Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:37, 20 January 2007

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

Emergency!! Invitation from Business Weekly Magazine in Taiwan

Hi Jimmy:

My name is Hung-ta Lin. The senior reporter of Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan. I really have an emergency here. People in Academia Sinica told me you agree to interview with us on March 10 in Japan. But we don't know the time, place and other details of this interview.

Before we fly to Japan for this interview, we wish to discuss all details with you. So we really need to know how to contact you.

This interview is different. We let you decide which topic you want to talk. It will be a special report or cover story. The report may contain 10 pages or more. So, it takes some time for us to discuss the detailes. I sent my proposal to you jwales@wikia.com and wikispeaker@gamil.com account. The subject is "An invitation from Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan to Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales".

My email account is hung@mail2000.com.tw. My another email account is hung@bwnet.com.tw I really need to contact with you!! Please send me an email as soon as possible!

Thank you very much

Hung-ta Lin

Business Weekly magazine: the most popular magazine in Taiwan.

I've decided to bring this to your attention

Hi. My name is PL (DB). I'm rather pleased to actually speak to you. I really love Misplaced Pages and I can't spend more than a week without editing it since it's so enjoyable and educational. Now then, I want to have your authorization about one thing: If I continuously remove warnings/comments, etc., from my user talk page, will I not be warned, blocked or anything? I really want you to say that I can since you're the mastermind of Misplaced Pages. Now, the only warnings I won't remove right off the bat are those that I deserve for vandalizing and whatnot recently (also those given to me by an Admin.) I shall only remove Admin. warnings/comments given to me only after some time has passed. So... Is there such a template of yours that says This user is cleared to remove warnings/comments, etc., by my authorization, Jimmy Wales. Or something like that... do I have your authorization, sire? PL(DB) 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just archive everything up to a week ago? Everyone is authorised to remove old comments from their talk page, including warnings, so long as the warnings aren't recent and their problematic behaviour isn't continuing, so you really don't need the founder's blessing. There should be no problem if you just move old comments to a subpage (User talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)/Archive) and link to it at the top of your user talk page. If you do that and someone reverts you saying "you removed warnings", I'll revert them myself. --Sam Blanning 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing! I don't wanna archive everything (even though I already have an archive). I wanna just refresh my entire talk page. I mean, it is my talk page, right? I have been told that I can blank my talk page but two bad things will happen to me, One: I will be frowned upon, Two: The arbitration commitee will do something about me (which is kinda scary when ya think about it) Besides, Lord Jimmy Wales is head of that department, right? I mean, he is the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. I really need him to create a template for me or something showing that I can refresh my user talk page without getting warned or harassed for refreshing it. Also, the past warnings, comments and all will still be in my history page, right? And like I've said before, THE ONLY WARNINGS I WON'T REMOVE ARE THE ONES THAT I JUST RECIEVED ON THE SPOT. I'LL ONLY REMOVE THEM AFTER SOME TIME HAS PASSED AND I HAVE BEHAVED. Ok? (Me | The Article) 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

MR. WALES!!! IF YOU'RE ONLINE, PLEASE, please, I need to know if I can blank my user talk page!!! Thanks. (Me | The Article) 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been dealt with; result was page successfully blanked. Yuser31415 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

I'm starting to wonder if I may becoming out of step with the rest of wikipedia and would really appreciate your input. The reason I'm asking you instead of other editors is I have been accused by other editors of censorship for making a couple edits, one of which was a deletion of an image you had deleted earlier. It all started after a quick look at the top 100 viewed articles which ended up in a deletion of a double penetration image and removal and shuffle of redundant photos in the breast article. When I first saw the double penetration image, I noticed the style was different from the others so I went through the history logs to see if it was added by a vandal. After going through the logs, I noticed you deleted the image but it was later added without any discussion so I deleted it as well stating "as per jimbo the style is different from the others - Definitely more pornographic than encyclopedic - Please use tact". The image was then added again a few hours later stating not to remove the image without discussion. I then deleted the image and asked to use talk to discuss why your deletion should be rv. The image is added again but this time user Doc Tropics proclaims the wikipedia is not censored. At that point I gave up as the censored word was being thrown around. After the incident I was accused of censorship for an edit to the breast article and haven’t had much support from other editors so I'm second guessing my edits for fear that I may want wikipedia to be too perfect. Now I look up my watch list and see the image below has been added to the article with the double penetration image but no one has rv the image ]. I wait, and still nothing. I have tried communicating with other editors after being called pro-censor but it seems no one really listens after you’ve been labeled a censor. You have done a tremendous thing for mankind and I believe your opinion is sincere so I'm looking for guidance from you on this issue and because you removed the the double pen image as well. Seriously, this isn’t a gripe or whine, just looking for guidance as I'm really not a censor.

Here is the first image you deleted that was rv and is still in the article.
Image:doublepen.png

And the new image added today. --I already forgot 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the copyvio image and handed out a couple of blocks for trolling. The other picture, the one in a different style, is a problem, but I consider that a legitimate editorial dispute. But re-inserting a blatant copyvio on the grounds that removing it would be censorship? That's just wrong.--Jimbo Wales 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with using a different style, in fact to keep to using the one same narrow style of pictures could easily be argued as not NPOV. That image isn't the only one in that "style", there are others done exactly the same way. Also you claim it is pornographic, however nothing could hardly be further from the truth as for a reason for it to not be included. Remember this image is on a page which is a list of sex positions, you should expect to see images there of any possible sex position. Which is one of the reasons among many others why wikipedia is not censored. Also if you look at the image, I'd suspect it is created based off a master image which was a photo? Or at least that would be one way I could create similar images. This means it has been made very much so not porngraphic in comparision to the original photo due to it's conversion to a drawing. Mathmo 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that {{linkimage}} would be the ideal compromise here. We need to think of what will best serve our readers. Some of them will (based upon past experiences from other encyclopedias) expect to be able to read an informative article on sexual positions without encountering drawings or photos that directly portray penetration. Others may be conditioned by the amount of pornography available on-line to expect that we would be pushing the boundaries and allowing this sort of image to remain. Putting the image in the article but behind a single click helps cater to both desired user experiences. Johntex\ 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who said the image look pornographic. In the professional sense there are certain things pornographic directors do to set regular sex acts from the professional ones. For example: looking back at the camera as if looking at the viewer showing pleasure, money shots, etc. is an example of professional pornographic artistic ability. When you watch a pornographic movie you notice these types of things as I noticed it in the image (looking back showing pleasure). Pornography is not a bad thing for certain individuals, but if you are familiar with the style, its obvious when presented to you. I was merely pointing out that the image look pornographic do to my observation. That’s it. I dont remember reading that jimbo thought the image was pornographic.--I already forgot 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not making sense to me here, for some reason you are saying that looking at the camera and showing pleasure is pornographic? Don't know about you... but for me it is very normal to be showing pleasure during sex! And likewise, when a picture is being taken of me (any sort at all) I'll look at the camera! Is not the norm to be looking away from the camera when a person is taking your photo. (unless you happen to be an extremely shy person etc...) Mathmo 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the attempt Jimbo. I'll continue to be a wikinomad and walk more carefully through the ever increasing villages and tribes growing within wikipedia. Though the response was confusing, it has also been enlightening. Thanks again for everything you have done.--I already forgot 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have talked about the use of linkimage on the Guidelines page, but that refers to "Photographs or video of sexual acts ". This artwork does not fit that category.

I can appreciate that some may view some images as pornographic. I mean no insult, but a characterization that it reminds a user of pornographic style is irrelevant. The context of the image is everything. (per Miller test) In this encylopedia, the section is a description of multiple penetrations. The image shows precisely that. The image does not meet the miller test of pornography, and should not be censored.

Also, editing images because the participants "show pleasure" in a sexually explicit image, in an article about sexuality is nonsense. The whole purpose of sexuality is pleasure.

You describe being suprised to see a drawing of penetration when looking at the sexual positions article under the sub section titled "multiple penetrations"? Hmmm. We need more images like this, not less. The more people become used to normal, healthy sexuality, the more they will perceive it as no different than someone bowling, or driving a car. It is the lack of exposure to normal behavior that makes people, in the manner describing your reaction, view this kind of thing as "pornography".

Again, my apologies, I did not mean to have been so blunt, as I respect both of your views. We should avoid trying to offend anyone. But, my opinion is that here is yet another attempt to censor something because of your viewpoint about sexuality, not a viewpoint shared by everyone. Regardless of rhetoric, it appears to me to be yet another example of trying to censor undesirable content when our policy is clearly "Wikpedia does not censor". I'm fine with discussions regarding the licensing status of images, or of the editorial decisions necessary to have a high quality article, including what images would improve, or decrease the editorial quality of an article. It seems that in this case, the image illustrates artistically the topic of the article, and the sub-section incredibly well. So well that people with sensitivity to sexually explicit content are bothered by it. If we are going to censor based on sexual content, let's just be honest about it, establish clear policies and guidelines, and firmly adhere to them, and not try to find some rhetoric to censor whenever an image is too honest or frank. If we aren't going to censor, then let's continue our discussion on developing guidelines for content, per Guidelines (or similar) and reach and maintain consensus. Atom 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that I have owned pornography, know people in the business, and respect it as a valid trade. I deleted the image because jimbo had deleted it earlier and it was re-added without discussion. Not sure if his rv of the removal was intentional vandalism or not so I rv to reflect his change. It was a mistake to add my pov in the edit summary which I apologize but that has nothing to do with the constant addition of an image he has removed and no discussion about re-adding it. I did not plan to use his talk page as a platform for the dispute or to expand on accusations that I'm a censor so I apologize to jimbo for using his talk which is now being used for other reasons than I intended. As for making people accept double penetration as "healthy sexuality so they can perceived it as no different than bowling"? I think each user should make that judgment for themselves and not wikipedia. That is why I asked for guidance.--I already forgot 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware the Mr. Wales had removed the image at any point. I see from comments above that it was for editorial/stylistic reasons. When I re-added it, it was because an anon IP had recently removed almost the entire article, and I reverted that. I know that you have, and continue to make your edits with good faith. IMO I believe that sexuality articles should be frank, honest, and cited and sourced as much as possible. Sexuality is normal and healthy, and no one should be ashamed with expressing that part of themselves. I agree that we should let every individual decide for themselves what range of the very broad sexual spectrum they are comfortable with. None of us should disparge a person because their range of sexuality is fairly narrow compared to another, nor should we disparage or try to limit those with a much broader range. We should offer a broad range of facts and citable views on sexuality, in accordance with our NPOV and non-censorship guidelines, and allow people who desire to participate and view Misplaced Pages (in accordance with our disclamers) to choose for themselves. If we were to try and limit sexual content to a range, it would have to be an arbitrary range. Would we choose to provide content only compatible with the official position of the Catholic church? With those comfortable within Sharia law? With those subscribed by a panel of orthodox jews? The intersection of that set? Maybe the views most commonly agreed upon as "normal" by most Americans? North Americans? Native English speakers? Well, to keep it simple, we have agreed to not censor, but to provide content that is considered to be factual, and citable. That is going to shock, offend, and surprise some people, hence out dislaimers. Atom 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. We do need to present a broad range of options to people. Thus, citing sources from different views is very good.

In the same vein, the linkimage is a good tool to allow people to either see or not see photographs that may offend people.

However, I disagree with you about the idea that making decisions about what range of material we present is somehow an arbitrary decision. Please do not confuse making a judgement call with making an arbitrary decision.

The world is not black-and-white. We continually must make judgement calls when we edit articles. Ex: Is this a reliable source or not? Is this statement important to the ariticle or not? Is this image more shocking than it absolutely needs to be? Every single one of these are judgement calls.

Just because reasonable opinions will differ does not excuse us from making these hard decisions. Neither does it make our decision arbitrary once we have made it.

The answer is not to say we must allow every single image - to do otherwise is POV and constitutes censorship. That is treating the world as black-and-white and amounts to advocating an extreme position. What we must do instead is recognize the shades of grey and to chart a middle path. Johntex\ 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. "Arbitrary" means "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Not based on necessity, reason, or principle." I agree that there is always the need for editorial discretion and judgement. We've decided to make the tough calls based on discussion and consensus. I also would not advocate allowing every single image, although, in the area of sexuality, as long as the image does not violate the law, erring on the side of more information rather than less would do less harm, even if it squicked more people. In the case of an opinion of fact, the statement needs verification. In the case of an image of "ejaculation", not much verification is needed.

• Is this image important to the article? I agree. Good criteria for judgement.

• Is this image more shocking than it needs to be? Not our call. Present the facts. If we make a shocking statement, factual and cited "An estimated 5 to 6 million Jews, including 3 million Polish Jews were killed by the Germans during WWII" we don't pull it because it is shocking, it is a fact. If we have an image of a man ejaculating, we don't pull it because someone might be shocked by it. Men do ejaculate. I agree that the use of linkimage, under some circumstances might have some value. Debatable is whether an image of every describable sex act needs to be shown in order to accurately document. Pulling an image because someone might be have very sheltered views about sexuality should not happen, though.

Let's keep working together on the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality#Work_in_Progress:_Guidelines_for_images_in_Sexology_and_Sexuality_articles.Atom 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Esperanza

Mr. Wales;

As you are undoubtedly aware, Esperanza has recently been deleted and transformed into a simple essay. I was fully behind this decision, though I had supported deletion and protection, as did the nominator, Dev920. We fear that the program will be revived and put back to it's corrupted use. The debate seems neverending; discussion of the first MFD and post-first MFD was amazingly lengthy and heated, and the second MFD and post discussion was the same. It was suggested that discussion be delayed for a month; this, however, has been misinterpreted as though law. I personally see no value in this; undoubtedly the arguments will come back in full force. Many of us are sick of the debate and wish to see a final decision made upon this. Mr. Wales, I hope this is not overly presumptuous of me, but I would request your input on this in order to meaningfully establish a decision. Thank you for your time. DoomsDay349 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to clog up your talk page too much, so I'll try to be brief. The disagreement in the MfD was not really over whether or not Esperanza should remain active or be closed down - by the end, that decision was clear. The disagreement was over what "closed down" actually means. Some people argued that all its pages should be deleted and salted, and that it should never be discussed again. Others felt that its pages should be tagged historical (so that anyone can access the "primary sources" regarding its history, not just admins) and that people should still be free to openly discuss its good and bad points. In the end, a compromise decision was made. Some projects were spun off as independent pages. Some sub-pages were soft-deleted (blanked and redirected to main page, but with page history intact.) Other sub-pages were hard-deleted.

IMHO, what's needed is a consistent method of dealing with failed proposals, as well as active projects that are closed down. There's currently a discussion about this very matter at:

Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion#MfDs of policy/guideline/essay and organisation pages

I'm sure any comments you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Quack 688 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation with Esperanza, Mr. Wales, is becoming ridiculous. Most users hung out on the MfD for a bit and then got on with their lives when the decision was reached. However, there's a hardcore of users for which Esperanza is not dead but merely dormant, and they are trying to keep that flame alive as long as possible. What it has resulted in is two battlelines, as it were, with me, Doomsday, and Moreschi, on the opposing side and Quack688, Geo.plrd, and Ed on the other side, with Carcharoth pursuing a "historical" policy in between. Additionally, Geo.plrd, why1991, and Zacharycrimsonwolf are trying to get together various ideas to bring Esperanza back on their talkpages. Neither side can back down for fear that the other side will sneak in and get their way. From Quack's rapid reply, it seems obvious that we are all watching each other's talkpages and possibly contributions, and both sides are not afraid of trying to change the terms of the debate to suit themselves. This endless struggle has dragged in all kinds of editors, admins, and now you. I, for one, would like to be free to get on with improving the encyclopedia, but as mentioned before, I can't let this one go lest Esperanza come back yet again. This debate is nothing to do with failed policy ideas, because Esperanza was a unique organisation with a unique goal. While I don't want a binding decision on the matter from you, Mr. Wales, I would appreciate a suggestion to deal with this arms buildup that we have found ourselves in and cannot get out of. Neutralising both sides is the best policy I think (though I wouldn't object if you simply said "Burn it all and never sugegst anything of the kind again" :) ). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to fuel the sitution more, but the best thing to do in these situations is to back down, since that indicates maturity and judgement for you and your supporters. I am certain Esperanza will not be revived, as any editor who did so would be going against the consensus displayed in perhaps the biggest MfD in Misplaced Pages's history. Just my two cents. Yuser31415 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in PDF available?

I have this new idea, to have a link on every page and when you go there you'll see the article as PDF. What do you say Jimbo? Do you support my idea? Thanks, --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't ask me! But I think because of the nature of this project generating PDF without any general review (for vandalism, POV pushings, and false information) is not correct. From technical aspect generating new PDF for every single edits on articles is nothing more than imagination (at least for now). This is what I think about it and might be incorrect. Hessam 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone should face better vandalism, POV pushing...I agree that something has to be done quickly before competition will emerge and make something better than Misplaced Pages. I think it's a great idea, Jimbo what do you say? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit, does it not? And there is no competition for Misplaced Pages, as it is a free project. I can't see many of its editors leaving because there is competition. Yuser31415 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is like this: how can one read more easier Misplaced Pages? As HTML or PDF? Many of us think that it's better HTML. But there are some people who would prefer as PDF. Imagine some books or chapters in PDF from Misplaced Pages...or CDs, we speak about a lot of money here. I estimate to about 10,000,000 $ bussiness in the first year.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PDF isn't a very open format. Computerjoe's talk 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I take that back after reading PDF! Computerjoe's talk 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, all the good articles can be included in a PDF version, one can sell those CDs for a lot of money..--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who would pay a lot of money for articles that are free on the Internet? Anyway, I find HTML better than PDF for viewing on-screen, though PDF can be good for printing. Misplaced Pages pages generally print fairly well on browsers that support print stylesheets as Misplaced Pages uses, so I wouldn't see much use for a PDF version. *Dan T.* 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, if PDF is much better for printing that means Wiki will have a greater impact. This will lead to a different status. Much better one. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PDFs are a bloated version of what is much smaller and faster in a web browser. PDF means a slow load of Adobe Acrobat and if it's on a website (instead of offline) it means a chance Acrobat could crash (there's also some security hole recently I heard). You can save Misplaced Pages as HTML only and view it offline. For printing, don't both with the "printable version" link and just see in "print preview" how it already makes a printable version automatically. PDF is only good for if someone photographically scans a computer game's manual. Anomo 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PDFs can make my new and very fast computer with broadband go very slowly. Now that says something. JorcogaYell! 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the header on my watchlist and felt bound to pose one simple question:

• Just HOW big do you honestly suppose Misplaced Pages would BE in pdf format?

--Zeraeph 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I belive it is posible to generate PDFs on the fly (like, when user requests it). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning

I fixed a couple of things, but some little arguments annoy me, and I won't touch them. Is there anything else making you cranky today, or is that the end of it? If it we're me, I would avert my eyes and hope for the best (see any Misplaced Pages article related to Buddhism, for example). Again, good morning. NinaOdell | Talk 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I put my answer on the article's talk page

My opinion is eschew(spelling?) "founder" altogether and just put "internet enterpreneur" in the lead and then we can have a section about Bomis and Misplaced Pages and so on and put both views in those sections where applicable. I think that's pretty fair, how about you? Just H 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page move request

Hello, Jimbo. I just thought I should bring the Main Page move discussion to your attention here. Please make your opinion about the issue known, as your opinion is very important and it would really influence the discussion one way or another.--Tom, 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dos lingo

Hello Mr. Wales, My User name is Dos lingo I have been accused as being a sock puppet of Piratesofsml this is totally unfounded.I have tried to leave messages on the but user Patstuart or Natalya has takin them off.See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Piratesofsml&oldid=100252289/ Where I left a message on the evidence page]] . There was also this Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser that says I'm most likely a sock puppet of Piratesofsml.If this is the case then every one who dials up where I do will face this.Is there any thing that I could do? Any thing that could be done? Respectfully Dos lingo 63.3.11.130 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, Jimbo! Just sayin' hi. --66.218.15.162 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

6 years

6 years of excellence. Thank you for co-founding this encyclopedia and demonstrating its goals, Mr. Wales. Yuser31415 00:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Move Vandalism

I have a question? Since you are the main person of Misplaced Pages. I would like to know why page move vandalism is taken so seriously in Misplaced Pages? Why isn't the user given at least one warning before the user is blocked. Also why is the block permanet? It should only be for 24 hours. Is it really that hard to fix or undo page move vandalism? Why is it taken so seriously? I would like to know this. Thank you.King Lopez 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

because the level of knowlage requied means that the vandel knows darn well what they are doing.Geni 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Haven't you heard of Willy on Wheels? He's the reason page move vandals get no mercy. Visit this site for information on this malefactor. MichaelLinnear 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Jimbo! --Oden 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy King Day

"There is a spirit and a need and a man at the beginning of every great human advance. Every one of these must be right for that particular moment of history, or nothing happens." - Coretta Scott King

• Talk 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well dang it.

My card's messed up. I can never figure out how the inter-wiki links work. Anyhow, all quotes come from Wikiquotes, and the image comes from Wikimedia Commons. Please take a moment today to reflect on the lives and work of these two extraordinary people. Like all great thinkers, there is a quote for every occasion. NinaOdell | Talk 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

After some thought, I have decided that being a Misplaced Pages editor is no longer for me. I first joined in 2006 and since then it's just gotten too stessfull for my tastes. It's no longer about building a knowledge base as much as it's about determining policy. Newbies get bitten while perfectly legitimate articles and pictures, representing doubtless thousands of person-hours of work, get deleted because "policy wonks" think it doesn't meet the right guidelines or its not good because they disagree on it - be them "notability" (an open-ended sham), the horrifically exclusive new fair use policy on pictures, or whatever else. Meanwhile, editors who continually add nonsense , unsourced and bunk get a blind eye turned to, while legitimate editors are scorned. This is no longer a project I want to be associated with. --Markhamman 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way -- and I'm not even an admin. I just want you to know that I can relate. Misplaced Pages has been an immense success but it nonetheless has some problems. The article on Anal Stretching for example was put up for Deletion Review because it had one paragraph that was like a how-to guide and some bad referencing. The stupid admins on Misplaced Pages, instead of putting up tags saying This article reads like a how-to guide or This article has bad referencing or especially This article is being corrected in compliance with its Deletion Review findings, instead they just deleted it, and refuse to allow me to fix it. That's a big big shame.

BOTTOM LINE - A lot of admins are trigger-happy deletionists!!

BOTTOM LINE - A lot of admins are trigger-happy deletionists!!

BOTTOM LINE - A lot of admins are trigger-happy deletionists!!

--and there is no effective recourse!
Rfwoolf 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass

My page is under attack again. Please take a look and help fellow floridian best piotrek dr piotr blass

The article has been speedy deleted and the editor has been community sitebanned per Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Piotr_Blass. Durova 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Antivandalbot

Hi Jimbo, found another funny edit which Tonywalton pointed out to me. User:Rideburton2424 (who has now been blocked indefinately) accused antivandalbot of having no life apart from wikipedia , I hope antivandalbots feeling weren't hurt too much by this! RyanPostlethwaite 01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1994 foreign-currency speculation

Wired Magazine reported in March, 2005 that you made enough money speculating on interest rates and foreign currencies to support yourself and a wife for the rest of your life. My question is, were these trades part of those 1994 trades cited by Malaysian prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammed as immoral, and which were implicated in crashing several southern hemisphere economies during and around 1994? A second question is, if you know so much about how to get rich betting on the value of money and if you believe speculating on money is a moral way to earn a living, why have you shared so little of your knowledge in wikipedia articles, where residents of those African countries who you say will benefit from the free knowledge they get from wikipedia could use your knowledge to get rich and start their own Internet projects, which might advance their ideals rather than inculcating in their youth the ideals of Western capitalists with computer access and time to spare? Mergerlomanica 06:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The pro-speculation bias of this Web site is especially evident in some articles about the practice. Profeta verdadero 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Appeal

Jimbo, I've requested an appeal from the ArbCom of my two-year arbitration penalties (which I am 14 months into now) on the grounds that I haven't done anything that anyone has complained about or considered controversial in six months. The ArbCom agrees that I have not done these things, but says the restrictions should remain simply on the basis that I believe certain things about what happened in the past that the arbitrators don't believe (which is to say that I maintain that all the arbitration cases against me over the last two years were complete junk, while the ArbCom insists they are the gospel truth). The ArbCom says that if I don't agree with them about these past events, that means I will do things that it dislikes again; I on the other hand point to my uncontroversial record over an extended period of time and say that I intend to continue to avoid controversy and act with moderation due to prudence, pragmatism, and the wisdom of experience about how best to deal with difficult situations. I think it is preposterous and a violation of basic principles to punish someone simply for holding an opinion about who was right and wrong in old, long dead disputes. I request not that you necessarily hear my appeal personally, as I know that you are unwilling to do this as a matter of practice, but that you at least talk to the ArbCom about this and urge them to deal fairly with me. Everyking 08:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginnings

Jimbo, I was poking around at Misplaced Pages's oldest articles and found something that made me smile. The first edit to the first user page said "Nifty site you have here! It may be hard to get momentum going, but I like the general idea." Six years later, I think it is safe to say that we have momentum.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 06:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Wikiversity Logo On Wikinews and Wikiquote! & Old Wikinews Logo on Wikiquote!

Hey Jimbo,

I don't know who to contact, though the old Wikiversity logo appears on the main page of Wikinews and Wikiquote. Also, the old Wikinews logo is still showing on the Wikiquote main page. Hpfan9374 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Researching Misplaced Pages

I saw at Wikimania how busy you are so I'll be brief. Every day we are losing irreplecable data on Misplaced Pages community. Simply, we don't know who we are (even such basic question as male/female ratio of Wikipedians), who is likely to get involved in various projects, what do our users think about various tools we offer and so on. From a perspective of a researcher, we have already lost 6 years of irreplacable date. We will likely never be able to tell who where the people who made Misplaced Pages what it is and why. There is general agreement among all concerned that meta:General User Survey should be finished - but for months (if not years, actually) we had been waiting for some programmers to find time and help us. I asked in various Wiki-foras for help, but either I was unlucky or the survey is not as appealing as other projects that draw our coder talent pool. I did all I could myself; I can and did help with the questions but I am not a coder. I recently proposed we apply to Fundation to hire somebody to finish the work if we cannot find volunteers - perhaps you could reply to this or just cut through some red tape and prioritize this somehow. Every day makes a difference for this project (and six years lost... ouch). Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, check out whether developers want to enable Special:Vote for a survey of this kind. Maybe they do, or maybe they'll offer suggestions at wikitech-l. Titoxd 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a publisher of original thought, a webspace provider, social networking site or a directory among other things. I'm sure "a place for getting random statistical data from self-selecting, unscientific meaningless surveys" applies to one of those. I really hate the idea of adding surveys to the site, it seems spammy, and I can't see what is to be gained from it - I mean, does the men to women ratio actually matter? -137.222.10.67 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:NOT indicating that Misplaced Pages, or Wikimedia, for that matter, cannot collect voluntary data for studies about Misplaced Pages in lieu of an external agency; or even internally for development, web accessibility, or usability studies of MediaWiki. That is a different horse to beat here, though, so I won't go into that. Titoxd 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if people are interested in doing this, perhaps they should start a page to gauge other people's thoughts on the matter? I, for one, would be completely set against anything like this. There are probably much better, more scientific ways of finding information about web accessibility than begging a self-selecting group of Wikipedians to complete a survey. If people are really interested, there's nothing stopping them from doing it themselves independently of the site and they'll probably get better answers. And, to be honest, even if 70% of the contributors are male and 12% own a top-hat, I don't see it being of any relevance to anyone but researchers. IMO, asking that generously donated money by users go towards something like this would be a complete and utter waste. Perhaps there are very good reasons this hasn't got off the ground after several years. -137.222.10.67 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, asking Wikipedians as to how to make MediaWiki, the software on which Misplaced Pages runs, better? Even if restricted to only Wikipedians, some of the questions there ("Do you think Wikimarkup is becoming too complicated?") are useful to the MediaWiki development team, so they are not worthless. The reason this isn't done - no one knows about it. Hence, my initial suggestion to get more opinions on the technical mailing lists, as the basic functionality is already there. Titoxd 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have a very different opinion to the OP. I'm against a survey, I'm not against a way of submitting content to developers if people have gripes/opinions - there's a big difference there (where one wouldn't ask your sex/age or other completely pointless questions for the sake of unscientific "research" and little else). Perhaps a usability Wikiproject would be a better solution, or publicising and opening up the mailing lists (possibly through a /postable/ web gateway) to encourage active non-technical contributions for Mediawiki developers? Or just a Wiki page for suggestions? This should be taken elsewhere, but I think many would be against a massive effort to create many worthless statistics to be taken with a pinch of salt, because how many girls there apparently are isn't going to change MediaWiki development one iota. If developers really need something to fix, I'd suggest fixing the car-crash which is the MediaWiki search engine. Looking at the question page, I don't mind things like "Are search facilities satisfactory?", I'm against questions about their sex, their opinion of "the community", "trustworthiness" or any rubbish like that. --137.222.10.67 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon. You may not think that statistics or social sciences in general are useful, however as they significantly contributed to the creation of our civilization, I remain convinced that learning 'how many girls there are' among our editors or whether users find our project 'trustworthy' are valuable endeavours contributing both to our general knowledge and to the development of Misplaced Pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Piotrus. You may think that unscientific badly made "statistics", or in fact, unscientific useless trivia in general, is useful, but these things haven't contributed to the creation of our civilisation or have any use at all, and as such I remain convinced that gauging an inaccurate reading of 'how many girls there are' among editors or whether a self-selected small amount of 'users' find Misplaced Pages content 'trustworthy' is utterly useless for any practical purpose. This matter needs discussion, because I'm sure others would also agree that doing any survey would be a waste of people's time, completely unscientific, prone to abuse and also wouldn't gauge a large proportion of users which don't have accounts. But don't let genuine criticism dampen your apparent disdain for anonymous users. -137.222.10.67 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronen Segev question

Would a lone sentence be unbalanced relative to the rest of his established notability? F.F.McGurk 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess see what everyone says on the AfD, and if he passes as a stub the bit on the arrest can be stripped down to balance. There's more meat in the RS about his musical work that can easily expand that article out to a short paragraph or two I think. F.F.McGurk 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales

After some serious thinking I decided to stop contrubing to wikipedia. The site has become a source of stress due to someone’s Trolling over their obsession over others editors to contribution to “his” articles and scorn them because they have a different opinion based on fact by citing their sources and the troller having “ the my way or the highway “ attitude. If Misplaced Pages is become a reliable open scoure Encyclopedia then the articles have to be based on fact rather than one person bent on bending the truth and putting down editors down when they report the facts.

A heads up: The Bridgestone office in Akron, Ohio has been editing the Firestone page.

FYI

The Bridgestone office in Akron, Ohio has been editing the Firestone page, maybe since November, 2006.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_office_of_Bridgestone_is_editing_Firestone_page

Looks like another "newsworthy story", similar to the policitican scanal before. As per User:MrDarcy: "...we have a major (not to mention newsworthy) conflict of interest here...."

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest has been notified:

• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of interest/Noticeboard#Bridgestone_Firestone_.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D_.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D

And there is Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01, which is a complex case.

To my knowledge, none of us have ever been involved in the congressional scandals on wikipedia, so it might be nice if we could get some more eyes on this issue. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So Dangerous!

Hi Jimbo,

It seems it's so dangerous to be a editor in your brainchild "wiki" than being get involved in real life controversial issues.Rajkumar KanagasingamRajsingam 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would you mind explaining your position on borderline notability wrt BLP? I have for the second time nominated an article Jim Shapiro for deletion - the first time it was speedy deleted and salted. One editor (WAS) and one admin (Tyrenius) have ferociously argued for this article's inclusion. I am an attorney, and do not think that creates a "conflict of interest", as Tyrenius alleged. I do not know the subject of this article (a lawyer or former lawyer, I am not sure at this point). I have not the remotist link to Shaprio. I am also not a med mal attorney, and I do not adveretise (at all). It does strikes me as odd that an article would exist on a lawyer where the sole notability is sleazy ads, and that is mostly local. I finally was able to get consensus on the original author's version - which was horrendous. Now, the version is somewhat sanitized, but its only purpose for being is to show that this attorney had sleazy ads. In addition, Tyrenius followed me from my first AfD request, to this one. He helped WAS bypass the original salt, by renaming the article. He was the reason I left Misplaced Pages and did not decide to return for months - he was abusive then and he is abusive now. He has baited & insulted me, and placed a ridiculous warning on my page - that I violated BLP. How? I explained on my talk page that I understood how someone could find Shapiro overly-zealous and "I would say downright sleazy." Tyrenius said I would be blocked if I "violated BLP" again, and removed the "I would say downright sleazy." Given the fact that Tyrenius has argued for keeping an entire article that is only about how sleazy Shapiro is, it seems odd that Tyrenius would now be so concerned about BLP on my talkpage. And Tyrenius continued to bait me on the AfD project page - by using TLAs as weapons to condescend and insult, and bringing up past conficts. (It is all on the talk page of the AfD where I moved it). I finally ignored him entirely. Now it appears that by default, Jim Shapiro will be kept, despite the borderline notability (at best). I would like to know what Misplaced Pages's or your position is on something like this. Thank you.Jance 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out New York weighs tough new lawyer advertising rules. WAS 4.250 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

myspace

Heya Jimbo. Can you confirm this is yours? — Deon555_desk 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Deon, I hope you don't mind me answering. :) Jimbo said back in November that someone else started the account but when he complained, MySpace gave it to him. Cheers, Sarah 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton Balasingham

Hi,

The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.

Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.

I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 09:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

A WP:LIVING discussion on the Village Pump

Hi Jimbo, I have started a thread here where I would be really interested to hear (hmm... see?) your opinion as it concerns the WP:LIVING policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MySpace blogs

Greetings. This edit by Raul654 indicates that you wished for MySpace blogs to be added to the spam blacklist. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider this. Many celebrities, especially musicians, use MySpace to communicate with their fans, and confirm through links to and from their websites that the profiles are theirs. For example, I came to notice this through the article on Straight Outta Lynwood, the newest album by "Weird Al" Yankovic. Yankovic links to his MySpace profile on his website, and uses his MySpace blog to communicate with his fans. Some of his blog postings were being used as sources in the article, but now they have been removed. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. --Maxamegalon2000 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other sources to use. A release of note should be announced elsewhere than blogs, so use that. You undercut your own argument -- blogs are for communicating and getting feedback from fans, not as reputable, reliable sources for online encyclopedias. --Elaragirl 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a gap between the amount of coverage required to be notable, and the amount of coverage required to have maintstream media parrot every significant annoucement a band makes. Swami is an example of one of the bands that falls between the two, being an extremely notable bhangra band, but still bhangra at that. (With absolutely no snobbery, I would guess that many readers of this page won't know what bhangra is.) I don't see why we shouldn't cite Myspace for their annoucements, subject to the usual provisions (not unduly self-serving, etc.)

I don't know what the original reason for blacklisting Myspace blogs was, but it should be overturned. A blanket ban is not appropriate. If Swami or some other non-mainstream but equally notable band announce something important via the Myspace blog, it's still citable, and I'll still cite it, because it's still obviously a valid source. I just won't be able to link to it directly, and direct links are not required for citations. --Sam Blanning 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think for Misplaced Pages to go on about having references and citing sources but then to not allow citing of information just because it's on a blog on MySpace even if the author has been verified and is considered a reliable source is a bit hypocritical. What about blogs on Blogger, LiveJournal or Xanga? Why are blogs on MySpace blacklisted, whereas others are not. Isn't this a bit biased against MySpace? Aren't you going against Misplaced Pages fundamental principals? - kollision 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Not to many userpages can have the userbox that states, "This user is the founder of Misplaced Pages". That just sounds funny :). Cheers! Arjun 02:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is only one other that can argue he co-founded Misplaced Pages along with Jimbo, namely Larry Sanger. A very unique userbox indeed! Gizza 11:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

is the new login of the banned right wing Hindu User and after editing through various previous sockpuppets - he seems to be using a different IP this time to avoid detection.It is high time this user's edits with another Hindu right winger are stopped from editing the controversial India-Muslim articles they are editing. 87.74.49.93 13:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)