Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:06, 13 July 2009

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.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Censorship at David S. Rohde, take II

Jimbo, are you still there? Another user and I've asked you some questions about the censorship incident... but you didn't answer. The discussion has been archived at the Village Pump, but I'm still waiting... Scared, Jimbo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.141.215 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask me here, if I overlooked something at the Village Pump.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Ageism

Hi Jimmy,

You've probably never seen me around before, but as you may already yourself now fully be aware, Juliancolton is up for bureaucratship right now, and one of the recurring themes among some of the opposers is that he's a minor. I'm curious to know a) what your personal views are towards WP:Ageism, and b) do you know of any legal issues with minors being bureaucrats (or do I need to go ask Mike on this)?

Thanks, Matt (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Best to ask Mike about any legal issues, but I wouldn't think that there are any. One of the reasons for the term "Bureaucrat" is that it's supposed to be a pretty dully technical position. :-) I don't think Bureaucrats have access to any private data, which might be the only issue, but again, best to ask Mike.

I strongly disagree with many points in WP:Ageism, and find it to be offensive in a great many ways and if I were to rewrite it, it would end up substantially different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you have an opinion on WP:GEEZER? Durova 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Much more my style. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I believe they do have access to some private data with the advent of the bureaucrats' mailing list. –Juliancolton |  18:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping WP:Ageism would die of natural causes. I've emailed the main author. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I'd like to see it deleted personally; it seems rude. fr33kman 21:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, as the primary author of WP:ageism, I would be interested in finding out what you find offensive with the essay, because it is essentially very much in line with previous statements that you've made. I wish I could find the quote, but you are often quoted when you said that you felt that (paraphrased as best I can recall it) as a general rule you felt that admins should be in college, but that there are exceptions to this rule. This essay is nothing more than an extension of that.

The entire purpose of the essay is to point out why arguing over the issue of ageism is a waste of time. Don't waste people's time arguing about whether or not ageism is a valid reason. Instead focus on why, even if ageism is valid, that the individual candidate is the exception.

Finally, I should point out, that Julian the person who is running for 'crat, actually supported the essay. He initially wrote an essay to counter it, but via discussion and editing, he withdrew his objection and deleted his essay. The problem that Julian is having with Ageism, isn't that he is under 18, but rather that he has been an outspoken advocate of promoting underage admins. He is the admin that I quoted who compared Ageism to racism (and has also made similar statements comparing it to sexism). (Just a few months ago, we promoted another under aged admin to 'crat.)

Also, it should be noted, that I voted for Julian and have nominated several people who are underage, but whom I deemed exceptional. They key, as the essay discusses, is to focus on why the individual is the exception to the rule.---Balloonman 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To save Balloonman looking, the quote in question is "There are people who behave in petulant, ill-mannered, and immature ways. They should not be admins. Whether there is a strong correlation between bad behavior of that kind, and age, I don't know. I do think that, in general, most of our admins should be college students or graduates. Some gifted and profoundly gifted young people would be equally qualified." – iridescent 00:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.---Balloonman 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with vandalism in Wikipédia Lusófona

I´m brasilian and i dont speak English very well, but i have a terrible problem and need a help. I do a article in wikipedia lusofona, and this user vandalize this article. I can´t revert cause i´m bloqued, but nobody revert this article. Why do i di? I´m desesperate, cause´ various administrators be do a cyberbuilling with me. Please, helpe-me.

Thank you very very very much.

Litrix Linuxer (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)LitrixLinuxer

That's interesting. I see the vandalism in the page, but when I click to edit, I don't see it. I'm a little puzzled.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It was probably template vandalism. --Carnildo (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Server trouble

Hi. I gather that the latest funding drive will pay for updating the server? I've been having terrible server trouble and it seems to have increased over the past few weeka. There is a discussion about it at village pump tech. As I type the globe has not even appeared in the left hand corner! Also are there no plans to update the front page, I think it looks a little dated. Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Original fair-use rationale

Hi Jimbo. I am wondering if you can kindly point me in the direction of the discussions that brought about the usage of fair-use images here on enWP? I'm a sysop on Simple English Misplaced Pages and I'm really interested in the rationale that was used to permit the upload and usage of non-free images here as there have been some efforts to get it going over at simpleWP. I understand that a lot was discussed on mailing lists initially but I don't know which or when. If you could even recall the rough time when it was discussed it'd help! I asked Angela but she said it was before her time here. Thanks in advance and feel free to drop by to simpleWP any time, even if it's just to say 'Hi!'!! :-) Yours, fr33kman 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you might find the original discussions, probably on the mailing list?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Any idea when roughly they happened? Being that you've been around so long and all (obviously) :) fr33kman 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was simply always true that we had some fair use images, as well we should I think, although in quite limited circumstances. To be more clear, I don't think there has ever been a time when there was not a discussion somewhere in Misplaced Pages about when we should accept a fair use image, and when we should not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Jimmy! Take care. fr33kman 00:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

re Kirill Lokshin

Good, you are around. Tell Kirill that he should reconsider - if you are to have these special powers then bloody use them to keep the really good people doing the job the community entrusted them with! Dammit, demand Kirill that he reconsider!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse too! iMatthew  at 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also ask that these two resignations be not accepted. Both Kirill and Randy are exceptionally hardworking and the committee's work would be severely damaged if they went. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. A very significant loss. –Juliancolton |  23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• For those who can offer total commitment to this project, occasional burnout is to be expected; it manifests in myriad ways, but wikibreak, even for arbitrators, should be recommended. I wouldn't want to lose contributors who have committed so much here. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I hope that Kirill will reconsider and I'm not accepting his resignation anytime soon. But volunteers are volunteers, I can't actually draft people. :-) Working on ArbCom is a thankless task, and I don't think people realize how difficult and distressing it can be to work really hard to try to think of useful ways to move things forward and then to be attacked for it. In my experience of our current ArbCom, constructive criticism is gladly accepted always - it's unfortunate that some criticism comes in forms that are divisive and not really constructive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you accidentally left Rlevse out of that first sentence, right? Just making sure that you're not accepting his resignation just yet. :) iMatthew  at 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I don't want anyone to resign, but as I said, if they want to do so, I can't really stop them. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Adding my voice to the throng. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Adding myself too, if it's possible. If not, could you appoint four arbitrators to serve out the rest of Tranche Gamma? Mind you, seeing as the only two left in the tranche expire their terms in five months, maybe it's not really needed. Sceptre 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, with respect, remember why you created arbcom. The page on the Committee currently describes them as "the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process." Arbcom does not, has not, and should not attempt to 'move things forward' for the community. It is the job of the community to progress, it is not for arbcom to force their (or some committee's) vision of progress upon the project. And of course as you said: "Unorganized committees with no set procedures are , because there's no clear way to say what should be done." Prodego 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, I don't understand your point. ArbCom sensed a need for a more formal body to give them advice and recruited people to do that. I don't see why this has been interpreted in the way it has.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, whatever, back to the point, Kirill and Rlevse were two of the good ones who had helped make this current Committee the most effective and credible one since I can remember. The problem is that currently the ArbCom stands as about the only real, formal governance body in Misplaced Pages. Thus, they are put in a position of leadership and authority and tried to take a small step to make progress in a discussion for improved governance for Misplaced Pages. As you know, change is the only constant, so the status quo is not going to continue to work. Cla68 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a word of encouragement on their talk pages would mean a lot. Obviously, the decisions they make must ultimately fall to the individuals, but I can understand that their tasks can be grueling and often under-appreciated. Sometimes a kind word from a respected source can work wonders. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(re)Arbcom has created a group, who's purpose is to "consider various issues facing the project and develop ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it". There are three problems with this. Firstly, Misplaced Pages has always operated collaboratively. Anyone could raise a suggestion, proposal, etc to improve Misplaced Pages. So since any editor can already do what this committee is proposed to do, what then, does this committee do? There is no procedure for what this group will do or how it will do it. Secondly, arbcom choose the members of the group. Why did arbcom do this? Arbcom doesn't do any of the things this committee supposedly will, project development is something the entire community participates in. Arbcom has no right to chose the members of this group - members who, in all likelihood, have more power than the average editor over the 'development' of the 'project' (right in the name of the group). This project was developed by the community, and the community should have a say in anyone who will have any extra power over its continued development. Thirdly, Arbcom has never had any special authority to create policies, groups, or proposals, outside the the roles granted to ArbCom as a group. To do so would be outside of its remit. Prodego 04:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Petition to Free Wikimapia

Howdy from WikiMapia, one of the map services that pops up when you click on coordinates in Misplaced Pages!

We are currently running a petition to release the software that we use under a Free Software license, and that all content we contribute be released under a Free creative license, so that we are working under the same terms as Misplaced Pages contributors.

This has resulted from extreme neglect of the users' needs by the closed Wikimapia Team (the two guys who started it), and spurred by the Free Software add-on that I created to work around Wikimapia's deficiencies. Many top contributors have already signed it.

I thought this is an unusual situation, and maybe you would be interested, or maybe offer some advice on how to increase our chance of success as this point.

Cheers,

--Specious (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea. The ones who work on geography here have long thought wikimapia the best site for obtaining coordinates, particularly on smaller settlements and landmarks. I would like to see wikimapia taken under the wing of the wikimedia personally as it is the mapping project we are missing and of course it is aptly named as a sister project. I would very much like to see wikimapia adopted by wikimedia and to becoming a branch of our project. That would be awesome. It would seem to share our exact same goals, and if we could obtain the funding to run it through our donations we could free the site of google ads and make it part of our own. What I'd hate is for a site that well developed to close down because of neglect. Dr. Blofeld 10:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not support projects which are genuinely 'free' like Open Street Map instead,

a project that Wikimedia is ALREADY in consultation with?

Wikimapia is at best a site with propriatery licensing. Furthermore the exact relationship between Wikimapia and the geo-data providers it uses was when I last checked seemed at best ambiguous. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I also refer you to the disscusion here- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:WikiMapia#copyright_and_wikimapia

were concern was expressed about certain things. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development

Could you provide some public sign to demonstrate that the Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development is indeed convened by the Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales?

Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See above. JN466 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See what above? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, is obviously not good enough. Fortunately Jimbo has now been explicit William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it's a good idea. It's an advisory body with no power, a more formal way to seek diverse input from a variety of sources. I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down. I believe that a small working group, composed of diverse membership, could be quite useful to the ArbCom, to me, and to the community in general.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• So, were the people chosen selected on the basis that they would "vote down" the "difficult characters or agitants "? Do you know, every time you open your mouth, you seem to put your foot in it - don't you? Perhaps their proposals will not always be voted down, in which case as you say "It's an advisory body with no power" - which should keep you safe on your throne. Now, let's turn to this "small working group" who exactly are they? - The "fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants"? or an smaller group selected from it? Giano (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  That's not the point, Giano. Actually, it's the opposite. It's to allow a more calm forum where the "dissident" voices can be heard and the ideas discussed on merit. I don't think Jimbo meant that agitants would be voted down specifically. I know for a fact that's not the point of the council in general and most definitely not the point of your presence on it.

  It's all about taking the conversation out of the echo box. Venues such as AN end up being unproductive because a small group of more political editors end up being the only consensus by default and its self selecting nature excludes a number of editor cross-sections. — Coren  10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Coren for clearing that up. Jimbo has an unfortunate turn of phrase. However, he flatters himself, if he thinks that editors such as myself (I presume it was me he had in mind, not Kirill etc as the "difficult agitant") intend only to concentrate on governance issues, quite the reverse - I see my role as highlighting any problem that editors or arbcom may encounter, such as this one here. An important matter that many edotors are unaware of. Giano (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point there, but it just isn't a decision to be made by ArbCom, it's a decision to be made by the community. Not only has ArbCom created this body without community consultation but they are hand picking the members. --Tango (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is an internal advisory body formed by arbcom for their own purposes, it seems reasonable enough for arbcom to pick the members if they want. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If its role was to advise ArbCom then I would agree, but it isn't. It's role is, apparently, to advise the community on project development, a subject ArbCom has nothing to do with. The community should choose its own advisers. --Tango (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development Durova 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The community (or, rather, some large group of editors) are of course free to form their own committee. This one was formed by arbcom, which is why arbcom gets to say who is on it. The lede of WP:ACPD makes it clear the committee has no special powers, and is just a think tank. I think it is a valid principle that arbcom can form ad hoc committees such as this at its discretion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem valid to me. ArbCom should stick to doing what they were elected to do. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The ability to establish ad hoc committees from time to time, at their sole discretion, is part of what arbcom was elected to do. Similarly they can set up their own internal procedures for voting, and they can set up mailing lists for communication as they see fit. They are elected for a certain purpose, but have a large degree of freedom about how to accomplish that purpose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a totally normal thing for a democratically elected body to appoint a think tank or consultancy firm to advise them. That's usually considered prudent. Such people are picked for their expertise. What sets this proposal apart from such advisory bodies is that their deliberations are public – unlike those in a real-life think tank. In terms of transparency, it beats a mailing list hands down. JN466 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm ... the ArbCom is a body of experienced users whose role is supposed to be reactive dispute settlement. They can get any advise they need for this either on the talk page of the cases or by seeking it from users. This scheme forwarded is not a think-tank, but a means to bestow patronage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel very patronised, and it seems to me that the Whateveritscalled Council is exactly that - asking for advice from users. As you well know, many of the talk pages are far too noisy, making it impossible to sift the chaff from the grain. Giano (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The major problem with wikipedia

Jimbo, I used classical encyclopaediae alot over the years prior to the era of the ineternet. My recent interest in wikipedia stems from the fact that wikipedia is invariably the first hit on any google search. At first, I thought that the articles were written by experts. But gradually I heard that wikipedia is written by anybody and can be altered by anybody. Initially the idea seemed rather strange to me and it is a fact which I always remember at the back of my mind when depending on a wikipedia article for some piece of information. But if the subject matter is not controversial, I will always adopt the attitude that the information is probably correct because nobody is going to be wasting their time writing falsely about that topic.

I found wikipedia useful in ways that classical encyclopaedie on the library shelves were not. Misplaced Pages, with the help of modern computerized search engines gives access to a much wider range of specialized topics. There are many specialized topics that in past I would simply not have been able to find in ordinary encyclopaediae. As such, wikipedia has helped me to get answers to questions that had been outstanding for many years. In that respect, wikipedia is good.

I have therefore attempted to introduce specialized knowledge back into wikipedia in areas that I have done alot of research in. Examples are the history and currencies of the British Empire. The edits that I have made on those subjects have seldom encountered any opposition. But the situation has been quite different as regards edits to physics related articles. Over the years, I have done alot of research in electromagnetism and I have worked through all the inter-relationships between the quantities. I managed to improve quite a few of your electromagnetism articles, but it was not without a certain degree of resistance. Sometimes that resistance was quite considerable, although discussions on the talk pages in most cases resulted in a beneficial exchange of views and some compromises.

The situation however has been quite different as regards the single topic of centrifugal force. There are some basic well sourced facts about centrifugal force which are simply being vetoed outright on that article, and these are the most important facts of all as regards that topic. There has been an ongoing dispute there going back to 2007 when I first edited using an IP server. What is most interesting is that whenever the argument got to a critical stage last year, the article was split into two. This confused the matter even further because the most important aspects of that topic, which are the aspects which are encountering the absolute resistance, do not correctly fit into either of the two sub-divisions.

Eventually, with the help of an outsider, a unified article was once again created. Things were going well for a short while but then trouble arose again with the intervention of one editor in particular. Editor FyzixFighter, more than any other editor has been repeatly following me around on physics related articles and confusing the topics in question. His style is to do wholesale reverts and then disappear. He will seldom come to the talk page unless a revert war continues or a third party gets involved. His strategy is then to try and form an alliance with that third party. His views have changed quite considerably according to who he is trying to align himself with against me. As you can see, last month he was involved in an edit war to push the idea that there were only two kinds of centrifugal force. Over the last few days it came to the brink of an edit war in which he is now trying to push the idea that there are three kinds of centrifugal force.

At the moment, it is chiefly FyzixFighter who is instrumental in keeping all references to the role of centrifugal force in planetary orbits out of the article. If you look at the debate, you will see that once again the discussion is now vearing into the issue of the two re-direct articles.

The purpose of the split in my opinion is to remove all aspects of centrifugal force that relate to a real outward push or pull and to put those aspects into the 'reactive centrifugal force' re-direct article. The idea is then to promote the other re-direct article 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' as being the main article. Until recently, it was indeed this latter re-direct article that got the google hits.

This splitting of a single subject is not in the interests of the wider public readership. It is important to watch carefully the specious arguments which are being put forward by certain editors to justify having two articles. In truth, the main purpose is to create a situation in which the illustrative example of centrifugal force in planetary orbits can be legitimately denied entry to the main article. We are seeing all kinds of reasons for vetoing the planetary orbital example. We have seen the following bogus arguments over the last two years, (1) that it is original research, (2) that it is a special case of the rotating frames approach and hence doesn't need to be mentioned, (3) that it is the reactive centrifugal force, (4) that the main article is getting too big and that there is not enough room.

I would hope that you and some of your colleagues would pay attention to the ongoing debate on the talk page to see for yourselves that there are certain editors who are determined to destroy the article, and they are engaging in plausible arguments so as to look as if they are working for the good of the article.

If wikipedia is to have increased credibility with the public, these kind of editors need to be dealt with. Democracy alone cannot deal with this kind of situation. It is totally unsatisfactory to have a situation in which somebody who is trying to fix up an article is being persistently over ruled by superior numbers. The dispute resolution mechanisms have failed to bring forth any interested administrators.

Because of the prominence given to wikipedia by the major search engines such as google, you have a responsibility to the public at large to ensure that wikipedia is not being abused. There needs to be more administrator intervention. Consenus as a concept sounds very noble, but it is vulnerable to widespead abuse. David Tombe (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)