| Revision as of 22:51, 5 February 2008 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →{{User|Allstarecho}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:56, 5 February 2008 view source Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →{{User|Allstarecho}}: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| ::Have to say, Ryan, I disagree with you. Allstarecho has a fairly confrontational method for dealing with things, and I think Jimmy's "time out" was in order. That said, if the 24 hour block does the job, bully for that, because shorter block = more contribs from him. His work is generally high quality, but I find his attitude to be incredibly confrontational. Maybe there's another way to deal with that, though - I wonder if he'd be open to adoption or some informal mentoring from a community member he trusts? - ] | ] 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ::Have to say, Ryan, I disagree with you. Allstarecho has a fairly confrontational method for dealing with things, and I think Jimmy's "time out" was in order. That said, if the 24 hour block does the job, bully for that, because shorter block = more contribs from him. His work is generally high quality, but I find his attitude to be incredibly confrontational. Maybe there's another way to deal with that, though - I wonder if he'd be open to adoption or some informal mentoring from a community member he trusts? - ] | ] 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::I would agree that he does have the occasional lapse in temprement, and hopefully a 24 hour block will serve as a great reminder for him to keep the decorum whilst editing. I'm more than happy to offer some form of adoption/mentorship to him - a lot of his work is good, but it couldn't hurt having a little help on the way. ] 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I think a wrist-slap from Jimbo is all that is necessary. It was a minor infraction and nothing more than a minor 24 hour block was necessary. Allstar is pretty smart - I'm sure he's grown from the experience. I think we should let it die for now. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *I think a wrist-slap from Jimbo is all that is necessary. It was a minor infraction and nothing more than a minor 24 hour block was necessary. Allstar is pretty smart - I'm sure he's grown from the experience. I think we should let it die for now. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:56, 5 February 2008
 | 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. |
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
Wei Wenhua
For posterity:
- User talk:Jimbo Wales, blanked for 24 hours - 13 January 2008
- User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statements of support
Is MyWikiBiz a "spammer" site?
There is a discussion (nearly an edit war) going on with User:Calton here and here. Basically, User:Calton thinks it's really important to deny MyWikiBiz an external link from a hardly-ever visited page about artist Liz Cohen. Although the linked-to website page is the only one-page source on the Internet for licensed photos, a licensed interview, and a re-sampled video of the artist's work, User:Calton insists on calling it a "spam" site, operated by a "spammer". User:Calton is not an administrator. Two different administrators, however, have told User:Calton to stop removing the link to MyWikiBiz, since it does add unique value to Misplaced Pages. Keep in mind that MyWikiBiz.com has about 15 external links from Misplaced Pages, while Wikia has about 12,000 and Amazon has about 50,000. In your opinion, is User:Calton correct to call MyWikiBiz a "spam" site operated by a "spammer", and is he correct to be trying to remove this link from Liz Cohen, in defiance of two different Misplaced Pages administrators? -- Shelborne Concierge (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is policy that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground; because treating for-profit sites like Mywikibiz and people like its main operator, Greg, (who has a beef with Misplaced Pages) as enemies hurts Misplaced Pages content and the community social dynamics. Treat encyclopedia content choices strictly according to "what choice best helps to create the best encyclopedia we can write". WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's spam. Treating spamming as if it were spamming is not "treating WP like a battleground" -- unless you stretch the meaning and spirit of that sentence to its breaking point. And the above brand-new user has, shall we say, a familiar argumentative style, reminiscent of a certain long-banned user. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a good resource and useful link to me. Tyrenius (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The key difference between Misplaced Pages and MyWikiBiz is that in the latter, blatant spammers and POV-pushers (advocate POV instead of NPOV) openly acknowledge what they're doing. On Misplaced Pages, it isn't the general rule, though it happens frequently and when it does, it's an open secret. WikiBiz isn't in and of itself a spam-site, but basically does Misplaced Pages a good service by unloading spam-cruft onto their own site, which Liz Cohen profits from. The fact that they try to pretend that this is not what they're doing is hilarious.
And by "spam-cruft," I mean stuff that isn't blatant advertising. Just subtle advertising, like Bawls.
(The note above was brought to you by the Acme Corporation. "Acme: For fifty years, the leader in creative mayhem.")
☯ Zenwhat (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have counted no less than four different administrators who feel that the link should be maintained in Misplaced Pages's article about Liz Cohen. I count one non-administrator who feels that the link should be removed. I am not a new account, and I think what User:Calton is standing on his head about involves far more portion of revenge than it does of encyclopedia-building. On the basis of the 4-to-1 count, I am restoring the link to the article. I am no less certain that Calton will revert it once again. -- John Russ Finley (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just happened to stumble across this discussion; I am not usually involved in discussing these sorts of things. I did follow the links, however, and the striking thing to me is how non-notable the subject of the Liz Cohen article is. An AfD, if successful, would solve the whole issue of what should be linked from that article, because there would be nothing to link from. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have counted no less than four different administrators who feel that the link should be maintained in Misplaced Pages's article about Liz Cohen. I count one non-administrator who feels that the link should be removed. I am not a new account, and I think what User:Calton is standing on his head about involves far more portion of revenge than it does of encyclopedia-building. On the basis of the 4-to-1 count, I am restoring the link to the article. I am no less certain that Calton will revert it once again. -- John Russ Finley (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I know of no reason why an editorially-appropriate link to mywikibiz.com should be deleted. Whether any given link is editorially appropriate depends of course on complex questions which will be local to individual articles, but certainly we should reject the extreme argument in this case. There can of course be sites which really are spam sites... for example those targetted by automated spam bots. These can and should be dropped into the blacklist. I do not see any reason the current case rises to that level.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution License
Jimbo, this e-mail says that submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, posters, open spaces, and artistic artifacts for the July 17-19, 2008 Wikimana in Alexandria, Egypt must be dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution License. Maybe it is time to say at the bottom of the edit boxes that WikiMedia uses that all NEW material submitted must be dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution License. Should we create a transition period between now and when the Free Software Foundation updates its GFDL to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License? WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- CC-BY-SA would be closer and no. We do not need to confuse things further. Best to let things be sorted out by the merge. If the merge does not take place then we should then consider further action.Geni 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Request banned user (I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow)
Jimbo, will you please ban I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow from Misplaced Pages. This user was blocked for vandalized editing. -- 00:23, February 3, 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
it.wiki and non free logos
Hi Jimbo, I'm sorry for my English. I'm an admin on Italian Misplaced Pages and a OTRS volunteer. On it.wiki, I strongly believe that there is a savage use of non free logos (trademarks) on templates, despite our EDP states that non free content must use only in main namespace. This is an example, but there are many, many others. I believe that using non free content on templates is opposite WMF licensing policy. I think that a very large use (not exceptions) of non free content in templates is not the way to have a minimal use of such material. I tried to explain my point of view, but many wikipedians told me that this view is exceedingly rigid, and that it.wiki should not apply licensing policy in this way (not like, for example, en.wiki or fr.wiki, that forbid use of non free content in templates). What do you think about? Thanks--Trixt (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A good leader.
When the Master governs, the people
— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.
If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"
☯ Zenwhat (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I always believed it was four to six short, well constructed sentences laying out a premise and possibly a resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
NYT checks fact with Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages should of course rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking like—for example—the The New York Times, who it seems have just checked a fact with, um, Misplaced Pages. Here's what they read and here's the rapid rewrite as a result (but too late for them). The article still lacks any references! Tyrenius (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's how Misplaced Pages generally works, which is why any and all criticism of Misplaced Pages is a good thing. A lot of users have an emotional investment in the Misplaced Pages project, so they take it personally when it's criticized. Because of this, it's been shown over and over that when Misplaced Pages is criticized, it gets better. It's precisely for this reason that I argue on WP:FAIL that comparisons between Misplaced Pages and Britannica are so inaccurate. There has been so much in the media about, "Which is better? Britannica or Misplaced Pages?" This has driven Misplaced Pages editors to work very hard towards developing the articles on Misplaced Pages which are also found on Britannica. Based on this, though, it is misleading to argue that Misplaced Pages is as accurate as Britannica, since correlation doesn't imply causation. After all, Misplaced Pages's current policy allows users to cite Britannica itself and other encyclopedias as a source for information. According to the scholastic method, that places Misplaced Pages below the reliability of an encyclopedia, since Misplaced Pages doesn't rely solely upon primary and secondary sources, while Britannica does. Despite any empirical uncertainty about Misplaced Pages, it's difficult to put forth a theoretical argument for the Misplaced Pages model when no regard is given to reason, to experts, or the scholastic method. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the main point here is the irony. Tyrenius (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, since the average article in Misplaced Pages is more accurate than the average newspaper article, it does make sense for them to look it up here. But since we are less accurate than many other sources for many things, it makes sense to try to find a better source for anything a newspaper wishes to print as a fact their readers can rely on. Everyone makes mistakes, and no single source can be trusted to not have a typo or a bias or some other error. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the point is that newspaper articles are often used in Misplaced Pages as verifiable and reliable source material, despite complaints from many of us that they often simply represent little more than what one journalist has written which gets by one editor in time for tonight's print deadline, and after which has been transferred to dead trees corpses under the rubric of a fancy masthead. None of which succeeds in transmogrifying into anything special. As compared with something in Misplaced Pages which may well have passed without change for months or years under the eyes of hundreds of skeptical editors, many of whom are acknowledged subject experts, but who have no way of proving it, because Misplaced Pages has been structured deliberately as to make it as free as possible from anybody needing to take personal responsibility for anything. So the crappy newspaper wins. And there's your irony. SBHarris 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reporter was completely careless, the phrase "where poderida meant powerful" that was found on the original Wiki entry is complete nonsense, "poderida" is not even a word in neither ancient or modern Spanish, the correct term for powerful is poderoso (a), Misplaced Pages can't take the blame if a reporter doesn't make a quick check on a dictionary before posting content on a newspaper. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the point is that newspaper articles are often used in Misplaced Pages as verifiable and reliable source material, despite complaints from many of us that they often simply represent little more than what one journalist has written which gets by one editor in time for tonight's print deadline, and after which has been transferred to dead trees corpses under the rubric of a fancy masthead. None of which succeeds in transmogrifying into anything special. As compared with something in Misplaced Pages which may well have passed without change for months or years under the eyes of hundreds of skeptical editors, many of whom are acknowledged subject experts, but who have no way of proving it, because Misplaced Pages has been structured deliberately as to make it as free as possible from anybody needing to take personal responsibility for anything. So the crappy newspaper wins. And there's your irony. SBHarris 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
WAS 4.250, do you have a source for the claim that Misplaced Pages is more reliable than the newspaper? This one case of carelessness by the New York Times doesn't prove it.
Sbharris says is right. Also, please notice: Even with that re-write, the person still used Spanish Misplaced Pages as a source. I fixed it.
Also, Caribbean~H.Q, the New York Times editor claimed to use Misplaced Pages as a source for the term, to double-check it at the last minute -- not the other way around. Misplaced Pages's article on it has claimed the "olla poderida" term for a while now. . ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are many many sources for how inaccurate newspapers are and how accurate compared to encyclopedias we are. We are better than newspapers, but not yet as good as the best encyclopedias. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's another sign of how important wikipedia has become as a source of knowledge in the world, and how necessary it is to get articles right, or, at the least, to tag them with {{verify}} and so on as a warning to unsuspecting readers. Tyrenius (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages seeks cheap publicity
You are provoking a lot of peoples in the name of knowledge. What a false image of Muhammed (peace be upon him) has to do with Islam. But you have it their because you know that Muslims will not like it and you will get some publicity on the expense of people's sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.138.120 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How to set your browser to not see images
Imagine a wikipedia space page with instructions on "How to set your browser to not see images". Imagine a link to it in the toolbox on the left side of each page. Image a more noticeable template that links to it, available for pages which are routinely problematic due to images that are shocking to a minority of wikipedia editors, rather than shocking/offensive to enough to have the image only linked to. Imagine a Wikimania conference in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Help
Sorry to bother you. Could you tell me what I need to do do to get the main page on a wikia to hide the title and the tab at the top to say main page? I am an administrator and bureaucrat on a wikia. Thanks. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, better to ask at Wikia. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Could you tell me exactly where to go? Earthbendingmaster 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Allstarecho (talk · contribs)
Hello Jimbo, could you give me a little bit more information about your block of Allstarecho? I can see that he was slightly incivil, but there are users who make far greater attacks than he has and get off without a block, or even a warning. I just don't feel it's really fair to Allstarecho that an example should be made of him, when there are far worse users here. I also feel a week is a little excessive - would there be any chance you could reduce it down to a length more in line with civility blocks (such as 24 hours?)? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I will reduce the block to 24 hours per your request. But the solution is not to go easy on users because other people are worse. The solution is to give the worse users long timeouts until they can learn that incivility is not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Jimbo, I'll pop over and have a word with him and make sure that he knows that it will be unacceptable to make those sort of comments in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have to say, Ryan, I disagree with you. Allstarecho has a fairly confrontational method for dealing with things, and I think Jimmy's "time out" was in order. That said, if the 24 hour block does the job, bully for that, because shorter block = more contribs from him. His work is generally high quality, but I find his attitude to be incredibly confrontational. Maybe there's another way to deal with that, though - I wonder if he'd be open to adoption or some informal mentoring from a community member he trusts? - Philippe | Talk 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree that he does have the occasional lapse in temprement, and hopefully a 24 hour block will serve as a great reminder for him to keep the decorum whilst editing. I'm more than happy to offer some form of adoption/mentorship to him - a lot of his work is good, but it couldn't hurt having a little help on the way. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have to say, Ryan, I disagree with you. Allstarecho has a fairly confrontational method for dealing with things, and I think Jimmy's "time out" was in order. That said, if the 24 hour block does the job, bully for that, because shorter block = more contribs from him. His work is generally high quality, but I find his attitude to be incredibly confrontational. Maybe there's another way to deal with that, though - I wonder if he'd be open to adoption or some informal mentoring from a community member he trusts? - Philippe | Talk 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think a wrist-slap from Jimbo is all that is necessary. It was a minor infraction and nothing more than a minor 24 hour block was necessary. Allstar is pretty smart - I'm sure he's grown from the experience. I think we should let it die for now. --David Shankbone 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. And Ryan was right to conclude I wanted to "make an example", and I did. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ich lerne auch Deutsch
Hallo, Jimbo! Sehr Angenehm. Ich heiße Javier, und ich wohne in Argentinien. Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch (Actually, I started studying one month ago), Englisch und Spanisch, meine Muttersprache. Mein Benutzername (oder nickname) in spanisch Misplaced Pages ist Greek, aber antworten Sie mich hier "if you want to". Tschüss. --190.137.0.209 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)