User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Template:Trollwarning

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined

Archives as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 May24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Undated

I'm recently working on Chinese surname articles. Here is the fact, completely different surnames might have exactly the same pronunciation and romanization, but on the other hand, many same surnames of China origin have found and extensively used in other East Asian countries with different pronunciations and romanizations. Chinese character to Roman is not a relation of one-to-one or one-to-more, but more-to-more. The relation is too complex to figure out what the surname actually be only by its romanizations. There is no way to organize each surname under one single article title unless we use Chinese characters in title to disambiguate (only for disambiguation purpose). I'm propose to use "Pinyin (Chinese) (surname)" form of title for surname articles, this can be read and edit (but not create) by both people who can or cannot speak Chinese, no matter if he/she has installed Chinese font. As a IT/computing expert, I see no technical problem by using Chinese characters at Wikipedia. But it seems this is difficult to be accepted by the community. Could you please have a look at this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname). Yao Ziyuan 08:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, a rant, and then some limited support for your proposal. :)

I am deeply, deeply opposed to the use of ALL non-English characters in the titles of articles in English Wikipedia in most cases. This is already a horrible problem in such cases as Stanisław Lem. Look closely at that... it contains the character "ł", which is not an English character. Therefore, it is wrong as a title for an article in the English Wikipedia. Because of the nature of English as a mongrel language with no official academy or spelling rules, there can be rare exceptions where some special non-English characters are extremely well known as part of a proper name. I accept this. So be it. But this is not license to play it deuces-wild and dispense with the entire English spelling system.

The correct name of Munich, in English, is Munich. This despite the fact that it could be written as the Germans write it: München, or perhaps even Anglicized as Muenchen. The correct English name for the capital of Japan is Tokyo. It would be deeply wrong to write that "The capital of 日本 is 東京." It would be also wrong to say "The capital of Nippon is Tōkyō... or any other variant. In English the name is "Tokyo".

Now, having given that rant, I find that I must take what might seem to some a contradictory position. In the case you are considering... purely for disambiguation purposes, the subject of the page is, in a sense, the character itself. I find this to be an interesting proposal, and I promise not to blow a gasket about it. It is not for me to decide of course.

(And notice that although I think the community has made a deeply wrong decision in the case of Stanisław Lem, I keep mostly quiet about that, too.)

--Jimbo Wales 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to take the conversation off on a tangent here, and I hope I am not breaching wikiquette by asking in this location, but: Where might someone like me find out more about this issue of using non-English characters in articles (and especially article titles)? Where, for example, is the discussion in which the "community" made this "deeply wrong decision" to allow the use of "ł" in a title? (I am not even sure what that is, I just copied-and-pasted it from the usage above.) Is there a policy on this that I have never come across? I cannot imagine what the justification for such a thing would be. I hate to be parochial here, but English is English. We do not have slashes through letters or umlauts or tildes or any of those things. Nothing against languages that do, but this particular Wikipedia isn't written in any of them, it's written in English. Well, mostly in English, as I have now learned. 6SJ7 03:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few English words borrowed from foreign languages that often keep their diacritical marks, like café and piñata, and they are preserved in the Wikipedia articles on them as well. *Dan T.* 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I am one of the participants in the debate whether to use Chinese characters in page names and I would like to thank you for your input. I think it is wrong to draw a parallel between the use of diacritics in Latin-based names and Chinese characters.

First, it is hard to draw the line where diacritics should be considered non-English or not. Not long ago, it was considered proper English to write: coöperation, reënactment, rôle and archæology, etc.

Furthermore, in case diacritics are used, it is very easy to create disambiguation pages that will lead user to the "correct" page. Type Stanisław Lem or Stanislaw Lem and you get directed to the same page.

However, when it comes to the use of Chinese characters in page names, we are potentially raising a barrier to many users, at least as long as we can assume the majority of English Wikipedia's cannot type Chinese. If we set a precent for this, there is nothing that prevents us from creating pages with Arabic, Hindi, Hebrew, Cyrillic texts, which may make parts of Wikipedia inaccessible for many user.

Just my two cents.--Niohe 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is still correct to use the diaeresis in such words as "coöperate" and its kin, to use accents in rôle and récipé, and both in naïvété. Such usage is, in fact, the editorial style standard at The New Yorker. Just because that usage is relatively uncommon outside academia in the US, however, does not make it "incorrect", it just makes it uncommon outside academia in the US. That said, "ł" is never used in any words borrowed into English from Polish, primarily, I suspect, because any borrowings which contained "ł" instead of "l" were simply spelled, from the outset, in English with the "l" because "l" was the closest approximation English typesetters could muster. Diaëreses, I imagine, were much easer to come by, and more practical simply because of their use in words borrowed from more "familiar" languages such as French and German. Today, façade is still spelled, by the majority of people, I dare say even those without benefit of a day of French lessons, with a cedilla—at least in formal writing. I realize I'm pontificating here just a little bit, but I think a far more eggregious situation is in play with respect to the similarly off-topic matter of article naming using a preference for "native language names" such as the insane battle fought over Wojsko Polskie and in the case of the complete disarray that is transliteration-of-words-from-other-languages-as-article-names, specifically, I'm thinking of Hebrew, where academic transliteration has been completely discarded in favor of whatever whoëver writes the article comes up with. Basically, it's descended into a free-for-all where the "winner" is determined by "who writes the article first" (which is why, e.g., why Kapparos isn't at Kapparoth), and first runner-up is "whoëver pushes their mistaken opinions most vociferously" (which is, e.g., why Poseq is now a redirect to the Ashkenazi Posek and Qaddish is now a redirect to the equally Ashkenazi [and incorrect! ;-)] Kaddish). Anyhoo, before I go on too much longer than too long, I just wanted to point out that redirects cover a multitude of "sins" in this department, and to register my unsolicited opinion that there's little harm done in using unconventional characters, as long as the reader is made immediately aware that they're not "lost" when they encounter them. If this were simple:, I would probably argue against using any kind of diacritics, to avoid confusing people...but this isn't :simple, it's en:, the "muttest" language on the planet today (indeed, well over half the vocabulary of English is, or at one time was, "foreign"), and I doubt any actual harm is done to readers, nor [by extension] to the Project, by a reasonable and rational leniency regarding "non-English" in article titles. OK, shutting up now.  :-) Tomer^talk 08:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the viewpoint you expressed in the Chowbok RfC. I believe the quoted exchange shows that he is actually opposed to the current fair use policy on wikipedia and has or would tag images contrary to that policy. I may be mistaken about the referenced image being fair use, but he also states he would object to a television screenshot in place of the publicity photo, in which case there are a tremendous number of articles which should be tagged according to him - namely all the television and movie screenshots of living persons used in their articles. While his work may be useful, I think we all need some very specific clarification on what is an acceptable use of a publicity photo or screenshot for a famous person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourdee (talk • contribs) 20:31, November 28, 2006 (UTC-6)

Dear Jimbo,

From the words of a beginning teenage editor, I really don't know if this is the right question to ask, or if it's hitting me in the face with a baseball bat, but,

Could there be a Meetup in St. Louis...

and...

A joke.

3 guys walk into a bar.

The 4th guy ducks.

Cheers to you in Sweet Home Georgia.

--NapalmRiot 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a meetup in St. Louis. Problem is you have to get them coordinated yourself, or convince someone else local that they want to do it! :-) See Wikipedia:Meetup for more info. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Jimbo is from Alabama; incidentally, the name of the song is "Sweet Home Alabama" -- Dskluz 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo currently lives in Florida. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote of no confidence against User WR failed. Because of this personal disaster for Administrator Rax he nearly worked a complete nightshift to outsource any vita signs of WR ( White Rose ) Weiße Rose to places where you cannot follow the complete hunting process against she or her. I never regret beeing a German because of our terrible past but if I see how they behave in DE wiki I feel ashamed for carrying around a German passport. This is lynch law not more and not less.--Ekkenekepen 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) The voting jury in even all Pseudo Democratic Sytems is not allowed to talk about the case with other members of the jury. In DE wiki they are telephoning and working with IRC to plan their collective ambushes and attacks to finish the prosecuted victim. ( and I said victim on purpose ) Kind regards and panem et circensis for DE wiki [2] --Ekkenekepen 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If I see the working hours at DE wiki of German administrator Rax I am only interested at what times he is educating his students  ;-)

ZimZalaBim repeatedly hassles and harrasses good editors who make positive contributions. This user returns to my talk often and writes wikilibelous wikiallegations.

I expect this to stop wikimmediately.

Thank yu --Ghetteaux 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should try our dispute resolution process. Jimbo rarely intervenes in personal disputes nowadays. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case he already did [3]. --Derlay 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales,

I feel that Fair Use imiages pollcy part #9 to be un-fair as it does not allow Fair Use to be used on Templates & Userpages.

Thank You Very Much, Cocoaguy 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's unfair? All fair-use images on Wikipedia are, after all, other people's work. Being able to use them without paying is a privilege granted by law and Wikipedia policy, not a right. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a member of Esperanza and I believe due to inactivity of my account for several months that I was removed. I was wondering if you could add my name back on the member list. I feel quite silly having the green e on my username without having membership anymore. -- Damien Vryce 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Jimbo or an Esperanzian, but I expect you could just add yourself back again. "Joining Esperanza is simple. Just add your name to the members list below" surely applies to returning Wikipedians too. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done by NoSeptember. As Sam Blanning said, all you have to do is to add your name to the list!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never actually turned to you, Mr. Wales, for anything before but I know that you are a stickler for copyright infringement. So I would like to ask: Are lyrics to a song from a show covered under fair use? and How do you feel about Youtube links of said shows? Gdo01 04:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was the song created? I think there should be some limits as to the year of publishing.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried everything! And, the thing is still on there! Bearly541 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reflist was vandalised. I've fixed it and protected it so that it can't happen again. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your stubbing the article (which I had on my watchlist) may I inquire if there were any details in particular that were objected to by Reisman or someone connected to her? (I'm trying to source content now)JoshuaZ 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion - I'm going to work on some proposed revamped sections + propose additional sources and put them on the talk page sometime soon. JoshuaZ 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, what on earth is this all about? Your name has been invoked by arbcom members in stating (in a manner that seems to a number of us admins abrupt) that arbcom should be able to sanction admins without an existing case. This has rubbed people the wrong way (reasonably, I think) and requires clarification. Chick Bowen 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a change of policy in any way. It has traditionally been possible for the ArbCom to rule in cases that I refer to them directly, and this fits neatly under that umbrella. If you would like, you can consider that I am taking Admin civility to each other (esp. regarding wheel warring and other sorts of "conduct unbecoming") quite seriously. We need to treat each other with deep respect and kindness, and when I see that not happening, I fear for the example we set for newbies. Therefore, I am very likely to refer any sort of wheel warring case brought to my attention by the arbcom itself back to the arbcom under existing tradition.--Jimbo Wales 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So technically, the user bringing the case is you. Would you be happy to be named as the person bringing the case in cases like this? Or do you think it is appropriate for one of the arbitrators to be named as the person bringing the case? Carcharoth 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, Jimbo, which is helpful. Yes, you've referred such cases directly to Arbcom before, as in the February wheel war--I don't think anyone has a problem with that. I just wanted to make sure that you were not eliminating the possibility of admins solving wheel wars of our own accord--we take admin civility seriously too. Chick Bowen 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you requested that candidates who had withdrawn for not being in the top-N reconsider this, I have reopened my voting page. I would like to have your input on how to proceed. Should anything else be done, such as keeping the page open a few days longer at the end? Or is this an unwise move on my part best avoided? At any rate it would likely be beneficial to make a clear rule on this for future proceedings. (Radiant) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, recognizing that your decision might depend to some extent on how many candidates do well in the election, could you possibly provide greater clarity concerning a range for the number of new arbitrators who might be appointed? This might be useful to some voters in determining how many candidates they wish to vote for. See discussion regarding your comment on the ArbCom voting talkpage for more. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, a link: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote#Expansion. Hang on. You started that section... Well, I'll save this anyway, in case it helps! :-) Carcharoth 00:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Wales Taking it the Shakespeare way. Most humbly on my knees I beg to be allowed to open a socket puppet under the Name Olaf Klenke in english spoken wikipedia Why ???

Olaf Klenke is a banned user on de wiki and he ain't no rebell without a cause. He worked without any problems for nearly one year without troubling anyone. After that time he did the terrible mistake to interfere in some political critical articles The way his words have been twisted on purpose, drove him absolutely berserk and he really behaved not the way he should have done. To find a way to get rid of Olaf Klenke, "famous" De wiki Administress Bdk started a collection of his comments [4] ( By the way not all of them are his as well ). All this comments have been put out of the discussion context for the sake of discrediting his reputation and vitae in the world wide web as an ultimate warning for all wikipedia "offenders". Motto: We Administrators statuate ( make ) an example. Many watched IRC corrospondences between administrators could evidence that. German Administrator Markus Schweiß at least tried to offer the possibility of a counterstatement. He failed with this attempt. Because they blackmailed him ( Olaf Klenke and user ekkenekepen are of course synonymous ) with this entrance with the obvious target that he should bugger of from De wikipedia he went even more stubborn. [5],[6].

Because google is a robotic search engine ( well some programming administrators even know how to manipulate this one ) he would like to place a counterstatement under the name Olaf Klenke in the english wikipedia. This gives him a good chance to be placed possibly even before Bdks "famous" blackmailing entrance.[7]. It is well known that normally it is not allowed but this seems to be a special case and a precedent as well.

Looking forward reading from you in the hopefully not so distant future. Yours sincerely --Ekkenekepen 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking it the Shakespeare way"??? --Deskana talk 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh blah blah. His comment looks like vandalism to me, and I can hardly read it, since it is similiar to randomly placed sentences. Yuser31415 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot hardly read it why are you not asking him on his page ??? The answer probably has something to do with a yellow kid who is only interested to provoke. But as I said only probably--Ekkenekepen 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ANI#Ron_Jeremy, where a user has removed all unsourced information from a BLP - that is, the entire page - and all hell has rather predictably broken loose.

You've stubbed such pages in the past, but then, you're Jimbo. I would hope that other Wikipedians could do the same, and force editors of an article to source it rather than just reverting them and reporting them to WP:AIV (which is what they did, I was the one who removed the report on sight). But currently that's not what's coming out of the discussion, which is starting to focus on whether it's suspicious that the account is a few days old yet understands WP:BLP. I find it more disturbing that older accounts don't understand WP:BLP, myself - but as you have moral authority, I think this could really use your input over how far we should go in insisting on WP:V, and I don't ask that lightly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for a great web project! I just wish it were just as easy to attain adminship. Some will point to my brief dalliance with the application process today as evidence of sour grapes, others rejoice because of what I write on my user page. As an Ivy League computer science graduate with over 1600 edits on this site and not a warning, however, I wish some people would really take to heart the fact that adminship should not be a big deal. I have written enough applications in real life. Xiner 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find vigorous, public defenses of MONGO at User_talk:MONGO and also at the various sections Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan and some of the Arbitrators talk pages. MONGO brought an RfAr and it was hijacked by EDers who have targeted MONGO for months. One of the remedies is desysopping MONGO. --Tbeatty 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't troll Jimbo's talk page like you did here. MONGO's talk page already has pages of people being reacting to an attention-getting action. Anomo 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this in direct response to a question on the Wikipeida mailing list. Why are you concerned about my edits? I think I deserve an apology for the trolling comment This is also unacceptable. --Tbeatty 17:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being baited by trolling, I must explain that your first vote was the most trollish and my votes on ArbCom were the result of research and answers to my questions. I was very picky yes, but those were my own opinions. You had written, "MONGO needs to block way more editors than the drawn out arbitration process provides for. Imagine if all those whacky conpsiracy nuts needed ArbCom before being banned indefinitely? It's better that MONGO blocks them and lets them appeal his actions than having to wait for the ArbCom to create a block. Telegrams from MONGO should be delivered immediately, not delayed." I was not sure if that was sarcastic or what. Then my carefully reasoned argument oppose got you claiming a support vote from it. I did assume good faith but I browsed through that Seabcan stuff and I see flames upon flames from you. Anomo 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anomo, you're hardly one to talk about trolling. I, for one, would like to know Jimbo's position on this illegal desysopping. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal? Care to explain what laws are being broken here? --Carnildo 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe plainly means "contrary to the procedures or understandings of Wikipedia"; and the answer to the question in your edit summary, "is that a legal threat?", is obviously no. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, It's not necessarily what laws are being broken, but what laws aren't being cited to desysop MONGO (especially given Tony Sidaway's punishment of parole). You can also choose to address such a response without demonizing it as a "legal threat". And Tbeatty does deserve an apology, Anomo, as this is a completely legitimate debate and gripe to take when a user differs with Arbcom, especially given Tbeatty's polite demeanor in his request. --kizzle 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony got his parole the first time. If he didn't resign during the Giano fiasco, he would have been desysopped then. MONGO got his parole of sorts during his ArbCom case, and now he's getting the next step. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much prefer an actual parole rather than one "of sorts", no? --kizzle 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia policies which are being broken, in that the proposal to desysop MONGO is being made without any evidence that the action for which he is being sysopped ever occurred. And where did you possibly read a legal threat in my comment? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/058215.html Anomo 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does that address anything? He's just saying "I won't answer you", not "I won't answer this question". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, I really don't understand what you mean about it being "illegal" (under Wikipedia rules), nor what you mean "without any evidence that the action... ever occurred."--Jimbo Wales 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo. I would like to know what must be done in order to start an ArbCom for a language of Wikipedia which does not have one? I have gone through all the ArbCom policies I can find but they mentioned nothing on STARTING one. Many thanks. --Computor 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jimbo. There is a current discussion on your article that the page be moved from "Jimmy Wales" to "Jimbo Wales". [link]. We'd like to hear your comments. --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 09:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather involved discussion at Talk:Citizendium regarding an NPOV position on whether or not to call Larry Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia. Someone just had to post a link from a smear site I won't name, and I was interested to know if you had an opinion of how to proceed constructively on the issue. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A smear site I won't name"; hmmm, one can only wonder what site that is that you so tantalizingly avoid naming. But here's one, if this isn't it: you can even look at real IRC logs of what the Supreme Flounder has to say about this situation: [8]. Happy reading. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust those people to tell me the sky was blue. But thanks for completely ignoring the point of the question in favor of trolling. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr, Wales and Wikipedia community. The article about physics needs attention. It is undergoing a seemingly endless review which started in August 2006 but didn't end yet. Currently, there are two versions of the article: physics and physics/wip. If a reader wanted to cite the article which version will he use? Can anyone do something about it? (I sent this message here because I know that this page is monitored by a large number of users as I want to raise this issue.) Thank you.

--Meno25 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:VP? --Deskana talk 13:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[9]

This is typicall for De wiki

First they are provoking this actions and then they are wondering why trouble occurs. ( If I put a stick in a hornet nest I know in advance that the insects really will not like it )

Then they want to solve the selfmade problem over a SQL solution.

A better way is courtesy against people with a slight different opinion --Ekkenekepen 14:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:MPanesar.png

vs

... you have been nominated for the Beard of the Year prize, according to an entry on the BBC's Test Match Special Blog! I'm sure you will feel honoured to be named alongside other famous beard wearers, such as Fidel Castro, and Test Match Special's very own "bearded wonder", the splendidly hirsute Bill Frindall. You can see the full list of nominees at the bottom of Beard of the Year? Ollie 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my tenner's on Monty Panesar this year, and not just because of the judge's previous bias towards British cricketers. I mean, look at it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumfluff! He just wasn't standing close enough to the razor. this is what I call a beard! Guy (Help!) 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty 110%. He looks like a hardened pirate. Jimbo's is no match, sadly. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrrrgh, Elaragirl. Arrrrrrgh!--Jimbo Wales 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir,

I recently knew about you when I went through your wikipedia pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales [10] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimmy_Wales [11]

I felt glad to read about you. When you were working on a small part of wikipedia in those days, today you might be remembering about those days. Great progress ! No doubt. I am right now in the same age group when you were on the starting stage at that time, when the wikipedia company was new. If I am not wrong, as everyone dreams, In those days you might also having dreamed of the position of wikipedia today.

Even I do dream ! I want to ask you that what is wrong in if some one has a dream to be like you, or if some one has a dream to progress like you or if some one has a dream to walk on the path you were sometimes in the past. Is it wrong if I am dreaming to be like you? Is it wrong if I have a dream to have my position and my company around the globe as of wikipedia today ? I know it's a big thing I am talking about, but my questions right answers can only be given by you.

If the founder of wikipedia has mentioned his achievements on his website, does it mean that he is self promoting himself? Does it mean that the founder of wikipedia is self promoting for self publicity, if his pages are found on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales [12] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimmy_Wales [13]

I am asking this because I am an Information Security Expert and from last 7 years of my life I have given to research. One more person exists in India who is similarly known in the same field - Mr. Ankit Fadia. If you go through the article of ankit fadia on wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankit_Fadia [14]

You will find that 60 percent of the matter mentioned in that article is wrong. But I have no objection on that as I have nothing to do with, what that person does. Here the question is of truth, fact and the reputation of wikipedia.

Now see this content, which I edited on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpesh_Sharma [15]

Is there anything wrong if compared with your page on wikipedia. I have just mentioned in simple words as your article is mentioned with your achievements. But the administrators of wikipedia are removing with any reasons all my articles. They are saying it's a self publicity. Then why Jimmy Wales and Ankit Fadia. Ok ! jimmy wales has atleast mentioned the truth about him. But Ankit Fadia article contains everything false for which I have many evidence. If you go through the google search for keyword 'Ankit Fadia' and keyword 'Kalpesh Sharma', you will see a lot of peoples have posted very bad and brutal language about ankit fadia. Even on one of my article on gather.com, personally ankit fadia commented bad words. So, for self defense to save my reputation created in past 7 years after hard work; I also started writing articles about him containing all the links on internet where this person was discussed badly. Now when I started self defense, the adminsitrators of wikipedia are saying that you are doing this due to jealousy ! I felt very bad on such comments by one of the reputed company's administrators. I felt as if a reputed person is tearing the reputation of another one. Because your reputation is the matter which no one other then you can personally understand. So do I for my reputation.

Actually Ankit Fadia is a self claiming and self promoting person. He is using honorable name of Wikipedia, President of India, Stanford University, FBI, CIA, CBI, etc. for his self promotional activities of his business. By doing this he achieved a lot of revenue in last 5 years through seminars, workshops, courses, etc. Please don't think that I am giving misleading information to you. I am trying to show the real fact behind this man. But this self claiming and self promoting name is being given by some of your company administrators to me, instead of Ankit Fadia by giving me name like jealous. I have saved the letters of such administrators.

I am here for justice from you to post my achievements which I am using for community interest, citizens of various nations and saving the information technology field from hacking and threats. So, that the dream of Jimmy Wales can be remembered in future, by the dream of Kalpesh Sharma.

Here is my article content which I and several members of my group tried to post and were removed by administrators:

copy and paste of article removed. Jimbo is able to review deleted content for himself if he wants.

That we have an article on Jimbo Wales is not self-promotion; Jimbo did not write that article himself. Moreover, Jimbo is clearly notable owing to having founded one of the most popular websites in the world; a discussion among editors found no comparable notability for this subject. If you have evidence that they did not consider and wish to challenge the deletion of this article, the page you're looking for is deletion review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you are notable, believe me, someone here will be waiting in the wings to write about you. I would love to write an (eventual, I believe) article about my grandfather, but it's too early in Wikipedia time and too close to me.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nina ! This is the first time when two Wikipedia Administrators are talking with respect to me. One of wikipedia administrator utcarshch and samir( the scope ) called me jealous and sock puppeter without going in the depth of matter or investigation.

I got ur point. The sources about me are not so notable on internet, but they do appear on several print media and electronic media. If I am not wrong then do you mean that when a source is found on internet is only called to be reliable ? Then what about sources found on print media and electronic media. These sources are not a part of reputation or reliable secondary sources ?

Kalpesh Sharma KALPESH SHARMA

I've posted on ANI about Kalpesh Sharma's disruption. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wir beginnen mit einem Gedicht. Ich hoffe, es ist nicht zu schwer.

Das Schiff

Das eilende Schiff, es kommt durch die Wogen

Wie Sturmwind geflogen.

Voll Jubel ertönt‘s vom Mast und vom Kiele:

«Wir nahen dem Ziele.«

Der Fährmann am Steuer spricht traurig und leise:

«Wir segeln im Kreise.«

Viele Grüße, --Anneke Wolf 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfish Translation: 'We begin with a poem. I hope, it am not not too heavy. The ship the hasty ship, it comes by the waves such as storm wind flown. Fully rejoicing ertoent`s of the mast and of keels: "we approach the goal." The Faehrmann to tax speaks sadly and quietly: "we sails in circles." Many greetings' 209.244.16.221 13:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll request a more accurate translation immediately.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you one, but I'd assumed that the point of this post was for Jimbo to translate it himself as part of his study of German. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your project is a hotbed of religious fundamentalists and nationalist fascist bigots. I am pretty sure from the outcome of this arbitration result where along with a Hindu fundamentalist twister and his conmens - your terrible arbitration committee blocked two well meaning editors for the same time.You apparently wasted their efforts and time they spent on identifying and countering these bigots.Shame on you 87.74.2.28

Fascist bigot = somebody who disagrees with you? *Dan T.* 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do the same error as done by Arbitration committee.You are just reading the lines and not reading through them.The HKelkar thing (who was a master and crafty sockpupeteer) and his company specially his vocal supporter Bakasuprman were persistent editors and have done their marketing well (highlighting - making their comment more prominent) making sure that if he is blocked those who have presented the case get blocked together.See TerryJ-Ho's block log.He was blocked just once before for one hour and he seemed to have started editing in 2005 - he has been civil throughout unless it was in response of this sockpupeteer even then he avoided many times falling into bait when HKelkar continued calling other religious communities names.Arbcomm has punished both him and the other editor Bhaisaab all the same for one year.Is it wrong to stand up against such bigots. 84.9.108.237

Hello Jimbo.

I apologize to disturb you for a question for which I could get answers elsewhere but all these answers are different and I would appreciate your mind about that. I think you must have thought about that.
Everybody agrees on the importance of sourcing, this is the basis for NPoV and also importance for the reliability of the encyclopedia (cfr wikipedia:verifiability.
But, up to where ? I mean what has to be sourced ? What would not have to be sourced ? Thank you in advance :-) Alithien 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like some editors in the community are concerned with clarifying whether you trust yourself or not (see this). For the sake of some humor I will not revert the edit again :P....do you trust yourself?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do hope that you trust yourself! You see, that userbox was not initially added by me. I just placed the userbox back in; removing it from your userpage implies that other editors feel that you do not trust yourself. =) --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[16]Apparently, some people think you don't trust yourself. =( --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if those people understand that WP:CITE does not apply to the userspace? Cbrown1023 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. All we need is a confirmation from Jimbo that he trusts himself. Unfortunately, popular belief states the contrary.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be funnier than creating a new category of "Wikipedians who trust Jimbo" with Jimbo included? :) - Ekantik ^talk 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what if Jimbo trusts only those who do not trust Jimbo? Newyorkbrad 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How overly complicated this debate has become :P....¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAME in 3... 2... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love that page... someone hurry up and revert again! :) Cbrown1023 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to revert, then go ahead! I'm about to hit the 3RR rule.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't like that edit summary saying to stop playing with his page. It says right on it we should edit it! PsyMar 03:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this qualifies for WP:LAME now? Cbrown1023 03:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already added it to WP:LAME an hour ago!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the important thing is that I hate userboxes. :)--Jimbo Wales 07:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that statement just a personal opinion against userboxes, or is it a denunciation of userboxes across Wikipedia?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you all arguing over a userbox? Template:Smi It's pretty funny I guess... -- Kyo cat^{¿Quíeres hablar?} 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BREAKING: Lawrence Lessig has retired as chair of The Creative Commons, and has passed the torch (literally, at least in Second Life) to Joi Ito. CC board member Jimbo was on hand to present this commemorative plaque. JS Uralia 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lessig passes the torch to Joi Ito --GreenReaper 07:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Jimbo "passes" the plaque to Lessig
• More detailed picture of the plaque --GreenReaper 07:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • plaque closeup --JS Uralia 07:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Jimbo presents plaque to Professor Lessig --JS Uralia 07:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Afterwards, Jimbo learns how to dance, Second Life-style --GreenReaper 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]