd all supposedly agreed on and that would be the basis for us moving on to RfC — conveniently pushed to the side and demonized when things got that far — so it's not like there wasn't the inference of an actual development emerging from this.

Basically, while I would like to see Wikipedia's intended purpose as an encyclopedia upheld in both spirit and letter — though I had been willing to go along with the compromise of spoiler tags turned off by default, but accessible at a reader's own discretion — if it's going to become a fansite, I think that should be set in stone under black and white terms. Ryu Kaze 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what you said above is, "I want to see a conclusion... I don't think there's going to be one... I believe the spoiler tags are more than likely going to survive this discussion..." Surviving the discussion is a conclusion, unless you or someone else chose not to accept that conclusion and bring the matter up again later. Johntex\^talk 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And the status quo remaining what it has been means there won't be a conclusion. Thus, why this has been an ongoing thing. Thus why I made reference to it being an ongoing thing, going back at least to 2004. A change of some kind (like the "agreed upon" compromise that was suddenly mowed down in a hail of "oppose" bullets from left field) would have at least presented the possibility for a conclusion. As things stand, we've just contributed the largest verse yet to "The Song That Never Ends II". Be proud, brother. Be proud. Ryu Kaze 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you began the RfC, the spoiler tag guideline was marked as a guideline and was accepted by consensus of editors to be a guideline. Assuming that consensus doesn't change through the process of the RfC, then the conclusion would be that we still have a guideline. That is a conclusion. Johntex\^talk 18:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A conclusion is an ending. Meaning something is over and done with, never to arise again and not have been concluded.

And actually, there never was a consensus on those things being a guideline. There's been opposition to their inclusion for years and somebody just threw the label on them one day. Interestingly enough, they were never included in the Manual of Style, where style guidelines generally go. Ryu Kaze 02:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is ever "over and done" on a wiki - any decision can be revisited. Johntex\^talk 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt we'll ever be addressing whether or not the verifiability, neutrality or no censorship policies should be removed. Ryu Kaze 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but tweaks to the wording happen all the time still. Johntex\^talk 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my name is Ahmad Najib Biabani Ibrahimkhel which corresponds to my username: احمد-نجيب-بياباني-ابراهيمخېل i am one of the sysop of Pashto wikipedia, now i would like to be the sysop of http://ps.wikitionary.org

and

http://ps.wikibooks.org

in order to change the interface into the real Afghan language.

Now if you could please help me with that i would be thankful to you. Or if you could provide me information on how i can apply for that?

regards Ahmad Najib Biabani Ibrahimkhel

Hello Mr. Wales,

Maybe you're read it on the news or seen it on TV, but according to Senator Ted Stevens, the Internet is not a big dump truck. It's a series of tubes. So, I'm writing to you in order to plead with you, as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation, to be mindful of how many articles Wikipedia sends down those tubes, every single day, so, other important internets can get through. Just a week ago, I was editing Autofellatio and my edit got in on Friday.

Would you consider donating the time of some of those lovely Bomis ladies to help clean up those tubes? I'm willing to donate $15 per hour the ladies spend in cleaning up the tubes.

PS. Thank you for supporting net neutrality.
PS1. Next time you're next to the Senator, feel free to smack him upside his head.

Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5

Net Neutrality rox0rz! MyrddinEmrys 04:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether the BTX article at BTX_(computers) should be moved to BTX_motherboard. Having %28 and %29 looks messy imho. I also think the article should be entitled BTX Motherboards rather than BTX Computers. Id appreciate your thoughts on this proposal. -- RND  T  C  19:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is really far too busy to consider matters like this. For general questions about editing on Wikipedia, try the village pump; lots of kind folks hang out there. You may also be interested in the IRC channels for quick online advice. JRM · Talk 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big boss man, I'd recommend you get rid of few administrators here, you know the names, I suggest administrators go thru better screening process, many of them simply have no life, no b/f, no g/f and have nothing better to do but revert correct edits on wikipedia and address changes such as play into played as vandalism... I would like to remind everybody that majority could be wrong... it took them forever to put footnote under Chopin's birthday, they did not put it because majority of administrators did not agree... So I repeat the following...

May I remind you... from Fulton J Sheen (and others):

The majority is not always right! Majority is right in the field of the relative but not in the absolute and objective (crteria too). Majority is a legitimate test so long as voting is based on conscience and not on propaganda. Truth does not win when numbers alone become decisive. Numbers alone can decide a beauty queen, but not justice. Beaty is a matter of taste, but justice is tasteless and sour. Right is STILL right if nobody is right and wrong is STILL wrong if everybody is wrong, at any time, at any place. The first poll in Christianity was wrong but so were many other polls. So, these should be the words by which wikipedia and their administrators should live by, THE GOLDEN RULE...

Inductively Strong Argument- The conclusion of an inductively strong argument is probably true if all its premises are true. But even if the middle sentence is true and the rest is wrong, the argument can still be considered true..But even that statement could be wrong if it is thrown to the dogs who have their own views. Then self evident truth becomes non-existent.Theory that truth is relative to a group. The truth or falsity of moral statements is relative to some individual or group, e.g. Administrators on wiki have their own policy. The the truth of moral or any statements is relative to individuals. Then it becomes the only criteria/system of administering, which in its underlying structure and sense could be wrong and was prooven wrong many times here..But then again, hmmm nobody will understand logic behind this statement anyways, ah well, it's vandalism, no doubt!
George Reeves Lives Fella

"All our lives, we are taught about the achievements of Washington, Jefferson, and FAG, but we seldom consider the factors and conditions that led them to risk everything for a republican cause," Wales said. 71.132.129.39 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, Jimbo, that you will take today's Onion parody as a very serious warning. The open-access policy you have stubbornly defended is producing a situation in which Wikipedia is becoming an object of ridicule. This is very sad, because once Wikipedia comes to be seen as a joke it will be very hard to rebuild its reputation as a serious information source - even assuming the underlying policy issue is dealt with. If this happens, it will be entirely your fault: we would not be in this position if the necessary administrative changes had been made in time. Adam 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious onion piece! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not its hilarity, the point is its deadly accuracy. There are far too many Wikipedia articles which read very like that one. Wikipedia likes to boast that it has more than a million articles. The more important fact is that not one of them is completed, and not one has been subjected to the kind of peer review that real encyclopaedias employ. Wikipedia would be much better off if it had a quarter of the number of articles, and a quarter of the number of editors, but some system in place for ensuring that both articles and editors meet some standard of quality. Sooner or later this will have to be done, or Wikipedia will die a slow death as serious editors depart for more rigorously managed projects, and the cranks and illiterates are left to take over the asylum. Adam 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think wikipedia is going to do that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I, for one, don't think there's the depth of problem the Onion alludes to. The Onion is a parody. It draws caricatures, exaggerating the comical elements of its subjects. In the classic Wikipedia form, I'll tell you to be bold and act to improve the quality of the articles. How often do you check Recent Changes to see whether an edit needs reverted, or a user needs reported? How often do you use Random Article to fact-check, or use any of the Categories for articles needing cleanup, references, etc. to find articles in need of improvement? In the largest sense possible, we are all Wikipedia. It lives or dies on our backs. Its problems are ours to solve. No amount of "dear Jimbo" letters will change any of that. Only the strength of our community can work any lasting change. --Ssbohio 21:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the truth is in the middle. We do have an accuracy problem if only in the sense that we are not as accurate as we aim to be. The parody of us wouldn't be funny if it weren't built on a kernel of truth. That is how parody works - you take an existing attribute and play it up to an extreme. On the other hand, they don't bother parodying people/things that aren't worth parodying. We are only an object of parody because we have done well enough that many people do rely on us. If that were not the case, they would not bother writing a parody of us. Johntex\^talk 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that being parodied by The Onion is in a sense flattering, because it shows that Wikipedia has reached the point where enough people know what it is to recognise what is being parodied. But that is also why the parody is so damaging. Wikipedia has now reached a point where it could break through into the mainstream as the first choice of large numbers of people who want information. But if those people form a negative opinion of Wikipedia, if they decide it is run by crazies, they will not use it, not recommend it, and not cite it. And they will form a negative opinion while so many articles are the playthings of POV-pushers and cranks, and while Talk pages full of abuse and crazy rants are available to the public, and while anonymous vandals can write ERIC IS A FAG in the middle of articles (which they do). What teacher would currently recommend Wikipedia to students? What parent to children? What undergrad would cite Wikipedia as a reference for an essay? What journalist would rely on a fact from Wikipedia for a story? Answer at present: none. And the sad thing is that all these problems could be fixed fairly simply, by four or five administrative changes. But I agree with those above who say that these changes will never happen, because Wikipedia is controlled by a clique of self-centered activists who are not essentially interested in what readers think, or even whether Wikipedia has any readers. That is why I am increasingly pessimistic. Sooner or later someone will start a rival online encyclopaedia with proper standards, and when that happens I and many other Wikipedians will defect to it. Wikipedia will then die a slow death. Adam 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, If only, if only we had some REAL system of peer review, then we won't be ridiculed by the Onion. Frosty ^('sup?) 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do, it's the little tab that says "edit this page". It may not be formal (of course we have a few of those, too) but it is very real. Teachers, parents, and journalists recommend and use Wikipedia all the time; why would anyone think that they don't? Wikipedia has even been cited in U.S. Court of Appeals decisions. This idea that we are not, in general, self correcting, is an absurd delusion. An occasional vandal is the price we pay for the ease with which experts and novices alike can improve the articles. On balance, we improve, we always have, and there is not a single shred of evidence produced by any detractor, from Adam Carr to Daniel Brandt, that we will not continue to do so. 71.132.129.39 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, on balance we do not improve. We continue to expand, but that is not the same thing. The majority of articles, on non-controversial subjects, are written and then remain much the same for ever. Articles on controversial subjects improve and decline on a cyclical basis as waves of editors come and go. Adam 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say it this way, if I give students an assignment, I caution them to use wikipedia, because it is not reliable enough. For the natural sciences, it is reasonable, but my neighbor, a historian, just villifies wikipedia because the history stuff is so bad. The Nature review was primarily non-controversial stuff, try the more controversial stuff, and you find complete distortions of the main stream opinion just because a group of editors had a different opinion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many many people use wikipedia to push propaganda. Usually the people are in groups. Anomo 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to agree that many Wikipedia articles on non-controversial subjects are excellent. If my interests were butterflies or astrophysics I would not be commenting. But my interests are history and politics, and on these Wikipedia is utterly unreliable. Some articles are good, some are very bad, most are mediocre. Some are good one day and bad the next, and vice versa. It is impossible to recommend any article, because tomorrow it could be rewritten into nonsense or have ERIC IS A FAG in the middle. This will not change by the methods User:71.132.129.39 suggests. Believe me, I have tried. It will only change when cranks and vandals are prevented from editing and when articles are subject to serious quality controls. Adam 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it is for me a reason to limit my contributions to wikipedia, I can be more productive at other places. Even on less controversial topics, it is sometimes difficult to get the most up to date information in the article. I think it is beyond wikipedia to solve these issues, the model is setup with a certain goal, and that goal is ok, as long as it is relised that that the method has its limitation, which the onion article exposed very well. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} 71.132.129.39 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, do not insult my intelligence by telling me to "go fix it." I have made more than 25,000 edits to Wikipedia, and written several hundred articles. I'm prepared to bet I have a 100-times better record on "fixing" Wikipedia than you do. But some aspects of Wikipedia cannot be "fixed" by individual editors, no matter how obsessive. Wikipedia has deep structural problems that can only be fixed by those running the show, of which I am not one. Adam 06:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be so smart and so capable and still not see the simple statistics of what is going on? I've read your User:Adam Carr/proposal and thought about every single point you list. I think your suggestion is completly nuts, for one simple reason:

(That's a very conservative figure, by the way; an editor as experienced as you knows to ask Tony S. or Raul for the up-to-date statistics from a wide range of articles -- not just George W. Bush and other oft-protected articles.)

So, mainly, your proposals would slow useful edits to a trickle, and maybe if you're lucky cut vandalism in half as a proportion of all edits (it's easy to get a temporary email address from all sorts of different providers.) That's completely unacceptable.

Why do you think that article protection as it is currently implemented does not address your concerns?

Do you think that people don't know to look for {{POV}} and {{disputed}} tags, and check the talk page to get an idea of the areas of controversy? Even beginning Wikipedia users see those signs plain as day. Don't sell the average person short. There is a reason that Wikipedia's page views continue to increase in popularity with each passing day. You might be a great political scientist, but you are no statistician. 71.132.129.39 07:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem a lot of people who want to alter process have, in fact. Perhaps we should limit the editing of the wikipedia: guidelines to registered users who can show proof that they have passed university level statistics and maths exams. ;-) Kim Bruning 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:71's comment is very revealing. It shows that like many Wikipedians, s/he is more interested in process than in product, and really doesn't care what readers see when they open a Wikipedia article, or what impression it makes on them. When people open the Britannica or Colliers, they don't find warnings that the content of a particular article is "disputed" or "not neutral." They don't find pages where the editors abuse and ridicule each other. They don't find ERIC IS A FAG in the middle of articles. They don't find articles written by members of the LaRouche cult, or people who think that Gdansk has always been part of Poland, or people who can't construct an English sentence. They do find all these things at Wikipedia, and quite rightly they don't like them. At the Britannica or Colliers, they find a completed, professional encyclopaedia written by people who know what they are writing about and edited by people who can spell and punctuate - although not nearly as flexible, up-to-date or interlinked as Wikipedia is. That is what Wikipedia is competing with. If the online Britannica was free, we wouldn't compete with it for a second, although I concede we do have many more articles on trivia, pop-culture and computer games etc etc. Adam 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia methods have up-sides and down-sides. Britannica methods also have up-sides and down-sides. Your proposal would create a different entity, with yet another set of up-sides and down-sides.

Wikipedia has one set of properties, Britannica has another.

The properties of the new system are as yet unknown, and it is unknown to me if the rules you propose would actually confer the properties you desire. This is a somewhat non-trivial problem to solve.

The idea is to design a process that will create content with the desired properties for our readers and other users. (How) have you gone about that? Kim Bruning 21:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe WP:STABLE is intended to solve many of the problems you have been discussing. Kappa 20:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo,

In the Spanish Wikipedia, they have a "This user is a nazi" userbox: es:Plantilla:Usuario nazi. They're now voting on deleting it, and it seems like no consensus will be reached and the template will stay in its place. I hope you can see what's very wrong with this template, and attempt to force them remove it for the good faith of Wikipedia. Thanks, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 12:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, two articles at two major Israeli news websites have been posted about this subject: at Nana and NRG. I did not tell the writers about this issue, and I did not ask anybody to post anything about this, but they found the information here at the Wiki by themselves and decided it's worth publishing. I think it just shows You how much us Jews are insulted by this userbox, and I believe You should also, as I would be insulted if I see a userbox saying "This user supports killing all Hispanos/immigrants/Arabs/homosexuals." I do not see any reason for this provocative userbox to stay. Somebody saying in his userpage he supports the party which killed 6 million Jews and 5 million people just because they belong to other cultures and religions just 60 years ago, should simply not be at a Wikipedia. Regards, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia is probably the greatest thing I have ever come across on the internet. It's helped out alot with different things I research and I just wanted to let you know how incredible it is. Thanks, Mertens21 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i saw your itineries and voyages and found them to be too western and restricted to europe and americas. i suggest you to come to India once.

here u can see the most amazing engineering wonder of the world (qualitatively). here, there is a iron pillar, that has not rusted for 2000 years and its composition is said to be 98%wrought iron. its simply outstanding because it is 7metres high and made in one go, (without joints), and we still dont have blast furnaces to make such a pillar,even of steel iron. do tell me if and when u r comin. u can expect all kinds of courtesies from me.

nids 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanx for ur kind reply. i couldnt find ur tentative itinerary for future trips. if it is clandestine, i wont ask for it. But if it is not secret, i would love to have a link on it.

thanks again.

nids 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The essay has been moved to its own page as suggested by wangi. Click here:

Wikipedia:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal

--Ben Houston 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

NOTE: The response to this essay is spread out on a few different pages: Village pump (policy) (here), on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, and on Village pump (proposals). I'll try to handle this better if there is a next time. --Ben Houston 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that if you have the user's real name stored, someone can subpoena it. If you start collecting names, they *will* get out the next time there's a messy divorce and the opposing side's lawyer subpoenas Wikipedia's records to prove that a user is editing Satanism articles and must obviously be an unfit parent. Ken Arromdee 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure being caught for editing an article on Satanism is as damning as you think unless that person was stating their own support for it. And if they stated their support for Satanism and get "exposed" -- so what? One has only exposed the truth. --Ben Houston 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it.

• Georgia_mother_loses_child_custody_over_humorous_religion
• Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_governments#Other_cases
• Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs

Some are later rescinded, but don't think it doesn't happen for the stupidest reasons imaginable. -- nae'blis 22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did say in the article that I clearly believed that contributions can be made anonymously, and I gave some examples, but that currently there is an overuse of the protection offered by anonymity which in turn causes a lot of issues for project as a whole. Thus I would favor a philosophical shift towards encouraging people to use their real names as much as possible and from there, it isn't a major issue to have them authenticated as Amazon does. Wikipedia would still be the collaboratively created encyclopedia -- it just wouldn't be the encyclopedia created by primarily by anonymous contributors. --Ben Houston 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm 100% OK with requiring all users to register a username. Then we always know we are talking to the right person, and not to an IP adress that may be shared by several people. It would be helpful to the building of community. As to real names, there is a real problem with stalking that unfortunately makes real names a liability. Johntex\^talk 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Wikipedia has reached a point where IP editing is a liability, not an asset. — Deckiller 21:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree as well, it is ONE of the issues, but needs to be addressed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Requiring registration remains a significant barrier to entry for many valued contributors. Lots of us started out by contributing a few times under an IP before deciding we liked being involved enough to register a username. Without the ability to edit without logging in, how many potential new Wikipedians will we lose? I'm not willing to risk it in exchange for a little less vandalism (there are plenty of vandals with registered usernames, after all). Powers 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to Ben for at least trying to come up with a technically viable solution to Wikipedia'a fundamental problems, which are also being discussed at the level of principle further up the page. In reply to LtPowers, it is NOT a valid argument against such a change to say that it would deter/prevent some people from editing at Wikipedia. No doubt it would, as would virtually any change which also prevented or reduced trolling, abuse, frivolous edits, vandalism and POV-pushing. My response is: "too bad." We are trying to build an encyclopaedia for readers, not an amusement centre for everyone in the world who has access to a computer. As I said somewhere above, Wikipedia doesn't need more editors right now, in fact it could do with a lot less. What it needs is better editors, better articles and better processes. Adam 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We will ensure that people are actually really interested in the site, which means an inceased possibility of higher quality, highly ambitious editors. — Deckiller 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly do we find these better editors without scaring them off before they can even make an edit? Powers 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will be interested in improving an article/subject enough to register. — Deckiller 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Some anonymous users do make contributions, but there is no good evidence that requiring them to register would scare (m)any of them off. Johntex\^talk 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo: I recently noticed that you you declared Daniel Brandt not to be a valid source. Gee, I find that he is a pretty good source about birthdays. I mean, he got your birthday right on his hive2.html page, did he not? Even NNDB was messed up on that for a little while. If only they had checked with Danny... Want do you want? Only an officially embossed brith certificate with do for you? Be reasonable. -- 67.119.194.222 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo does not assert that he decides who is and who is not a valid source for Wikipedia articles. He does have opinions about lots of stuff; just like I do and just like you do. You and I feel free to share our opinions. Why shouldn't he? WAS 4.250 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion is obviously taken as Commandments by some. 70.48.249.56 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. Anomo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself to summarize what Jimmy had to say in the Daniel Brandt biography. Jimmy's opinion of Brandt as "not a valid source" is not relevant, and, in my opinion, regrettable. Since this is Jimmy's web site, I will not ask to to actually express any regrets. -- 64.175.41.205 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny:Series of tubes 70.48.249.56 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gross! How embarassing. -- 75.28.166.70 08:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo - Is there any special reason for thinking that the Nasdijj article has any problems? I've watched in awe as Robertissimo has created a scrupulously well-sourced article that gets across all the facts of this sad case and provides links to Nasdijj/Tim Barrus' blog so that the reader can get both sides of the story. And now it's been blanked and blocked, apparently on your order. I really don't understand why this has been blocked? Cheers! Vizjim 13:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, if there is an WP:OFFICE action here, please confirm (or have Danny confirm) ASAP. Regards Rich Farmbrough 22:14 29 July 2006 (GMT).

WP:OFFICE is a policy which does not apply to things that I do. It is a way for Danny or Brad to notify that they are doing something that I would normally be the only person to do, due to a legal/customer service/etc situation of some sort, and usually because I am not available to take the heat personally. My action in this particular case is the sort of action that any ordinary editor might make, and should make in similar cases. The article has not been "blocked", it has been "semi-protected", which will keep anons from editing it while we, including Robertissimo of course, sort out all the details. If the article is as good as you say, and I have no current reason for thinking that it is not, then Robertissimo and other editors should have no problem building it back up line by line carefully. This is an action of "whoa, this article makes some very strong claims, let's make 100% certain it is right".--Jimbo Wales 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was under the impression it was based on a complaint by the subject. I'm copying your note (and this reply) to the article talk page to let (encourage) the experts to re-build the article. I guess we can restore history safely. Rich Farmbrough 14:02 30 July 2006 (GMT).

Small question on Wikipedia policy for biographies. --kizzle 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Haisch wrote a rather scathing review of Wikipedia and the people who can edit it in Friday's Times. I don't know if you had a chance to read it. It's on page 19A if you can still get a copy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, apparently it was in the LA Times first, and got to St. Pete a whole four days late. In any case, I read it and thought it was tripe. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I appeal, right? You may want to review Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pudgenet/Proposed_decision and its talk page. Particularly, whether there was really "tendentious editing by Barry." Pudgenet added what myself and at least two other Wikipedians consider vandalism, and I called it that and warned him for it. Scarpia reinserted it, and I considered that vandalism too. I mentioned Scarpia's vandalism on the Wikipedians with articles page because it fit the stated purpose of the page, and went to the talk page to get consensus for an acceptable version when Pudgenet deleted it. Pudgenet deleted the version agreed on too. Now I'm getting banned from Perl even though the arbitrators refuse to judge the large amount of content I added to the article that was deleted improperly, Pudgenet just gets a warning, and Scarpia gets nothing. Oh, and it's claimed that I made inappropriate accusations of vandalism. What a joke. I'm banning myself from further significant contributions to Wikipedia.

And please make it clear in the proper places that ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, assuming that's true. It's true in my case. -Barry- 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ArbCom does consider content issues when they arise from a behavior dispute. They have to; otherwise how would they be able to know what to do when one side claims the other side's references don't support their insertions? The principle is that ArbCom doesn't accept pure content disputes. They do accept behavior disputes.

Plus, in your appeal above I think you left out some important details. An appeal isn't likely to be considered unless it responds to each finding of fact in the record. (IANAwikiL) AnAccount2 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to two of the findings of fact above -- "Tendentious editing by Barry" and "Barry has made inappropriate accusations of vandalism." There are no supporting links or explanations in the proposed findings of fact under the tendentious editing claim, so above I just guessed at what it might be about and tried to defend my actions.

The inappropriate accusations of vandalism claim is more clear, and I partially addressed that above. It's discussed right at the top of the talk page that I mentioned. Basically, Fred Bauder considered this warning that I gave to Pudgenet inappropriate, but a couple of editors agree with me that the paragraph I warned Pudgenet about (bottom left...this shows the paragraph alone) was vandalism.

Here, Fred Bauder says that my vandalism warning was based on this "content dispute" (which included a personal attack -- see the edit summary), but in my warning, I clearly linked to the paragraph with the in-article vandalism in which Pudgenet mentioned me. I went out of my way to be specific in my warning because the template didn't allow for specificity, and there's still confusion! Unless it's a coverup. Fred Bauder had been corrected on the workshop page and elsewhere about where the vandalism was, by more than just me, but in the proposed decision, he again only linked to what he calls a content dispute rather than the other paragraph that I warned Pudgenet about. What is that...does Fred not like me and he's using something he learned in law school to mislead people? The discussion page is long, and it's possible he was successful if the other arbitrators didn't read it. -Barry- 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said:I am anti-Perl, especially with regard to the Perl community. There are plenty of decent Perl folks, but there are far too many immature idiots that have been active members of various internet discussion venues for a long time, so bad as to drive several people away, including myself. I'm also anti-Perl because I think that in a couple of years they'll be a major shift away from Perl 5, to an even more difficult Perl 6 (or to other languages), and I'd rather learn Python 3 than Perl 6. In the Perl article, I was obviously anti-Perl in the Con section (which wasn't my idea to create). I think the quote I added was pretty even handed for a Con section, and was basically just something from a reliable source to back up what was asserted previously. Probably a more reliable source than anything else in the article, because it came from a formal study. One of my external links, to a critique by an author, teacher, and developer, was reverted for unspecified inaccuracies, and I didn't question it or put the link back. I'll go out of my way more to add appropriate anti-Perl material than pro-Perl material, but I've improved the article in more neutral ways too, which could only help Perl. -Barry- 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC) here then got into a nasty insulting revert war over perl articles. May I suggest you and wikipedia might both benefit more from efforts on your part in Python articles? WAS 4.250 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in the Perl revert war has been documented by an observer (Simetrical) on the talk page mentioned above, and I don't think there's anything there deserving of much, if any, blame.

I don't know Python. I created the Python 3 page by editing pre-existing, public domain material. I made good and fairly extensive contributions to Perl, and they should be put back as I requested in the arbitration case, or at least judged. -Barry- 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say I'd rather learn Python 3. Do what you claim you would rather do. Learn a little, then contribute a little using the references you learned from. Repeat. WAS 4.250 23:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone contribute to Wikipedia considering that at the highest level there are lies, double standards, disregard for whether good content was reverted, and better treatment for someone making numerous blatant personal attacks, ignoring consensus, and refusing to communicate, than for someone who calls vandalism vandalism and reverts himself when concensus says he shouldn't call vandalism vandalism. And how could you tell me Wikipedia might benefit from me not editing Perl without you even judging my content? You'll probably be an arbitrator some day. -Barry- 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simetrical, however, disagrees with -Barry-'s assessment of his actions here, where he says that -Barry- "acted with undue aggression on a number of occasions, and made unnecessarily provocative edit summaries and statements," and that he "did edit-war once or twice." Simetrical also said "I don't think -Barry- is free of guilt." Finally, although he thought the full punishment was overly harsh, he certainly thought the punishment should be to "at least ban him only from editing Perl-related articles." Steve p 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People need to look at the particular edits, edit summaries, frequency of my reversions, etc. to decide what I deserve. I mentioned Simetrical because he listed a bunch of my edits to make it easy for people to decide for themselves whether I deserve blame and what punishment I deserve. But since you're quoting his opinions, let's get it straight. He said:

Yes, he did edit-war once or twice, but the only one where he made more than a couple of reverts was Wikipedians with articles — which is bad, and deserves a stern warning from the ArbCom and maybe even a one-revert restriction, but is irrelevant to a general ban from Perl, or from interacting with anyone in particular. I don't think -Barry- is free of guilt, but I think the current proposed decision punishes him with undue severity — at least ban him only from editing Perl-related articles and allow him to suggest changes on talk pages.

A lot of the edits I made to Wikipedians with articles were to enforce what was agreed to when I took Pudgenet's objection to the talk page. (after I tried getting an administrator's advice and was ignored). And I think in the context of the quote, "at least..." means "if you have to ban him at all..." -Barry- 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales wrote "Userboxes are a very strong indicator that the person wearing them as badges of pride have no interest in, nor understanding of, NPOV." One of the arbitrators who voted against me on the Perl issues has a "This user is a Perl hacker" userbox on his userpage.

And as long as we're on this subject, Mindspillage is another arbitrator who voted against me, and she has a userbox of sorts (under her standard userboxes) to show her support for ignoring all rules. -Barry- 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard wikipedia has a debate and/or is getting rid of spoiler tags so then would user names with spoilers in them be acceptable? Anomo 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an ongoing debate on every subject at all times on the talk pages of the relevant articles (and I sometimes wonder if in 100 years that will be more valuable than the articles, but I digress). There is no indication we are getting rid of spoiler warnings cause mostly people like 'em. User names should be useful in helping us build an encyclopedia, there is no other criteria. WAS 4.250 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can I change my user name to User:Darth Vader is Luke's Father or not? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can have User:Santa Has Failed To Exist. :-P Evercat 23:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or someone will make a name that spoils the next Harry Potter book and then run a bunch of scripts that clean up vandalism and spelling errors so they get seen by everyone. Anomo 02:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, they would be visible only to editors. Second, people with skills to write a script aren't usually interested in such petty jokes, and bots are only given to well-established users. Finally, we don't intend to be absolutely spoiler-free, just to give people readers an option to reduce spoilage. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were my talkpage... I would be really sad. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the sort of person who could be made sad by anything in cyberspace as opposed to my actual flesh and blood real life, then I would find that sad. (said by someone with actual real health problems) WAS 4.250 23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. : - ) [3] Your unwavering, visible support helps. Take care, FloNight ^talk 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.Wales. On this website i saw you user name in every article an picture of "reposesseed". i'm sorry that i all revert this pages. or is this vandalism from another user? greetings.. 81.165.25.147 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it too, must be an imposter —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an essay, by User:Ashibaka, which has been repeatedly deleted by User:Zoe on grounds of being an "attack page", and restored by Ashibaka and User:Friday[4]. Deletion debates appear to have no consensus. I think that your opinion on this matter would clear this up and stop the revert war, as you are the subject of the essay. --Samael775 21:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an attack page, and putting it in userspace looks like the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Wales, I had a concern about a case that was recently not accepted by the Arbitration Committee. I dont know why, but they were not given enough time to hear the case, and the case never had a 4 vote accept or reject following the policy. This user is a user that has a long history of personally attacking people, and has been warned in excess of over 1 dozen times. He has humiliated other editors in front of hundreds of other people on over 150 different pages and has personally attacked over 200 users since he created an account. Recently, an RFA was filed against him, and the proof was in excess of 330 items long, but was quickly deleted without giving people time to vote. I need this user to be aprehended, and face the consequences of his actions. I would appreciate it if you would read about this case here[[5]] which is his arbitration page that I resotred so you can view it. You will see how much action is really needed in this case. I will be checking on your talk page for a response periodically. Thank You --Ericsaindon2 01:08 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the evidence pretty unpersuasive, but this is not up to me. There is a huge list of links to thinks Coolcaesar has allegedly done wrong, but generally speaking most of them are quite mild if wrong at all. (I randomly spot checked about 10 things). --Jimbo Wales 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, just one more comment. Some rule needs to be added for the naming of communities in the United States. I see that there have been several heated debates over the issue, like on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page as well as the La Jolla, California page. I was involved in one of them, and it got heated, for there was not rule for the naming issue, and it really needs to be corrected, because I notice it is an increasing problem within the encyclopedia. I propose this:

• If a community within a city has a provable community coalition or council, whether recognized by the city government or not, it may be named community, state or community
• If the community has no community council that can be found (and proven) then the community must be named community, city, state.

I think that this would solve a lot of issues, and you should add it to the rules and naming conventions because community naming rules are so vague that they are getting out of hand with the debates (communities within cities). Almost all the larger communities have community councils or coalitions (some are recognized by the cities, and some cities do not choose to recognize others, but both have the same representation), and the smaller ones dont have these organized practices, and the larger ones with the community councils are usually large enough to stand on their own, (but should include the city they are apart of in the first sentence of the article). I think that would make both parties happy.

So, what are your perspectives on the two issues? --Ericsaindon2 20:23 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are completely in the wrong on the Anaheim Hills issue.--Jimbo Wales 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a problem for the project with WP:CSD I3. My understanding is, this policy comes straight from you, so I wanted to bring this up. Here's a hypothetical. Let's suppose that for some reason, the only image currently available for use on, say, Jewel Kilcher, is a fair-use image. Along comes some fortunate private citizen who managed to snap a great photo of Jewel. They upload the image to Wikipedia, but want to insist that it not be used for commercial purposes (and let's say, they're not ignorant of our policies, but they're serious about the restriction). As this conflicts with the policy on use-with-permission, the image is deleted, and ends up not being used on Wikipedia. Here's the trouble: it's "fair use" to use the old picture.. but that claim relies on the idea that there's no free alternative. Despite the lack of GFDL-compatible licensing, isn't the use-with-permission image a "free alternative"? As a flip-side, what if we are given permission to use one promotional image; we can add a fair use tag to that, but does that mean we shouldn't use any OTHER promotional images for the same person? (This is what made me think of this; see this edit, particularly the "note to editors" about the image.) Mangojuice^talk 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Unless the photo of Jewel is of unique historical importance, it is better to have no image than a "fair use" image. --Jimbo Wales 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why do we still allow fair use images? Powers 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the current policy, it is quite narrow. For images, each case is a case where it is pretty clear that free alternatives are not possible. Take as an example, an album cover... these are uniquely historically important for illustrating the album, and not replacable by a free alternative. An ordinary photo of a celebrity, though, is typically not unique in this sense. (A few might be.) There is a link there, unfortunately, to an excessively liberal page about publicity photos. That page declares itself, quite properly, to be non-policy, but I can see how it might confuse people.--Jimbo Wales 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos, but I thought that it might be worth mentioning that the "not replacable by a free alternative" clause at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is pretty much entirely ignored in practice. It is not clear to me how it might be enforced. Jkelly 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jimbo, that makes sense. It also results in absurdities like the current image on Mira Sorvino, but I understand that's an unfortunate consequence of the situation we're in. Powers 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is so absurd about it. --Jimbo Wales 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a good picture. Part of the problem these days is that people are so used to glossy, didgitaly enhanced professional photos of celebreties in full makeup that they consider a candid photo to be "disparadging" to the subject... --Sherool (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she's badly sunburned, primarily. Powers 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment: "My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance." - as a concerned member of this minority, and someone who gets a lot of abuse for trying to enforce the policy, I wonder if you could comment on an amendment to clarify the policy. It is difficult to make progress with these things when the discussion gets overrun with users who think plastering pages with dozens of screenshots a logos isn't a problem because we probably won't get sued! Thanks, ed g2s • talk 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar Some people give barnstars for helping edit Wikipedia. Here is one for making it. ;) Viva La Vie Boheme

That's like storing paper US money at Fort Knox. WAS 4.250 04:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, perhaps you could communicate to the Colbert Report staff that you would like to go on the show to represent Wikipedia? Just an idea --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. It might be embarassing for him to do so however when administrators won't even allow the "Wikiality" segement on Colbert's show to be written about on wikipedia. They've essentially kept it off the Colbert Report entry, arguing that it is "not notable". Seems like biased bunk to me. Ivymike21 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, has anyone anywhere written anything about the term beyond simple reporting of its coinage? Powers 22:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's alive and well in List of The Colbert Report episodes and the episode is referenced in truthiness.... it's just not in the main The Colbert Report article. (FWIW, I also think it would be a good idea to go on the show and explain the 'pedia to them man, face to face.) JDoorjam Talk 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of you appearing on the show, Mr. Wales, although I was thinking that Colbert seemed to be intentionally damaging our Wikipedia and was wondering if there was some way you could pursue legal action. After all, he did tell people to vandalize the wiki on television.Finite 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so? Are they anything more than simple reporting of its coinage? Do they discuss the ramifications of the word's invention? Of its meaning? Of its import? And if they do, is the analysis sourced or is it original research? Powers 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert also told teenagers that they could make a lot of money by using liquid nitrogen and hammers to breaks chains to steal bikes and they should bring sissors to stab people who tried to stop them. Humor and free speech are both under attack and Colbert is one of the good guys. Don't blame Colbert for the behavior of idiots who act on a fucking joke. WAS 4.250 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read in a bunch of places that you are traveling to Denmark on 1 september 2006 to attend the GEL06 conference. Some folks in Denmark are arranging a wikimeetup in conjunction (1 or 2 sept in Dragör) with this conference and are hoping that you can attend to that meetup too. I was just wondering if you will be able to attend that wikimeetup? Regards, mnemo 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,

I don't known if you are aware of the issue with the GraalOnline page but your foundation is really becoming crazy just because a group of people have decided to vandalize the GraalOnline page helped by a mediator. Me and my company were attacked in the modified GraalOnline article so we have enforced the Wikipedia:Verifiability and deleted the section. Your assistant Danny have banned all my company accounts saying we have made off wiki threads because someone reported to him that we have banned someone from GraalOnline because he was involve on this propaganda war. This is completly false and this player was banned 1 month before for Credit Card Fraud... This story is now transformed in a private war between Daniel Bryant protected by some people on the wikimedia foundation. The goal is to now delete the GraalOnline content using Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules because all reason given previously to delete the article were not conform with wikipedia rules. Please have a look at my personal page User_talk:Graal_unixmad (blocked now) and also the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraalOnline and you will understand what i am saying.

I think you are the only one to be able to calm everyone down; this is really the credibility of your foundation that is involved in this story. This is a little bit simple to call me crazy Frenchman (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraalOnline) , because I am defending my company, my reputation and our main product GraalOnline

Thanks for your time.

Stephane. Graal unixmad 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my two bob is as follows: Danny is dealing with case, and has been for a long time. The information above is one-sided, just the like article which is about to be deleted. If I thought it was worth my time, I would explain every one of the above points, but I don't feel it's worth it. Because Danny and Brad are not accepting Graal's point-of-view on this matter for reasons which seem pretty obvious to the outside viewer, do not be slanted to accept the above statement over your experienced staff team who know all the facts. He has decided to come right to the top because all below you disagree with him, and I reccomend you seek Danny's and Brad's advice concerning what could be considered the whole truth before accepting the above statement. Thank you. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, i think you will appreciate how this guy is tracking all my writting and coming after me. He is so confortable with what i am saying that he need to come after me and explain to others what they need to do or think about this issue. Look really close to this issue because me and lot of others think this is a serious issue and this guy and perhaps some member of your team have really broken lot of wikipedia rules and i will say broken also lot of basic rules of human relationship. We have taken contact with journalist and we are in the process to publish it so everyone known about this story and how wikimedia have dealt with this. 87.88.155.179 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Once again I am employing this talk page as a platform to highlight proposed reforms to Wikipedia. Please see, Wikipedia:Ref reform. El_C 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

On the page " Order of the Crown (Netherlands)" you have deleted the words " The background of this decision seems to have been the high costs of the silk ribbon of the Order of the Crown." and asked for a reference. I am a member of the Dutch Society of collectors of Orders and medals. We meet every few months in the " Het Loo " palace ( Rijksmuseum Paleis het Loo ) where we discuss current events with the director of the museum of the chancellary of Dutch orders of knighthood. The story about the costs came from him. He added that he was curious about the reaction of the wives of visiting presidents who could find themselves honoured with a small silver medal. To foreigners it may sound incredeble but the Dutch are a very thrifty nation! Is the reference good enough?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel Robert Prummel 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have asked the heraldic sculptor of the British court if i could use the pictures on his website in Wikipedia articles. He was delighted! I have to mention the name or he artist offcourse. Soon the beautifull carved crests in Saint George's chapel in Windsor , St. Giles' cathedral and Westminster abbey will appear on Wikipedia.

If I may be so bold, may I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability which states "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources". Its a shame wikipedia can't contain things that are true but unverifyable, but that's the cost of trying to be reliable. WAS 4.250 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir,

I first would like to congratulate and sincerely thank you for all the contributions you have made to the world through Wikipedia. I first learned about it a few months back when doing a school report. Now, I routinely use it as a primary source, instead of Google. I am an active editor, and look up stuff ranging from organic chemistry to Star Wars. Some of my friends would also like to thank you for all of the video game materials on it... =)

However, I have encountered a problem on the wikia known as HaloWiki. I just created an account today, and after about 2 hours, when trying to reply a user's message to me on their talk page, recieved the following message:

"

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by KryptoCleric.

The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "RelentlessRogue". The reason given for RelentlessRogue's block is: "cool your jets and BE RESPECTFUL of other members." You may contact KryptoCleric or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences. Your IP address is 72.76.89.114. Please include this address in any queries you make.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://h2wiki.halowiki.net/wiki/User:RelentlessRogue"

"

Could you explain this to me? My user account on HaloWiki is RelentlessRogue. My user account on Wikipedia is RelentlessRouge. Why is my account on the Wikia being blocked if my IP address was recently used by myself?

Thank you.

Cheers,

RelentlessRouge 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This... isn't really the place for this, and I'm not Jimbo, but I think you got that autoblock message because you forgot to login, thus you attempted to edit from your IP address - your account RelentlessRogue was blocked (see block log) for only 1 day, so you can just wait 24 hours and then continue to edit on that Wiki. I personally think the block was unwarranted, but you could discuss that with KryptoCleric after the block expires. Cowman109^Talk 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to request again here that myspace.com/bobbyboulders and imwithbobby@yahoo.com be blacklisted, as they have been spammed repetitively by the Bobby Boulders vandal. I have requested that they be blacklisted at both the Spam Blacklist and the Administrator's noticeboard, but I seem to have been ignored.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get in trouble when that old man saw that article that had been vandalised? and did you get sued by sollog? --Banner Making Competiton 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Blocked indefinitely as troll/imposter. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:52, 02 August '06}

I just wanted to let you know I received a message from User:Banner Making Competition wanting my password on Wikipedia earlier today. I replied back to ask for it in private for fear of using it as vandalism. All I want to is contribute and not be the victim of vandalism or may named impugned in any bad light. User:Sythriss has also dealt with this, but I wanted to let you know I am trying to do not wrong, just improve the Wikipedia site. Chris 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I had heard that you were Roman Catholic, so I added you to the category. If this isn't the case, I apologize, and will remove it for you. Thanks for letting me know.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia!--Jimbo Wales 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,
It appears that there is a good number of IP vandals that uses the service of Road Runner HoldCo LLC, a company that provides internet service to millions of customers on the Eastern Seaboard. Should someone do something about this in general, or should we just leave it be? Arbiteroftruth 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]