|
:''The ''Westinghouse Electric Company'' is a present-day nuclear technology business. See [[Westinghouse]] for other uses, including its famous former owner's history prior to 1999 and recent licensing deals.''
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 23
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<inputbox>
type=comment
bgcolor=#eeeeff
default=User talk:Jimbo Wales
buttonlabel=New message here!
</inputbox>
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=7|target=./Archive 21|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
{{archives|small=yes}}
'''Westinghouse Electric Company''' is a [[nuclear reactor]] technology business company, providing nuclear services, [[nuclear power plant|power plants]], and [[nuclear fuel]] to utilities and governments in the [[United States]], [[Europe]], and [[Asia]]. [[Toshiba|Toshiba Group]] is its majority owner.
== Massive pedophile crackdown ==
==History==
About a month ago, there appeared to be a big crackdown on self-identified pedophilies. From what I can gather, the ones that I knew that had put up messages saying they were a pedophile ([[User:Zanthalon]], [[User:Silent War]], [[User:Clayboy]]) seemed to be indefinitely blocked and had their pages deleted and protected. I've found something here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=112683468#Clarification_regarding_a_self-identified_pedophile] Can you explain and is there any more information on this? [[User:Christopher Connor|Christopher Connor]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:The banning of three self-professed pedophiles hardly seems like a "massive crackdown". If there are issues with individual bans please email individual ArbCom members directly. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:Congratulation to the Wikipedia for actioning to protect wide society from the dangerous individuals[[User:Wen Hsing|Wen Hsing]] 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::Congratulation to Wen Hsing for making an extremely POV edit, not to mention one that is highly erroneous. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::This page for the talk, Point Of View expression is permit? Is it not? Also most reasonable persons agree pedophilia dangerous. If a persons say openly they feel urge to murder, or would enjoy torture the animal, or create the social chaos with explosive, is this not dangerous thinking? Similarly dangerous pedophile concern. I do not intend moralistic judgment or offensive, it is issue the society safety.[[User:Wen Hsing|Wen Hsing]] 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
* In 1995 [[Westinghouse Electric Corporation]] purchased [[CBS]] and started giving up its industrial and defense businesses.
::I am unaware of any general crackdown. We always block people who are trolling and being disruptive. I see nothing wrong with any of the blocks.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
* In 1996, the company sold its defense electronics business and purchased [[Infinity Broadcasting]].
* In 1997 the company was renamed '''CBS Corporation.'''
* In 1998 the company ''CBS Corporation'' sold its nuclear business to [[BNFL]] (British Nuclear Fuels) who started to operate it as [[Westinghouse Electric Company]]. The same year, ''CBS Corporation'' created a new subsidiary company called [[Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1998)|Westinghouse Electric Corporation]] to manage the Westinghouse [[brand]].
* In 2000 the [[ABB Group]]'s nuclear power business was purchased by [[BNFL]] and merged into Westinghouse Electric Company.
* In 2006 Westinghouse Electric Company was sold by BNFL to [[Toshiba]].
==Europe==
:::Jimbo, my detailed response is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Crackdown here], the short version being: Ask the person to remove the offending material, and only refusal to do so being cause for banning. AFAIK these are good editors and I wouldn't have any credibility if I didn't stand up for them, so I am. Please reconsider. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Westinghouse Electric Company has several fully owned subsidiaries in Europe such as the European Service Center (also called Westinghouse Electric Belgium) located in [[Nivelles]], [[Belgium]], where equipments are being prepared for interventions throughout Europe. After the take over of [[ABB Reaktor]] in Germany, Westinghouse transferred the radiological storage activities located in Ladenburg, Germany, to the existing site in Nivelles, Belgium, which was extended. Soon after that extension, another extension followed as the people working in the [[Brussels]]' office were transferred to Nivelles too. It is estimated that 150 people were working in Nivelles at the end of 2005.
:::The blocked Wikipedians were not trolls, they were simply paedophiles who made well-intentioned edits to Wikipedia but admitted their sexual orientation on their userpage. Since there are millions of paedophiles in society, there are clearly going to be a lot of paedophiles on Wikipedia. I'm guessing that Wikipedia received complaints from random vigilantes, however this reaction is totally unnecessary - a few silly hate groups and vigilantes are hardly going to damage a site such as Wikipedia. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
==Sale to Toshiba==
::::Non-self-identifying paedophiles are clearly free to edit wikipedia, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In July 2005 BNFL confirmed it planned to sell Westinghouse, then estimated to be worth $1.8bn (£1bn). However the bid attracted interest from several companies, including [[Toshiba]], [[General Electric]] and [[Mitsubishi Heavy Industries]] and when the ''[[Financial Times]]'' reported on January 23, 2006 that Toshiba had won the bid, it valued the company's offer at $5bn (£2.8bn). On February 6, 2006 Toshiba confirmed it was buying Westinghouse Electric Company for $5.4bn and announced it would sell a minority stake to investors.[http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060206/1224825.html?.v=2]
:::::And why shouldn't we identify as paedophiles, other than to protect the delicate ears of vigilante groups? Admitting my attraction to children doesn't harm anyone, it just shows that Wikipedia is diverse, something which any online society should hope to be. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps, too, we should ban any self-identifying homosexuals because they "portray negatively on Wikipedia's reputation"? Your bigoted views on sexual orientation should not be the basis of banishment from this project. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 02:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The sale surprised many industry experts who questioned the wisdom of BNFL selling one of the world's largest producers of nuclear reactors shortly before the market for [[nuclear power]] is expected to grow substantially; [[People's Republic of China|China]], the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]] are all expected to invest heavily in nuclear power. <ref>BBC News (2006) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4638960.stm "BNFL to sell U.S. power plant arm"] Retrieved Feb. 6 2006</ref> However ''[[The Economist]]'' gives several reasons in favor of a sale; the commercial risk of the company's business in [[Asia]] may be too high for taxpayers money, if Westinghouse won the bid for any new nuclear stations in the UK competition questions may be raised, if lost it may be seen as a lack of faith in its own [Westinghouse] technology' and finally the record of UK governments building nuclear plants is a commercial disaster. <ref>"Technology transfer" (Jan. 28, 2006) ''The Economist'' pp. 30—31</ref>
Vigilante groups? Are you kidding? IMO it does harm people, adult and children, so I agree with Jimbo. The blocking does no harm at all to the project, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The acquisition of Westinghouse Electric Company for $5.4bn was completed on October 16, 2006, with Toshiba obtaining a 77% share, and partners [[The Shaw Group]] a 20% share, Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. a 1% share & [[GE]] a 2% share.
:Oh please, would you care to explain how identifying as a paedophile harms adults or children, or are you just going to sit there making yourself feel superior with your arrogant remarks? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] ([[User talk:BLueRibbon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BLueRibbon|contribs]]) 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
==Moving to Cranberry Township==
:I am not feeling superior at all, look at my user page and you'll see I identify with what is an illegal activity in many parts of the worl in bold as the opening statement of my user page so I can relate to alienation and all that but do think that it harms the project and does indeed harm adults and children. How would you presume to know what may harms others? Paedophilia does harm countless people is the reality, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
After a long waiting, Westinghouse finally decided to move its world headquarter from the Energy Center in Monroeville, PA, to Cranberry Woods in
[[Cranberry Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania|Cranberry Township]], Butler County, PA. A [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_498721.html memo] stated the main reason was due to rapid expansion in the global Nuclear industry. The move is expected to begin in early 2009 and complete by end-of-year 2010, with construction expected to begin in July 2007.
A community website [http://easywemove.info easywemove.info] was created to assist easy transitions to the north of Pittsburgh.
==References==
::In case you haven't realized yet, when I say "paedophilia" I mean a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. I do '''not''' mean any kind of activity. As I have already suggested, please read the [[pedophilia]] article. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
<references />
[[Category:Engineering companies of the United States]]
::Looking through their edit histories ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silent_War Silent War], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Clayboy Clayboy], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zanthalon Zanthalon]), I'm can't seem to find evidence that the blocked users ''were'' actually being disruptive. Zanthalon and Silent War were infrequent editors – their last edits were on 24 December 2006 and 30 September 2006, respectively – and so the blocks (all on 7 March 2007) were implemented months after they were last active. Admitting to paedophilia is obviously a red flag, but from their edits, it doesn't appear that their intention here was to troll, so does admitting to be a paedophile constitute a blockable offence? Wales: you yourself blocked Clayboy so could you explain this in more detail? [[User:Christopher Connor|Christopher Connor]] 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:Nuclear technology]]
[[Category:Nuclear power companies]]
[[sv:Westinghouse Electric Company]]
:That is only because their user page entries have been deleted, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this should be a warning to pedophiles: Conceal your innermost thoughts at all costs, even if it causes you to go insane, because the world doesn't care and usually bans you from any project you join because you might someday happen to see the 1 in 7 billion chance child by accident (notice five chances have to be met, which would almost never happen). Big congratulations. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::Actually that sounds good to me. Better to go insane than abuse the innocent, no? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Maybe you should read the [[pedophilia]] article before you make such silly comments. I have never had sex with a child, yet you appear to be happy to attack me. There's only one person abusing the innocent here and that's you. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I read you home page, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hardly. Which innocents is that? I am not an admin so am just commenting, pretty much from a sense of shock, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::Okay, I am a paedophile because I am attracted to pre-pubescent children, however I do not have sex with children because I do not agree with adult-child sex. You referred to paedophiles as "abusing the innocent." Since I am innocent of what you are accusing paedophiles of doing, don't you think that you are offending an innocent person (me)? [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::No I dont think I am offending innocent people but I think paedophiles do do so just as people who want to murder other people can be offensive, and if they express their murderous desire here they get blocked too, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have visited the penitentiary in Colorado and interacted with pedophiles. We worked together on certain matters. All prisoners have the right to safety and medical care. We had one here in Crestone, a very clever one, he had a little dog he used as a lure. He gave puppet shows. I liked him, a very pleasant man. He used the wireless internet connection at the cafe to get online. I chatted with him a bit and recommended Wikipedia. But then later found out what he was up to. I suppose he couldn't control himself. It isn't a lack of humanity or sympathy which is involved. It is the reputation of the site. We are not a platform for advocacy. Or a place of assignation. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:Look, just because we're paedophiles doesn't mean we're criminals or child abusers. Do not, under any circumstances, link me to the people jailed for child molestation. The assumption that all paedophiles are child abusers and criminals is highly offensive and is the reason why I defend my cause so doggedly. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::Its a fair assumption,IMO. At 18 you may well be too young for a sexual relationship anyway, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::What is a fair assumption? The assumption that we're child abusers? Do you know how many paedophiles there are, how many abuse cases there are, and how many of those cases are committed by adult-attracted people? If you look at the numbers, they don't even come close to adding up to your theory. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::Conversely, the assumption that all child molesters are pedophiles is a dangerous one: 90% of all child molesters have no sexual attraction to children, so laws targeting pedophilia have little effect on child molestation. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:The question I have though, if you want privacy, the right to lead a quiet law-abiding life, why are you expressing your sexual desires on one of the most visited websites in the world? [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::I don't particularly want a quiet life. Regarding privacy, I take measures to protect myself on the internet. Expressing my desires here does not violate the law. I don't like to be silenced because of my sexual attraction and, when safe to do so, I make it clear that I'm attracted to children because I'm tired of so many people feeling ashamed of who they are. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I suppose the same argument was made in the past to homosexuals. However, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]], it is correct that users should not be allowed to self-identify as pedophiles on their talk pages. There are a few reasons for this, but one that is sufficient is, lets's face it: because identifying oneself as a pedophile is such a red flag, it's a godsend for trolls. Identifying oneself as a pedophile is a great way to create disruptive drama, a troll's purpose. Actual pedophiles should understand this and recognize that for this reason it may be necessary to prohibit all self-identification as a pedophile to prevent the trolling use of such. (That does not mean that ''non-trolling'' self-identified pedphiles should be banned, just that their self-identification be removed.) [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 03:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::A mixed race marriage like mine has also been criminalised in the past but, as with homosexuality, we are talking of consensting adults who have the chance of a long term sustained marriage. IMO the acceptance of mixed race and homosexual marriages is a sign of progress whereas our attitude as societies to paedophiles has harden, and IMO for obvious reasons, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::As I have already stated several times, paedophilia is not harmful because it is a thought/feeling. If one refrains from acting on that, it is highly unreasonable to attack them or tar them with same brush as people who do act. Carnildo also made a good point. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::We're not here to debate the goods and ills of society. We're here to build an encyclopedia, an educational resource for people of all ages. Is the project, and its reputation in the world, helped or hurt by allowing editors to proclaim a sexual preference for minors? I cannot see any reason why the project would be helped, and many reasons why it would be hurt. That would be true even if the editors in question only edited their user pages. In fact, they edited much more. While it wasn't the immediate cause of their ban, these editors along with others have consistently sought to remove negative information about pedophilia, to remove connections between pedophilia and child molestation, and to insert favorable material. They've been, to use the usual phrase, POV pushers. That [[user:Rookiee]], another self-professed pedophile, wrote our first article on [[Justin Berry]] in a way that even Clayboy admitted was "pretty badly POV"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Berry/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=43008942] is an indication of the trouble we've had. While we do want our articles on pedophilia and related issues to be as neutral as any other topic, the pro-pedophile editors have done more to skew the neutrality than to help it. Let's remember that Wikipedia doesn't exist to right the world's wrongs - our purpose is to write the world's encyclopedia. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I should add that there are other wikis that welcome these users:[http://www.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Activism&curid=2774&diff=8614&oldid=8012] This isn't the only game in town. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy]]. Many of the concerns advanced here are more properly addressed in a therapeutic setting. Cries for help are simply inappropriate in a public forum. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 11:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::*A rare occasion when I agree with Fred - it seems to me that BlueRibbon is a Wikipedian in order to discuss his sexuality [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=BLueRibbon] rather than write an encyclopedia - I'm sure you must have some other interests and hobbies BlueRibbon - why not do us all a favour and go and write about them instead, assuming they are legal that is. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I discuss my sexuality pretty much everywhere where I feel it is safe to do so, however the reason I edit Wikipedia is to maintain a NPOV on the paedophilia-related articles, which are obviously subject to significant bias due to the current state of public opinion. For the record, I do write about many of my hobbies at Wikipedia, however I use a different username. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::We should reflect the current state of public opinion worldwide in our encyclopedia, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Absolutely not. An encyclopedia should not represent ''any'' point of view, it should represent fact. Since public opinion operates in a manner contrary to fact in this particular example, reflecting public opinion is certainly not in the best interests of this project. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::Actually fact is a dubious concept outside the hard sciences. We should represent all notable points of view, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::That is simply untrue. You will find millions of facts if you read Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which is not designed to represent points of view. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should get Jimbo Wales' opinion on this instead of arguing. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:I've noticed that Jimbo doesn't usually discuss controversial issues such as this, but I agree that it would be useful to hear his opinion. [[User:BLueRibbon|BLueRibbon]] 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::Jimbo has already opined here, see above, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=123597330&oldid=123593892 This] you mean? — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Exactly, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As Fred said, this project is not some kind of experimental platform for democratic argument. It's an encyclopedia, and a project with a PR aspect to it. If you want the privilege of editing here, it's fair enough that you do nothing that could bring the project into disrepute - which includes self-identifying as a pedophile on your userpage or elsewhere. If you (some hypothetical pedophile) want to make pedophilia more socially respectable, take the issue to other forums. If the government tries to censor you, I might even support your right to say whatever it is you want - I'm big on freedom of speech. But Wikipedia is not the government; it's a private operation that can set its own terms on which it cooperates with people. It's not here to assist your cause, however just or unjust, and it has its own problems without you adding to them. Why don't people "get" this simple idea? [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. All I ask is that we keep a NPOV on pedophiles and pedophilia—that's what Wikipedia is about. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I am disgusted with both Fred Bauder's and Will Beback's bigoted views on this issue. These types of hate-filled views were once applicable to to the handicapped and homosexuals. And so it appears SqueakBox's has been caught with his pants down on concerning his views on Wikipedia and his ill-conceived notion that Wikipedia should represent the public opinion. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/UBeR|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Can you elaborate, please? Your comment seems rather obscure (and I almost reverted it for trolling). — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think there was anything "hate-filled" about my comments or Bauder's. The editors in question didn't just keep their beliefs to themselves - they used Wikipedia resources to promote those beliefs, and they actively sought to alter WP articles to reflect their POV. Anybody who edits Wikipedia, whether pedophile or Presbyterian, should put the project first. This isn't an experiment in free speech or the equality of all ideas. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::And I wholeheartedly believe that encyclopedia writing should be at the forefront of every user. That is the goal of this project. But when members are being denied to do this on the basis of their sexual orientation and bigoted fears of "degrading reputation" is when this project demises. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Now I understand, and agree with both you and W. Beback. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, from recent events it appears that new user-page precedents have been set. These are:
:::* No self-identification as a pedophile.
:::* No pro-pedophile material.
:::* No external links to pro-pedophile material.
:::and that these offenses are punishable by an indefinite ban. Since no evidence of disruption from the banned users have been provided, this appears to be the case. At this point, [[Wikipedia:User page]] should be updated to reflect this (which also means the initial bans were out of hand).
:::(I also hoped to avoid a long, off-topic discussion like the one above.) [[User:Christopher Connor|Christopher Connor]] 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:I posted this at [[talk:Sexual intercourse]] a couple of weeks ago, before I was aware of this debate;<blockquote>== Pedophilia and "desire". ==
:I realise that this will be a sensitive subject, so I will try to be clear. ''Desire'', thinking about, ''fantasising'' regarding sex with children is '''not''' illegal/prohibited. There are no legal mechanisms to deny people the ability to think in a certain manner. Most societies disallow the expression of such desires by moral and social disapproval, and the use of legal methods to restrict communication of such desires. What is illegal is the practice, procurement, advancement or support of pedophilia, and its depiction even as fiction. By stating that the desire is illegal, rather than publicly condemned, is untruthful. In short, people who have or do think such thoughts are not criminals - those that act upon such impulses are... [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)</blockquote>
:Since I feel that confusing or linking desire with the illegal/immoral practice is inaccurate and wrong I am also of the opinion that not allowing the free expression of such interest or desire is beyond that which is allowed in western society. Wikipedia does not have to allow such expression if that is its choice, but I would make clear that this choice is based upon a moral/political consideration than that of law. My personal opinion is that a contributor is free to admit to anything that is of itself not illegal (''desire'', not practice, in this case) on their userpage. If this encourages other editors to review the contributors edits more closely on certain subjects, then this is better for WP. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::I fully agree with [[User:LessHeard vanU]]'s comemtns above. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::We are not thought police and of course we dont and indeed cant analyse people's inner thoughts. To claim wikipedia doesnt allow people to think what they want is absurd, ridiculous given we cant do this so what is your complaint? Nobody has been blocked for having an inner thought but when individuals start trying to proclaim their so-called and definitely illegal desires on people they know will be sickened to hear them, that is not thinking, its provoking others, and its bemirsching the project in a big way. Undeclared paedophiles are welcome here as we have no way of knowing who they are and we assume good faith, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 22:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I re-iterate (as you keep missing the point and making the claim); the ''desire'' is '''not''' illegal. Acting upon it is. Therefore if Wikipedia decides, as it is entitled to do, that it should remove references of pedophiliac interest from userpages or ban such self declared pedophiles then it does so on the grounds of morality and/or political standpoints. My complaint is that asserting that having such desires is illegal is fallacious. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 12:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::There is a world of difference between having a desire and expressing it and I am not convinced that expressing said desire is legal (though legality depends largely on where one is located), [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::As said before, a desire for sexual activity with children is perfectly legal if not acted upon, so shouldn't that apply to expressing it as well? True, if such an admission is made in a way that is disruptive or intended to be disruptive, that should not be allowed. Yet if such attraction is simply stated on a user-page, the content of which is generally associated with the ''editor'', not the ''encyclopedia'', why should the editor be blocked? I'm quite new to Wikipedia, and not all that experienced with its way of operating, but this is quite beyond my comprehension. --[[User:Anna512|Anna512]] ([[User_talk:Anna512|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Anna512|contribs]]) 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::It should be noted that there is a big difference, legally speaking, between expressing a desire and expressing an intent to act on that desire.[[User:Chunky Rice|Chunky Rice]] 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*Anyone who actually admits to being a pedophile here should not only be permanently blocked, but all of their available information should be immediately forwarded to the FBI and / or InterPol. [[User:70.105.16.153|70.105.16.153]] 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
**Well the FBI have no authority outside the US (interpol is not the correct channel) as I think that is going a bit far but IMO Fred Bauer got it right when saying what these people need is therapy. I agree that a permanent block is always justified in these cases but dont think wikipedia needs to do anything further unless an actual crime appears to have been committed, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::Therapy? There is little hope for these sick puppies who prey on our posterity ever rejoining the human race... that is why we just remove them from society. And trust me, FBI and Interpol are both ''very'' interested. [[User:70.105.16.153|70.105.16.153]] 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Well the FBI only have jurisdiction over people in the US or with US citizenship/residency and unfortunately even inn the US many convicted child sex offenders get released and then re-offend, and then get released again etc. I certainly understand your point of view better than many expressed in this thread, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::It is important to realise the difference between a paedophile that has acted on such desires or intends to, and a paedophile that has not. Child molesters deserve to be inserted slowly, feet-down into a meat-grinder, but that is not a treatment I would recommend to ''innocent people''. --[[User:Anna512|Anna512]] ([[User_talk:Anna512|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Anna512|contribs]]) 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::If someone is expressing that desire on wikipedia I think there is a strong argument that individual is a danger to himself or others. Besides we dont want our readers being exposed to people who say they want to have sex with children, that is completely not the point of either wikipedia or us having user pages. Nobody is stopping a paedophile who doesnt self identify editing constructively to the paedophile articles, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Far better that someone admits to a persuasion, and denies themselves the practice, than those that secretly work to an agenda. The approbation directed toward an honest person, whose desires are not condoned, is only going to make others who have similar desires conceal them. That said, I re-iterate that Wikipedia has the right and the powers to disallow self identification in areas it believes is detrimental to the community. I am against such measures in principle. The only danger I can see is the ''mob mentality'' engendered by a topic that allows very little scope for the arguments in defence of such peoples admission of desire. On that basis, given the emotive and non-logical (and downright plain wrong) comments by some, I now think that WP should require that no self identification as a paedophile is permitted. I am disappointed, but realistic. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It is dismaying and disturbing enough that these individuals, far from seeking therapy, have the unmitigated gall to organize themselves into political lobby groups for the purpose of announcing to us their view that it's 'okay' now for them to rape our young kids. They should NOT be allowed to turn this project into one of their platforms, by any means. [[User:70.105.16.153|70.105.16.153]] 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::See [[Pedophile activism]], [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you all discuss this at [[v:Wikiversity:Main_Page|Wikiversity]]! This discussion is ''quite'' interesting to read, but it doesn't belong to this talk page. Wikiversity has plenty of room for talk pages and learning material about pedophilia and other subjects, and there's no requirement for NPOV, as long as you disclose your POVs. See, for instance, [[v:War_and_Iran|this page]] created for a discussion about War and Iran. You could do the same with Pedophilia, both people in favor and against. [[User:A.Z.|'''A.Z.''']] 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
== Userbox ==
I know Wikipedia isn't the place to express one's own political viewsbut why is "This user supports the [[Hezbollah|Islamic resistance]]" considered ''extremely inflammatory'' and ''compeletely inappropriate'', while "This user supports [[George W. Bush]]" or "This user supports [[Likud]]", "This user supports [[Yisrael Beytenu]]" and other political userbox are treated like any other userbox. We should avoid double-standards and bias on Wikipedia, even when the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia admins are biased to one side. Either this one should be allowed, or every other political userbox should be removed.
I need your say on this. [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] 13:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:{{Userlinks|Embargo}} has been blocked for 48 hours for repeatedly creating an inappropriate user page, see [[Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content]], also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Embargo&diff=123850098&oldid=123848042] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Embargo&diff=123842032&oldid=123840457]. It is my opinion that administrators may continue to block him as long as he continues this activity. See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prester_John&diff=next&oldid=124737291] where he removes a rather ordinary Israel userbox. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, but I was talking about the userbox, which seems perfectly appropriate to me, seeing there are other similar userboxes. Changing the subject and talking about my ''inappropriate'' userpage doesn't change the fact that "This user supports Hezbollah", again, is considered "''extremely inflammatory''" and "''completely inappropriate''" while other userboxes, or "Wikipedians by politics" as a whole, is considered ordinary. [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with embargo on this point. If someone can say they support Bush, and another cannot say that they support islamic resistance, then this is a double-standard. I can see why this creates problems because a majority of Americans in particular (which I'm sure comprises large sum of users on Wikipedia) is disgusted by the islamic resistance, but by the same token, many peole believe that Bush is just as bad. I don't endorse islamic resistance myself, but I do endorse his freedom of expression in this point. If people do not like this userbox, they can choose not to use it. [[User:Shimdidly|Shimdidly]] 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:Jimbo believes, in general, that userboxes are divisive and should not be used on Wikipedia. I guess this thread kind of supports that opinion. :-) [[User:4.68.248.200|4.68.248.200]] 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
::He may believe some are thus but not all and has explicitly supported language skill user boxes, which are on his page, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Please forgive me... I wasn't thinking of language userboxes as the type of userboxes in question at the time but, of course, you're right. Jimbo's userbox suggestions are in the archives of this page. I was merely trying to enlighten those who might not have seen his previous comments on the subject and, perhaps, keep him from having to comment on something he has commented on so eloquently in the past. Carry on... :-) [[User:4.68.248.200|4.68.248.200]] 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, can you give your opinion on this matter, if you will? Flagrant bias has been giving me headaches for a while, I need to know where you stand on this. [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:So typical that certain users will rail about discrimination while posting material like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Embargo&diff=122804114&oldid=122077071 this].[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
By all means comment on this Jimbo if you wish, but the major problem here is Embargo verging on trolling with his continued insertion of userboxes, each time trying to test the community to see what he can get away with, and when it goes quiet, out he pops with a more inflamatory userbox. Just take a look at the Embargo's contribs..... [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 10:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If Ryan Postelthwaite wants me blocked or banned for whatever reason, feel free to do so. This is not the issue being discussed, what I came here to discuss is double-standards and how some userboxes are allowed and others not, only because administrators like Ryan Postlethwaite consider it a terrorist organization. Logically, either this one should be allowed or every other political userbox deleted. What does Jimbo Wales think? [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:The thing is Embargo, the userboxes you keep pointing to say things like ''this user supports george bush''. What we're concerned about is when you put up userboxes like; ''This user supports [[Hezbollah|armed resistance]] to israeli massacres'' (check the wikilinking out). That's clearly offensive and against [[WP:USER]], as so many people have suggested Embargo, instead of worrying about your userbox, why don't you go and do something that will help the encyclopedia? [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See Jimbo, that's the kind of hypocrisy I have had to deal with for the past weeks.
Ryan, I thought you objected to "This user supports the [[Hezbollah|Islamic resistance]]" "''due to the contraversial nature of the group''", and because "''This user supports the islamic resistance is clearly a polemical statement, against [[WP:USER]]''" or because "''Hezbollah are seen as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries still, saying that you support islamic resistance by them is clearly offensive to people who have been killed in their terrorist campaigns, regardless of how you, a supporter of them feels about them, the fact is, supporting hezbollah in any way on wikipedia is clear innappropriate.''" or "''Israelies would be highly offended by your userbox, anyway - IT IS a polemical statement.''" Enough with the hypocrisy. Why don't you stop worrying about my userbox and actually do something that will help the encyclopedia?
Hopefully Jimbo will give his final word before this gets automatically archived. [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:Embargo, Wikipedia is not a forum for the expression of opinion. If you have sourced and neutrally presented material you'd like to add to [[Hezbollah]], go do it. Your personal opinion is irrelevant except insofar as its upsetting some other editors.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:Embargo, trust me I've got many other things to worry about than your userbox (check my contribs, I'm doing other constructive things on wikipedia), I just don't like you upsetting other users with the statements you make on your userpage. Instead of filling Jimbo's talk page with this, why don't you take it to [[WT:USER]]? [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Ryan, you don't like it when I upset other users with the statements on my userpage. You consider stating support for Hezbollah upsetting. I consider stating support for Israel, Zionism and the many Israeli political parties equally upsetting. In fact, all userboxes are upsetting to some at one point. But why are these upsetting userboxes allowed when others are not? Why is stating support for [[Israel]], [[Zionism]], [[Yisrael Beytenu]] and others allowed whereas stating support for Hezbollah considered inflammatory? This is Jimbo Wales' talk page and I'm addressing him and not Ryan Poslethwaite or Proabivouac. I really can't see why Jimbo Wales is avoiding this. Please give your final word. [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:Ryan, I brought it to [[WT:USER]] [[WT:USER#Dispute_resolution_for_user_page_content|a month ago]], and it fizzled after a few replies. It had a big to-do over at [[WP:AN/I]] for a week or so, which resulted in some good conversation and some crackdowns on some users that Embargo has long complained about, such as [[User:Prester_John|this one]], but that was all. There are still two overall problems that remain; one is that, as mentioned in the first post of this topic, there seems to be this sentiment that some political boxes are OK, while others are not. The second is that one admin will judge that a user box is OK, and then another one comes along and deletes it. Why is it so hard to ask that these two issues be addressed? #1) Either delete all political-related boxes, or allow them all. #2) Require all admins to adhere to a uniform standard when upholding #1 [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::The thing is Tarc, there have been numerous threads on AN/I regarding Embargo's userboxes, he doesn't seam to understand that they aren't allowed. The userboxes which Embargo keeps quoting that shouldn't be allowed are no where near as offensive as his, he is consistantly attempting to make a [[WP:POINT|point]], his contributions show that his major concern on wikipedia is attempting to get his pro-Hezbollah userboxes to stay, what he often forgets is that we are trying to create an encyclopedia, not campaign against countries - this isn't the UN. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::"No where near as offensive" is entirely subjective, and that is at the heart of the problem here. All I want to to see some damned consistency in applying the "no polemical statements" rule...maybe its just me, but [[WP:USER]] doesn't say "nearly offensive polemicals" are ok. Its like the silliness of [[Nearly Headless Nick]]; either his head's on, or his head's off. There's no logical in-between. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[[WP:BB]], [[WP:BB]]... let me say, I'm just a wikipedist that has found this conversation by chance, and wanted to say something. While wikipedia must be [[WP:NEU|neutral]], wikipedists, and by extension humans, are not. What you might find offensive, for me could be perfectly normal, and vice versa. For example, I am sure [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Mexicano/Paga_Bush this userbox] is highly offensive here, but, I can assure you in the spanish wikipedia is very common among wikipedists (not me). On the contrary, something like [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Randroide/Usuario_proarmas this] has generated a lot of controversy and banned users there. What I am trying to say, that everybody must accept not all the people think alike, and we must respect each other. [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] hasn't made any crime. Suporting islamic palestines is not the same as killing israelies. If it offends you (as it does me too), don't look at it, dont' copy in your page or promote it. But.... Does his lack of neutrality as human affect his work as wikipedist? That is the important question. If his contributions are neutral or he has an agenda different from contribution to wikipedia. That should be the relevant problem. ---- [[Image:Flag of Spain.svg|24 px|]] [[User:Fernando Estel|Fernando Estel]] · [[User talk:Fernando Estel|(talk)]] 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:Have you actually read [[WP:USER]]? It clearly states that [[polemical]] statements aren't allowed, I find it quite difficult to believe that some people can't see that embargo's userboxes are polemical. Numerous AN/I threads regarding Embargo's trolling over his userpage should make it perfectly clear that the userboxes he is using are inappropriate for wikipedia, especially where [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] is key. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::A "polemical" statement would be one that constitutes a "refutation of the opinions or principles of another".[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polemic] If supporting [[Hezbollah]] is considered "polemic", I can't for the life of me see [[User:UBX/Iraq_Camp|this userbox]] is not. The Iraq war was opposed by millions of people worldwide, including the UN. If a user is proud to have participated in an act considered [[Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq|illegtimate]] by the majority of people across the world, then that is just as "polemic" as supporting Hezbollah.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::hmmmm, have you actually checked over Embargo's userpage history? He's not simply supporting Hezbollah, it's far more inflammatory than that, take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Embargo&oldid=114179456 this] ''nice'' little userbox of his (note what the words are wikilinking to), polemical enough for you? [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not a registered user of this site so perhaps that makes my opinion of the matter less valid to you, but I agree with Embargo's stance. It is double standards to consider support for Hezbollah any differently to support for George Bush. The argument about polemic is redundant and inappropriate - polemic is, by definition, an argument. A userbox is not an argument, it is a reflection of support. To rule a userbox supporting Hezbollah as polemical (and thus against the rules), you would have to do the same to every userbox suggesting political support. I'm sorry, but I think Embargo is being completely reasonable in his stance. You may not agree with it, but it's not polemical by definition and it doesn't seem to be against the rules. Any other user page content he might have had in the past is irrelevant to this specific debate. [[User:60.241.179.28|60.241.179.28]] 09:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I stand corrected on the above, it does fit into secondary definitions of polemic. My point stands, however - his userbox is no more or less inflamatory ''to various groups'' than one supporting Bush or Israel. Rulings such as this should be objective and unbiased, and the ruling that his userbox is a violation but others aren't is far from objective, and far from unbiased. [[User:60.241.179.28|60.241.179.28]] 09:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I agree that if you ban a user box supporting one illegal war, you ought to ban ones supporting another; and probably ones supporting just about anything else. I'd add that the specifics of where Embargo's links are linking to (yes, I did check) and what his box says are not relevant. In effect, to me it is not obvious that it should be OK to support one group and not OK to support another, and arguments such as "come on, it's obvious" aren't going to fly. So, I'd like to hear a logical criterion for allowing or banning such user boxes based on something other than a particular editor's whim, and I'd like to see it applied.[[User:200.121.198.125|200.121.198.125]] 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to hear Jim Wales' opinion on this before restoring the userbox to my page. [[User:Embargo|Emбargo]] 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
== Giovanni di Stefano ==
You deleted this article -- perhaps because it became corrupted. It was a valid article at one time -- see the Google cache [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:L3-CA4Km3rEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano+Giovanni+di+Stefano&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 here]. Its talk page is still here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giovanni_di_Stefano
Can it be undeleted and restored to its "former glory"? Thanks, --[[User:Mervyn|mervyn]] 07:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:Have now done the DRV procedure:
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|Giovanni_di_Stefano}}}|deletion review]] of [[:Giovanni_di_Stefano]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. [[User:Mervyn|mervyn]] 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, please come by this one and clarify - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
== ****Wikipedia Sucks**** ==
Could someone please tell me what is the point of leaving comments on this page? Jimbo hardly ever replies to them! And he probably never even reads them! And Jimbo if you happen to read this comment: '''YOUR SITE SUCKS''' . I have honestly never seen a more in-efficient website, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, punctuation errors and worst of all INCORRECT INFORMATION. Tell me something else, why is it that when i add more detail and info to a page, users delete what i have written when it is correct and accurate and at very least adds to detail within the article, because these idiots contributing to wikipedia think they know it all, i have a university degree and the person who deleted my info is a school student! And why are editors so rude and abusive.
And one final thing, wikipedia policy says that biographies of people can only be on wikipedia if they have done something substantial or significant, why then is there a bio of [[Florence Nibart-Devouard]], all she is, is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, shes done nothing significant! Shes only on wikipedia because she is chair of the organisation, she doesn't deserve to have a encyclopaedia article about her! Which means that one must ask the question Is wikipedia a useful and informative website or is it just about big-noting oneself? ([[User:Anna Vida|Anna Vida]] 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
:I must agree, at least, that the article [[Florence Nibart-Devouard]] fails to credibly establish the notability of its subject. I have commented accordingly on the talk page.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is a sgnificant web site (top ten), its chair is notable. There are many thousands of articles on living people who would not rate an article in a traditional encyclopedia. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 08:38 [[27 April]] [[2007]] (GMT).
::"There are many thousands of articles on living people who would not rate an article in a traditional encyclopedia."
::Many of these should be deleted. Our standard here has been the availability of mainstream sources which assert notability; here we have none.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 09:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::There is precedent for using corporate websites for non-contentious information about corporations, such as names of officers. Unless, of course there is a real dispute about who chairs the Wikimedia Foundation? ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 11:12 [[27 April]] [[2007]] (GMT).
:To answer the first point of your question; it is a forum for discussion on topics that may possibly not be appropriately discussed elsewhere. Whether Jimbo responds or even a reads a particular comment is irrelevant; the potential is there. In the meantime the community responds, in the manner that Jimbo established, so the purpose is served. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:If you're going to bewail others' mistakes of punctuation, you might wish to pay more attention to your punctuation. In particular, your prolific use of exclamation points helps to suggest that you're merely ranting: a pity, because the charge that WP is riddled with vanity articles is a reasonable one. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::<blockquote> i add more detail and info to a page, users delete what i have written when it is correct and accurate and at very least adds to detail within the article, because these idiots contributing to wikipedia think they know it all, i have a university degree and the person who deleted my info is a school student! And why are editors so rude and abusive.</blockquote>
::First of all, just saying you have a university degree is not a substitute for a source or an explanation of an edit (since this isn't apparently your main account, we can't tell if your specific concerns have any base to them). We learned this [[Essjay controversy|the hard way]] here. Second, I would hope an educated person such as yourself would not be so quick to judge. Not everyone here is a school student (You aren't) and the vast majority of people here are not rude or abusive. <font color="maroon">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.Z-man]]</font>'''<small>[[User talk:Mr.Z-man|talk]]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">[[Special:Contributions/Mr.Z-man|¢]]</font>''''' 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== BLP and urban legends ==
Jimmy, I noted that you have a lot to say on [[WP:BLP]] and would like to ask you a question of policy about inclusion of urban legends in articles. The topic in question is [[Richard Gere]] and the infamous gerbil story. Discussion here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Richard_Gere__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_WP:BLP_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D] Some editors say that it violates BLP, but isn't it the rule that contentions material should be properly sourced? My point is that however distasteful the legend is, and irrespective of whether people think it is true or not, the legend does exist. It is in mentioned in many high-quality sources, including biographies about Gere, and in many books on urban legends. It is also debunked on snopes.com.
I have also noticed that some urban legends seem to be allowed ([[Michael Jackson]] and the oxygen tent, [[John Gilchrist (actor)]] dying of pop-rocks and soda). If these legends/rumors are properly sourced and allowed then why shouldn't Gere's legend be allowed? Your comment regarding policy would be most appreciated. [[User:Sparkzilla|Sparkzilla]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
*And there you have is a good metaphor for [[WP:BLP]] itself! It's dirty. It's gutsy. It resembles a frantic hypoxic gerbil following the twists of a Hollywood actor's colon, looking for a way out of a '''bad''' situation. Nevermind truth-- is there a proper ''paper'' trail? ''Will'' time run out, before the present anal-retentive policy relaxes?? Only one person probably knows, and he is usually as silent as the Egyptian Sphincter. {{unsigned|71.160.248.135}}
::Hmm. I wasn't aware this had been brought here. I suppose ''both sides'' may be warranted in this case. The issue isn't really that it's "disgusting", but rather a few other issues: There are cited sources that people say that other people have said that ''other'' people have said that he performed the act. In other words, hearsay of hearsay of hearsay. But no evidence from a 1st party (or even 2nd party) source that anyone ''believed'' it, or was willing to directly make the claim themself. What's more, there's an issue on whether the rumour has any significance or notability regarding Gere himself. (Yes, when people hear "gerbilling", they may think of Gere. But is the converse true?)
::I won't be offended if you don't wish to get involved, but, if you do, then your opinion ''regardless of which side that is'' would be very much appreciated, both on the BLP side of it, and also on any other aspects you might see fit. [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::It could be ''interpreted'' as being akin to [[WP:FRINGE]]; it is not a mainstream viewpoint, but has generated enough discussion by reliable sources (whether they are noting it or dismissing it) to establish notability. Remember WP does not require proof but verifiability. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::To be fair, if you were going to liken it to a FRINGE theory, you'd have to at least directly tie it to someone who held that theory. For example, if I wanted to include the face-on-mars thing, it'd definitely be better to cite someone who believed there was a face on mars, rather than to cite someone who heard from someone else who heard from someone else that there was a face on mars. (which is, literally, the current quality of references provided) [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Finding an original source for an urban legend is impossible, far more so than finding a central source for a Fringe theory. Both the face on Mars and the gerbil story would be best sourced to reputable sources refuting same, that way the claim is both established as existing and also explained/debunked. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::LOL, I ''cannot'' believe I'm reading this argument. Are we really going to have to add some special note in WP:NOT to make sure that wikipedia is NOT about things like the alleged gerbil in Richard Gere's colon?? Or shouldn't be? Have we really reached the point where common sense, common decency toward the living, and the lofty goals of an enclyclopedia cannot prevail against a system of rules, relentlessly applied by a hoarde of wikignomes--- until somebody finally pulls the plug on the madness? [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Evidently we ''haven't'' reached that point yet, though we've reached the point where we have people who are complaining that we haven't. It just means that we need to continue to use intelligent editorial judgment about what belongs in an encyclopedia. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The myth exists. It is verifiable as ''existing''. I knew about it, when reminded, and dismiss it. I could not, however, name you 5 films featuring Richard Gere (I would be pushed for 3). So, should Wikipedia ignore the urban legend (and on what basis?) or note the myth with appropriate cites? [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I see no reason in present WP policy why not. If it's well-sourced, the question of whether it's true or not, is irrelevent. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, in fact officially doesn't believe in the concept. Gere's gerbil is a signficant part of his public personna, as everyone who knows who he is also knows thes story, and if the story finally makes it into his Wikipedia bio, it will be an even larger part. Wikipedia is capable of making things ''notable'' by simple fiat, you know. If they weren't notable ''before'' Wikipedia mentioned them in a bio, they are certainly notable ''afterwards.'' So in that sense, Wikipedia is incapable of making a bad decision in this regard, if those are the only rules it runs by, for people who already are notable for other reasons. <p> And where is our "old news" editor anyway, when it comes to bios? [[Howard K. Stern]] was notable for ''claiming'' to be the father of [[Anna Nicole]]'s baby. But now that she's dead and DNA proves he's not, why is his bio still here? Well, because he's now notable for having once having ''been'' notable, and the size of his Wiki proves it. Sort of like Warhol who was famous for being famous, and is now famous merely for once having been famous, even though now dead. Except Stern remains alive, and profiled in Wikipedia as one of this year's biggest has-beens. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::While I agree with what you're implying, I'm not sure that using extended irony is a good idea with a debate like this. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I note that some editors at the [[Richard Gere]] entry continue to deny that inclusion of ''false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable sexual allegations'' violates policy. Any assistance would of course be welcome. [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 00:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:But the weasle word "non-notable" makes this policy unusable. Certainly for Gere, since this story is known by more people than know how to differentiate a simple algebreic function, or what the capital cities of Madagascar or Burkina Faso are. The word "false" there is also a weasel word, and muy hypocritical, since Wikipedia doesn't believe in truth. And as for the rest of it: "unsubstantiated malicious sexual allegations", the biography of [[William Kennedy Smith]] consists mostly of them, so how does it manage to survive wikipedia policy and remain as as a Wiki? Would the man's bio be notable enough to include ''without'' the unsubstantiated allegations?? Inquiring minds want to know. I've asked the same questions about the bios associated wtih the Duke U. Lacrosse rape case. No answer. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::I disagree: notability is a key element of WP:BLP. Note the example given in that policy about details of a messy divorce (quote: "'''"John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.'''"). Even true, sourced details of a messy divorce may well need to be excluded if they are not notable. What does notability mean then? It means notability in relation to the subject of the entry, that is, it means notability in relation to the general notability of the subject, that is, in relation to their work or their other non-trivial reasons for notability. Of course, there is judgment required to determine what is notable and what is not. But that does not make it a weasel-word. On the contrary. For example, Gere's notability derives, essentially, from his work as an actor; secondly, ''perhaps'', from his Buddhism; thirdly, perhaps, for other activities such as samaritanism, etc. ''He is not notable for any reasons to do with his sexual behaviour'', and there are ''no sources'' to indicate that he ''is'' notable for any reasons to do with his sexual behaviour. This is purely and simply non-notable material that must be excluded on policy grounds, however many people "know" about these allegations. "False" is certainly not a weasel-word: one of the allegations editors wish to include is false; the other allegation editors wish to include is unsubstantiated and has been explicitly denied by the subject of the entry. False allegations must be excluded on WP:BLP grounds. Unsubstantiated, malicious and non-notable allegations denied by the subject of the entry must be excluded on WP:BLP grounds. Notability is a meaningful and important concept for BLP entries, and the policy questions concerning the Gere entry are ''very'' clear. [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Again, what if the subject is notable primarily for unsubstantiated sexual accusations, like [[William Kennedy Smith]]? Don't you see the problem? And listening to the subject "deny" an unsubstantiated claim (like Brandt wanted to do on his TALK page), and connecting that to presumed "falsehood" in the absense of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is totally against the philosophy of Wikipedia for everything else BUT biography-- and not always even there. Not that I object, but I'm simply trying to get you to realize that this is one of those problems that can't be fixed by applying policy uniformly. Which is fine by me, but drives some Wikipedians (for whom a foolish consistany is the hobgoblin of their, ahem, minds) crazy. "truth" and "falsehood" are not Wikipedia terms. They SHOULD be, and BLP is the place to start with them, if anywhere. The allegations against Kennedy Smith and Gere have not been proven, have been denied by the subjects, and THEREFORE should be PRESUMED false by Wikipedia and not included in either bio. But in Smith's, they are, and in Gere's, they aren't. Oddly enough, that's because there isn't much left of Smith's bio, if you omit them. That should be a clue, no? Perhaps the whole Smith bio should go? Same for the bios of the couple of members of the lacrosse team at Duke. For Gere, a very brief review on his acting roles would go in the Britannica, and that's it. From this, we should learn on Wikipedia. Our lack of space limitations tempts us into evil. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::There is a big difference between false or unsubstantiated rumours, and a courtcase resulting in an acquittal. The latter, in the case of a figure who is notable for other reasons, may well be notable. Of course, the ''fact'' of the acquittal must be made sufficiently clear in order to maintain NPOV, but discussion of the existence of a courtcase clearly does not necessarily constitute a violation of WP:BLP. On the other hand, it may well be the case that the WKS entry should be pared back to a minimal, factual entry. In the Gere case, on the other hand, we are dealing with two allegations. The first is false (this judgment is not because Gere denied the allegation; in fact, Gere has never mentioned it); the second is unsubstantiated (and denied by Gere). No notability can be established for either allegation, and Gere's notability does not derive from anything to do with these allegations. Furthermore, the allegations are insensitive, contentious, controversial and non-encyclopaedic. So my response to you is to say that policy does indeed cover the difference between the WKS and the Gere cases. It just requires editors to be clear enough about what policy says in order to ''make'' the difference. [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::As for the Lacrosse team members you mentioned, if there are no other grounds for their notability (as appears to be the case), then I think there is a very strong argument for deletion of the entries. Despite a tabloid sensationalist interest in these people, they have a right not to be included in an encyclopaedia for the rest of their lives purely for tabloid sensationalist reasons. Again, it just requires editors to be clear enough about policy so as to be able to enforce it (obviously this is difficult in the face of concerted opposition). (Additional note: User SBHarris informs me that, upon checking, he has discovered that these entries ''have'' recently been deleted, which would appear to be a very sound decision.) [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's job is not to protect people from their pasts, but to refelect what actually happened through reliable sources. To tell what actually happened, not what we would have liked to have happened if real life didn't get in the way.
Above you said, "there are ''no sources'' to indicate that he ''is'' notable for any reasons to do with his sexual behaviour." that is completely untrue, and the person who tells us is Gere himself. Gere/Crawford took out a full-page ad in the Times to address rumors about their marriage and sexuality. When a celebrity makes such an enormous public denial it means two things 1) the rumors were very widespread and 2) they felt strongly about them that he had to make a statement. Without the denial you could possibly argue that the rumors were unsubstantiated, but their letter proves that there were rumors about their marriage and their sexuality. By excluding their denial on Wikipedia you are 1) not telling the story and 2) not helping Gere. Gere wanted that letter to be shown so that rumors would at least be addressed. You have no right not to mention it on Wikipedia. [[User:Sparkzilla|Sparkzilla]] 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:(1) It is not a matter of "protecting people from their pasts," but rather of protecting them from unsubstantiated and false malicious allegations. Do not confuse the two. (2) The fact that Gere took out a newspaper ad to deny one of the allegations does not establish that he is notable for reasons to do with the sexual behaviour. In fact, he took the ad out to make clear that he is ''not'' notable for his sexual behaviour. Taking out an ad does not mean he wishes to have the allegations published along with his denial. Rather, it means he wishes people to stop printing the unsubstantiated allegations, and certainly not in an encyclopaedia. (3) The rumours ''are'' unsubstantiated, that is, no evidence has been given that the rumours are true. In such circumstances, including these rumours clearly violates WP:BLP. (4) Including unsubstantiated or false malicious and non-notable allegations in an encyclopaedia does not "help" Gere. [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::1. Wikipedia is not about "protecting them from unsubstantiated and false malicious allegations" -- it's not about "protecting" anyone. 2. He specifically addressed each allegation in the ad, therefore they are notable to him. 3. It does not matter on WP if the rumors were true or not - all that matters is that he verifiably denied them. 4. Including the denial does help Gere - it's part of his story.
::Anyway rather going through this again, I would like to open an RfC for this specific issue (with a vote). Will you abide by the result? [[User:Sparkzilla|Sparkzilla]] 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::(1) If Wikipedia does not have to protect people from unsubstantiated and false allegations on its pages, I wonder why you think WP:BLP exists. (2) The ad does not establish notability. As mentioned, the reason to place the ad is to ''stop'' people from repeating unsubstantiated malicious allegations. (3) It certainly ''does'' matter whether allegations are verifiable or not. There are no sources to indicate these allegations are true. They are malicious and non-notable. They should be excluded. Please feel free to open an RfC. Please note, however, that a vote cannot make it OK to blatantly violate WP:BLP. Only a change of policy could make it OK to include false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations on the pages of Wikipedia. [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this may be another case for [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]]. If you have to take out an ad to tell people not to spread accusations about yourself, then the fact that you have to do so indicates that the accusations are notable. Taking out an ad is an extreme action that few people would do without massive provocation. And nobody sane would take out such an ad unless the accusations are already so common that taking out the ad won't spread them much more, again indicating they are notable.
On the other hand, it's ludicrous to use someone's attempt to deny accusations as our justification to include the accusations.
We're better off saying "Yeah, technically, the ad shows the accusations are notable, but using the ad to show notability is obviously against the spirit of the rules" rather than stretching the rules and pretending that the ad doesn't demonstrate notability. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
== Movie ==
Is this movie (sort of Documentary)>>[http://imdb.com/title/tt0960864/ Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story] (which stars our very own [[Jimmy Wales]]) really going to be made or is it just one of those IMDB's fake creations..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User talk:Cometstyles|Cometstyles]]</span> 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:The movie is under production, and the production team was in [[Chennai]] when Jimbo visited the city in connection with a wiki-[[unconference]] on 25th February, 2007 - [http://www.flickr.com/photos/arunram/403052956/]. As far as I know, the team is moving with Jimbo around the world :) and a documentary of about two hours shall see the light of the day sometime in 2008. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] ([[User_talk:Bhadani|talk]]) 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::[http://xplore.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/the-filmmakers-at-wikicamp/ Few words more] --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] ([[User_talk:Bhadani|talk]]) 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
But it's a documentary. Wikipedia need to be in a James Bond or Mission Impossible kind of movie. Who is with me on this? [[User:SakotGrimshine|SakotGrimshine]] 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:Angelena Jolie plays a character named SlimVirgin who is a secret spy for British Intelligence but is also a double spy for Israeli Intelligence who plants secret messages in Wikipedia for spies around the world. However Sean Connery playing Daniel Brandt is paid by the CIA to ferret out her identity but tries to cover up his single minded interest by pretending to try to out the identities of all admins. Meanwhile Jimbo, played by himself, disguises himself as Sommey, the leader of a gang of cyber-punks out to destroy Wikipedia, and arranges a secret meeting with Brandt (who is in a secret ___location in Peru) where Jimbo forces him to drink some Kool-aide laced with a drug that turns him into a nerd that cares for nothing except adding sourced information into an online encyclopedia called "Wikipedia". It ends with a sex scene. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::No, that's more of Wikipedia Review. Make it more like a James Bond movie. There's some villain who has a plot to use Wikipedia to take over the world, destroy the world, or hold it for ransom. There will be a scene where the villain maybe saying "unleash the socks" or something will press a button and lots of employees will go to work on the Wikipedia bio of someone the villain wants to punish and it's lots of socks with new users, established users (they'll edit helpfully just so they can do those rare instances where they do the villain's biddin to alter an article), and hacked admin accounts (admins who were inactive and didn't watch their accounts) and then all of a sudden the villain is able to change someone's whole reputation. This is more James Bond fashion. Maybe there's a scene where instead of Blowfeld or whoever pressing a button to kill someone, they press a button to kill someone through their wikipedia bio and Blofeld doesn't kill them but leaves them to be killed by their bio. By the way I don't mean anything bad by Wikipedia bios, I'm just thinking of how a James Bond movie would go. The villain would be rich so he'd have henchmen dial up to ISPs all over the world to look like multiple people. Maybe the victim could hold Brittain hostage saying he's going to change their nation's history unless he gets one million dollars. [[User:SakotGrimshine|SakotGrimshine]] 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Um... shouldn't it simply be a CGI rendered feature, with a bit of hand-drawn animation for the really tricky bits? For the arthouse crowd the final scene could always show live action puppets manipulating the computers used for the CGI. Oh, and lots of nudity since WP is not censored. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 10:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate]] ==
Lately when I was requesting a clarification of an ArbCom case, I spotted [[Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate]], and everything appears that Mr. Wales, you, made the decision to block that user. While I totally respect your decision, because you are the head of Wikipedia, can you specify which policy did this user violate? What I saw was that the user posted some sexual pictures on relevant articles, which isn't any violation because Wikipedia is not censored (but I haven't seen these pictures so it's not my role to comment on them). I just want a clarification of the policies, however if you say you made the decision [[Notwithstanding Clause|notwithstanding the current policy]], I'll still respect and defer to it. Thanks! [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk]], [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Wooyi|Editor review]]</sup> 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Jimbo did not block Publicgirluk. She was blocked by Nandesuka. It was removed then reinstated by Dragons flight.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-09-05/Publicgirluk] The photos are not of an English student, as claimed, but of a Swedish porn actress Linda Lust and therefore a copyvio. This issue has been explored to death. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== HELP!!!!! ==
I was phished earlier and the person who did it left nasty edits that went under my name. I have changed my password, so it won't happen again. I was hoping to achieve Admin status next year, but I don't think that that will happen now because of things that '''I''' didn't do!! It also happened on my [http://www.myspace.com/gdk411 MySpace]. I have since changed anything harmful that "I" did. I am so sorry that it happened, and could someone give a little advice to me? Thank you [[User:Gdk411|Gdk]][[User talk:Gdk411| 411]] 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:I checked your editing history, and I have every reason to believe that your claim is genuine. The three page-blanking vandalism edits are completely out of character with your other activity here. If you do apply for adminship in the future - and you are at least three months away from being prepared - just briefly mention this incident, and nobody will give you any trouble for it. As a veteran of [[WP:RFA]] discussions, I can assure you that a minor spurt of vandalism by someone who hijacked your account is not a concern. If you want, you can request to change your username, but the edit history will stay with the new name. [[User:YechielMan|YechielMan]] 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:: I would have thought people would be responsible for their own account. How did someone just take his password? I would oppose the RFC for incompetence.--[[User:Dacium|Dacium]] 02:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Have you ever heard of ''Worms''? They are great at getting your information by tracking you. It wasn't my fault. Thanks. [[User:Gdk411|Gdk]][[User talk:Gdk411| 411]] 11:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
== Hi Jimbo ==
Remember me? We were at school together, and I was the guy who used to draw all over your textbooks. How you doing anyway? I remember when me and some of the other kids used to call you "Jumbo" due to your rather "cuddly" frame. Ah, those were the days eh? Anyway, never thought you'd make it as far as you have, so let this be an official congratulations from myself for exceeding my expectations of you! Well done shaggy!--[[User:Daniel Goff|Daniel Goff]] 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== In Wikipedia, is it always true that every thing you say goes with no discussion or consensus? ==
Hi there! I love your work! :)
I'm very new to Wikipedia and already embroiled in discussions about WP:IAR, how Deletion Review is run, policy and interpretations of policy and other administrative backwash. I do not want your influence to help or hinder, and am not asking you to make any extra time save this:
It's been asserted by folks I'm in discussion with that what you say goes, with no argument or discussion or interpretations.
Now, I am hardly in a position to refuse you what you authoritatively say should be in an official capacity, speaking for the Board and other folks heavily invested in Wikpedia and Wikimedia, and I wouldn't dare try to. At the same time, I'm not sure if you intend to be the walks-on-water-24/7 guy. If you're okay with all your words being taken as gospel, I'm okay with that too. The boundaries will have been set and I'll just quietly go about my business and not ever try to get in your way.
At the same time, if you're not okay with that sort of role, I'd love to know it, because I think I can help better Wikipedia if I have the leeway to effectively disagree with you (or more likely, others' interpretations of your often very precise and concise words).
If you have time to respond, I'd love it. If you don't, no big deal. Thank you in any case for your time. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Not true; while Jimbo can do that (see [[WP:OFFICE]]), he doesn't do it often, and things he says are often discussed. See also [[Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem]]. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks very much for the links. I didn't think that with an organization this size that kind of thing 24/7 would be wise, but I didn't want to presume. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
== Power abuse ==
Mr. Wales, I'm just an ordinary Wikipedia's editor, I'm not from an english speaking language but I think everybody here is equal, by principle. I would like to protest about a block I suffered from an administrator (and your friend as suposed by the photo at his users page)named [[User:Kjetil r|Kjetil r]] and other arbitrary one, Lugusto, from Brazil.
I'm now blocked at Commons because I "dared" upload an OWN WORK of good quality, which was tagged as COPYVIO withou any reason, just a "doubt". Of course, I reuploaded the image and this administrator
[[User:Kjetil r|Kjetil r]] simply blocked me for one week, with a bizarre "death sentence": "user reuploaded a copyvio". What??? What copyvio?? Please, I ask you to read the actual discussion in my talk page at Commons[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Machocarioca#Blocked] and help to a solution in this matter. I thnik administrators who block users based in their own will, without any true reason, must be punished. Thank you [[User:Machocarioca|Machocarioca]] 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
:I would suggest, before going to Mr. Wales, that you exhaust the "lower level" appeals processes first. If you disagree with an administrators actions in the Commons, you should post your complaint on the Commons Admin noticeboard ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard]). You should be able to post there even if you're blocked. If you can't, email one of the Commons administrators and let them know you want to appeal your block and they should allow you to do so. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, I can't do that, I'm blocked. When I'll be able to do that, the block would be expired. It looks like Cuba, maybe. I would like an answer from Mr Wales, the user in question is a friend of him. "Lowel Level"? I tought all users were equal here. Mr Wales and Mr John Doe too. There's a great injustice and power abuse in the situation. [[User:Machocarioca|Machocarioca]] 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
:Just as a reminder, we don't "''punish''" people here. --''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] <sup>([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])</sup>'' 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::That seems like a semantic quibble. We deny folks access to resources. In some contexts that serves as punishment, or charitably, feedback for their learning systems. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::No. Nobody is blocked as a punishment. For instance, if you there's no reason to believe some user would keep on doing disruptive behavior, there's no need to block. In the Commons case above, the user was blocked because he showed intention to keep reuploading deleted material. --''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] <sup>([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])</sup>'' 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Regardless of the intent (i.e. to not be punishment), the action of blocking can feel to the blocked user like a punishment, as should be self-evident by the user's complaint. The fact that a person does not intend a consequence to be interpreted as punishment (i.e. you/Wikipedia admins as a whole do not intend blocking to be interpreted as punishment) cannot prevent an affected individual from feeling punished. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
([[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]]) said: "Nobody is blocked as a punishment". If you are blocked without support of any rule, you're being punished. "The user was blocked because he showed intention to keep reuploading deleted material". Yes, but why delected?? Nobody talks about that. Because a user "doubt" an own image is mine. Of course it was reuploaded, and will be again, this is not a nazi site . And of course I fell me punished. [[User:Machocarioca|Machocarioca]] 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
:''Of course it was reuploaded, and will be again,'' is exactly why you're blocked. Editors are not blocked for punishment, but because it's the only way to prevent them from being disruptive. [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
To [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] : Disruptive?? Who you call disruptive? An user who wants upload his own work?? I'm sorry, but are you kidding?? Could be disruptive, in your mind, an administrator who blocks an user who wants upload his own work or not?? And this arbitrary administrator blocked me before I say anything about reupload anything. Could you please answer this question? Did you read anytihng in this discussion before say what you said? [[User:Machocarioca|Machocarioca]] 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
:Whether you're right or not is not really what being disruptive is about. When something is disputed in good faith by several users they need to resolve the issue ''before'' moving forward. Right or wrong, someone who keeps charging ahead against the grain without discussion '''is''' being disruptive. Pledging to ''continue to do so'' without trying to resolve the issue is definitely being disruptive. While a seven day block does seem somewhat excessive, the fact that you declared your intent to keep uploading shows it wasn't unjustified. ''Discuss and work out the problem, then proceed''. Look, I understand how frustrating other users can be sometimes when you're playing by the rules and they're opposed to what you're doing. But you have to find a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. Of course, an Admin blocking a user who wants to upload their own work may or may not be disruptive - more context is needed to know. And I read the whole discussion before I wrote what I wrote, yes. [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
* I agree with some points of your message but let me discuss some statements: ''"When something is disputed in good faith".'' The problem here is this, there isn't good faith on it but bad personal relationship. This is a problem that came here from another language wiki, envolving a known troublemaker in it, user [[User:Dantadd|Dantadd]]<big>[[User talk:Dantadd|✉]]</big> who came here to "doubt" about the work of someone about who he knows.......nothing. In other words, this guy called me desonest supported by an irresponsable ADM. The administrator (God knows how) [[User:555|Lugusto]] in question did not delet it in good faith, he deleted because this one, (his friend in another wiki) "doubted" about the ownership. Based in what? Nothing, as you can read at the discuss page. There wasn't a consensus to delect the image, just the will of an user because another one said "I doubt" (???)I want to resolve this issue, how can we do that? As you can imagine, I'm very upset with this situation.
* '''I understand how frustrating other users can be sometimes when you're playing by the rules''' . Yes, I'm the one here playing by the rules, this ADM Lugusto is not, as you can read in the discuss. I apologize for all this thing, but this is a personal fight among users of portuguese wiki that was deployed here for two users, Dantadd and Lugusto. There's a huge discussion out there about fair use and these people took all this thing to a personal level. This is the root of all this thing here, I apologize for their behaviour. Well, I'm very frustated that an ordinary user of this wiki, only by personal feelings, have started this mess.
'''they need to resolve the issue ''before'' moving forward.''' Yes I agree but the issue was already resolved moving forward before anything, the image was deleted right? And when it was uploaded another ADM blocked the user. It was resolved, hã?
Well, the bizarre question is: how can the owner of an image(me) upload it without being blocked or something?? What I have to say? I think I've said all. Thank you. [[User:Machocarioca|Machocarioca]] 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
Machocarioca: It was decided at [[:commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KEITHR.JPG]] that the image should be deleted. I did not participate in the deletion debate, and I do not have strong feelings about this image. But when you upload it again, and say that you intend to do so over and over again, you should be blocked. <s>Seven days was perhaps too much, so I'll unblock you now.</s> The block has now expired. You can write a note at [[:commons:Commons:Undeletion requests]], but please do not upload it again. [[User:Kjetil r|Kjetil r]] 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC), changed 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
* Forgive me , but I strongly desagree . It was decided, for who? By one arbitrary administrator without any, repeating, any evidence to that, as you can read in the discuss page. The only messages there were from two users who say that they talked with me before and I said the image was really mine. Just that. No arbitrary users, just came to me to confirm. Agree? Please, read the discussion and find ANY evidence that suppports the deletion. So, there wasn't any accordance to that, just of the user who began all the process coming from nowhere to say he "doubted" about the ownership of an image placed here months ago.
I will write a note in the undelection request and wait to read the arguments against or not. I'm very upset with these arbitrary act, as you can see, by two irresponsable users from antoher wiki, Lugusto and Dantadd.
And you, sir, blocked me because I "reuploaded a COPYVIO". What?? Could you say me what copyvio were you talking about? I think you made a huge mistake supporting an arbitrary act of another one, in a "debate" (it wasn't) you neither participate. An this "expired block" was an absurd one, forgive me. Ok, I know you, administrators, will never block an administrator for arbitrary acts, you will ever suppport them, this is a problema here in Wikipedia and the reason of some many angry among the users. I just think this method doesn't work. Maybe is the real reason why Jerry Sanger got out. Anyone, who we do not know who is or his capacity to understand an especific mater can decide what he wants if he is an "administrator". The human being never fails... Thank you. [[User:Machocarioca|Machocarioca]] 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
== FYI: Original research holding hostage to key Wikipedia pages ==
FYI: This is only an alert. I would suggest that there is no action to be taken at this time. You might look in on the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop|Paranormal RfArb case]]. At some time in the future, it may be necessary for an authority figure to declare the obvious lack of consensus among Wikipedia editors for the tiny minority view of believers in the [[scientific method]] whose OriginalResearch is being forced on key Wikipedia pages, including false, misleading, and agenda-driven attacks on [[WP:BLP|living people]]. --[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
== Are we going around in circles? ==
Jimbo, After listening to you at '''education.au''', and speaking to you after the conference, I thought I would ''take the bait'' and add at least on extra piece of information to your [[Jimmy Wales]] article. And now people are asking for it to be cited? Can't we get some sanity around this? See [[User talk:QuackGuru#Jimmy Wales|QuackGuru's talk page]] for a discussion I've been included in about the need for references.
Want to provide some guidance in this matter?<br>--[[User:Ric man|ric_man]] 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
== What is IAR? ==
This is related to one of the above discussion threads here. There has been some debate recently as to what exactly [[WP:IAR]] is. Is it a policy, a guideline, a meta-policy, an essay, something totally different? I've always considered it policy, but discussion at [[WP:VPR]] and [[WT:IAR]] suggests some do not. The main concern revolves around your edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIgnore_all_rules&diff=70516723 here]. Were you speaking "ex cathedra" there and declaring it policy using your role as Wikipedia's benevolent dictator or simply stating a fact or consensus of the time as an editor? If you personally could clarify this somewhere, it would be much appreciated. <font color="maroon">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.Z-man]]</font>'''<small>[[User talk:Mr.Z-man|talk]]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">[[Special:Contributions/Mr.Z-man|¢]]</font>''''' 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Straw_poll]] . This archive any good? (look near the top) --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::I hate to be a wet blanket, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules&oldid=54576 earliest version] of [[WT:IAR]] also includes Jimbo, in a list that's clearly taken directly from the [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_to_consider Rules to consider] list. That list was later reformatted to the number list format that exists in the straw poll, but the fact that he's in the straw poll does not indicate any direct action he took to indicate his opinion on the straw poll, it was just grandfathered in from the list from Rules to consider, which I must note were not originally stated as policy. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
== This week's debate ==
I just thought that you need to be clued in on this weeks hot debate on whether [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes|Fair use images are allowed in List of _________ Episodes.]] [[User:The Placebo Effect|The Placebo Effect]] 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:I thought it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mstislav_Rostropovich&action=history whether or not Mstislav Rostropovich was born in the USSR]. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
== research ==
hey Jim, i am currently in the process of doing a persuasive speach on Wikipedia being a creditable source and i was wondering if i might be able to get your input on this topic... im performing the speech next thursday but if you can get back to me as soon as you can that'd be amazing.... thank you for your time, [[User:Ancientanubis|'''<span style="color: #6B8E23">Ancientanubis</span>''']], <font size="1">'''[[User_Talk:Ancientanubis|<span style="color:#92000a">talk</span>]]'''</font> 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Honestly, I'd go and do my own research if I were you. Jimbo does seem to get around to getting back to some requests, but not all of them, and not often that quickly. Guy's a very busy man. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
== Smile ==
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[Image:Smiley.svg|left|62px]]
{{{1|[[User:Pupster21|Pupster21]] [[User_talk:Pupster21|Talk To Me]]}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div><!-- Template:smile --> --[[User:Pupster21|Pupster21]] [[User_talk:Pupster21|Talk To Me]] 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
== Do you really endorse this policy? ==
From [[WP:NPA]]:
"...some types of comments are never acceptable:
* Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
* Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
[...]
These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians..."
The reason I ask if you endorse this policy, is because it is not currently being followed. At the moment, the prohibition against personal attacks DOES NOT apply equally to all Wikipedians. Certain select editors seem to have have been given a green light by administration, to write whatever intolerant hate speech they want about groups of people with different beliefs, with utter impunity. When I complained about this, an admin did not warn them but instead warned me for complaining, and told me there is no higher authority than himself who even cares - which is exactly what I would expect to hear from a prison guard. Please see my [[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk page]] for complete details. With Regards, [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Not everyone can keep up with it, bud—settle down. Personal attacks happen every day and probably everywhere and we just don't have enough people to warn everyone. It might seem like playing favourites, and I felt the same way as you when I was in your position, but it is impossible to get to everyone. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::I see. The lesson I am drawing from all this is that the rules are meaningless, because they apply unevenly. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps. But only because it is almost impossible to apply then evenly because there are not enough enforcers. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::::(ec)There are mechanisms in place if you have a serious complaint, AN/I, Rfc and ultimately arbcom. I dont believe Jimbo has the time to be enforcing this type of policy personally and having a policy that is agreeable is one thing and seeing it enforced is quite another, and no reason to think he doesnt endorse the policy, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Of course, it might be a simple fact of Eulenspiegel willfully misstating what has occurred. I know the admin involved very well and ''she'' is not known for playing favorites (contrary to Eulenspiegel's "your talk page clearly shows that you hold your buddies whom you yuck it up with and slap on the back, to a much lower standard and look the other way when they call me "pathetic"" comment). [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]] 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::The willful mistating of the situation is not mine. The '''pathetic''' comment directed against me was actually only minor, incidental and would have been easily overlooked, and is obviously not the 'intolerant hate speech' directed against a religious minority I am referring to, as on my user talk page. I found this truly alarming and seemingly done with admin approval, but so far the only one to be repeatedly censured was me, and I haven't even done anything wrong. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::This isnt the place to deal with disputes between users, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::This is the place to communicate with Jimbo Wales, and try to get a response from him, thank you. This project has very short order become unbearable for me, because it soon becomes apparent to anyone who tries to help here that there are certain "favored" individuals here who have free license to spew whatever venom about others' beliefs they want, all they want, whenever they want. This appears entirely likely to continue, since involved administrators seem to be doing NOTHING to rein these users in, rather, they tend to congratulate them and even join the attack against anyone who notices or complains. The personal attacks and intimidations against me on my homepage are continuing even now. I don't know what I ever did to start any of this, other than be bold enough to notice that '''some of these guys are practising hate speech against minorities''', and to actually dare to say something about it. If there are truly no rules here, or rather, if the rules are applied so selectively and in such a biased direction, then I don't give a hoot WHERE your bureaucratic formalities say I have to file the complaint -- Your project has just succeeded in making another enemy, and I'm parking myself right here until I get a response from the one person who should know what his project really looks like. What's it to you anyway? I was actually talking to Jimbo, not asking for a whole team of spindoctors to paradrop in. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 11:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, and also, FYI, the said administrator advised me on my homepage, more than once, that trying to get this even heard in the dispute process would never even stand a chance, because they would refuse to hear such allegations of abuse against one of 'their own', so to speak. (You know what this is beginning to sound like, by the way?) So, on the basis of that admin's advice to me, I concluded that this here would be the best route to go to bring attention to this. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I advised you to take it to Rfc or AN/I, and told you Jimbo and/or Arbcom was inappropriate. I won't comment at this time on the inaccuracy of your other posts. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 13:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, you "advised" me to take it to Rfc and AN/I, while at the same time informing me that it would never see the light of day, so naturally I took your word to mean that doing so would not be productive. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::I have no idea what post of mine led you to the erroneous conclusion that I was stating or implying that "it would never see the light of day" but it is clear either there is considerable difficulty in communication one way or the other, or you are deliberately mis-stating my position on all things. I prefer to AGF; please post a diff where I stated something which led you to believe your concerns would "never see the light of day", so we can clear up this misunderstanding. If you do not know how to post a diff, ask me on my talk page, or yours - and I suggest this conversation be moved back to your talk page, as Jimbo's talk page is not appropriate for this discussion. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=127811554&oldid=127802821]. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::"This will not be accepted by the mediation committee" is not the same as "this will never see the light of day". Many requested mediations are rejected. This does not mean there is not an appropriate venue for dispute resolution for the issue, or that it will be buried, but rather that it simply won't be handled by the mediation committee. Is this clearer now, or do you still have issues with that post of mine? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Whatever - your message on my talk page to tell me "''There is nothing to mediate. As a member of the mediation committee myself, I can tell you this will not be accepted''" gives me the ''clear'' indication that the entire system is corrupt and stacked against fairness to religious beliefs, so my decision to short-circuit that process was a very logical one. The comments I am complaining about have the effect of demonizing people of a certain faith and declaring their firm beliefs "invalid", but this is apparently acceptable here because as of yet I am STILL the only one to be specifically rebuked over this affair. Obviously, if as yousay, the mediation committee (of which you are a member) will not hear this compaint about you, I have to go right to the top. Also please note that it is incorrect that you told me asking Jimbo's input would be "inappropriate"; rather, you stated that he and arbcom are the only authorities on wikipedia higher than yourself, and then you expressed doubt that they would even be interested in your gross abuse of power, as if suggesting there's only one way to find out. I'm still waiting to hear from the one person I came here to talk to. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(undent) You are drawing a false conclusion, in fact several. Something can be inappropriate for mediation, without it being religious bigotry or corruption. If you want to buy a sausage, and they tell you at the bakers' that this is the wrong place, it is not sausage bigotry or corruption. Your "logical" decision makes no sense in this context. Your martyr complex about being rebuked is something that frankly you're just going to have to get over. I note you continally ignore that I admonished others on the talk page as a group, and specifically told Orangemarlin he was trolling (a statement which others have disagreed with, with good reason). Going "to the top" does simply '''not work''' here, anymore than you writing the president because you couldn't buy sausage at the bakers. He is busy and it doesn't require his attention and he won't bother - I state this with 99% assurance, not positive assurance, because of course Jimbo may choose to comment on anything he wishes. The very strong likelihood is that Jimbo will choose not to respond to this post. The correct venue, if you feel you have met with bigotry, would be AN/I or Rfc, as I have told you several times already. And lastly, content about your religion may be found to be not appropriate for an article without any religious bigotry or supression being involved. If you feel there is good reason to have it in the article, then post that on the talk page - citing your sources, stating clearly why you feel the view is different enough and significant enough for inclusion. You have failed utterly to do that, and instead have decided you are the target of religious persecution, which I assure you is not the case. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::I have already heard your opinion on the matter several times, thank you. I am now waiting to hear Jimbo's. If that fails, I will start writing in many, many other forums around the world about my experiences on wikipedia, which is beginning to look very much like a place where all kinds of bigotry is not only rampant but encouraged by the administration, as long as the target is not one of the "favoured" groups. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 12:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok. Go post everywhere that you didn't get support for an edit you wanted to make to an article, and instead of following the policies and guidelines, you indulged in personal attacks and incivility on other editors, and when warned about this, you started accusing the warning administrator of favoritism, religious bigotry, and all manner of other faults; that you utterly failed to interest anyone in your bizarre persecution theories, and all of that constitutes "proof" that Wikipedia is biased and evil. Have fun with that. I'm done trying to help you. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I haven't personally attacked anyone. Not once. And this isn't about the edit or the article. This is about the fact that I am constantly being accused falsely of personal attacks and incivility, etc. while editors who routinely demonize entire religious groups and spread intolerance get your approval and encouragement to continue. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 14:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Also, the basic message I keep getting from you is "Yes, it is anti-religious bigotry -- but so what? What can you do about it? Nobody but you cares!" That's why I am here. This can't seriously be your policy. Too much has been invested over the last 400 years in achieving some measure of tolerance to just throw it all away now. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::: Hi, Til. You seem to be very worked up about this. Almost anywhere on the Internet, including Wikipedia, being in a lather means people will have a hard time taking you seriously. I'd encourage you to go for a long walk and not sit down at the keyboard again until you are [[WP:COOL|cool as a cucumber]]. Thanks, [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, I have been waiting for a response for days so far, so I guess my answer is that intolerance and bigotry really are acceptable here. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I think you are wrong in that, although naturally you're welcome to your own opinions. However, it's my theory that your refusal to calm down is making it hard for you to fairly consider what I consider to be the mountain of evidence to the contrary, like the large archive of ArbComm descisions, the regularity with which people are admonished or banned for egregious violations of [[WP:CIVIL]], or the fact that two of our [[WP:5P|five pillars]] are about neutrality and kindness to our fellow editors. So again, and in sincere amity, I'd encourage you to take a break until your sense of outrage subsides. Then come back and chat with some of our religious editors (and perhaps even a pastor or two) and ask them how they feel they've been treated. If we have a real problem here, you won't lose anything by waiting a week to expose it. And if you have, as I believe, made a mistake, then you'll gain a lot by coming back and taking a fresh look at things. [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::The facts aren't going to be any different a week from now. First of all, I am already completely calm. Please do not project an image of uncalmness onto me with your words. That's almost like user:Orange Marlin trying to project a heart attack on me at my talkpage. Didn't work. It only convinces me further that certain editors here have a special permission to say whatever hate speech they want, and they know they are never going to get called on it because of their "favored" status here. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with you Eulenspiegel, there are people here who say pretty much whatever they want and get away with it. This has been a topic that has caused me much distress and I even wrote an [[User:Chrislk02/darkside|essay about it]]. The fact is, it is not that different than real life, there are people who get away with alot because of who they are. I hope that this issue does not cause you so much stress that you feel this project is not worth the time, because it is actually a great project. If you have any questions or if there is anything I can help you with, or answer for you, please contact me on my [[User talk:Chrislk02|user talk page]]. [[User:Chrislk02|-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)]] 17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Has this user been blocked yet? — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯING'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 17:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
== [[The Chaser's War on Everything]] ==
Hey Jimbo, I saw Mr. Ten questions got you. You did fine Jimbo! Here's the questions again in case you missed them:
*#How are you enjoying Australia?
*#How do our computers compare to those in America?
*#Why does everyone in IT look so Nerdy? You look like a day-time TV star.
*#Mac or Windows, do you really give a shit?
*#There are 1.7 million articles on Wikipedia how did you find time to write them all?
*#Craig Rucastle is a bit unhappy with his picture on his article, can you upload a better one?
*#My dog, he's got like, this scab thing under his chin, I don't know if you know the number of a local vet of something?
*#Jessica Rowe and Peter Overton will at last?
*#Cracked Pepper?
*#How do you feel about the fact that when I looked you up this morning I changed your article to say that you were a 13 year old Drug Lord from Malaysia?
To which you answered:
*#Yes
*#Yes
*#A lot of coffee
*#17
Very nice! Cheers, [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.]][[User talk:Dfrg.msc|msc]] 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:Those answers don't make any sense...--[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::Pls note [[WP:IAR]]. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Hahaha, oh dear, that was so funny, Chasers War has to be my favourite show --[[User:JRA WestyQld2|JRA WestyQld2]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
== What do you mean? ==
<blockquote>''"It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone."'' (Jimbo Wales)</blockquote>
I thought this meant one thing, but people seem to think differently. Anyway, it seems important to figure out what it means, since there's even a quote on [[WP:ADMIN]]. There's a small thread about this on the talk page. The question is: does it mean that "admins have more access in the technical sense, but not more authority in the social sense" or does it mean that "the fact that the powers given to sysops are not given to everyone is merely a technical matter?" If the correct answer is the second, then: what is the technical matter that prevents most users from becoming administrators? [[User:A.Z.|'''A.Z.''']] 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:My guess would be that vandals could wipe out teh Wiki in no seconds flat if they were given admin powers. --[[User:MalcolmGin|MalcolmGin]] <small>[[User_talk:MalcolmGin|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/MalcolmGin|Conts]]</small> 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::If every IP and account just became an administrator today, yes. But, if administrators started to lose all their tools when blocked, then there would just be a lot more administrators to stop the obvious vandals -even vandals who are administrators. Plus, if there were a small threshold to become an administrator, for instance, 500 edits during at least three months, being that the edits would only be considered if they were considerable in size and not made by a bot, it seems to me that the active users could and should all be administrators. If they abused any of the tools, they would be blocked by the rest of the community. [[User:A.Z.|'''A.Z.''']] 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
== FYI: [[user:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeff Merkey]] ==
In light of the promise he made to you to not edit on en:wp I thought you should be notified that, after discussion at [[WP:AN#Jeff_Merkey_wishes_to_return_to_en:wp|WP:AN]], Mr. Merkey has been allowed to create a new account and resume editting. I would hope that Mr. Merkey and the admins involved would have already notified you, but I did not want to blindly assume they had done so. I am not specifically requesting any action on your part, simply seeking to keep you informed. --[[User:MediaMangler|MediaMangler]] 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:Merkey began his appeal on the Foundation mailing list, of which Jimbo is a member. He also mentioned last fall a desire to be unbanned for Christmas (not sure which mailing list that), so people have been thinking about it. This wasn't a hasty move. MediaMangler, you seemed to have been fascination with Merkey since your earliest edits. I hope you are not planning to cause trouble. --[[User talk:Duk|Duk]] 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Your insinuation of bad intent on my part is not appreciated. I have acted to defend Merkey in several of his previous incarnations. He has thanked me for that help almost as many times as he has made personal attacks against me. I removed various items from Wiki in keeping with his expressed desire to vanish. Certainly his never retracted (albeit silly) legal threats against me do cause some concern. I wish you better luck dealing with him than I had. --[[User:MediaMangler|MediaMangler]] 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok, point taken. But I have no intention of "dealing with him", only trying my best to make sure that he gets a "fair shake" --[[User talk:Duk|Duk]] 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Jeff Merkey is an odd and occasionally abrasive fellow, but he does seem to be basically a good guy and onside with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. His work on Cherokee and other native language Wikipedias and MediaWiki software issues has been kick-arse, for example - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Agree with David. And to clarify my last statement which sounds bad -- didn't mean to imply that I wanted to avoid him, only that having a negative mindset about 'dealing with him' is unhealthy. --[[User talk:Duk|Duk]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
== Password blocked for security reasons – but no answer? ==
Someone had the (for security reasons) famos idea to block all user where username=password. Unfortunately without preventing them before. I am on als: de: fr: en: meta: commons: and ln: and at the last I had for historical reason an other username ([[:ln:User:Bombo]]) & username=password - shame on me (not on the others!). I tried with help pages and FAQ, but there was just a little information to contact an developer what I did, but unfortunately I had no answer. Why I hesitate just to open a new account is because I am one of only two admins on ln:, a growing central african issue of Wikipedia (not as big as afrikaans or kiswahili, OK).
To prove, that I am me, I wrote on 28th of April to Jon Harald Søby, a Steward: "How I can proof, that's me: On ln: my name is Bombo. On meta: de: als: it is Eruedin (from my real name). The user pages are linked and to write this eMail I am logged in at meta:. From the user page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eruedin there is a link to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Eruedin There are two interwikis. One to http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Eruedin and the second (Lingála) to http://ln.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bombo The word "Moyángeli" is lingala and means Administrator. On the de: user page are some details about me. If you have some doubts, I can scan my passport. There are same name/firstname/birth year/origin=heimatberechtigt.
Other way to proof my identity: search the three words "***" "***" "***" in google. there is no link (because of noindex-tag) to the following "secret" page in the deep web with my CV: http://***index.html" (I changed here in the public space four words to ***, but if need it, I can email you - it is so: the three not english words are main words from the title, so the site should apear in google on the top).
If there was an answer like "sorry, no way", but just silence?! Maybe you can tell me who I has to contact to find a solution. Thank you. --[[User:Eruedin|Eruedin]] 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:Replied on user's talkpage. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|''scribe'']]</span> 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
== Official [[WP:OFFICE|Office]]/[[Wikimedia_Foundation|WMF]] response to [[HD-DVD]] key controversy ==
Dear Mr. Wales, I am leaving a message on your talk page today to try to bring up a current issue of controversy across the web and which has crossed over to several articles on wikipedia. I am speaking about the [[HD DVD encryption key controversy]] or more specifically, [[HD DVD Night]]. Specifically many feel that the [[WP:OFFICE]] should put out a statement regarding this issue. Some editors have left a message on the Volunteer Coordinator for the office, [[User:Bastique|Cary Bass]], but those messages have been responded to [[User_talk:Bastique#HD_DVD|on his talk page here]] stating, 'The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time.' I hope that I can bring further light to this issue and ask for a statement on this matter. Respectfully, [[User:MrMacMan|<font color="darkorange" face="Times">'''MrMacMan'''</font>]][[User talk:MrMacMan|<sup><small><font color= "blue">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:Cary's answer was complete. You might also want to see [[Wikipedia:Keyspam]] for another view from some community members on the subject. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::Isn't that your own opinion stated in an essay you created? I don't mean to demean you it just seems like I wanted something from policy or an actual statement on the issue. [[User:MrMacMan|<font color="darkorange" face="Times">'''MrMacMan'''</font>]][[User talk:MrMacMan|<sup><small><font color= "blue">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::The first thing I wrote was "Cary's answer was complete"... I offered you the essay so that you could have another view to consider, not as an official response. You're not going to get an actual official statement ... it would be foolish for the foundation to provide one at this time. If you want an unofficial view from someone on the board, you can go see Kat Walsh's [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-May/070446.html post] on wikien-l or look at Jimmy's comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=127823820 here]. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, my own view is that people should basically relax a little bit. There is no hurry here. People who think the key should be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who think the key should NOT be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who are concerned about legal risks to the project have a point. People who think the risks are small have a point. So, what do we do? Take it slow, see how things are going, don't get weird ideas about either side oppressing you, try not to get nervous and depressed about strings of sekrit numbers. :)
::To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I greatly appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and on this issue. I hope next time I come here it will not have to deal with a point of controversy. Thanks you very much, [[User:MrMacMan|<font color="darkorange" face="Times">'''MrMacMan'''</font>]][[User talk:MrMacMan|<sup><small><font color= "blue">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
== Students required to edit Wikipedia articles ==
Have you noticed professors requiring their students to edit Wikipedia articles? I never did until just now. See, for example, [[Talk:Itasca State Park]]. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:I've seen it before. A lot of them have to write an article about something which gets deleted for notability standards, or in violation of other policies. They seem to think of Wikipedia as a free web host for academic material. Unfortunately that's what its not. Last time I deleted an article that wasn't notable, and that was written as an assignment, I told the student her teacher could contact me to discuss the matter. That's about all we can do, really. --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] [[User talk:Deskana|<small>(fry that thing!)</small>]] 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, some of us are aware of this and are helping the professors in many ways, such as making sure newly created articles meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination]] for more information. (Also see [[:Category:Wikipedia articles as assignments]].)↔[[User:Nmajdan|<font style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan</font>]]•[[User talk:Nmajdan|<font style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk</font>]] 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::I think a good classroom assignment would be for students to take an existing article on a subject related to that class curriculum and take it to FA or A-class status. That would benefit both the student and Wikipedia. If we come across any professor that takes this approach, I think we should publicize it to reinforce this positive behavior. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I think a good classroom assignment would be for a teacher to present three to five topics that are requested articles on WP, ask the students to choose one and write about it, then assign a group project for small groups to combine the content from the essays, using WP's standards, and come up with an article for each. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
== Total Contradiction, whatchall thinkin? ==
Who in their right mind protected Jimbo's userpage? Can anyone tell me? It clearly states at the bottom, "y'all may edit this page." However, I must say I've tried this and it's protected. And I thought I was gonna do somethin' worthwhile. Ahwhell... [[User:ClaimJumperPete|ClaimJumperPete]] 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:There are over 1 million article unprotected and nobody is stopping you making the project better than ever, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Squeakbox, I think you're missing the point? He's saying someone PROTECTED the page so that no one can edit it. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard|Community sanctions noticeboard]] ==
Jimbo, I'm not so much surprised by your position at the MFD discussion as surprised by your reasons for it. The board was created in support of banning policy language and the [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]] guideline that had been in place for several months and has succeeded at making the community sanctions process more open and equitable. The principal argument against it seems to be that only sysops deserve any voice in community banning, which runs counter to your well-known statement about how admistratorship is supposed to be no big deal. To delete the board would leave the [[WP:CEM|community enforceable mediation]] process in limbo, which you supported during its proposal phase, and no alternate mechanism has been proposed to make partial community sanctions such as topic bans or revert parole feasible. When such actions were challenged at arbitration the Committee supported the community's decision.
I had sincerely believed I was acting in the spirit of Wikipedia's traditions and in the service of your public statements when I proposed, maintained, and supported this noticeboard. Not only does your vote mystify me, I believe its deletion would leave several months' worth of careful progress in shambles and shoulder the arbitration committee with unnecessary burdens. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:I've got to say the same here. It is in absolutely ''no'' way "counter to our traditions" to try a new way of doing things. At least, not in any way that I know of. (Since there has been a lot of additional support for keeping, it would probably also help if you clarified whether your comment was a mandate or just an opinion.) But alright, let's hear it. We're having flameouts at a pretty alarming rate, every system we have is operating way beyond capacity, and it seems every time anyone takes a half of a step to try and fix that, there are reflexive screams of "BUREAUCRACY!" and out come the torches. How do ''you'' propose to fix it? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
: What is "community enforceable mediation"? Isn't that an oxymoron? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::Not at all. [[Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/faq]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 08:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
== Commercial Wikipedia ==
Do you regret not making Wikipedia a commercial site to sell some ad space? Obviously this could be bringing in a small fortune. Seems like a wasted opportunity. [[User:Acirema|Acirema]] 05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:He has been quoted as saying making it a nonprofit was the smartest thing he ever did or the dumbest thing he ever did. If he had not made it nonprofit, then it may never have become anything ... but we'll never know. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::I've added that often repeated quote to [[q:Jimmy Wales]], sourced to SXSW 2006; does it date back further? [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:The history of [[Spanish Wikipedia]] may be of interest to you. [[User:NoSeptember/Signature13|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
| 