*cross fingers*

Kim Bruning 19:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I raised some concerns with David Gerard today, and he recommended that I put them to you. He says he shares them and he asked me to bring them directly to you.

A user, Achilles, observing the failure to gain consensus for deletion of an autofellatio image, clearly diagnosed the problem (correctly, in my opinion) as bias due to the fact that most wikipedians don't watch WP:IFD or Autofellatio. His solution: spend approximately seven hours between 9pm April 6 and 4am April 7 (UTC) contacting some fifty-five editors on the English Wikipedia and some half dozen or so editors on the French Wikipedia who he thought would vote for deletion, because they voted for deletion for the old Autofellatio picture.

Well you know, he could have gone to Village pump. I've done that in the past [2]. Instead he did a targeted mailshot. He did a targeted mailshot of over sixty people, and it took him seven hours to do it. And it had a remarkable effect. Suddenly from being a no-hoper deletion the image seems to be close to deletion.

I don't care if that image is deleted.

But I do think that kind of campaigning is inimical to trust. Firstly he spammed a rather large number of Wikipedia user talk pages. People have been blocked for doing that. Why? Because it's a dumb and wasteful thing to do on a Wiki with watchlists. Secondly he did so in a selective manner, apparently aiming to subvert rather than aid the process of obtaining a view of the consensus of Wikipedians, but contacting only those who seemed likely to express a point of view he agreed with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how is this any different than any other institution which sets policies and makes decisions by voting? you can never stop someone from doing this. it's a flaw in the system, as others have recently pointed out (and was definitely seen on the failed attempt to modify the arbitration policies..again) --Alterego

Just a note that I agree with and second the above concerns of Tony's. An arguably good cause (though I don't agree with the cause in question and voted 'keep' on the new image, because its copyright status is clear), but a stunningly bad precedent to allow someone to get away with pushing it in this manner. I ask you to consider at the very least asking Achilles not to do this (what could reasonably be considered spamming for votes, and targeted spam at that), and that others not do this - David Gerard 23:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me asking for others' votes is a reasonable thing to do; people need to be informed one way or another. I don't see why it matters if they are contacted. The underlying message seems to be one of opposition to open participation in the vote. Everyking 00:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you should know that there is another way to look at this. Over 80 people voted to delete the Autofellatio image, more than 80% of the votes, and the image was deleted. While copyright was an issue for many of the voters, the majority felt as you did that the image was "completely unacceptable" for Wikipedia. Within a day of two of the completion of that vote, and the deletion of that image, autofellatio_2, a similar image, perhaps even more graphic than the first, was posted, and linked to Autofellatio. Supposedly it does not have the copyright issues of the first one, but it is no less objectionable in every other respect. User:Achilles, in his responses to the accusation of "spamming", made it clear that he thought that posting this image was disrespectful of the consensus decision and wanted to let the people involved in that consensus know that there intention was already being set aside, and that there was a new IFD vote in progress. Many of the people whom he supposedly "spammed", including me, have expressed appreciation for being alerted about this, since they do not have WP:IFD or Autofellatio on their watch lists. By the way, I would appreciate your expressing your views on these type of images again, or even voting on IFD, because there seems to be a group determined to have them on Wikipedia, including the good editors Gerard and Sidaway, and they don't seem to appreciate the reasons why they are unacceptable. --BM 01:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about a picture, it's about a form of activism, the use of targeted mailshots to round up activist voters to subvert the consensus-based decision-making process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, just an update. The IFD vote on Image:autofellatio_2.jpg has finished, and although there was a majority to delete it, there was no consensus. This is an image similar to the one that you described as "completely unacceptable" for Wikipedia, and "not even borderline". Apparently, it was the copyright issue that put the previous image over the top for the required 80% consensus to delete it. Enter a pornography web site delighted to provide an image in return for an attribution (i.e. a little free publicity on a Top 100 web site), and the copyright issue evaporates. And so does the 80% consensus to delete a completely unacceptable image. --BM 12:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might also be interesting to note that a good number of those who voted (in both votes) Delete came from the french wikipedia and have made few to no contributions on en.wikipedia.org, in a previous discussion on the wikipedia-l it was pointed out that many of these people came to vote because the image was being interwiki linked into user talkpages by a vandal, and they wanted to remove the image to stop the vandalism. Seems like this is a pretty effective way for someone pushing image-deletion related POV to get their wish... I think that the issue of voters coming from outside our direct community (in this case the French wikipedia) is a complex superset of the issue of calling on specific people to come and vote.--Gmaxwell 21:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An interesting asymmetry

The 80% to delete creates an interesting asymmetry in wikipedia, because many other things such as selecting a version are often decided by a majority. Selecting a version of the article without the picture might be easier to do than deleting the picture, voting to have this unenclclopedic article moved to the dictionary. Often articles become featured articles with only 4 or 5 votes. Perhaps the 80% should be reconsidered as distorting a community that decides most things by consensus.--Silverback 12:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

A message to selected people is not spam

Achilles is getting some undeserved heat for his actions.

Calling his messages "spamming" is not accurate. Tony Sidaway stated on Achilles’ talk page "Spamming is sending the same message to lots of people." That is not a full or correct definition. For example, www.dictionary.com defines spamming as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." While it is true that his message could be considered "unsolicited", it was not sent "indiscriminately". He sent the message only to people whom you had reason to believe would be interested in the message. What could be wrong with reaching out to people who are likely to have an interest in a topic?

Ironically, Tony refutes his own word choice by claiming that Achilles’ so-called spam was directed "...*only* those who you thought would support you..." So, he is criticizing Achilles for making his message too targeted, too selective. He is actually being accused of carefully targeted spamming, which is an oxymoron.

Tony even takes pains to point out that Achilles had to take time and effort to send his messages over many hours. Spammers hit one “send” key and effortless direct their message to thousands of people.

Tony also suggests that Achilles should have posted to the Village Pump, thereby reaching a very non-selective audience. I want to hasten to point out that the village pump does not qualify as spam either. People have "opted-in" by the fact that they go read the Village Pump. But surely there is merit to targeting messages to people who would seem to be interested in them rather than to the entire community? Why would messaging a small set of people be more like spam than posting to the whole community?

Another interesting contradiction in Tony’s argument is the statement that “[he] spammed a rather large number of Wikipedia user talk pages. People have been blocked for doing that. Why? Because it's a dumb and wasteful thing to do on a Wiki with watchlists.” If watchlists were a complete solution to getting involvement in these types of situations, then why would Tony encourage Achilles to post at the Village Pump? The problem with watchlists is that there are changes in an article that can affect the whole of Wikipedia.

I don't claim to know the motives of the person who posted a notice to the autofellatio page (TIMBO) for a vote on an image so similar to one that was just deleted. However, the autofellatio page is obviously visited by people who have an interest in the topic, and in the manner of its representation in Wikipedia. It is reasonable to believe that a posting on that page will not reach a representative sampling of Wikipedians and that the set of people who would see it would tend to be enriched (compared to Wikipedia as a whole) towards those who would be inclined to support the image. It was logical of Achilles to believe that the message on that page would be seen mostly by people who would support the image. Whether or not that was considered by TIMBO I have no idea. I want to be clear that I am not accusing TIMBO of doing anything wrong. I think both TIMBO and Achilles were justified in their actions.

So, what did Achilles do differently than TIMBO? TIMBO's message was selectively sent to people who follow the discussion on the autofellatio article. Achilles’ message was sent selectively to people who had voted a certain way on an issue pertaining to the autofellatio article. So, he reached a more selective group. He directly argued for his vision of how Wikipedia should evolve. So what? Why would that be wrong? Surely discussing viewpoints and wikiwork in progress is a valid use of Talk pages.

Tony has accused Achilles of being "caught red-handed trying to cook a vote". This is an unfair characterization. If campaigning for your viewpoint is "cooking the vote", then anyone who posts an opinion on any page during any vote would be guilty. There is no harm in campaigning for your viewpoint.

For the record, I feel that the current situation, with the picture behind a link, is a pretty good compromise. I agree that having any pornographic image in any Wikipedia article poses all sorts of problems to us. We do Wikipedia a disservice if we allow a pornographic image to cause us legal problems, or if it causes Wikipedia not to be accessible to large groups of people because their school forbids it, or because their national government restricts access. If I saw strong evidence that the link itself was causing these sorts of problems, then I would be inclined to vote against retaining even the link. Johntex 20:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A message to selected people is not spam

I'm sorry but that is just silly. Spam is the same message repeated lots of times. Putting the same message on lots of user talk pages is spam. But that isn't the issue, is it?

He didn't just spam, he intentionally spammed *only* those people who agreed with him. He tried to cook the vote, to campaign, to go against the consensual decision making that has served Wikipedia so well and turn it into a scramble for votes, and was caught red-handed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the proper etiquette is to continue this talk here or at Tony's page. I'll continue here for now but I'm happy to move this if that is better.

Let's set aside for now whether it was spam or not so that we may focus on what you say is the issue. You are equating a "get out the vote" campaign to "cook[ing] the vote. They are not the same. Cooking the vote would be using sock puppets to stuff the ballot box. What he did was analogous to the Democratic party encouraging Pro-choice or gay marriage proponents to go to the polls in a United States presidential election; or the Republican party doing the same with senior citizens and members of the Bel Air country club. Why is there anything wrong with appealing to people who are likely to be receptive to your arguments?

How does this go against the "consensual decision making" process? Were people intimidated to vote a certain way? Did he tamper with the counting of the votes received? No. People were encouraged to speak up about an issue he felt they would be interested in. In my relatively short time here, I've seen hundreds of examples of people doing the exact same thing without receiving criticism, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Johntex 19:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't usually run to teacher when I don't get my own way, but I feel strongly about several aspects of the dispute at North American Man-Boy Love Association. The article is pure pedophile propaganda, but a person called Corax has systematically reverted all attempts to render it otherwise. I followed the so-called "dispute resolution process" but no-one showed any sign of response. I have already been banned once under your stupid 3R rule for reverting Corax and I don't bish to be banned gain. So I am taking the article off my watchlist and leaving him in change of the kindergarten. The article as it stands is a disgrace to Wikipedia. I suggest you do something about it. Adam 01:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This, of course, is nonsense. A number of months ago I wrote what I considered to be a relatively balanced article about NAMBLA that included criticisms and objections to those criticisms, in addition to a brief history of the group's founding. The article remained largely intact until last week, when Adam stumbled upon it and decided to edit the article to his liking. After several reverts, I insisted that he discuss his reasoning for edits on the discussion page as an attempt to help mediate the dispute. He refused, saying he wasn't prepared to engage in "polemical arguments" on the topic, and insisted on reinstating his recent revisions without any discussion or their merits.

I have been more than forthcoming with integrating much of the new material that Adam has proposed, including a lot of information regarding the strong condemnation the group has received from modern day gay rights groups. However, Adam still isn't happy. Rather than to channel that unhappiness into constructive discussion into how to move forward, he has used extremely offensive rhetoric, labeling me a "NAMBLA advocate" and implying that I myself am a pedophile (which verges on libel), and trying to frame the debate in a way that makes it seem as though "pedophiles" are the topic -- though the topic is really a fair portrayal of a political organization.

The fact is that all of us are indebted to you for your dedication and foresight in creating and maintaining Wikipedia. One of the reasons we owe so much to you is that, for the first time in history, the content and provision of information is not left up to the court historians. Any educated person with specialized knowledge can now convey his knowledge through Wikipedia. What is more, he can rest assured that mechanisms are in place to ensure that his knowledge can not be edited and reversed by the masses just because it is unpopular or makes some people uncomfortable. Thus it is with the highest respect and admiration for your ingenuity and wisdom that I advise you to take Adam's message with a grain of salt and move onto more pressing issues. Corax 09:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corax states "The article remained largely intact until last week, when Adam stumbled upon it and decided to edit the article to his liking". I feel this is a mis-representation of the facts. Coarax has a pattern of engaging in edit and revert wars with this article against several editors; a look at the history of this page should be enlightening. Samboy 10:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An examination of the article's history only proves that my introduction of new information did, indeed, remain largely intact. One or two disagreements sprang up, but those were quickly resolved in an equitable way agreeable to all sides because, unlike in our present situation, all participants behaved in a civil manner and were open to discussion on the issues instead of engaging on a crusade of blind editing. Corax 10:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverts done on this page by Corax: Against User:Get-back-world-respect [3] [4]

[5]; Against User:Davenbelle [6] [7]. He also has reverted non-vandalism contributed by IPs, not to mention Adam and myself. Samboy 10:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spare me the crocodile tears. You've been just as tenacious in your reverts as I have, the m ain difference being that I've defended my reverts on the discussion page, while you have tried to control the content of the article by fiat. Corax 18:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Wales. I just came over to say hello. Ive been on this site now for almost one year exactly. I've had a great time and have written some good articles. Feel free to visit my User page. Most of what I've worked on is there. Thanks for sponsering such a great site. I hope it stays up a long long time. -Husnock 05:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy I wanted to contact you about a possible internship during this summer in wikimedia. I live in Tampa and attend college at UF. Please contact me at poningru at ufl dot edu I also hang out in #wikipedia at freenode. For good measure I am also emailing you. - Eldo (Note: this message is not from User:BM, who only moved it from the main User page. The message was originally posted by User:128.227.11.54)

Hello, I have a problem with the German Wikipedia. There are pictures made by me. I don't agree with publishing them. The users don't want to delete them. Could you please delete them?

I think, it would be better if you set the images to be deleted on de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Bilder (after reading the topic) or contact an admin on the German Wikipedia. --Filzstift 09:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

(This probably isn't a new idea, but...) Have you ever thought of producting a little comedy book like this with Wikipedia Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? Some of this stuff is comic genius - for example Seabhcán 08:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please allow users to protect their userpages from other non-administrative users. (This probably isn't the proper place for feature requests. I know.) Adraeus 10:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? I let people edit my userpages, what's the problem with it?--Jimbo Wales 21:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not you. Adraeus 00:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo. I'm going to interview you. I only have one question. - 68.72.123.164 04:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Are you a quitter?

Can you edit this page? - 68.72.123.164 06:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• My apologizes on that one. I saw his question on the main Barnstar Userpage, so I went to that talk page and answered his question there. I thank 68.72.123.164 for moving my question here. Zscout370 18:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no official rules per se about Barnstars and deleting them. However, most people remove them from their talk page, but put them on your user page. If the barnstars get to great, a page like this will be very good. Will people get upset if you delete or keep them? No, since time has gone since the award. Zscout370 11:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible Solution: Uncle Jimbo (I hope you do not mind me calling you that, I watch too much South Park), here is an idea that I have created that you can see at here. What I did is put the awards I got into tables, broken up into four sections (you can get easily away with three). First, put the award, second, put the text that comes with the award (I call it the citation) and the third spot is for the user that stuck it there. The last section was just something I wanted to do. I would love to hear your thoughts about it. Zscout370 00:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

I'd like to ask a few questions, namely:

1. Why did you start Wikipedia?
2. What are your intentions re the development of this free online encyclopedia?
3. What makes Wikipedia so popular?
4. Is it on the same level as other "normal" encyclopedias? And other online encyclopedias? If so, why?

That's all. Please don't be surprised if my questions sound a bit dumb. I'm somewhat known for being able to answer all the difficult questions, yet asking the stupid ones (ex. Why is a BEC governed by quantum physics). It reminds me a bit of Riemann - or was it Russell? I forget - who was able to do spectacular things with calculus, but couldn't do simple arithmetic.

Anyway, that's all. JMBell 17:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir, and all,

I would much appreciate at least a decent response from any of you. You could very well e-mail me; however, I use the computer in the library (and sometimes the downtown café) and don't have an e-mail address, thinking it to be a big waste of time and money. I prefer snail mail. Please reply here, or on my talk page, as this is the only way to contact me thru internet. JMBell° 14:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain Jimbo has been interviewed several times and asked these same questions several times. ^Research. Research. ^Research. Google. Adraeus 17:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo,
I believe that adding a spell checker to the Edit Pages can reduce the number of spelling mistakes in an article. I am not sure whether this is the right place for suggesting such changes. If not, I am sorry and please let me know abt the forum where I can raise such issues.Gaurav1146 19:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doing spell-checking is something that should be done from the user's computer, rather than done as a server-side task as yet another process running on the overstretched Wikipedia servers. I've found that using the Mozilla Firefox browser with the SpellBound spell-check extension to work very well for editing Wikipedia articles. You can even have multiple dictionaries so you can spell-check articles written in British English, American English, or even other dialects of English. BlankVerse ∅ 00:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo. I just wanted to bring this to your attention:

DPPP (listed on Votes for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DPPP) is just a recipe for an explosive. I'm worried that this probably creates various legal issues for Wikipedia, especially with anti-terrorism legislation (I'm not a lawyer, so I wanted to make sure "someone important" knew about it).

SteveW | Talk 00:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I am wondering if there is any way that exceptions can be made for accounts that aren't blocked on IPs that are. Where I have the fastest connection (at school), there seem to be some people that like to cause trouble anonymously, which in turn keeps me from editing anything. The school's internet runs on a single server, leading to only one IP for the entire network. Would it be possible to code a feature that allows unblocked accounts to have access on blocked IPs if the accounts were made before the block? Many thanks for whatever help you can offer.

Fant 22:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo Wales,
While browsing the web I have found a web statistics of Alexa.com that could be included into Special:Statistics; see [8] for es.wikipedia.org and [9] for wiktionary.org. The Rank(1), Review(1) and the Graph(2) is the one of the whole wikipedia.org site. When creating an account on Amazon.com it is even possible for Wikimedia to earn a little bit of money with this stats (and maybe with a web search (?), see [10]. Additionally there could be a link directly to [11] for example to see where people go to on wiktionary.org/wikipedia.org/... To be able to use these stats it has to be created "MediaWiki:Alexastats" for example in where normal HTML tags and scripts have to be used (see externel links above). The stats could appear under the sitestats and userstats on Special:Statistics. What do you think of this idea? --- Best wishes --Melancholie 17:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow: Banning Mutter Erde on wikipedia:de

Prelude:

Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Problem zwischen AN, Dickbauch, Skriptor, Markus Schweiß und anderen mit Mutter Erde [12]

Some are wondering and laughing:[13]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Mutter_Erde

= Prehistory:( You are leaving the old (but current!) sector behind the coloured plate) )

Banning Mutter Erde : ( Coming soon )

Have fun MutterErde 10:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now: Fasten your seat-belts , here we go :

MutterErde presents: Banning Mutter Erde from wikipedia.de / Second Try : LIVE-SHOW

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Mutter_Erde

Some additional informations: [14], [15] , [16]

Have fun MutterErde 10:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooooohhhh , that hurts. The first fouls by Skriptor !

[17] , [18]

Shame on you , Skriptor 14:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)MutterErde 16:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (Signature added )[reply]

fyi: that wasnt Skriptor, who wrote that! ME is already known for misusing the signature-feature! 141.53.194.251 15:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you , honey ? MutterErde 16:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What else has happened today?

What some Germans wanted to delete .Unbelievable.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/25._April_2005

Aria Giovanni , Jenna Jameson are among the candidates and a dozen more - even bomis .com – but they didn´t dare.

Deleted on the german site today by Herrick : Anita Blond , Kaylani Lei , Bobbi Eden , Rebecca Lord ,Bridgette Kerkove ,

Bunny Lord , Bunny Love , Olivia del Rio - all not relevant MutterErde 20:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo,hi Mutter Erde

Hallo,

• Unter welchem Sockenpuppenalias tobt er sich jetzt aus?
• Wenn hat er jetzt aufs Korn genommen?
• Wenn hat er jetzt ausgesperrt?

Kannst du bitte so freundlich sein und unserem Tor der Sk ripte folgende Links ans Herz legen die sich mit Zensur und Internetbenimmregeln befaßen?

• Nettiquette @ Renate Husmann
• Nettiquette @ FU Berlin
• Und ans Usenet/Newsgroups angelehnt: Wie zitiere ich im Usenet oder alternativ Learn to quote

Um zu sehen was er, der Tor der Sk ripte, gerade macht:

• Finanziert Skriptor als Hartz-4/ALG-2 Empfänger mit Mitteln der BA die Wikipedia?
• Historisch ungefälschte Skriptor Diskussionen liest du hier

Kannst du bitte auf deiner Benutzerseite folgenden Text veröffentlichen?

Bitte empfehle diese Box weiter!

Er zeigte dass er sehr wohl Freude daran hat, die konstruktive Arbeit in der Wikipedia zu behindern. Dieses Archiv zeigt die Freunde die sich Skriptor gemacht hat:

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme/Archiv3 = Beschwerden über Skriptor
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme/Archiv4 = Beschwerden über Skriptor
• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme&oldid=4996508#Pro = Gegner von Skriptor
• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme&oldid=5163396#Pro_R.C3.BCge_.28einfache_Benutzer_sind_berechtigt_abzustimmen.29 = Gegner von Skriptor
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administratoren/Beschwerde_gegen_Admin_Skriptor = Gegner von Skriptor
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalensperrung = Gegner von Skriptor

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Mutter_Erde#Individuelle_Pranger_installieren:_Misstrauensnetz_Skriptor = Gegner Mutter Erde
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Lichtkind = Gegner Lichtkind
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:HV = Gegner HV
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Hans_Bug = Gegner Hans Bug
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Gzornenplatz = Gegner Gzornenplatz
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Jersey#Warnung_von_Skriptor Gegner Jersey
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Hans- Hans SGOvD

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Stefanwege Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dominik Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Hadhuey Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Hoch_auf_einem_Baum Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Rdb Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:LL Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Littl Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Guenny Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Thoken Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Geos Abstimmungsgegner

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Historiograf Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Turino Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Thomas_G._Graf Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Carbidfischer Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Jedermanns_Sockenp%C3%BCppchen Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:WJS Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Cwagener Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Langec Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:AN Abstimmungsgegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Manfred_Riebe Abstimmungsgegner

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Wolpertinger = Vermuteter Gegner
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Strikerrr = Gesperrt von Skriptor
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Rotekatz Gegner Rote Katz = gesperrt von Dickbauch

Es muß halt mal ein Zeichen gesetzt werden, damit dieser Trolladmin begreift, daß er mit seinem feigen Benehmen ein schlechtes Vorbild für andere Autoren auf Wikipedia abgibt, und daß er der Anlaß für Vandalismus ist.

• --84.176.122.244 08:43, 9. Mai 2005 (CEST) Gruß vom Quästor, dem Rückzahlmeister :-)) Bild:smile.png

Jimbo, I've got this idea: Wikiscript!

Instead of having random quotes on the page, we should organize it into a chronological script, whether it be a movie or a television series. - 68.23.111.135 03:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TV and movie scripts are copyrighted, and so that's immediately out of the question for Wikipedia. As for small quotes, that's what Wikiquote is for. MessedRocker 22:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jimmy,

I was just thinking that we should have a Wikipedia Research League. It would be just like our current Clean-Up Taskforce, only this league's goal is to turn stubs into fuller articles. I'd be happy to be in charge of the league, if it happens.

I would just like to know if you're OK with this idea.

Sincerely,

MessedRocker 22:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Looking forward to your visit to Belgrade. I'm one of the Serbian Wiki team and I'll probably be there when the other guys show you the city around (Milos has made arrangements with you). Just to let you know... Cheers! --Dungodung 10:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a great deal of discussion and disagreement regarding the use of prefixed-styles originating with the new Pope Benedict XVI article which currently begins with the formal style of address, "His Holiness." The question was broadened because it was claimed by Jguk to be an established style policy to begin biographical entries with formal styles, and discussion was moved/continued on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page. Prolonged discussion resulted in no apparent consensus, and a survey was proposed and discussed for another week before being submitted. The current survey is posted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles.

The survey is still ongoing, and not scheduled to be closed until after April 14. However, there does not seem as yet to be any consensus forming, rather, there seem to be divided camps which will probably block ultimate consensus for any outcome. By no means is this absolutely certain, and I would not foreclose the survey and discussion prematurely, but I thought you might want to take a look and in particular to provide any suggestions or guidance on what the Wikimedia Foundation would consider a proper NPOV rule. Whig 06:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. First- sorry for my English. I have a question. When is planned a start of Sorbian/Wendish Wikipedia? I promised it Sorbians. Great greetings for "The Great" :), Antares (pl) ^{my discussion} PS> Thank You For Wikipedia!

Mr Wales, I would like to bring your attention to the case that User:Mel Etitis, User:Moumine and User:JMbell have been complaining that I have done edits that does things which make things good to bad, and even stating that my English is bad (I don't see where's bad, and they have been using a lot of brackets in their sentences). Thus, Mel Etitis opened an RfC for me on May 1.

Today, if you realise, the gang of three users have been stalking me, ambushing my edits wherever I go. While accusing me that my edits make things good to bad, it is sometimes the reverse. For example, while GohChok Tong needs a new template as the old syntax template should be replaced with the new one, Mel has delibrately reverting my edits, doing things as he pleased. In fact, everyone, or mostm has been against me. I don't see where my guiltiness lies, nor do I see where my English is atrocious. I admit that I may have some errors, but they have been accusing me of having bad english since when I stated that I have stated that their english is bad. Both parties, three to one(Me) been pointing out mistakes to each other, and I initially wanted to state their mistakes in their RfC, but I'm baffled, stating that I'm a vilian in other words and they as heroes in other words. The freedom to edit, the right to edit, especially Zanskar, have been robbed by them whenever I want to do even the slightest edit, they will mercilessly revert before I could complete the entire process.

If this goes on, I will have no choice but to leave wikipedia.

Tan 21:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern,

I, on behalf of User:Mel Etitis and User:Moumine, would like to give our side of the argument in response to Mr. Tan's statement.

We, User:Mel Etitis, User:Moumine, and I, are having a small problem with User:Mr Tan. You see, this Tan character has been diligently editing many articles over the past few weeks. Now this isn't a problem in itself, but Tan does not have adequate knowledge of English grammar. This, too, shouldn't have been a problem, but (here's the catch) although Mr. Tan accepts that his English is substandard, he does not let others fix it. That is the cause of this whole dispute.

Over the past few weeks, Mr. Tan has repeatedly disrupted the project; for example, he persistently kept changing the grammar of some articles to match his own standards, and in doing so lowered the overall quality of the article; he added unnecessary {{gcheck}} templates to articles which needed no copyediting (e.g. Zanskar); verbally attacked the three aforementioned users.

Aside from this, he would do large-scale edits on articles, repeatedly replacing perfectly good phrases with his fractured English, adding questionable facts and the like. It has come to the point where reasoning has no effect on this user. With no other option (Mel had already blocked him once), we opened an RfC, hoping to enlighten him.

However, it didn't stop there. Mr. Tan gladly seized the opportunity to accuse us of doing various things, including vandalism, personal attacks, poor grammar, bad faith, and the like.

More information under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mr_Tan and in our talk pages.

Most sincerely, JMBell° 14:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Wales,

On my point of view, I would like to give my defence upon the statements given by JMbell:

As a responsible editor of the wikipedia community, I always try to make out the best that I could give for wikipedia. I do not, understand why they have repeatedly accusing me and my fellow Singaporean/Malaysian users having a substandard of English. Although I do not admit that my English is 100% flawless, the problem started with the debate over Zanskar (if you would kindly approach and view over the history and see our edits). As I was a newbie at that time, I had, to my then-not-so-good knowledge of wikipedia and having a haste to spin-off articles, blanked out the page and suggested a vote. Mel, then stated that it was vandalism, in which I subsequently apologised to him in the user page.

After the incident, I had persistently wanted to change the outlook of wikipedia, having the thought that my action would benefit wikipedia. Disagreements led to an edit war, alongside I was blocked for exceeding the three revert rule.

For a time I decided to give up on Zanskar, editing on other articles in the meantime. However, to my surprise, even up to today, Mel has been persistently tracking down on my edits, and induging in my editing affairs. I do not vandalise, in fact, I never had the intention to do that.

For some unknown reasons the group have been accused me of vandalism. Because of our vast differences in our ideas, we have attempted to sort out our differences, resulting in an edit war at times. I also do not understand why Mel has been placing up signs of copy-editing on articles that I have contributed, which I think is better, and Zanskar, which I think is worse, he removed it unanimously. This, however, is discrimination of my POV, dignity and my right to edit. Although at times I do agree that my english may have contained flaws, I do not see the point where they have been even reverting changes unanimously on articles that I have been working on and reverting the changes. It really shocks me a great deal. To me, their english have certain strange points which made me disagree on them.

Although I may be a little bit harsh at times, to be honest, User:Huaiwei and User:Mailer diablo have also condemned of the group's actions. If you notice, Mel has also reverted the old syntax template in Goh Chok Tong and their children's facts twice, after I replaced with the new template, seeing that all other articles uses the new template.

With due respect, Mr Wales, I would appreciate if you could spend a little bit of your precious time and look into the matter in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan and Zanskar. I would be also very grateful if you would briefly look through my works in Wee Kim Wee, Kinnaur, Nakhi, Korean Buddhism and Cheng Hoon Teng.

Yours, sincerely,

Tan 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. Also, look at all the mistakes that he insisted were right. JMBell° 11:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that (from my perspective), we are innocent of the terrible crimes that Tan has been accusing us of doing. We would very much appreciate any opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan, as we are obviously getting nowhere. Thank you. JMBell° 12:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo,

the people from Hamburg finally decided to meet on Juni 1 and on June 2. It would be nice if you'd drop a note when you want to visit us. -- Greeting from the North Sea southgeist 00:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MutterErde presents: Banning user wikibär from wikipedia.de.LIVESHOW

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Wikib%C3%A4r

additional informations : [19] , [20] , [21]

By the way: You remember the "Geistesheld from PISA" - that admin who is deleting articles just to satisfy his weird humor ?[22]

( Sure you do :-)) (or, as we in Germany say: "Wozu muss ich von irgendwas eine Ahnung haben - ich habe doch einen Löschknopf ! ")

Look at his comeback:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Frau.jpg

Have fun

MutterErde 19:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We are still waiting for some Hamburgers. But I´m sure they will vote in time.

• Hahaha , the "Geistesheld" has written some lines on the discussionsite ...

: Noch einmal die Frage zum Erziehungswert einer infiniten Sperrung: Ich sehe da keinen, ausser das eindeutige Signal für den Accountinhaber zu verschwinden. Wiedergänger mit gleichen Intentionen wurden und werden auch jetzt schon ohne großes Aufheben herausgeworfen, siehe de:Benutzer:Oma Erde, dessen Mutter uns allen noch in ganz schlechter Erinnerung ist. Also: Bitte in diese Aktion nicht mehr hinein interpretieren als unbedingt notwendig. --Markus Schweiß, @ 06:56, 18. Mai 2005 (CEST) [23]

Funny guy - but he can´t cheat them all, especially not wikibär.

To all Hamburgers - even then they are not living in Hamburg - here his answer : [24]

MutterErde 17:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo, I understand why you have chosen to remove the image from the Alexander MacGregor article.. I presume that the TIPT people have been in touch and are putting on the heat (although I suspect that the actual copyright holder may be the Toronto Sun). As the edit history demonstrates, the irony here is that the article was started as an apparent vanity page. In any case, the facts about MacGregor that I have added to the page are a matter of undisputed public record with supporting links to newspaper articles and human rights board documents. I cannot, however, personally vouch for the veracity of any of the claims made by the original creator of the article which are still extant in the text. Fawcett5 20:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the phone call was from the Toronto Sun. MacGregor's representatives are quite unhappy with the article as it currently stands, and so I hope that you (and others) will take some time (if possible) to carefully review the exact wording of every single claim in the article which might in any way be controversial.--Jimbo Wales 20:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimbo. Currently there's some discussion going on over deletion processes and in particular schools. I would greatly appreciate it if you might make a comment about a Wikipedia-wide poll on Wikipedia:Deletion principles poll. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 00:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• In particular, to participate in the poll as written forces accepting "notability" as a criterion, rather than say importance, verifiability etc. Kappa 06:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC) n/m, being fixed Kappa 23:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to point out that there's also an (unrelated) discussion trying to create consensus or compromise on the issue. Several people (me included) are afraid that Neutrality's poll would only serve to factionalize, and might be disruptive to the forming of a consensus. Yours, Radiant_* 12:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I am quite new to Wikipedia I became a member around January, and recently came across your user page. I would just like to say how much I enjoy Wikipedia and how much I enjoy using the site, I often use the information for my school work and find it infinitely better than most other informative websites. Thanks Electricmoose- Electrifying 20:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Wales. We've never talked; I'm a relatively recent administrator. I reverted the edit User:Who is it? made to your talk page, as it seems to be a massive number of copies of your talk page. If you would like to see it, it's here, but it is so large it most likely will not load for you. Incidentally, thank you for founding this revolutionary project that has already captured the interest of so many. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like a lot of Wikipedians, I'm an in-out, when I have time, sort of editor, and a much more regular looker upper. Just a wee note of thanks for all the fun - and occasional professional usefulness - you've given me over the past 18 months or so. I'd give you a barnstar, but I'm too lazy! Gerry Lynch 23:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(misplaced comment moved from your userpage User:Rdsmith4/Sig)

Why are "non-commercial only" and "by permission only" images going to be deleted? If one has the copyright owner's permission to use the images, then one would think that using the images is okay. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Our goal is to create a _free_ (in the sense of GNU) encyclopedia. Non-free images are contrary to that purpose. When we accept non-free images, we make our work proprietary, that is to say, we change our work so that only Wikipedia may use it, no one else can use it. This is contrary to our fundamental principles.

The Four Freedoms of free software apply to Wikipedia. People should have the right to copy our work. They should have the right to distribute our work. They should have the right to modify our work. And they should have the right to distribute modified versions of our work.

There are a great many complexities and borderline cases associated with this. "Fair use" presents a challenging example, and I think that we rely far too heavily on fair use and that virtually all (yes, virtually all!) of the images which are currently tagged as 'fair use' should be deleted. But this is a grey area and so at this time, I only urge people to be cautious about those.

But "by permission only" and "non-commercial only" are not grey areas. They are clearly non-free images which hurt our work. The examples I gave on the mailing list show why -- we are in some cases using non-free images when it would be trivial to get a free image. This means that people who want to use our work get a broken work. This is bad.

--Jimbo Wales 13:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]