(Old stuff cleared out.)

Wikicities.com | My Website

Did you come here looking for something fun to do? Ok, now would be a good time to go speedy delete some images from "Images with unknown source" and "Images with unknown copyright status". According to the new speedy deletion criterion (I just changed it), these can be deleted on sight when they have been on the site for at least 7 days. (7 days to allow the opportunity for the uploaders to provide proper data, although in most cases, I see no particular reason to contact them: more often, people who do this should be blocked from editing, as they represent a legal risk to the project and are not behaving in an intellectually responsible manner.)

I am hopeful that a major push to sort through these two categories with an aim of eliminating everything in them can be completed in two weeks. If this policy change isn't enough to change the direction on these issues dramatically, we'll have to take some further steps to disallow uploads except to people who have somehow earned the right.--Jimbo Wales 14:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its going a bit slowly; the bot is helping a lot but hasnt gone over the whole lot yet. But I have deleted lots today. Another problem has arisen however: we have speedy deletion criteria for images and media with no source or no copyright information, but not those that are copyrighted and tagged as fair use even though they are blatently copyright violations. I have listed just under 600 ogg files on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 October 24 as they are complete album tracks in many cases (often labelled as shorter but not in many cases); the user has left the project. I was inclined to speedy them under be bold but thought it was a bit extreme. Justinc 00:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find your email, but would like a comment regarding the deletion of the article on Google-watcher Daniel Brandt, as detailed here: http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-10-29-n72.html -- Philipp

Hello Jimbo - I would like to schedule a San Diego meet-up to coincide with your trip to San Diego in October. Please let me know what would work best with your schedule and I will arrange accordingly. Thanks! Johntex 00:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, I know you are terribly busy, but I wonder if you will have time while in San Diego this October to attend an event if I put one together? Please let me know. Thanks! (PS - best of luck with the funding presentations) Johntex 02:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be very interested in that. Please email me?--Jimbo Wales 14:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, sorry - I have just now seen your reply. I have now e-mailed you. Once I hear back from you about what would fit in your schedule - I will work quickly to set up the meetup. Johntex\^talk 17:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, I was just wondering if, when you get the chance, you could look over the mutual fund article for accuracy? ALso I'm wondering whether the "advice" section of the "United States" section would be better on WIkibooks? Thanks. Pakaran 17:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo: Regarding your statement of principles, I think you know very well that #6 bit the dust a long time ago. (It is no longer open, nor is it the principle discussion forum). I think you should update it accordingly. →Raul654 19:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is both open and still the principle discussion forum, actually. --Jimbo Wales 15:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you guys say "principle discussion forum", are you meaning "the forum for the discussion of principles", or "the main discussion forum". If it's the latter, the word would be "principal". I'm not being nitpicky, I seriously am not sure what is being referred to here. Cheers JackofOz 00:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone illiterate is probably not the sort of insult that we should be dishing out here. It is highly politically incorrect, and, I could be wrong, but it seems the aim of giving a free encyclopedia to every human being on the planet is in part to improve literacy - a basic right. [...] If we are going to start displaying prejudice against the illiterate then probably we have lost sight of our vision here and are meandering down a slippery slope. I don't think that's the case, but I also don't think that Irate's ability to type his thoughts at the pace of an IRC chat is relevant to his case. He seemed to have a conceptually large vocabulary. --Alterego 03:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I removed some of Alterego's thoughtful comment for brevity.)

I do not think it amounts to an "insult" or "prejudice" to say that people who are illiterate should find a different hobby. They should read the encyclopedia, contribute a bit here and there when they can. It is true that illiteracy is mostly due to lack of education. Well, uneducated people can not write an encyclopedia. This is not prejudice, it's just a fact of reality. We should be kind to people who are trying their best, of course.

The case that led to this conversation is a case of a contributor who is also rude and hostile and was breaking the rules of civility that we require of everyone. If he was a brilliant contributor doing great work, this would impact how we view this. But he was also unable to spell or express thoughts coherently.--Jimbo Wales 15:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note the fact that I've moved the Jimbo's beard debate to a subpage at User:Jimbo Wales/beard since even though it's a funny discussion it isn't entirely appropriate for long term use on his main userpage. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the ideas have settled. The primary concern I see is Trolls abusing the policy (such as something like willy on wheels claiming he is beeing harrased by admins). Aside from that I do not see objections to the proposed policy. I feel your views on the matter or even an apearance would prove to be useful. Thats all I got for now. --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(This post had been deleted by the original poster (me), acting in good faith that the issue had been resolved and no longer needed to bother the very busy Jimbo. However, one person who wrote a comment in it, felt I should not have deleted her post: Revision as of 00:32, 21 September 2005 Deleting other user's posts, so I replacing this thread, and showing where (here) that the original post existed. I consider my particular complaint "case closed," in favor of looking at the more broad picture. (See my post at the bottom of this page about 1,2,3, & 4 -comparisons of following policy.)--GordonWatts 09:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to take a wiki-break, because of things going on in my life and choices I have to make. So would it be okay if my brother takes over my account for the time I'm gone? If its not okay then thats fine, I'm sure he'd just create his own account and use wikipedia, but for now I'm done, for reasons that are my own. The Fascist Chicken 21:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the theory behind deleting images that don't list a source or copyright status, it would be a great help to inform your minions to PLEASE leave a message on the talk page of the original uploader informing them that they have 1/3/7 days to edit the image's status or it will be removed. Words cannot describe how frustrating it is to have hunted down little-known images that are very much public domain, and then wake up to find out they've been not only removed, but deleted. There are thousands of man-hours of work being destroyed, including my own, simply because somebody didn't include a Template:-fairuse- tag or something. I would *definitely* go update the source/copyright of any images I was warned to, but I'm not going to go spend 40 minutes hunting down the ancient little-known copy of some file I originally found the image attached to. Sherurcij 00:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images should not have been uploaded in the first place with the proper tag. The instructions on the upload page are quite clear. --Nv8200p (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never the less. Users should be warned first. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 07:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree that users should be warned first, this is why there's a 7 day rule on these. But the simple sad fact is that many of these images are months or years old and nothing has ever been done about them.--Jimbo Wales 07:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they haven't been sitting there for years with warnings on their originator's talk page - it's only one extra step for the Brownshirts to put a 3-day warning on my talk page, they can even put the image in some kind of Category:ImagesPendingDeletionMay17th or whatever, to keep on top of things. It just seems to me a wealth of article illustration, and public domain material, is being deleted wantonly. It would have been very easy for one of the Brownshirts to slap a {{Logo}} or {{fuus}} onto some of the images I've seen deleted from articles. Please do try to rein them in, and encourage them to show restraint in what gets deleted and what doesn't. It takes no more time to copy/paste {{fuus}} onto an image that seems logical, than it does to delete it. Sherurcij 07:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{fuus}} is just as bad as {{nosource}}. You can't have fair use without knowing the source. If nobody has any objections, I'll switch the category on {{fuus}} from Category:Fair use images to Category:Images with unknown source. --Carnildo 04:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that we agreed to do that when Jimbo yelled at me for this. :) Go ahead, no objections here. Titoxd 05:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it is very hard for me to listen to you when you're using language like 'brownshirts'.--Jimbo Wales 07:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check my user submissions or userpage and you'll notice I spend a fair amount of time on Nazis...it's meant as a generic non-offensive term for stooges, minions, brownshirts, whatever politically-correct nomenclature you want to use...the guys who answer to you, the ones carrying out your pogrom on images *shrugs*. Sherurcij 07:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• boggle* A generic non-offensive insult?--Jimbo Wales 07:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel offended, and I'm one of the folks who were doing these deletions (and have been taken to task about some of them). I think, inevitably, some stuff has been deleted that shouldn't have been. That said, the huge backlog of {{unknown}} images was a Bad Thing, and had to be taken care of. And pretty much everything I deleted I was fairly sure wasn't fair use, or I skipped over it. Pakaran 07:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to the category page (images with no source) advising a little bit of caution, but I wouldn't like for this to slow the project down by much. And yes, the backlog was getting to be a Very Bad Thing.--Jimbo Wales 07:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept a modification of the criteria that made the deletion of images in those categories possible 7 days after the uploader was notified, rather than 7 days after the template was added? The problem is that some people have routinely added the template without notifying, though they were required to. Please reply at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Warnings_requested_for_unidentified_images. Superm401 | Talk 01:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• {{fuus}} was depopulated (not by me, though) and all the images linking to it were tagged with {{nosource}}. I don't know if it was intended this way or not, I'm just notifying what happened. Titoxd 01:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I would like to direct your attention to a legal matter over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Thank_You_.26_Request_for_Release_of_Information. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The {{nosource}} deletes have also sparked a lot of discussion about fair use. As a result of discussion with a number of wikipedians I've created {{fairusenoalternative}} and {{Fairusereplace}}. Both make it clear that fair use depends on context and that all fair use should have a reason. One claims that we do not believe there is an alternative to the work for our needs, the other suggests that a free replacement is possible. The replace tag puts the images in a wanted replacement category. I'm going to move forward and suggest that these tags completely replace the generic {{fairuse}} and that we create similar fairuse tags to replace our other special area fairuse tags where it makes sense. Although this doesn't create the broad prohibition on replaceable fair use works which some would favor in a new fair use policy, it does provide us with a good approach to reduce the amount of unneeded fairuse in Wikipedia. I believe this will be broadly supported, so I'm not concerned about that. What I would like to know, however, is if this fits into your vision of increasing the clarity of license and freedom of the content in Wikipedia going forward? --Gmaxwell 10:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm broadly supportive of fair use tagging improvements, and this sounds like a move in the right direction. I believe that you and I see eye to eye on these issues, certainly in the broad outlines, and so nearly as I can tell in the particulars as well.

I think that 'fairusenoalternative' is pretty much the _only_ fair use we should allow on the site, period. This is not current policy, and even I hesitate to push too far too fast in that direction. But my very good friend Terry spends a lot of his spare time going to baseball games to take photos of baseball players for us, and he finds it disheartening that many of the photos he is taking aren't adding to wikipedia except in the narrow sense of improving things from a "fair use" to "GFDL" standpoint. He's prefer to be known as the hero who went to baseball games year in and year out to get hundreds of photos for Wikipedia for article which would have otherwise been bare.

On the related issue of the image upload form, and the options people are given, I think perfectly valid options which should be on the list is "I do not know the source of this photo" and "I found it on another website". Those will be CSD'd in a week if someone doesn't find a proper source and a proper fair use rationale. I think we should be extremely (extremely!) paranoid about giving newcomers to the community any kind of incentive to lie to us about where they got a photo. Better to encourage them to tell the truth, and then clean up after them (and use the opportunity to welcome them with a big WikiHelloHug and education about scholarly standards!). --Jimbo Wales 14:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise the standards a little bit to protect you from being sued silly re Fair Use / copyrvio:

I recently took some photos of Terri Schiavo's grave and released them under GNU so they would replace the Fair Use photos already on the site (some of my photos are being used in Terri Schiavo's article), but the problem I imagined (it never materialized) was that since my photos looked so much like those that they were replacing (I took photos from the same angle and such), that people might accuse me of stealing them from a website or something. But, I found a solution, that I would like to share with you.

I took several photos which depicted me standing in front of the grave. (This was to prove that I was there at the grave site and the hospice and that I really took the photos; Taking a picture of yourself is real hard, but I stretched my arms out "long.")

Q: Will this prevent Wiki from being sued, as I suppose?

Q: If the "proof" photos are a good idea, as I think, how will we deal with them? Upload them, and provide a link to them in the "description" of the photos used for the articles?--GordonWatts 15:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but because of the action Jimbo has taken above, it shows that we know we have issues of copyright violations, but we are taking very active steps to get rid of them as much as possible. Because of that, I think we will not get sued. Zach (Sound Off) 17:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing them (maybe a scaled down or low-res version to reduce file size) to permissions@wikimedia.org might be useful: stuff sent there gets archived and pulled out in case of copyright questions. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Good idea, Minspillage, but http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=permissions%40wikipedia.org&spell=1 only shows one good listing for this idea: I'm going to chill out and wait for Jimbo or one of his specialists to weigh in on this; Zach's post above your is on the right track.--GordonWatts 10:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind but i just removed "yet" from the new fair use templates, with many fiar use images there is little to no hope of getting them under a free license. Plugwash 12:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my template, it's Wikipedia's template and I applaud your boldness. :) The word yet wasn't in my initial version of the template, but I added it later due to a recommendation by Jamesday. I thought it was a terrific recommendation because it is indeed *possible* to obtain almost any fair use work under a free license. Doing so would require an act by the copyright holder, and may not be likely in many cases, but it is still possible. It is also what we hope to achieve. As Wikipedia grows and becomes more recognized the ease of getting such things to happen will increase and it's important to note that it's happened already: there have been many cases of people asking for license grants for material we'd otherwise have to use via fair use or not at all. An important part of this is that we are unlikely to get a grant unless we ask. ... So I do think the yet was good, but I don't think it hurts to have it gone either. I'll leave it up to the community to hash out the wording. --Gmaxwell 13:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, I was writing on the assumption that if you were concerned enough to bring it up you would be concerned enough to take action. I don't know if it beats a word from "Jimbo's specialists", but this is, if you have read the text of Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_permission, accepted procedure; the email address has been obscured so as to avoid spam so it does not google well. If you did wish to do something with the "proof' photographs, that is what you would do. (If it counts for anything, Angela added that address to the page herself.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Gordon, I was writing on the assumption..." Your assumption was correct, Mindspillage: I emailed them the proof photos and posted the related note atop the talk page for the photos involved.--GordonWatts 15:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We see yet another reason why "spam-obscured" addresses are problematic... personally, I find that any obscured, obfuscated, or otherwise intentionally-screwed-up addresses offend my aesthetic sense and I can't stand to have to read web pages that have them, and absolutely refuse to manually demunge them to actually send mail to them; people who do stuff like that just won't get any mail from me. *Dan T.* 17:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the images with the websites on them? Watermarks? Usually, I assume that watermarked images are copyvios. But if we could save the image since it fell under a different license, then I could learn how to erase watermarks. Zach (Sound Off) 19:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gmaxwell, I'd recommend checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. We're already undertaking a rewrite of all of our fair use tags there. JYolkowski // talk 22:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several people on the list of those involved in that project provided me with input on the tags I created, though none pointed me to the page. I found it a bit before making the public announcement, and saw that it didn't do anything with the generic tags, so I didn't see my changes as overlaping as we still need a generic tag and {{fairuse}} isn't enough (doesn't say where and doesn't say why). One of the things missed in the current new tags is the distinction I've provided for replacable images verses ones which likely can't be. For some catagories of fair use it's only going to be one way or the other, but in many cases it's not so. I think this is a critically important piece of information we need to tag up front and which should be a part of any dicussion about the fair use of an image. And if a list of images to be replaced isn't one of the outputs of our fair use endeavors, well, we might was well just go home. :) In any case, the tags to a great job of giving clear justifications (although I did have a problem with a user who assumed a strained reading of the magcover one), but they don't make it clear *where*.. As they've already been put to use I don't know what we'll be able to do to improve that... In any case, thanks! --Gmaxwell 22:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still on warpath over photos of Australian politicians (Simon Crean). Is this formula acceptable to you? If not, why not? I have gone to some lengths to find a way of meeting what I understand to be your new rules, but I don't want to waste my time uploading photos if you are going to delete them. Adam 10:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam. That particular deletion had nothing to do with Austrialian politicians. The photo was completely lacking in source information. As far as I can tell, the formula you've put forward here is eminently sensible. It makes completely clear to everyone where the photo came from, what permission we have to use it, in what way that permission is less than ideal, etc. The problem, again, with the Simon Crean photo that I deleted was that it had no source information at all.

And it really was chosen at random from a list of literally thousands of photos that are in the process of being deleted. I have been pitching in to help with that project, and the way I've been doing it is randomly clicking on a letter heading and randomly clicking on images within the resulting page. --Jimbo Wales 15:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a commercial spam site link from the Autofellatio page; trust me...I even loaded it, told them I was 18+(which I am), and there is very little imformative there. It is quite disturbing.[1]Voice of All (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, thanks for your comment above. I am not disputing the deletion of the Crean photo. I am seeking clearance for my formula as used on the Costello photo. I now have a comment from fvw* who says: "It's very laudable source reporting indeed, but still a speedy candidate: Used-with-permission images uploaded after may this year are speedy candidates in an effort to get proper free images to go with our proper free encyclopaedia. Sorry about that."

What is the status of fvw's comment? Who is in charge of this process? Can I get a clear, definitive and enforceable ruling from you that photos I upload using the formula I have used on the Costello photo will not be deleted? Adam 00:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has a fair use rationale on top of the permission. I think that makes it not-a-speedy-candidate. Of course as with any image, it could be vulnerable to deletion if the community eventually deems the fair use rationale to be thin (unlikely in this case) and it could be replaced someday with a properly licensed image (likely in this case), so of course there can be no iron-clad guarantees given. But I am happy to say that the fair use rationale, done well, is still reason enough to keep.

We will be having a significant tightening of "fair use" on the site in the near future... but the direction of that is going to be the outcome of a lot of very admirable work going on to refine the fair use tags.--Jimbo Wales 01:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and I will

I don't call that a clear and definitive ruling. However I guess it is the best I am going to get. I will give some thought to whether I want to spend time scanning and uploading these photos in the absence of a guarantee that they will not be deleted. Adam 03:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fvw has now taken it upon himself to delete the Costello photo. Who exactly is in charge around here? Adam 07:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to Mr. Wales for posting [poisonous] content on his talk page. I have removed the content and wish to express my thanks for his gracious and kind treatement, which I probably didn't return in the best of ways. I hope I can make it up to him in the future. Sincerely Gadugi 01:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

["poisonous" content previously posted here removed.] Gadugi 01:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your work on merkey related stuff I wanted to thank you for what is probably otherwise a very thankless task. Here's my reading on the case. This is a fight that's spilled over from somewhere else on the Internet. None of the participants have much of a clue about Wikipedia's culture of kindness. There are people who love trolling Jeff Merkey because he's easily excited. We should do our best to encourage all of them to take their fight elsewhere, before their poisonous attitudes start to make us irritated with each other. Anyway, it's good to see you in there. Jimbo Wales 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC) At any rate,

...for your thoughts about impartial sources on Talk:Karl Rove. paul klenk 12:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Between trying to play wikiambassador with the trolls on Byrne's message board and dealing with the people on Talk:John Byrne who'd rather argue than edit, it seems like a thankless task. Ugh. I think, though, I can steer this through with some patience and persistence, though I wouldn't mind a few more eyes to factcheck things. Anyway, thanks for stopping by the article talk page, I think your presence muted the worst of the troublemakers. Gamaliel 17:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now advise that I will not be uploading any photos other than those I have taken myself, since there is no clear and comprehensible policy about what is acceptable and what is not, since no-one seems willing to take responsibility for stating a policy, and since it is not possible to get a guarantee that photos which are in order one day will not be arbitrarily deleted the next day, as is apparently happening frequently. I might tell you that a lot of long-time contributors are very angry at the arrogant and incompetent way in which this matter has been handled. And it appears that in this case the buck stops with you, Jimbo. Adam 03:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not quite as upset as Adam about this, I too have found myself becoming leery of uploading any sort of images. I was even contacted by one fellow who basically said that a book cover isn't fair use -- but how else can one illustrate an article about a book without showing a cover? Anyway, all that said I notice that a warning note about the new policy has been added to the top of the My Watchlist page, and I think that's an excellent idea. But I do agree with Adam that some sort of consistent, permanent (or at least semi-permanent) policy re:images should be put in place, otherwise Wikipedia might as well go text-only. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well for living authors, a photo taken at a book signing would be an appropriate free illustration. It really depends on the book. Think laterally about illustration, rather than just uploading a non free image. Not every article needs to be illustrated either. Justinc 11:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Can you please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#User_talk:Zscout370.23Photos? Do you think the process the user describes might be viable? I'm sure user:Beland would be happy to put together lists sorted by contributing user. We could then go through the lists user by user, rather than image by image, and give the users a chance to add copyright info. This might take several weeks to complete. Do you think that would be a timely enough response to whatever is causing the concern? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC) BTW - if you think the process might work I suspect the suggesting user would appreciate a word from you.[reply]

That's me, thanks Rick. I came here to repost the suggestion, but it reads better in context and also in a different form on the user's talk page under discussion. This is definitely causing problems, no matter how honourable the intentions. I also have a problem with users who seem to think a word from Jimbo gives them carte blanche to throw their weight around in his name, which again I would THINK is not Jimbo's intention, though maybe he could avoid speculation by simply telling us. If the proposed idea is not practical then we have got to come up with something - perfectly acceptable images which have been freely given to wikipedia in good faith have now vanished - possibly forever since in a couple of cases I woud have to rescan them from the originals and I'm pretty disinclined to do it if their fate is to be simply chucked out by inconsiderate hooligans. Graham 04:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Zach (Sound Off) 13:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted some sample lists of the type requested; see the above-referenced Village Pump discussion. -- Beland 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 When asked if Wikipedia was "Freezing "stable" pages in perpetuity," Jimbo answered that "We are constantly :reviewing our policies and looking for ways to :improve, but we have not "announced" anything." [2]

Jimbo wants us to keep our word when we say "Wikipedia is 'wiki' and open-editing."

2 When asked if we allow lots of Fair Use, which is indeed legal, Jimbo said that "All images which are for non commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have tolerated them for some time, but only as an interim measure during the time when images which were previously not properly tagged could be tagged." [3]

Jimbo wants us to keep our word when we say that our photos can be recopied with no problem."

3 Template:FACfailed quite clearly says that "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status."

Jimbo would want us to keep our word on that too, right?

Here, an Aug. 26, 2005 nomination for Terri Schiavo, a stable article, was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin, and it had problems, but Mark, the FA-editor says here that we fixed most of them, and suggest renominating in a few weeks. However, here, when it was renominated on Sept. 05, 2005, a few weeks later, after all his concerns were addressed, and then re-nominated, as Mark had suggested, it was rejected by Mark, who has the authority to make decisions: He went with concensus, instead of policy. Conclusion: It's not important to keep our word to our editors. (Update: I've asked Mark Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Featured_article_comments to keep his word, and I think he seems reasonable, so we might be making progress.)

4 Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, which is current Wikipedia policy, says that "adminship should be no big deal. Admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins." In addition, Wikipedia:Administrators states that "Current (de facto) Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community..."This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales...In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should."

• That is the policy, and I am a user in good standing:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWattsDotCom
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWatts
• Neither my old user name, not my current one were ever blocked (except that my "old" name was permanently "blocked" when I switched user names, but that was not for disciplinary reasons, just to switch names).

So, how was I treated? Here, the final vote was (4/29/5), and much of the criticism was centered around the fact that I have spent much of my time in the Terri Schiavo pages, and that I had insisted that the rules be followed in my Featured Article nomination. For being too "concentrated" on the Schiavo article and for speaking up to seek that I be allowed to renominate a qualified article, I didn't "fit in," and then when I protested the use of guidelines not authorized by Jimbo, I was soundly ganged up on and expelled from the clique. However, as my numbers show, I have almost 3,000 edits and have edited on over 250 article; Only about 10-15 max could be Schiavo article, so I'm sufficiently diverse. Conclusion: It's not important to keep our word to RfA candidates about what policy or standards will be used; It is a clique instead. (Note: Many editors were polite and well-meaning, but I don't see why they can't either follow policy or change it.)

With about 23,500,000 edits, 2,300,000 pages, 440,000 users, and only580 admins, each admin is effectively responsible for about 40,500 edits, 4,000 pages and 750 users. That sounds like we need more Admins. [4]

"Editcountitis is particularly bad. There was a case recently where someone had been around for two years, made lots of good (and lengthy) contributions, never caused any trouble, had helped people out, but was blindly rejected because he had only made 1,000 edits or so...In short, adminship should still be no big deal. We should work at loosing the RfAd culture up. Pcb21| Pete 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" [5]

There is even a "double standard," whereby a current Admin can do all kinds of questionable things, but an RfA applicant is scrutinized like a freshman who is hazed for admission into a fraternity. Is there a double standard?

Jimbo's Response to all this: He has the authority, and he may:

(1) Tell me that he will discipline anyone who violates #3 and #4 above just as quick as he will for #1 freezing pages, and #2, Fair Use.

(2) He may tell me that if I don’t like Wikipedia, I can leave -and do something different.

(3) He may choose to both (and get down on all parties involved)

(4) He may choose to neither (and ignore this), but I don't think this is likely.

I'm not perfect, but I may have a point. I submit this, along with User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA for clarification, seeking either enforcement of policy if no one is willing to change it to suit their allegedly rising standards.--GordonWatts 16:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: I've asked the community to clarify what the current concensus is on some policy that they seem to think needs to be changed: Featured Article policy and RfA policy, but people just want to run their mouths -instead of helping define what exactly the current concensus is, so I can know what policy is supported, and what policy is ignored as "outdated."--GordonWatts 17:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, once again you do the lawyerly gloss over the very important adjective in "...known and trusted member of the community..." Getting a 90% "oppose" vote should tell you, loud and clear, that you fail that criteria. Since you fail that criteria, you're not getting the job. Whining about it is not going to get you that job: in fact, it's pretty much guaranteeing you will never get that job.

Remember the first law of holes: when you're in one, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales:

There was a recent arbitration committee case on Ed Poor [6]

I submitted a statement regarding the original complaint. I think it gives a decent account of the reason for my complaint. It can be read here: [7] I submitted evidence to the case here. [8]

The entire basis for the arbcom case against Ed Poor is that he acted unilaterally on the presumption that he had been around long enough to get away with it. Arbcom's reaction has been clearly unlike any other arbitration case to date, and appears to reflect that he is getting special treatment. The case was opened and closed in a single week. Arbcom has avoided making any comments regarding Ed's specific behaviour. There has been no official determination as to whether Ed broke any policies at all. The final decision simply says this [9]

Ed Poor (talk • contribs) has offered to resign as a Wikipedia Bureaucrat. He remains a Wikipedia Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community. The case is closed without further comment.

Several editors raised issues with arbcom closing the arbitration before they had finished submitting evidence and closing it with a "final decision" that said nothing about what, if any, policies were violated to explain why arbcom accepted Ed's resignation, but managed to give Ed a "good standing" comment.

[10][11][12][13][14][15]

I have spoken with the arbitration committee to get more information.

Raul says Ed plead gulity [16]. But that was only something that Ed offered on a talk page, and arbcom never officially accepted it. Raul hasn't answered my questions about "pleading guilty".

Theresa knott states here [17] that arbcom accepted Ed's offer to resign, but she avoids making any comments on policy violation.

Fred Bauder states here [18] that "it is implied that Ed broke policy in a number of instances. ... We simply don't want to paint him as a disreputable scoundrel". No answer to why the implied violation cannot be mentioned in the final decision section. Also attempted to point out difference between saying someone broke policy and "painting them as a disreputable scoundrel".

Raul states here [19] that "if you are saying that we shouldn't take them (good actions) into account as mitigating factors when passing judgement, that's just asinine". I keep trying to explain to arbcom that Ed's behaviour is one thing, and whatever measures taken is another. Whether he violated policy should be independent of his time at wikipedia. Any measure taken against him should take his good contributions into account.

Fred Bauder states here [20] "We are not in the habit of running off people who have contributed substantially to Wikipedia over a period of years." This also seems to collapse the idea of makign a determination on Ed's behaviour and what measures, if any, should be taken.

There are three questions I would like arbcom to make a determination on:

(1) Was Ed Poor's block against me justified based on my talk page?

(2) Was Ed Poor's comment a violation of NPA or justifiable as a way to explain a point?

I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point.

(3) Was Ed Poor's behaviour as mediator on the Terri Schiavo article appropriate?

Ed seemed to work closely with and generally favor one editor, SlimVirgin, who happens to be an administrator he works with a lot.

Ed Poor was mediating the Terri Schiavo article, which was also marked as a controversial topic. SlimVirgin who had no history with the Terri Schiavo article, and with no discussion on the talk page, made a massive edit to the article (9 edits over the course of 3 hours, putting the "in use" tag up during that time). Several editors complained that such an edit was inappropriate for an article that was in mediation and marked as contoversial (and an experienced editor and admin should have known that), and that her edit contained numerous factual errors and contained biases violating NPOV. Ed remained silent on SlimVirgin's edit. However, when Neuroscientist posted an exceedingly detailed and neutral 5,000 word criticism of SlimVirgin's edit [21], Ed Poor made a rare appearance on the talk page warning Neuroscientist about No Personal Attacks. [22]

Ed's second block against me appears to come after coordinating with SlimVirgin: [23] [24] [25] less than two hours later, I'm blocked [26]. When I asked Ed, what remarks on my talk page got me blocked [27], he ignored the question and mentions that he's gettting away with it, basically, because he's been around a long time. [28]. The content that Ed says got me blocked is visible here [29].

Ed initially gave partial/hesitant endorsement of an Rfc I filed against SlimVirgin [30], then quickly withdraws his support and turns around and attacks the RfC as building a case, gaming the system, and bullying. [31]

According to your "statement of principles" [32], "Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way". I've been trying to do that, and have reached the end of the dispute resolution process. Arbcom refuses to address any specifics around the Ed Poor case, and there is no step after arbitration for me to take. It also says "Anyone who just bitches without foundation ... I must simply reject and ignore". I think the evidence I've submitted is sufficient foundation that Ed Poor broke some specific policies. It would seem to be a legitimate foundation, and I was asking arbcom to make the final decision as to whether policy was actually violated or not.

Your "principles" page also mentions "a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty", "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites". I think that Ed Poor has acted as an elite, going so far as admitting he gets away with stuff because he's been around a long time. And arbcom's response appears to reinforce the image of a cabal, given that their handling of the Ed Poor case is unlike any other arbitration case I've seen, given that it was opened and closed in a single week before editors had submitted all evidence, given nothing in the case acknowledges even a single policy violation, and given how the members of arbcom have different explanations as to whether Ed plead guilty, whether guilt was simply "implied", or whether any violations were officially recognized at all.

I've tried to be as diplomatic as I can around this issue, with no resolution. Could I get an honest answer (and perhaps a bit of thoughtful explanation for the answer) to the three questions above? FuelWagon 19:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢ worth, since I know all the players here

1) Wagon is a long time editor, who is probably the only active editor to have contributed more on Terri Schiavo than myself.

2) While we sometimes disagree on how much emphasis to place on certain things we are reporting, FuelWagon is a reliable editor, and I sleep well at night knowing he is watching this page.

3) It is true that Uncle Ed used some cuss words in an "example" of inappropriate posts an attempt to explain to Wagon what he had done wrong, but I think he did not mean to offend him. Uncle Ed was merely demonstrating an "example" of a "bad" post to get Wagon's attention.

4) As I recall, Uncle Ed accidentally blocked Wagon, and then accidentally blamed Wagon for not addressing the issue, when he was unable to address it -he was blocked.

5) I myself was the person who started all the controversy here: DuckEcho, an inactive editor, insisted on making the text size in one section too small for readers, and he did not discuss it or seek concensus; I engaged him in conversation to try and resolve it.

6) When diplomacy failed, I engaged in Revert World War III, and reported him for violating the "spirit" of the 3RR (although he technically made some edits, but made them as reverts).

7) SlimVirgin became involved, attempted to do a large copy edit on the Schiavo page, and was harshly criticized for it.

8) She in all likelihood made only a few substantive edits, was mostly justified, but, not unlike myself, strongly argued her case and admitted no wrong. That was her only fault, but it was minor.

9) Wagon engaged her in argument, rightly pointing out a few of her oversights and mistakes; She refused to admit them; He then used cuss words galore, and Uncle Ed eventually blocked him. Wagon has become a much better editor since that, I think, but Uncle Ed may have made a few minor mistakes.

10) And this is the big one: I think the ArbCom was either too harsh or close to right in Uncle Ed's case; however, in most cases, as you well know, Admins can do all kinds of things, and ArbCom doesn't lift an eyebrow. My own situation is a perfect example of "double standards," (User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA#Double_Standard) so please listen to FuelWagon here. Although he would never make Admin, he is an example of someone who is responsible and qualified but not acceptable due to his "concentration" in one area and his desire to speak up for "what he believes in."--GordonWatts 10:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gordon presents a fairly decent rendition of the facts, but his list should in no way be taken to reflect chronological order. It would probably be something like 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,4,3. i.e. I was working on Terri Schiavo in mediation when (5,6,7) SlimVirgin made a massive edit out of the blue. I violated NPA. (8,9) I cleaned up my comments. Ed blocked me anyway. I accepted the block and didn't protest. I began creating a list of issues on my talk page in preparation for an RfC against SlimVirgin. SlimVirign complained to Ed, and Ed blocked (4) me saying my talk page contained NPA violations. Ed moved the "offending" content to /block. After that block expired, I filed an RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed hesitantly endorsed then turned around and attacked the RfC. Ed "illustrated a point" (3). FuelWagon 03:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

appeal case

Fred Bauder states that the request to reopen the Ed Poor arbitration case has been denied, but that it may be appealed to Jimbo Wales [33].

Ed Poor was an admin, a bureaucrat, and mediator of record for the Terri Schiavo article. The evidence I submitted is here. It shows that Ed showed unacceptable behaviour as mediator and misuse of administrator priviledges once SlimVirgin began editing the article on July 11. As it happens, Ed Poor and SlimVirgin are both administrators who have worked together a long time and so it seems that Ed's friendship with SlimVirgin colored his actions as mediator on the Terri Schiavo article. Ed Poor "warned" [34] user Neuroscientist about the possibility of violating NPA when all Neuroscientist had done was criticize the content of SlimVirgin's edit [35]. I had begun an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page, and Ed Poor blocks me for alleged NPA violations [36] and he moved everything on my talk page about SlimVirgin to a /block subdirectory here [37]. I asked Ed Poor what specific remarks on my talk page had violated policy [38]. Ed avoids answering that question and says he's getting away with blocking editors "because I've been around a long time". [39]. After my block expires, I file the RfC against SlimVirgin and Ed attacks it as "building a case", "gaming the system", and "bullying" [40]. I withdraw certification of teh RfC to allow it to be deleted. Ed then attacks me directly [41]

I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point.

Ed's behaviour as mediator on the Terri Schiavo article was unacceptable. He defended his personal friend, SlimVirgin, to the point of attacking anyone who criticized her edits and misusing admin priveledges by blocking me for preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin. Several editors in good standing left wikipedia immediately following this fiasco, including Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and A Ghost. And their only crime was criticizing the content of SlimVirgin's edits. Had a neutral mediator been involved with the Terri Schiavo article, a lot of this would have been avoided, and these editors might still be making good contributions to wikipedia. However, Ed Poor was not neutral in any way around this incident, to the point of (1) warning an editor of possible NPA violations for criticizing SlimVirgin (2) misusing admin powers by blocking me for preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin (3) attacking the RfC against SlimVirgin and thereby attacking anyone who supported it and (4) attacking me personally.

The arbitration case against Ed Poor has been closed without finding any facts about Ed Poor's behaviour. Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation as bureaucrat, but this incident involves Ed acting inappropriately as a mediator and misuing admin priveledges.

Fred Bauder has said the request to reopen the case has been denied. So the only step left is to appeal to you. I do not want additional punishment against Ed Poor, but I do want a finding of fact on his actions. Arbcom closed the case against Ed Poor without making a single determination on his behaviour. I would like some sort of determination that would come out and say yes or no as to whether Ed acted inappropriately as a mediator and as to whether he misused his admin priviledges when he blocked me.

It seems that arbcom has made a special case for Ed Poor here, specifically avoiding saying Ed did anything that was a violation of any specific policy. No other editor that I know of before arbcom has ever been treated this gingerly. Every other case has a finding of facts to determine whether someone's behaviour was acceptable or not. In the case of Ed Poor, the facts have been buried. Arbcom says that Ed "plead guilty", but in the real world, pleading guilty means you plead guilty of a specific and usually lesser crime in order to avoid prosecution of a greater crime. in this case, Ed plead guilty to nothing and offered up his bureaucratship in exchange for avoiding prosecution of any kind. Arbcom is completely silent on whether Ed violated any policy at all. Ed Poor has effectively been pardoned, he resigned to avoid further prosecution.

I don't ask for additional punishment, but I do ask that Ed's behaviour be judged, that a determination be made as to whether Ed's actions were appropriate for a mediator, whether his block was a misuse of admin priveledges, rather than leave it buried.

Since the request to reopen the case has been denied, I appeal to you that the truth might not be buried. FuelWagon 16:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the my earlier remarks: User:Craigy144, who is 19, has now taken it on himself to delete a piece of my original artwork, a map at History of Thailand, clearly tagged as my work, without informing me, let alone consulting me about its status. Jimbo, if you wanted a policy that would piss off regular contributors and drive people away from Wikipedia, you have certainly found one. Adam 05:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Image:Thailand.gif, I just checked the edit history, and can't see anything other than a {{nosource}} template. If you're referring to some other image, could you link to it so someone can check the history? --Carnildo 06:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement in this argument, but I wish to express my dismay that a user as distinguished as Adam Carr is worrying about the age of an administrator he's involved in a dispute with. Ral315 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged "map by me" or something to that effect. And I am clearly the person who uploaded it. Adam 07:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thailand.gif shows exactly two edits: You uploaded it on 20 August 2004, providing no information of any sort, and User:Solitude tagged it with {{nosource}} on 14 December 2004, as part of the first round of "untagged images" project. --Carnildo 07:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never uploaded anything without tagging it in some way. But even if I did, I should have been consulted about the deletion. Adam 07:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am very sorry about the loss of the image you made. That is a shame, and I hope and intend to try to get it back from a mirror or other source. However, I am still confused by the specifics of the case. What map at History of Thailand? Looking (partially) through the history, I can't see any map. Besides Image:Thailand.gif, I did find Image:Ac.watarun.jpg, which was uploaded by Adam Carr (with no tags in the edit summary or the image description page) on 12:45, 10 September 2004, but that was captioned as "Siamese warrior figures at the 18th century Wat Arun (Temple of Dawn) in Bangkok, erected by King Taksin the Great in 1769", which doesn't sound like a map. I looked through the various sub articles of History of Thailand, thinking it might be there, but, I found no map in the current versions. (Maybe it has been removed) It would be very helpful if you could provide us with a file name, or a revision where it was present. To make sure that no others of your uploaded images get deleted, I would suggest you review the log of your uploads. Just glancing over it, I notice Image:Skybush.jpg, Image:Foxsmall.jpg, Image:Portcullis black.gif, and Image:Rectitude.jpg(which is a really nice image) all have no source or license info. Thanks so much for all your work in Wikipedia. (Copied to User_talk:Adam Carr) JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your Talk page. Adam 08:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Markalexander100 helpfully told me which of the sub articles the map was in. The diff where the image was removed is here. So, it was Thailand.jpg; as has been said above, that image did not have any source information. Nevertheless, apparently, it was created by Adam Carr, and legal to use. Therefore, I have looked for, and found a copy of it; Adam, or someone else, ought to upload it, provide the sourcing, and readd it to the article. Even if we can't repair the frustration and anger that has been generated, we can at least get the image back. Yes? (Copied to User_talk:Adam Carr) JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed these issues with Adam Carr, and I found a backup copy on one of our mirrors of the image in question, so I'm going to reupload it(and provide a source and license, by linking to Adam Carr's statemtns above that he wanted it to be used. If anyone objects, let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE: I am now taking a "Wiki-break," because I am spending too much time online currently and too little in "real-life" responsibilities and rights. However, before I go, if anybody is concerned whether I am mad at you for any recent disagreement or misunderstanding, let me assure you, I am not mad, and wish you the best. If you post a message to my page, I may or may not see it. If you really need to get in touch with me, then search the archives or history and see my contact information, which has the likes of my name, address, phone number, and email address. Thank you for all the feedback I have received of recent relating to my Featured Article and Requests for Admin nominations and related matters. (PS: I may hang around on a Wiki gnome basis to try and tweak things, including a last-minute FA-nomination I just submitted.)

PS: Since I've asked for Jimbo's help on a lot of things, this should be good news for a busy person: I have no more pressing concerns: The concerns I've raised should keep an army of soldiers busy for a while.--GordonWatts 14:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks for your kind words on my talk page, I must say I'm very pleasantly surprised by the good work Jeff has been putting in to the cherokee related articles today.

On a less happy note, in my view the Mike Garcia mentorship experiment isn't working very well any more, and I've requested arbitration on him here. Any views on the matter would be welcomed. --fvw* 01:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention may be needed

A comment has been made on the RfAr page that the ArbCom may not have jurisdiction over the Mike Garcia case because you have jurisdiction over it. One of the parties against Mike Garcia quotes him as having made what appears to be a death threat. Could you please either: (1) ask the ArbCom to accept the case; or (2) take personal action against Mike Garcia? Robert McClenon 14:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I started my Wikicities/fork, I got a list that says you, Angela and Jasonr are admins on the Wiki. So, since it seems you have a user page there, do you feel like puting something at http://belarus.wikicities.com/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales? Zach (Sound Off) 01:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, Angela thought the Wiki was not needed, so I said she could close it. Zach (Sound Off) 06:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what I said. See this page. Angela. 01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like civility is declining on Wikipedia these days, especially on AFD.

Yesterday, I found out about an interesting but obscure company and thought I'd help the Wikipedia community out by writing an article about it. After staying up most of last night scouring google for information and compiling the results of my research in an article, the next thing I see is an AFD notice and people referring to it as "Just crap"[42] and "spam"[43]. I don't mind people questioning that it meets the criteria for belonging here, but they're insulting my work and assuming I had bad faith in writing the article. If I were a new user and got that response, I probably wouldn't come back. As it is, I'll be a lot more reluctant to write about anything that the majority of people haven't heard of, because chances are, they'll tag it "non-notable." 24.54.208.177 03:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons civility is declining at Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia is not doing enough to protect the work of legitimate editors from vandals, cranks, cultists and POV-pushers, and said editors not surprisingly get annoyed at constant edit wars and repair work.
• Administrative decisions (such as the current images policy) are being imposed in a heavy-handed and inconsiderate way, particularly by young zealots who think they are carrying out Mr Wales's edicts. This has made a lot of people very angry. Adam 08:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have recently been extraordinarily impressed by the very high level of professionalism at boost.org. Boost is a colabrative community project to create libraries of software in the C++ programming language under a free licence. They work via a mailing list, wiki and uploading programs to a common area. The standard of civility on the list is extremely high when people disagree. Yet they work off a simple policy written up at http://www.boost.org/more/discussion_policy.htm. I had come to think that people behaving childishly and without a natural respect for others was an inevitable part of online life. Boost is one example that proves that it is not so. Wikipedia is bigger, but does that really have to be an obstacle? Pcb21| Pete 08:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And how do they address the two issues I have mentioned above? Adam 09:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that a lack of civility is ultimately a source of destruction for the ideals of Wikipedia. I have noticed an unreasonable expectation that newcomers will be intimately familiar with Wikipedia ethics prior to making any edits. This is of course contrary to the advertisement on the home page: "anyone can edit." While standards are valuable, recrimination is not the way to improve anything, especially an information source that can easily be abused. I would argue that editors who do not maintain a civil tone should be blocked from editing, just as should editors who vandalise the Wikipedia. It is all well and good to speak the truth but, such truth need not be stated with contempt, much less ill will. Further, it should be the goal of every editor to improve the editing skills of every other editor. Quality of the Wikipedia ought be the most important goal. The second most important goal ought be civility. I ask not for political correctness. Just kindness and patience. William R. Buckley 08:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Aimee2.jpg&action=history

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aimee2.jpg

Greetings. Very curious. MutterErde 10:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very amusing, MutterErde is complaining about me tagging a commercial image which Jimbo personally owns the copyright in as Permission. I dont think he realises. I think he thinks I have a vendetta against his collection of nude pictures, which I dont at all, just would rather they were free pictures not ones with dubious fair use claims. Justinc 16:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh if you want. But I don´t believe that people like you will send on this project. Deletion is cheap. I 've read , that you have asked yoúr buddies AFTER your vandalism tour. That was the point I had to laugh. But it was more a bitter laugh MutterErde 17:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples from Justinc´s vandalism tour: "Images not used within guidelines of Wikipedia:Fair use "

[Brooke Shields] , Image:ElisaBridges1999.jpg ,Image:ElizabethHilden-0695.jpg ( Can`t believe it !) , Image:BrandiBrandtBOL1988.jpg ,

Image:Anabeatrizbarros.jpg , Image:BeatrizMarieClaire.jpg , Image:Becky Delos Santos 1997.jpg , Image:Dvd 119546d1.jpg , Image:BuffyTyler01-22.jpg and and and ...... MutterErde 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Jimbo for this person who decided that spamming this onto your talk page was a sensible place. Would just like to point out that I havent deleted any of these images, just some links to them that didnt have any fair use justification, as they are all copyright images.Justinc 23:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here who stopps this vandal?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justinc

MutterErde 11:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justinc#Again:_Fair_Use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtkiefer#MutterErde.27s_site

Jimbo and friends:

I saw a post on Wikipedia talk:Village pump, which asked in relevant part:

"what would you guys think of adding in the placeopedia website into wikipedia. see www.placeopedia.com . we can at least do it better than them because we have more users. hans863" diff.

This is just the opposite of User:Zen-master's idea of "arbitrarily imposed distinctions of "encyclopedia" and "books" and "quotations" etc?" to which you replied: "I think the current division is completely sensible. An encyclopedia is a specific kind of reference work, not a massive random compilation of everything.--Jimbo Wales 14:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)," however they are both speaking on the same subject, so I think it is useful to place Zen-master's & hans863's thoughtful suggestions side-by-side for organizational "contrast-and-comparison" review.[reply]

--GordonWatts 11:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when editing articles nominated for deletion so that you don't accidentally remove AFD tags from articles like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but ole Jimbo's just human like the rest of us.--GordonWatts 12:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm actually quite inexperienced as a wikipedia editor. I spend most of my time keeping the lights on around here and travelling to spread the word, so I'm quite awful when I edit. I apologize for the error.--Jimbo Wales 16:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: when protecting a page, add {{protected}} or {{vprotected}} to the article and list on WP:PP. --cesarb 15:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the Esquire article as protected - as you probably intended to do. You may want to make it big or red or something<g>. - Nunh-huh 04:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treanna, the more active French wikipedian died some days ago (at the age of 31 yo). Many French wikipedian are sad and shock. We are building a WikiReader about Middle Age's castle (a subject he liked) we want to dedicate him. We also would like to print some of his works to send to his family (who know Wikipedia). To do that, we are looking for 3 lists: 1) Articles he created, 2) Articles he edit the much, 3) Articles he wrote in main part (say 75%). We get list 2) using his contribution historic. List 1) is easy to get with a SQL request on the full French DB, but it's 3 Gb large! I would like to know if you can ask a developer to make this request (found the articles he created) on the live DB. I already ask on IRC but with no success. If possible, put this list here. Arigato. Aoineko 15:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... the Bogdanov Affair mess?

This is an account of an academic scandal in which papers published by a pair of twin brothers in some reputable physics journals were repudiated (and now ignored, indicating how uncontroversially without merit real physicists consider their theories) by the physics mainstream and eventually by even one of the journals that published one of the papers. These brothers then got Ph.Ds. on the basis of these publications of repudiated merit. Now these same brothers want to author the article about this affair. These Bogdanoff brothers and their supporters (and sock puppets) have done nothing else for Wikipedia other than action on this sole article. I have been a Wikipedian for about 2 years working on a bunch of physics, electrical engineering, and audio signal processing articles.

I have been was extremely NPOV when I started in this Bogdanov Affair, but became convinced later, after much investigation, that these Bogdanov brothers are simply dishonest. They lie about other people's positions. They have taken criticism of their "work" and translated them into French as a praise and published the mistranslation on their books. They have used sock puppets repeatedly. They have threatened legal action against critics. They clearly have something to gain or lose by the suppression or revelation of the factual content of the affair and are desperately trying to suppress it. I simply want to include all of the factual content (most of which is not flattering to the Bogdanoffs).

Can you help? Many honest editors would greatly appreciate it. Are we to give the subjects of articles carte blanche to write their own history on Wikipedia? If so, I want my own vanity page!  :-)

Thank you for reading this. r b-j 15:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link is Bogdanov Affair. Ral315 15:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ooops. thank you for noticing the red link. below is something i posted both to the Talk:Bogdanov Affair and to WP:TINMC. i wrote this, on the basis of what i saw was the Scientific consensus, before i discovered many, many accounts of the Bogdanoffs' dishonesty. so i sound a little less strident. i still believe this is the most reasonable and nuetral POV possible.

To my mind, the Bogdanovs are of interest because they are apparently grandchildren of the African-American Jazz artist Roland Hayes and of the (European aristocrat) Bertha von Colloredo-Mannsfeld, née von Kolowrat-Krakowsky. But maybe that's just me.... - Nunh-huh 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

posted to WP:TINMC by r b-j  :

i am not a physicist. i am an electrical engineer with some experience in publishing and in academia, although i'm not in the academia at the moment. being on the Review Board of a technical journal (Journal of the Audio Engineering Society), i have a little experience about how stuff like this gets published. no journal is immune to it which is why some physicists thought that the Bogdanoff brothers were deliberately stinging the physics discipline in the same way that Sokal did to the sociology discipline.

There are two initial possible classes for the Bogdanoff's work: either it has some merit (perhaps with flaws or perhaps not flawed at all) or it has no merit.

if it's the latter, then it is bad science or junk science or pseudoscience (which would be called "quackery" if the science were medicine). in that case, it doesn't matter what the consensus of physicists think. reality is not dictated by majority rule.

if it is the former, that is that it is not devoid of merit, then it is either mainstream science or it is fringe science or protoscience. but here, which category that it falls into does depend on the consensus of the mainstream of the existing discipline. if a majority or even a large minority of physicists recognize the Bogdanoff's work to be valid (or, at least, to have some merit) a case could be made for it to be called "mainstream". but, given the supposition that the work has some merit, if the Bogdanoff's work is not respected as having any merit by any more than a token set of recognized physicists, then the best that can be claimed for it is that it is fringe science or protoscience. that label is not necessarily disparaging. a century ago special relativity was fringe science or protoscience and now it is standard in any introductory modern physics text.

but if the theory is not accepted by the "mainstream" physics community, there is no basis to claim that the theory is mainstream. and if it is not mainstream, the remaining categories are: fringe science or protoscience, and junk science or pseudoscience. in some manner, even string theory, which has a lot of adherents and respect, must accept such a label. if it turns out that string theory can never be falsifiable, it will eventually fall by the wayside and become an obsolete theory.

so there are two main questions to deal with:

1. does the Bogdanoff's published work have technical merit or not? that issue is too technical and arcane to be debated here. Igor would be correct to imply that only the "specialists" can debate this effectively, but he is not correct that this is the salient question for debate about the Wikipedian article. Wikipedia is not the Annals of Physics nor Classical and Quantum Gravity nor the USENET newsgroup sci.physics.research. it would be nice if we could get more real physicists other than User:YBM involved, but then again, Wikipedia is not the place for real physicists to slug out what is or is not real physics.

2. the other question that is salient is: what does the wider community of physicists say about the quality and veracity of the Bogdanoff's work? well, there is quite a record and, despite the publication of their earlier papers in reputable journals, the record is not flattering for the Bogdanoffs. the VAST majority of the credentialed physics community has utterly rejected and dismissed their published work as "wrong", "hoax", "embarrassing", "incoherent", "gibberish", conceptully invalid (my paraphrase of many positions), and even "BS" (and i don't think they mean "Bachelor of Science"). VERY, VERY, FEW physicists have come to their defense on the record. we virtually only hear the journal referee's comments (and only relayed to us via the Bogdanoff's, that has to be a dubious source) but that fails to recognize the problem. no one disputes that the Bogdanoff's got published in a couple of legitimate journals of theoretical physics. the problem is that their papers are believed by the mainstream to be without merit. the journal referees competence regarding this arcane field are also suspect (indeed physicist John Baez has said that the referees have something to answer for). and the merit that Bogdanoff's try to extract from such publication has been destroyed by the fact that the editorial board of CQG has made it clear that the papers, in retrospect, have failed to meet the standards expected of any article published in the journal. the editors of CQG have repudiated the very papers that the Bogdanoffs have published in their journal. this is undeniably damning (except that Igor does actually deny that it is).

the Wikipedia policy is that there is no original research and neutral POV. the fact that the Bogdanoffs continue to defend their work as genuine should be reported as such. but the fact that their work is overwelmingly rejected by the mainstream physics community should also be reported as such. including links to fringe science, protoscience, junk science, and pseudoscience is not inappropriate at all, because there is no way that anyone can claim it to be in the mainstream. r b-j 02:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this arbcom case was filed against User:Davenbelle and User:Stereotek by User:Tony Sideaway

I strongly believe there is a strong disconnect between the evidence presented (/Evidence /Coolcat) and arbitrators desicions (/Proposed decision).

In a nutshell I claim to have been subject to behavior explained on Wikipedia:Harassment as wiki-stalking. I have 6 admins (at least) backing me up for this. Regardless of this it has been proposed that I be prohibited from editing wikipedia for a year.

Whilst I appreciate that you have an immense workload, and that you prefer not to get involved in arbitration cases, I would be most grateful if you would do me the kindness of looking over the case in its present state and, if you wish to do so, intervene to point out these additional matters which have not been taken into account. The reason that I am appealing to you is that I am not satisfied that all evidentiary matters have been taken into account by the arbitrators, and I would appreciate it if you would provide your opinion on the matter to the Arbitration Committee.

Thanks --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I am, of course, more than willing to discuss this matter if you like. I have confidence that the arbitration process will reach an appropriate conclusion. — Davenbelle 03:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Great project! (have a cookie) — Davenbelle 03:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts: I am not familiar with your case, but here and here, it appears that you are intelligent and dedicated to fixing the "references" section, using the right HTML code. However, here, you use incorrect English grammar: "The opinions towards abortion is mixed." However, here and here you exhibit GOOD English grammar -and some inappropriate language. I do not know what to make of it?? Kate's Tool here says that First edit 2005-02-04 08:07:12 and Total edits 11663 and Distinct pages edited 2537 and Edits/page (avg) 4.60 ...very impressive! Also, I know Tony Sidaway somewhat, and I think he is level-headed and mature. I would trust whatever he says. Also, here is a random diff, which leads me to believe that you really do want to contribute to the Wiki-Encyclopaedia in a positive way. Well, that's what I can see on the surface.--GordonWatts 03:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miscelaneous thoughts:

cool cat reverts vandalism = good--GordonWatts 03:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid. Good for cool cat--GordonWatts 03:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links is good.--GordonWatts 03:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid. = good--GordonWatts 03:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WE looked at edits - now, let's look at "talk" & social skills: Cool cat admitted he made a mistake --good. --GordonWatts 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More talk page diffs: Looks level-headed and mature--GordonWatts 03:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Conclusions: Cool Cat looks a little bit excitable, and human, but I don't fully trust the ArbCom's Fascist restrictions placed on him. I have no knowledge of any ArbCom members except Neutrality, who is intelligent and hardworking -but also a little bit (in my opinion) selfish, thus, when I look at numerous talk and project page edits of Cool Cat and add that with what little I know about ArbCom (not really enough, sorry), I think that they are somewhat justified in doing what they did, but I would be willing to be my reputation that a thorough inquiry would find at least some overstep or abuse of power. I did not "capriciously" or "arbitrarily" come to this decision, and I have no conflict of interest; Neither ArbCom nor Neutrality has done anything against me at all. If I am shown to be wrong later, I will admit an error in analysis -and be quite surprised. Since the diffs right above are all "positive," please see my paragraph immediately above it for a few "negative" diffs about the cool cat -to be fair to ArbCom, that is.--GordonWatts 03:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is particularily disturbung; look at the restrictions they laid upon cool cat. Unreasonable. If he is that bad, ban him from editing for a year -period.--GordonWatts 04:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davenbelle also makes good edits.--GordonWatts 04:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He also is not afraid to get reviewed, hinting that he has nothing to hide.--GordonWatts 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davenbelle also has social skills to debate without yelling. Good so far.--GordonWatts 04:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, Dave also made a very unusual deletion here??--GordonWatts 04:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Mistake -that was his own page: He has a right to do so.[reply]

He is polite, even when disagreeing here also. I see nothing odd here about Dave.--GordonWatts 04:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But here and here Dave labels things vandalism, even when they are clearly edits of differeing interpretations. That is quite odd!--GordonWatts 04:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC) CORRECTION: Dave reverts things that are merely a difference of opinion; Sorry about that -I misread. However, did you have consensus or policy or some other good reason for reverting? Still looks odd, lol.--GordonWatts 21:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave looks like he is doing a good job here in helping shape the article. OK, folks, you will have to sort this out yourself, here, as "UNcle Gordon" doesn't get paid enough to settle disputes between Martians and Venusians, and Cats and Dogs, lol -even Kool Kats, OK?--GordonWatts 04:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I have changed my signature --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 13:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicer sig. Oh and I am not an admin either :P --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sock puppet I believe, still sketchy on definition, but I believe I'll put my use of this user name to good use. To ensure that no admin will delete my page, would you be kind enough to put a stop to editing it except for me, and one other person I trust : User:Knowledge Seeker. Thanks jimbo. My name is Waterloo 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's against the rules to post this here, but here goes. I just posted a modified version of Jimbo's rating proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Pushing_to_1.0#Modified_Rating_Proposal and I thought I'd let people know so they can pick it apart.the1physicist 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In your Statement of principles you say, that "You can edit this page right now" is "a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred". This morning I checked a big amount of changes made by IP users in the de-Wikipedia. More than the half of it in this random sample was vandalism. Unfortunately, such vandalism paralyses the work of benevolent users. At de:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia#Dauervandalismus we are discussing solutions in that problem. I.e. in my opinion an e-mail registration to enable a Wikipedia account is a very small and easy barrier that could improve the quality tremendously. Socket puppets then could be blocked by blocking the e-mail address. What do you think about such a solution and is it opposed to your principle above? Stern 09:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring an email address to stop vandalism has only two minor problems: (1) it will scare away contributers who want to be anonymous, and (2) it won't stop vandalism. If you sign up with another.com, you've got access to an unlimited number of addresses, from thousands of domains. Single-use email services provide the same thing for free, but don't have the range of domains. --Carnildo 20:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are fully aware of the pros and cons. The question is: Does the principle "You can edit this page right now" mean that IP editing will remain a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy for as long as the earth revolves around the sun (which would put an end to a number of then-useless debates within the community), or whether this might be subject to change at some point in the future (say, as soon as a given Wikipedia project has reached a certain size), when, hypothetically, the benefit of reducing (not stopping!) vandalism is estimated to outweigh the loss of (an uncertain amount of) contributors? – Jondor 07:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in my opinion the exact details of how we maintain our openness is of course subject to change over time. But, I do not think that email registration is the right way to go, nor do I think that anonymous ip editing is a major problem. I am committed to quality first, everything else second, though. So it is at least conceivable that anonymous editing might go away someday. I doubt it, though.--Jimbo Wales 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. – Jondor 11:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thank you very much. Stern 12:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I am putting this entry on your page, because I feel a project in which I am involved may be of interest to you.

"Wikiventory is an experiment in exploring human knowledge by dividing it into its constituent parts. The purpose of this wiki is to allow the creation and editing of componentised lists in this spirit."

It is also hoped that experience gained or sugestted by Wikiventory could be used in other wiki type projects.

As yet the project is still highly experimental, and as such not formally proposed. An inital brief is located at:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiVentory

A Wiki to test the ideas and concepts is at - http://www.anubite.co.uk/wikivent/index.php/Wikiventory:Introduction

Even if the project is not of direct interest, any comments or suggestions you have would be much appreciated.

62.56.40.39 10:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Via Slashdot and the Register, I came across your criticism of the Bill Gates and Jane Fonda articles as "nearly unreadable crap." This criticism to me seemed harsh and unlikely given that the Gates article likely would have received heavy attention. So I took a look at an October 1 revision of the article, which likely is similar to what you and Nicholas Carr were reviewing.

I don't think the article is one of Wikipedia's best. The list of pop culture references was too long (I see that it has now been moved to a new article.) The "Biography" section was poorly assembled. But I still think "nearly unreadable crap" was harsh because the article would have brought a cold reader who knew nothing about Gates (and such people do exist) up to speed on his life. It described where he went to school, key milestones in the business he led, and interesting oddities such as his house. I thought it was remarkably free of the anti-Gates POV that I expected (one Slashdot commenter noted that Carr's "random" review of this article was akin to reviewing a Jewish encyclopedia by reading an entry on Hitler.)

Even with this admittedly deficient article, Wikipedia served a valuable purpose: a place for readers to turn to for quick information to bring them up to speed on something with which they are not familiar. Without Wikipedia, what Internet source would have served this purpose? Perhaps the laughable biography on the Microsoft website?

I was discouraged to see you malign this article as "nearly unreadable crap" without pointing out suggestions for improvement and without even offering reasons for what you thought was wrong with the article. I had just started doing a little research of my own on a subject on which I am curious, not only to satisfy my curiosity, but also to help Wikipedia. One article I've worked on so far is far from excellent, but it is much better than what is otherwise out there on this subject: nothing. As someone who had just started put some serious work into Wikipedia, I was highly discouraged to think I was working on a project where the founder denounced articles as "nearly unreadable crap" without offering any constructive criticism. Massysett 17:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say I did not point out suggestions for improvement? What do you say I didn't offer reasons for what I thought was wrong with the article? The news reports came after a preposterous "news source", The Register, found a thread posted to the wikien-l mailing list. In that thread, I engaged in an extended discussion (not finished yet, either!) of these two articles.--Jimbo Wales 09:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because your initial message to the thread had neither reasons nor suggestions. I know that news sources (from the Register to the New York Times) often distort what people say, especially by omitting important remarks. Therefore, after reading Slashdot and the Register, I pulled the original e-mail you wrote. This was easy because, criticism of the Register aside, they linked to your original message. I read your original message and the articles in question, and your original message was merely an attack on the articles in question. You did offer suggestions, but only after other users asked you what you thought was wrong with the articles in the first place. Not only did I think your criticism was too strong, but I was also discouraged by the way in which you went about it. Massysett 16:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think, regardless of its flaws, that Wikipedia serves a valuable function by "cutting through the crap" of official corporate histories and biographies. Our Gates article vs. Microsoft's, cited above, is one example. Others include the "official" histories that would have you believe that Charles Darrow singlehandedly invented the Monopoly game, and that Ray Kroc opened the first McDonald's restaurant; the Wikipedia articles give the true facts about those histories. *Dan T.* 01:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images of Sexually Explicit Activity. ~~ N (t/c) 00:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment that you really must be proud. You started this thing with no idea if it would even be viable. You may have hoped that it could be a valuable tool, but I cannot imagine you thought it would be where it is today. Many newspapers and magazines no longer print "Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia", but rather, "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia". Acknowledging your recent comments on the "nearly unreadable crap", you must still feel a sense of joy at knowing what Wikipedia, your creation, has become. Well enough ass-kissing I suppose. See ya around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, "the" and "an" can be equivalent in that context - e.g. "Pascal, the mathematician..." (as opposed to some other Pascal). ~~ N (t/c) 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realise there were other "Wikipedias" out there. My mistake. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to discuss popularity wikipedia is generaly (if not always) at first page of google hits on almost any topic. Surely wikipedia is more popular than any other website in so many not so related topics. --Cool Cat ^Talk 00:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...then you've never ventured into some of the pop music articles, loaded with fancruft and guarded by watchdog editors who insist upon retaining their article their way and their way only unless their hand is forced. These article number in the hundreds, but Mariah Carey and the articles for the related songs and albums. Not sure really what to do with the issue (it gets only intermitten attention from moderators, and no substantive action has been taken yet). Perhaps it just stads to reason that Wikipedia articles about pop stars just can't be of decent quality or fixed to become such. --FuriousFreddy 08:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a page protection type that a group of users that remove vandalism a lot and admins can put on a page that lets users that are logged in only edit a page. This will help bring the ammount of vandalism down

--☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, such a feature could be very useful if used only temporarily, after all, we don't want to intimidate "drive-by" spellcheckers :).Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the idea of creating another level of users between admins and ordinary users, as the whole point of adminship here is that it's no big deal. Adam has yet to grasp some of the finer points of being a Wikipedian. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]