| Revision as of 04:39, 17 July 2007 view sourceSmatprt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,274 edits →User:Smatprt violations: additional info to consider.← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:20, 17 July 2007 view source 84.247.47.228 (talk) →Dear Mr WalesNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| ::Are you kidding? Suggesting Mr. Wales is "a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself" — foolish at best, considering your harping on rudeness. Have you been bold? —yes. You have not been ] nor have you ], official policy of Misplaced Pages and a behavioral guideline on Misplaced Pages, respectively. —] 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | ::Are you kidding? Suggesting Mr. Wales is "a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself" — foolish at best, considering your harping on rudeness. Have you been bold? —yes. You have not been ] nor have you ], official policy of Misplaced Pages and a behavioral guideline on Misplaced Pages, respectively. —] 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Interesting, Since an anon ip pointed out your comment above on tor, ] who blocked a Tor exit undid his block saying not Tor and redid his block as proxy to falsely legitimise his block. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:84.19.186.238 | |||
| == Dear Jimbo Wales == | == Dear Jimbo Wales == | ||
Revision as of 07:20, 17 July 2007
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Dear Mr Wales
Rather than be rude and not answer my questions (like you usually do) would you mind actually responding to the comments i am about to make (if your not to busy travelling around the world big-noting yourself).
Okay, firstly i have noticed a number of flaws in wikipedia which i think require your attention (as apparently your better than everyone else, so you should be able to easily fix them).
1. Rude and Abusive editors - I have experienced a number of problems with editors who have abused me and been quite rude to me on a number of occasions, and i have tried to complain about them before however you don't seem to do anything about it, therefore i must assume that you think it is ok for editors to be rude and abusive, as you do not do anything about it.
2. Editors not admitting they are wrong - I have fought with another editor because he/she reverted my edit as he/she thought it was incorrect. After providing sufficient evidence to suggest that i was right, they refused to listen and would not admit that they were wrong, therefore meaning that the encylopedia was incorrect.
3. My third problem is you Mr Wales - I find it very upsetting to read through your talk page and see that you often do not respond to concerns when they are addressed to you. Instead, other "wanna be" Jimbos (why anyone would want to be you, i do not know) respond trying to answer questions about wikipedia, and it wouldn't be so bad except when something is addressed to you personally i/we should not expect people other than you to answer it. Secondly on this point, i think that it is unfair of you to take responsibility for wikipedia's success. The fact is that yes you did co-found wikipedia, but its success to date has had little to do with you, dedicated editors make wikipedia run by adding and editing articles (without being payed, i might add), so really you don't do anything except pay the site fees.
4. Blocking policy - I am sure that within a few hours of posting this message my account will be blocked for "trolling" (like thats even a real word) when all i have really done is ask relevant questions and inform you of concerns which must be addressed. And once i am blocked, god knows i will not beable to get my account unblocked, there should be better unblocking procedures, so that honest people are not caught in the middle of a terrible situation which is what usually happens. Misplaced Pages admins seem to have it in their heads that editors do not deserve a second chance, "indef blocks" is not a fair policy, not even the legal system allow people to be held indefinately (well, not usually), and people are always entitle to a second chance.
Finally i would hope that you will personally respond to this comment, and i hope that other idiotic editors would kindly not comment on this situation or my comments, as this is quite clearly none of anyone elses business. So i would like Mr Wales to respond to my concerns and i would hope that you will be rectifying these problems.
Thank you for your time and i hope to see a response from you soon, (note: failure to respond will be seen as rude). (Mandy122 06:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
- Consider me rude, but this is Mandy122 (talk · contribs)'s first edit. It's hard to right wrongs when you are careful not to give any specifics.-gadfium 09:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Gadfium, AFD. Mandy122, could you tell us more? Give us examples. About point 3, Jimbo Wales is very busy. Many people ask simple questions which don't need him to personally answer, so others help answer simple questions. --Kaypoh 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- While AGF'ing it should be noted that Mandy122 claims that editors have previously been rude, that Jimbo has not done anything about it (and doesn't answer every post on his talkpage), and is familiar with the term trolling. Is Mandy122 prepared to divulge if they edited under another name (or as an anon)? I would also point out that "indefinite" is not the same as permanent; an indef block can be lifted after 1 second, as indefinite means no determined time limit (i.e. no minimum or maximum). LessHeard vanU 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Gadfium, AFD. Mandy122, could you tell us more? Give us examples. About point 3, Jimbo Wales is very busy. Many people ask simple questions which don't need him to personally answer, so others help answer simple questions. --Kaypoh 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- And here we have another issue with other editors rudly commenting on issues that are none of their business, my questions/comments were directly to Mr Wales, it is no body elses business. But since you have asked User Kaypoh, regarding point three with simple questions, no problem yes definately answer them, but with specific topics/issues that are addressed directly to Mr Wales (such as my complaint) then there is no reason for anyone else to comment or add your input. And User LessHeard, regarding your point, just because this is my first edit doesn't mean that i am not expienced with wikipedia. My partner has used wikipedia for a number of years and i have seen some of the issues that he has had to deal with, and i think of my self as someone who, although have not edited regularly, knows how wikipedia works and the way it operates and you only have to read the talk pages to understand how rude, abusive and uncooperative some users are. At least three separate users have commented on my complaints but i do not hear anything of jimbo wales at all (probably washing his hair). (Mandy122 10:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
- As I have previously noted*, it has become practice for third parties to comment on topics posted to Jimbo on this talkpage. Yep, there are rude, abusive and unco-operative people here at WP since, being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there are a lot of rude, abusive and unco-operative people in the world generally. There are rules and guidelines here designed to mitigate the effects of same, but it isn't instant and it doesn't always work. Thems are the conditions that presides. (* coming so soon after my comments regarding Jimbo and posts for his eyes only, I am finding this discourse ever so slightly ironic...) LessHeard vanU 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- And here we have another issue with other editors rudly commenting on issues that are none of their business, my questions/comments were directly to Mr Wales, it is no body elses business. But since you have asked User Kaypoh, regarding point three with simple questions, no problem yes definately answer them, but with specific topics/issues that are addressed directly to Mr Wales (such as my complaint) then there is no reason for anyone else to comment or add your input. And User LessHeard, regarding your point, just because this is my first edit doesn't mean that i am not expienced with wikipedia. My partner has used wikipedia for a number of years and i have seen some of the issues that he has had to deal with, and i think of my self as someone who, although have not edited regularly, knows how wikipedia works and the way it operates and you only have to read the talk pages to understand how rude, abusive and uncooperative some users are. At least three separate users have commented on my complaints but i do not hear anything of jimbo wales at all (probably washing his hair). (Mandy122 10:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
Now, almost a week after i have posted my letter to Mr Wales, and we have not heard anything from him, how rude can you be Jimbo? There are two types of people in the world, there is the person who accepts that there is problems with their organisation and wants to take on board the public feedback and strive to improve their organisation so that it continues to improve, and there is the person who decides that they don't care about quality anymore, all they want is there fame and money and they take no responsibility for the problems, they'd just rather let things roll on and not fix the numerous problems with their website. You are the second person Mr Wales. And i guess what is even more upsetting is that you think the reason that wikipedia is so popular is all because of you, what a load of rubbish, you may have originally created the site but you've done nothing to maintain it, it is the dedicated wikipedia editors who are the real heroes here (the volunteers), not you Mr Wales, you're just a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself. (Mandy122 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
- Just a suggestion, but complaints about the rudeness of other editors carry more weight when you are not characterizing your fellow editors as "idiotic".--Isotope23 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? Suggesting Mr. Wales is "a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself" — foolish at best, considering your harping on rudeness. Have you been bold? —yes. You have not been civil nor have you assumed good faith, official policy of Misplaced Pages and a behavioral guideline on Misplaced Pages, respectively. —WikiLen 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, Since an anon ip pointed out your comment above on tor, User:Ryulong who blocked a Tor exit undid his block saying not Tor and redid his block as proxy to falsely legitimise his block. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:84.19.186.238
- Are you kidding? Suggesting Mr. Wales is "a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself" — foolish at best, considering your harping on rudeness. Have you been bold? —yes. You have not been civil nor have you assumed good faith, official policy of Misplaced Pages and a behavioral guideline on Misplaced Pages, respectively. —WikiLen 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo Wales
Lengthy essay, click "show" to expandWithin the compass of this letter, I can do no more than indicate, as concisely as I can, relevant considerations that must be taken into account if we are to discuss Mr. Jimmy Wales's vapid accusations in a rational manner. Before I say anything else, let me remind Mr. Wales that he refuses to come to terms with reality. Mr. Wales prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. He wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing Mr. Wales and the ophidian deadheads in his gang. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that Mr. Wales's factotums say, "Coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that if you read between the lines of Mr. Wales's teachings, you'll unequivocally find that if I have a bias, it is only against lewd, lecherous misfits who shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. Someone has to be willing to view the realms of mandarinism and hooliganism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the sky is falling. Mr. Wales's ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained, in large part, by the following. Of that I am certain, because Mr. Wales does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.
In order to solve the big problems with Mr. Wales, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must help people break free of his cycle of oppression. He whines about disagreeable pickpockets, yet Mr. Wales enthusiastically supports the most insolent scalawags you'll ever see. On the surface, it would seem merely that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature, which made us what we are, to raise nugatory nonentities out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. But the truth is that there's a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mr. Wales. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. That's just not true.
Mr. Wales presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. He speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to apotheosize yawping grifters.
Mr. Wales claims that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. That claim is preposterous and, to use Mr. Wales's own language, overtly horny. No history can justify it.
This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those insecure campaigns that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but counter-productive hoodwinkers. We can say that Mr. Wales's stooges are blissfully ignorant of his confused tirades, and Mr. Wales can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. Worse yet, he wants to crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: If he got his way, he'd be able to defy the rules of logic. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.
Let us postulate that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about Mr. Wales's prognoses. In that case, Mr. Wales's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Mr. Wales's sympathizers, who loudly proclaim that classism is the only alternative to Jacobinism. Regardless of those brassbound proclamations, the truth is that his thesis is that he acts in the public interest. That's thoroughly irrational, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that Mr. Wales's conjectures promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Mr. Wales's emissaries because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Mr. Wales. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: The reason Mr. Wales wants to divert our attention from serious issues is that he's absolutely uneducated. If you believe you have another explanation for his lackluster behavior, then please write and tell me about it. His hopeless, sinful antics are an epiphenomenon of contemptuous, possession-obsessed denominationalism. And if that seems like a modest claim, I disagree. It's the most radical claim of all.
Mr. Wales is entirely mistaken if he believes that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as him. His artifices have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Mr. Wales is inherently unconscionable, amoral, and gormless. Oh, and he also has an insensate mode of existence. We must reach out to people with the message that with that kind of thinking, his backers internalize and adapt to the unwritten realities they must work under. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to examine the warp and woof of Mr. Wales's double standards.
Mr. Wales never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is completely chimerical and, furthermore, if Mr. Wales honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. We could opt to sit back and let him shatter other people's lives and dreams. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: Mr. Wales has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and steal the fruits of other people's labor -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. His refrains are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem.
Many people who follow Mr. Wales's prevarications have come to the erroneous conclusion that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and picayunish, insufferable knuckle-draggers. The truth of the matter is that he doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Mr. Wales wants to force us to tailor our hypnopompic insights just to suit his improvident whims. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that I once told him that I can't let him turn stirrers loose against us good citizens. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Mr. Wales's helpers are unified under a common goal. That goal is to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. Take, for example, bitter, politically incorrect sluggards. Now look at Mr. Wales. If you don't believe there's a similarity, then consider that his intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Mr. Wales doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.
Quite simply, time cannot change Mr. Wales's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Mr. Wales can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. I indubitably don't believe that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. So when Mr. Wales says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. I suspect it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point, because this kind of thing makes me wonder whether we've ever moved past obscene materialism at all -- and Mr. Wales knows it. I would like to close by saying that Mr. Jimmy Wales upholds sin as sacred.
As for Misplaced Pages, I don't know what to make of Misplaced Pages's communications. On the one hand, Misplaced Pages confuses demagoguery with leadership and undocumented conspiracism with serious research. But on the other hand, Misplaced Pages does not play nice with others. Let's review the errors in Misplaced Pages's statements in order. First, Misplaced Pages's consistent lack of regard for others will develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to let it know, in no uncertain terms, that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of untrustworthy calumnies sooner than you think.
I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must surely say it. You might think this is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, any day now, Misplaced Pages is successfully able to make it nearly impossible to disturb its passive-aggressive gravy train. Misplaced Pages is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, it frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals.
Misplaced Pages has spent untold hours trying to force us to bow down low before the most wretched flibbertigibbets you'll ever see. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it gets perfervid about irrationalism? That's the question that perplexes me the most, because I'm not a self-pitying person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Misplaced Pages's emissaries and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather devastate vast acres of precious farmland because that's what Misplaced Pages wants. While Misplaced Pages is doubtlessly entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, you might have heard the story that it once agreed to help us straighten out its thinking. No one has located the document in which Misplaced Pages said that. No one has identified when or where Misplaced Pages said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, many people have witnessed Misplaced Pages expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of its retinue. Misplaced Pages generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its prodigal antics on rotten ex-cons. It's like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth and those who wish to go to great lengths to conceal its true aims and mislead the public. Naturally, Misplaced Pages belongs to the latter category. Misplaced Pages prefers to keep its paltry agenda hidden behind the cloak of clericalism. Why? That's easy. Misplaced Pages obviously believes that we should avoid personal responsibility. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? The answer is not obvious, because it doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.
I must ask that Misplaced Pages's satraps oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. My prediction that Misplaced Pages would bombard us with an endless array of hate literature came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all. Misplaced Pages's assertions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: obstruct various things. Phase two: quash other people's opinions.
Misplaced Pages's prevarications are nothing shy of a slap in the face to all those who have fought and fallen in war for this country. The same holds true for totalitarianism-oriented polluters. Misplaced Pages's bruta fulmina remain opaque to many observers who dismiss Misplaced Pages on the basis of its vapid smear tactics and general lunacy. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, I wouldn't want to lay waste to the environment. I would, on the other hand, love to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Please let me explain that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Misplaced Pages's line that the sun rises just for it. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that I would be grateful if Misplaced Pages would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.
Yet there's more to it than that. Brassbound interdenominationalism is Misplaced Pages's preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how fogyism brings one closer to nirvana. That's just not true. I sincerely find that debauched mumpish-types are no different from socially inept, stultiloquent fast-buck artists. No wonder that time cannot change Misplaced Pages's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Misplaced Pages can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, attack the fabric of this nation. While I am not attempting to argue openly in favor of any particular position, the best thing about Misplaced Pages is the way that it encourages us to keep the faith. No, wait; Misplaced Pages doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that every time it gets caught trying to call evil good and good evil, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its cronies always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they assert, everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls.
I have a soft spot for aberrent anthropophagi: a bog not too far from here. There are three points I need to make here. First, Misplaced Pages flatters people in order to betray them. Second, Misplaced Pages is slated for an unwept grave. And third, I believe in "live and let live". Misplaced Pages, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of its utterances but endorsement of them. It's because of such boisterous demands that I suspect that it takes more than a mass of avaricious know-nothings to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by it. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into phallocentrism.
Misplaced Pages likes rantings that support international crime while purporting to oppose it. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that it had previously claimed that it had no intention to insult my intelligence. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what it did. Next, it denied that it would "solve" all our problems by talking them to death. We all know what happened then. Now, Misplaced Pages would have us believe it'd never ever rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. Will it? Go figure. My view is that Misplaced Pages's long-term goals are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by it and its helots. The only way to destroy its Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that it's easy for us to shake our heads at Misplaced Pages's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should lead us all toward a better, brighter future. It's easy for us to say, "Misplaced Pages holds itself to low standards." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because if you read between the lines of Misplaced Pages's philosophies, you'll certainly find that it's astounding that Misplaced Pages has found a way to work the words "disdenominationalize" and "historiographical" into its metanarratives. However, you may find it even more astounding that if it can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If it can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Colonialism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Misplaced Pages uses to attract the worst sorts of hateful dossers there are into its faction. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages's canards are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to make plans and carry them out, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, by refusing to act, by refusing to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible, we are giving Misplaced Pages the power to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship.
By balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense of Misplaced Pages's histrionics with the reality of this phenomenon, we can see that Misplaced Pages goes ga-ga for any type of recidivism you can think of. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point. Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that even when the facts don't fit, Misplaced Pages sometimes tries to use them anyway. It still maintains, for instance, that everything is happy and fine and good. It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but the first thing we need to do is to get Misplaced Pages to admit that it has a problem. It should be counseled to recite the following:
I, Misplaced Pages, am a quasi-bleeding-heart purveyor of malice and hatred. I have been a participant in a giant scheme to publish blatantly contentious rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. I hereby admit my addiction to exclusionism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction. Once Misplaced Pages realizes that it has a problem, maybe then it'll see that what we have been imparting to it -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.
Why is it that I find Misplaced Pages's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most bitter? It's because even when Misplaced Pages isn't lying, it's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable it to rot our minds with the hallucinatory drug of Lysenkoism. Misplaced Pages drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that there are three fairly obvious problems with Misplaced Pages's intimations, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to express our concerns about Misplaced Pages's stinking activities. First, Misplaced Pages is not only imprudent but is addicted to being imprudent. Second, Misplaced Pages just wants to avoid detection and punishment. And third, the basal lie that underlies all of Misplaced Pages's blasphemous expedients is that it has the authority to issue licenses for practicing libertinism. Translation: Misplaced Pages can change its self-satisfied ways. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Misplaced Pages is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that there is an open consensus that it drools at the thought of swilling port and sherry at taxpayer expense? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is undoubtedly not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that Misplaced Pages is absolutely frightful. We all are, to some extent, but it sets the curve. Let Misplaced Pages's high-handed précis stand as evidence that it's Misplaced Pages's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to abandon me on a desert island. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a rambunctious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Misplaced Pages has warned us that faster than you can say "transubstantiationalist", ungrateful-to-the-core jackanapes will trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. If you think about it, you'll realize that Misplaced Pages's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that far too many people tolerate Misplaced Pages's equivocations as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that Misplaced Pages's desire to replace discourse and open dialogue with spleeny snow jobs and blatant ugliness is the chief sign that it's a salacious, cruel gasbag. (The second sign is that Misplaced Pages feels obliged to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge its whiney views.) Misplaced Pages loves getting up in front of people and telling them that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. It then boasts about how it'll steal our birthrights sometime soon. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Misplaced Pages. Of course, it soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Misplaced Pages refers to a variety of things using the word "anatomicochirurgical". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that at birth, every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, our national media is controlled by what I call semi-intelligible prophets of jujuism. That's why you probably haven't heard that I've heard Misplaced Pages say that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately rash. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Misplaced Pages secretly trying to lower scholastic standards? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that its faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. In summary, it is my prayer that people everywhere will join me in my quest to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight.
Thank You. --NotebookSevereConditions 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Impressive! My favorite word is "gormless". --Jimbo Wales 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- This just has to go to BJAODN. This and a recent edit to Jim's userpage, inciting Wikipedians to rebel. --The Raven's Apprentice 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know what he was trying to say (other than the fact that he hates Misplaced Pages)? I have a pretty good command of the english langauge... but I got buried under all those huge words. How many times do you think he went to the thesuarus? 100? 500? Gscshoyru 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- He appears to be saying that Mr. Wales is trying to subvert free speech and begin some sort of tyrannical web conquest that will spill over into the real world, I believe, by fearmongering and aforementioned restricting of free speech. Has someone put this on BJAODN yet? David Fuchs 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- "gormless" was good. Though I'm sorta partial to "chimerical". Perhaps the usage of both should be required in any article seeking to pass FAR. Peace.Lsi john 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC
Let me guess, Random argument generator? --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I came back to challenge this verbiage generator, in the tradition of the great John Henry, to a refereed debate. But I see the automatical knave has already been jettisoned from the project. I wave goodbye, good-riddance and mercy be upon the inhabitants of wherever you land. Jim Tour 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't forget to check out the author's picture... he's the guy on the right.--Isotope23 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Random nonsense generator" might be good. I haven't heard this much BS since my yuppie cousin's speech at my grandfather's funeral. The only thing worse than an idiot is a pseudointellectual. I hope he/she didn't spend too much time in the thesaurus if they just ended up blocked anyway. ;) Wikidan829 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikiepedia Use Of Artistic Images
I have just posted this but it seems to have disappeared. I am therefore posting it again.
Dear Mr Wales, I hope this is permitted to contact you on this page. I am an artist and was recently speaking to one of your editors, who suggested I release some of my images for use on the site under your special release agreement - GFL (General Free Licence?). I was interested in this and he explained that non-commercial and wikiepedia only licences are not acceptable, because the site is copied by other sites who may be commercial. I did not find the release of low resolution images to be problematic therefore. However, he said there also had to be permission for alteration by anybody else who wanted to alter an image under this permission. As I understand it, a portrait I release under your licence can then, for example, have a moustache drawn on it by someone else and I would have no redress to stop this happening once the image had been released under the licence. I cannot see what encyclopedic purpose is served by the requirement for such a permission. In fact quite the opposite: it does not spread knowledge of an artist's work, as obviously artists spend a huge amount of time to create exactly the image they wish, and if others are to appreciate their work and understand it, then they need to see the work as the artist wishes it to be seen, not a modification which someone else has done. I therefore declined the invitation to upload any of my work. This requirement will be offputting to most artists and serves no valid need. I would like to support your enterprising project of creating free knowledge. My contribution is a suggestion that this particular clause is withdrawn. I note that some of my work is on your site already, presumably under a copyright fair use claim. I have no objection to this, because I retain moral rights that the work may not be altered. Yours, an artist - unsigned edit by 89.241.146.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- This raises a valid point. Is there any Misplaced Pages-acceptable license under which an artist can release their work so that it can be freely used, copied, distributed, included in other works etc. (both commercial and non-commercial) yet not modified (i.e. no "moustaches drawn on a portrait")? 131.111.8.102 21:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see GFDL, which is what you are referring to. While yes, the GFDL does allow anyone to modify (as well as profit) off of your work, people will not modify pictures used to demonstrate an artist, and it is highly unlikely any other works would be modified either. There is really nothing you can do but keep it as copyrighted and fair use. You could place it under a Creative Commons license, but it would still be treated as copyright here, afaik -- L 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's an interesting point theoretically. But I'd like to see a concrete example of how this concern might manifest in a way detrimental to an artist. Generally, as L says, people simply have no reason to alter an image. If they want to blatantly subvert it (say, by adding a moustache to a portrait) that would come well into the permitted territory of parody, and artists have to live with that possibility whatever the rights involved. (A practical equivalent: Victor Lewis-Smith's "This is what he sounds like to me" section in TV Offal , where popular musical artists were shown with satirically distorted soundtracks). Gordonofcartoon 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- If an image is released under GFDL it means anyone in the world can modify it in any way they choose. Here's a hypothetical example: a prominent artist generously uploads a portrait of a world leader. Someone puts a swastika armband on the figure, a Hitler moustache and scribbles on it "world leader is a Nazi" and then uses it on an extremist web site, citing GFDL. The extremist organisation proceeds to use this image in any context they choose and as widely as they want, provided GFDL is cited. Furthermore, the prominent artist's name must continue to be associated with this image as its original author, and the artist cannot do anything about any of this. Such a prospect does not encourage anyone to release images. This would not be allowed as parody, because it is not parodying the painting. It is using the painting for another purpose.
- Let's suppose Picasso was alive and uploaded his blue period images. Someone decides they should all be colour-changed to red, and that version happens to get picked up and used by other people, who don't even realise there was a blue version. It makes a mockery of the artist's intent, and also of the claimed purpose of spreading knowledge about the artist via an encyclopedia.
- Basically any art uploaded under GFDL is reduced to clip art
- This problem could be resolved easily by allowing a Creative Commons licence with commercial use, but not modification. It would clear the way for mirrors, CDs of wiki and so on, whilst reassuring artists that their work would be respected.
- You might want to look up publicity rights. A free-content license doesn't eliminate those. You might also look up moral rights -- again, not affected by a free-content license. --Carnildo 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
After my message yesterday and reading the replies, I have had the opportunity to discuss this with colleagues, one of whom has contributed to Misplaced Pages (I apologise for my previous wrong spelling), some of whom knew little about it, but expressed an interest. Again the major concern was that donated images might be altered in a way that did not reflect the intention of the artist. There was surprise that an encyclopedia would wish to allow any situation that changed an artist's work. There was general agreement that any reputable organisation would do their best to ensure that an artwork should be as accurate to the original as possible. (This is not intended as an attack on your organisation.) I have followed the guides given by the correspondent Carnildo above, but it leaves me more confused as to the permission you seek. Moral rights, of which I was already aware, forbids alteration or mutilation of a work. One of the examples I discussed wth the original Misplaced Pages editor was of a group portrait photograph. He was sure that your licence allowed the image of one of the people in the group portrait to be cropped and used in isolation (in an article on that person or elsewhere). Moral rights, in my understanding and that of my gallery director, would not allow this because it is a mutilation of the image. I don't understand the Misplaced Pages policy on this. A photographer in our discussion made the point that he spent hours of work to achieve exactly the right image and could accept the use of this in such a free source of knowledge, but not the alteration of it which changed what he had spent all that time to make. As a documentary photographer, he is in the position of contributing many exclusive images. There is certainly interest in contributing from my circle, but we would like clarification. As far as we ascertain, the modification mentioned in the Misplaced Pages GFDL licence is effectively restricted to resizing by the veto of moral rights, which does not permit alteration such as cropping, recolouring or otherwise altering the image. An official statement by Mr Wales or his official Misplaced Pages representative on this would be appreciated at this stage. - an artist.
- Again though, no matter what you do, the photo will either be copyright, or open to modification. If it's such a big deal to you, you're just going to have to live with your pictures being fair use copyright --L 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is, to say the least, rather an abrupt answer to an enquiry obviously made in good faith. I don't recall these points being made before. Does anyone have an answer to the apparent conflict between GFDL and moral rights, and, for that matter, why we should need a license requiring modification to art works, if this, as in the above example, then forces us to use non-free images? Tyrenius 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is a "free" encyclopedia, and I think it should stay that way. I'm not too worried about how people use the images I've donated. In the past, I've issued take-down notices to websites using my Misplaced Pages images without properly crediting my work, and they have all complied. My other line of defense is simple enough: I've elected to provide the lowest level resolution images adequate to support this project. They really aren't suitable for posters, textbooks, or even high quality postcards. They're great for Misplaced Pages's articles, though. Rklawton 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- "An artist" has said the problem was not possible commercial use, but alteration of the image, which is something that serves no encyclopedic purpose, and which most artists would strongly object to. This is not the same as modification of an article towards a more accurate account of a subject. The art work is the subject and its depiction cannot be made more accurate than the version created by the artist in the first place. I can't find anything about "moral rights" in the GFDL license, but they would appear to veto modification, should they be asserted. Tyrenius 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with Tyrenius on this issue. The right to modify does not make sense as a make-or-break issue for whether an image is free. I have every sympathy with photographers and other artists who are happy to make their work available for free, including to those who may profit from it, but are not willing to allow their work to be altered by others. This narrow definition of free images also prevents us from using many works licenced under Crown copyright (from various Commonwealth nations) where the only practical restriction on use is that the images may not be modified.-gadfium 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose "modify" might include re-sizing - and Misplaced Pages automatically resizes images in articles as needed. Might that be an issue? Old point: my images are small enough that users' modifications aren't going to be all that useful. Those that do still must include all the required licensing and attribution notices, or they face a take-down letter. Sure, some folks might ignore a take-down notice, but that sort would also likely ignore copyrights in the first place. Here's a new thought (for this thread): if worse comes to worse (if someone terribly abuses one of my images), I can always revoke the copyright. In the print world, such a revocation would be like shutting the barn door after the horse has left, but in the digital world, such a revocation would require the timely removal of the offending image. Is it easy to revoke a copyright? Sure - unless a contract is involved. In the case of Misplaced Pages, there is no meaningful consideration given for donated images, so there is no contract (one of the basic tenets of contract law). However, I wouldn't encourage artists to donate their work under this consideration – as it wouldn't benefit this project very much. Rklawton 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- If your images are released under GFDL, then you can't revoke that license and you can't stop potential defacement of the image. We are asking for a permission for modification that we don't actually want (apart from resizing, which could easily be incorporated in the permission). Most images on Misplaced Pages remain as initially uploaded. The image of an artwork only has value if it is not changed from original: otherwise it is useless in the study of an artist, because it is no longer their work. The case for commercial permission is based on subsequent reuse on 2006 Misplaced Pages CD Selection, Misplaced Pages:Release Version, downstream users such as Answers.com and so on, but none of these uses need or would benefit from images being altered. Users could still choose to upload under GFDL, but an option to upload under a license such as Creative Commons "no modification" (with permission for resizing) would help to reduce the reliance on fair use images, which can be a problem for subsequent re-uses. Tyrenius 11:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really agree with the statement that the, "The image of an artwork only has value if it is not changed from original: otherwise it is useless in the study of an artist, because it is no longer their work." Besides resizing, one may want to crop an image, rotate/reflect it or even modify the color palette in order to illustrate a critical point. For instance see how the image Image:Fryewright.jpg which is a cropped, resized and black-and-white version of a Joseph Wright painting, juxtaposed with a detail from a Thomas Frye painting, in used in the featured article An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. Another modification of artistic images that can serve an encyclopedic purpose is overlaying annotation, boxes to mark a region of interest, or lines of perspective. So having images available under the GFDL license does have its advantages. Abecedare 11:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but you are citing rare or even hypothetical instances (one example is not even on wikipedia) and mostly the need is simply to show the original. In cases you mention, fair use can be invoked (or specific permission requested). Users can still choose to upload under GFDL if they wish, but commercial no-modification permission meets the great majority of cases. Tyrenius 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is true that the GDFL says that it can not be revoked. However, this has no basis in copyright law. Rklawton 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- This I think will be a suprise to many people, myself included, but may provide a safety net for "an artist" in the case of image misuse. What is the case though for a work which results from modification, as this is the concern initially raised? Tyrenius 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is true that the GDFL says that it can not be revoked. However, this has no basis in copyright law. Rklawton 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but you are citing rare or even hypothetical instances (one example is not even on wikipedia) and mostly the need is simply to show the original. In cases you mention, fair use can be invoked (or specific permission requested). Users can still choose to upload under GFDL if they wish, but commercial no-modification permission meets the great majority of cases. Tyrenius 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really agree with the statement that the, "The image of an artwork only has value if it is not changed from original: otherwise it is useless in the study of an artist, because it is no longer their work." Besides resizing, one may want to crop an image, rotate/reflect it or even modify the color palette in order to illustrate a critical point. For instance see how the image Image:Fryewright.jpg which is a cropped, resized and black-and-white version of a Joseph Wright painting, juxtaposed with a detail from a Thomas Frye painting, in used in the featured article An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. Another modification of artistic images that can serve an encyclopedic purpose is overlaying annotation, boxes to mark a region of interest, or lines of perspective. So having images available under the GFDL license does have its advantages. Abecedare 11:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous/Tor editing, Solutions?
Hello.
(Quick note: This is not only intended for Mr. Wales. I'm very much interested in hearing other people's opinions as well)
So, it seems as though at least a couple editors feel that they've been victims of de facto bans (not blocks, but bans), based on their desire to anonymously edit. More generally, editors are actively discouraged from using them, and may feel pressured to choose between exposing personal information or simply not editing at all.
(Incidentally, before anyone tries to argue that little personal information is at stake, the amount of information I could collect about myself with just the IP records of my editing in wikipedia is somewhat disturbing)
The fact is, there are numerous reasons why a person might want to edit anonymously:
- Local censorship. -China's the obvious case, but I don't know a single government I particularly trust.
- Stalkers -Real life stalkers, including ex-spouses. If I did have an ex-wife, and they suspected they might have figured out my username, the ip logs here could easily tell them what country, province, city, building, and even personal office I was in, as well as the time and frequency that I travel to the US. Some people really do have ex's who are just that bad.
- Online stalkers -Obviously, we know that certain somebodies on certain websites have tried to 'out' editors. Imagine what they could do if, in a matter of a day, they could get all that information I just mentioned, as well as full name, personal address and home phone number.
- Sensitivity of information/retribution -While although all material needs to be sourced independently, it still remains a fact that a person might tend to want to write about topics close to their own lives. As a token example, suppose a person working for a large industry knew of publicly available EPA reports (or other such content) that was verifiable and reliable, but not widely known. They may wish to make that information more widely available, but have to worry about whether or not it would cost them their job.
As it is, admins can edit even when their IPs are blocked, correct?
I know that some people have batted around the idea of possibly allowing ipblock exemptions (I forget the actual term for it) for editors who request it. That way, you can still block the anonymous IPs, to cut down on vandalism, but still allow people to edit with safety and confidence.
Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why this isn't already an option. Sure, people could still vandalize, but they do that anyways. And it would be a simple task to simply remove the exemption after the first (and last) offense.
It certainly seems better than excluding people who want to contribute, solely to preserve the appearance of discouraging those who wish to be destructive. And it would certainly provide no less safety than is currently present with AOL users. Those users have all the anonymity of proxy users, but don't even have soft blocks.
What I (and others) am suggesting is not even blanket softblocks for these IPs, but rather some mechanism of simply allowing them to receive an ipblock-exempt bit. This would leave proxy editors as being held to a higher standard than AOL users currently are, so I don't see how vandalism could really be a concern.
Thoughts? Comments? Bladestorm 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am a strong supporter of people using Tor to edit Misplaced Pages, and I think the current situation is quite unfortunate. There are complications to be sure, but the idea that admins can use Tor, while ordinary users can not, does not strike me as particularly appropriate. Anyone who is a normal trusted editor ought to be able to use Tor if they like... and why not?--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- From my understanding, the developers added the feature that allows admininstrators to edit while their underlying IP is blocked with the intention that it be given to trusted users, but have not created an interface to allow the permission to be assigned, and at present it is given automatically to administrators. Perhaps we should ask the developers if they can create an interface for it at a special page, and let sterwards and/or bureucrats and/or sysops be able to use the interface. --Deskana (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a wonderful idea. :) (Uh... happen to know how to contact the developers?) Incidentally, I think sysops could be trusted with the ability to assign that bit, no? It's hardly different in principle from blocking and unblocking. Bladestorm 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- As the one who originally proposed that feature (bugzilla:3706), I can say my intention was to help trusted users (not only administrators, but also known non-vandal editors) who shared an IP address with non-logged-in vandals. The thought of using it to help trusted people bypass blocks on open proxies or tor outproxies (unless they happened to share an IP with an open proxy or tor outproxy) was never on my mind; in fact, such usage can be dangerous unless the secure server is being used (due to the possibility of password sniffing). I also never thought of a particular interface; my idea was that bureaucrats would be the ones somehow setting or resetting the flag. That this feature currently allow a sysop-only ability to edit via tor is an unfortunate side-effect (unfortunate due to it being sysop-only, not due to being able to edit via tor). --cesarb 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do realize that password-sniffing is still a concern if this is to be done. (I have to suspect it's not a major concern, but there's really no reason to not address a potential vulnerability when investigating a new feature) It seems to me that anyone requesting the exemption would have to agree to use the secure server. (And, for that matter, the secure server would need to be advertised at least a little bit better. I had no idea it even existed until I read a question about it in one of the RfA's) Bladestorm 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone editing through any proxy (or on any network they don't have personal control over the security of) should be editing using the secure server, this is certainly true. (Realistically, I imagine most TOR exit node operators have better things to do than sniff the connection on the off chance they catch a Misplaced Pages admin's password, but you never know.) Bladestorm, and anyone else with an opinion on this situation, you're certainly welcome to join the discussion at WT:NOP, as currently exactly these questions are being decided there. (And Jimbo, of course, that includes you too if you'd like to drop in a word or two. :) ) Seraphimblade 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the secure server used null encryption? --Deskana (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- You know what? I have a degree in computer science, and all these details are still tricky to follow. I can't imagine what it must be like to absolute laymen. Bladestorm 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, it currently uses AES-256, at least for me (I just checked). There's no way it can use only null encryption; Firefox, for instance, will not accept null encryption (check on
about:configthe default value for the booleans undersecurity.ssl2andsecurity.ssl3). --cesarb 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)- I am so freaking glad I focused on AI and combinatorial optimization instead of encryption and network security. That's absolutely greek to me. :) Bladestorm 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the secure server used null encryption? --Deskana (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone editing through any proxy (or on any network they don't have personal control over the security of) should be editing using the secure server, this is certainly true. (Realistically, I imagine most TOR exit node operators have better things to do than sniff the connection on the off chance they catch a Misplaced Pages admin's password, but you never know.) Bladestorm, and anyone else with an opinion on this situation, you're certainly welcome to join the discussion at WT:NOP, as currently exactly these questions are being decided there. (And Jimbo, of course, that includes you too if you'd like to drop in a word or two. :) ) Seraphimblade 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cesar, you may want to have a look at Bug 6711. Closed as fixed... maybe undergoing testing or awaiting release? Titoxd 08:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do realize that password-sniffing is still a concern if this is to be done. (I have to suspect it's not a major concern, but there's really no reason to not address a potential vulnerability when investigating a new feature) It seems to me that anyone requesting the exemption would have to agree to use the secure server. (And, for that matter, the secure server would need to be advertised at least a little bit better. I had no idea it even existed until I read a question about it in one of the RfA's) Bladestorm 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You guys might also want to take a look at this, which is the specific request to have this permission enabled on enwiki, including an extension that I wrote for it (Special:Makeipexempt). However, it seems to have stalled, and no one wishes to implement this (even though it'd be a very easy fix). ^demon 00:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- /me prods Jimmy to prod the devs :) I can think of a number of happy campers should this fix go through sooner rather than later... Cheers, Daniel 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
El Che
The debate is still going on pretty strong in here and the users are refusing to leave the pov template on place until its settled, I readded it but I doubt it will last long, do you think a full protection until a concensus is reached qualifies as a prudent thing to ask in this case? -凶 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unless Jimbo's name is dropped, I can't imagine the article being protected unless a clear rationale is provided to support why the tag is there. (Not an unbeatable argument or anything like that, just a clear explanation) Bladestorm 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt if protection will be necessary, the debate seems pretty civil, and I wouldn't think it would get out of control. The reason for the tag being there is pretty obvious to me: there is clearly a dispute about the neutrality of the article. That much is not in question. The question is: what will we do to resolve the dispute?--Jimbo Wales 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's being discussed on the article's talkpage. (where, btw, we'd love your input, because I honestly don't see an actual dispute that could be resolved without adding severely biased POV) Bladestorm 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt if protection will be necessary, the debate seems pretty civil, and I wouldn't think it would get out of control. The reason for the tag being there is pretty obvious to me: there is clearly a dispute about the neutrality of the article. That much is not in question. The question is: what will we do to resolve the dispute?--Jimbo Wales 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I find this whole episode to be pretty much a disgrace. That might seem strong, but then I know how many hours were involved painstakingly improving this article for the benefit of the site. It is telling that the main contributor to the article for 2 years or more, Polaris999, the most knowledgeable and neutral editor on the subject, has kept her silence on this (at least on the talk page). I find Jimbo's attitude, to bash a POV stamp on an article that has survived an ongoing rigorous peer review process by consensus, to be disrespectful and his talk page points to be inane. I find the chips at the article by the new accompanying editors to be utterly groundless and largely ludicrous. Jimbo writes "The reason for the tag being there is pretty obvious to me". Well I think that says more about Jimbo's views than it does about the article. The only conceivable upshot of this debacle is a degraded article and a further exodus of excellent editors, rightfully lamenting their time wasted improving this site only to be confronted by an endorsed culture of disrespectful ignorance.-- Zleitzen 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- uh... While although I don't agree with the tag being there, don't you think that's just a bit harsh? Yes, it's true that once you work on an article for a great deal of time, newcomers making changes can seem to have a destructive influence on them. But I don't think we need to view it as negative. Sometimes shaking things up a bit can let things settle into a better configuration. (frig, I've been working on genetic algorithms too long...) Was the tag warranted? Nah. But it did get DDF contributing some very helpful insight into the article. And I suspect that, in the long run, the article will be better for that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it disrespectful, incidentally. AGF isn't even necessary to see that his heart's in the right place. Though I share your frustration in trying to argue for the removal of a tag that never should've been there in the first place (how do you resolve a non-dispute?), it's still important to remember that this isn't a print-encyclopedia. It's supposed to be changing, even for such old topics. In the end, there's always the option of reverting to older versions, or getting wider input to correct anything that you think might be wrong. Though I definitely want to see that tag removed, I still think the discussion of the article is beneficial, and that good changes will arise from them. Bladestorm 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see what aspects of the discussion have been helpful to the article, Bladestorm. I see a collapse of reason, a reduction of truth, a dumbing down of discourse and a distortion of reality. An article isn't supposed be changing, it is supposed to be improving. So far I only see unenlightened opinions and ahistorical demagoguery on the talk page with a bogus tag at the top of the article. You might have been working on genetic algorithms too long, I've working on Cuban, Caribbean and Latin American studies for too long - for some part of my life in fact - and I still know less than some of the main editors there. The Guevara article was respected because it was one of the only serious articles on a controversial political topic that was shepherded by impartial, diligent, and very knowledgeable editors dedicated to the facts. Not anymore thanks to these latest developments from certain people who obviously are not impartial, diligent or knowledgeable. When such a person arrives so aggressively at a thoroughly worked article, disruption is inevitable and not welcome. It should be - and usually is - strongly discouraged, but what's so outrageous is that these activities come from the top. When these activities filter down to the bottom, when everyone with a visceral personal prejudice about a topic feels they can disrupt an article without any tangible evidence, they should be given a free pass. Why? Because if Jimbo can do it....?-- Zleitzen 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Jimbo, we have come up with a form of words which hopefully address your concerns. Are you able to provided the refs for the numbers, or any other input? LessHeard vanU 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
He's good at taking credit and big noting himself, but when it comes to complaints he falls silent.
Now, almost a week after i have posted my letter to Mr Wales, and we have not heard anything from him, how rude can you be Jimbo? There are two types of people in the world, there is the person who accepts that there is problems with their organisation and wants to take on board the public feedback and strive to improve their organisation so that it continues to improve, and there is the person who decides that they don't care about quality anymore, all they want is there fame and money and they take no responsibility for the problems, they'd just rather let things roll on and not fix the numerous problems with their website. You are the second person Mr Wales. And i guess what is even more upsetting is that you think the reason that wikipedia is so popular is all because of you, what a load of rubbish, you may have originally created the site but you've done nothing to maintain it, it is the dedicated wikipedia editors who are the real heroes here (the volunteers), not you Mr Wales, you're just a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself. (Mandy122 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
- I realize you really wanted a reply from Jimbo, and that you must find it tiring to constantly get comments from the peanut gallery, but I still feel compelled to comment. If this is unwanted, please just disregard, as I honestly don't wish to cause any distress.
- I know of no creator (or co-creator; I'm not taking sides either way on that issue) of any successful website, or even organization, who truly believes themself to be personally responsible for all of its success. It's the people who make the site, and they know this. All of them. That'd have to include Jimbo. And in spite of all the controversies, criticisms, etc., that have surrounded Misplaced Pages, I've yet to see a single reason (or even a glimmer of a reason) to believe that he doesn't attribute the success to cooperation and participation of a larger community.
- Again, if you find third parties commenting annoying, then I apologize for the irritation. Bladestorm 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but Misplaced Pages isn't Utopia. Why won't Bill Gates respond personally to problems you have with your home edition of XP, for instance? Because he knows his firm has Customer Service to handle complaints. Same here. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
All you have done here is say that you have had problems with editors, but what editors and what problems is anyone's guess. As these problems seem to precede your account, one can't even check your contributions to find out. As for the blocking policy, you can see for yourself that you're still unblocked. Please don't stereotype all Admins because you've come across a few Nazis. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)- Actually I am happy to reply, but I have no idea what it is I am supposed to reply to. This is clearly a single purpose account created just to ask me questions in as rude a manner as possible, but I will need a little help if I am to reply in any useful manner. Of course I always give credit to the Misplaced Pages community and consider my role around here to just be a part of the overall process, so insulting me about that doesn't really work very well, people know what I say all the time, so... --Jimbo Wales 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but Misplaced Pages isn't Utopia. Why won't Bill Gates respond personally to problems you have with your home edition of XP, for instance? Because he knows his firm has Customer Service to handle complaints. Same here. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
She's referring to the #Dear Mr Wales section, higher on this page. --AnonEMouse 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and so am I. I see nothing in there that I could reply to. There are vague accusations, but no diffs. Do I think admins are sometimes rude? Sure, sometimes. Do I think it is a big problem? Quite the opposite, actually, I can't believe how nice to jerks we usually are around here. I am proud about that. Etc. If she has a specific problem, she should simply say so.--Jimbo Wales 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- You could always quote H.L. Mencken: "Dear Sir or Madam: Then again, you may be correct." (I'm quoting that from memory, so it's probably wrong.) -- llywrch 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Hemlock Martinis is abusing his power as an administrator.
Hello, My name is Ravi. I am a new Wikipedian. My nickname is ‘Sam’. I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. My e-mail address is Ravi-141@hotmail.com. User:Hemlock Martinis is abusing his power as an administrator. On 9 June 2007, My friend User:Devraj5000 was introducing me to the policies of the Misplaced Pages. Devraj5000 accidentally violated 3RR. User:Hemlock Martinis, who is an administrator, blocked Devraj5000 for 24 hours. Then, Devraj5000 asked me to create an account. I created an account User:R-1441 and I made some comments on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Devraj5000 left the computer. After that, User:Hemlock Martinis accused Devraj5000 of sockpuppetry and blocked him for a week. He also blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and User:R-1441. Sir, User:R-1441 is my account. I created this new account because User:Hemlock Martinis blocked my account without informing me. It is totally wrong for an administrator to block so many people from editing. User:Hemlock Martinis is an arrogant human being and he is abusing his power as an administrator. He should be blocked from the Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- You know that spamming admins is not the best way to go about problem solving. Try WP:AN/I and leave Charles and Jimbo et all in peace.--Cronholm 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- BTW the activity you engaged in is called meatpuppetry and be forewarned that this kind of activity is not encouraged.--Cronholm 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- This has been put on many editor's pages. User talk:Charles Matthews#User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator. has a couple of responses. Flyguy649 contribs 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for putting this on many editor's pages. But, when someone blocks you from making a point, you can get mad. RaviJames 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, Charles has given you the best answer that you are going to get. If you cool down and start editing constructively this can all be forgotten.--Cronholm 08:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Administrator abusing their power.
Sir, according to you, the community of the encyclopedia is built on trust, and regular members of the community would not insert disinformation. It is very disappointing when an administrator abuses his power and block people from making a comment. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 07:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sir, you have spammed every member of Arbcom. You seem to have violated the communities trust by engaging in meatpuppetry. Why don't you earn some trust back by making some useful additions to articles. Frankly, I am inclined to wipe all of your comments off of the talk pages as vandalism as it seems that your account is single purpose and not intended for the betterment of the encyclopedia.--Cronholm 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS. User:Hemlock Martinis is the user with whom you have a problem. Not User:Hemlock Martinus --Cronholm 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Hemlock Martinis blocked my user account R-1441 without any reason. And, thanks for correcting me. RaviJames 08:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- He made a fair assumption based on the evidence. These things happen. The best thing to do is move on.--Cronholm 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Those assumptions were false. I am here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Once this controversy is over, I will work for the betterment of Misplaced Pages. RaviJames 08:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It already is over really. Admins make mistakes. One of the best policies here at WP is WP:AGF and if you follow it, you will see that Hemlock was acting very likely acting in good faith to protect the encyclopedia. No permanent damage was done to either of you and there is no real reason to pursue this issue further. --Cronholm 08:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Ahmins do make mistake. Hemlock made a mistake and he should correct the error by unblocking User:R-1441 and User:Devraj5000. RaviJames 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've made no mistake, and will not lift the block on either account. --Hemlock Martinis 04:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- He actually hasn't. The 3RR block notice placed on Dev's Talk Page clearly states how to appeal the block. Meatpuppetry isn't the way to protest. The block will expire in a week, perfectly in order. As for the other account, you've admitted to it being your own. There's no need for you to have two accounts, so it stays blocked indef. --The Raven's Apprentice 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've made no mistake, and will not lift the block on either account. --Hemlock Martinis 04:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ani-kutani Article
Dear Mr. Wales. I have received a request from the Group in Grassy, MO this article concerns that they feel their confidential information has been posted to Misplaced Pages and they wish it removed. They were very polite to me on the telephone but also very stern about their concerns. I realize this request is somewhat out of the mainstream and I also realize that Misplaced Pages has no obligation to honor such a request. That being said, I have treated the contentious materials as concerned with WP:BLP and as a courtesy, would you consider deleting all older revisions of this article as well as the article titled Cherokee Clans which they also claim contains cultural materials they feel should not appear on Misplaced Pages. I will stub out both articles and if possible, as a courtesy to them, could you consider deleting all history for these two articles separate from the uncited materials. It would be helpful to resolving these issues where this group of Native Americans feel their materials do not belong on Misplaced Pages. Your consideration would be much appreciated. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo---is he really worth all this trouble? Give him his money back (assuming he ever did really give any(oh that's right, it was Wolf Mountain Group, a corporation that was dissolved over a year ago(look it up, see Al P's page for pointers), that actually gave the money) and send him on his way. All he has done is stir up trouble, concocting wild imaginary "legal perils" from one group or another just to further his own agenda. His continued presence on WP is a detriment to the project as a whole. Signed: Not a SCOX Troll, but a real Native American that is sick of this whole mess.
- WMG was dissolved as an LLC and reincorporated as a C Corporation under the same name last year. The C Corporation is current. "Al P" is an SCOX neologism for "Al Petrofsky". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- History doesn't belong to you, but to knowledge. There is no reason why we should remove information on history about a certain ethnical group. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- This smacks more of censorship than anything else. But this is something that might be in WP:OFFICE purview, would Jimbo bother commenting? --The Raven's Apprentice 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- History doesn't belong to you, but to knowledge. There is no reason why we should remove information on history about a certain ethnical group. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea at all what any of you are talking about, I am sorry. The anon insults me by suggesting that Merkey is allowed to edit in exchange for donations, what a crock. I have no information about the article referred to here, and Jeff Merkey is of course not a representative for the office. I have receieved no emails about this matter, and know next to nothing about it. I do know that Merkey is routinely harassed by trolls and that he can be a huge pain in the neck himself. (He will not be shocked to hear me say this, we are friendly about it. :) ) I don't know what is being asked of me in the current situation. I wish I could help more, but I just know nothing here.--Jimbo Wales 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- And? Jeff wrote that. What does it have to do with me?--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- It tends to cast a bad light on WP and the Foundation, and you personally, in that while he starts out by saying that financial contributors should be "treated the same", he ends up insinuating that financial contributors should be treated better than others because they may withdraw their funding. And by extension the since he has claimed to have made a substantial donation, he should be given special treatment. As for Jeff being a "pain in the neck", I think most people would tend to think a little lower. People have asked him politely (as he has asked) to provide something other than his own "original research" to back up some of the content he has posted. His usual reaction is to immediately label them a troll, regardless of how politely they ask. In particular he goes on and on about how merely claiming to be an Indian is a Federal offense, yet refuses to cite exactly what Federal law makes it so. Surely, claiming to be anything for personal gain is fraud, but simply indentifying one's self as a particular race is hardly illegal. He seems to have this confused with the regulations regarding peyote use, as if the law covered more that just that one issue.
- If you really are "friendly about it" with him, surely you can convince him to do a lot more AGF when dealing with others who share his interests and only wish for WP to be as accurate as possible without forcing his own opinions and agenda on everyone else.
- I think a lot of people remember his unflattering postings on his website regarding you and WP, and don't quite get how you can be "friendly about it" with him after all of the controversy. While there may be nothing untoward about it, the public perception is not favorable.
- I will say that Jeff is very careful about his words at times, making remarks as if he speaks for one organization or another that will bring legal action against WP if his mandates aren't followed rather than outright threatening legal action himself. He is intelligent, I'll give him that, but I see no difference in saying a certain organization will sue if he isn't obeyed from outright threatening to sue himself.
- As for what you can do about it, I think all anyone asks is that you try to insure that WP and the Admins hold him the same standards as they do everyone else. That means following through with cautions and warnings and sanctions for violating policies, particularly regarding threats of legal action and claims of sockpuppetry. I know it doesn't help that he is discussed quite regularly on other places on the internet, but his own actions are what call attention to him. As many have said, he is his own worst enemy.74.230.33.151 00:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am a famously friendly guy, that's how I can be friendly about it. I don't see how anything that Jeff wrote can reflect negatively on me, he wrote it, not me. He's under no special protection from me or the Foundation in any way. I have forgiven Jeff in my heart for mean things he wrote about me in the past, and this has nothing to do with donations, money, the foundation, or anything else. It's a personal choice based on my own evaluation of the situation. That's just how I am. But he's just a user of the website like me and everyone else, and he is subject to policies, etc., just like anyone.--Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jimbo, I apologize for these vicious trolls posting this here. It appears things have quieted down in MO, so please disregard the request. These same trolls decided to try telephone harassment of other Cherokee Groups who know me and have dealing with me. I don't know what they think they will accomplish, but I just ignore them as usual. I have no explanation for this burning hatred these people have, it borders on insanity IMHO. At any rate, I just keep ignoring them. If the pages become problematic, I will email, you off line. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Jimbo, personally I do not understand why this content should be removed, and based on the little I do know, I believe it should stay. This is something to be brought up at WP:AN/I, or the article's talk page. Prodego 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Nasty comments
Are comments made by tenured administrators such as these necessarily becoming? Or are they in fact counter to Misplaced Pages ideals and Misplaced Pages's policy on personal attacks? Your insight would be appreciated. ~ UBeR 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- No they are not becoming, but I think that this can be worked out between the two of you without outside intervention. Have you asked for an apology?--Cronholm 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now. However, the problem is that this particular administrator is no stranger to making personal attacks, and has been warned multiple times by lay users (and some administrators)--but whenever it is asked that he be reprimanded for his inappropriate actions, administrators all of a sudden side with him even when his actions are clearly counter to Misplaced Pages's policy. It's rather frustrating, and this is just the latest stint. ~ UBeR 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Have you and the involved parties tried WP:ANI?--Cronholm 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Multiple times. ~ UBeR 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh...well that's troubling. Perhaps some kind of intervention is in order then. The mediation committee might be the place to go. But only go there if you can establish a pattern of incivility--Cronholm 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think establishing a pattern with regard to that particular editor will be too much of a problem. In any case, however, I believe the appropriate sequence for trying to correct the behavior of an admin is: (1) WP:AN, (2) WP:RFC, (3) WP:M, and (4) WP:AP (WP:RFAR). Cla68 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I agree, I forgot about user WP:RFC--Cronholm 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So, the remark was a bit strong, but the behavior he was responding to was, well... look, UBeR, you attempted to edit a discussion in such a way that would invalidate the response that William gave. That's deeply improper. And then when he tried to fix that issue, you posted a rather unhelpful ban warning.--Jimbo Wales 01:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Wales, I thank you for weighing in and giving your insight. However, I want to make clear, as I think I did to William M. Connolley, my edit I made was to clarify something that I originally meant when I made the post in the first place. My edit doesn't invalidate anything William M. Connolley said in response to my post. (The only invalidation comes from my refutation of clearly false claims made by him prior to any editing.) Further, my edits to my comments were completely permissible, as are most corrections of typos and clarifications. I'm not perfect; I don't write exactly what I might want to write the first go--so at times I do revise my comments. This is completely permissible; but William M. Connolley's deletion of my comments are clearly inappropriate, offensive, contrary to Misplaced Pages talk page etiquette, and probably vandalism. Even further, his response to my warning of his continued vandalism of the global warming talk page by calling me "stupid" is unbecoming an administrator, completely inappropriate, immature, and counter to Misplaced Pages's longstanding policy on personal attacks. Rest assured, however, Mr. Wales, that this is not an isolated incident--this particular administrator has on multiple occasions made personal attacks, called names, broke rules, and been overall rude. I don't know if there's some type of mentality around here that administrators, especially those who might give the impression they have a good track record, are in infallible--but the truth of the matter is they do on occasion break rules, sometimes egregiously, and they should be held accountable for their actions, instead of having excuses made for them. ~ UBeR 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, Mr. Wales, I should point out two administrators took it upon themselves to ban me for editing my own comments. Mr. Wales, I do not see anywhere in any of Misplaced Pages's policies that state clarifying one's own comments is a bannable offense. However, it's rather clear the banning administrator and bureaucrat, Raul654, did so for no other reason than his personal feelings for me, which is unfortunate. (I guess he never got over me getting him banned for edit warring.) And clearly the administrator answering my appeal simply feared undoing something Raul654 had done. (His excuse, by the way, "While you are allowed to edit your own comments, changing them in significant ways shouldn't be done without trace," which is wholly absurd.) But the real issue here, Mr. Wales, is how incompetent, uncivil, and just plain bad administrators personify everything that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. ~ UBeR 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo with regards to this incident. However, if William's action is part of an overall pattern of rude or unfriendly editing then it should probably be addressed in some way or another. --Cronholm 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My feedback on wikipedia
ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE
I have been using wikipedia for a long time now. I was browsing wikipedia long before it became a household name but it was only last week that I decided I wanted to give back to wikipedia something as a small thank you for the many times it has helped me out. I registered for membership just over one week ago and decided to start creating and editing articles. Soon I had noticed I had created many articles and had formed a sort of 'addiction' for wikipedia and which have since been modified many times and are now what I would consider good and useful articles.
Everything was going great for me on wikipedia and I found no flaws but that was until I encountered administrator abuse. I am 17 year old AS Level student at St Michaels College (Enniskillen), Northern Ireland and im currently doing a work placement with the newspaper The Irish News. I have been with them just over three weeks and they have given me the chance to create an article for the newspaper and until today i was going t base my article on a completely different topic but I am now quickly rewriting my article and basing it around wikipedia and mainly administrator abuse.
I uploaded many pictures and all of which I had taken myself and thus naturally I tagged them as my own work and released them into the public domain. A user/administrator by the name of John has since bombarded me with comments accusing me of lying and saying I did not take these pictures myself at which point he deleted ALL my uploads.
If an ordinary user can gain these powers what position does that leave the many innocent browsers and users in who just want to use wikipedia for its created intention. This is why I have since canceled my membership and have formed a negative view towards wikipedia and the reason why I have decided NEVER to use wikipedia again.
Many thanks, Ciarán
I feel sorry for you. You are just 17 years old. I am older than you. I also encountered administrator abuse. Administrators such as User:Hemlock Martinis behave like Hitler and block people from making valid comments. I really feel that Hemlock Martinis should be banned from the Misplaced Pages. RaviJames 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing below this line needed to be posted. Godwin's Law, people. Really --L 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hah! the thing you learn on WP.--Cronholm 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Try WP:ANI or the WP:HELPDESK, I am sorry that you feel you have been slighted by a WP admin. Remember to assume good faith and be civil and I am sure that there can be some resolution of this matter.--Cronholm 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ravi, please be civil (comparisons to Hitler are not appreciated or appropriate), you have a new account and Hemlock did what any admin would do if faced with a similar situation. Dev likely isn't going to be unblocked until his week is up because he used you as a sock.--Cronholm 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cronholm, I will never say anything bad to friendly editors like you. Trust me. RaviJames 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok! I was trying to point out that User:Hemlock Martinis is very good at using propaganda and blocking editors. RaviJames 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, it was Joseph Goebbels who was behind propaganda in Nazi Germany. --Hemlock Martinis 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Really? So, you learned how to use propaganda against people from Joseph Goebbels? RaviJames 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not the correct venue for such a dispute, please continue this on one of your talk pages. Ravi, you said you would read the policy, please refrain from rude insinuation. You have a new account and you are editing freely, but frankly you are testing the patience of many here. (as indicated on your talkpage) It would be best if you and Hemlock went your separate ways. I do not want to see this escalate. --Cronholm 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend Ravi to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and to note that Misplaced Pages editors are judged by their contributions, not their birthdates, and that you don't put "the" before "Misplaced Pages". --The Raven's Apprentice 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If this continues, then someone is going to get blocked; not by me - no threat is intended. But why do you not just all go your seperate ways and enjoy editing wikipedia? Peace, friends. --Anthony.bradbury 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The conflict between Ravi and Hemlock appears to have been dropped. So good vibes can once again flow through this talk page. :) --Cronholm 06:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
its love at first sight, jk! =D †Bloodpack† 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Move Protection
After the page-move vandalism to this page, I have move protected it for you. It seems to be an attractive target and there is no reason to move the page. Unless you are considering changing your name ;-). If you don't like it for whatever reason, just revert and don't be scared to tell me! Thanks, GDonato (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The unprotection of this page is an unfortunate side-effect of automatically expiring page protections. There is no reason at all not to have it move-protected. --cesarb 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Screen shots of wikipedia
Dear Mr. Wales,
I wish to use screen shots of Misplaced Pages articles and the Misplaced Pages main page for a educational video for You Tube. Can I?
Thank you,
-- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs) 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- It depends, the Misplaced Pages logo is copyrighted, but as long as the video is about Misplaced Pages (at least to some extent) you should be able to justify the use of the screenshot as Fair use. IANAL though, so you may want some other opinions. Prodego 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandal identified as Kevin1243
After seriously reviewing the history of User_talk:Kevin1243 edits, tags, and AfD's on many topics, seeing a serial process of leaving misspelling, cleanup tags, and then nominating articles under construction for speedy deletion or AfD, the words SNEAKY VANDALISM comes to mind. The user screen name Kevin1243 can be seen at many other external web sites, including two other online encyclopedic resources. The most convincing external site found is http://www.faceparty.com/Kevin1243. Can an 18 year-old certainly have the vast knowledge stored to make edits of so unfamiliar topics? He may not. He is vandalizing the Misplaced Pages. The claim his administrative skill is browsing new articles for deletion seems more likely a brag of hacking any academic interest here. You may want to visit the user_talk pages of this individual, where you will find many others have left a history that shows a pattern of vandalism. So, I write. StationNT5Bmedia 03:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you mentioned this at WP:ANI?--Cronholm 03:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like this is a bit of a dispute surrounding Non-synchronous transmissions, where it appears Kevin1243 has placed a couple of maintenance tags, suggested a merge, and most recently removed a bunch of commercial links quite properly. Looking at his talk page, he's done a lot of new page patrol, from the looks of things, and gathered the usual complaints about articles that were either deleted or later properly developed. I certainly don't see any indication of vandalism there, and StationNT5Bmedia's attempted tagging of Kevin's page with block tags looks a bit odd. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was a bit flattered that he though I might be a muscled 18 year old from the UK, when looking at myself I only see an overweight middle aged Australian. As you say, RC and new page patrol does attract a lot of criticism. Kevin 04:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hah, well, in any case, this should probably be resolved elsewhere.--Cronholm 04:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. Having been contacted by StationNT5Bmedia I've responded to him with a rather lengthly observation of this conflict at his talk page. You may be interested in reading it. (This applies to those who have the time or interest. I feel bad enough posting this here since I feel it should not have been brought here at the start.) Cheers! --EarthPerson 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
With some supporting evidence, this discussion is open at WP:ANI including a short poll of other users citing VANDALISM...more specifically SNEAKY VANDALISM. Since the user is not currently active, perhaps a short recess should benefit for now. StationNT5Bmedia 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a question
Mr. Wales, I need your opinion on something: do you agree with this reversion? It seems to me that without humour the impact (?) of the warning is not softened, which I assume is why it was put there in the first place. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 20:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- At the end of the day Jimbo says we can edit his page and that reversion was me doing so, SqueakBox 20:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- As was me reverting your humorlessness, Squeak. Two on one now. --The Raven's Apprentice 02:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Err that was two on two, Prodego was removing it too. Please get your facts right at least, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't look at it that way, Raven—Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. However I vehemently agree with you. ;) — $PЯIПGrαgђ 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neither is Misplaced Pages a revert battlefield, which is pretty much what the handsome comment is making it. In any case, I simply meant that two editors can revert more than one without breaking 3RR. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Despite not being Mr Wales, I'll say that I agree with the reversion. The humor was (is?) rather leaden. People should hesitate before attributing deletions of "humorous" material on the deleter's alleged "humorlessness": the lack of humor may at least in part be their own. There was a kernel of humor in the addition; but it needed wit to be rendered effective, and an emoticon is a pretty reliable sign of a deficiency of wit. -- Hoary 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Hoary has recently been spotted climbing the Reichstag. --The Raven's Apprentice 06:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I am with Squeak. The joke in question is really not my style. :) In any event, it all seems nothing worth getting too excited about either way.--Jimbo Wales 07:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I looked a little closer. That's only visible when people click "edit" and it is pretty clearly not a not from me personally but rather from "the editors" to "the vandals". So that's a bit different. I would never joke about whether or not I am handsome (that seems weird to me) and so if it was on the visible page as if it was me saying it, I would find that strange and not in my own voice. But where it is, ehhhh, I don't care either way. :) --Jimbo Wales 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Jimbo's use of proves his lack of wit. (Hoary's Law, also known as the Smileys Suck Rule) ;) --The Raven's Apprentice 11:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It strikes me as a fairly lame joke. But considering it's only visible when editing anyway, it seems really ridiculous that we're all wasting so much time debating it. Don't we all have more important things to do? Like, for example, creating an encyclopedia? This talk page is getting awfully long, too - 124KB and none of it old enough to archive yet. Please, can't we give it a rest? Tualha (Talk) 12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Jimbo's use of proves his lack of wit. (Hoary's Law, also known as the Smileys Suck Rule) ;) --The Raven's Apprentice 11:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"Just what are you trying to say?"
Peace.Lsi john 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sure Jimbo wouldn't mind if we archived some of the resolved stuff. The real question is, what is he doing up at three in the morning or so (central time) editing his talkpage? (he knows it is past his bedtime) :) --Cronholm 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't bother, a bot archives it. Tualha (Talk) 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't he in florida? Wouldn't that make it 4AM? He could very well get up that early, my grandparents do :p Then again, Jimbo is a big boy. --L 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
What does porn have to do with an Encyclopedia?
Why does Misplaced Pages allow porn? Tcrow777 talk 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but isn't that taking it to the extreme. Tcrow777 talk 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't like we host pornography, we just don't censor images relevant to an article. Usually, they are fairly tasteful. Is there a particular image that you are objecting to?--Cronholm 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, the Wikimedia Foundation does host porn because it is stored on their servers and is freely available. I object to all porn. Tcrow777 talk 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't be unreasonable about it—it does not show explicit sexual acts (such as a facial actually happening or anal sex being done by two guys), and therefore is not pornography. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 03:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check out fellatio, Spring. Or List of sex positions. An illustration is as bad as a photograph. But the fact remains, Misplaced Pages is not censored, and IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removal. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Information about sex is a part of "the sum of all human knowledge." We present it in an encyclopedic way, and I very much doubt that people come to wikipedia seeking the titillation that the word "porn" suggests.--Cronholm 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- These illustrations do not show it happening. They show what does happen, but they do not show it happening. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 03:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Porn (and sex in general) is a very common field of human endeavor. Therefore, it makes sense for Misplaced Pages to document it. --Carnildo 04:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess a more relevant question is not "Why does Misplaced Pages host porn?" but "Why am I so obsessed with porn I feel the need to "take a stand" against encylopedically written articles on it?" Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Or, alternatively, one might ask "Why do I reflexively and obsequiously defend a former porn king (Jimbo Wales) when the subject comes up here?".+ILike2BeAnonymous 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think this editor should be blocked for violation of WP:NPA. I won't do it myself because I am personally involved.--Jimbo Wales 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sternly warned, if that is sufficient, GDonato (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- To which I would reply, "Why do you infer that by expressing an opinion a person is acting in defence of a third party on the basis that said third party may have or might have had an interest in the subject being discussed?" LessHeard vanU 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Right, because Bomis and Misplaced Pages have SO MUCH IN COMMON THAT YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH US. They were both started by Jimbo Wales. They both have some content you probably wouldn't show your kids. 'Oh god, Misplaced Pages is a porn site!'
- Please. We aren't censored, we aren't for little kids, and we don't want to be. The sum of human knowledge doesn't end at names and dates. Mike the headless chicken- Fucking, Austria- hell, pretty much anything in WP:ODD might not be something you'd find in Britannica, but they're sure as heck notable and interesting subjects. WP isn't meant to be a free Britannica, or a free Encarta. We're meant to be a 💕, and that's free as in speech, too. Unless you can provide a good reason why things that are probably the only reason you are alive right now are unencyclopedic, you should probably stop flinging crap. --L 13:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The wonderful thing about this encyclopedia is that it aims to cover EVERY single topic in the world in great detail. That's why it is so popular. It doesn't shy away from various topics for fear of upsetting people. Why should all articles with images of nice, juicy, blood dripping slices of meat be deleted just because vegetarians might riot on looking at them? The world's best encyclopedia covers everything and anything, going to any length to explain it properly. This is why this encyclopedia is (in that sense) the best there is and why it is used so much. Shouldn't all encyclopedias (other than children's encyclopedias) be like that? Lradrama 09:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- How many pictures of Erections do we need to illustrate an article? And why do we keep both unused images and the editors who seek imaginative ways to display them to the unsuspecting? (Example problem - graphic) Note that the image in question was deleted from Misplaced Pages but re-uploaded to Commons. Rklawton 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should leave it how it is. After all, Misplaced Pages has lots of stuff that arn't in other encyclopedias. And there arn't any "porny" pictures even on the porn article itself. ⊕Assasin Joe 18:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Kaaba
You may wish to take a look at the on-going discussion on this article concerning its inclusion of a depiction of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It's a rather contentious debate and at least one admin is pushing for a "compromise" between those who want inclusion based on the fact that the image is informative and that Wiki is not censored and those who find the image is offensive. I believe that any "compromise" here is a violation of both the spirit and letter of Wiki policy which is why I bring this issue up to you. --Strothra 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comba-Tai
Dear Mr. Whales, I would like the Comba-Tai page completely deleted because there was not adequate time given to the discussion of this page. It is my belief that there were some inflammatory ignorant statements made against this African American Martal art that are legally noteworthy. I am the proprietor of this system and I formerly request that the Comba-Tai page be completely removed. It is my belief that Misplaced Pages procedures lend to a high degree of biases which is unworthy of any martial art. By the way, there is no where stated in any Comba-Tai article that immigrant “Nights Templar” went to Jones County. Such ignorance is indicative of what I believe to be bias evaluators on this page. Also the “Asian etymology” of some of its techniques is evident in the Asian systems it practices. What are they talking about? Again this look’s like bias ignorance that looks really bad. I mention these areas because they were made by people who agreed to delete this page. 90% of the comments are opinion, none are based on fact. What encyclopedic value it that. So please remove any mention of Comba-Tai from what I believe to be an international disgrace. Thank you. --216.241.52.114 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- To 216.241.52.114, I've place a header above your comment to separate it from the preceding comment. I would also mention that I could not find Comba-Tai, even as a deleted article. Can you provide better details? LessHeard vanU 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion is here Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure that Jimbo, as well as 216.241.52.114, would thank you for that. LessHeard vanU 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion is here Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but trying to get your article deleted from Misplaced Pages, on the grounds that you don't like Misplaced Pages, will probably draw a lot of attention to you...which in turn will force Misplaced Pages to have an article on you --L 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the article was already deleted, I am going to take this as a request to courtesy-blank the discussion. By the way, in all similar cases, I encourage anyone to do courtesy blankings of such pages. When an article is deleted and there have been some harsh comments (and the truth or untruth of those comments seems to me not very important) it is often a good way to let someone walk away with dignity. The page could always be referenced or restored if it became necessary, but in the meantime there is no need to have a public page about how unimportant someone or something is.--Jimbo Wales 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you encourage blanking of all deletion debates similar to this, or only on request? --Deskana (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the article was already deleted, I am going to take this as a request to courtesy-blank the discussion. By the way, in all similar cases, I encourage anyone to do courtesy blankings of such pages. When an article is deleted and there have been some harsh comments (and the truth or untruth of those comments seems to me not very important) it is often a good way to let someone walk away with dignity. The page could always be referenced or restored if it became necessary, but in the meantime there is no need to have a public page about how unimportant someone or something is.--Jimbo Wales 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would say we can be pretty casual about it. It's really no big deal, less than deletion even, and deletion is no big deal too. In many cases, there is no reason to blank, but if it is a living person or seems to be a "vanity" article where the person has emotionally defended inclusion, it seems courteous. Just depends on the context I guess.--Jimbo Wales 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thank you for the direction you have provided. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Smatprt violations
There is an annoying user who has been complained about by at least six editors for obstructing the development of the Shakespeare project. I suggest a long ban. Testimony can be found here.Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#User:Smatprt_violations (Felsommerfeld 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
- On second thoughts, maybe on reading those comments from editors he has learnt how distressing his behaviour has been to people and he can become a better person. So I withdraw my previous request with this hope in mind. (Felsommerfeld 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
If he keeps it up post on WP:ANI, they should help you. Otherwise continue improving articles.--Cronholm 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Felsommerfeld has posted there, and on at least a dozen different admin and article talk pages. So far, the responding administrators have found NO reason for action and, in fact, have advised Felsommerfeld to stop deleting properly referenced material (that happens to disagree with his POV). He has also been advised to work things out at talk, instead of making false accusations of sock-puppetry (proven untrue) and the like.Smatprt 04:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that Felsommerfeld's complaint-spree appeared after I filed an administrative incident report against him for making mass deletions of referenced material. The administrator on that case has warned Felsommerfeld about this and posted advice to the other mainstream editors of the Shakespeare Authorship page (who keep deleting material there, too) here: and here: . Felsommerfeld's implied threats to retaliate on pages like this are here: and here: and here: Thanks for considering this info. Smatprt 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)