Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 4 July 2006

• ]

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006

Template:Trollwarning

hello jimbo i need help

kevin1243 is not leting me put a criticims part on the tommorow book series page it is his favourite series and he will not let me put the criticisms on everytime i do he deletes them vandalises my user page or makes up stories to try get me blocked please help jim

The truth about the tomorrow series must be heard

please reply to user talk: carbine (post made by User:Smugface the untrustworthy dwarf)

Carbine, see WP:AIV and Misplaced Pages:Resolving_disputes. It's unlikely that Jimbo will become personally involved in your dispute. (Note that userpage is protected so this comment not added there). Antonrojo 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement on elimination of anon voting?

Hi Jimbo, I have a question for you. On Talk:George Washington, someone recently suggested the article should be permanently protected from unregistered users due to persistent vandalism. Terence Ong mentioned that people have suggested protecting the entire Wiki from anonymous editing, but that you had "said no" to previous attempts.

The only reason I raise the issue is because Kaiwen1 has a poll going on whether to ban anon editing, the results of which he's planning to forward to the Board of Trustees. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know exactly how much authority you, personally, wield over issues like this. Is Kaiwen1's vote a waste of time? I'm curious as to what you have said in the past that Terence Ong remembers so clearly. I asked Terence , but he never replied.

(Full disclosure: I'm against blocking anon editing, and voted so on Kaiwen1's page.)

Kasreyn 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, if the poll is on his userpage rather than listed as a formal proposal, it would not affect policy. The issue of concern with anon editing is often related to 'open proxies' which are shared by many users and attempts to block them also block legitimate editors, some of whom are registered. See Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy proposal for some info on an alternative. Antonrojo 12:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

I do apologize for calling you on your cell phone while you were eating dinner with your parents. I promise not to call you again. I didn't know you had a talk page. I didn't know I had a talk page. I would just like to make five suggestions.

1. There should be a Misplaced Pages FAQ that new Misplaced Pages users can't miss. In other words there should be a flashing hypertext link to it in a very large font all in a box on Misplaced Pages's home page. This FAQ should explain everything about Misplaced Pages. It should explain the Misplaced Pages process. It should tell users about advocates, mediators, and arbitrators. This would save everyone a lot of grief.

2. Some editors revert anything a new contributor adds to an entry. They do this unceremoniously without comment. They do this even if the contributor substantiates their claims on the article talk page. This appears to be against stated Misplaced Pages policy. New editors are often patronized, berated, insulted and sanctioned simply because they do not understand the Misplaced Pages process. New editors should have some simple recourse to hostile treatment, and this information should be included in the FAQ.

3. No one should be allowed to edit an article unless they have registered with Misplaced Pages and sign in with a password. Their email address should be confirmed. This would lessen vandalism and free up administrators to do more constructive things.

4. Misplaced Pages would greatly benefit from a web site map. Misplaced Pages is a labyrinth.

5. I am sure there is a fifth suggestion I would like to make, but I just can't think of one now.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

PS. If you ever find yourself in Miami and need any kind assistance please feel free to call on me.

Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs

On the "Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs" page you entered:

"It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Misplaced Pages, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."

Ok, why? -- Jason Palpatine 07:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind

Read the section right above the new one you just created for this question. --Cyde↔Weys 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. That is what promped my question: why? I often ask for the why behind the why. BTW: thaks. -- Jason Palpatine 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I read it as well and I still don't undestand the "controversy." Is there specific space reserved for templates? Why not simply institutionalize userboxes-as-userboxes so there is no confusion? What is wrong with social networking in a system that is supposed to bring people together to reach consensus on knowledge about the world? --StarKruzr 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

German?

Does Jimbo have German ancestry? —User:Arual

Not very likely. The name "Wales" is of English and Scottish origin. 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional, his middle name, "Donal," has English or Scottish or Irish origins. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely all that proves is that Jimbo's Dad is at most half english/scottish, and in turn Jimbo's Dad's Dad is at most half english/scottish and so on. Not that I really understand why this is relevant. --Lord Deskana 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

croatia again?

• u have in plans 2 visit croatia or other near countries in the near future?
• btw, r u the only person who created wikipedia or there were some other people included 2?
• Respond soon, m8.
• West Brom 4ever

Jimbo-->Admin-->EditorAdmin-->Editor-2006-06-04T22:51:00.000Z">

This image (edited by me), I believe, shows the hierarchal order of Misplaced Pages. Yes, I know: it's trollish and violates 90-percent of the rules, but is there some truth to it? --Candide, or Optimism 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

HA ha ha ha!!! 70.48.250.130 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No.Geni 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Geni, this is why I've been trying to get rid of this, meaning not only is this extremely offensive but on top of all that, it displays disturbing animal grabbing, so feel free to do a reversion ala reversal of sorts if you want to. 24.188.203.181 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

I have blocked Anittas permanently. Past due.--Jimbo Wales 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another user blocked for criticism - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Tolerance_of_Criticism - Xed 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's my impression Anittas was blocked for making a personal attack, not for simple criticism. Powers 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Anittas reads their talk pages of banned accounts, so I will tell them here that I copied their image and put the image up on http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Wikipedia If they object they are free to take it down. 12.72.93.52 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

Jimbo, do you agree with the protection of Anittas' talk page in addition to his banning? Normally talk pages are available for banned users to discuss the situations they find themselves in, and for a good reason. Everyking 08:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

I've always seen them protected. I heard there's a rule (I could be wrong here, though, this is what I heard) that banned users are banned and not welcome back so their talk page gets protected if they do something like talk on it (I've browsed through logs and seen people's talk page protected for asking "why was I banned?"), especially the dreaded {{unblock}}--that tag is just asking for the talk page to be protected forever. DyslexicEditor 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the pages because they were being used, in my opinion, for trolling, noisemaking, or call it whatever you like. It's fairly common for administrators to do this. If Anittas should be unblocked then we can unprotect his pages. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

Ah, yes, the endless audacity of trolls. This one is a troll surely, because, s/he says something you don't like, heh Tony? Must be a troll. and then that one is a troll too, because, well just because..I said so! Pretty soon, Tony, boy, you will be calling US ALL TROLLS. 64.191.172.254 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

I don't get it. GangstaEB & friends 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

That is funny but disturbingly true.Cameron Nedland 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Admin-->Editor"> Admin-->Editor">

Removing sexually explicit images

Jimbo, I've noticed you've removed sexually explicit images from a number of articles with the edit summary "rm useless image". While they were, as I say, sexually explicit, and in one or two cases were extranneous, they are also free license cartoons. A number of the images you removed were specifically related to the subject of the article in question, such as in the article Gape shot. I personally think that a lot of Porn cruft has ended up on Misplaced Pages, but these images do seem to me to have encyclopedic value (far more than the pictures of the "actresses", which are generally far more pornographic, while being at the same time fully clothed and completely unencyclopedic.) I just wonder about the reason for these actions, and how these removals relate to the idea that Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors (or the squeamish). Mak (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This page also has some funky image Prince_Albert_piercing 70.48.250.130 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, but neither is it a repository for embarassingly bad art. My edits there were normal edits of any editor, some of them have already been reverted. No reason for excitement. --Jimbo Wales 10:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't meaning to get/sound excited. Since it did seem like you were probably acting like a normal editor, I thought I'd ask you about it like a normal editor (on your talk page). I generally don't like to revert editors when I respect them and don't necessarily know what their intent is. I wish this page weren't such a Village Pump/Church Door. Oh well, cheers, Mak (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody reverted Jimbo Wales? I thought Jimbo used a different account for normal edits. Reverting the main Jimbo account seems like breaking a huge rule, like an edit from the main Jimbo account means it's policy. Also Jimbo, if you want to edit like a normal editor, use another account and do normal editor things like having revert wars and being angry at other wikipedians but not being able to do anything (I don't mean to sound negative in this sentence, it's just that it's happened for many and you really miss out on a wikipedia experience that you'll never achieve if you edit with a name that has a high status to it. To achieve it, you need a name with no status to it. Of course you have power, too, but I primarily mean your status that causes others to respect any edit you make.) DyslexicEditor 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if you look at things, it is generally clear what is something not to revert (courtesy blankings, blocks etc). But I have to admit, there is a gray area, and maybe a small code in the edit summary, like ne for normal edit, could clarify that. -- Kim van der Linde 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

People have died to have the freedom of the press. NO ONE WILL TAKE IT AWAY!Cameron Nedland 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Static version: a solution to many problems

Hi - I wondered if you might be interested in commenting on an idea that's been under discussion recently, in which a separation is made between works in progress and finished articles. I've written a piece which argues that a pure wiki model is perfect for creating articles but causes problems when trying to keep articles high quality. Misplaced Pages:Static version has the details. Thanks - Worldtraveller 11:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense/offence but that ruins the point of a Wiki does it not?Cameron Nedland 02:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - wikis are absolutely perfect for collaboratively writing articles, but not at all suited to being used as a repository for finished articles. The wiki- is the means, the -pedia is the end, and unless we have a static version, I fear that Ward Cunningham will be proved absolutely right when he said that you could write an encyclopaedia using a wiki, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopaedia - it would just be a wiki. Worldtraveller 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ideas

Over at Misplaced Pages, I have noticed that Misplaced Pages doesn't have a Latin motto, coat of arms, seal, or even a flag. This may be pushing the limit, but could you organize something to create the said things? Bibliomaniac15 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I (seriously) propose as WP's motto: Veritas non sufficit (Truth is not enough). You read it here first. Sbharris 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are some great ideas.Cameron Nedland 02:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a "democracy" ?

There is a growing number of editors who usewkipedia to spread political propeganda (such as this article Israeli Apartheid) which is protected for long time since it can not be NPOV.

when your own words were quoted to them (without mentioning the source) the reply was that this is "making staff up" (see below) It seems that any minority of extremists who finds enough diligant people can actually turn wikipedia in to thje greatest toll of propegantting propeganda.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. Zeq 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

....Zeq, you seem to have fallen back into the habit of "making stuff up". ..... Homey 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just the opposite, Homey. I noticed that Zeq behaves responsibly for quite some time now but I never had a chance to commend him. In this case, he refers to WP:NPOV policy and you chose to respond with ad hom. ←Humus sapiens 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested some time ago, a better way to achive NPOV article should be established since current system is not working.

See: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy. Deco 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

the article violates all 3 core policies:

1. WP:RS
2. WP:Not
3. WP:NPOV

Still, the vote is to keep it and there are enough editors pushing it. Zeq 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That the phrase in question is used by some people is not really in question, and it appears to allow both sides to weigh in on the accuracy of the allegations implied by its use ("criticism" section). So, frankly, I don't see the problem here, at least on those fronts. As for WP being a "democracy", it becomes an issue if a group of like-minded people GANG EDIT an article to slant it. If one side is filling up this article with 'data' which, while accurate, is slanting it, or giving one side undue weight, that's a problem. If it also violates the rules on sources (and I don't know enough about this phrase to know if it does) then nominate it for deletion on those grounds, if working to make it better becomes hopeless. - Nhprman 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

I have been attempting, on and off, to defend GLF's corner without success. But I am surprised that you, as the Wikimedia Founder etc., are happy for what is happened on his article page to remain up. I was going to try and do a few more things today but I cannot because of domestic matters. But I am pasting here for your perusal some comments posted today on his Talk Page (no, not by me!). I urge you to consider them:

• Reds out of control

What smug arrogance for less than half a dozen article wreckers to come along, demonize a well-researched article, and then claim that it was put together by a small group of people.

The pathetic arguments for attempting neutrality, good faith, civility, etc fall on stoney ground when you list a 'Spent' conviction 14 years on knowing full well that the subject has rebuilt his life and that the re-publication of all this, 14 years on, will destroy it. The vast army of family, friends, collegues, employers etc., who knew nothing of this, soon will. Any credibility he may have rebuilt will be destroyed by your actions.

This is by any yardstick deliberate malice to a living person. It is possibly the most chronic abuse of the "right to privacy" in the R of Act I have come across. There may be 999 year sentences in North America, but in Britain we do believe in rehabilitation. You clearly believe the indivudaual should commit suicide.

Some points I have dug up for your consideration:

• Convicium

You need to acquire a copy of Professor Walker's Civil Remedies (p991). He describes the law of convicium as "separate grounds for action for a pursuer for hurt to his feelings and to his public reputation by being brought into public hatred, contempt, and ridicule by a statement made, either truly, or falsely, by the defender animo injuruandi. Ridicule without hatred is insufficient." Several cases are listed. Proving actual damage is not necessary. In business matters, all that is needed is that it be demonstrable that "the words founded on are calculated to cause pecumiary damage to the pursuer."

Convicium concerns "the wanton and malicious publication of some old scandal or of some physical deformity" (FT Cooper, The Law of Defamation and Verbal Injury. 2nd edition 1906, by DO Dykes, p.210). AT Glegg (The Law of Reparation in Scotland, 2nd ed. 1905, p.145) states "and it is unlikely that such publications today would be regarded as anything other than defamation". Professor Walker adds that this is especially so when it brings someone into "public hatred and contempt", adding that "truth is no defence". The case of Steele vs the Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd (1970) was one of convicium.

In The Stair Encyclopaedia(p.492)Professor Norrie of Strathclyde cites Professor Walker on convicium where he quotes Roman Law (upon which Scots' Law is founded)and says that convicium "consists in reviling and unflattering remarks which, if true, would render a man contemptable".

• English case

Sweet & Maxwell Ltd's ENT - Legal Review (issue 4, 2003, p.88 - 90) is an English law magazine. It carries an article entitled "The Right to be Rehabilitated - Can You ever Escape Your Past" by lawyers A Melville-Brown (partner at Law Firm of Schillings) and David Burgess, who specialises in Media Litigation. It deals with numerous issues including the R of O Act. You ought to avail yourself of a copy.

It deals with a specific case where the police had released information claiming that it was already in the public domain. The plaintiff claimed it breached his human rights and it would severely damage his prospects of becoming a rehabilitated member of society. His solicitors, Sanders Withersppon, said there were certain inalienable rights guaranteed under English law, and in particular the right to privacy and respect for his and his family's life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Another case was quoted in this hearing where it had been shown that "publication of old information, considered harmful, was an invasion of privacy and completely disconnected to the individual's current lifestyle.

Article 9 of the French Civil Code was mentioned, in terms similar to the European Convention, that "everyone has the right to respect for his privacy, and invasion of which is a criminal offence under French Law. The cruelty and injustice of raking yp offences known to few and by them forgotten is referred to in French Law as the 'droitá l'oubli' or the right to be forgotten, where it is considered wrong to drag up past events."

I put it to you defamers here that you are breaking our laws. User:195.134.6.202 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why am I not surprized thatb there are people behind this article who push a political POV all over wikipedia.

Jimbo : Time to enforce WP:Not as vigoursly as WP:3RR Zeq 14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have spent some time looking at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Under s8(1) of the Act GLF is entitled to bring an action for defamation. I have put his page up for deletion. Seems the most sensible course of action. Sussexman 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As had been discussed earlier the Act prohibits (British) state officials from releasing information on spent convictions. It says nothing about newspapers reprinting information from old newspaper articles or other media doing the same. Feel free and post the actual contents of the Act rather than your misinterpretation of it. Homey 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 contains more of this (previously copied from this page, in fact) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sussexman and legal threats. User in question has been indefblocked for legal threats. 207.145.133.34 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong to ban Sussexman (who is not Lauder-Frost - Preposterous). Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Misplaced Pages which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support the last poster's comments (81.131). 81.129.155.181 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Defamatory material at Misplaced Pages

Dear Jimmy Wales

As you know, I have been a regular editor at Misplaced Pages since 2003. You may not know that I also work as what you would in the US call a legislative aide for a member of the Australian House of Representatives. In this capacity I have become aware of a serious problem emerging for Misplaced Pages - the malicious and anonymous posting of defamatory material at the articles of Australian Members of Parliament. I have been (falsely) accused of being responsible for some of these edits, as you can see at this article. This is only a minor irritant to me, though a more serious problem for my employer, who is being held responsible for my (alleged) actions.

A more serious problem for you is that at least two Members of Parliament have now been seriously defamed at their Misplaced Pages articles, and one has advised me that she will sue the Wikimedia Foundation unless this defamatory material is immediately and totally removed from Misplaced Pages (that is, from the article's edit history as well as from the visible article). You may know that Australian defamation laws are very different to those in the US, and that it is much more likely that an Australian (or British) politician could bring a successful defamation action against you. I suggest you look at the recent edit histories of Jennie George and Peter Slipper, and I strongly advise you to delete these articles' edit histories.

This, however, will not solve the underlying problem, which is that it is ridiculously easy for anonymous people to commit serious defamation at Misplaced Pages and get away with it. This problem has been brought about by your policy of allowing anonymous people to edit Misplaced Pages. You probably know that I have always , on many grounds, one of which is that it will inevitably expose Misplaced Pages to defamation proceedings as the site becomes more and more widely known, as malicious anonymous editing becomes more common, and as such edits are more frequently brought to the attention of those being defamed. The Siegenthaler case should have been a serious warning to you of where this policy will lead you, but your response to it has been basically one of denial.

I continue to believe that Misplaced Pages is a great and noble project which I am proud to have made a small contribution to. But I increasingly believe that it is heading for a disaster of its own making unless it (which means you) serious address the irresponsible, unethical and dangerous policy of allowing anonymous editing.

I will be sending you this post as a formal letter by email or snailmail if that is possible. I hope you will take this matter seriously and give me a considered reply, as well as immediately taking the action I have recommended above. I fear that you and Misplaced Pages will regret it if you don't.

Adam 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of removal of articles, denial, and ethics.... I still can't find the article the Adam Carr wrote entitled "Why I Supported the Liberation of Iraq". The article is subtitled "I have left this text as I posted it at the start of the war, so that my comments and predictions can be judged in the light of what actually happened." This would seem to indicate Carr has kept a copy, though it was hurriedly deleted from the internet... for some reason. Can anyone tell me where the original article is? - Xed 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I totally agree, and have raised the issue above. The damage done by anonymous editing is apparent to me on an almost daily basis. But I get the impression that a number of admins/editors have either forgotten the principle purpose of Misplaced Pages, or would otherwise prefer to remain hopelessly idealistic.

Jimbo, I know you've probably been over this a million times, but please come on again to answer this crucial point.

—Laurence Boyce 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lucky for Jimbo and Wikimedia, they're not subject to other country's laws. --mboverload@ 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages starts to put constraints on who can edit, it will defeat the entire purpose of the project. You may feel that allowing anonymous edits is hopelessly idealistic, but the fact is, in Jimbo's own words: "You can edit this page right now is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." Without this policy, wikipedia might as well not even exist. Easter rising 13:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Without this policy, Misplaced Pages might as well not even exist. The point is that Misplaced Pages does exist, and it is what happens now that really matters. Let's put a stop to anonymous editing for a trial period – you can't tell me this will bring down Misplaced Pages. But allowing anonymous editing to continue, just might.—Laurence Boyce 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a great and noble project if you're a leftist Democrat sort or a reactionary extreme right winger. For the rest of us poor chumps and trolls it is a nightmare. You're far from the only one who has complained about libel spread and deliberatley kept on Misplaced Pages. 211.48.147.154 04:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My article

Why did you delete all Bobby's articles? Sorry, if I made funny articles. I made those up because I made a story about Math Genius who lived in Math (state). I created Math (state) article. Did I put that Math Genius lived in Math (state)? If you can, could you recreate it?

Banning Sussexman

It is wrong to permit a very biased small group to ban Sussexman (who is not Lauder-Frost - Preposterous). Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Misplaced Pages which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. User:Sussexman took an auful lot of flak with regards to the GLF article, and did a great deal of work on it, even proving himself to be very willing to comprimise. I am not necessarily suggesting that he was right in everything he said or did, but his banning is based on entirely circumstantial evidence, with the admins who banned him not 'showing their work' so to speak in as far as justification for the ban. This may be an example of the larger, growing problem of overzealous admins, who are bringing wiki to a somewhat elitist level. Sussexman's ban is absolutely unfair, and I strongly suggest that it be reviewed by un-biased admins or Jimbo himself. Easter rising 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• This business is a scandal. User tells smearers that they are breaking the law and may suffer the obvious consquences and it banned for a "legal threat"! What next. Is Misplaced Pages entirley anarchic? This is an unfair ban. I hope Jimbo will act. 213.122.50.183 09:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  No, if a person feels that he has been wronged in some way then (assuming that he actually has a case) there is nothing to stop him from seeking redress in the courts. However, where such action is in prospect a public website is not the appopriate place to discuss it - it is not helpful to Misplaced Pages, nor is it helpful to the proposed legal action (as any lawyer will tell you, having a public slanging match with the person you are intending to sue does not help your cause any). Cynical 13:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case but as far as I can determine no "legal action" of any description had been initiated by Sussexman. He merely warned and argued that the law was being abused. Meanwhile the little cabal of demonisers are waiting like wolves to attack again. 213.122.71.45 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

smile dude

RainbowSprinkles has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for all u do

Messed up Wikia link on your user page

Jimbo, the Wikia link on the top of your user page doesn't work for me. I see it as http://www.wikia.com/c: which ends up redirecting me to http://.wikia.com/ which, well, fails to load! --Gnewf 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it doesn't work for me either. I've fixed it. Icey 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Homeontherange

Is there any real control on Misplaced Pages, Mr Wales? User:Homeontherange is currently going around as many British right-wing conservatives and sneakily flagging up Deletion notices, as far as possible on the seven day rule. Had these people not been notable in Britain and in Conservative circles the articles would not have been there in the first place. What's going on here? Chelsea Tory 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• This extremely biased 'administrator' consistantly attacks articles on individuals and groups on the UK traditional conservative Right. He rubbishes and demonises them, and he is currently running around sneakily flagging them up for deletion. He is largely responsible for a legal dispute on one of them. He needs disciplining.213.122.50.183 09:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you unable to see what Homeontherange is about? I'm appalled. He is instigating a purge against the British Conservative Right. 195.194.75.209 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Agreed. More like Trotsky and the commune than Jimbo Wales and the community. 81.129.155.181 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and their Masters

Hello, this is Armando341. I have placed some blocks on users who I know are definitely vandals, including sockpuppets of user:1028 and user:guns'nroseslover. These two, however, are not in any way related. Hope you don't mind.-Armando341

Maybe it's a good idea

Ste4k wrote: Hi Jimbo! I had an idea that is useless to me but might be something for you, let's see. I've only been around here for about a week, so if it sounds silly, please just ignore it. I think that television shows should not be considered factually worth an article until they have actually completed the season written about. This would reduce the edit warring caused by particular people whom are actually only acting as newscasters and producing O.R. It would end the bickering between them, end the sensationalism they add, end the problems with writing one day in future tense and the next day in past. And when it's all said and done for that season, they ignore those articles leaving a big mess for everyone else to clean up. If only completed programs were considered facts, then the only people writing about them would be the people interested. :) BTW, this is not a request. It's just an idea that's useless to me. :(

Why do you continue to allow anonymous "editors" to insult people on talk pages?

Why do you allow anonymous "editors" like this guy to contribute to Misplaced Pages] In addition to insulting Misplaced Pages administrators, A.T.E has gotten himself banned from the Seattle P.I discussion board for his annoying and insulting behavior]]...and now he's continued his relentless insults and trolling on Misplaced Pages ... since my name no longer appears in the Misplaced Pages PRT article and since I will no longer waste my time editing the article, I ask you to at the very least, stop allowing anonymous contributors like A.T.E. to continue to insult me (and others) on Misplaced Pages.Avidor 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is evolving in the direction of being MORE open to encyclopedic contributions and LESS open to unencyclopedic contributions and we are characterizing this as Misplaced Pages being MORE open. WAS 4.250 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Avidor has vandalism and a ban on his record, among plenty more. Just wanted to say. Fresheneesz 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...and "Fresheneesz" also

Trials

I feel that admins should not have the power to ban someone just because they feel that they should be. I feel that there should be trials that will determine if someone is really guilty or not. Giving all that power to biased admins is very dangerous for Misplaced Pages.Defy You 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unified Spelling on Misplaced Pages

I think it's unusual that there are multiple spellings on Misplaced Pages. My idea is on the talk page of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style: spelling. I think it would reduce the necessary edit times.Cameron Nedland 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think if we just say Brittish spelling is wrong, it would make things easier. DyslexicEditor 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, then let's decree all other nationalities' views wrong as well. Brittish indeed. BabuBhatt 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My idea is actually a set of compromises, not saying one is better than the other.Cameron Nedland 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

some argue

So I was reading another article. It was long and disputed (it was cattle mutilation, but that's not the point) and I saw, "some argue" (it's like reading a misspelled word to me, a slight irritation each time). This might not mean anything, but once upon a time I read this http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue . Maybe wikipedia should have an article on some argue, or somewhere on policy. A search for it on wikipedia doesn't really find anything. DyslexicEditor 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid and Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words. WAS 4.250 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

yet another proof of admin power abuse and pov warring

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MONGO

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=60765001

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060627173822AAe2p7t&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHwIbtiEe86QcS8jHt.VPrJKNfMa87uC4N3Lw--&msgr_status=

what a pretty batch of proofs you provide. I encourage that...You're not alone, as I and others intend to start blocking POV pushers of nonsense in earnest.--MONGO 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Threats, personal attacks, and a splendid proof that you are a participant in a pov pushing cabal. Prometheuspan 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.

Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.

Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

wow, i just can't leave it alone... its like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the kind of thing non-admins get banned for. I got blocked for a whole day once, and the best anybody could claim was a personal attack based on personal observation. You on the other hand are using trollese. Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...Misplaced Pages only looks moronic if we post stuff that not a single reputable newspaper will touch with a 50 foot pole. The crap they litter those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft and is about as close to vandalism as it gets....but just a hairline over adding erect penises. Your failure to see the difference between Lulu and a bunch of nitwits is your problem.--MONGO 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, thats "moron",1 "crap", 2, "litter articles", 3, ignorant claim versus factual reality, "conspiracy cruft",4, "just a hairliine"...5, lulu nitwits...thats 6 attacks and the best you have for anything left for pseudo content is "those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft " Which simply is factually wrong.Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Maybe you should take a wikibreak.

Do not post anything else on my talk page.--MONGO 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen, we all appreciate Mongo's great work as an admin, your comments here are unproductive, and having debated Mongo before, he's definetely not easy. --kizzle 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Sure, no such thing. So whos going to carry out Mongos Threats? Prometheuspan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MONGO"

nice touch

http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:AN#User:Prometheuspan

he even used an ad hominem AS THE JUSTIFICATION for the block.

above stuff unsigned and likely done by Prome-something

My reply

Aside from telling you to sign your posts, just go here http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/MONGO and record your story. Yes, there's already an article about the guy. DyslexicEditor 08:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

good work here have a che

For your work with wikipedia. Me on behalf of many other users thankyou for your wiki work. As a award we give you the mighty che. F 22 07:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC) keep on trucking Jimmy

[[

I can't think of a LESS appropriate figure with which to praise the unabashedly Capitalist, Rand-loving Jimbo Wales. Or was a picture of Pol Pot]] or some other less "trendy" Communist butcher not available for Photoshoppping?

As a secondary award due to high request i reward you pol pot. F 22 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Searchbastard.com

Is "Search Bastard, the best motherfucking search engine on the net" really yours? What the hell are you thinking? Please ditch it before you get asked about it on CNN. Kthxbye Stunned06 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to have a lot of ideas before you hit on a really good one, I guess. Ashibaka tock 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Business 2.0 names Jimbo one of the "50 Who Matter NOW"

I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere, Jimbo, but congratulations on being named one of the "50 Who Matter NOW" in the July, 2006 issue of Business 2.0 magazine . For those who missed it, Jimbo and Digg founder Kevin Rose are cited at #23 as "The New New Media." Misplaced Pages, "is user-researched and user-edited, combining timeliness, breadth, and accuracy in a way that traditional encyclopedias can't match." He (and Rose) were chosen, the article states, because they "symbolize the revolution that's taking place in the way that news and information will be compliled in the years ahead." Again, congrats on the mention, Jimbo! - Nhprman 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Matter most to who, exactly? 69.67.235.127 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Old noncommercial images

It's been more than a year since the ruling that with permission or noncommercial iamges can't be on wikipedia. You mentioned that we have no intention to keep such images on the long time. It's been more than a year, and given that older images from may/19/2005 werre not removed, noone is bothering much nowadays to find free replacements. I've asked on wikien-l for more input, but I've got only one reply. What are the plans for such images n the long time? Can we after a year delete the orphaned ones meeting those criteria? What about images in use? Someone ocmmented that several of such images were in use at featured articles, but that's more the reason for us to find free replacements! but since they aren't being removed, noone is doing so. Alternatively, an approach that may work as well is to provide a deadline (if images aren't replaced within x months, they can b removed as we're doing with the new ones). I know you're quite busy, but can you comment on the issue? Perhaps on the mailing list? -- Drini 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikimania!

Wikimania is thee event where Wikipedians and others interested in building a culture of information--sharing collide to produce new ideas. We have scheduled multiple speakers, workshops, flash presentations, and discussion sessions.
The top ten reasons to come, and ways to get involved:

• Raise conference awareness. Add { {subst:User:GChriss/Wikimania invitation} } to a friend's talk page.
• Join us online via audio/visual live feeds and IRC Q&A participation.
• Volunteer to accomplish must--do tasks. (Ask how on IRC #wikimania)
• Register! And provide transportation or housing to others.

Although I think you have already accepted your invitation, we need to raise awareness as registration is still a bit down. This seems like a dandy place to start. GChriss 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Had to see what the big man thought

I was thinking that Misplaced Pages should have user levels. I think this would be good, since almost all user-oriented sites have them. I hope you look at some examples I made and consider them (I used userboxes, but the they wouldn't be if this happened). Please take some time to look at them. Thank you.

User:Trosk/User Level Suggestions

--Trosk 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You will get more responses if you post your policy at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals).--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is better http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Trosk/User_Level_Suggestions&oldid=61139123 DyslexicEditor 04:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?!

I recently got a message saying 'You have vandalism to revert' and I was going to undo it but it just showed me some help page and not the vandalism I had done and now I don't know what I did wrong. Would you help me please?Cameron Nedland 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Concentrating your efforts on adding alternative spellings and changing from a proper spelling varient to an alternative spelling varient is not good. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and as such we use words to communicate and discuss spelling varients only when it is useful to the article's subject. Your changes are less than helpful when they get in the way of communication by causing the reader to focus on your concern of spelling reform rather than the actual subject of the article. WAS 4.250 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving?

I could do it for you. This page is over 361kb :P. Orane 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Should have Werdnabot (talk · contribs) take care of it. — Jul. 2, '06 <freak|talk>

An award for you

The Original Barnstar For creating such a great community Minun 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A brief answer to your Michael Hedges question

A version of Prelude to Cello Suite #1 by Michael Hedges can be found on an album called Essential Winter SolsticeAmazon link. More information about harp guitars can be found at Harpguitars.net including a brief tribute to Michael in the "Players" section. He was a brilliant musician. Hope this little tidbit of info helps you. Cheers and take care! Anger22 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance of Criticism Continued

discussion found here

Is there ever a case when serious criticism is not met with a ban?

SORRY, NO. Doesn't happen. And how about this:

Is there ever a case when an anarchist or classical libertarian isn't harassed until they quit? Or is there ever a case when an editor shows contempt for communism or socialism or the U.S. Democratic Party or the U.S. Republican Party (the Republicraps) or Russia or Communist China or any of the big boys, without being similarly harassed or given the long term block? 69.67.235.127 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be posing the question in the classic "Are you still beating your wife?" form. One can flip it over and ask whether anybody has been banned, or harrassed until they quit, solely for holding political opinions (pro | anti) (libertarian | anarchist | communist | socialist | Republican | Democrat), or for having substantial criticism of Misplaced Pages, as opposed to being banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior (which is independent of their political views or substantive criticism). *Dan T.* 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You just said "banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior". If that's the case then we need to start banning admins for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior. And while we're at it, I suppose they should be banned for their harassing, lying, condesending, mean, and breaking all policy behavior. (Or conveniently picking and choosing policy behavior and making up policy that doesn't exist behavior. 203.234.156.4 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I read that NSLE (an admin) who did lots the sort of things you're complaining about was de-sysoped. It was not for what you're complaining about, but for using a sock puppet account in conjunction with his admin account to edit war. That's what I heard from him in the IRC chat at least (I apologize if this is innacurate but that's what I heard). So sometimes they do get de-admined. Mostly, I see admins they do something like cuss or have a vandalbox on their user page get attention just for that and so everyone's real critical of them. DyslexicEditor 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I've seen or noticed. What I've seen is a little criticism here or there with no real change. Maybe even an rfc or they pretend to disappear for a while, but they live on, and their abusive behavior lives on. And if this NSLE was de-sysopsed odds are great that he is an admin who goes against the powers that be. Call those powers whatever you like..I betcha that's the case. MulderandScully 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Page Archival

Hi there, just wondering if you were interested in having this page automatically archived by my bot, which currently maintains archives for 53 discussion pages. Let me know if you're interested. Werdna (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that this has been completed. Please note that you *will* have to increase the archive number in the target, as I haven't got around to having this auto-increase -- although this is on the cards since the bot took over archiving ANI. Enjoy! Werdna (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Search engine

Hi, I was hoping to try to convert Misplaced Pages's search engine to a Google based one because of Google's higher performance. Is there a reason this has not already been done and where do I go to propose/debate the idea with community? I'm a relatively new user -- thanks for your help!

Jarfingle 08:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

template

There's been a LITTLE contreversy, but is the following template alright with you? {{User:Ikiroid/User Jimbo v. Willy}} Gang staEB• ice slides) 13:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is in user space, so I don't really care. It hurts my eyes. --Jimbo Wales 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The fiction in the Misplaced Pages?

Sorry for my very bad english. I see some articles as fictive Star-Wars-companies with the sales - things, they are in no one of the Star-Wars-films to see. They are found in some Fanzine-magazines. If i'd find something like this myself and write it into the Misplaced Pages, it would be called vandalism. If i public it on some website first, it can be a "source" of an WP-"article" without great problems. Do you think, it's serious enough?

You write: "Therefore, these all really MUST be deleted. They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation! / Take your time, find a new home, but this stuff really has to go. --Jimbo Wales 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)". What about such things as Incom Corporation, Techno Union, List of Star Wars companies, List of minor Star Wars organizations and so one? Not one letter in these "articles" is real. --AN 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to help out, I'm not sure if this is what AN meant, but this is a version you might find easier to understand. Sorry for any inconvenience if these lines should be unwanted -- Hey Teacher 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my very bad english. I see some articles such as fictive Star-Wars-companies that can't even be found in the Star-Wars-films, but only in some Fanzine-magazines. If I found anything similar and wrote an article on such a topic in the German Misplaced Pages, it would be called vandalism. If I publish it on some website first, it can be a "source" of an WP-"article" without great problems. Do you think this is serious (reputable) enough for an encyclopedia?

Dear Mr. Wales, in the german Misplaced Pages there are some Users who want to turn the Wiki into a fanzine. Since now we (the admins and all) try to keep this stuff out of our encyclopedia. But now the kiddies and Star-Whatsoever-Fans united to form a front angainst the rule, that things that don´t exist (eg software in developement, Imperial Starships, StarWars technology breakthroughs) are not subject of an encyclopedia. The problems is, that they seem to be in the majority. I would really appreciate if you could throw your weight (do you say it this way in english?!? YES -Gerard Foley 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)) into the discussion. You can find it here. I would really appreciate it if you could reat your point mentioned by my good fellow AN above. Thanks!!! Dickbauch 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry for my english, I´m german. (This ecuse helped me in Canada every time I did something stupid. If you happe to do something stupid just pretend to be german. People will forgive you everything! =;o)

JumpTV spammer, again!

Hi Jimbo, if you can recall the incident, about on June 21-23, I forwarded you a corporate email from JumpTV's Internet MArketing department, which was responsible for continuous spamming in various articles. You replied to that and specifically asked JumpTV employees to refrain from editing the page. The Director of Marketing apparently agreed to it and mailed both of us that "I already asked every one in the company to refrain from posting any articles / links related to our company or our partners on wikipedia."

Now, they are claiming that you "decided" to allow them post "information" (such as huge cut-pasted content from their business prospectus) into the article talk pages. One of them has opened a mediation case on me, see Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-03_JumpTV. I just wanted to get some clarification from you whether you really meant what they claim you did, and whehter pasting such content in the talk pages is allowed.

Thank you.

--Ragib 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)