Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:42, 5 November 2009

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: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 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 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Flagged revisions

This edit remained in your BLP for almost 14 hours even though over 800 accounts have the article watchlisted (I'm not one of them). Note that this happened in spite of the article being semi-protected. Perhaps you might have a personal stake in trying to expedite the implementation of a strict version of flagged revisions? Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense is of no consequence to Jimbo's reputation. I am sure Jimbo is more concerned about implementing flagged revisions to protect Misplaced Pages from embarrassment. —Finell (Talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You think? I'm not normally the tinfoil hat wearing type, but lately my cynical side is thinking that foundation level support is more fiction than reality. Kevin (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? There would be no Misplaced Pages were it not for the server farm, IT staff, administration, and software development that Wikimedia Foundation provides. So you don't think the Foundation gives enough? This whole project, and its sister projects, live solely on the Foundation's charity. If the Foundation ever gets fed up with all the nonsense and drama, they flip a switch, and you can kiss your hobby goodbye. —Finell (Talk) 09:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he means foundation-level support of FR, given the long implementation timetable. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my meaning. Kevin (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I already strongly support the introduction of Flagged Revs to the English Misplaced Pages as soon as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't say that it's the way it's going to be, but for those who haven't looked at it yet - there is a test version of sorts available at: flaggedrevs.labs.wikipedia.org. It might be worthwhile to have a look and provide any feedback to "the powers that be". Cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI handling

Do you have an opinion on this ANI?

Admins don't like wikipedia policies. When will this end? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not compelled to like policies, only to respect and apply them. Rodhullandemu 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A project you might be interested in

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support and rejuvenate the enwiki community. I'm looking to get a handful of people to get it off the ground, so what are your thoughts on this? Regards, –Juliancolton |  17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds far too much like Misplaced Pages:Esperanza. We killed that once, we don't need a re-run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote from project page: It should be noted that this project is only similar to Misplaced Pages:Esperanza in that its general premise is to support volunteers; it does not intend to repeat the issues tied to Esperanza. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The "issues toed to Esparanza" was that it existed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Esperanza had a lot of problems. The idea of supporting volunteers is a great one - if done in ways that are consistent with, you know, actually supporting volunteers. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I had no interaction with Esperanza when it was active. I looked at the archived talk pages and was surprised by the discussion and bureaucracy that went on. I am wary but feel a project with a quiet but firm insistence on informality and discussion (and good structure of talk and process pages rather than layers of users) could function markedly differently - i.e. open to all, users are only differentiated by activity and there is no 'council' to speak of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Supporting volunteers" is, naturally, an idea that no-one will oppose. If anyone has concrete ideas on how we can do that, then everyone should be open to them. I'm just less convinced that a new group or project is the way to go. Two reasons: 1) Good ideas are good ideas, organisations and governments generally set up special groups when they have a lack of any ideas. If people have good ideas, there are currently lots of avenues open to them to propose and develop them. So I don't see what good the project does (although it may otherwise be perfectly harmless). 2) The ESP experience was not only negative because it was obsessed with its own structures, it was also negative in that it create a feeling that there were a self-appointed group of moral guardians running about rudely telling people to be civil - which certainly did not aid in creating a supportive environment (granted, most of them were well-meaning).

I suspect I'm also suspicious of moves that begin with vaguely pointing at current dramas and tensions and suggesting that they are evidence of some new deterioration and that things would be better if we could rewind to some golden age. Are things worse? What's the evidence of that? I remember far more drama in the past, and far more incivility. What is really needed to kick off any reform is a more sophisticated identification of what the problem is that one is trying to tackle. People are people, rudeness is rudeness; it has always been that way. If anyone can mitigate against some of that - good luck to them, but until there's some specifics there's nothing much to discuss.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We-ell, discussion of civility has been floating around since last December, and once some arb stuff had settled, I threw up this - Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll - to see what the lay of the land was (i.e. try to get a broader view rather than a vocal minority). Views conflicted but there did seem to be some consensus on problems with areas concerning new users. Coupled with some data about fall off in new editors, led to me kicking off Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/new users, which has led to more discussion, but no consensus on direction really. Might be time to revisit the page, which I haven't done in a while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Trouble on WP: an open letter

Dear Mr. Wales:

This letter is an alert, and a request for action in relation to disruption on Misplaced Pages that discourages good faith editors.

I am a well-credentialed contributor to WP under the user name Brews ohare, a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Laboratories, a former Editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, a professor of EE at the University of Arizona, and the author of technical books and articles. I don't think WP wishes to loose such editors. I have however grown such a distaste for interaction with the WP environment that I have decided to withdraw for the time being.

There are two major problems: one is lack of control of incivility, and the other is Administrators run amok.

As for the first, talk-page guidelines such as WP:Civil WP:NPA WP:Talk WP:Poll and others are flaunted. These violations are ignored by administrators, who even make violations themselves. The use of bans, and threats to ban, are applied unequally by administrators to sway the balance of talk-page discussion, making them bullying participants rather than administrators. The disruptions by uncivil editors and the interference by administrators make open discussion on talk-pages difficult or impossible , and these unwarranted activities encourage intolerance of even sourced mainstream opinion.

As for the second, administrators have lost sight of their roles. Administrators must be reminded that they don't run WP, they moderate it. Their role is to catalyze open discussion of sourced material, the backbone of WP, not to intrude their own preferences. Whether administrators are simply inept or subject to la folie des grandeurs, it is inexcusable for administrators to be unreflective, belligerent, and cavalier about WP welfare. A mutual admiration society is not healthy. I have proposed some sensible guidelines for administrators .

This matter has reached a point where careful review of administrators' actions is mandatory to avoid destruction of WP. It is insufficient to simply repeat to administrators their responsibilities. Some direct action is needed, and some administrators must be removed from their positions to underline the seriousness of these duties. Perhaps a committee can initiate review, which will take some time. A simpler, and possibly effective action, would add an additional approach for administrator recall to those presently under review, an approach allowing easier removal of administrators who fail to execute their duties impartially, and do not observe and enforce guidelines .

These matters are serious, and a letter cannot explain them adequately. Upon request, I'd be delighted to augment my description of the intolerance to open discussion outlined above with details from recent discussion at WP:NOR and from the Case/Speed of light. Although this particular case was completely mishandled, I wish to emphasize that I have little interest in overturning the remedies imposed there. I am highlighting this case, with which I am very familiar, simply as a blatant example of biased and uncomprehending lack of judgment on the part of administrators, where their laxity in enforcing guidelines led to a complete circus on Talk: Speed of light, and indeed, in the conduct of the case itself.

I hope action will be taken that restores a cooperative editing atmosphere on WP. I wish for WP's ultimate success in achieving a healthy editing environment, but prompt and decisive action is needed.

Regards,

John R Brews

Brews ohare (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Check this out!

Check out my sandbox! Maildiver (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

More convenient replacement for the tag "ref"

Hello. I've made a new script instead of tags <ref> in "scientific" style (but compatible with it and any other markup). It's simpler than tags "ref", for this example:

in a body of the article, and

and description of a book - in the "Bibliography" section.

• Fixed problem with page numbers in books - many links with different numbers of pages can be refer to one book in "Bibliography".
• Backlinks highlighted in yellow (button "Back" in browser can be used to find backlink and not interrupt the reading).
• It's compatible with any other wiki markup, but need to use {{SciRefsOn}} in any part of the article to turn script on (precaution for compatibility, if there any articles have sequence in their text).
• Not cluttered article text with tags "ref".
• This reference style corresponds to the convention of scientific literature.

Working sample, based on article zinc (it is not my article, I chose it at random), I've placed here: http://ru.great.wikia.com/Zinc Source code of script is here. X-romix (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard citation systems cause more problems than they solve. It fact, there isn't a problem to solve. We already have guidelines on citing sources, footnotes, and the like. Please do not substitute your new system for the existing standard usages without community consensus. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)