Coastergeekperson04 (talk | contribs) |
Martin Wisse (talk | contribs) →Giovanni di Stefano: new section |
||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
::::I'm not sure if I understand what you just said. Aren't we talking about Jimbo having mutiple accounts with different levels of administrative powers?--'''''[[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]]''''' <sup>([[User_Talk:Sunny910910|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sunny910910|Contributions]])</sup> 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) |
::::I'm not sure if I understand what you just said. Aren't we talking about Jimbo having mutiple accounts with different levels of administrative powers?--'''''[[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]]''''' <sup>([[User_Talk:Sunny910910|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sunny910910|Contributions]])</sup> 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::We are talking about Jimbo thinking through and choosing how he expects admins to react before he acts rather than after he acts. If he isn't clear in his own mind before hand, how is it sensible to assume admins will, every one of them, know how to react afterwords? Playing "Guess how I will react?" can be interesting; and only Jimbo can decide if that's the relationship he chooses to have with the Wikipedia community, rather than doing something to add clarity. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 05:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) |
:::::We are talking about Jimbo thinking through and choosing how he expects admins to react before he acts rather than after he acts. If he isn't clear in his own mind before hand, how is it sensible to assume admins will, every one of them, know how to react afterwords? Playing "Guess how I will react?" can be interesting; and only Jimbo can decide if that's the relationship he chooses to have with the Wikipedia community, rather than doing something to add clarity. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 05:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Giovanni di Stefano == |
|||
Yesterday you undid my reversal of Fred Bauder's edits on [[Giovanni di Stefano]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_di_Stefano&action=history history here]) because of BLP concerns. What I do not get is what these concerns are, as the disputed content in question is sourced and true. As you know this has been a longstanding problem, as either the subject of the article himself, or his friends have been objecting to Wikipedia's coverage of him, notably his conviction for fraud, a conviction only disputed by di Stefano himself. As said, this conviction is sourced and was widely reported in the UK press, and it has been widely reported that this conviction is of di Stefano, even if he himself denies it. My understanding of BLP is that sourced facts like these, even if negative, should be kept in the article. Am I missing something? --[[User:Martin Wisse|Martin Wisse]] 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:04, 2 November 2007
A WikiDelight For You
Google Grants
Um, what do you think about this and do you think lesser know Wikimedia projects could benefit from these? --203.59.11.26 10:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those sound interesting and useful.--Jimbo Wales 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad I checked this out. m:Wikimedia Australia, which should be up and running Real Soon NowTM, would be extremely interested in this. Confusing Manifestation 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed (if you look in the details link) that Google is actually running these in several countries, including the US, so WikiMedia could do it directly as well. Still, I reckon that this would be helpful to other chapters as well. Confusing Manifestation 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedied Rfc
The speedied Rfc has resurfaced Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales, SqueakBox 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- The deadline for certification was long passed so I deleted it again, which is standard treatment for RfCs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- And a good call. Jimbo, the one thing of which I am certain is that it is not easy being you on wikipedia, SqueakBox 05:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- On reflection I've restored the RfC. There's no better mechanism in place for editors to express themselves in an orderly fashion. However I think that perhaps the title should be changed to address the whole incident rather than just one of the participants. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I have certified and posted my reasoning on the talkpage. --Elonka 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka...with all due respect...can you show me some evidence that you tried to resolve this situation with Jimbo? I looked and maybe I missed it, but I don't see much if any effort.[1]--MONGO 07:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I have certified and posted my reasoning on the talkpage. --Elonka 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- On reflection I've restored the RfC. There's no better mechanism in place for editors to express themselves in an orderly fashion. However I think that perhaps the title should be changed to address the whole incident rather than just one of the participants. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia and politics
I have had this idea for quite long and haven't found the right person to help me implement my idea...
my idea originally came from a lack Wikipedia has of keeping a selective collection of key articles would only focus on the major issues each country in this world is facing.
I am a big believer in Wikipedia and I think that Wikipedia has the power to fight all the dirty politicians and governments world wide by letting the people form highly objective articles specific for each country about the top important issues each country is facing. I myself would love to see such articles being built about the land which I am originally from Israel which is currently facing a lot of uncertainties about the future and unfortunately, due to a lack of good decent, visionary, strong, truthful politicians, the people do not trust any of the politicians any more.
I would also want oppressive governments of the world such as China, Russia and North Korea and many of the Arab countries such as Iraq and Iran to be criticized by their own people through such a medium in hope of forming a better opinions and ideas of the actions which should be taken for a better future.
What is your opinion on this? Acidburn24m 09:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
HELP ME!
Do you know what my password is? I just logged out by accident and now I can't my other password back. I'm Rory666's IP address and I'd like to know what the password for Rory666 is so I can log back in. I need your help. It's URGENT!--220.101.18.50 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo can't help on this one, try Wikipedia:Help desk, and next time let them know an email address so they can send you a new one, SqueakBox 20:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, GREAT!--220.101.18.50 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Afraid there's not much that can be done.... MediaWiki seems to store the password encrypted in the enwikiToken cookie, which is destroyed upon logout. I would keep guessing, and if you have no luck with that, consider creating a new account and doing something like this. — xDanielx T/C 06:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!
Happy Halloween, Mr. Wales! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
A new account
Jimbo, could you please let me make another account because my other one is dead because I can't find the password?--220.101.18.50 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can create a new account for yourself. Click on 'Sign in / create account' at the top right of this page, and follow it from there. :-) Lradrama 09:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a new one (My other one's dead, by the way). :)--RoryReloaded 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
NNDB
Jimbo, could you please have a look at the discussions here, and here- I believe that people possibly linked to Soylent Communications are trying to use Wikipedia to promote their websites. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Three minor suggestions may help wikipedia much better
Hi Jimbo,
1) Your database should not accept if anyone edits any form of unfeasible words. For eg. I noticed that some mad guys keep on creating article with simply typing inappropriate words) I recommend a new bot system should have an eye on newly created subjects.
2) Search results must be displayed with all sort of words associated with wikipedia. For eg. If I search for: “deletion tool” the results comes with some thing else, “No page with that title exists” and “You can create this page or request it”. Instead of those, two separate pages have to be displayed with that ‘something else’ and all other pages related to the words say about ‘deletion tools’ in wikipedia.
3) Under help page a new text area may be displayed. In that area should have the option of new user can post his/her doubts (like in MS word help)
I have lots of suggestions after all closely working with wikipedia, and I would love to share it with you. But not now at this point of time. The rest in next based on how you acknowledge.
I am expecting Jimbo Wales himself has to comment. Not from any other admins / users.
Thank you. --Avinesh Jose 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not Jimbo, but this is a wiki, and attempting to limit a discussion to just one person is next to impossible. :)
- In response to item #1, there are indeed bots that check pages for bad edits. However, blanketly banning certain words just won't work; there are times when certain "bad words" are perfectly acceptable (I can't imagine the articles on shit or fuck not using those words, for example). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not to mention all the other silliness that usually comes from "bad words" filters, like blocking all mention of the British town of Scunthorpe because there's a 4-letter obscenity buried within it. *Dan T.* 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, there are several other ways I can think of that I've seen be used (and have used myself) to get around such filters. Generally speaking, such filters are more trouble than they are worth; I know I'd rather see the real obscenity than some obscure variant (such as "$hit" and the like). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- The only way I've seen to eliminate "bad words" is to have a list of approved words. Enumerating badness is never a successful way of getting rid of bad things. --Carnildo 05:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, there are several other ways I can think of that I've seen be used (and have used myself) to get around such filters. Generally speaking, such filters are more trouble than they are worth; I know I'd rather see the real obscenity than some obscure variant (such as "$hit" and the like). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not to mention all the other silliness that usually comes from "bad words" filters, like blocking all mention of the British town of Scunthorpe because there's a 4-letter obscenity buried within it. *Dan T.* 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then what about simply banging the keyboard (non useful wordings, for eg. dfasdkfhasdjkfh or asdfsdfhjks) the database should not accepted that. That is what I meant. I am also not convinced with item No. 3 & 4.--Avinesh Jose 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks
for your email - I'm sure discussions will continue, but your advice was appreciated. Privatemusings 12:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Emails
Dear Jimmy,
You would've noticed now that the latest addition to conflicts between some of the wikipedians is claims of harassing emails sent by one another and some of the admins taking it seriously. I understand some of these issues may be genuine and some may be really made up. But the fact remains emails could be faked very easily. Have you thought of any solution for this problem? I have a great idea if you are interested. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 19:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's much that Wikipedia can do to prevent people from spoofing emails; it's completely out of their hands. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I am a software engineer so trust me I know what I am talking about. Wikimedia can do a very simple thing to avoid these issues. The emails sent through wikipedia are always going through the wikimedia servers, so what we can do is to introduce a security key to each user who enables email. Every time an email is sent to some other user this security key could be embedded in the email (like a signature) in an encrypted form. The admin or bureaucrats can be provided with a tool that would verify this signature against the users actual security key. Very simple solution isn't it. I can further elaborate on this if Jimbo is interested in implementing this. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You did all nasty things on wikipedia and now trying to cheat Jimbo too. You clean up yourself first, the wikiprocess and system will smoothly work itsway.Kelbaster 12:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, imagine this situation: ‘A’ sent a mail to ‘B’ through wikimedia server. Later A received a reply (keep in mind that now A knows B’s mail id). After again A is sending a harassing emails to B without help of wikimedia. What you can do in such situation?... thus I think the suggestion you said will not workout in such situation, right?... --Avinesh Jose 07:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
How you can help limit disruption.
Hi, Jimbo. There is a very interesting conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370#A misunderstanding over the role of Jimbo on the suggestion that Jimbo "split himself into two accounts. One account would have the same permissions as a normal admin, should be treated like a normal admin (albeit a highly respected one), etc. The other account should be reserved for only those instances in which Jimbo is operating in a formal role as board member-- issuing instructions or taking actions on that basis". Actually I would suggest five accounts:
- User:Jimbo as trustee for Official Foundation policy implementation
- User:Jimbo as the community leader for content issues the foundation is not legally liable for
- User:Jimbo as normal admin for when you want to be subject to the rules all admins are subject to
- User:Jimbo editing on a non-secure computer for when you need to edit using an account that lacks all powers in case the password gets stolen
- Keep your current account for when you want us to guess. Guessing can be fun. :) Also the other four user and user talk pages can redirect to this one for centralization. WAS 4.250 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The same effect (save for the fourth one) could be achieved by an semi-automatic edit summary that includes a flag to identify the type of edit it is, plus an extra one for those rare occasions when he gets to make a plain old contribution (like an article about an African deli). Confusing Manifestation 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't creating multiple accounts make things worse? Other then being inconveinent for Jimbo, there is also the problem of people treating Jimbo's normal account as they treat his trustee/community leader account as they respect and trust him.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing wromg with "people treating Jimbo's normal account as they treat his trustee/community leader account as they respect and trust him". The problem arises when Jimbo expects the admins to respond one way and the admins expect that Jimbo expects them to behave another way. There needs to be greater clarity somehow someway. WAS 4.250 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I understand what you just said. Aren't we talking about Jimbo having mutiple accounts with different levels of administrative powers?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- We are talking about Jimbo thinking through and choosing how he expects admins to react before he acts rather than after he acts. If he isn't clear in his own mind before hand, how is it sensible to assume admins will, every one of them, know how to react afterwords? Playing "Guess how I will react?" can be interesting; and only Jimbo can decide if that's the relationship he chooses to have with the Wikipedia community, rather than doing something to add clarity. WAS 4.250 05:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I understand what you just said. Aren't we talking about Jimbo having mutiple accounts with different levels of administrative powers?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing wromg with "people treating Jimbo's normal account as they treat his trustee/community leader account as they respect and trust him". The problem arises when Jimbo expects the admins to respond one way and the admins expect that Jimbo expects them to behave another way. There needs to be greater clarity somehow someway. WAS 4.250 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't creating multiple accounts make things worse? Other then being inconveinent for Jimbo, there is also the problem of people treating Jimbo's normal account as they treat his trustee/community leader account as they respect and trust him.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni di Stefano
Yesterday you undid my reversal of Fred Bauder's edits on Giovanni di Stefano (history here) because of BLP concerns. What I do not get is what these concerns are, as the disputed content in question is sourced and true. As you know this has been a longstanding problem, as either the subject of the article himself, or his friends have been objecting to Wikipedia's coverage of him, notably his conviction for fraud, a conviction only disputed by di Stefano himself. As said, this conviction is sourced and was widely reported in the UK press, and it has been widely reported that this conviction is of di Stefano, even if he himself denies it. My understanding of BLP is that sourced facts like these, even if negative, should be kept in the article. Am I missing something? --Martin Wisse 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)