User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I Jim. I would just like to say I love this site and recently became a member. I always use wikipedia for reference and never knew that I could do edititng. Can you please respond? Tennislover 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just love Wikipedia. I just hate all thr discussion in biographies as to whether someone is gay. I'm not a tail gunner, and couldn't give a rat's arse whether someone is or was. You can't censor I know, but I suggest that if someone in discussion uses the words "Gay' homosexual, pillow biter etc" is flagged "boring".

XSebX 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Under our living persons policy, if they did it enough we'd flag them "banned". Yes, we can and should censor - if someone makes that sort of controversial assertion and doesn't have reliable sources to back it up, the post should be removed, whether from articles, talk pages or anywhere else. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If the person were not a living person, it should still be removed from the main article if unsourced. Talk pages are also supposed to be about how to improve the article so any discussion about a subject's homosexuality if not a recommendation to include such a suggestion in the main article, backed up with sources can also be removed (and should be removed if it is getting out of hand). Nil Einne 21:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I recently made the following comments on the talk page of Chinese people and was blocked indefinitely. The reason given to me is a sock puppet case. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. The computer I used is one at my university computer lab, which is shared by all students. I think the administrator's action is totally unfair. I took a look at the sock puppet case and didn't see many similarity among those blocked editors. Most of them are just temporary accounts people use for the purpose of not revealing IP address. The accused user SNLE was indefinitely blocked only for sock puppet. I don't think sock puppet is justifiable for indefinitely block, as indicated in the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page. Anyway, I think the administor is too arbitrary in making his decision in case of shared IP address. I wonder if some outsider could come and solve this case or at least ask the administrator to stop blocking people on unjustified bases. Thanks.User68732 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

" This disambiguation page contains too many unnecessary misleading information. According to Wiki's policy, a disambiguation page should be a simple list of the relevant links that make readers easy to navigate. There is a standard disambiguation page at Chinese, where Chinese people are properly disambiguated.

• Chinese people, people of Chinese ethnicity
  • Zhonghua minzu, the supra-ethnic Chinese nationality
  • Han Chinese, the dominant ethnic group in China
  • Ethnic minorities in China
  • Overseas Chinese

I think this pagre should look something like this. Poepl 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)"

I also think these two administor are misusing their administrative power: User:Dmcdevit, user: Khoikhoi. User68732 20:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Today I am doing some research for my astronomy assignment. Jimmy, my school, Linda Christas has been beaten up by Wikipedia volunteers. I understand that Wikipedia volunteers have left lots of negative messages on the Advisory Committee's personal web sites, so much so that one of my favorites, Alison Jiear, resigned rather than put up with the harassment. I know this cannot be what you had intended, but my study buddies and I are very upset with this treatment. We want to be able to tell good stories about Wikipedia. I mean, rumor has it that your schools Jimmy are mentioned on your personal web site and linked. What are we, lepers? Could you look into this for us. Melissa (message forwarded by Linda Christas Help Desk)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Dovefeather (talk • contribs)

While it is sad if Alison Jiear was really unfairly harrassed, are you so sure that these people were wikipedia 'volunteers' or have been in any way influences by wikipedia. It seems to be that quite a lot of people don't like your organisation for whatever reason [1]. You might want to consider whether the actions of your organisation such as this [2] are angering people and if so, what if anything you should do about this. In any case, I would strongly suggest you ask Alison and anyone else to take this matter up with the police if she feels she has been harassed in such a way that is not lawful. Jimbo Wales doesn't have any influence on the actions of wikipedians and has made it quite clear harassing people is unacceptable. Nil Einne 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

She quit her job over some anonymous harassment on the Internet? That was a very strange choice she made. Me, realising my choices are my responsibility, would have simply ignored it. ---J.S (t|c) 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of WP:FU reads "we understand that in order to completely meet the second part of our mission, producing a quality encyclopaedia, we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary", which leads onto the criteria #8 "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace". However recent rumblings amongst the Portal community have lead to a proposal to include an exception for that namespace. By their very nature, Portals are navigation pages, and contain very little, if any, original content (as in, not just copied from the main namespace), and so personally I can see no justification for decorating whatever lists or article previews they may have with yet more unfree media. Seeing as this proposal is nearing an end with the large number of Portal editors out numbering the handful of editors who deal with unfree images daily, your opinion on the matter would be highly valued by all. Many thanks, ed g2s • talk 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Ed is improperly framing the issue. Portals are designed primarily for the reader and are conveying content for the reader. They are therefore much more analogous to Article space than to Talk-space or Template space. Where fair use images are effective at legally communicating information they should be embraced for that purpose. They are not "decoration" no matter how many times Ed likes to use that word in an attempt to impune the legal use of informative content. I also think it is improper to label people as "Portal editors". No evidence has been presented that the supporters of using this content spend the bulk of their time on portals. Even if they do, does that somehow make their contributions less valuable than that of people who contribute in other ways? Johntex\^talk 02:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I was merely pointing out where the support was coming from. Portals are not like the article space at all. They typically contain:

• An introduction (copied from the main article, usually)
• A selected article (with an extract)
• News (in bullet form)
• Various other short lists

The word 'portal' means "An entrance, entry point, or means of entry" - it is by its definition, a navigation page, not an article. You can provide navigation without images, hence they are unnecessary. ed g2s • talk 16:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Portals are most analogous to the Main Page in that they provide 'article content', wiki-project information, and navigation aids. The only significant difference is that they do so for a particular topic while the main page does so for Wikipedia as a whole. Within that framework it should be noted that fair use images DO appear on the main page when needed (see 10/1, 10/3, & 10/5 for some examples from this month). One of the anomalies of the recent effort to expunge all fair use images from portals is that content which was used as 'article of the day' on the main page is suddenly deemed 'not appropriate' when it is then displayed on a specific topic portal where the fair use image is more directly relevant. That is clearly contradictory and thus either the (longstanding and unopposed) appearance of 'fair use' images on the main page needs to be addressed, or the crusade to abolish them from portals needs to be re-evaluated. --CBD 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You have pointed out the problem with the Main Page. Why make it spread to Portals as well? Two wrongs don't make a right. ed g2s • talk 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I was pointing out was a discrepancy in practice. If having 'fair use' images on the Main Page is a "problem" and "wrong" then why is it done routinely? Why are you not yanking such images off that page? If the case is really valid then make it there rather than fighting the battle on each individual sub-project with a portal. It seems like you are ignoring the '800 pound gorilla' to go after the 'little fish'. If this practice is 'bad' then surely it is MOST bad when it appears on the single most prominent page in all of Wikipedia. Neh? When on Portal:Main Page 'fair use' images are more prominently placed and have less relevance to the page topic (Wikipedia itself) than they do on portals directly related to that image... surely making any theoretical violation of 'fair use' criteria vastly more likely on the main page. Yet we do not stop that. So either the 'problem' you see in the portals is miniscule in comparison to that on the main page - against which no action is taken... OR there isn't really a valid case for removing 'fair use' images from portals. --CBD 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Fair Use images from the Main Page, and would fully support banning them, but it is a separate issue. ed g2s • talk 08:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

...for days to rewrite this piece to please Wikipedian editors. We thought it would be a great addition to your life story. Kind of shows that you're essentially just a great ball of courage. This piece continues to be deleted from your life page, and we would certainly like to know how to add the material as a permanent beacon for the masses. Any suggestions?

In 2006, Wales was the first person to do the decent thing by correcting the many abuses Wikipedians were heaping on others, especially in the case of people like Mr. Pat Boone who evidently has made enemies among the Big W's liberal volunteers by speaking of the importance of personal character. Wikipedians seemingly don't want that kind of message being shared, at least not with any vehicle they have anything to say about. Wales also asked [Fall 2006] that Mr. Boone's presidency of the Pepperdine University Board replace the reference on Mr. Boone's page to the movie "FUCK." Wales thought, rightly, that Pepperdine was more relevant. However, THE VOLUNTEERS disagreed and reinstated "FUCK" several dozen times. This observer notices that Jimbo has the Randolph School (his kindergarten) well referenced on this page (and why not), but for Mr. Boone, PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY...NADA. In addition, Wales aggressively lobbied to include Mr. Boone's appointment to the John William Boone Chair for the Performing Arts at Linda Christas. But, Jimbo's efforts failed, and in retribution, Wikipedian volunteers decided that all of LC should be deleted from the encyclopedia. We further understand that Wikipedian volunteers at the highest level gathered together under Jimbo's command to leave acerbic messages on Alison Jiear's (the opera diva) personal web site causing Ms. Jiear to resign from the Linda Christas Advisory Committee. (Frankly, we don't blame her. Some people in life are just too small to deal with. Some say Wikipedians are nearly invisible. But, honestly, we don't have any definitive information.) Jimbo is to be congratulated all around for his opposition to the universal defamation of character standard for which Wikipedia is beginning to develop a wide reputation. (It is rumored (hearsay only we must admit) that Jimbo edited his own life history eighteen times... This very page as a matter of fact. Must have been important to Jimmy. But, as for a decent man like Mr. Boone. Well, screw him, YES!! Alan Shroeder, LC volunteer, re-writing this section at the request of Wikipedia. (Forwarded by LC Help Desk) We are attempting to find a formula that will stick here. Not doing so well though. Seems like Wikipedians don't care very much for the negative kind of truck that passes for objectivity at the Big W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.242.201 (talk • contribs)

Yikes. Yet more from a Linda Christas partisan. Related AfDs on the subject are here and here. Singer Alison Jiear was formerly listed as a board member by the group and now is not[3], but one can only speculate why her apparent withdrawal followed the two AfDs. As others have noted in other contexts, one might have expected representatives of an educational organization to be equipped to understand Wikipedia standards regarding notability, verifiability, etc. Robertissimo 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't they ever give up? Now we're all a bunch of liberals, while the poster several sections above accuses us of being in the pockets of the GOP... JChap2007 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you've said no-way general advertising. You've said no to "opt-out" advertising. What about the third option? What about Opt-in advertising?

It would be fairly easy to create a template that included AdWords (or something similar). Name it "MonoBook (Supported)" while keeping the other MonoBook as the default selection. No, it wouldn't generate a lot of income, but it would allow those of us without the financial means to help support the project in a financial way while also maintaining the integrity of the project by not forcing advertising on the general population. ---J.S (t|c) 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I could login and try a more private method but I haven't logged in for some months and don't wish to change that now. Many people (admins and users) use Wikipedia as if they are bullies in kindergarden. I don't know if shutting down the irc channels would help - it seems to me that certain admins seem to escalate their anger there and then block who-ever they want to bully with. I "came back" here to find a lot of people I knew (and some of them were your "wikifriends" too) either banned or left wikipedia on their own will. Perhaps it's about time some people in "high" wikipedia places to see what can be done to save wikipedia and stop (or at least calm down) those trigger happy admins who destroy the project. -- 22 October 2006, Noman the ex-Wikipedian

I must certainly agree, though I can't do anything about it. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to 3rd that. Nowadays, admins totally discourage article creation and overall improvement of the encyclopedia. I mean, if they don't bombard your article with tags, they delete it before you can even improve the article. Also, articles should have a means for being more protected against admins. Like some sort of Wikipedia safety chain so they can't delete it because they don't like it. Is there anything we can do about this? Shimdidly 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This pretty much says it all about the current Partisan POV of Wikipedia:

"I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in the main Clinton article. By contrast, this main article for Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 30, 2006 (on the GW Bush talk page)

Sad but true - Congrats - F.A.A.F.A 08:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. And here I thought it was uber-liberal (as I've seen mentioned in many complaints surrounding GOP-related topics). Or was it uber-libertarian? Communist? Fascist? I get so confused. Won't someone please tell me what kind of bias I'm supposed to have this week?!? I beg of you! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, User:Mike42 has today come up with a suggestion of Wikiatlas, and later, Wikimaps as a new Wikimedia project. What do you think? The suggestion was made on IRC and the domain http://www.wikimaps.org/ is currently unused.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

y the fucc did u fuccin delete the brian peppers article?, N y did u delete tha encyclopedia dramatica 1?

[personal attack removed]--EZ 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly this is why it was bad to delete and salt the Brian Peppers talk page. Before all this stuff went there and now it piles up on Jimbo's talk page. Also Jimbo did not delete the ED article, just the Brian Peppers one. The ED article was deleted by his administrators. Anomo 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the instant karma thing was not very funny. This IP is funny. The sheer mispelling of it all makes me laugh out loud. I wish he had an account so I could upload a screenshot of his post with red marking (like a teacher) correcting his mistakes, starting with the title. Hmm what's the properly spelled to improperly spelled ratio, 64%? Anomo 23:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate this guy for admin! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 10:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

i do hav an account--EZ 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the article Brian Peppers contained a short explanation of why the page is protected (e.g stating that it was a biased biography of a non-notable living person, or whatever) rather than just saying the page has been deleted and should not be recreated? I think it would reduce confusion and complaints such as the one above. Jibjibjib 07:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to List of Internet phenomena would be appropriate. Jibjibjib 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Best would be for the developers to edit the .htaccess file to redirect all traffic going to that article to a ytmnd Brian Peppers article of their choosing. Anomo 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? They'll be getting something that's just set up to laugh at him. Part of what made having a WP article on him so useful was that it served as an alternative, even an antidote to that stuff. Everyking 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course I am. I do seriously think they should link to some explanation so Jimbo's talk page isn't filled with people complaining. It's getting close to February 2008, too, or whenever it goes back up. Anomo 09:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

EZ, whatch what you say around our leader. He dosen't just delete pages, but might also delete you! Mwaahahahaha!!!!! No seriously, cut out the bad language. It's not nice. Mindofzoo999 01:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This article may be of interest if you haven't read about this already [4] and of course our wikipedia article here intellipedia. While it would be more accurate to call it a wiki not a wikipedia, I'm thinking you should volunteer to help here. I'm sure with your expert guidance, the CIA will be able to develop policies which will suit them well. I mean where will they be without Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and of course Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Their approach might seem to be working but with your experience and help, they might be able to avoid a John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It probably won't be John Seigenthaler of course but the risks may be much worse. Can you imagine what's going to happen if some joker does the same thing in this intellipedia and people believe it? Extraordinary rendition and waterboarding come to mind as do Khalid El-Masri and Laid Saidi ... Nil Einne 20:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• You forgot WP:OR, Nil Einne....Risker 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, they should also use the GFDL or some other free license although perhaps someone else (Richard Stallman, Theo de Raadt & Bill Gates come to mind) should help them on that (okay technically all the stuff is probably in the public domain except it's classified). You probably will need to help with the edit wars and trolling though and sockpuppetry tho. Do you think they will succeed in areas where we fail? Will George W. Bush or Osama bin Laden be a featured article? Let's hope they don't forget all the important stuff we have like Toilets in Japan (still a features article!) or JoJo's Bizarre Adventure#A note on WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY or even You Kicked My Dog. If they do, why don't you suggest some users who might be able to help them in their 'noble' mission? User:EntmootsOfTrolls and User:Willy on Wheels come to mind. And perhaps we'll learn something. How will they handle Bogdanov Affair for example? Conspiracy theorists might suggests John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy assassination will provide clues but let's not go there... You'd probably need to agree to some rather stringent confidentially requirements tho. But hey what's the worse that can happen? I mean your an American so no extraordinary rendition and waterboarding (maybe - Yaser Esam Hamdi & Military Commissions Act of 2006...). Nil Einne 20:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I got a question. Is it possible for someone to hack in to Wikipedia (like evade blocks or bans etc.)?--PrestonH 04:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

People do evade blocks through sockpuppetry and switching IPs. It's rather pointless because we can erase/revert everything they do much faster than they can create it, which doesn't require any more explanation than 'rv banned user' or 'CSD G5'. Autoblocking, semi-protection and blocking IP ranges are some of the things we can do to prevent them editing in the first place. I'm not sure if you mean 'hacking' in a more general sense, but it seems to be that there's only limited point in hacking a site which lets you edit (almost) any page anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiMedia software has very powerful security. Even if someone hacked into the root account and copied the database they would STILL not have your personal password in any kind of readable form. Wikipedia uses whats called a "salted hash" to store passwords. It's very impressive if you've ever dug around in the code. (I run my own wiki, so I've dug around in the code:)) ---J.S (t|c) 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia software doesn't have any protection from brute force hacking except for the fact that it would take a long time. I've heard dicussion about the possibility of hacking into privledged accounts and selling them on eBay, but I don't think it has happened. What is more likely to happen is if someone connects and doesn't use the https part of wikipedia and they use an insecure connection over a network proxy (not neccessarily open proxy or Tor) then their password could be taken. I've heard of cookie hijacking, too. Anomo 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Irene McGee.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Priceless hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow... the next thing you know, AVB is posting on this page. Fredil 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Question moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where it is more likely to get an answer - the wub "?!" 12:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re our Mr Nash, whom we discussed off-WP, and his apparent use of CTs... when do you think it would be safe to explain this to them what are affected? Apparently, you neglected to notify MM of the reasoning, and he's somewhat distressed. Not overly emotionally so, at least, but distressed nonetheless (and not unreasonably so). DS 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this userbox appropriate for Wikipedia? It was restored along with several others created by some sockpuppet and a couple about political parties of the more normal type, on the basis that the "Divisive and inflammatory" CSD does not apply to pages which happen to be in user-space despite their use only as templates in transclusion[5]. I don't see anyone changing opinions that Wikipedia is the place for political partisanship, despite neither "This user identifies as a Stalinist" nor "This user believes that the death penalty should be imposed and used more frequently!" being conducive to developing an encyclopedia. They did see fit to keep "Jews did WTC" deleted under section 14 paragraph 7 line 8 of the rule book, but we immediately run into the logical inconsistency of the whole matter: The user who created that userbox responds to ask whether "This user believes in Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks" would be acceptable, a natural conclusion; "This user considers Jews an inferior race" must be an attack, but "This user supports the Nazi party" would merely be an expression of personal opinion in the sacrosanct user-space. We are dealing only with matters of degree or viewpoint, which we can extend to less stereotypically fringe views that are interpretable as "This user supports the killing of children" or "This user supports the domination of women". I do not know the history of the userbox wars, but as new users join Wikipedia they should not be seeing these as standard—I frequently see users whose fifth edit is to post a {{helpme}} about how to make a userbox—this issue should be firmly and unequivocally resolved before 2008 (the nostalgiac days of 2004 had no such problem), but if the last year is an indication the problem is only increasing. —Centrx→talk • 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

They have a cave trollllllllll

Chris 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Jimbo. Wie geht's? Ihr Benutzerseite sagt, dass Sie Nachrichten auf Deutsch mögen. Tschüs! -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You've participated in the case of Brandy Alexandre before and I know you're quite interested in BLP related issues so you might be interested in a question I have raised here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Names - an interesting issue. This is a general issue which has occured to me based on some issues in the Brandy Alexandre case in particular. Cheers Nil Einne 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sie lernen Deutsch? Warum dieses? Viele Grüße ~~ Phoe _talk 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Eine Anmerkung: Ich glaube, ihr könnt Jimbo auch mit "du" anreden. In der deutschen Wikipedia ist das üblich :) —da Pete (ばか) 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Die deutschen Anstandsformen ... lassen eh zu wünschen übrig ~~ Phoe _talk 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ :-)

Over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006 there is an active discussion about how to organize voting for the upcoming ArbCom elections. Several people have stated a strong preference for using Special:Boardvote but others have countered that you prefer to run them the way they were done last year. I would encourage you to either express yourself more fully on the issue or even, if you are so inclined, make a binding determination. I just figure that it is better to have you speak for yourself than have others arguing "Well Jimbo thinks..." Eluchil404 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You better look for bribery inside German Wikipedia There is more lerking in the German cupboards than you might think of. Kind Regards Olaf Klenke

Blackmailing is also a very popular Administrator job to avoid people who are no trolls but want to discuss differently because of too much POV. I am not innocent and I did provoke them quite often ( it provokes or it non provokes It provokes the desire but it take away the performance. ... ) Blaming others because of a different opinion is not scientific at all. And it is the Quality which counts not the Quantity. I do not know why but the German Administratos are responsible for the so called Vandals and Norwegian Trolls. They are not able to decide wether it is a Troll or someone who is worth to be propper integrated.

And after the last mysterious donation with no answers where the money has been gone nobody can really trust Wikimedia e.V. anymore.

This Privatisation for the sake of earning money with wikipedia is completely against what manny free users had generally in common when they started to write articles. Too many background consultants which are missusing the wikipedia to built up a good platform for there industrial clients. And many jobless Admins who do cover this actions. And it is a plain fact that nearly only the anonymous Administrators are responsible for 85% of the trouble.

A very good idea is going to be spoilt because of Germans typicall attitude to show arrogance even by not knowing anything about that matter.

All the best but I am fed up from blackmailing collecting evidences and the funny loss of any insaults from the German Wikipedia Admins.

By the way not all of them are bad Many good ones have left. And a very kind thank you to Admin Markus Schweiß who really tried hard to avoid all this hazzle and trouble. But one emotionless Admin is by far not enough.--80.142.238.228 11:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Olaf Klenke Germany--Ekkenekepen 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [6]

Hi,

Could you make those countdowns of 5 seconds down to about 2 or so, or even nothing if possible... sot hat if someone goes to "www.wikipedia.org/dogs" it goes pretty much straight to www.wikpedia.org/wiki/dogs ? This would make linking really alot easier and save thousands of cumulative hours of time around the world!! :D What do you reckon? !!!?!? :D

sorry: signature Jimbob615 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC) and by the way, nice pumpkin, LOL!

peux-tu mettre un nouveau_ logo wikipedia

alors , voici le matériel : un W rose un I bleu un K rouge un I noir un P EN JAUNE un E en violet un D en blanc un I En rose et un A en bleu

merci de changer le logo wikipedia

Hello! Your Wikipedia article says, "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales is the founder, board member and Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation."

Wikipedia's definition of Emeritus states, "Emeritus (IPA pronunciation: [əˈmɛrɪtəs] or [ɪˈmɛrɪtəs]) is an adjective that is used in the title of a retired professor, bishop or other professional. Emerita (IPA pronunciation: [ɪˈmɛrɪtə]) was used for women, but is rarely used today. The term is used when a person of importance in a given profession retires, so that his or her former rank can still be used in his or her title. This is particularly useful when establishing the authority a person might have to comment, lecture or write on a particular subject."

If possible, could you console me by letting me know that you're not actually retiring from the project, but are simply ditching some of your board duties to concentrate more on what you love (and do so well) -- public Wikipedia speaking? 152.163.100.69 03:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, I am retired from being board chair, not from the projects! I am still on the board, I am still doing my outreach work, and I am still devoting a ton of time to meeting and working with people from all the language communities worldwide. :)--Jimbo Wales 16:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I applaud this move. Will this mean the end of your powers at WP:OFFICE? I still see your name on the policy page. Will Florence Nibart-Devouard obtain WP:OFFICE power? What is it exactly that grants you WP:OFFICE power that's criticized as oftenly abused?Feureau 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, Jimbo Wales has a special status as being the founder of Wikipedia. While the Board of Trustees can always intervene in matters, Jimbo's status is supported by the community. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Wales. I was curious about something. An anon-user (El Jigue) continues to fill up 'talk pages' of Cuban related articles (Cuba, Fidel Castro, Raul Castro and Che Guevara) with gossip. As he has refused to register in, or respond (on his anon talk pages) to my complaints. Is it possible to erase his 'gossiping' from the respective 'talk pages'? GoodDay 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered you (with this question). I just notice the top of your 'talk page' (suggesting such questions, be directed to Administrators). Please ignore my 'pleas' on 1:36 Nov.7 ,2006 (UTC). GoodDay 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's an open investigation at WP:RFI about this. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You know,

If you took the Wikiholic test, you'd be unstoppable. How come you didn't put your name up on the top 20 list?

KINGALEX56RULES!!!!!!!! 01:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I implore you to attend this meetup. I understand that you have a very busy schedule and you're constantly going all over the world, but this would be a great chance to bring your family to the great city of New York, plus you could meet other Wikipedians that perhaps won't have a chance to go tens of thousands of miles to Wikimania next August. Please think about it and get back to me (or that page) on it. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In an old issue of WIRED I saw you garnered the nickname "The God-King" (though you hated it) :-p Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.27.62 (talk • contribs)

The term has been used before in a generally joking fashion (I think I used it once in an email to Jimbo and he didn't seem to mind too much). If Jimbo is a God-King he is one of the most benevolent and hands-offish ones ever. JoshuaZ 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting you in a proposed policy discussion, and it concerns your fundamental principles, so I thought you'd want to know in case you wanted to comment, either to affirm their relevance or to say I'm misinterpretting what you say. Sort of on that subject, I'm glad your talk page isn't semi-protected! 66.231.130.70 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Wales, I'm a bit intimidated by the whole RfA process, and I think it would benefit a little clarification. Do you think you could add your two cents at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards? Thanks, Pcbene 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lerne nicht deutsch.

Lerne türkisch ;)

Immerhin wird der nächste Kaiser von Europa ein Türke sein. ...Jedenfalls nachdem Ihr Eure Mini-Nukes alle verschossen habt :) (Und Hillary Clinton und Arnold Schwarzenegger werden zeitgleich zurücktreten, weil Sie mit dem selben minderjährigen Postboten-Praktikanten E-Mail-S hatten)

Best regards, --Foerdi 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty new anti-vandalism member, and just came across User:RickK and his departure. Let me know the reason for his departure. I was shocked on seeing his statistics and it is not that great leting him out. I definitly need a reason for this... codetiger 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think Jimbo would know? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 10:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can watch the history of User talk:RickK Jimbo has asked for appology for his work against RickK. So whats that has happened before. If you think this post of mine will affect Wikipedia in some way, I am really cool you can delete it. No problem. codetiger 13:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well I doubt Jimbo will have time to explain but there's no harm in asking, I think. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 15:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RickK was a great vandalfighter who eventually burned out and left. His reasons for leaving did not have anything to do with any conflict with me. Once upon a time, I talked about RickK's work in a public lecture in a manner that was misunderstood by Rick... entirely my thought. I was expressing admiration for him as the daring cop who does what is right with courage, despite the flak, but my explanation of this (comparing him to a movie hero cop) was weak and hurt his feelings. I apologized and in the end all was right between us as far as I know. RickK was one of the great ones. :)--Jimbo Wales 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jimbo, for putting your time to reply. And I am starting back on anti-vandalism. codetiger 04:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As for hurt feelings, some of us who were on the receiving end of his abuse might feel hurt that you'd praise him so glowingly. Everyking 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo. What do iu think of the Uncyclopedia? --Walter Humala |wanna Talk? 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I love it.--Jimbo Wales 06:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales My name is Olaf Klenke from Germnany ( yes I have got a reall name )

I am blackmailed by Administrator Bdk by linking a collection of comments which I made This comments are collected but how the discussion developped cannot be seen anymore because its part of there kind of funny "game". Because of this comments my name is listed over google in a way nobody really wants to. I cannot do anything against this blackmailing because all your administrators can work anonymous if they want to. Because I wanted to prosecute this people I rewarded a fine of 1000 $ each if I can get hold of the reall person behind all this norty business. It is miracousley always the same bunch of administrators which is alltimes blocking me. I tried to appologize for my mistakes but they dont listen. If this is the new method to avoid trolls inside the wikipedia it is a very bad way.

It is not funny at all if your name is mentioned over google search engine on the first position over that way. Administrator Markus Schweiß tried to persuade Bdk to erase this wikipedia entrance. She said only if he is not working here anymore. And all this happened because she wants to stay anonymous. If a person is doing something like this she has lost the right to keep her name private.

I am working in a position where some clients might google my name and that is no fun at all then. I told Bdk all this arguments but she is still convinced that everything she does is correct.

With all my humble respect I beg you to deal with that matter because it could destroy much more than only called by your own reall name.

Yours sincerely

Olaf Klenke --Ekkenekepen 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

someone should sue your ass for promoting propoganda! lol The fact that nobody has done it by now is evidencing that i did not promote any propagand Bye the way my name is known you are only called le grand inconnu. Please specify what you mean with propaganda. --80.142.212.174 09:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that a legal threat? *Dan T.* 04:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

With all my humble respect I beg you to deal with that matter because it could destroy much more than only called by your own reall name. Does that sound like a legal threat ??? It is a wish or beg from a desperate person who tried to solve it allone for nearly 1 year now.

I did not know if anything happened untill now but Bdk tried to get in touch with me which she refused before. Because I have figgured out her identity I could sue her. On the other way round that was never what I wanted. But will she understand without court that you cannot solve a wrongfull behaviour with a even by far more wrongfull behaviour.

Kind regards I still do not know what to do now

Olaf Klenke

I denied a communication over the IRC Internet Chat I think this is definetely to serious to communicate over this unpersonall way. As I already offered Administrator Markus Schweiß I would have liked to meet her in public with one ore more Administrators taking part as well to tell her what I think about all this. I cannot see her eyes her facial expression etc. and this is for me much more important than written words. In a face you can see if there is a change in thought and probably mind as well. The voice timbre is also very important and cannot be given by plain letters as well IRC is just plain letters they do not tell anything they have no soul or anything else to be sure that the given message has gone trough.

Hi. My name is Ellif. I'm working on the Korean Wikipedia, mainly. I like some things about Wikipedia, but don't like others.

The question that I have is, how many people can have a gathering on the Wikipedia namespace? This is because I have a gathering. I just proposed policies some months ago, but as time passed by, many users joined, and my gathering has 13 members at present. I have some other gatherings at 한오백년 (which means 'Solidarity of Wikipedia users who disagree on the misjudgement of the Korean Wikipedia'). I think It can be on the English Wikipedia namespace, but sysops at the Korean Wikipedia disagree.

And, I also ask for your thoughts on

• Transcluded signature templates as opposed to subtituted ones; at present, a discussion about this has been brought up.
• Making page gather GUS-userbox in wikipedia: space (ex. ko:User:Airridi/유저박스 to ko:Wikipedia:사용자 유저박스 etc.)

Thank you for reading, and I love and bless you. Have a nice day!

- ko:사용자:Galadrien Ellif 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what the above user is saying but it might be helpful if a Korean-speaking wikipedian could help with translation so we know for sure...? Nil Einne 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Han-O-Baek-Nyeon is a group of users who are against the policies of

1. WP:NPOV being applied to the User namespace, not just the (main) namespace
2. "No fair use" (AFAIK, fair use is not allowed under South Korean copyright laws)
3. Userboxes
4. Numerous rules, against one of the five pillars, Wikipedia does not have firm rules (IMHO, the English Wikipedia has more rules, and runs more smoothly)

IMHO this should be resolved by talking to the administrators of the Korean Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's terrible! Those aren't our policies!

Our policy really insists

1. Against NPOV ON USER PAGES. We don't insist on NPOV entirely.
2. recognition Fair use : for notion of 'quotation' on korean law can be.
3. Userboxes (e.g. We translated WP:GUS to korean, and we made some userboxes on User pages.)
4. Reduce Numerous rules, observe fifth pillars, and make more comunitical comunity.

I elucidate Wholely, Upper translation distorted our assertation. and I express My regret to kjoonlee, who is User of Korean Wikipedia. - Ellif 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. do not bother Jimbo Wales. it shoule be discussed by korean wikipedia users. why did you ask Jimbo and why didn't you ask on Korean villege pump first? I disappointed.

anyway, in korean wikipedia there is no NPOV rule on User namespace, no Userbox restriction rule, and no unnecessary rules afaik (and han-o-baek-nyeon have never claimed whick rule is unnecessary). and Han-o-baek-nyeon claims to permit fair use but they have never confirmed any copyright law. so "no fair use" policy is right because there is no legal base of fair use. --Klutzy 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted on Ellif's talk page that I am willing to sort out the fair use issue. Klutzy, I do not mind discussing this with you too. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the various laws, but, since we go farther than US law, the Koreans go above and beyond the KO laws to make their encyclopedia free to the masses. I'll work with them to get rid of the fair use photos. Case closed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote his post to make it somewhat coherent... revert me if this was a bad idea. ~ Flameviper 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Please restore the record of the discussion on the proposed deletion of Gary Weiss.--70.218.34.233 10:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting old discussion which contained discourteous commentary is standard practice. Can you tell me what your objection in this particular case is?--Jimbo Wales 15:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's typically the discourteous comments themselves that are deleted, not the entire page. Please reconsider your decision and restore record of that discussion, purged of individual instances of discourtesy as you deem fitting.--70.218.34.233 19:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to permenently remove comments from talk pages, as they weave into the page history and people reply to them. To be honest, there is often little way to remove discourteous comments from discussion pages without nuking the whole page. I have a question for you too, why do you want the page restored? I genuinely can't think of a reason. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people have a dislike for destroying history, as it goes against the usual style of openness in this site. If there should be further controversy surrounding the article, or another attempt to bring it up for deletion, then the original debate could be instructive. *Dan T.* 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case, that is highly unlikely. If anyone ever needs to see it, they can just ask an admin to restore it at that time. There is such a thing as a reasonable dislike for destroying history (which deletion DOES NOT DO), and then there is just irrational paranoia from people who would rather see Wikipedia turned into a radical free speech zone for pushing their POVs and hatreds. I think it is not hard to steer a reasonable course here.--Jimbo Wales 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure either case applies here. What does apply is WP:GD, particularly:

The discussion is preserved for future reference in accordance with the deletion process (both for consultation as non-binding precedent and for determining when a previously deleted article has been re-created).[7]

Please reconsider your decision, or more fully explain your rationale.--70.218.34.233 01:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not deleted. You just can't see it. If there is enough discourtesy, then the page needs to be blocked from view. Cougar Draven 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon -- you're whining. As a living author (one unconnected with this dispute), I personally am glad to see such a page deleted. It's a million miles away from "destroying history." BYT 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion does make accessing history more difficult. The idea of nuking a whole page just because it is "difficult" to do a proper isolation and deletion of any specific comments, seems to be taking the easy option. (Disclaimer: as I cannot view the discussion in question, I cannot comment on the specifics of this case. I am merely pointing out the general principle at stake here.) It may be an idea to clarify the caveat at WP:DRV that says a temporary undeletion may be requested to allow people to review a deletion, to not apply in cases like this. Carcharoth 01:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Either there's value in retaining these discussions or there is not. Either we keep them or we do not. If this "courtesy delete" stands, let it be so for any subject who objects to his or her on-wiki treatment. I may or may not agree with WP policy, but I do think it should be evenly applied.--70.218.34.233 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo says above that deletion does not destroy history, presumably because deleted articles can be viewed by some people, and even restored if necessary. However, WP:DRV has the following: "The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004[1] are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003." - the impression I get from this is that deleted material has been permanently lost. How can we be sure that deleted material won't similarly be lost in the future? Carcharoth 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

we can't the deletion table should not used for data storage.Geni 02:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. So surely people should stop saying that deletion does not destroy history. It looks to me like deletion starts the process of destroying the stuff permanently, and people (if they are aware of the deletion) have a few years to do something about it, before it is permanently lost. Carcharoth 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a one-line "This discussion was deleted after complaints by the article's subject. ~~~~" (which is what I presume happened), so people don't get confused by the redlink? —Cryptic 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, nor do I play one on TV. I do feel, however, that living subjects of article debates like this one should have a minimal right to privacy. If the subject did request that the debate be deleted (or even if Jimbo simply thought it prudent to delete the debate) because of incivility or irresponsible statements therein, who, exactly, is harmed by deleting the material? BYT 03:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there ever value in retaining a record of debate? Why should one debate have more enduring value than another?

Here's the reason: accountability. The one thing that keeps Wikipedia from descending into pure thug rule is the knowledge that one's actions are recorded and may one day need to be answered for.

Would one "discourteous" statement on this page justify deleting the whole thing? Of course not.

Jimbo, please let the sunshine in and restore the discussion.--70.218.34.233 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Those pleas for accountability would be a little more persuasive if you adopted a username, anon. BYT 11:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the thread, you will see that there are accounts with usernames supporting the general principle of accountability. There is no need to be incivil to someone posting as an IP address (the incivil bit is the "anon" barb at the end - ending after "username" would make it just a statement; ending with the "anon" bit brings it closer to an attack on the person, rather than the person's arguments). This attitude does nothing to support your arguments at all, and merely brings down the level of the discourse. Carcharoth 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This directed to the anonymous user: The deletion discussion is still there, just inaccessible to the vast majority of people. Your argument does little to convince Jimbo, or any other admins, to undelete the page. Why are you so desperate for it to be there? It really is just one little deletion discussion that Jimbo says was deleted for discourteous comments. I've read it and there really is nothing interesting on that page. Can't we just forget about this and move onto more imporant matters? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's about the principle involved, Deskana. Policy states debate is retained for future reference. Now I know how you feel and I appreciate your comments, but I'm not sure you're in a position to speak on behalf of Jimbo in terms of what he does or does not find convincing. And for the record, whereas the matter involves policy plain and simple, as opposed to content, please refrain from making this personal by questioning my motives, and I commit to doing you the same courtesy.--70.218.34.233 18:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard not to question someone's motives when the ignore counter-arguments. The fact remains that your argument is unconvincing and that Jimbo will likely not undelete the page, but feel free to continue asking him to... --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Deskana's request: Jimbo, will you please, in accordance with WP:GD, restore the debate on the proposed deletion of Gary Weiss, and if not, please explicity state what Wikipedia policy is in terms of making records of debate accessible to the public.--70.218.34.233 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not my request. I think the page should stay deleted. Trying to twist my words? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You suggested I continue asking Jimbo to comply with WP:GD and that's what I did. For now I'd ask you to remember that this is User:Jimbo Wales's talk page, and I have a policy disagreement with him based on his actions and not yours. If you'd like we can continue a philosophical thread on either of our talk pages, but for now, I'm awaiting Jimbo's response, thank you.--70.218.34.233 18:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I was the one who nominated that article for deletion, believing that it fell under the "conflict of interest" (CoI) criteria for AfD. However, it was pointed out during the discussion that the CoI criteria for AfD appears to conflict. The AfD main page lists CoI as a valid reason for nomination for AfD. However, the CoI page itself states that notability, not CoI, is the only grounds for article deletion. In addition to that useful discussion generated on the AfD criteria, the Gary Weiss AFD discussion also addressed the issues of possible sock-puppetry involved with that particular article, which hasn't been investigated further as of yet, as far as I know. Thus, that discussion would have served as important background material if there are any further problems with that particular article in the future. I respectfully believe it is to the benefit of the Wikipedia community to have that discussion available for whoever wants/needs to read it. Cla68 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cla68, I very much disagree with you about this. The page contained wildly inappropriate speculation that a notable author was sockpuppeting. As I am sure you are aware, many authors have had their careers badly damaged by being caught sockpuppeting at Amazon, etc., and it is deeply wrong for people to ask me to restore a page with such speculations in Wikipedia after the claims have already been investigated and dismissed. If there are further problems in the future, there will be no problem restoring the article at that time. In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people.--Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. Cla68 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that makes the situation quite a bit easier to understand, though I'm curious to learn more. Can you provide a link to the results of the investigation? I'm not finding it on my own.--70.218.34.233 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. Quoting from the above: "the claims have already been investigated and dismissed" - as we say when asking for sources in articles, "according to whom?". I have no problems with the volunteers that are Wikipedia editors writing an encyclopedia, but they should not be investigating claims like this, and indeed there is no need to do so. WMF Office staff and lawyers might choose to investigate further, but at the encyclopedia level the answer is simple: remove the speculation because it is speculation, not because it is 'true' or 'not true'. Saying that an investigation was carried out means nothing unless you say who carried out the investigation. And it is much simpler to remove stuff like this for two reasons, and two reasons only: (a) unsourced claims; (b) potentially libellous claims. These reasons can be assessed regardless of whether 'an investigation' is carried out or not. ie. If unsourced and potentially libellous speculation exists anywhere on Wikipedia (including talk pages and deletion discussions), just remove it. No need for investigations. Carcharoth 11:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you agree with Geni's comment above that deleted material should not be kept indefinitely? Carcharoth 11:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree with you completely. I would even go a bit further. Hateful and meanspirited comments should be removed in many cases, even where they do not rise to the level of libel. There is just no good reason to keep nonsense around. (This requires judgment calls, so people no one use this comment as a battering ram to mass delete rude remarks all around wikipedia!). In general, I am in favor of keeping most deleted material around indefinitely, but on the other hand, most of it is of zero value so I am not a big stickler about it.--Jimbo Wales 15:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm certainly not going to waste my time deleting rude remarks, but would hope that the deletion archives are backed-up somewhere, just in case, even if they are not kept on the main servers. Carcharoth 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I thought I would express my views (it might come out a bit strong). I think Jimbo is right that we should take powerful "battering rams" and mass delete nonsense and crap that is of zero value to our main goal, building Wikipedia, not heaping up waste indefinitely as it slowly rots and drives away the users and editors of Wikipedia. I do it all the time on my talk page, of course, after I have replied. Bye! —SolelyFacts

The idea that most AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked as standard process is interesting. The way they can pop up high atop people's Google results is certainly problematic, but how would we actually go about this? Close the AfD, then immediately replace the page with something like "This discussion has been blanked; see the history for the discussion and result"? I suppose it's feasible, especially with the magic of templates, but no matter how clear we make the blanking message a lot of editors will probably be confused. Frankly, I'd still support it - I think too many Wikipedians fail to realise that subjects of articles are living, breathing people, especially when they start to see sockpuppets and vanity under the bed - but I think we'd spend a lot of time explaining such blankings. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is an "interesting" idea. Just close the AfD, and that will be that. We don't need to replace it with anything or leave a silly note. "no matter how clear we make the blanking message a lot of editors will probably be confused," and that is another great reason for not having a confusing note. I know my reaction-- "Huh? What? eh? idk? wha tthis? yea..? WHO?-- but if it was blanked and I never seem a note, I would never be asking senseless questions.

Samuel Blanning is completely correct in his or her strive for efficiency. —SolelyFacts

Dear Mr. Wales,

May God Bless You Always!

My name is Steve Gentry and I am an editor here on Wikipedia. I am 25 yeras old will be graduating in December with a BA in History and Certifcation to teacher Secondary Education in Missouri.

First, I wanted to tell you how grateful I am to be part of this project. Wikipedia is a wonderful place set asdie for Academia and I hope to contribute. This is a great opportunity and I am honored to be part of it.

Second, I find myself compelled to bring the following website to your attendion. The look and format of the site is exactly like Wikipedia except that it critisizes the project. The critical page is called Wikitruth and it contains article critiszing all aspects of Wikipedia. I Just thought that you should know.

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page

Yours in Christ, (Steve 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Wow, it truly doesn't get much more evil than that... —The Great Llama ^talk 00:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor warning for anyone who is reading this (some four years later), I advise NOT clicking the link to wikitruth provided by Steve, as my virus blocker just about went crazy when I attempted to visit the page. As of August 31, 2010, Avast Antivirus pings it as an 'attack site', and therefore it should not be viewed. ~Signed Hwa Yunhae (who can never remember the password to her wikipedia account, and therefore doesn't sign in) 71.59.195.172 (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hallowed with the blood of champions just like yourself. Many heroes have given their lives in attempts to vanquish the Wikitruth menace (here) and (here). While such attempts have failed, the good work of martyrs elsewhere has kept us safe from the likes of Wikipedia Review (which has no article and was even on the spam blacklist for a time) and Encyclopedia Dramatica, which has no article and any links or reproduction of its content is baned from this site. Although noble knight, there is a greater evil yet, Citizendium, a vile attempt at corrupting the faiths of pious Wikipedians by a being who once was the highest of angels at Wikipedia even taken part in its founding, only to become fallen and nows works to turn Wikipedians away from the light. Anomo 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's Jimbo! I like Jimbo, not Mr. Wales. Yuck! As it says on my page, one of my "Persistent Actions" is "to be a check on Jimbo[8] so he doesn't become a dictator." Hello, hello, how do you do Mr. Wales? Doesn't that sound ridiculous? HaHa. —SolelyFacts

I didn't know that Encyclopedia Dramatica's article got deleted... ~ Flameviper 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And reviewed, and trolled over, and Wikipedians harrassed, until the Arbcom banned any link to Encyclo Nametoolongaca anywhere on Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)ten

Wikipedia's Esperanza program is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. I've posted this here in case you aren't aware of this.  The Transhumanist   01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

do you know what the name of the first wikipedia article is? You created wikipedia, right? Chikinpotato11 16:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the largest problem opposing wikipedia at the current time is the public opinion of wikipedia. I recently heard a teacher telling a class full of students doing an assignment quote "Do not use Wikipedia because it is nothing but a giant blog" unquote. I have also heard a lot of important educators telling students not to use wikipedia as it is inaccurate and full of lies. They say that Its weakness is that anybody can edit. I believe that this is a clear example of the stigma that is being attached to our fair wiki. We as a whole need to combat this problem some how otherwise it threatens the survival of wikipedia its self. We some how have to prove that its supposed weakness is its strongest point, anybody can edit! I believe wikipedia deserves the recognition it deserves. I would like to hear on your thoughts Jimbo and anybody else who would like to comment. Thanks. Long live Jimbo. Culverin? ^Talk 10:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

People who think that anyone being able to edit is what makes Wikipedia unreliable are fools. If anyone can make an edit, then anyone can make a false or untruthful edit. But anyone also, can revert that edit change that edit and fix it. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 09:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

speak? Culverin? ^Talk 09:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Many people have little to no understanding of how Wikipedia works, but are completely ready to pounce upon its image and denounce it as a "blog". There are over one thousand administrators that watch out for vandalism in addition to hundreds of users who patrol recent changes and check new pages for vandalism. In addition to that, hundreds of users are blocked each day for vandalism or other rulebreaking. To say Wikipedia is unreliable because anybody can edit it is like saying that a bank is unreliable because anybody can take out money. ~ Flameviper 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Right on bro. Will Jimbo contribute to this discussion? Culverin? ^Talk 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo makes very little edits from what I've seen. Remember: He is a busy individual. —SolelyFacts

Interesting somewhat-related sidenote! I'm going to write a long article/short book on WIkipedia, since I'm tired of people assuming that (1) It's a cesspool and (2) People can put in unsourced claims and never be questioned. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this account on MySpace. Could you please confirm whether this is yours? Thanks. --Ixfd64 11:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was a fake account pretending to be me, but I contacted myspace and they gave the account to me.--Jimbo Wales 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the confirmation. I certainly hope that the impersonator didn't cause too much trouble before MySpace deleted his original profile. :) --Ixfd64 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow they just gave it to you? Now you can use it to date--that's what MySpace is for, and not just have it deleted? I see an "Angela Beesley" [9] is your friend. That might be fake, too. Anomo 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The impersonator didn't cause any trouble, as far as I know. It was a funny thing, the page was actually not so horrible, I figured it would be a hate page or something, but it was just a fake profile of me. The Angela account is real, too, I asked her. People use myspace to date? really? I am shocked. The whole thing makes my eyes hurt.--Jimbo Wales 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Myspace is a funny website for that. It's basically a giant social network. You find people based on their interests, you can blog there, you can also read your friends profiles/pictures. It's amazingly popular for people my age and younger (18), though it has a bit of a reputation for having a mainly emo fan-base. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The day Jimbo uses MySpace is the day Wikipedia goes to hell. ~ Flameviper 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes your eyes hurt? Me too... especially with all the crappy HTML some people put on. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 04:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... (insert bandwagon myspace-hating comment here). --kizzle 04:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo should go Emo. He'd blog "Wikitruth wrote this horrible article today. I feel so bad. I will cut myself to make me feel better." Then put ketchup on your wrist and take a picture. Also look Emo and such. Talk about life in high school and sexual tension and all that Emo blog stuff. Anomo 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, you said yesterday that the allegations against Mantanmoreland had been investigated and dismissed. You should reopen the investigation in light of this classic sockpuppeting mistake made by him. 67.15.76.111 17:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm co-sponsoring the parent request. Don't remove this message just because your Wiki-enemy wrote it. I'm dumb, see below Ashibaka tock 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidents of this nature lead to a strong warnings being made to Mantanmoreland by me [10] [11] [12]. After the warning he limited his editing to Mantanmoreland. Fred Bauder 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More Fred Bauder 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the timestamp on the link posted above. Of course something that happened last March has been dealt with by now. Thanks, Fred. Ashibaka tock 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the edit conflict me with User:Ludahai. However, as a Wikipedia creator or admin, more, you should solve this problem either advice or any action you can take:

When Chinese Taipei is existing and shown complete information, Luduhai intent to write Chinese Taipei "(Taiwan)", isi't the Taiwan is appropriate to add behind it. In the sports area, Chinese Taipei is familiar to use, instead of Taiwan. For example 2006 FIVB Women's World Championship, Luduhai add Taiwan in every part which have Chinese Taipei. So, should be it added?

My reason why not to add:

• It is an official name use by any sports organisations, FIFA, FIBA, IBF all use Chinese Taipei, and should not cause any confusion to the reader, especially the link is existing, people will discover if they want to know. Also, like Chinese Taipei national basketball team that did not make clear about the usage of Chinese Taipei, it should write in that article, not add in the every link.
• It cause the confusion to the new Wikipedians, either they should write Chinese Taipei or Taiwan, they force to choose, indeed it is Chinese Taipei only.
• The article size could be expand with unnecessary content inside, as i say is better to be write in article instead of add in every part.

Indeed sometimes the media, news use Taiwan. However, as long as the FIFA, FIBA is not to use Taiwan, Wikipedia should be use the official name give by sports organisations, and not belong to the media usage. Taiwan is use as country name, but not in sports area. Rationally, it should prefer what sports organisations use.

However here is Luduhai point and why i'm oppose:

• Large numbers of English language speakers who may read Wikipedia will not know that Chinese Taipei is, in fact, a reference to Taiwan. It is consistent to include information that is helpful to the reader. In this case, it is a simple matter to add a six-letter word as a parenthetical to a term that is confusing to a large number of people.

article size expand, make in the relevant link

• Opponents will note that it is the official usage of the IOC. This is true that the usage of Chinese Taipei is officially used by the IOC. However, even the Wikipedia page List_of_IOC_country_codes uses Taiwan as a parenthetical, for obvious reasons. Also, those same people do NOT use the official IOC names for the People’s Republic of China, Lao Democratic People’s Republic, Islamic Republic of Iran, Palestinian Authority, and Korea, but rather China, Laos, Iran, Palestine and Republic of Korea respectively. It makes sense to include names that are familiar to people alongside the official name if that is necessary for clarity and it doesn’t become too unwieldy.

No comment, but this is the usage of IOC in the Olympic event

• The term “Taiwan” is commonly used not only in Taiwan, but also in other countries among people and even in the news media. News websites often refer to Taiwan’s medal tally’s, not Chinese Taipei. Not including clarification induces unnecessary confusion.

It should prefer to sports organisations usage, if want to make clear, make in relevant articles, as mention above

• I realize that most Wikipedians likely know what Chinese Taipei is, but the fact is that most people do now, and it is for them that we are editing. Most will NOT click on the Chinese Taipei link to discover --Ohh, it's Taiwan.

Oppose, because most likely this is the comment by himself without any survey, he say NOT to discover but is that true without any references. And people can search the link in a second.

Jimbo, i hope you can make any action and some advice to either me or him. Also hope you can make rules (in this situation) for future editing, of course this is not commonly happen, but it is much wasting time to handle it.

I'm sure that he is likely defend himself, but rationally the name is under use by sports organisations (official name) and the media sometimes can use anything they want.

Thank you for listen and helping. --Aleenf1 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Taipei (Taiwan, China) ???? WAS 4.250 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the most humourous edit reason you've seen that was purposely funny? What about one that was funny but was meant as totally serious? btg2290 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been laughing for days at something funny MessedRocker told me in irc the other day... the time he was doing some big project and copying/pasting an edit summary but accidentally messed up and closed a bunch of deletion debates by deleting articles with a reason of a random movie title. :) I may not have the story exactly right, but it was something like that.--Jimbo Wales 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't so hard to find. Here it is! :). Cowman109^Talk 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened was that I was deleting orphaned images, and one of them happened to be a movie poster. I wondered why it wasn't in the main article -- then I found the appropriate article (I put the name of the article title in the clipboard for ease) and put the movie poster in. Success! Then I continue deleting orphaned images, forgetting that I had replaced the standard "Orphaned image since yadda yaddda" text with the title of the movie. Consequently, I had deleted several images and put a title of a movie as the reason. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious! Personally I quite like [13]. Proves that testing anti-vandalism tools can sometimes have totally unexpected consequences! I also quite like this, software bug! --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The password to my account (JesseBHolmes) has arbitrarily changed. Is this any way I can be restored access to this account? --DoctorMoriarty 03:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I only recently stumbled across "Wikitruth". Could it be that this anti-Wikipedia site has been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:NightCrawler and his many other sockpuppets? DW was under a hard ban since 2003 (see [14]) and "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales", etc. in 2005. See [15], [16]. One of the criticisms against Wikipedia centers on you and the Wikipedia:Office Actions page which deals with certain legal issues. Ted Wilkes claimed to have much legal knowledge and used this knowledge in his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. Wilkes, who plumed himself on being one of the best and most active contributors to Wikipedia, was blocked by arbcom ruling on 19 March 2006 for one year. See [17]. Is it just mere coincidence that Wikitruth was started shortly after that date, on 20 March 2006? His alias NightCrawler had much trouble with administrator Angela, ironically wishing Angie "WikiLove," etc. See [18], [19]. Significantly, Angela Beesley is attacked on the Wikitruth pages. Furthermore, administrator FCYTravis is one of Wikitruth's whipping boys, perhaps because Ted Wilkes had some trouble with this administrator on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See, for instance, [20]. Wikitruth also frequently claims that too many vandals and trolls "game the system" on Wikipedia. Is it just by chance that Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss frequently accused user Onefortyone of gaming the system, being a troll, the "most dangerous vandal", etc., falsely claiming that this user's edits were fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Wyss even accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [26]. For a summary of the facts, see also [27], [28]. Significantly, Wikitruth is recommended on Wyss's user page. See also [29]. So much for my suspicion concerning the origin of Wikitruth.

I must say that whoever wrote the above sounds like quite a sad person to me. Anyhow, I notice that there's a wikimeetup in London later this month, could you (or one of the many people that watch this page) confirm where and when exactly? I may be tempted to come along if I can fit it in. Dave 16:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo,

How do you yourself pronounce "Wikipedia", please? I'm asking particularly about the second syllable. In the word "wiki", I think most everyone would pronounce the second syllable similar to the English word "key". But I can imagine that in "wikipedia" the second "i" might get shortened, so that the whole thing sounds like it contains the word "kip" rather than the word "keep". What do you say?

(Note to anyone else reading this: I'm asking specifically how Jimbo pronounces it rather than how you or anyone else does, although if it's a FAQ then you could still be helpful by pointing me to an answer he has provided previously.)

Many thanks, Arbitrary username 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. I'd like to know to. If you've heard of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, Jimmy, we're dealing with this issue on Episode 3 (due this week). Any input? – Chacor 15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd check this out. [30]. AniMate 06:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks, that's interesting, but it doesn't specifically answer how Jimbo pronounces it. Arbitrary username 07:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard him talk. The second syllable becomes a schwa just like as the overwhelming majority of American English speakers. "WICK-uh-peed-ee-uh" 75.35.216.37 22:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To me it'd always be Wee-kee-pay-dee-uh. I think the wiki part should be pronounced wee-kee that sounds more like an ethnic language instead of sounding like wicca which could confuse folks who's been under a rock for the last few years and never heard of wikipedia. Also it's taken by Wiccapedia. LOL :D Feureau 19:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I always assumed it was Wick-ee-pee-dee-uh. —Chowbok ☠ 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was wee-kee-pee-dee-uh, but my dad drives me nuts by calling it wigh-kee-pee-dee-uh. But still, "pay-dee-uh"? Yuo don't mean to insinuate a "æ", do you? ~ Flameviper 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My sister pronounces it "WUKU-pee-dia", but most people say "WEE-kee-pee-deeaa" (see (hear) some audio articles at the start: "From Wikipedia, the free Encydlopedia" (sorry for any spelling mistakes))

--NatovR 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wales, I'm fairly certain that you are used to negative input on this page. However, that said, I just spoke with the Assistant Dean at Linda Christas, and many of the students here are upset that Alison Jiear resigned from the Linda Christas Advisory Committee after receiving negative messages on her personal site from folks claiming to be Wikipedia Volunteers "just verifying information." I suppose you could take the view that Ms. Jiear's resignation from the Committee is expensive evidence of Linda Christas' existence, but that resignation is actionable. It has caused the school substantial loss of reputation. There are many administrators in the private sector who go out of their way to use every venue they can to discourage a student-first approach to education. Given your penchant for independence, Mr. Wales, I would think that you would want to support a school such as Linda Christas. From what I gather they have been through the entire process at Wikipedia, but have no chance of success on an appeal because of the uneven treatment being given to LC by people who are seemingly out to disadvantage the school. Could we at least make an attempt to give Linda Christas some good press through Wikipedia. By good press, I am simply asking for a listing. Warren Baines, Attorney (forwarded by Linda Christas Help Desk: Policy 23:342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppieangel2000 (talk • contribs)

Mr. Baines, I must applaud you for your civility and calmness in your request. Most people who talk about this kind of thing just scream themselves hoarse about Wikipedia being evil and such. But you, on the other hand, handle this properly and don't blow things out of proportion. I must say that this question truly deserves Jimbo's answer. ~ Flameviper 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The question with Linda Christas remains Wikipedia:Reliable sources. To date, none of the questions raised in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Christas_International_School have been seriously answered with anything but unreinforced claims. I'll be happy to supply my complete log of all contact I had with Alison Jiear and you'll see that I bent over backwards to be fair and evenhanded. Christas existence is not in doubt, its notability within the rules of inclusion on Wikipedia are. - Richfife 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember how much trouble you got in for editing the Wikipedia article on you? Well, this can be perceived as a profit maximizing attempt to drive pop culture article efforts away from wikipedia to somewhere else. All I'm saying is when you create a conflict of interest perceptions count. Someone needs to bring greater quality, verification and neutrality to our pop culture articles, but it will in the end be counterproductive for someone with ownership in a for-profit pop culture containing wiki to be the one that does it. Just sayin'. 4.250.138.248 19:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)

Phil Sandifer's suggestion as modified by Erik Moeller here is exactly the kind of thing that's needed. As Erik put it "it would make sense, in my opinion, to build a network of free content websites." WAS 4.250 09:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to read that post and think how much Jimbo's views have changed. He once had a great and oft-cited quote about how Wiki is not paper, and now here he is going on about "fancruft" like a deletionist. He starts off the post talking about how it isn't cited, the picture is a copyvio, those kind of problems, certainly valid, but then later on you see the real issue: he doesn't consider the subject "famous". Everyking 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He also made some interesting comments about the 9-11 stuff that has now been moved off. Back before Wikipedia became famous, he added a comment about using interest in the non-encyclopedic (yet true) information enthusiasts were accumulating about 9-11 on his servers to drum up publicity and perhaps donations to keep the servers up. He apparently excells as a promoter. And its important for the rest of us to credit Jimbo where credit is due, but not to give his opinions undue weight. I wouldn't overly credit Einstein's sex advice or Hef's marriage advice. WAS 4.250 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be paper, but it's also not toilet paper... Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikia has never made a profit. I think because their ads are not spammy enough. Anyway, I count several trolling threads on here not including this one, yet when someone has a real complaint, like this it gets shunned even though this trolly thread and others up right now are left. Anomo 09:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's completely right that Wikia has never made a profit but many people and especially consultants are missusing Wikipedia for their financial needs. The Idea is perfect. What some anonymous black sheeps are doing with the idea is more than discusting. (And sorry they are mainly Administrators in Germany) And I have no hatred against administrators in generall.--Ekkenekepen 14:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC) no signature fraud its me Olaf Klenke

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/SpecialEpisode1/transcript, Citizendium's Larry Sanger says: "There will be no notability requirements, per se, if I have anything to do with it. The policy simply won't be expressed in those terms. It's a fundamentally confused way of thinking about the problem. You see, the point is not to determine who's notable enough to be in the encyclopedia, because there's all kinds of things that are not noteworthy to anybody but a handful of people, but there are still articles about htem. It doesn't have to do with notability - it has to do with maintainablity. In other words, if some information can be usefully, or reliably maintained, and all other similar kinds of info can be reliably maintained, then there's no reason why we can't have it. So, if there is enough of a community to have articles about all of the episodes of Star Trek, then, God bless them! That's great, have 'em, why not? That's how I feel about that." Citizendium could make an interesting alternative to Wikia if Larry sticks to this (which I doubt). 4.250.177.201 03:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I really do not want to bring something to you that I should not, and please ignore me totally if I am doing so. I have found, working from the UK, which may be significant, that there is an increasing frequency of failures of contact after I insert edits. My question is - do we in wikipedia have enough server capacity to handle the increasing demand on the site? I love the encyclopedia, and spend hours protecting it, and messages saying that sites are temporarily down are deeply disturbing.--Anthony.bradbury 23:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On leaving this site I found that the server was down.--Anthony.bradbury 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.cracked.com/print.php?sid=1293 (just see the pictures in the article) Anomo 13:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[C:\Documents and Settings\Kristen\My Documents\Wikipedia T.html]

Unfortunately we don't have access to your harddrive, so typing in such a link would be impossible. :) Perhaps if you used an image host like imageshack.us to host the .swf file of the flash would work. Cowman109^Talk 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I'll post it on my webpage. Sorry!Chicochango 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

which you may want to weigh in on. JoshuaZ 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo,

I am leaving the project. I have put an explanation on my page. Though Wikipedia has its flaws I want to thank you for creating this project and wish you every success. You have created one of the most powerful institutions in the communication world today, and showed that the internet is not just for personal blogs, porn and drivel, but can be used to educate and enlighten people. Thank you again for that incredible achievement.

I know that WP is organic but one problem I do see is that, the bigger it gets, the less manageable it is to maintain standards. It needs IMHO to find new ways to sift information and ensure that what is live is trustworthy. It also needs to enforce strict rules in ways that do not alienate the good will of contributors.

But overall, well done. You deserve great credit. Your name will go down in history what the extraordinary communication revolution you started. You deserve all the praise you have earned. I will always be proud of whatever little I contributed to making Wikipedia the world's greatest encyclopaedia.

Take care and every success in the future,

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I only came back tonight to research a topic for work. I was flabbergasted at the sheer depth of information on that topic. It reminded me of just how good WP is when it is good.

Are you or are you not getting jiggy with this female. Do you know the female who you seem to be getting jiggy with? Best regards. Good work. Culverin? ^Talk 05:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope your wife doesn't find out about your jigging ways. Tsk, tsk. —SolelyFacts

Anybody have moar pics of her? Anomo 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not me. Culverin? ^Talk 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some form of Mainia is going on there. Wikimania perhaps? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the email Jimbo. :) Culverin? ^Talk 08:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainia? Anomo 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Wales, I need your help ASAP. I created Esperanza on wikiquote and the sysop's there are trying to delete it because the Esperanza on wikipedia is under deletion review, they are saying the Esperanza on wikiquote is the exact same and that it will have the same problems and the editors believe that even though it is false. Another reason is that they think that I do not have it planned out. They think that it will be used as a social network. The mission of wikiquote Esperanza is to revert vandalism, make wikiquote more friendly, and to promote hard work. We have a few way's of doing this, the first way is to have a code of conduct, the code of conduct says that members can't be rude, have to edit at least 21 articles every week, and must not vandalize. If a member breaks the code of conduct then he is kicked out of Esperanza. We will have a list of people kicked out of Esperanza. We will also give out monthly awards for reverting vandalism, being friendly, and working hard, we will also award a article once a month. The people/article that were awarded will be shown on Esperanza's page. Esperanza's leadership is a president and vice president, and until we have a election we have a interim president and vice president. Esperanza already has its own charter. I am wondering, since your word is law, if you can let Esperanza stay on wikiquote. Voting closes on november 27. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

One of our own is in crisis. It would be nice if you would stop by Editor at Large's talk page with a show of support.  The Transhumanist   02:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: The following is not required, nor is it suggested that it be tried at home.

The following is 2 parts from a made up grade 1 test. All of the requirements were impossible or just weird.

		Red Phone
		A red phone had been placed on the table in front of you. Start world war 3.

		Here's a knife
		On the table in front of you is 2 feet of bandaging, a bottle of alcohol, and a knife. Remove your own appendix. You have 15 minutes.

Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page  :) Ard0 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the biggest manipulators inside De wikipedia is the Mathematical genious Gunther. Mathematik and Programming stick very close together. I can evidence that he is manipulating and erasing complete histories he don't like. It is very interesting that many Admistrators with a highly mathematical background are fiddling about with the history. And believe me Mr. Wales I am not bullshitting to you. ( sorry for my more or less cogney )

Yours sincerely --Ekkenekepen 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo! User:Lady Nemisis was blocked indefinitely for doing one of those MyWikiBiz-esque articles-for-hire deals. She put the unblock request template on her talk page, and personally I feel it'd be appropriate if you made the call. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 06:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we got Ryulong, who is not an administrator, closing unblock requests as if he was one. Sure admins always close them as decline anyways, but it should be admins who close them. Anomo 07:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What I really don't like is she is some recent college graduate and somebody paid her $750 to write some wiki articles. I graduated college with similar stuff as her (except I only got a bachelor's and not MBA) and work was really hard to find and I got like a week of temping a month at most and then ended up having to work as a security guard and couldn't find any job in my major and about a year ago I finally was able to start my own business that worked (after trying various things that failed including being a novelist), but even on my own business customers are still stingy bastards who even when paying $1 for something demand it be worth $100 and hate paying the slightest bit of money on anything, only wanting it free. But for her, someone just hands her $750 do write some articles that I could have done just as well as she could in less than an hour. Man. And this person gets money completely easily when she's not even smart enough to hide her actions (has a big ad on her userpage) after being told clearly and politely by an administrator GTBacchus that it's against the rules. Well at least she's not smart enough to know how to sock puppet. Anomo 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Lady Nemisis' situation isn't even a serious rekindling of the "articles for pay" issue. The user's very first contribution, other than advertising her alleged business, was to nominate for deletion the Arch Coal article - yes, the very same article that brought the MyWikiBiz situation to a head. She also used identical phrasing to another new editor who was disruptive in a different way. Just blatant trolling (by Lady Nemisis, not those who've posted here). Newyorkbrad 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very interesting that nobody seems to be responsible for a molestation and stalking accusation from administress ( De wiki ) Bdk No administrator is taking over any responsibility

This is a very serious matter

Also I have been accused for Stalking ( Thats nonsens )

I tried to figgure out the real names of the persons who accused me beeing a nazi Because Bdk thought I violated the Wikipedia rules she played a busyboddy. All Datas i figgured out where given by an intensive Internet enquiry. Because she meddled in I sayed let it be it is not your duty.

And then the trouble was on.

I really mean that blackmailing other Wikipedians over sexual accusation is more than only nasty. That is criminial and she knows that for certain. Motto: You stay out of wikipedia and we erase the never happened accusation. The time seems not ripe for mankind for such a brilliant idea like wikipedia.

That has to do with Dukkha Nirodha, Magga andSamudaya ( articles I have been involved inside German wikipedia before they chucked me out ) It is very interesting that I have not had any problems for nearly exact one year in de wiki. Please follow my articles from beggining. [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Contributions/Ekkenekepen ]The article Screenprinting was a joint venture from a swiss guy ( lengwiler ) and some others. Lengwiler nearly does 90% of this work. [31]

All the best but the ongoing development is not very optimistic for me anymore

Yours sincerely

Olaf Klenke ( state certified printing engineer )--Ekkenekepen 10:09, 24

A user by the name of Bowser Koopa has been blocked from wikipedia without proper warning. User:AuburnPilot was the one who reported Bowser Koopa to User:Metros232, who immediately blocked Bowser Koopa and labeled him a "vandalism only" account. I am addressing this because Bowser Koopa only vandalised ONE page and was warned for it. He only received one warning of his actions. He goofed around with his talk page but received no warning or anything(he only received a hint). AuburnPilot then told Bowser Koopa that the talk page was not "his" and that anybody could say whatever they want and that Bowser Koopa could not delete it without their permission. He then went to AuburnPilot's talk page and posted a fake vandalism warning as a joke, yet it was deleted without Bowser Koopa's permission and AuburnPilot reported him to Metros232, who ignored the fact Bowser Koopa never received a final warning and blocked him indefinately. Not only was one rule ignored, but another(deleting a message on a talk page without permission) was also committed. There is major hypocrisy here that I want to stop. I am requesting Bowser Koopa be unblocked and given another chance, and for Metros232 to be accountable for his mistakes. That is all.

-User:Captain Insano shows no mercy

Look, take this to WP:ANI. I've told you this twice now, once on WP:AIV. Read the top of this talk page. --Deskana talk 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Deskana and War Eagle to Mr. Wales. AuburnPilot 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you ever going to stop teasing, and tell people what it meant? Or if indeed it ever meant anything? -- Zanimum 20:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you accept that these people push lies into Wikipedia? Do you care if articles are properly vetted? Kindly respond on my Talk Page. ThanksKiyosaki 08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI,

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-22 Allegations of Israeli Apartheid has been opened;
• User:Wikizach is your mediator in that informal mediation procedure;
• What will happen next? Well, I read at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal:

  One of our fine cabalists will contact you via the method that you specified in order to find out more information about the dispute and agree with you what to do about it. Please note that we all have day jobs, and consequently it might take a little time before we get around to speaking to you :-) The cabalist looking into your request will contact the other parties involved and mediate as appropriate and according to what you requested, working with all people concerned in order to resolve the dispute.

  So again, I'd recommend you to be *patient* until these things start happening;
• If you have trouble keeping patient, might I recommend a reading of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot? Adding my personal thought: you'd need to be very, very cool if you want something positive to come out of this;
• Thus far you haven't always been cool... For instance, if you go around Wikipedia calling people liars, that is an infringement of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Just don't. --Francis Schonken 09:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. I am glad someone, who is not part of the allied team will look into it. Their conduct is disgraceful, period.Kiyosaki 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

could you please use it here:Talk:Chiefs (Super rugby franchise)? Thank you.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Two songs that I've found especially good for study: Neuer Morgen and Tausend Tränen tief by the band Blumfeld. Ich hoffe, daß du de-2 erreicht! Mithridates 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a grave injustice that you haven't received a Nobel Prize yet, what with all the awesomeness you've brought to the world. I consider the wiki to be the greatest invention of the 21st century. I've made almost 500 edits since I joined twenty days ago. I'm a very active Wikipedian! Floaterfluss 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I don't think there's a Nobel Prize category that creating Wikipedia falls into. There's no category for "inventions" or media. So other kinds of awards maybe, but no Nobel I'm afraid. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Wikimedia Foundation's mission of providing a free encyclopedia of 50,000 words to every person on the planet in their native language might fit under the Peace Prize umbrella. The project has succeeded at that goal in 18 languages so far, which means somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the world's population could read a good sized Wikipedia in at least a second language. I'd say the idea is premature but not totally unrealistic. Durova^Charge! 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the best thing that happened in information technology since the invention of computers. Jimbo Wales certainly deserves to receive a Nobel peace prize.

--Meno25 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo will probably one day win it, or co-win it with Larry Sanger. The only shortcoming mainly is that most information is certain languages so say the starving children in Africa can't read it and the Mexicans who come to the USA illegally and won't learn English also can't read it (I saw the Spanish portal and it had hardly anything). Anomo 09:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe me one day the old "whore" Babylon will be not there anymore, and believe me the world language will be English. Mr. Wales idea goes far beyond the factor time. The Nobel Price should be given for his Nostradamic Vision belonging future development and the possible loss of knowledge. This is the reason why I would like to pimp up the information belonging some articles. But this is by far not this easy in the stubborness of De wiki.--Ekkenekepen 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)