Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

I have tried to address the viewpoint you expressed in the Chowbok RfC. I believe the quoted exchange shows that he is actually opposed to the current fair use policy on wikipedia and has or would tag images contrary to that policy. I may be mistaken about the referenced image being fair use, but he also states he would object to a television screenshot in place of the publicity photo, in which case there are a tremendous number of articles which should be tagged according to him - namely all the television and movie screenshots of living persons used in their articles. While his work may be useful, I think we all need some very specific clarification on what is an acceptable use of a publicity photo or screenshot for a famous person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourdee (talk • contribs) 20:31, November 28, 2006 (UTC-6)

Dear Jimbo,

From the words of a beginning teenage editor, I really don't know if this is the right question to ask, or if it's hitting me in the face with a baseball bat, but,

Could there be a Meetup in St. Louis...

and...

A joke.

3 guys walk into a bar.

The 4th guy ducks.

Cheers to you in Sweet Home Georgia.

--NapalmRiot 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There could be a meetup in St. Louis. Problem is you have to get them coordinated yourself, or convince someone else local that they want to do it! :-) See Wikipedia:Meetup for more info. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jimbo is from Alabama; incidentally, the name of the song is "Sweet Home Alabama" -- Dskluz 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo currently lives in Florida. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can find vigorous, public defenses of MONGO at User_talk:MONGO and also at the various sections Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan and some of the Arbitrators talk pages. MONGO brought an RfAr and it was hijacked by EDers who have targeted MONGO for months. One of the remedies is desysopping MONGO. --Tbeatty 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't troll Jimbo's talk page like you did here. MONGO's talk page already has pages of people being reacting to an attention-getting action. Anomo 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted this in direct response to a question on the Wikipeida mailing list. Why are you concerned about my edits? I think I deserve an apology for the trolling comment This is also unacceptable. --Tbeatty 17:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being baited by trolling, I must explain that your first vote was the most trollish and my votes on ArbCom were the result of research and answers to my questions. I was very picky yes, but those were my own opinions. You had written, "MONGO needs to block way more editors than the drawn out arbitration process provides for. Imagine if all those whacky conpsiracy nuts needed ArbCom before being banned indefinitely? It's better that MONGO blocks them and lets them appeal his actions than having to wait for the ArbCom to create a block. Telegrams from MONGO should be delivered immediately, not delayed." I was not sure if that was sarcastic or what. Then my carefully reasoned argument oppose got you claiming a support vote from it. I did assume good faith but I browsed through that Seabcan stuff and I see flames upon flames from you. Anomo 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Anomo, you're hardly one to talk about trolling. I, for one, would like to know Jimbo's position on this illegal desysopping. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Illegal? Care to explain what laws are being broken here? --Carnildo 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe plainly means "contrary to the procedures or understandings of Wikipedia"; and the answer to the question in your edit summary, "is that a legal threat?", is obviously no. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, It's not necessarily what laws are being broken, but what laws aren't being cited to desysop MONGO (especially given Tony Sidaway's punishment of parole). You can also choose to address such a response without demonizing it as a "legal threat". And Tbeatty does deserve an apology, Anomo, as this is a completely legitimate debate and gripe to take when a user differs with Arbcom, especially given Tbeatty's polite demeanor in his request. --kizzle 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony got his parole the first time. If he didn't resign during the Giano fiasco, he would have been desysopped then. MONGO got his parole of sorts during his ArbCom case, and now he's getting the next step. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd much prefer an actual parole rather than one "of sorts", no? --kizzle 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policies which are being broken, in that the proposal to desysop MONGO is being made without any evidence that the action for which he is being sysopped ever occurred. And where did you possibly read a legal threat in my comment? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/058215.html Anomo 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that address anything? He's just saying "I won't answer you", not "I won't answer this question". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I really don't understand what you mean about it being "illegal" (under Wikipedia rules), nor what you mean "without any evidence that the action... ever occurred."--Jimbo Wales 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

vs

... you have been nominated for the Beard of the Year prize, according to an entry on the BBC's Test Match Special Blog! I'm sure you will feel honoured to be named alongside other famous beard wearers, such as Fidel Castro, and Test Match Special's very own "bearded wonder", the splendidly hirsute Bill Frindall. You can see the full list of nominees at the bottom of Beard of the Year? Ollie 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my tenner's on Monty Panesar this year, and not just because of the judge's previous bias towards British cricketers. I mean, look at it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bumfluff! He just wasn't standing close enough to the razor. this is what I call a beard! Guy (Help!) 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Monty 110%. He looks like a hardened pirate. Jimbo's is no match, sadly. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrrrgh, Elaragirl. Arrrrrrgh!--Jimbo Wales 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, if Flintoff won with his 2-day stubble, then surely they are biased towards cricketers. Monty will definitely win then. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Monty! 5 Wickets the other day too!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Respected Sir,

I recently knew about you when I went through your wikipedia pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales [1] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimmy_Wales [2]

I felt glad to read about you. When you were working on a small part of wikipedia in those days, today you might be remembering about those days. Great progress ! No doubt. I am right now in the same age group when you were on the starting stage at that time, when the wikipedia company was new. If I am not wrong, as everyone dreams, In those days you might also having dreamed of the position of wikipedia today.

Even I do dream ! I want to ask you that what is wrong in if some one has a dream to be like you, or if some one has a dream to progress like you or if some one has a dream to walk on the path you were sometimes in the past. Is it wrong if I am dreaming to be like you? Is it wrong if I have a dream to have my position and my company around the globe as of wikipedia today ? I know it's a big thing I am talking about, but my questions right answers can only be given by you.

If the founder of wikipedia has mentioned his achievements on his website, does it mean that he is self promoting himself? Does it mean that the founder of wikipedia is self promoting for self publicity, if his pages are found on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales [3] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimmy_Wales [4]

I am asking this because I am an Information Security Expert and from last 7 years of my life I have given to research. One more person exists in India who is similarly known in the same field - Mr. Ankit Fadia. If you go through the article of ankit fadia on wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankit_Fadia [5]

You will find that 60 percent of the matter mentioned in that article is wrong. But I have no objection on that as I have nothing to do with, what that person does. Here the question is of truth, fact and the reputation of wikipedia.

Now see this content, which I edited on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpesh_Sharma [6]

Is there anything wrong if compared with your page on wikipedia. I have just mentioned in simple words as your article is mentioned with your achievements. But the administrators of wikipedia are removing with any reasons all my articles. They are saying it's a self publicity. Then why Jimmy Wales and Ankit Fadia. Ok ! jimmy wales has atleast mentioned the truth about him. But Ankit Fadia article contains everything false for which I have many evidence. If you go through the google search for keyword 'Ankit Fadia' and keyword 'Kalpesh Sharma', you will see a lot of peoples have posted very bad and brutal language about ankit fadia. Even on one of my article on gather.com, personally ankit fadia commented bad words. So, for self defense to save my reputation created in past 7 years after hard work; I also started writing articles about him containing all the links on internet where this person was discussed badly. Now when I started self defense, the adminsitrators of wikipedia are saying that you are doing this due to jealousy ! I felt very bad on such comments by one of the reputed company's administrators. I felt as if a reputed person is tearing the reputation of another one. Because your reputation is the matter which no one other then you can personally understand. So do I for my reputation.

Actually Ankit Fadia is a self claiming and self promoting person. He is using honorable name of Wikipedia, President of India, Stanford University, FBI, CIA, CBI, etc. for his self promotional activities of his business. By doing this he achieved a lot of revenue in last 5 years through seminars, workshops, courses, etc. Please don't think that I am giving misleading information to you. I am trying to show the real fact behind this man. But this self claiming and self promoting name is being given by some of your company administrators to me, instead of Ankit Fadia by giving me name like jealous. I have saved the letters of such administrators.

I am here for justice from you to post my achievements which I am using for community interest, citizens of various nations and saving the information technology field from hacking and threats. So, that the dream of Jimmy Wales can be remembered in future, by the dream of Kalpesh Sharma.

Here is my article content which I and several members of my group tried to post and were removed by administrators:

copy and paste of article removed. Jimbo is able to review deleted content for himself if he wants.

That we have an article on Jimbo Wales is not self-promotion; Jimbo did not write that article himself. Moreover, Jimbo is clearly notable owing to having founded one of the most popular websites in the world; a discussion among editors found no comparable notability for this subject. If you have evidence that they did not consider and wish to challenge the deletion of this article, the page you're looking for is deletion review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When you are notable, believe me, someone here will be waiting in the wings to write about you. I would love to write an (eventual, I believe) article about my grandfather, but it's too early in Wikipedia time and too close to me.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nina ! This is the first time when two Wikipedia Administrators are talking with respect to me. One of wikipedia administrator utcarshch and samir( the scope ) called me jealous and sock puppeter without going in the depth of matter or investigation.

I got ur point. The sources about me are not so notable on internet, but they do appear on several print media and electronic media. If I am not wrong then do you mean that when a source is found on internet is only called to be reliable ? Then what about sources found on print media and electronic media. These sources are not a part of reputation or reliable secondary sources ?

Kalpesh Sharma KALPESH SHARMA

I've posted on ANI about Kalpesh Sharma's disruption. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing a large section copied directly from ANI. [7]. Anyone who wants to discuss this matter can do it at ANI. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wir beginnen mit einem Gedicht. Ich hoffe, es ist nicht zu schwer.

Das Schiff

Das eilende Schiff, es kommt durch die Wogen

Wie Sturmwind geflogen.

Voll Jubel ertönt‘s vom Mast und vom Kiele:

«Wir nahen dem Ziele.«

Der Fährmann am Steuer spricht traurig und leise:

«Wir segeln im Kreise.«

Viele Grüße, --Anneke Wolf 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Babelfish Translation: 'We begin with a poem. I hope, it am not not too heavy. The ship the hasty ship, it comes by the waves such as storm wind flown. Fully rejoicing ertoent`s of the mast and of keels: "we approach the goal." The Faehrmann to tax speaks sadly and quietly: "we sails in circles." Many greetings' 209.244.16.221 13:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll request a more accurate translation immediately.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can give you one, but I'd assumed that the point of this post was for Jimbo to translate it himself as part of his study of German. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Faehrmann to tax" Babelfish translation is of course hilarious. Was just thinking that this Babel "fish" could put the proverbial 10,000 monkeys out of business (as in: give 10,000 monkeys a typewriter, and given enough time you'll eventually end up with all classics in world literature): post a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests to program an endless loop processing an arbitrary text by Babelfish back and forth in all arbitrary languages, and have the results inserted in Wikisource. Oops. BEANS. --Francis Schonken 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The ship transformed into a submarine it is diving and torpedo tubes 1 2 3 and 4 are prepared for a very fine underwatershot. And no sonar will be able to find it. Everything is a devils circle especially what is made out of this brilliant project It is turning round and round; another live another wound.Ekkenekepen 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times did you put the poem through Babelfish to come up with that? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is not really a translation-attempt of the poem, but this users way to bring over his contempt/problems for/with the de-wiki, trying to include hints as to his deepfelt feeling of being wronged over there...but it could be that I'm completely wrong. Lectonar 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No you are at least someone who could be smart in brain and you are God dammned right--Ekkenekepen 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That ain't no babelfish version this is a information for some insiders who still think that they have won a terrible game.--Ekkenekepen 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your project is a hotbed of religious fundamentalists and nationalist fascist bigots. I am pretty sure from the outcome of this arbitration result where along with a Hindu fundamentalist twister and his conmens - your terrible arbitration committee blocked two well meaning editors for the same time.You apparently wasted their efforts and time they spent on identifying and countering these bigots.Shame on you 87.74.2.28

Fascist bigot = somebody who disagrees with you? *Dan T.* 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You do the same error as done by Arbitration committee.You are just reading the lines and not reading through them.The HKelkar thing (who was a master and crafty sockpupeteer) and his company specially his vocal supporter Bakasuprman were persistent editors and have done their marketing well (highlighting - making their comment more prominent) making sure that if he is blocked those who have presented the case get blocked together.See TerryJ-Ho's block log.He was blocked just once before for one hour and he seemed to have started editing in 2005 - he has been civil throughout unless it was in response of this sockpupeteer even then he avoided many times falling into bait when HKelkar continued calling other religious communities names.Arbcomm has punished both him and the other editor Bhaisaab all the same for one year.Is it wrong to stand up against such bigots. 84.9.108.237

Hello Jimbo.

I apologize to disturb you for a question for which I could get answers elsewhere but all these answers are different and I would appreciate your mind about that. I think you must have thought about that.
Everybody agrees on the importance of sourcing, this is the basis for NPoV and also importance for the reliability of the encyclopedia (cfr wikipedia:verifiability.
But, up to where ? I mean what has to be sourced ? What would not have to be sourced ? Thank you in advance :-) Alithien 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is almost always better to have a source than not. I think basically whenever there is a legitimate challenge to the truth of some statement, it should be attributed. I understand that this may not be a helpful guideline, since it just moves the gray area to the question of what is a "legitimate challenge". Too often, though, I see people saying "I don't need a source, everyone knows it." Well, if everyone knows it, a source should be easy to find.

The main thing is: negative or controversial information about living persons should be subject to the highest possible standards of sourcing.--Jimbo Wales 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ! I see that your answered focusing on living persons.

I had not in mind controverses where -I think- it is obvious that several sources explaining the different points of views have to be given. I really have in mind any (encyclopaedic) topic (an historical event, an historic instrument, the big bang, ...).

There are 2 ways of understanding our contribution to the project :

• we contribute to the universal know-how in adding in the encyclopedia what we know (and we are the source).
• we contribute to the encyclopedia in reporting on subjects what reknown people state about these (and they are the source).

This is important. In the first case, nearly nothing has to be sourced. In the second case, nearly each sentence should.

In between, all facts, figures, statements, opinions or non obvious points should be sourced...

The problem is that I honnestly do not succeed in defining what means obvious.

And I am concerned by some University's Professors who contribute to our projet and to who I say : you should try to source but you can refer to yourself in real life but please, not to you as wikipedia's contributor...

What is your mind about that ? How do you think we have to deal with that ?

Are we reporter of the universal knowledge or do we bring our own brick of it ?

I have my mind but I don't understand what is the official policy...

Thank you again ! :-) Alithien 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like some editors in the community are concerned with clarifying whether you trust yourself or not (see this). For the sake of some humor I will not revert the edit again :P....do you trust yourself?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I really do hope that you trust yourself! You see, that userbox was not initially added by me. I just placed the userbox back in; removing it from your userpage implies that other editors feel that you do not trust yourself. =) --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[8]Apparently, some people think you don't trust yourself. =( --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if those people understand that WP:CITE does not apply to the userspace? Cbrown1023 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. All we need is a confirmation from Jimbo that he trusts himself. Unfortunately, popular belief states the contrary.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What would be funnier than creating a new category of "Wikipedians who trust Jimbo" with Jimbo included? :) - Ekantik ^talk 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But what if Jimbo trusts only those who do not trust Jimbo? Newyorkbrad 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How overly complicated this debate has become :P....¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LAME in 3... 2... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I love that page... someone hurry up and revert again! :) Cbrown1023 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to revert, then go ahead! I'm about to hit the 3RR rule.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't like that edit summary saying to stop playing with his page. It says right on it we should edit it! PsyMar 03:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this qualifies for WP:LAME now? Cbrown1023 03:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I already added it to WP:LAME an hour ago!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the important thing is that I hate userboxes. :)--Jimbo Wales 07:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that statement just a personal opinion against userboxes, or is it a denunciation of userboxes across Wikipedia?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that in general, the babel boxes and some basic geographical userboxes are fine, but most of them are not appropriate for wikipedia. This is not a decree or anything, but really, I just don't care for them.--Jimbo Wales 21:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I can't seem to take of all my userboxes. :-P Oh, well. Can I ask a favor Jimbo? Please sign my autograph book? It's on the sig..... I'd like a celebrity (>^_^<) to sign it...Thanks! Err...whenever you have the time! Forgot to mention, you'll get a prize! Hope I'm not bothering you... --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 22:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you all arguing over a userbox? It's pretty funny I guess... -- Kyo cat^{¿Quíeres hablar?} 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jimbo presents plaque to Professor Lessig.JPG

BREAKING: Lawrence Lessig has retired as chair of The Creative Commons, and has passed the torch (literally, at least in Second Life) to Joi Ito. CC board member Jimbo was on hand to present this commemorative plaque. JS Uralia 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lessig passes the torch to Joi Ito --GreenReaper 07:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Jimbo "passes" the plaque to Lessig
• More detailed picture of the plaque --GreenReaper 07:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • plaque closeup --JS Uralia 07:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Jimbo presents plaque to Professor Lessig --JS Uralia 07:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Afterwards, Jimbo learns how to dance, Second Life-style --GreenReaper 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice the Second Life article has no screenshots. Those look good, but I'd recommend against 2.5 meg PNGs as the thumbnails alone are half a meg to download. Oops, I didn't scroll down far enough and found them. Anomo 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are 1/3 idols I have! You have made the best website known to man. I am currently trying to make my own Wiki. What software did you use to make Wikipedia? My friend Charlie and I are making one about rockets. If you have any info, that would be great. Thanks. Jimi d k 21:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia and many other wikis use MediaWiki software, which is great! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to get newuserlog and checkuser extensions--they're essential, you don't want someone sock farming on you or using a script to secretly create 1000 mass usernames that will wait five days until they can move pages and these extensions will prevent that. You might also want to consult their technical support. I don't know where that is though, but I believe they don't think they have a pay-per-support service set up yet like my AVG anti-virus software (which is free software, too). Anomo 04:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guys!Jimi d k 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try Wikia on http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: I know you're busy (and I'm a freaking high schooler writing a paper), but I was wondering if you would mind having an e-mail interview in early January? -- Chris is me 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I love Angela, think she is a great person, and a role model, but I have to say, your user page now looks as good as hers.  :-) Good job! 209.244.16.221 13:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: Why does it say "I, Florence Devouard" in the first sentence of your pledge on your Wikimedia Foundation Userpage? Greetings, Blur4760 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.--Jimbo Wales 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that must've been an embarrassing mistake, Jimbo! :P – Chacor 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, just a question that I have been able to find no answer for anywhere else on wikipedia; should one's usertalk page ever be protected by an administrator if the page has not been abused?

Thanks, Superspokesperson 04:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, no, although there are always some special cases.--Jimbo Wales 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, wikipedia is my favorite website. I use it for school projects, and other stuff. THANK YOU FOR CREATING THIS WEBSITE!

--Viva La France 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In order to help protect and defend our American values I deleted a picture relating President Bush in Wikipedia article Finger (gesture) that I believe, per WP policy qualifies under spam category - because it ‘politicizes’ the hand gesture. While it is preferred the whole article be extinguished, it may be that some informational content may exist and qualify it to remain in existence – but I am not going to make any decision on it and wish to disassociate myself entirely from such article.

My concern is that it appears some people will continue to post the irrelevant and vulgar photo of President Bush, and I, willing to add quality material to Wikipedia, personally am not spending any more time protecting such page any longer.

Here’s a highlight of our discussion on the talk page:

About Bush's picture, again

The photo depicting President Bush giving the finger gets periodically deleted and re-added. Interesting as the concept of a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't illustration is, it would be nice to reach some very rough consensus on this. My opinion is that it is just a photo of a real, and well-known, person doing the gesture spontaneously, and not staging it to create an image for the article. Opinions? (And, I am not sure that removing the picture qualifies as a "minor edit", as in something that "could never be the subject of a dispute", per Help:Minor_edit...) Goochelaar 08:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in accordance with WP policy I removed spam (WP:SPAM), and for the reasons given in this statement, the action qualifies the deletion. In all due respect, posting a picture of the President of the United States of America, or any other major political figure depicting an improper gesture is considered inappropriate and vulgar to the general public. Another aspect of the issue at hand is that posting a picture depicting such action inherently condescends and belittles the educated Wikipedian observer. Besides these observations, we must remember that children are being subjected to an improper view of their President, and that is unacceptable to the majority of Americans – moreover, because Wikipedia is an educational tool, the picture depicting ‘the finger’ adds no value to the article (as mostly everyone knows what the article is already pointing to). Depicting vulgar photos on the encyclopedia could also potentially become a Public relations nightmare in the WP environment, discouraging quality articles from ever being created because Americans (that see this content) respect their country, and their President (regardless of denomination) who is a figure thereof. I am sure Jimmy Wales would agree with this statement. Therefore, under Wikipedia spam policy provisions, the photo qualified for deletion, and I deleted it. Best regards, --Lperez2029 14:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we're not gonna have any pic on this article, not even a drawing. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia |wanna Talk? 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Call me thick, but I do not see how any President Bush's photo may qualify as spam. He is not selling anything, is he? As for children or Americans being shocked, this is a reference work, and is bound to contain material (graphic or otherwise) that might be found unpleasant by somebody (anatomical details, disturbing news...). Finally, I am not an American, but if a President of my country (Italy) were caught doing a less-than-polite gesture, I wouldn't worry too much. He is responsible for his actions. But wait... It has already occurred! The article corna is: a) complete with a generic depiction of that vulgar gesture; b) endowed with an image of Italian former President Giovanni Leone making the corna. I find it an interesting photo documenting the gesture. Best regards to you, Goochelaar 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And so, I will leave this matter in your capable hands, for an outcome to do as you see fit.

BTW, Great Job on creating Wikipedia Encyclopedic System! – I nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize, you certainly deserve it!

Best regards,

--Lperez2029 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "Wikipedia is not censored"? *Dan T.* 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. But we are talking about Spam (because the picture ‘politicizes’ the hand gesture) not censorship. --Lperez2029 12:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the image is the one it appears to be, it's not worth fighting over. It's a low-quality unsourced image from some YouTube video (probable copyvio), with the camera angle such that it almost looks like Bush is picking his nose. There are much better photos out there -- if I wasn't so unphotogenic, I'd make one myself: I've always wanted to give the world the finger. --Carnildo 05:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a big cheese around here, so first let me say thanks. Second, I had a question about Image talk:Crosstar.png. I don't get it... why has nothing been done for so long? My understanding of Office Actions were that they were supposed to be temporary. Is this correct? Do you know what the status of this image is? Are there discussions still going on behind-the-scenes? Not that it really matters, I was more just curious than anything. Is this even the right place to ask this? Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you often dislike being part of some Wikipedia in-jokes? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have some spare time can you please sign my signature book. I'm trying to attract more people to sign it and if you signed it would help greatly. You get their by clicking the words "sign here" in my signature. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that help build an encyclopedia? Durova^Charge! 07:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Striking through. Durova^Charge! 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am new user having tremendous difficulty editing Wikipedia logo. The symbol in the Hindi bhasha in extreme left corner of the Wikipedia logo is symbol making no sense whatsoever. I can't find the "edit" tab for it. Maybe you can help. Please to note that this mistake is great shame because the Wikipedia logo is going everywhere especially small town villages India. Peoples are watching. Also some peoples are also trying same thing but fully unsuccessfully, like here. Please show me "edit" tab. Thanks in advance. Your fan, -- mowglee 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• hello, is there anybody out there? no answer is also an answer. -- mowglee 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Jimbo, as busy as he understandably would be, is probably the worst person to ask about this. Try asking a moderator who, if he couldn't do it himself would probably have an easier time getting the attention of the superiors who can.--Dagibit 02:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't even understand the question to be honest. --Jimbo Wales 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly! the Hindi alphabet written in the Devanagari script in Wikipedia's logo, i.e. the globe represented as a jigsaw puzzle of alphabets, cannot be understood by Hindi readers. Rather, it can be understood, but only as a gaffe, or else a mockery of the language (if not knowledge itself). Please to help us here sir! The logo travels everywhere, with Wikipedia, sir. Your fan, perennially -- mowglee 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think he is referring to the fact that the wikipedia logo has an error in it which was never corrected. Please see User:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo. Ambuj was trying to get it corrected, but I don't know if anything ever resulted out of it. Maybe you could do something about it Jimbo. It is quite saddening to see an incorrect Hindi character on the wikipedia logo itself. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can't figure out why people think it's an error. Just because the i matra could go before the consonant, doesn't mean it has to. As I noted on User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo, that can be the correct beginning of quite a number of words, and is thus pefectly fitting with the theme of the logo of an unfinished puzzle. - Taxman ^Talk 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• No Taxman. All the diacritical marks in the other symbols (in the logo) are complete (i.e. they are qualifying what they are supposed to qualify); while in this symbol, the diacritical is in suspense (thus incomplete). A lost diacritical is an orphaned one. We don't want one in Wikipedia's logo. No? Do you? -- mowglee 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• From his userpage I see that Jimbo speaks English and a little German. I am sure he wants the depiction of every language included on the logo to be accurate but if people fluent in Hindi (as I assume those commenting on this thread) are can't agree on whether there is an error, I don't see how Jimbo is going to be able to help. Can anyone suggest an appropriate place to get a consensus on this issue? Also (and pardon an unknowledgeable question), is it possible there are different dialects or scripts of written Hindi so that the logo as given is correct in one variant of the language though incorrect in another? Newyorkbrad 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• To answer the last question simply: no. The issue is just a function of how vowel modifiers are placed in devanagari. It's the same in all languages/dialects that use devanagari. - Taxman ^Talk 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• To answer your questions, (i) this is not a discussion; I have been emboldened to make this post after this petition: hope this makes thing clearer. suffice it to say, any discussion, if necessary, can carry on in the "talk page" of "that" page; (ii) I do not know where you can get a consensus for an obvious gaffe; send an email to a Hindi professor you happen to know and find out for yourself; (iii) regardless of dialects, the script for many Indian languages is Devanagari. It/this is an illegal construct in Devanagari (from as it appears). HTH -- mowglee 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The others don't make full words of their own that I know of. Certainly W in English doesn't, and neither does File:Incorrect hindi vi.JPG. Both are however correct fragments of full words. I reallize the devanagari is incomplete, but my point is that fits with the logo's theme. But it's also not that big a deal to change it. Go to the logo page and contact the three or four editors named in the history and find someone that can make the fix. Then get a commons admin to make the change. There is no need to involve Jimbo in something of this variety. - Taxman ^Talk 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will follow your suggestions Taxman. The reason I took the liberty of writing to Jimbo was because the person who started this issue, User:Ambuj.Saxena, notes, on his user page: He (the user) also took the initiative in changing the Wikipedia's logo to remove inconsistencies in Hindi text. The matter was raised with the Wikimedia Foundation and Angela also supported the change. As of December 2006, no concrete steps were taken in this direction. -- mowglee 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding what you say in the first half of your post, I have shifted the discussion to here and responded there. -- mowglee 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo,

I'd be honored if you'd sign my Autograph book, found here.

Thanks! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I wish you would sign mine... I've seen it in Tohru's and I was flabberghasted! Do you hae a Sig. book? Cheers! —¡Randfan!^{Sign here?} 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my question: how do autograph books help build an encyclopedia? Durova^Charge! 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Question answered. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to jump on the bandwagon (ok, if I really hated it, I wouldn't be posting), but I'd be honored if you signed my book, too! -- Renesis (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And um, yeah, me, too. Found here. Please? –The Great Llama^{sign here} 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo hates me right about now....sorry! Did I start all this? File:Cry-tpvgames.gif --Tohru Honda^{Sign here!} 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the discussion on Durova's userpage on autograph books (which I completely agreed with, Jimbo), I assume that Jimbo doesn't hate me. Well.....see below for your prize Jimbo! I'm honored to be your Wikifriend! (I am right?) --Tohru Honda^{Sign here!} 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo could ever hate someone like you, Tohru! Anyway, I recently created an autograph book myself and would be flattered if you could sign it. On the other hand, it's okay with me if you don't want to. I'd understand. ;) Happy editing! // Sasuke-kun27 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo! I am trying to collect 2007 signatures of fellow Wikipedians before the start of the new year, so I would be honored if you could sign mine. Thanks and happy holidays! sign here — s d 3 1 4 1 5 13:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Winterval and thanks for signing my autograph book!

I am disappointed with the standard of Wikipedia with regards to the nomenclature of terms relating to the United Kingdom and her consitituent countries. Especially with regards to persons of the United Kingdom being refered to as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, this is incorrect they should be known as British. In accordance with the nomenclature used for every other sovereign state on Earth! I hope that you can use your influence on this matter, people and places of the United Kingdom should be referred as such.

Thank You, if I have inconvenienced you on this matter I should like to apologise, however, I am unaware of where to discuss this matter. Thank You very much Jimbo Wales. razza 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea where this is coming from, personally. I am English - I am no more a Scotsman or a Welshman, as the term 'British' implies, than Jimbo is a Canadian or a Mexican. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo: With the ArbCom election having finished last weekend, I am sure you are reviewing the results and deciding how many new arbitrators to appoint and who they will be. In the meantime, I don't know how closely you follow the day-to-day arbitration pages, but (in what I hope is just a coincidence of timing rather than a harbinger of things to come), four new cases were accepted for consideration within the past two days and there are a couple more on the pending list that look likely to be accepted as well. I am concerned that with the only a few arbitrators active right now who will still be sitting next year, the newly consituted ArbCom is going to start off the year with a big backlog. To the extent you can, consistent with your review of the results and candidates, I'd urge you to make your appointments as soon as you reasonably can so the new arbs can start getting up to speed (even if it's before they "officially" take office). Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Under the current system, the more Arbitrators there are, the bigger the required majority to pass a motion. Given that we would expect newly-raised Arbitrators to be more "eager" than those who've been in the job for a year or two, increasing the size of the Arbcom might speed things up temporarily - but in the long run, at best the balance between size of committee and size of majority would even out. At worst, getting the required majority would take even longer.

There remains the possibility that the Arbcom could be reformed in some way to reduce the majority required - for example, splitting the Committee in two and having half active on each case - but that would be a major step. We'd need more than 15 arbitrators, IMO.

And we have to ask at what point a large RfAR queue becomes a problem. The community is more proactive than it was before, which reduces the chance that an article could become paralysed until Arbcom makes its decision. With the case I brought to Arbcom back in March, if it happened now it would almost certainly have been settled with a community ban. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of your comments as fair points that the new arbitrators and the community will need to consider. Of course, that depends on part on how large Jimbo decides the committee will be. My biggest concern remains a scenario where the caseload backlog, which was a big problem earlier this year and had been reduced to a very manageable level, builds up to the point of causing excessive delays again. Anything that avoids that would be worthwhile. The procedure details discussion can come later. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as far as the caseload is concerned - the list of cases in the Evidence phase is quite daunting now. But I think that "the procedure details discussion can come later" is possibly a bit blasé. Changing the way the Arbcom works is a big step, and if it didn't work, changing it back would be bloody chaos. (I can just imagine this: "Please re-examine Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Larouche's apartheid among pseudoscientific Serbo-Dramaticans - this resulted in everyone being banned from the article, but Arbitration wasn't working properly then - we know because Jimbo just changed the system. Please go through it again now that Arbitration has been made fair.")

I just don't think that expansion would be a real solution to a backlog, since every other time you add someone to the commitee, it takes one more guy to get something done. (The only exception being the motion to close, which requires 4 net arbitrators, and that would have to be increased at some point.)

I read the idea of dividing the commitee in two on one of the Election talk subpages, I think - unfortunately I can't remember which - and I think it's more likely to be a lasting solution. You might get a discrepancy between the two groups, e.g. if Dmcdevit and Fred Bauder were assigned the same half, but personally I think that (as I suggested to Fred Bauder earlier) if one Arbitrator known for writing proposed decisions isn't able to, someone else will probably pull their finger out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think reasonable expansion of the number of active arbs (not necessarily past 15) will help because the two arbitrators you mention wouldn't be the only ones doing the decision drafts, but we'll see. I don't want to burden Jimbo's page with more detailed analysis, though; is there a centralized place where the community could start having this discussion? Newyorkbrad 01:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As it's Jimbo's decision what to do with the Arbcom, I think this may be one of the few topics on this page that absolutely, unequivocally, does belong here :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was looking over Wikimedia’s financial statement — thanks for letting us see that, by the way — and I noticed that you’ve budgeted $107,122 for salaries and wages. The New Yorker said that Wikimedia has six employees, meaning on average you’re making just short of $18,000. That doesn’t seem like much for someone managing the second most useful site on the web after Google. I think that you are due for a raise. --Arctic Gnome 07:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jimbo is not one of those six employees. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of that article: "It has five employees in addition to Jimmy Wales". --Arctic Gnome 12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, well, I am not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and never have been. The budget for salaries in the coming year will be higher, in no small part because we need to add a few more people. But I will not be an employee of the foundation anytime in the planned future. I am a volunteer community member, just like you. :) --Jimbo Wales 14:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I read your post on the wikien-l mailing list, and I wondered if you would be able to comment on the arguments raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Other_people's_contributions and specifically whether it will ever be possible to people to have access to their complete contributions list (ie. including edits made to pages that later got deleted). I'm not asking if a user's complete contributions list could be available to everyone (that would be silly) but whether it could be available to that user only (like watchlists are). I do feel strongly about being unable to track down early contribs I made to subsequently deleted pages (such as the user talk pages that you say should be deleted if people ask for them to be deleted), especially those made to renamed category pages which may still exist but under a different category name (I'm talking here about the editable part of category pages, not the dynamically generated bits), so I'd really appreciate any advice you can give. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to hot headed regarding to disputes perhaps you should stop --217.43.20.101 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're a shared IP, I think the same could be applied to you... oTHErONE _(Contribs) 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And Jimbo has an amazing ability to keep a cool head during disputes, more so than most (myself included). This guy seems to be just be trolling. --Deskbanana 13:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who will the new Arbcom be? 205.157.110.11 02:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that you recommend taking requests to the noticeboard, but this is a special case where I think that ArbCom members are making policy in an inappropriate way, and I would like to appeal to you on the basis of simple common sense. I don't think that I could make such an appeal on the noticeboard.

I am sure that you are familiar with the battles over the Lyndon LaRouche articles, and my opinion is that there are substantial WP:BLP problems with them. I also have seen that everyone here is polarized on the issue. But the opinion of Fred Bauder and Thatcher131 is that quotes from interviews by the late Senator Eugene McCarthy, a long-standing ally and supporter of LaRouche, may not be cited in the LaRouche biography article.[9] These were interviews given on the record, and no one disputes their authenticity. Fred Bauder and Thatcher131 are citing the ArbCom case that says Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. First of all, the article in question is in fact Lyndon LaRouche. Secondly, an interview contains no subjective analysis by the LaRouche people or anything else that would be covered by WP:NOR. It is simply the words of Sen. McCarthy. Thatcher131 says they would be admissable if published in another publication, which of course is not going to happen because the interview is undoubtably copyrighted. It seems to me that this is simply a case of two ArbCom members "Gaming the system" or wikilawyering to exclude something they want to exclude. I also believe that ArbCom is supposed to focus on bad member conduct and not try to oversee article content. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. --Tsunami Butler 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

People with a Lyndon LaRouche conflict of interest have made life difficult for volunteers trying to maintain a neutal point of view in the encyclopedia so that the "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality that can not be helped in this anyone-can-edit environment is raised to an exceptional level with regard to Lyndon LaRouche. I hope the current German language Wikipedia experiments will help in this regard. Please bear with us as we evolve. WAS 4.250 09:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo. T H I S. As per Nohat (the creator of the Wikipedia logo) there are several faults in the foreign language characters in the logo (lke in the Hindi characters, to quip). As per Nohat, the task of changing the logo is too onerous to accomplish. Can't you PAY someone to have this done? Really a shame whether you like it or not -- mowglee 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I officially pledge USD 1000 to a fund, if one can be created, to effect this change. I also pledge to canvas for this fund. I also do not mind donating to the existing fundraising campaign if this change can be noted. -- mowglee 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Jimmy! It's really been an honor to be on the Wikimedia projects working with such a great community, and I wanted to thank you for starting it all. Please keep up the great work, and once again, Merry Christmas to you and yours! Thunderhead

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderhead1 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC).