Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) |
Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
hard to believe this may survive deletion. [http://www.fcasv.org/2005_Web/Publications/help.htm Here] on the right, bullet 3 and 4] would seem to juxtapose iteslf against this list. I certainly understand that some sexual assault vicitms may want to publicize their experience in the hope that it helps others avoid or cope with the trauma that is sexual assault but I don't see how Wikipedia is helping with a category that doesn't expand on that aspect of it. Also there seems to be huge BLP potential for abuse espcially "sneaky vandalism." --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
hard to believe this may survive deletion. [http://www.fcasv.org/2005_Web/Publications/help.htm Here] on the right, bullet 3 and 4] would seem to juxtapose iteslf against this list. I certainly understand that some sexual assault vicitms may want to publicize their experience in the hope that it helps others avoid or cope with the trauma that is sexual assault but I don't see how Wikipedia is helping with a category that doesn't expand on that aspect of it. Also there seems to be huge BLP potential for abuse espcially "sneaky vandalism." --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
Days like this, I wish we did not have a category system. :-/--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Australian War Memorial == |
== Australian War Memorial == |
Revision as of 20:06, 27 July 2007
I know...
...you're not the Help Desk, but this issue seemed to be a more nuanced interpretation of policy than was appropriate for that forum. Awhile back, I did a big cleanup job on non-nude photography, and one of my final actions was to remove this image from the article. It seemed to me that it is uncertain (to say the least) whether these girls are adults. While I'm whole-heartedly in support of WP:NOT#CENSORED, sexually suggestive images of minors seems to cross the ethical line. What is your opinion on the possibility of deleting the image? All the best, VanTucky (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- From the user talk page history, it looks like the uploader has a string of deleted copyvio images, and if you search on his claimed name, it looks like he's being given credit for Wikipedia photos that we don't have anymore. And that there is only one non-wikipedia-related hit on his name. He's only contributed once this year. He was asked back in February to present a model release from a parent or guardian, and has so far not done so, even though he edited in April. I think both those images[1][2] should be deleted. BenB4 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm copying this to the ANI, since the model release issue is potentially serious. BenB4 13:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
They are up on IFD. BenB4 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to people's attention. I think it will surely be deleted soon.--Jimbo Wales 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you will share your opinion at the IFD discussion, because it's no consensus at present. ←BenB4 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Just an update if you're interested: the images were deleted, and then this was undone and another IFD debate is on-going. VanTucky (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds just like the rape victims category (ie it gets deleted and then someone restores it). Excellent work, Van Tucky, SqueakBox 22:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- And excellent work, Jimbo, too, in deleting the images, SqueakBox 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Residence
Jim, do you still live in the little rancher at 3911 Harrisburg, or have you moved? This was the original address of the Foundation -- that's how I know. --theodoros
I resurrected this abusive trolling question just to answer it factually and simply: no, I do not live at 3911 Harrisburg, not for a long time. I currently live with Osama bin Laden in a cave in an undisclosed location. We watch DVDs of Lost with Jimmy Hoffa.--Jimbo Wales 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- And, presumably, Elvis? ck lostsword•T•C 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's hope ;-) Someguy1221 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'd heard Osama was a big DHARMA Initiative fan. Thanks for making me laugh out loud.--Isotope23 talk 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's hope ;-) Someguy1221 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Tobias Conradi
SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this?
- Context... this appears to be Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) editing around a block from an IP and complaining about a series of blocks he received for violating his civility parole.--Isotope23 talk 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Was that huge and ridiculous title necessary, when it simply repeats the first few lines of your comment? Lradrama 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to judge the Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest next week?
I would like you to join us in the userpage contest on the first week of August to judge the tournament of champions. Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you. Marlith 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find it extremely unlikely that Jimbo has time to waste on silly things like this, Marlith. --Deskana (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I must agreeMarlith 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't he seems to spend a real lot of time on Wikipedia anyway, well, that's what his contributions suggest. So I doubt he'd even think about taking part in that. ;-) Lradrama 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmph, I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. I read a lot, and answer tons of emails. I edit through meatpuppets mostly, ha ha. Anyway, I had best stay out of such contests, because there might be hurt feelings and so on. --Jimbo Wales 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't he seems to spend a real lot of time on Wikipedia anyway, well, that's what his contributions suggest. So I doubt he'd even think about taking part in that. ;-) Lradrama 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I must agreeMarlith 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Marlith, you might want to re-allocate the time you spend looking for judges, since this "contest" seems to be slouching toward the bit bucket. dr.ef.tymac 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Pauley Perrette Link
Thanks for posting that link on the Pauley Perrette talk page. I added the info (gave credit/reference) to the page. Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
granting adminship by fiat
I would be grateful if you could drop a quick note here to show you are aware of what otherwise would look like an out-of-process granting of admin powers to User:Until(1 == 2). regards, dab (𒁳) 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I modified the link to reflect the name change of the header.--Isotope23 talk 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is no reason to believe that administrator rights have been granted to User:Until(1 == 2) inappropriately, based on the evidence I have seen. --Deskana (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For the reasons I have expressed in the thread that is cited, the practice referred is appropriate in a limited number of cases, including the one mentioned here. Continued discussion of this matter on-wiki is not in the best interests of the project. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Trivia sections on Wikipedia
I wonder if you would take a moment to comment on the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections. This debate has been going on for a long time and the community seems to be split down the middle. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this debate but it has very far-reaching implications for Wikipedia, and your opinion could help to finally get things moving in one direction or another.
As the trivia guideline stands right now, it seems to be interpreted as saying that no article should ever contain a Trivia section, and any article that does is flawed. A template is placed on any page that has a trivia section, and it makes no mention of when the template itself should be removed — seeming to imply that only the removal of said trivia section constitutes removal of the template.
So I was wondering if you could review the for/against arguments and offer your opinion. As I said, this debate does not seem to be going anywhere, and your insight could really help. Thanks.
01:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Does this matter...?
Hi guys. I am a relatively ne wikipedian and according to your username policy, one may not have a name of a celebrity. I did not know where to ask this soo..here it goes... Does this rule apply to me? I am aware that I am not above the wikilaw, but I would like to ask to be able to keep my username of WhiteyBulger for the following reasons:
1. It is HIGHLY unlikely tha Mr. Bulger, a fugitive of the US government, would post here.
2. Whitey just a nickname, not James J., his real name.
3. Mr. Bulger is not really a celebrity.
If this is a problem, which I hope is not, I would like to change my name. I just wanted to bring this by you preemptively, before an administrator complained.
Thank you very much for you time, WhiteyBulger 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, no, and no. Your name could easily be seen as the name of a living person, unless it's very common (For example, if the man was named John Smith, you might have a case) -- and given that you admit that you ARE named after him, yes, your username is inappropriate and bannable. Please create a new account with a name that does not impersonate someone --Laugh! 03:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Can you not get a beurocrat to rename your account for you? I agree with the above comment, users under the names of celebrities might be mistaken for the real person. And as for your comment saying that he is unlikely to ever post here, why is that? He has every right as the rest of us to contribute to this encyclopedia - you never know - if he got bored..... I bet lots of celebrities have edited here under names that means know-one will recognise them. So please do not use famous names. Cheers, Lradrama 10:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
User:DB
I see here that Josh has undone your unblocking of User:Daniel Brandt, reblocking him for creating HM2. I just want to bring it to your attention, I dont have a clear opinion either way on this one, SqueakBox 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The New Wikipedia Sexual Assault Outing Network
hard to believe this may survive deletion. Here on the right, bullet 3 and 4] would seem to juxtapose iteslf against this list. I certainly understand that some sexual assault vicitms may want to publicize their experience in the hope that it helps others avoid or cope with the trauma that is sexual assault but I don't see how Wikipedia is helping with a category that doesn't expand on that aspect of it. Also there seems to be huge BLP potential for abuse espcially "sneaky vandalism." --Tbeatty 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Days like this, I wish we did not have a category system. :-/--Jimbo Wales 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Australian War Memorial
Just thought I'd let you know that some people do see Wikipedia as an excellent source of information, see this example Gnangarra 13:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - Wikipedia IS an excellent source of information. Look at the only external link in my college's moodle website! It's Wikipedia! Lradrama 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Advice Needed
Dear Jimbo,
I need some advice, and don't know who to talk to; I feel like most Admin, and the Help Desk would just brush me off without actually hearing what I want to say. I don't even know if I can describe it, but I'll try. So, here goes:
I'm very upset with Wikipedia. I love it, I've met amazing people, and done great work with my time here; but I'm getting increasingly frustrated for over a year and half now. The problem lies in Wikipedians blindly citing Policy without discussing it, debating it, and I suspect actually reading it beyond the main title. There is no reasoned arguments, simply anal citation, and signature. New articles, Trivia, Pop Culture, etc. etc. the very reasons why I loved Wikipedia from the very start are vanishing in the name of mindless beaucratic regulation. Even when asked about Policies than inherently don't make logical sense in AfD, the retort is "that is not the current discussion" and "that doesn't matter". No one listens. I look at Recent Changes, and AfD, and am sickened; articles that should exist are deleted by users who don't know, realize, or care. The heartbeat of Wikipedia is gone, and in it's place, we are destroying ourselves.
Am I wrong in my belief that policy should guide arguments, not be the arguments? Am I totally wrong on Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil? Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you for your time. Zidel333 13:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the article should have been speedy deleted. At a bare minimum, it needs to be merged with some other article, and all information removed for which there are no sources.--Jimbo Wales 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You have a point there. I also hate it on AfD when people just put a random vote when they are neither interested in or care about the article. I would also like to see more indepth dicussions, preferably kept to the subject's Wikiproject and the outcome would be much more fair. I hope something is done. Lradrama 14:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you did a fine job of describing it; in fact that's a very articulate description of the problem. I'm encountering this myself at the trivia argument, which I see is one of your examples. And I agree that in many cases, the deletion of pop culture and trivia sections end up being a huge loss. They used to be the first parts of any article that I would read, and now they're first on the chopping block. There's also a trend I see now to delete new articles just because they're very short — which doesn't make any sense to me. 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:FIVE
There has been a question raised at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, regarding the evolution of the five pillars. Since these things tend to be interpreted as "the principles of Wikipedia that have always been there", I thought you might have something to say. --Eyrian 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)