User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 140

Archive 135

←

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

→

Archive 145

ScienceApologist disaster

ScienceApologist has recently asked to be unblocked. He has proven himself to be a highly problematic editor in so many ways. He is chronically unable to recognize that he behaved inappropriately in the past and always comes up with ridiculous excuses to justify himself. He appears to believe that he is entitled to sock if blocked, and is proven to have socked as recently as two months ago. Somehow we are supposed to believe that he will suddenly start to respect Wikipedia policies if unblocked, even though he has blatantly failed to observe said policies for years and has always considered himself to be above the rules.

Users such as IRWolfie, Bishonen, MONGO, MastCell, LeadSongDog, Mathsci and others have all shown up on the relevant AN thread and they all (predictably enough) have exactly the same opinion on this matter... which wouldn't be so problematic except for the fact that in addition to his old clique of wiki-friends, ScienceApologist became a Wikipediocracy member some time ago, made a lot of new friends there, and they are all coming here to support the unblock. I don't know whether they're doing this to support their new friend, as part of a long-term strategy to help Thekohser, or just to troll Wikipedia (many of them have openly admitted to do this in the past).

Jimbo, do you find it acceptable that an editor can open disrespect all rules and get rewarded for this just because he is able to mount a coalition of his clique of wiki-friends here and a bunch of WO trolls? If not what do you intend to do about it?

173.178.185.39 (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Jimbo would do about it, but if I saw what you just wrote here, I would feel bad for this "ScienceApologist" person that he had people that cared so much about trying to keep him off Wikipedia.

I might feel so bad that I would find whatever discussion it is that you're trying so hard not to refer to, and go and !vote unblock there.

What were you expecting by posting such nonsense here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny...that was exactly what I was thinking...and I know where the discussion is.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Helpful link: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Discussion about unblocking Science Apologist. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 02:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I was just being humorous. I really didn't add any input. While I think the standard offer should apply, I also know very little about this situation.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I knew you were kidding - but a link in a discussion is never a bad thing, is it? Begoon ^talk 02:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• old clique? I think you will find that we never interacted before. It was reading the archives of edits and arbcom dealings in the fringe area that I became aware of SA. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Blame Karl Popper. Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that every comment you make sounds like you are stoned? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you tend to take things too seriously. People like you really need to smoke pot to relax, while I can simply be myself :) .Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I prefer taking things too seriously rather than the alternative, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• After 30 unblock votes User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV is now able to edit again as himself (?) Not being a fan of long-term blocks and sock hunting I can't really complain about this, but I wonder what the heck WO is up to. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with being a participant on the Wikipediocracy website, probably the second best website on the planet, after Wikipedia, of course. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering I don't like half the posters at wikipediocracy, and I was the one that made the request, why would you presume that "WO is up to" something? Have you read the posts over there? You'll find a group of people who agree on very little and particularly not about the fringe topic area, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not but SA has managed to create approximately 2.09*10^34 copies of Wikipedia! Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Which galaxy cluster(s) are those copies scattered across? -Wikid77 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

They are located way beyond the visible universe as explained here:, "A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about 10^{10^29} meters away.". Count Iblis (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Count Iblis, you touch on an area I'm fascinated with. The talk page of Universe, or similar would be a fantastic place to discuss that sort of thing. Like many of your rebuttals it seems to have little to do with the original point, though - perhaps you've misunderstood the discussion, or perhaps I'm just a grumpy old fogey who fails to see diversions like this as relevant. It's probably ultimately unfathomable. Begoon ^talk 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New thread from new user

I was hurt to see that my page 'Hanwnat lodha' was deleted because it was "promotional" and now I'm left without a backup of what I wrote. I request you to either edit it however you like, or if possible, give me a backup or a copy-paste of the article as it took me more than two hours just to collect the information, other than writing it and it definitely isn't about a business or a product, I read the other comments on Deb's talk page (the person who deleted my page) and I do find it hard to not believe that they aren't promotional or advertising but the person i'm writing about is retired anyway - if you would check in the references, so there is no question of promotion or advertising. If you like I could mention that he is retired if you wish to display the article again. Thanks. hope you reply asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvlodha (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've posted the article in Parvlodha's userspace, here, and explained on his talkpage that it can only stay there for 24 hours, as a courtesy to enable him to copy the text to his own computer. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC).

Assistance with NFLPA Game article

Hello, Jimbo, and anyone else watching this page. I know that, in past discussions about paid advocacy on Wikipedia, Jimbo has suggested that COI editors who cannot get action on an issue may come here. I am a consultant to the NFL Players Association, and since mid-May I've been trying to work with editors from WP:NFL and WP:CFB to split the current, inaccurate NFLPA Game article into two. Drafts of my proposed replacement articles are here and here; there's discussion of this at Talk:NFLPA Game as well. Despite apparent consensus for my proposed changes, no action has yet been taken.

I've written an overview of these discussions, and I'm putting it in this collapsed box to avoid TL;DR:

Discussion surrounding errant NFLPA Game article

Here's the rundown: The NFLPA explained to me that the NFLPA Game article was problematic, in that it conflated two different events: a bowl game they once sponsored but now continues without them, and a new one they currently sponsor. I reached out to WP:NFL and WP:CFB in mid-May, asking for input on what the best solution might be. Arxiloxos agreed with my assessment of the problem, and we agreed on a course of action: there should be two articles—one called the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl, and one called the Texas vs. The Nation. I suggested that I would draft the former, asking if he would draft the latter. So, I drafted a new version of the NFLPA Game article, now (correctly) called NFLPA Collegiate Bowl, and posted it in my userspace. I then reached out to Arxiloxos again, as well as posting notes on Talk:NFLPA Game and WP:NFL letting folks know that the draft was in my userspace. Not receiving a response, I followed up with another note a few days later at WP:CFB, as well as reaching out to two editors who work on American football articles, Paulmcdonald and Dirtlawyer1. After about another week of no activity, I reached out to another editor, Dale Arnett. After still having no success, I went ahead and drafted a stub of the Texas v. The Nation game article and posted it to my userspace, in order to speed things along. I then reached out to another user, ZappOMatti, and followed up with Dale Arnett and Arxiloxos again. On Talk:NFLPA Game on July 10 and 11, Dale Arnett and Arxiloxos indicated that the Texas v. The Nation stub needed more detail, so I added the requested information on July 11, and let folks know that it was done. I also followed up again at WP:NFL and WP:CFB, and another editor who'd been involved in discussions there, The Writer 2.0. Finally, on August 2, I reached out to Paid Editor Help, but still have yet to receive a reply there.

Nearly three months from start to today, and I've still not been able to find an editor to implement these changes, despite broad agreement that the changes are necessary and should be implemented.

I should note here that, ever since Jimbo outlined his view that that paid advocates never edit article space (sometimes called the "bright line" and elaborated on in his Paid Advocacy FAQ), this is precisely how I have handled client requests. Although I am very confident that these changes would improve Wikipedia, and that there is consensus among volunteer editors that this is the case, it is always my intention to follow best practices.

So I'd be very grateful for anyone here, Jimbo or otherwise, who would look into this. I'll be happy to respond to any questions editors may have. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! I welcome discussion here and pointers to what else I should read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jimbo. The above message is intended to be all of the necessary context, but here's a more concise explanation: the NFLPA Game article is in error, as an existing tag on the article warns. It treats two separate bowl games as one—the first is called "Texas vs. The Nation" and the other is "NFLPA Collegiate Bowl". The NFLPA, with whom I work, once sponsored the former, and now sponsors the latter. To remedy the situation, I believe the article should be split in two, and I have produced drafts for each:

• User:WWB_Too/NFLPA_Collegiate_Bowl
• User:WWB_Too/Texas_vs_The_Nation

Then "NFLPA Game" should probably redirect to "NFLPA Collegiate Bowl" although some might prefer it become a disambig page. Editors who work on American football articles including User:Arxiloxos and User:Dale Arnett have expressed support for the former draft, and asked for a few more changes to the second draft, which I obliged. However, it has now been more than a month since either weighed in. I've had no luck getting additional help at a few relevant WikiProjects, so I've come here, following your past encouragement to editors in my situation. I believe these articles answer a clearly established problem, and they are ready for the mainspace—they just need a volunteer editor to check again and, if agreed, move it over. Happy to answer any other questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, I don't see any substantial problems (or apparent POV/COI issues) with either of the proposed draft articles, and I note the edit summary by User:The Writer 2.0 noting that User:WWB Too/Texas vs The Nation "Needs some additional information but to start, this is OK"] [1] Still, I think this would benefit from administrator attention to make sure the moves to article space are done correctly, with the appropriate history merges. Until I saw this page I was unaware of WWB Too's request at WP:PAIDHELP (for that matter, I was only vaguely aware that page existed), and the lack of response to WWB Too's request might be an item for discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Arx. The TvTN article is not very long, but I wrote about as much as I could while sticking closely to third-party sources. As TW2.0 says, it's at least a good start. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to this? It sounds neutral to me. WWB_Too can you point me to any negative remarks about this proposal at all, so that I might take the utmost care here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the only concerns expressed were already mentioned above, that "Texas vs The Nation" is quite short, though there's not much can be done about it until there's more coverage. Just a bit ago, User:Dale Arnett commented again at Talk:NFLPA Game to say he supports the revisions, but wasn't confident enough in his skills to merge the articles correctly. Anyhow, if you want to hold it open for further comment, that's fine—I've waited this long, I can wait a bit longer! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, Jimmy!

Yet another reason to be proud of being a Wikipedian. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 20:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Very thoughtful and well said, Jimbo. And hopefully some who see that segment decide to try their hand at editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Wikimania

I appreciate the "State of the Wiki" comments, seeing as how I had asked for such a statement when you first returned from vacation. (It may be that you do this annually, however.) The CNN article makes note of your concerns "in the era of Snowden and Assange" and your fears of governmental hanky-panky are well-founded, in my view. I also consider your views of Wikipedia journalism versus "tabloid" news designed to distract, not inform, to be of high value. Snowden's girlfriend, as opposed to real accountability at the NSA, was a good example. We do need to be a bit more radical! As an WP:ITN volunteer for years, however, I can assure you that any such efforts will be contentious in the extreme. And yes, the need to involve more women as content writers is indeed an important ongoing project. Thanks again for an excellent speech, and if there is a link up yet to the actual speech itself, I'd love to see it. Jusdafax 10:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref.: http://new.livestream.com/socreclive/wikimania/videos/26773569 70.59.30.138 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I just watched that as well and found it very interesting. I say interesting because for the last 4 years or so I have watched and listened to the comments and they never come to fruition. Jimbo you said you were going to address the problem with RFA back in December, were still waiting. There have been comments made about making things better for new users and increasing editor retention. None of those have come to light either. I know I sound overly pessimistic but I have absolutely no reason to believe anything from this Wikimania comment will have anything actionable come from it either. Wikimania is a great time and a good way for folks to meet and discuss issues. But if the issues aren't addressed then in the end its just a picnic. Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

BP discussion

I must admit, I shuddered at the idea of Wikipedia editors becoming journalists, and hailed as harbingers of NPOV. Embroiled presently with the March Against Monsanto page, and having seen the green light for BP PR ghostwriting much of their article, I would feel more comfortable with my information coming from almost anywhere besides "independent" Wiki editors, to be honest. petrarchan47tc 02:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You have seen no such 'green light' from me. Do you have proof of what you are claiming, that BP's PR team has ghostwritten much of the article? (I have not read the article and know nothing about, so any other pointers you can give so I can educate myself would be appreciated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I only know what I have heard other editors say about the BP editing, but I've recently become very involved at March Against Monsanto. Although I would object very much if there were users editing there, while being paid by Monsanto to violate WP:NPOV, without disclosing it, I think that an awful lot of innuendo is being directed at good faith editors who just happen to disagree about content issues on the page. This issue has been discussed by the community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive806#Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Request to enforce NOR. I would very much like to see the editors who believe that there are violations of WP:COI to present their arguments at WP:COIN, but they have repeatedly declined my suggestions that they do so. Instead, all I am seeing is the casting of aspersions in order to attempt to get the upper hand in a POV-dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, these editors, without evidence, believe they are fighting the good fight against the corporations and appear to work closely together on a variety of articles (and refer to each other as "wiki-friends"). Part of this is that they feel that any editor who disagrees with them is a Monsanto agent/shill or whatever. [2]: "Articles like this created by those that make edits like this make me wonder if they [Monsanto] did truly leave the projects. They may outnumber those of us that want to write articles without editor POV but they will lose out in the long run." "I have pleaded that it be turned over to ArbCom, as I cannot fight this on my own. And I don't think anyone should have to fight to edit Wikipedia. I sure as hell don't ... ". [3]: "Going by the rules, this article would be a piece of cake but it is clear by now that it is hijacked by editors who might or might not work as shims of the GMO PR campaign but ...", [4]: "I don't give a rat's ass [GMO] about it either. I do however give one if edits are done to Wikipedia by COI editors. It seems that far to many editors believe the POV is not balanced. If it was balanced we wouldn't have it all over the drama boards. On Jytdog's user page he states: "I work at a university. I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both." I consider this as being employeed in the GMO field. See:Biotechnology + Criticism_of_patents#Criticism = GMO.". The same group of editors also defend large pieces of original research in article space advocating their positions such as: User:Groupuscule/GMO. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is so unethical to talk about an editor without notifying them - I just stumbled over this. I am sick of this witch hunt and personal attacks against me, and this talking about me without notification. Argh. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

BP is very contentious. Talk:BP has "A Wikipedia contributor, User:Arturo at BP..., has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of the article" in the last box at the notices at the top of the page. I have only occassionally looked at the mess and do not know what is going, or which side is "right". However, I think it would be fair to say that one side regards the information from BP's representative as being extremely valuable for developing the article, while the other side regards the PR spin from BP as being extremely damaging to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The problems with BP have had the benefit of considerable sunlight. A more interesting issue involves government editing associated with regulatory capture. See also Special:Contributions/USEPA James and [5]. 70.59.30.138 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"BP accused of rewriting environmental record on Wikipedia";"Much Of BP's Wikipedia Page Allegedly Written By Company Employee Arturo Silva ";"BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia";"Wikipedia editors accuse BP of rewriting page about itself, CNET reports" and so on. 71.202.121.42 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those. petrarchan47tc 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jimmy, these provided links are highly disturbing, in my view. If a corporation like BP can throw money at unknown numbers of people to edit their pages the way they like, I wouldn't call that a level playing field. Something should be done. Jusdafax 08:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Many thousands of Americans have received massive BP settlement money, $billions from the Gulf Oil Spill, plus extensive cleanup of tourist beaches (also removing buried litter while sifting miles of sand for tarballs), so it might be difficult to get "non-involved" people to write about BP. -Wikid77 13:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jusdafax that something should be done, but we've been through this before and the obstacles are overwhelming against any reform in this area. I'm all for it, and if you have any ideas please keep me current. Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is more to the world than just the United States, and more editors than just Americans, ... IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The BP issue was been discussed here on Jimbo's talk page in March. This thread discusses the estimate that 40% of the BP article was written by a paid BP PR employee. This thread (which I started) discusses a news article which talks about BP but also reveals that Chevron Corporation's article was heavily edited by a Chevron PR employee. I don't wish to contradict Jimbo's statement that he knows nothing about the BP article, but he was involved in those discussions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It was explained back in March why these news are incorrect but unfortunately this was buried by mass of noises created by these news stories. Even more, unfortunately seems that some editors liberally ignore the reality and repeat the version they like. It is true that an editor from BP (who had disclosed his COI at the user page, article talk page and WP:COIN) made several redrafting proposals at the BP's talk page. Not all of them were implemented, e.g. changes to the controversial environmental record section. I can't talk on behalf of other editors but I myself did not add anything to the article which I am not ready to sign as my own work. It was not copy-paste from the talk page but there were changes, additions, additional references etc. Saying that this was ghost-writing is not true. Also, the claim about 40% written by BP is incorect and not supported by any fact. Even more serious thing is that certain editors continues to allude that there is a team of editors editing on behalf of BP without disclosing their COI. Notwithstanding a number of request no evidence are presented and no reports posted at the relevant notice board. The situation is very similar to that what user:Tryptofish described regarding MAM article. Even some names are the same. Making allegations against editors who don't share the certain POV without providing evidences is disruptive and disrespectful, and therefore that kind of practise should stop. Beagel (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the current state of the BP article, it is my recollection that many of the lengthy passages written by BP's employee prior to the issue coming to wider attention were copied into the article with few if any changes made. I took a look at the article at that time and quickly discovered that there is a very very unhealthy atmosphere there. Talk page discussions were needlessly protracted and circular. The smart thing to do, if one were writing an encyclopedia, would be to replace all current editors with new, uninvolved editors who are not tainted with the accusations of bias that Beagel identifies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict - Agree with DC re BP, and it isn't tough to prove that BP drafts were entered word for word; brand new editors would really help the March Against Monsanto article, too] I'd be convinced by these statements by Trypto, IRWolfie and Beagle unless I knew the facts. Here is the reversion of my research-based edits to March Against Monsanto, (where I have one editor who I call I friend, but with whom I rarely agree) - judge for yourself. There is not some anti-corporate cabal on wiki, no matter how much typing says otherwise. I am sure feathers are ruffled when this POV is confronted, and that seems evidenced by comments here. It would be nice to think we can trust anonymous commenters to give us the low-down, but the truth will require actual study of the records. If you'll allow me, the Buddha said, "trust no one - not even me - without first testing for yourself". petrarchan47tc 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please, give the proofs. It may be the case of some sentences or even paragraphs, but not the all drafts as you allude. Beagel (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't see the point of this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You made a series of edits you know were going to be controversial (you yourself had participated in many of these discussions), and were already been discussed on the talk page, I note one of the claims you inserted included "While March Against Monsanto was among the largest global efforts in history ...", and you only kept the rather credulous claim that there was 2 million participants, despite the numbers making no sense at all (even according to sources that actually addressed the numbers). These edits were then reverted. Rather than discussing the edits per WP:BRD, you immediately accused the reverter of vandalism [6], commenting: "This is vandalism, pure and simple, and to say i need consensus for simply following the guidelines about how to build an article is disgusting." IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about another editor, as the comments and edits you describe were not by me. Go ahead and vent, but as I said, rehashing past content disputes on this page is pointless. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It was not address at you. Follow the indentation. Directly addressing the comment Petrar made is not a "vent". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have long ago given up on the BP article. It's been taken over by anti-BP advocates that have made it even more into a hit piece than it previously was. And they are in the process of doing the same to Monsanto. There's no point in trying to work against them, because they'll just accuse you of being a shill for the companies in question or of being duped by them. Silverseren^C 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That special interests may be influencing, and indeed are influencing, this encyclopedia deserves serious discussion if we are to consider making Wikipedians into journos. We have yet to discuss the implications of something like CREWE, and its impact on our content, and on our independent editors. When i bring this up, we are quickly distracted by editor-bashing and the stream of "Let me tell you what's really going on..."s. The truth will require research into all these claims. Meanwhile, consider how ludicrous the arguments are that there is no problem at articles where giant special interests are concerned, save for the people complaining about the massive POV in favor of these large companies. Even if there were some established anti-corporate group running around (to my knowledge, there is not), it wouldn't change my point: Wikipedia is looking the other way while corporations and special interests are having their way with us. But don't take my word for it, or anyone else's. Its all in the records. I truly think the whole issue should be investigated. petrarchan47tc 04:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Petrarchan47. This is the wrong forum for this discussion. Most forums have failed as well as this one. I will provide diffs on request. The next, and final forum, would be ArbCom. I have doubts that it will find a resolution and just fail as the others did. If this cannot be resolved within, then we must go off-wiki to move forward.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47. You sound like an inquisitor trying to flush out heresy whether it exists or not. So we have Petrarchan who "disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia", and Gandydancer who edits from an anti-corporate anti-government POV (he has acknowledged this), and groupuscule (talk · contribs) who thinks he is qualified to ascertain that what the scientific sources claim is consensus is a giant fabrication. This cadre (disclaimer, Gandydancer doesn't) think newspapers are reliable for stating the scientific consensus about GMO, and use anti-vaccination anti-flouridation organisations that also support bogus science to claim there is no consensus about GMO. i.e they sow doubt and make grand claims like that only corporate shills are allowed to publish papers about safety about GMOs etc etc. They even host pages in their wikipedia userpages where they do original research to claim the consensus doesn't exist. I suggest people look at Climate change denial, particularly about "doubt" and draw their own conclusions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) And here [7][8] Canoe is saying that including the scientific consensus about the safety of GM foods is POV because we don't include the religious and social "consensus". Wow, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It is kind of funny that Wikipedia, in general, tries to reflect the scientific side of things. But in terms of GMO articles, Wikipedia is firmly in the fringe conspiracy theorist camp. Silverseren^C 22:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, you have accused me of " think[ing] newspapers are reliable for stating the scientific consensus about GMO, and use anti-vaccination anti-flouridation organisations that also support bogus science to claim there is no consensus about GMO. i.e they sow doubt and make grand claims like that only corporate shills are allowed to publish papers about safety about GMOs etc etc. They even host pages in their wikipedia userpages where they do original research to claim the consensus doesn't exist. I suggest people look at Climate change denial, particularly about "doubt" and draw their own conclusions." I have never suggested any of these things nor have any of my edits supported this sort of thinking. Please provide evidence or withdraw your accusations. Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad we agree. I've modified the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You were obviously aware that I have not engaged in any of the behaviors you accused me of before you made them. You have shown a shameful lack of integrity. Gandydancer (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is a COI editor or group of COI editors editing without disclosing their connections with the subject or not following the relevant policies and guidelines (inter alia WP:COI and WP:PAY in this case), this is a serious violation of Wikipedia pillars and should be seriously investigated. There are relevant notice boards for this. At the same time, if these allegations are made by editors with a certain POV without presenting any evidence against editors who do not share this POV, to get the upper hand in a POV-dispute, this kind behaviour should not be tolerated, and, if necessary, sanctions should be placed to stop that kind of disruptive behaviour. It is also strange that the term "independent editor" is used by some editors only to describe editors with a certain POV alluding at the same time that editors not sharing this POV are not independent. In reality, all editors without COI are independent editors. The idea "making Wikipedians into journos" is strange as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet, partisan or not. There is a sister project named Wikinews which deals with news reporting. Beagel (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a consistent effort by some members of this group to refer to people who disagree with them as being employed by Monsanto, or hint at the allegation [9] by Canoe1967 (they've gone beyond merely shouting "shills" at everyone, which occurred earlier on [10] "There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. This is a claim promoted by Monsanto and other biotech companies, with the help of their team of Internet shills who work for a known PR company and troll message boards and Wikipedia articles.", Viriditas). These people believe they are in direct combat with Monsanto. "This seems further evidence that the editors who, for whatever reason, seem to want to make sure large companies look as good as possible, vastly outnumber the indies left on wiki", by Petrarchan. emphasis mine. [11]. Yesterday, "Note that I didn't enter this realm of articles because of a pre-existing concern about GMOs. I was drawn to them pretty much only because (about this time a year ago) I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page.", by Groupuscule. [12]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

USEPA James discussion

Everyone expects big corporations to spend on public relations, and that often ends up as COI editing. When government employees start POV editing on behalf on corporate interests to save themselves extra work, as with the User:USEPA James example above, that's a whole different ballgame and much more pernicious. 12.31.71.58 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see some of the same names there as well, cropping up to attack that editor.Talk:Clothianidin/Archive_1#Proposal_to_almost_completely_rewrite_the_clothianidin_content, Gandydancer (talk · contribs): "... I need to focus my edits. For me that is on what is often the non-corporation/governmental point of view - I hardly have time to defend the corporate truth as well - especially considering that it is usually not truthful but rather propaganda. Frankly James, I consider you the enemy, though I consider the EPA less in the pocket of corporate business than most gov't agencies. If it is your decision to go though all of the Wikipedia articles that the EPA is related to and change them to strictly meet wikipedia guidelines, well then so be it. So it goes, I guess." and more User_talk:USEPA_James#Concerns_about_your_editing_style. I notice this editor appears to have eventually been driven away. It seems that editors who disclose their paid COI get attacked and driven away by overzealous editors, while those same overzealous editors pushing a "non-corporation/governmental" point of view are free continue. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What i find interesting is the fact that in the past 10 days or so, IRWolfie tried to have two articles deleted: March Against Monsanto and "Millions against Monsanto" founders, Organic Consumers Association. Seems a good example of "over zealous" to me. petrarchan47tc 07:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, you are wrong. I suggest you check again. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You put both articles up for deletion recently. If you disagree with this, please be more specific and less simple, so I know exactly your stance. petrarchan47tc 05:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I will state it plainly. You are wrong. I did not put the article Organic Consumers Association up for deletion. Clearly you did not even check before writing your statement. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that you did not bother to post what else I said:

Please accept our enemy status in the spirit of friendship. Nothing is better for an article than opposing views as long as the editors play fair. Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unclear why we are talking about this again.--Mark 08:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that User:USEPA James is the James Martin in [13]? (And is it even allowed to ask that question under the outing policy?) 98.220.133.91 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be some major speculation, and I don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange activity at Monsanto-related articles

I entreat all community members to explore the issue for themselves. From what I have seen, few of those who want these pages changed are rabidly anti-GMO, let alone "anti-Science". Instead we are responding to the perceived dominance of Monsanto talking points and the suppression of criticism at articles like March Against Monsanto, Monsanto, Séralini affair, Genetically modified food controversies, and others.

I did indeed create a lengthy userspace page to compile objections to one of these talking points. I did so because similar objections (of shorter length) had been deemed too long and disorganized for the article's talk page. I politely responded to several requests to make changes. Yet this page was targeted by vandals and by a strenuous deletion campaign.

A number of editors have sought to add balance in articles dominated by the perspective of the biotech industry. Many of these editors, including myself, have been harassed and subject to absurd wikilawyering, seemingly because of our position on these articles. As petrarchan has said, what's going on here is not normal.

There is lot of material to read on Wikipedia and in the realm of published literature—and it's necessary to read a lot to get a clear picture of what's going on. I hope that at least some folks will rise to the challenge, take the time to carefully review edit histories, and inspect a range of the reliable secondary sources that are available. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To that end, I found the comment section here extremely enlightening. (Realizing the very talking points being argued against are the ones that dominate this encyclopedia.) petrarchan47tc 23:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention wikipedia or anything of relevance, so I skipped most of it (it's full of conspiracy theories). Here are the people who run the website: [14], 6 people, no sign of editorial oversight, no reason to assume its reliable for anything but what it does contain is a lot of Anti-GMO opinion and conspiratorial ideation. Ironically their wikipedia page was apparently made by someone with a COI: Bioscience_Resource_Project. What I did do is look at the comments. The comments mention an Anti-GMO mailing list where wikipedia editors discuss edits they are trying to make. Are you part of the Anti-GMO mailing list that the link refers to? "As a followup to Brian John’s comment: I’m on an email list where I’ve heard several people complain about the extreme bias of the Wikipedia page, “The Seralini affair”. They have been trying to edit it to add balance and accuracy but their edits are reverted soon after." Several people communicating on a non-public emailing list. Seems like they also engage in genetics bashing more generally: [15]. This would not be the first time you have picked a pseudoscientific organisation because it says what you want to here (the last was an anti-flouridation anti-vaccination group). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've asked the people on wikiproject genetics as to whether the bioscience resource project publish pseudoscientific material. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that your userpage "analysis" with all its original research and use of Anti-GMO funded work by the now infamous Seralini appeared on an Anti-GM website before seemingly being taken down: [16]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Gulf war syndrome

There were three medical literature reviews erased from the gulf war syndrome article a year ago. Why? The MD who agreed to mediate the dispute in the talk page archives (@Jmh649:) never did. Why? The Institute of Medicine update linked in that article's last talk page section indicates that the disputed questions are still wide open. Amopherion (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia Commons the only Image source we use?

Can anyone answer this? With a number of threads discussing perceived flaws with Commons and the growing concern that the site is taking a very different route than originally intended, I was wondering, is Wikimedia Commons the only image source we use? Also....what is the possibility of creating an alternative to Commons with a more encyclopedic approach?--Mark 21:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Each other-language Wikipedia also has its own images: Although it could be considered better to share, by uploading all free images into Commons, instead each other-language Wikipedia also has its own images which people have uploaded without login to Commons. I have uploaded several enwiki-only images, but most have been "forced" months later into Commons, and I have moved some images from German WP to Commons, such as to illustrate town articles. For images of a controversial nature, such as photos of taboo topics, then consider just uploading to the local language, and avoid tempting other cultures to grab an image from Commons and show it everywhere. -Wikid77 22:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• You can achieve a de facto opt-out of the Commons circus by uploading files straight into English Wikipedia (use the "Upload File" button) and attaching the template { {keep local} }. This template may or may not keep individuals from manually transferring files over and deleting the originals here under some ill-advised speedy deletion criterion, but it does seem to keep the bot-transfers at bay, which represents the greatest risk of the uploader's wishes being undermined by Circus Clowns, Inc. In theory there is no reason that all files used to illustrate encyclopedia articles can't be housed at the encyclopedias themselves. Storage space is cheap and Wikimedia Foundation has enough money to waste multi-millions on small local user groups, so there is no viable financial reason for this not to be. Perhaps it becomes a little more difficult to share files between projects, but the benefit of participating at WP without being sullied far outweighs that minor convenience, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Carrite. I wonder (out loud of course) what the flickr policy is for adult content. I kind of like your suggestion. It helps those that find Commons to be a less than desirable place to donate content, but like Flickr, if it is an acceptable license, it can be transferred manually. Something I have decided is not in the interest of those individual authors, who may object to having their file hosted at Commons without permission (something I have never actually encountered but is possible I suppose). Then, of course, the issue becomes the CC license itself which allows such transfers without permission. About the only solution I can think of is to simply stop donating image files altogether. In theory CC license is a sharing sort of thing. But when sharing becomes disruptive or used against individuals, I think I would prefer to keep complete copyright and begin using all off my own images as Non free content. Now, that is something I am curious about. Can the author of the work upload it as non free content? I know Masem is one of our NFC experts. I wonder if they know about such a thing?--Mark 02:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In most cases, the answer will be no. Wikipedia's mission is to be a free content project, and I would imagine nearly any image you could take and upload as fair use could just as easily be taken and uploaded by someone else as CC/GFDL. It would violate WP:NFCC#1. At any rate, I don't find the issues with Commons to be any worse than the issues with EN. 99.9% of Commons hums along without issue, and therefore without comment. But a small cadre of individuals have made it their mission to complain loudly about that 0.1%, which pretty much distorts the view. It has its flaws, as does every Wikimedia project, but remains worthwhile (unlike a few Wikimedia projects I could name). Resolute 02:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. NFCC#1. If I, as the author, can upload it as non free, I can upload it as a freer license. It is my copyright and I could release it, especially if I have in the past. Good point. I will say that the issue seems to be a little larger than the 0.1% but the point is still well taken. I suppose Wikipedia loses nothing of any importance to the few contributors who will now decline to donate image files at all.--Mark 02:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about the lack of leadership at Commons that would show wise editorial judgment, an understanding of almost universally held cultural taboos, and a recognition of laws regarding consent in general and age of consent in particular. All that being said, I will continue to donate my educational images to Commons, for use by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose. That's what we are all about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC);

I doubt very much that this will stop me from donating images to Commons entirely, but I will be uploading much more directly to Wikipedia. There are many other issues at Commons that have begun to concern me, but I have to admit that the majority of the site is positive. It just appears that the small amount of issues seem being enough to overshadow the positive at times.--Mark 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that it's easy to avoid permission issues when uploading to commons so it's really a red herring. The whole point of CC and other free content licences is that you've given already given permission for anyone to redistribute the content anywhere and way they want provided they comply with the terms of the licences. So you can't say someone doesn't have your permission if they are complying with the terms of the licence. I think it's actually a good thing if people start to understand their licences mean something and they can't later randomly decide peoppe need permission for stuff which they have already given permission. Also I think people are missing that the smaller projects are the ones who would be disadvantaged the most by any end of commons as they will now have to deal with outdated and copyvio images themselves and search and ask for help at projects wheir their language is not welcome and they have to deal with a myriad of policies and guidelines which they are unfamiliar with (and any attempt to affect policy will be even less welcome then the kerfuffle commons above). If you're approaching it from a POV of the English wikipedia the most dominant wikimedia project by far (but even the other big projects like the German wikipedia) you're probably don't really appreciate the problem with eliminating commons. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really buy this argument. If one is doing an article, one just clicks the image and there appears the rights information. If it's at Commons, it's at Commons, if it's at En-WP, it's at En-WP. If the former, one only needs to paste in the file name; if the latter, it's a matter of downloading the image, copy-pasting the rights information, and reuploading into the language encyclopedia in which it is to be used. That's a minor inconvenience, perhaps, but maybe two minutes work. With Commons, I suppose one could search for random images — but good luck with that, as it is not an efficient use of time, in my experience. I've managed to find good files there two, three, maybe four times. Basically, I upload whatever I need to illustrate content that I am writing, or once in a while pinch it from Russian WP or the German... It's really not a big deal. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Weekend data shows 10% make 2-byte edits and VE 8%

While I was analyzing the edits to articles during 10/11 August 2013, I counted the edits of ±1-2 bytes, and again the percentage was 10% (1,076 edits of 10,060 sampled), which I consider an indication of people changing one or two words per edit. Fortunately, the edits are not "80% one-word" but instead, about two-thirds of edits (64%) are below 99 bytes of size difference. Another 20% of edits were shifting the size by 100-999 bytes, and changes of 1,000+ bytes were 4% of the 10,060 edits sampled during Sunday. Above 2,000 bytes, the large edit was often blanking a section or creating a new article. As with last weekend, the levels of VE edits dropped to 8% (beginning Friday late, compared to weekday VE 9%-10% levels), but weekend IP edits remained 27% of total, indicating the slight weekend drop in VE edits (-15%) is split evenly between fewer IP VE edits and fewer username VE edits. -Wikid77 00:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we dig into this a bit more to get a more insightful understanding of it? 10% vs 8% seems like quite a small difference, so I wonder if it is statistically significant. (Very hard for me to have an understanding of that, since I've no clear ideas on what the underlying distribution is, so figuring out how to compute a relevant t-test is beyond my power to even suggest to you!).

I also have no very strong view as to what we should be expecting or hoping for. Here are two contrary views: "Since the VE is intended to bring in new editors, we should look for an increase in the percentage of one-word edits, since these are editors who never edited before and now feel empowered to dip their toe in the water and give it a try." Versus: "Since the VE is intended to help new editors, we should hope to see the percentage of one-word edits drop, as new users feel empowered to make bigger changes that were too complex under the old system."

Nonetheless, despite my puzzlement as to what to make of this, I thank you for it and encourage you and others to continue this kind of work. The one thing that in my experience reduces conflict more than anything else for Wikipedians is actual empirical fact.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I would dispute the notion that new editors do many small edits - from my experience at AFC and elsewhere newbies are far more likely to create a new draft as their first edit than to fix a typo. I'd love to see a breakdown of those small edits by edtor experience - i.e. how many are first edits and how many are done by editors with thousands of edits on their contributions page? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken and that your views are caused by experience at AFC, which is an anomalous place. But the truth is, I don't know! So I agree with you - more empirical data is needed. I think that most people start editing by doing small edits. And some of them start by submitting some already completed content, but that's a much smaller number. But yeah, data.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a marked drop in VE usage about the second of August (from 25% to 15% for IPs) [17], I think this corresponded with better instructions for how to edit using the source editor and other interface changes. A slight downwards trend since then but hard to tell with any degree of significance. Fitting a linear regression line on the seven days from 4 Aug for IP's shows a 0.6% drop, less than 0.1% drop per day.--Salix (talk): 10:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think its due to several other factors as well though.

1. Newness of Visual Editor wearing off
2. Its too hard too use and not really intuitive
3. VE Still has a lot of problems that haven't been fixed including not being accessible from different browsers.
4. Having the Beta tag will make some not use it.

Of course this is only a partial list but including the points already made above, this helps explain the drop in VE usage. I would also be interested to see what percentage of the VE edits are vandalism that is reverted. That might be an interesting fact to consider as well. Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the rate of reverts on VE edits is not materially different in either direction as compared to wikitext edits. This suggests that VE has no impact on either vandalism or newbies accidentally breaking things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that's good news. I'm very glad to hear that. I'm also glad to see so many changes and improvements to the application. I'm still pretty pissed about how the WMF dumped a broken/unfinished application in our lap and used WP like a litterbox expecting we would fix it, but I am sincerely glad to see its starting to get there. It still shouldn't be enabled by default and still has a long way to go but I concede it is getting better. Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Some data shows VE used +6% more for 1-9 byte edits, +12% for 100-999: Although the sample of 10,060 edits across Sunday (11 August 2013) might be too small to compare 1-or-2-byte edits, I also compared 1-to-9-byte edits. Among 2,536 edits of ±1-9 bytes, 215 were VE edits, or 8.48% of those <10-byte edits. Compared to the overall VE usage as 8.01% (806 edits of 10,060), then 8.48% is only 6% higher (8.48/8.01) for use of VE to make 1-9 byte edits. The reasonable hypothesis is for VE to be used more often (relative to the wikitext source editor) to fix one/two-word problems in pages, but I think larger samples would be needed to compare 1-or-2-byte changes. As anecdotal evidence, I saw one VE edit (weeks ago) which changed one term "Rf2" in a complex formula of perhaps 30 terms, but the same could be said for hack-edits to a formula outside Pending Changes. For larger changes, of ±100-999 bytes, among 2,137 edits, then 191 were VE edits (8.94%) or 11.6% higher than comparable wikitext editing. So, it would be interesting to study that difference, for VE encouraging people to make larger changes with each edit, as perhaps with easier previewing of many changes before Save. I am not sure what sample size is needed, to avoid large swings in edit-counts by a few users running many edits. We would like to measure overall trends, rather than the actions of a few busy users. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

One curious thing is that there is a higher percentage of VE IP edit at 4:00 UTC each day, quite why the percentages changes through the day is a mystery.--Salix (talk): 14:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Where can I see that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• See WMFlabs VE/wikitext usage dashboard: Link: /enwiki_ve_hourly_perc_by_user_type, requires JavaScript, to mouse-over each hour. It will show hourly levels (spikes) of usage of VE compared to wikitext editor, IP users versus usernames, and new versus old usernames. Because runs at WMFlabs, the data might be 1-2 days old, depending on mirror-copy from live enwiki servers. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • AFAIK replag on labs is really low. You can check it here, but there is no unit named. You can see that the replag varies between roughly 0.2 and 2. I think those are seconds, but I'm not 100% sure, and could just as well be millicenturies or lightfurlongs.well, maybe not just as well Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sampling 25,000 edits to check VE use on short/medium edits: I have estimated the total weekday (article) edits at ~95,000/day, and I am checking a sample of 25,000 edits across today (13 August 2013), to check the preference to use VE for more one/two-word edits (or the medium-size ±100-999 byte edits). I am thinking the difference might also be fewer 1,000-byte edits, in the sense that because the wikitext editor is used for more uber-large edits, then VE might appear to be preferred for small/medium edits when perhaps it is just non-preferred for the larger edits. So beyond the sample size, we need to think about a pattern which would indicate VE promoting larger edits, as I guess the pattern would be a major trend toward medium-size edits, as the logical implication of encouraging users to fix more issues during each edit. As a "rule of thumb" I was advised in software development to seek 8%-plus improvements, as a valuable difference, whereas a 3% difference would not be worthwhile. Results below. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:17, 13 August, 10:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sample 25,212 shows few new VE articles, smaller edits

In a sample of 25,212 edits across 13 August 2013 (00:22-23:59), the data shows VE is rarely used to create new articles (only 2 of 308 new, <1%). The relative usage of VE was 1-in-13 edits, nearly 8% (7.98% in 2nd column of table below).

-	Edits	New Articles	±1-2 bytes (+)	1-9 bytes	10-99 bytes	100-499	500-999	1,000-1,999	2,000-9,999
VE	2,013	2	231 (163)	550	820	343	54	29	22
Total	25,212	308	2,663 (1,535)	6,481	10,580	4,450	817	561	458
VE%	7.98%	0.65%	8.67% (10.6%)	8.49%	7.75%	7.71%	6.61%	5.17%	4.80%

There was a noticeable use of VE to make relatively more small edits, as 8% more ±1-2-byte edits, or 6% more when 1-9 bytes added/removed, compared to the wikitext source editor. Also, VE was used 22% more (10.6÷8.67) to add the 1-2 bytes, rather than remove them. However, the medium-range edits were similar in percentage to the wikitext editor (VE logged 97.1% similar 10-99 bytes, 96.6% similar 100-499 bytes). Above 500 bytes being added/removed, VE was used 17% less often, and above 2,000 bytes, VE was used 40% less. The sample showed VE had a neutral effect on medium-size edits, neither encouraging nor hindering changes of 10-to-500 bytes, while used 6%-8% more for small edits of a few words. However, the wikitext editor was used to create 99.4% of new articles. Busy now, more later, and I can subdivide the 10-99 bytes, at 20, 30, 40, etc. -Wikid77 10:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

14 August sample 20,110 shows 12% more VE edits 100-499 bytes

In a sample of 20,110 edits across 14 August 2013 (00:23-23:59), the data now shows VE used 12.1% more for medium-size edits of ±100-499 bytes, while still rarely used to create new articles (only 2 of 191 new, ~1%). The relative usage of VE was 1-in-12 edits, over 8.5% (8.51% in 2nd column of table below).

-	Edits	New Articles	1-2 bytes (+)	1-9 bytes	10-99	100-499	500-999	1,000-1,999	2,000-9,999
VE	1,711	2	210 (131)	456	663	334	46	30	22
Total	20,110	191	2,066 (1,197)	4,881	8,603	3,500	667	439	x422
VE%	8.51%	1.05%	10.2% (10.9%)	9.34%	7.71%	9.54%	6.90%	6.83%	5.21%

This re-affirmation of VE used 12% more, than the wikitext-editor percentage, for medium-size edits, of ±100-499 bytes, mirrors the results found days ago. When I have more time, I will study the "334" medium-size VE edits, to look for a pattern, or any type of add-same-categories to 100 articles. I double-checked the Tuesday sample, of 25,212 edits, and it clearly shows VE used slightly less, not 12% more, for Tuesday edits of 100-499 bytes. Busy, more later. -Wikid77 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

VE usage is 12 percentage more than the wikitext-editor percentage? I can't decipher that logic at all I'm afraid. _→AzaToth 14:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For 100-499 bytes, VE% = 1.12 × wikitext%. The sample shows, for edits of ±100-499 bytes, the VE% (334/1711=19.52%) compared to wikitext-editor% (3,500/20,110=17.40%) is 12.1% higher (19.52/17.40=1.1218) for percentage of edits of that size in bytes. VE is used less to make very large edits. I am running another sample of 32,000 edits to compare the specific edits of various sizes. For smaller samples, a few people adding category links to hundreds of articles would skew the average size of edits, and so analyzing the data is extremely tedious. -Wikid77 22:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

15 August sample 33,400 shows 4% more VE edits 100-499 bytes

In a sample of 33,400 edits across 15 August 2013 (00:00-23:59), the data now shows VE used only 4% more for medium-size edits of ±100-499 bytes, while still rarely used to create new articles (5 of 438 new, ~1%). The relative usage of VE was 1-in-11 edits, over 8.5% (8.80% in 2nd column of table below).

--	Edits	New Articles	1-2 bytes (+)	1-9 bytes	10-99	100-499	500-999	1,000-1,999	2,000-9,999
VE	2,940	5	376 (213)	799	1,186	559	92	39	43
Total	33,400	438	3,461 (1,936)	7,867	14,299	6,129	1,265	722	616
VE%	8.80%	1.14%	10.9% (11.0%)	10.2%	8.29%	9.12%	7.27%	5.40%	6.98%

Although the difference was no longer 12%, but rather 4% (3.6%) more for edits of ±100-499 bytes, the Thursday data (15 August 2013) still shows how VE is used more for small to medium-size edits, while VE is being used to create only 1 in one hundred new articles. -Wikid77 21:58, 16 August 2013, 09:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with NFLPA Game article

Hello, Jimbo, and anyone else watching this page. I know that, in past discussions about paid advocacy on Wikipedia, Jimbo has suggested that COI editors who cannot get action on an issue may come here. I am a consultant to the NFL Players Association, and since mid-May I've been trying to work with editors from WP:NFL and WP:CFB to split the current, inaccurate NFLPA Game article into two. Drafts of my proposed replacement articles are here and here; there's discussion of this at Talk:NFLPA Game as well. Despite apparent consensus for my proposed changes, no action has yet been taken.

I've written an overview of these discussions, and I'm putting it in this collapsed box to avoid TL;DR:

Discussion surrounding errant NFLPA Game article

Here's the rundown: The NFLPA explained to me that the NFLPA Game article was problematic, in that it conflated two different events: a bowl game they once sponsored but now continues without them, and a new one they currently sponsor. I reached out to WP:NFL and WP:CFB in mid-May, asking for input on what the best solution might be. Arxiloxos agreed with my assessment of the problem, and we agreed on a course of action: there should be two articles—one called the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl, and one called the Texas vs. The Nation. I suggested that I would draft the former, asking if he would draft the latter. So, I drafted a new version of the NFLPA Game article, now (correctly) called NFLPA Collegiate Bowl, and posted it in my userspace. I then reached out to Arxiloxos again, as well as posting notes on Talk:NFLPA Game and WP:NFL letting folks know that the draft was in my userspace. Not receiving a response, I followed up with another note a few days later at WP:CFB, as well as reaching out to two editors who work on American football articles, Paulmcdonald and Dirtlawyer1. After about another week of no activity, I reached out to another editor, Dale Arnett. After still having no success, I went ahead and drafted a stub of the Texas v. The Nation game article and posted it to my userspace, in order to speed things along. I then reached out to another user, ZappOMatti, and followed up with Dale Arnett and Arxiloxos again. On Talk:NFLPA Game on July 10 and 11, Dale Arnett and Arxiloxos indicated that the Texas v. The Nation stub needed more detail, so I added the requested information on July 11, and let folks know that it was done. I also followed up again at WP:NFL and WP:CFB, and another editor who'd been involved in discussions there, The Writer 2.0. Finally, on August 2, I reached out to Paid Editor Help, but still have yet to receive a reply there.

Nearly three months from start to today, and I've still not been able to find an editor to implement these changes, despite broad agreement that the changes are necessary and should be implemented.

I should note here that, ever since Jimbo outlined his view that that paid advocates never edit article space (sometimes called the "bright line" and elaborated on in his Paid Advocacy FAQ), this is precisely how I have handled client requests. Although I am very confident that these changes would improve Wikipedia, and that there is consensus among volunteer editors that this is the case, it is always my intention to follow best practices.

So I'd be very grateful for anyone here, Jimbo or otherwise, who would look into this. I'll be happy to respond to any questions editors may have. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! I welcome discussion here and pointers to what else I should read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jimbo. The above message is intended to be all of the necessary context, but here's a more concise explanation: the NFLPA Game article is in error, as an existing tag on the article warns. It treats two separate bowl games as one—the first is called "Texas vs. The Nation" and the other is "NFLPA Collegiate Bowl". The NFLPA, with whom I work, once sponsored the former, and now sponsors the latter. To remedy the situation, I believe the article should be split in two, and I have produced drafts for each:

• User:WWB_Too/NFLPA_Collegiate_Bowl
• User:WWB_Too/Texas_vs_The_Nation

Then "NFLPA Game" should probably redirect to "NFLPA Collegiate Bowl" although some might prefer it become a disambig page. Editors who work on American football articles including User:Arxiloxos and User:Dale Arnett have expressed support for the former draft, and asked for a few more changes to the second draft, which I obliged. However, it has now been more than a month since either weighed in. I've had no luck getting additional help at a few relevant WikiProjects, so I've come here, following your past encouragement to editors in my situation. I believe these articles answer a clearly established problem, and they are ready for the mainspace—they just need a volunteer editor to check again and, if agreed, move it over. Happy to answer any other questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, I don't see any substantial problems (or apparent POV/COI issues) with either of the proposed draft articles, and I note the edit summary by User:The Writer 2.0 noting that User:WWB Too/Texas vs The Nation "Needs some additional information but to start, this is OK"] [18] Still, I think this would benefit from administrator attention to make sure the moves to article space are done correctly, with the appropriate history merges. Until I saw this page I was unaware of WWB Too's request at WP:PAIDHELP (for that matter, I was only vaguely aware that page existed), and the lack of response to WWB Too's request might be an item for discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Arx. The TvTN article is not very long, but I wrote about as much as I could while sticking closely to third-party sources. As TW2.0 says, it's at least a good start. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to this? It sounds neutral to me. WWB_Too can you point me to any negative remarks about this proposal at all, so that I might take the utmost care here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the only concerns expressed were already mentioned above, that "Texas vs The Nation" is quite short, though there's not much can be done about it until there's more coverage. Just a bit ago, User:Dale Arnett commented again at Talk:NFLPA Game to say he supports the revisions, but wasn't confident enough in his skills to merge the articles correctly. Anyhow, if you want to hold it open for further comment, that's fine—I've waited this long, I can wait a bit longer! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just putting a note here to say that there hasn't been any movement here yet (this thread was archived yesterday, but I undid it (sorry, ClueBot III!)). A question: given the somewhat technical nature of the request, should I take this to an administrators' noticeboard? If so, any advice on which? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello WWB. I'm confident that I can get the merger done in a technically correct fashion. Please give me a little time to check out the drafts, and then I will implement this if everything checks out. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have it all correct. Cheers. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Tazerdadog. Thanks so much for following up this request! I see just a couple minor issues leftover, but I'll post them over on your Talk page. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Kosovan

Is it permissible to describe a Kosovan as a Serb? Or a Palestinian as an Israeli? If not, why is it allowed to call a Somalilander a Somalian as done here? The BLP in question wears a Somaliland armband during races and sources also conifirm it. Pass a Method talk 08:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, deference should be given within reasonable bounds to self-identification. But there will be competing considerations as well. You sound like you are looking for a simple 'yes or no' answer - in the main text of an article, we can do better. You are asking, though, about categories, and categories are problematic in this way, as they do not allow for degrees.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked in to the Somalian thing but it sounds like you're actually giving a good example of reading too much in to limited information. (I encountered a similar issue on WP:BLP/N where the was an attempt to label someone's sexuality based on their comments about how they could marry now because of the legalisation of same sex marriage.) If all the evidence is an armband, this is very poor evidence for self identification. It could mean anything from 'I am proud of my Somaliland heritage, Somaliland being or should be an independent territory' (note that this doesn't say anything about identification with Somalia as someone could identify with both) to 'I am proud of my Somaliland heritage, Somaliland being or should be an autonomous region of Somalia' to 'As someone of Somalian desent, I fully support the rights of the Somaliland people for self determination (whatever they decide) even though I am not of Somalilander descent' to anything in between. We need much clearer sourcing before we start labelling people. Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Its complicated but Somalia is a very tribalistic society. Your tribe indicates where you're from. The BLP is of the ISaq who are entirely located within Somaliland. His family lives in Somaliland. He clearly self-identifies with Somaliland. The Times further expands on it. Calling a Somaliander a Somalian is the equivalent of calling a Scot an Englishman. Its incorrect. Pass a Method talk 21:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's more equivalent to call them British which is controversial in some cases but acceptable in others. But regardless I've made clear I'm not commenting on labelling them a Somalian since I have not looked at the source for that, simply your sourcing for the allegation of self identification as a Somalilander. And no, we can't use someone's personal opinion of the nature of Somalia and Somaliland tribal affiliations (which of course even if accurate, could have no relevance to people who've lived in the UK for a big part of their lives and in any case could have no relevance to any random person) to randomly label living people. The Times thing is an editorial and while I can't read the whole thing, it doesn't seem to provide any support to self identification. So so far, the only RS supported thing we know is he sometimes/often/always wears a Somaliland flag which we could perhaps note in the article but doesn't tell us anything about how he self identifies which seems to be what you want the article to comment on. Nil Einne (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Im actually more concerned about the anti-Somaliland editing of User:Middayexpress as a whole. Several other users have complained about it previously and he has been blocked for such behavior in the past. In the past 24 hours he has nominated two Somaliland categories for deletion (unsuccessfully), he has made comments saying "Somaliland does not exist", he has edited the Somaliland article in a manner to make it sound like a region and is also targeting Somaliland BLP's. If it continues i think i will report the user to AN/I. Pass a Method talk 22:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Those blocks were from years ago, back in my salad days; and at least one of the users involved has long since been indefinitely banned. By contrast, your numerous blocks for disruptive editing are all within this past year or so, which makes that remark all the more ironic and amusing. Middayexpress (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing the athlete as a "Somaliland athlete" seems reasonable enough - the place people should be arguing is whether that category should be a subcat of "Somalian athlete". I don't know what to say about that, but at least it's an honest conundrum. - right now I'm having enough resistance from people who insist that Islamophobia is a kind of racist (so that a photo of a man holding an Islamophobic sign is categorized under Racism). Ask whether anti-Scientology is a kind of racism and they'll tell you it's "not a forum". Wnt (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That is because the talk page for our article in Islamophobia isn't a forum for discussions on whether "anti-Scientology is a kind of racism". Most new contributors get to understand this with little difficulty after being pointed to the relevant policies. If you can't understand it after all this time, I have to suggest that maybe your skills (whatever they are?) might be better employed elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You were telling everyone to provide a source. So I tried one edit like that there and you're complaining anyway. I would say, however, that the purpose of a Talk Page is not strictly to provide sources for edits, but more broadly for editors to try to agree on an understanding of the topic. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What 'you would say' has next to nothing to do with what policy says talk pages are for. If you can't be bothered to do even a little basic research, but wish to expound your uneducated opinion anyway, there are plenty of internet forums that will let you do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic, I think we need some more eyes on User:Middayexpress. Pass a Method talk 23:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite disingenuous remarks from User:Pass a Method. Firstly, the Isaaq clan are one of the six major clans of ethnic Somalis. Ethnic Somalis are in turn Somalia's largest ethnic group (please see here for some of the other ethnic groups in the country). Secondly, the Isaaq are not "entirely located within Somaliland" as this user falsely claims, nor are they even the sole ethnic Somali clan inhabiting that northwestern Somalia region. A simple look at this CIA map showing the actual geographical distribution of the major ethnic Somali clans will dispell that notion.

Thirdly, the athlete in question, Mo Farah, is in fact not from Somalia's northwestern Somaliland region. Although as an Isaaq member he does have family from that region, he was actually born in Mogadishu, which is in southern Somalia. He also spent his early childhood years in Djibouti before later moving to the UK. In other words, the editor is attempting to link Farah with a part of Somalia that the athlete isn't actually from, and is upset at me for pointing this out. Please have a look at this discussion where this was already explained (and which was rather conveniently not linked to). Or better yet, here's the athlete's actual country of birth/Somalia, where he spent his early years, and the real reason why he sometimes waves the Somaliland region's flag:

"I was born in Mogadishu, but I grew up in Djibouti. My first memory is of running around and playing football there when I was three or four." [19]

A grounded man, he has retained a strong friendship with the PE teacher who encouraged him to swap football for athletics and helped with visas when Farah arrived as a refugee from Somalia in 1993, and the 27-year-old is not one to forget his roots. On Tuesday night, as he jumped around on the Barcelona track, delirious in celebration, someone in the crowd threw him a Somaliland flag.
"It's a part of Somalia now trying to be recognised as a republic," said Farah, who left the country behind as he tried to build a new life in the UK. "They've just got a new government. I was chucked the flag and I thought: 'Yeah, OK.' There's a lot of people in the UK from Somalia who've followed me." [20]

"When I arrived in Britain from Somalia at 9 years of age, I had a dream that I would become a famous sports person and a household name. I would travel the world and be a hero in the land of my birth." [21]

Besides the foregoing, please also note that Article 8 of the Constitution of Somalia stipulates that "a person who is a Somali citizen cannot be deprived of Somali citizenship, even if they become a citizen of another country" (c.f. [22]). So in fact the athlete has dual Somalian and British citizenship. This too was already explained to the editor on his user page [23]. Middayexpress (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont really understand your obsession with birthplace. If a woman gives birth in a toilet, is the child from a toilet? If a woman gives birth on an aeroplane, is that child indigenous to the stratosphere? Also, since when do passports get issued to infants? Illogical comments from a biased editor. You have also not addressed your general anti-Somaliland activism on wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 12:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If a woman gives birth in a country, and that country extends citizenship to all people born in that country (as Somalia does), that makes her infant a citizen of that country. It's indeed not rocket science. For the rest, see ad hominem and your own recent block log. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING

Good afternoon. I know you ask editors to refer issues to the help desk first and I have done that in this post but I believe my complaint is serious enough to warrant your attention and so I am giving you a "heads-up". The creation of rules for the sake of creating rules has always been an annoyance but it has now reached a stage that is unacceptable as it will eventually make project work impossible. You really do need to step in and do something about the people responsible as they are alienating editors without making any worthwhile contributions themselves.

One of my recommendations is the termination of the contentious and divisive CfD process. I've no doubt you see this as a logical spinoff from AfD but that is a mistaken view. AfD is an essential function because articles provide information and there must be a safeguard against misinformation. CfD is not about preventing misinformation because categories are used by projects to provide the readers with useful means of navigation and search. As such, they should be controlled by their relevant projects only and not by people with a bureaucratic axe to grind and all sorts of stupid, illogical, pedantic rules to be implemented.

WP:DEFINING is based upon something called "definingness". Do you know what that "word" means? Are you happy that numerous categories are at risk of being deleted because they may not comply with the suggested meaning of a word that does not exist in any dictionary? That effectively sums up Wikipedia guidelines. By and large they are complete nonsense and they are by far the main reason why you have lost so many good editors, with more to follow, and why the site is discredited in so many people's eyes. Lets see a return to basic common sense and the prioritisation of presenting a service that is primarily for the benefit of the readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the porridge too hot, Jack? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The general principle seems obviously correct to me. I think that section should be rewritten to avoid the use of the term 'definingness' - it's unnecessary to a proper explanation of the idea, and the idea itself is straightforward and not objectionable as one of several things we should keep in mind when thinking about what a thoughtful category scheme looks like. We should not have a category 'red things' which includes fire trucks, chili peppers, and apples. Why? A few reasons but one good one is that being red is not a defining characteristic of any of those things.

In my long experience, when someone protests about a perfectly sensible general principle, it isn't actually the principle itself that is at issue, but a specific application of the principle. Perhaps you could be more specific with an example of how you think the principle is being misapplied?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Please see this CfD discussion. I agree with your red things analogy as those items could have different colours, but the period in which a cricketer (or, presumably, any sportsperson) is active is a defining characteristic per the examples given in the discussion, though other sports like football might not have seen so many evolutionary changes or watersheds as cricket has. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

question

Hi Jimbo, May I please ask you, if you have a problem with Wikipedia own Signpost describing the Wikipedia community as "cantankerous" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-08-14/Special_report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.14.34 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

i'd say the community as a whole can be characterized as cantankerous, but the individual editors vary widely, and that is part of what makes Wikipedia work. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the less tanned members of the Community are merely cankerous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't matter how "cantankerous" an editor is if they are doing their job, writing articles and staying out of the way. Albacore (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Except besides witting articles your cantankerous community enjoys ruining the reputation and destroying the health of both its own editors and the subjects of BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.234.64.106 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not as unhealthy as Facebook, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right but there're a few expositions: Facebook doesn't pretend to be a charitable organization; Facebook is not begging for donations, and Facebook doesn't allow their community to govern their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.234.64.106 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Jimbo: you're in the public eye so I imagine you may have come across things like this before but I thought I'd alert you to Wikipedia:Help desk#Fake Jimbo Wales book. There are no Google results for the title the user provided. I love the title, which screams coinage by a non-native speaker – "Self Biography about myself..."; the avoidance of "autobiography" and the redundancy of "about myself" is priceless. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is a collection of freely licensed things that Jimbo has written about himself here on Wikipedia, then I don't see how it differs from things published by Books LLC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on the getting of your formal patronage

Hello Jimbo,

Question on the getting of your formal patronage - is on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.C2.ABSpeech_Freedom_Day_named_after_John_Lennon.C2.BB_.28British_Council.29 (John Lennon). Kind regards! - 2.94.253.148 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

No.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I understood. Havtan has the coFounder with separate rights. Exists option by this reason. You can be with the main role in the project (instead the British Council). Content of existing project will be changed in some part (not 110 countries, but 300 language sections of Wikimedia Foundation). In this case will be used other platform or URL. Thus, the great event in future will be named: Speech Freedom day named after John Lennon (Wikimedia Foundation). After your consent, the project will be send to UNESCO for moderation to become happiness and holiday for hundred millions of fans around the world. Are you agree with the such option? I will say to coFounder replace copy of the project in other place to become totally free of Evgeny Havtan (if your are agree). John Lennon has right. I awaiting of your reply. Thank you Jimmy! - 176.15.252.107 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC).
  • He replied already, and his answer was no. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• * He replied already about other topic totally: become patron or coFounder - is nothing, if compare with (Wikimedia Foundation) instead (British Council). Роман Баров changed project and he sent this (draft) for Jimmy Wales two hours ago. From "europe21" to "jwales" and to "info". Regards! This draft will be on the IGF soon - by the words of Роман Баров (possibility make corrections on-line and to be free of mistakes). Wikipedia respects The Beatles more of all (my opinion). John Lennon - the Phenomenon № 1. - 2.93.17.241 (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

• Баров got the highest education here: http://www.mgimo.ru/eng/ (he not celebrity like Havtan, but he has Knowledge and respecting). - 2.93.17.241 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

• Message with confirmation of my words was sent already (for Jimmy Wales from Роман Баров). Kind regards! 176.15.252.107 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

• Hello Jimmy Wales and others,

Роман Баров began prepare the project: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/discussionspace?func=view&catid=7&id=517 (now). Jimmy got the copy of draft (will be corrections also). I can be without name here (if will be need, I can register account in Wikipedia). In any case, Баров can confirm my powers (volunteer to provide the best interaction). I ask delete old topic on this page (I write message now in this topic). Because the global event in future (all must be without any old scandals, related to suggestion from Havtan). Being Beatleman with big letter, I give help to any respected man on almost the same issue (John Lennon and my idol). When Havtan is loser (I will be with Баров). He has full copyright (and can make editing independently of Havtan). Russian celeb is afraid waiver from the British Council (reason not make press release very long time). Like coward (but exists reason: waiver after press release - is death in the scope of Russian culture). In Russia live: 150 millions of people (they can know about waiver via hundreds newspapers). About Браво knows even little child in Russia. I ask use separate case (talk page is not forum). But event for hundred millions of fans around the world and for light memory of John Lennon via Wikipedia - can be the such case in accordance with the rule (ignore all rules, because common sense is welcomed). Page of Jimmy Wales? Very useful for corrections on IGF (and good advice be free of mistakes). Many people here. If topic become long (collapse). Responsibility (Баров - external developer). Баров says that many of links will be inside words (text will be displayed nicely). Regards! - 93.81.16.241 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC).

• • Hello friendly Russian person! You say that you understood. Please provide evidence that this is so! Such evidence has been sadly lacking for quite some time now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like it is Crazy1980 again, since it comes from the Russian Corbina IP range.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Great number of people uses the Corbina and VPN (you must know). Millions of people love The Beatles (you must know). Havtan is not crazy1980 (you must know). Because of you I must change IP for the next noble message (to User:ianmacm).

• HAPPY: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Book&bookcmd=download&collection_id=bff604514bb5e200&writer=rl&return_to=User+talk%3AJimbo+Wales ? 2.93.81.156 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
  • "The file you are trying to download does not exist: Maybe it has been deleted and needs to be regenerated". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It was just a mediawiki book format of this talk page, god knows what the point was of it. Can we just block this semi-literate Beatles troll and move on? I daresay that John Lennon would be quite disgusted with what's going on in Russia nowadays anyways, and would roll in his grave to be associated with anything there. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, this a banned user (User:Crazy1980) who's been trolling on Beatles-related topics for years, whose website is globally blacklisted, and who seems to think he can convince the WMF to host pirated Beatles music. He's been a pest all over the wiki, bombarded OTRS, and consistently edits from Russian IPs, so he's not hard to spot. Please don't feed this troll: Jimmy didn't. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the goal of the Beatles troll was really to get the music hosted on WP; that was just a ploy. The goal was to spam the link to the site and drum up traffic. That or to set Wikipedia up for a case that we assist in contributory infringement... Wnt (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be mostly away for a few days

As I am heading with my wife to the hospital in anticipation of the birth of our new baby. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! All the best for mother and child. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on your new baby Jimbo :)... Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 14:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! Hope mother and baby are well - and that you get some sleep occasionally. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on your new baby :) - Hope mother & baby are okay. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link in honor of the event "A Birthday", Christina RossettiMercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

On Wikinews

I have left a not-too-short set of remarks on your Wikinews talk page. I would appreciate a very considered response; and, have been at-pains to not allow how the mainstream media have reported on your keynote colour what I've written. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Equally, your remarks were not informed by actually looking at what I said in my keynote. You seem to have taken my criticisms of mainstream media as criticisms of Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING

Good afternoon. I know you ask editors to refer issues to the help desk first and I have done that in this post but I believe my complaint is serious enough to warrant your attention and so I am giving you a "heads-up". The creation of rules for the sake of creating rules has always been an annoyance but it has now reached a stage that is unacceptable as it will eventually make project work impossible. You really do need to step in and do something about the people responsible as they are alienating editors without making any worthwhile contributions themselves.

One of my recommendations is the termination of the contentious and divisive CfD process. I've no doubt you see this as a logical spinoff from AfD but that is a mistaken view. AfD is an essential function because articles provide information and there must be a safeguard against misinformation. CfD is not about preventing misinformation because categories are used by projects to provide the readers with useful means of navigation and search. As such, they should be controlled by their relevant projects only and not by people with a bureaucratic axe to grind and all sorts of stupid, illogical, pedantic rules to be implemented.

WP:DEFINING is based upon something called "definingness". Do you know what that "word" means? Are you happy that numerous categories are at risk of being deleted because they may not comply with the suggested meaning of a word that does not exist in any dictionary? That effectively sums up Wikipedia guidelines. By and large they are complete nonsense and they are by far the main reason why you have lost so many good editors, with more to follow, and why the site is discredited in so many people's eyes. Lets see a return to basic common sense and the prioritisation of presenting a service that is primarily for the benefit of the readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the porridge too hot, Jack? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The general principle seems obviously correct to me. I think that section should be rewritten to avoid the use of the term 'definingness' - it's unnecessary to a proper explanation of the idea, and the idea itself is straightforward and not objectionable as one of several things we should keep in mind when thinking about what a thoughtful category scheme looks like. We should not have a category 'red things' which includes fire trucks, chili peppers, and apples. Why? A few reasons but one good one is that being red is not a defining characteristic of any of those things.

In my long experience, when someone protests about a perfectly sensible general principle, it isn't actually the principle itself that is at issue, but a specific application of the principle. Perhaps you could be more specific with an example of how you think the principle is being misapplied?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Please see this CfD discussion. I agree with your red things analogy as those items could have different colours, but the period in which a cricketer (or, presumably, any sportsperson) is active is a defining characteristic per the examples given in the discussion, though other sports like football might not have seen so many evolutionary changes or watersheds as cricket has. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I see this has been dumped in your archive without further reply and clearly you feel you can ignore an editor with eight years experience and 53,000 edits. I expect you think, like the bureaucratically-minded admins at the ludicrously superfluous WP:Overcategorisation page, that I am merely complaining about the creation of the CfD discussion linked above. If you read my first post again, you should be able to understand that I am raising an issue about the overwhelming amount of so-called "processes", "policies", rules and "guidelines" that exist on this site. The idea of an encyclopaedia is to provide information to readers via articles. Categories are simply a means of classification on the one hand and navigation on the other. Unlike the vast majority of your admins, I happen to be a professional designer of commercial systems so there is nothing anyone on here can teach me about system navigation processes. The golden rule is "keep it simple" and the second rule is "ensure it is relevant".

Why then, does this site have a process called WP:CfD? Why aren't categories controlled by their projects? I agree that IPs and new members should not be allowed to create, rename or reorganise categories and I agree that only an admin should delete them. Experienced members should be allowed complete freedom to create, rename and reorganise categories. Deletion should be done by a project admin if a category is empty or if a consensus is reached at the project talk page that it is redundant or not required. Simple and effective. It would also show that you and the admins actually trust the editors and projects.

This latter point is very important because I, like numerous other disaffected experienced editors, believe that the site does not trust me or my fellow project members to work unmonitored on the articles and categories in which we are interested. I see my work as being for the benefit of the readers (remember them?), not for self-gratification as is the case with those people who sit there dreaming up stupid, illogical rules and yet more rules.

After a lot of thought and a bit of research into alternative vehicles and outlets for my research and writing interests, I have decided enough is enough and I am resigning from this site. It is impossible to work here in a leisurely manner because it has become absolutely Orwellian in terms of the vast number of inane "processes" that exist and which some unqualified idiot will always insist on deploying. The site is in a downward spiral of its own bureaucratic making. I daresay you can't see that at all and think all is well. It is not, but then what do I know? Goodbye. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 03:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you bitching about? In that cricket CfD, no one seems to be supporting the nominator, i.e. people are voting as you are voting, and it appears the current categorization will be kept. That's kinda how the process works; consensus. Tarc (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be mostly away for a few days with an excuse that I trust is sufficient. Jack, you wrote "clearly you feel you can ignore an editor with eight years experience." No, I don't. But I do feel I can ignore a fellow volunteer who is snippy to me without cause.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reason for prime ministers not to announce involvement in cases of prisoners abroad

tThis article about the dead prisoner's countryman. Joshua French has now been implicated as a potential murderer of Tjostolv Moland. The announcement was made two days after our prime minister announced his involvement in the case of death row prisoners Moland and Joshua French (in the Democratic Republic of Congo). A populistic short term move by a politician, turns into an increased headache.

User:Hapsala article about Tjostolv Moland was from 19:30, 8 September 2009‎ . --Ten by ten (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This new user has inserted news material about Moland/French in the article about the Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg. He has been reverted twice, but continued to insert it for a third time. Iselilja (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove Russavia's bureaucrat status on Commons

Jimbo, following a discussion on COM:AN/U, a request has been opened to remove Russavia's status as a bureaucrat on Commons. I thought you would like to know as this is in part related to that portrait of you, although I don't expect you will participate there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This could have all been solved if he would have painted my picture instead. I would have laughed my ass off and posted it on facebook but this is the cost of being a celebrity. People sometimes do things we don't like. Would Jimbo have been offended if Weird Al wrote a sing about him and Wikipedia? I doubt it. This pricasso guy is an odd ball I'll grant you but I really think we are making more of this than what needs to be. Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that oversimplifies the larger behavioural issues which lead up to this point. The Pricasso portrait simply brought it to wider attention. Even then, Russavia probably could have avoided having a formal request for removal of some of his rights, but he chose to prevaricate and delay whenever he was asked to participate in discussions about this particular episode. The Commons community could have forgiven the Pricasso image, but his responses to it show a lack of respect that will be hard for them to forgive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a farce that has gone on long enough, honestly. Russavia still doesn't have the sligtest understanding as to what he did wrong, e.g. posts here like "This ridiculous indefinite block means that I am not able to deal with copyright violations and other problematic files on this project." Then when Spartaz steps in to shut down this joker's talk page access, that access is restored by PeterForsyth, a buddy of Russavia's from Commons. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Weird Al's White & Nerdy does mention editing Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A farce, yes - and gone on long enough, certainly - but I disagree that he has no understanding as to what he did wrong. I think he knows only too well, and believes he is safe, surrounded by people who will support and condone this kind of behaviour at Commons. I voted there, for what it's worth, but I think that mess will take more action than a few community votes to sort out. Begoon ^talk 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well we have a choice of which community of people who "support and condone" one another's behavior we want to support. Either we support Commons admins who tirelessly deal with an endless torrent of donated content, turning it into a massive and invaluable free archive for all the Internet to enjoy -- or we support the goons from Wikipediocracy lining up to knock off an admin who they see as thwarting their agenda to censor images, humiliate volunteers, lambast Wikipedia in any news medium that will listen to them, and get our project banned in the halls of Parliament. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm — Scott • talk 12:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And I didn't even have to say your name... Hi, Wnt, thanks for the support - your responses sure reduce the effort needed to illustrate the problems we face. You're doing great work. Keep it up. Begoon ^talk 16:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? I can't tell. I'll work under the assumption that it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mostly sarcasm, yes - but I do find Wnt generally proves exactly the opposite of what he seems to intend. Maybe it's all a hideously clever double bluff... Begoon ^talk 08:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I do think that Russavia has pushed the boundaries on some things and probably shouldn't be a beauro. But not because he suggested some weirdo paint Jimbo's picture. What bothers me is that Jimbo is more worried about shit like this than on theh real problems like RFA, the fiasco that commons has become or the continued dilution of editors by spinning off more and more projects. 'These are real problems. Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia should not have positions of trust on any project, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that such trust is badly misplaced. Simple. I'm not sure on what you base, though, the assertion that Jimbo is "more worried about this" than those other things. Seems to me he's commented on all of them. We might not like what he has done (or is able to do) about them, in the sense that we wish more were done, and quicker, or differently - but I don't think that's quite the same thing as saying he doesn't care enough. Begoon ^talk 16:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you watch this page enough, long enough, you'll see what I mean. This picture seemed to upset him more and provoked a much bigger response than many of the important issues. Even his responses to VisualEditorGate were meaningless. My point in this thought was that this situation is utterly and completely meaningless and there are much bigger more important issues that need to be addressed by Jimbo. If Jimbo and others have done anything here its assure that Pricasso will paint again. Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole Pricasso image dispute is stupid and should die a slow death. It is a painting of a public figure by an artist. Russavia is as much in a "personal dispute" with Jimmy as me or anyone else here who has ever disagreed with our Dear Leader. Calling a completely harmless portrait of a public figure "harassment" trivializes the meaning of the term.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TDA, smarten up. Do not post that image here again. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I promise not to post the super ebil image here ever again.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc: "TDA, smarten up." I appreciate your optimism, but it seems unlikely given the puerile response. TDA, regardless of your opinion of the image, the central issues with regard to Russavia and trust and suitability for trusted roles are his lack of honesty and openness when questioned on the issue, and his willingness or desire to de-escalate a situation of his making, rather than inflame it, when it was in his power to act positively instead of play silly games. He was neither honest nor open, and did his best to achieve the opposite of de-escalation. Jimmy was absolutely correct to describe it as trolling, and if Russavia is your idea of a desirable candidate for advanced permissions, well, it speaks poorly of you, in my opinion. Peace. Begoon ^talk 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I run into so much dishonesty on all sides that I generally only support action when it is dishonesty that has meaningful consequences. Russavia's suitability for cratship should be evaluated on the basis of either particularly egregious and persistent misconduct or repeated tool misuse, not some silly dispute over a harmless image.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to be able to call an image harmless when it isn't being used to harass you. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Even nicer when it isn't being used to harass anyone, as is the case here. One could argue that it is being used as a basis for harassing Russavia, but that is obviously not what you meant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The video was commissioned and uploaded solely to attack Jimbo as part of an ongoing campaign against him. Merely talking to you sickens me, so I will not comment to you further. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What campaign? No such campaign exists. The fact that evidence of this alleged feud usually consists of little more than Jimbo's comment about the image is a pretty good indicator.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly this request is not going anywhere. Once again the Commons community has proven that it is " a disorganized bunch of idiots". The question is if the Wikipedia community is any better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.121.42 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps if the video of the artist naked using his genitalia to actually paint the image was removed from the image page and Commons all together it wouldn't be considered harassment, but at this point, regardless of Mr. Wales being a public figure, this seems to cross a line here that seems pretty clear. How that relates to Russavia for suggesting the freely licensed image, I am still unclear on.--Mark 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Russavia contacted Mr.Pricasso and specifically asked him to make the portrait and the video. "Relevant or not, the fact is Russavia really did commission the painting. Pricasso told me as much in an email. Shortly thereafter Russavia confirmed the same, but he bristled at the word "commission" itself."71.202.121.42 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of art is that it has to provoke some reaction, albeit not per se a negative one. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an art project, nor is Commons. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. Encyclopedic value is the determining factor, I thought for inclusion on Commons. I think the point here is this, Jimbo Wales is still a registered contributor on Wikipedia and the painting, while harmless itself, seems to have very little to no encyclopedic value. It really isn't that good a portrait, although I think it is clear who it depicts. How could this be used? We have high quality image files available to illustrate Mr. Wales if his or related articles need them. What concerns me is the video of the artist creating the work. Is this particular method so notable that it needs a video demonstration using a Wikipedia registered user? But, the question is if this constitutes sexual harassment, and frankly it does. Even if this was the Queen, it is a form of humiliating or belittling the subject and I see no particular need for it. It may not come down to whether or not Jimbo Objects. I Can't help but think there is enough reason to simply delete the whole thing as a form of retaliation or even bullying that has no place and pushed the envelope too far. As an artist myself, I don't think we are censoring at all. There is no freedom of expression to be expected at Commons, any more than a freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Many illustrators on Wikimedia have content that isn't being used but at least there is a true possibility of being used. Is it an official portrait? No, so it really lacks value as a depiction of the subject. Not like its of a long gone, historic figure being illustrated by a Commons member. This does seem to have been made for the shock value.--Mark 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an article on the artist, who is notable, and the image had been added there when Russavia was building said article in his userspace. It was removed and several editors have been doggedly trying, without any logical consistency, to even keep out a standard interwiki link to Commons if it means the reader is so much as several clicks away from the image. Of course, the interwiki links to other languages and the other Commons images provide similarly indirect linkages, but that sort of logic apparently escapes them. Never mind that you can still get to it on Wikipedia from doing a multimedia search for the artist. Constantly harping about the image isn't helping as anyone can tell from the page view statistics. Eventually, people may get so used to seeing the image that it will stop shocking them and maybe they will begin to see its value. Maybe even Jimmy will learn to appreciate it in time.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you might have something when you say that eventually, if things you find distasteful and don't like keep popping up, you'll see some value in them. Keep on popping up, as a kind of live test, and I'll be better able to evaluate your theory. Begoon ^talk 04:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Art is very subjective. The artist does have notability but, while educated in traditional art, his is more about how he creates it, and less about the work itself. This is performance art. Performance artists are notable for the performance as much as the portrait as with David Garibaldi (artist). His work is seen for the quality of the expression, which is unique, modern, vibrant and accepted by the art world and showcased on a national platform. Pricasso's method is notable enough for a demonstration and yes, on the image file page (if kept) but what separates the artist from the rest of the art world could be the genre route that Pricasso took in exotica as a performance artist with a stage name. His work is surrounded with controversy, but in the long run, while it is art, even notable art, is it being used in a manner consistent with our standards? I think there may be an argument to say the artist may have been used unfairly. This wasn't an expression he came to naturally by inspiration, he was commissioned (edit- not a paid commission) asked to make the work by an admin/bureaucrat[24] of Commons for commons and it seems at least to some, to make a point of some kind.--Mark 06:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Art is very subjective LOL! Russavia has pulled off the perfect troll where people sit around and debate the art. Take it from those who have followed the case that Russavia intentionally trolled Jimbo, and that Russavia intends to use wikis where he is not blocked to continue poking and trolling Jimbo. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

In a way you are right, but the fact is, it's art. IS this trolling? That seems to be "the point' that many see. But, this is an encyclopedia and we do discuss it to at least sort it out.--Mark 10:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone who has followed the case shares that view, John. Russavia only added the image to a userspace draft of an article. It was spread around by other people who were not friends of Russavia. People saying this is something personal between Jimbo and Russavia are suffering from a lack of perspective. Jimbo is the public face of Wikipedia and, unlike Jimbo, Russavia is a mere volunteer. That Russavia has occasionally disagreed with something Jimbo said or did is not very meaningful since lots of people have disagreed with things Jimbo has said or done. Any claim of "harassment" or "trolling" is built off the notion that those few instances of disagreement with a public figure amount to a "personal dispute", which is absurd. I have not seen a thing that would seriously suggest there was any personal animosity between Russavia and Jimbo. That Jimbo does not realize the significance of his own station relative to Russavia is his failing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is the portrait that crossed the line. It's the accompanying video where the viewer see Pricasso's "process" that crosses into offensiveness when you are talking about a portrait of a living person.

Very few people would have even looked at this portrait of Wales if there wasn't the video so I agree with Mark that this is about performance art, not the portrait itself. And I don't care who the portrait is of, unless the subject consented, it is a violation of BLP by unnecessarily associating them with vulgarity (I don't know how much sophisticated technique is involved with sliding a canvas across ones butt crack). It doesn't matter that it was a portrait of Wales or if it was of President Obama or if it was of you. It's disrespectful.

To me, uploading these files shows a lack of good judgment from someone affiliated with Wikipedia. Whether it outweighs all of the good he has done, others will have to decide. But it seems like it was a move intended to challenge the organization which is not a good sign. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone that thinks Russavia's actions regarding Pricasso and the Wales image wasn't done out of vexatious spite is delusional. That's all there is to that angle. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the crocodile tears and non-apology on the Commons thread were amusing though. If nothing else, Russavia should lose his bureaucrat bit for actually thinking we were stupid enough to think that his getting a guy to paint Jimbo's likeness with their dick would cause anything but drama. He knew full well what he was doing, and what the reaction was going to be. Resolute 22:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, it seems to me that if everyone were to adopt your attitude, the World would be in a constant state of war. Count Iblis (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Err, the world IS in a permanent state of war. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The take-home message here is that the value of work on Wikimedia projects is zero. Not $0.0001, I mean literally zero to the infinite position. If you look at the total edit-count or the total upload count for all the people who voted over there, either way, excluding the top five contributors, both of these totals are less than the total edits and the total uploads done by Russavia all by himself. The top five contributors in each case were Russavia and people who voted for him. I did a Google News search for Russavia (which only goes back a short time, unfortunately) and came up with three articles, crediting three images he had uploaded to Commons. But all totted up, the value of that work is zero. Now by comparison, every stray comment, every upload someone doesn't like - these things have value. They add up and add up and turn him into problematic editor, unreliable editor, banned editor. They matter. Look at him ten years down the line and he's just the guy who got banned off Wikipedia, full stop.

So what should people do? I guess they should think twice about every image they upload. Or better yet, just don't upload most of them. Better still - don't upload any of them - it's no loss, no loss at all. If you seize your 0.0001% chance of being paid $0.03 for something you post to Getty Images, who shall have the uncontested and divine right to control and tax every image in every article for all eternity, at least you can add up a tiny pile of cash to compensate your losses. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah they could do that - or just vote their conscience despite all that blather. It's all good. I trust people in the long run to do the right thing - and they will.Begoon ^talk 20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, one thing I've never understood is why Commons values editors who seem to contribute little of their own work but robotically upload anything on Flickr or Geograph that is freely licensed. I also did a search for "russavia" on Google news, and found these three results: Things I'm Thinking 08/07/13, Jason Biggs and Jenny Mollen Expecting First Child, & Russia will monitor cellular subway excuse: Theft Prevention. In each case, the image is (incorrectly) credited to Russavia. Russavia is not the author of any of those images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wnt divorced himself from reality long, long ago, and by all accounts it was a fairly acrimonious split. Russavia fucked up by using both en.wikipedia and Commons to further his grudge against Jimbo, and now quite a few people feel that may be conduct unbecoming of a bureaucrat. Wnt will cook up, misrepresent and distort anything & everything he can in order to see his buddy Russavia saved. That is all his posts amount to now; playing the perfect wingman. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know Russavia. The only "association" I have with him is not agreeing with your witch hunt. Wnt (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You do bring up a good point though. Perhaps we need to write a new policy on both Commons and EN that codifies how many images or FAs you have to create before you earn a free pass on harassment. I suppose an implication of your impassioned defence suggests that you feel being #1 on a list of edits or uploads warrants blanket immunity from all transgressions? Resolute 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

General principle at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop#Good_editing_deserves_consideration. The 1 in 1000 threshold I proposed there is for sanctions rather than a standard for admins, but given that Commons voters actually decided to keep the image in question I don't think you even have one to count anyway there. Wnt (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• As someone in favor of the complete dismantling of Commons in favor of image hosting by the individual language projects (where administrators and bureaucrats are the subject of actual scrutiny and there exist mechanisms for the removal of bad actors), I'm personally hoping the vote is 85 -30 in favor of desysopping and they keep him anyway. The worse the better and Russavia is a poster boy for abusive behavior. Go, cat, go. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• "I think that oversimplifies the larger behavioural issues which lead up to this point. The Pricasso portrait simply brought it to wider attention. – DC" Exactly; The real problem is the unhealthy team up of some admins’ and a few proposed admins’ attempt override many advices from the WMF that are given by resolutions (like http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people). Whenever someone makes a suggestion, they start shouting "This is not Wikipedia. We are independent. We know how to make our policies." Nobody said Commons is part of Wikipedia. But, isn’t it part of Wikimedia? I think we are part of a single community; not several separated isolated communities with mutually conflicting policies and interests. JKadavoor Jee 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You people have lobbied to keep Pricasso from linking Commons material on Pricasso because the portrait is three clicks away. Meanwhile, if you type "Pricasso" into Google (default filter settings) you're presented with a picture of him painting John McCain. If you people think you're going to make some ideal censored preserve out of Wikipedia with nothing nasty mentioned, understand how ephemeral your "victory" will be. You may get some good administrators like Russavia thrown out, and infiltrate your own people. You may get one or two news cycles about the kinder gentler Wikipedia and how people don't have to worry about seeing the unvarnished truth anymore. But meanwhile out in the real world there's a corporation that started Knol as a competitor to Wikipedia, whose founder has at times made large grants to Wikipedia, which uses Wikipedia results to enhance its searches, which does not share your sense of censorship, because they understand the basic concept that when somebody types in a term they expect to find out as much as possible. They scarcely have competitors yet they still know enough not to forget about them. Do you understand how relatively simple and easy it would be for Google to launch its own mirror copy of all of Wikipedia and Commons, set up its own professional administration, tie the whole thing into Google+ somehow, and forget about you? Or how soon thereafter Wikipedia wouldn't even be able to maintain its servers much less make payroll, as traffic plummeted and the site became regarded not only as censored but out of date? Due to the instability of central control over accumulated crowdsourced resources, Wikipedia's pseudo-democratic model has long been slowly sinking, but it will be surprising how quickly the end comes. The question is whether we can think of a good way to spray the resources across the web in a decentralized community that can function, or whether indeed fifteen years from now no one will even imagine that a project like this could have been done without a major corporation behind it. Wnt (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You've convinced me—to save Wikipedia, we need many more dick pics. I guess we'll also need an escalating series of shock videos to make sure everyone knows we're NOTCENSORED. And when one member of our community has a long standing grudge against another, we will feature their attack pages—long live liberty! Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nah. To save Wikipedia what we need is constant repetitive moaning about trivial crap to do with cocks on Jimbo's talkpage. Formerip (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it amusing whenever I see a "Wikipedia is dying, the end is near, it'll come suddenly and sooner than you think" argument. It's amusing because these exact same arguments were being made when I joined the project back in 2005, and yet, here we all are. (I'm sure come 2020 the same arguments will still be being made as well, because all this has happened before, and all this shall happen again). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Expressing a disagreement on any WMF resolution is welcome, but the right place is WMF Resolutions; not in all discussions under individual projects. Such actions, especially from a crat or admin will only do harm to the projects. Further, it gives the public outside a wrong idea that WMF has no control on their projects. JKadavoor Jee 03:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The lobby was to keep material designed to harass three clicks away. Personally, I feel bad for Pricasso. If he had been asked to provide a painting that wasn't designed to denigrate another individual, I'd be one of the first in line to insist that the picture(s) be used here. He was likely only an unfortunate bystander to be used by Russavia to further his own agenda. Resolute 04:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You and I are agreed on this, Resolute. Pricasso has a unique talent and there's nothing inherently offensive about his paintings. He became an unwitting player in a someone else's game. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. Cla68 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is too bad that this guy was used by Russavia for bad-faith deeds. Pricasso seems like a rather jolly, carefree fellow, and I certainly hope my penis & abs looks that fabulous when I turn 64. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So are you guys all OK with it if Pricasso uploads a "making of" video for John McCain (as Google shows) or Vladimir Putin? Wnt (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as "other media at Commons" links are removed ahead of time from John McCain & Vladimir Putin, sure. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem hosting it on commons as long as it has a free licence and falls within scope. But the governmental aid that commissioned it, will obviously be fired. Agathoclea (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So...does, Jimbo's public figure status override the making of video in this case as harassment to them as a Wikimedia registered member? Jimbo is really only famous for one thing, Wikipedia. If we know the image was produced to offend, cause a sensation and insult another member, why should either file be hosted here?--Mark 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are the images hosted on Commons you ask? Well, look at who the have for a bureaucrat; the subject of this topic. If there's no respect for personality rights at the highest levels of the Commons leadership, you'll be hard-pressed to find it in the rest of the project. Shit runs downhill, as they say. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we also remove it from Alan Dershowitz? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Matt, I am going to assume you just don't care about your fellow Wikimedia users since you chose to not hear that.--Mark 04:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Political cartoons have nothing to do with this, but nice try. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what you believe is the distinction between one and the other. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If I actually placed a modicum of value on your opinion, I might just engage in a conversation about that. Alas... Tarc (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, do you agree with this statement "It’s unrespectful to our country. It’s unrespectful to our citizens, because we are Russians"? Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete non sequitur, my opinions on homosexuality are none of your business. Honestly, where did some of you yahoos hone your debate skills? Mime school? Tarc (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, when you say you aren't going to answer questions about your position because someone's opinion doesn't matter, that's not debating, it's just namecalling. I assume the idea is that you're thinking like Putin - whatever you like goes, whatever you like doesn't, as long as you have the power you don't need to make any sense. Wnt (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This debate has degraded into stupidity. Count Iblis...WTF?--Mark 04:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia is said to have acted in an unrespectful way toward Jimbo, most of the people who say that do agree that Pricasso is a legitimate artists and paintings he makes are ok. in principle. So, you have a similar issue at the athletics world championships. Most of us are, of course, totally against the Russian laws (I would assume by default that Tarc shares this opinion), however, you can still argue that protests in a country where many people don't share our views will be insulting and dsrespectful toward the population there. You can raise many of the same arguments put forward here (e.g. Commons is not an art exhibition <---> The athletics world championship is not the right venue to demonstrate for gay rights etc. etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, it's just that I choose to no longer deal with Commons regulars who show up here to knee-jerk support of Russavia. Mattbuck is one of those, as well as a promulgator and cheerleader for all the things that are wrong with the Commons. You fall into that category as well, but you're at least a source of amusement...albeit unintentional on your part, I'm sure. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't just say that its possible there is a cultural misunderstanding? But no, this isn't about culture, its about respecting Wikimedia members and not using images to be disrespectful.--Mark 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way Count Iblis, no...I don't believe that most people who believe this was disrespectful "do agree that Pricasso is a legitimate artists". No. They may feel it is art, but art can be a squibble on a piece of paper. There are artists and there are legitimate artists. If I am not mistaken, Pricasso has yet to be galleried. His "art" is erotic performance art" and I would say that does not fall under the definition of a "legitimate artist".--Mark 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that a "crat" on Commons (Cecil) has announced that they are removing all !votes from all contributors who they think are not active enough at commons to participate [25]. Here is the first list of editors who's votes are being removed or not counted:

User:Razionale, User:AKAF, User:Technical 13, User:Count Iblis, User:Salvio giuliano, User:Tokvo, User:SB Johnny, User:IRWolfie-, User:Steven Zhang, User:Tony1, User:Sunridin, User:Reaper Eternal, User:TCN7JM, User:Pass a Method, User:Seleucidis, User:Peter cohen, User:Mangoe, User:Horologium, User:Tazerdadog, User:Anthonyhcole, User:DanielTom, User:Garion96, User:Mathsci, User:Tarc, User:King jakob c 2 --Mark 18:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the thug-like mentality is quite pervasive throughout the Commons. Perhaps Cecil can design a special mark that all new Commons editors can display, so that in the future their votes and opinions can be segregated more easily. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't act like we wouldn't do the same here. --Conti|✉ 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you want to briefly recap what commons is there for? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope I don't need to explain why a Nazi/Hitler analogy is doubly unacceptable when used against an Austrian user. Even though Godwin's law would require me not to ask this, I still wonder: What is, in your opinion, the difference between what Cecil is doing and this AfD closure's counting method on the English-language Wikipedia? (For avoidance of misunderstandings, this is to defend Cecil, not to criticize Sandstein.) darkweasel94 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really think too much about this but, who is from Austria darkweasal? You may want to re-think that statement.--Mark 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

commons:User:Cecil. darkweasel94 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid we can't include your opinion here darkweasel....you are not established enough here at Wikipedia with only 186 edits for your opinion to count (that really is sarcasm, but I hope you get the point).--Mark 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. And you are certainly right to do that - after all, as a Commons regular I have certain preconceived notions that keep me from entering into discussions with an open mind. Amirite? darkweasel94 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you noticed the sarcasm note I added, but thanks for responding. Care to explain the inaccurate "Austrian" comment?--Mark 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nazi comparisons are unacceptable anyway, but in this case they sound a lot like a xenophobic insult of the form "Cecil shares the mentality of another famous Austrian". It surprises me that people are seeing bad faith in russavia's actions, where that requires an extreme stretch of imagination, but don't see any in something that can very reasonably be interpreted as a xenophobic attack. I'm Austrian myself, you know. darkweasel94 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There are really two differences. The first is that the AfD concerned an article in a subject area which was known to involve coordinated off-wiki canvassing (which was the subject of an ArbCom case). The second is that Cecil has set an arbitrary limit of 150 contributions, which isn't really the same as discounting the votes of IPs and brand-new editors. 150 contributions seems an unnecessarily high bar. In addition, Cecil has stated that they may discount the votes of long-term users who, in Cecil's opinion, have only contributed recently regarding Russavia's conduct. This latter point is especially troubling, since I can think of at least one Commons admin who left the project because of concerns about Russavia. If that admin were to vote, their vote risks being discounted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've proposed a less ad-hoc way to count the votes. Just determine the results as a function of the cut-off and then extrapolate this to infinity. The poll is then about how a hypothetical group of Commons members with an infinite number of contributions would vote given the way people have actually voted there, the information coming from both the vote results and how these correlate with their number of contributions there. This automatically eliminates all the things they want to eliminate, but in a less arbitrary way. Count Iblis (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The only special marks currently under design are mw:User icons, AFAIK. If you're interested in the topic you could check that up, Tarc, instead of perpetrating more personal attacks and adding to the examples of how everything you don't like is immoral and nazi and everything you like is mandatory by law. (I suppose you've apologised to the user by now?) --Nemo 06:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a disgraced ex-meta admin comes lecturing me? How rich. No, I have not apologized as I do not feel there is anything to be apologetic for, the "OMG AUSTRIAN!" stuff is just red herring bullshit. When Cecil decides to backtrack on their statement that they plan to segregate and discount votes that are not considered of the body, then at that point you may consider my Yellow Badge analogy retracted. 'Til then, it stands. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia is NOT from Austria anyway.--Mark 19:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cecil is, and that's the argument being made. Regardless, people are focusing on the wrong problem anyway. I think Cecil means well in her comments, and is trying to be fair as she perceives it. However, it is decidedly troubling that the goalposts are being moved in the middle of a debate. Resolute 20:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I see a lot of Irony that someone sees an insult to Cecil in such an indirect way...but we are just ignoring an insult to someone else in a direct way. Anyway, yes, her perceptions are not the right method of excluding !votes.--Mark 20:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a vote in the first place. Only the arguments for or against removal should be taken into account and weighed up. Everyone should be free to participate in the discussion, but the decision should be made on the basis of Russavia's suitabilty to stay given the presented arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• The community has spent much time writing thousands of lines of discussion about the Russavia/Pricasso issue on many different pages. Looks like highly successful trolling to me, and getting more successful by the day, alas. bobrayner (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting closed by Cecil...after a request for speedy deletion for copyright violations

Odd to me that this was closed right after I requested speedy deletion as copyright violations. The main painting does not have attribution. The painting itself is the actual derivative work and the file a derivative of that. Without proper attribution in plain site, it looks as if the original author endorses the use in this manner and/or that the artist is claiming the work as their own. Russavia suddenly denied that this was a derivative work, even after claiming to have suggested the very image to create the work from. The film/video does not have any attribution either and must be given in the film itself. Russavia is also now claiming that the original file of Jimbo Wales is not the properly licensed itself. Within a few minutes of that discussion beginning, Cecil locked the page has not addressed the copyright violations or the licensing issues. I am very concerned this is taking a turn for the worse now.--Mark 06:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Cecil stated that the date for closure was supposed to be today (what day? Its like just after midnight so I am unclear if that meant yesterday or today) at any rate, someone on the talk page pointed out that consensus was for the discussion to close at a further date and she has reopened the page.--Mark 07:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I should note that (now) there is a large notice of the time when it is to be closed at the top of the page, under the table of contents. Still another week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sunday of next week at 6pm (UTC) I believe.--Mark 07:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, also, it was pointed out that speedy deletion discussions really don't go on that page so, Cecil need not have addressed that and probably wont, nor any other Commons admin. Although this has indeed begun quite the interesting discussion on that page as well as the video's deletion request page.--Mark 07:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fair point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, they are now canvassing to come partake in the Russavia de-Bureaucrat discussion, see here. I particularly like the line "As the discussion to this point has been heavily influenced by voices from the English-language Wikipedia, it was suggested on the talk page to advertise the discussion on other language Wikipedias." Tarc (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've advertised it here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Commons is irredeemable. It is time for WMF to shut that enterprise down. They are dishonest, undemocratic, vindictive. They engage in massive copyright violation with a sly wink by scraping Flickr without competent image assessment. They are run by a self-perpetuating clique of bad boys that couldn't stick at the language encyclopedias. Their mission is barely even tangential to the educational mission of the encyclopedia project. WMF: Shut. Them. Down. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree here. Commons does have a role to play. The WMF mission is to spread free access to knowledge throughout the world. Not to spread free text-only unillustrated encyclopedia articles. Make sure that the copyvio is addressed, yes. Stop the harrassment from senior editors over there, yes. But shutting it down is way overkill. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it isn't the concept of free content that is at fault, it is the miscreants & louts that control the positions of power in the current Commons that are the problem. Sooner or later, the WMF needs to step in and clean house. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As someone has already pointed out, most of Commons is exactly what it is there for. Its the small portion that is just too glaring and overshadows the good. I don't think getting rid of Commons is the best idea. I think the best idea is to have some function created or option for uploading to Wikipedia alone with no permission to upload manually to commons. Does Commons accept more licenses than Wikipedia or vice versa or the same? The answer might just be to allow CC non commercial works on Wikipedia if that is something that Commons does not allow or something along those lines.--Mark 05:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia accepts (a) non-free files under fair use and (b) files that are ok to redistribute (public domain, freedom of panorama) in the US but not in the source country. Commons accepts GFDL files which AFAIK enwiki doesn't accept. To accept NC licenses except under fair use, you'd need to get the WMF to change wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which I hope it won't do. darkweasel94 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that. In other words, Commons allows such a broad use over Wikipedia, that anything allowable here, is allowable on Commons. Makes sense.--Mark 18:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems you misunderstood darkweasel94. (a) Commons does not allow any fair-use (per U.S. law) material. (b) Commons does not allow non-U.S.-sourced material that is free in the U.S., but unfree in the source country. --Túrelio (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

[[:image:The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg|thumb|left|320px|I found that out when uploading this picture, I didn't know that the red thing around the "1" is a patented logo and that you then can't tag the picture to be moved to Commons because it would then be deleted from Commons and Wikipedia would lose this picture. Count Iblis (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)]]

I'm being pedantic, but Logos aren't patented, they are under trademark law. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia to be de-cratted but not desysopped

The decision to de-crat Russavia has de-facto been taken (but not offically announced; it's clear from the votes cast that Commons has no choice but to de-crat him). However, that leaves the people who want to de-crat him in a much more awkward position, because Russavia will keep most of his user rights as he is still an Admin. As someone pointed out on Commons "The only access he would lose is admin/bot promotions, username renames, and other community specific tasks that doesn't require special access........ So Russavia will keep the tools that impact other wikis the most and will loose the tools that do not impact other wikis at all". Desysopping Russavia is not on the cards, that requires a consensus that abuse of Admin tools has been proven to have happened. Count Iblis (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What is your point? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I explained this here some time ago. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikibilim header

Jimbo, I saw that you mentioned Kazakhstan above. Have you visited the Wikibilim.kz website lately? Notice whose photo portrait adorns the header of every single page of Wikibilim? It appears to be a photo of Karim Massimov, the recently-reassigned five-year Prime Minister of Kazakhstan! Right now, he's the Head of the Executive Office of the President of Kazakhstan. But, supposedly, the Kazakh government isn't really entrenched in the noble Wikibilim project, right? Wikibilim is completely separate from the Kazakh government, correct? 2001:558:1400:10:8042:18FF:8D83:6E38 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever visited that website. I'll ask Wikibilim to comment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Killing of Anti Superstition activist in India on 20th Aug 2013.

Dear Sir, I am not sure if it is right place to put the information. But I think that it is the most effective way to put the request. I am aware that you may not be the right person but it will take time to find out the right person. Hence putting this request on your talk page.

Dr. Narendra Dabholkar was an social activist who has been killed yesterday. He was anti superstition activist and had contributed a lot towards this movement in Maharashtra and India. He was trying to pass a bill against witchcraft in government of Maharashtra, India.

It would be great if this page and photo can appear in Wikinews. It is an extremely important news for India and for world in my opinion. Apologies for posting this on your talk page. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Abhijeet Safai. I see his article has already been nominated for a front page place, In the News section. You can comment and vote there. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for 21 August 2013

Both VisualEditor and MediaWiki were upgraded recently. For VisualEditor, this is the long-awaited post-Wikimania update with many bug fixes and enhancements. Work also continues on speed at opening and during use, as well as on the bugs reported here and at other Wikipedias. The full report is at Mediawiki.

References are displaying properly, even when nested (T52749) or in image captions (T2000. Reference lists are now always fully populated with references (bug 50094). Firefox users can insert an existing reference in the first paragraph (T54159). Opera users no longer see corruption of categories when a reference was added (bug 50385).

Stray spaces are being stripped from the start of paragraphs to end one of the common <nowiki> problems (T53462). We also fixed a round-tripping bug that caused desirable whitespace in templates (used to make templates more legible, e.g., by putting each parameter in an infobox on a separate line) to get corrupted (bug 51150).

Wikilink handling was improved. Users are not allowed to create internal links to invalid titles (titles that are actually impossible due to limits on acceptable character combinations in titles, not redlinks) (T35094). You can extend wikilinks, but it won't do so over a wordbreak (like a space) (bugs 49931 and 51463).

A handful of fixes to the user interface were made. The toolbar doesn't float over personal tools after opening a dialog or the inspector (T54441). Toolbars were also re-written to be collapsible/expandable, with room for more icons. Buttons in dialogs can now be activated using the Tab ↹ and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ key commands (bug 50047). This saves time for editors, because you don't need to take your hands off the keyboard to click a button. We fixed a handful of bugs that affected only certain articles or certain browsers, including toolbar buttons in Firefox (bug 51986) and dialog panels that didn't always scroll correctly (bug 51739). Bugs with undo/redo getting confused have been fixed (T54113).

Images, in addition to getting references displaying correctly, also saw improvements with a set-empty |link= parameter no longer corrupted (51963). We corrected thumbnail images' display so that they look don't wrong in some contexts (bug 51995). Inserted images no longer explicitly set their alignment, but instead inherit the default position in compliance with the Manual of Style (bug 51851).

More edit notices, warnings, and metadata like information about Pending Changes on an article now appear as appropriate (bug 49699). When new articles are created, users are now shown the <newarticletext> message (bug 51459). VisualEditor now handles templates that set "meta" items (like a category) and nothing else better (bug 51322). If the database is locked when a user tries to save with VisualEditor, they now get a message telling them as such and an opportunity to try again, rather than a silent failure (bug 51636).

When you save the page, having the default preference set to "mark all my edits as minor by default" no longer overrides the setting in the save dialog (bug 51515). If you open VisualEditor from a section edit link, the section's title will be pre-filled in in the edit summary box when you go to save it (bug 50872). The size of the save dialog box in the Monobook skin has been fixed (bug 50058). Also, wikipage content handlers like sortable tables are re-run automatically after saving (T53565).

A very early version of the mathematics equation editor is now available for testing on mw:Mediawiki. If you would like to help improve the user interface for math editor, please test out the extension at mw:Mediawiki:Sandbox and leave your comments directly at the discussion page for the Math Node User Interface at Mediawiki. You should be able to use your regular username and password should to login to Mediawiki.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Internet.org

"Mark Zuckerberg aims to put the entire world online".

• Internet.org

—Wavelength (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hell, I need to get off it!! :) --Malerooster (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the Ecology Summit article

Jimbo, what do you think about the origin of the article Ecology Summit? Do you think the original editor had a conflict of interest? Do you agree it was Richard Stromback's idea to bring everyone together at Branson's island? What do you think of the content-to-reliable-sources ratio of the Ecology Summit article? Did you go to Richard Stromback's 40th birthday bash in Davos, Switzerland in January 2009, as the Wikipedia biography claims? In your multiple meetings with Richard Stromback, did you ever discuss your "bright line rule" about conflict-of-interest editors writing their own promotional content on Wikipedia? 2001:558:1400:10:DC43:8FF8:A483:DC56 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) I have never read that article and to my knowledge this is the first I've ever heard of it. (2) I don't know if the original editor had a conflict of interest, but clearly the editor is a single purpose account which ought to trigger some alarm bells. (3) I do agree that it was Richard Stromback's idea to bring people together at Branson's Island for that summit. I'm unaware of that particular detail being controversial in any way. After all, the New York Times article says "The Caribbean getaway was the brainchild of Richard Stromback". (4) I haven't read the article, but having attended this summit, I find it highly unlikely that it was notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. There are many such meetings and conferences. Because I adhere strongly to the view that people should avoid editing with a conflict of interest, I don't imagine that I should get involved with any potential deletion discussion. I haven't looked into what the usual standards are for notability for conferences and meetings. But if I were voting, I'd vote to delete. (5) I did go to Richard Stromback's 40th birthday party in Davos, Switzerland in January, 2009. (But it was a party in the Piano Bar, and I always go to the Piano Bar in Davos, so I would have been there whether Rich had a party or not, so this strikes me as a pretty non-notable tidbit.) (6) Rich Stromback is a personal friend (drinking buddy, attended my wedding) and I don't recall ever talking to him about Wikipedia editing. If he had asked, I would of course give my usual advice to avoid COI editing in all cases. As it stands, I will email him right now, and the full content of my email will be a link to this discussion and "Dude, WTF?" He's a good guy and may not even be aware of this. With all the trolls who like to advocate for allowing for paid editing in Wikipedia, someone on his staff may have been led astray.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Any word back from Stromback? Looks like a Wikipedian in good standing chopped down his BLP a bit, but it's still a big article of fluff, if you ask me. 2001:558:1400:10:ED32:7A04:A752:4826 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I think I can be forgiven for assuming who wrote this inquiry, and I went to see at a certain Wikipedia-criticism site if I could find any further discussion of it. At the moment, I'm sitting in a hospital room working as we are waiting to be discharged from the hospital with our new baby (yay). There is no wi-fi, so I'm connecting through my phone. My phone provider is TalkMobile and they have already implemented the "porn filtering" that David Cameron seeks to have made the default, an idea I have blasted in the press. One reason I'm so opposed to it is that such filters invariably have serious errors... in this case, the front page of wikipediocracy could not possibly be construed as 'porn' or content that any sane filter should block. And yet, it's blocked here. I will complain. (Conspiracy theories are welcome to try to claim that I'm somehow behind the blocking - I'll find that nonsense to be quite amusing! Extra points if you can manage to work in Kazakhstan somehow.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

While I am unable to advise whether or not wikipediocracy should be construed as 'porn' or not, I am delighted to read the good news about your new baby. Congratulations to both of you! (or should I say your whole family?). . dave souza, talk 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps they have been discussing the issue of porn on Commons so often on Wikipediocracy that this caused their site to be flagged as a porn site :). Count Iblis (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing it might be because there have been a number of links to some of Mattbuck's user subpages, as examples of what's kinda icky about commons and its management class. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbo: Thanks for reading along at Wikipediocracy... the moderating staff there tries very hard to keep things more salient than it was at the old place. I can't really tie this to Wikibilim, but perhaps someone smarter than I can tie it to that Chinese guy that apparently got into some trouble for something you said at Wikimania, because as far as I can tell the WMF has been conspicuously mum about him. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding from the Chinese community is that this story is false. A Chinese Wikipedian was banned from leaving mainland China in 2009. You can read the original story here and use Google translate to confirm (sort of, within the limits of Google translate). The techinasia story says " It’s not clear if Huang’s ban is related to Wales’ comments." Actually, it's very clear that anything I may have said in 2013 would not have caused something that happened in 2009. I additionally hear from the Chinese community that the editors ban has nothing to do with Wikipedia editing, but other kinds of activism. Many people edit Wikipedia in China without being banned from leaving, so that makes sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. There have also been problems finding any trace of the person's name outside the accounts, though there could be all sorts of reasons for that. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales

The person who has this role should be given an official title. That would make it clear that Wikipedia should always have someone with this title. Jimbo should appoint someone to succeed him or this should be decided by the community. I would suggest that the title should be "Jimbo", the editor who succeeds Jimbo should edit from the account User:Jimbo 2; the editor who succeeds User:Jimbo n will edit from the account User:Jimbo n+1. Count Iblis (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably Jimmy isn't going to answer that, any more than he'd tell you where his TARDIS is hidden. Sheesh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Chief executives in the technology industry.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

He'll be replaced by a bot (I kid).--Mark 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jimbot" does have a ring to it, but I'll leave the joke writing to others... Carrite (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If we don't get something done about the quality of NPP and AfC reviewing done soon, and something done about RfA, Jimbo will probably outlive Wikipedia and there will be no need for a successor - of course, as I know where his Tardis is parked, he could always appoint me... ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But wouldn't Tardis allow Jimbo to be in charge into the indefinite future? Count Iblis (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't roman numerals be used, e.g. "Jimbo II", "Jimbo III" etc. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But seriously, although this is not gonna change now, I personally find it annoying and mediocre that Jimbo retired/is retiring and chose to replace himself with no one. Yeah yeah there is ArbCom and "the community" in general but its not the same and everyone knows its not the same. Yes there is a head to the Wikimedia Foundation but that has little to do with the governance of the English Wikipedia. I understand the idea that it's supposed to be that the crowd-written encyclopedia should be the crowd-governed encyclopedia but there's no reason that these two things must be conjoined, and color me skeptical (and we are supposed to be "first and foremost an encyclopedia" and not an experiment in running an engine without a driver). Human institutions thrive on strong leadership. That's just a fact, and if people don't like that it doesn't make it any less of a fact.

It's not as if this sort of thing hasn't been tried before scores of time in history. Does not usually end well. Even the Chicago Cubs tried this for a while (did not go well).

I mean, look. For example, there are editors here that are the type of people that you just can't have in your organization, and you (Jimbo) know this and I know this and everyone who understands organizational development and organizational system dynamics knows this, but there isn't anyone to actually do anything about it, not without at really drawn out and painful process if at all. There are discussion about trivia (T/the Beatles much?) that beg for someone to say "This has gone on for months/years with millions of words spent, bad feelings, editors quitting, editors being sanctioned, and so forth, and there's no 'right' answer but I've read the discussions and here's my decision and there's no appeal so let's move on and if you can't deal with that we wish you well in your future endeavors". Can you imagine what Perry White would say if he saw what we have to put up with? Great Caesar's Ghost indeed.

This doesn't mean that all the day-to-day stuff of RfC's and proposing and enforcing rules and all that can't be devolved to the community, but at the end of the day, and at at the margins, for the tough cases, you want someone to lead, and sorry but that includes deciding things (among other responsibilities). Of course you want a good person and not a moron or martinet or poltroon etc., and that's the rub, but my reading of business lit inclines me to think that selecting and grooming one's successor is one of the key abilities required of a chief executive. It is hard, though. Many otherwise good executives fail here it is true. But so, it's hard. Avoiding hard things is not usually how humanity progresses.

And Chief Editor of the English Wikipedia (other large Wikipedias also, probably, but at any rate the English one) would be a very attractive position. Salary in (I suppose) the mid six figures and hella glory to boot. There's not a lot of people that you couldn't get for the position. Top people from Brittanica, the Smithsonian, the Ivy League, Fleet Street, Silicon Valley, wherever you want.

Not gonna happen I guess but probably should. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Lord Sugar could perhaps be such a leader. Count Iblis (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't know Sugar but he looks more like headd-of-the-WMF type (if he was interested at all, which I assume not). My inclination would be to look at young people (by that I mean say under 50) with hands-on experience in the guts of a good encyclopedia, magazine, journal, publisher, or somesuch organization. You could start with say Greg Healy's organization at Brittanica. Not necessarily Healy himself but if he's any good he's got a coterie of young guns around him, some of whom are ready to make their mark in the world. Places like that. I dunno, I don't have experience in these rarified domains. What you want is someone who can make good decisions, which is an art not a science; you need to know when to not make a decision and when to, you need political savvy, you need the intelligence and... the je ne sais quoi, i guess, to usually make the right decision (not always, nobody can that); the confidence to move forward and stand one's ground coupled with the humility to back up fast when when one's made a mistake; and the ability to judge character. It's not an easy package to find. Herostratus (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

isn't the governance of enwiki a hereditary monarchy? therefore, wouldn't Jimbo's firstborn get the founder bit? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, by extension from Wikipedia:Primogeniture. Herostratus (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But, you know, question for Jimbo: did you look at the Wikipedia and say "It's fine and it's working, but the one problem is that that there's a leader with vision in charge, and we have to get rid of that"? (Not "It's too much for one person to handle", because that's true of any large publication, which is why Chief Editors have a staff.) I mean, what were you thinking?

Of course the downside of all this is ____ ______. (Can't say the the name cos of BLP, but imagine a large tech company where the charismatic founder is replaced by a no-vision bean-counter). So I dunno. Has this occurred to anyone else or is it just me I wonder. Herostratus (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I once had a fish called Jimbo, so called because it wasn't as big as the fish called Jumbo. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Advertising on the Main Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This passed almost without comment, so I thought I'd mention it here. A couple of days ago, DYK included the hook:

... that British manufacturer Karrimor's formidable reputation for ground-breaking outdoor pursuit equipment was a direct result of its location in Lancashire, and a CEO who was an avid climber and trekker?

Should we have stronger guidance against this sort of thing? Or should we maybe go the other way and just issue a rate-card? Formerip (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the above at NPOVN and saw how it looked on the main page. I was dumbfounded that such puffery could be deemed acceptable. The archive showing how it appeared is here (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd love to get more details on this. Do we have any reason to think that this was the result of corruption, or was it just a very poor editorial judgment?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is interesting. The hook (posted by User:FT2) was originally promoted into the prep queue but then de-peacockised by User:Alex Shih here, who was then scolded for doing it on his talk page by User:FT2 (the discussion is still on Alex and FT2's talk pages here and here). Alex then apologised to FT2 and re-inserted the promotional language here while it was on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It had also been raised on DYK talk here. I entirely agree the language was inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this all be moved to WP:AN then given its overtones, so Alex Shih and FT2, who apparently are administrators who did not administer very well, can answer the community and any future remedy can be explored. Rather then spread here and yon? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's probably a better venue, so I have done so. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia and the editor who is differently able

I'm sure you have come across this before. Indeed you may have read, for example, WP:AUTISM. If not I commend it to you.

The reason I'm seeking to interest you in this area is best highlighted by a brief visit to my talk page where I asked for, and received help. We, by which I mean Wikipedia in general and as a community, are not skilled at coping with including differently able editors into the family.

Are you able to give this area some mindspace, perhaps considering some form of inclusiveness initiative? Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 97#Deborah Tannen on interpersonal communication (February 2012)

and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 101#Autism-spectrum editors - new user essay (April 2012)

and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#Collaboration, interaction, understanding, and bridging gaps (July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of you to offer those. None, I think, reached any form of positive inclusive action? Fiddle Faddle 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What I'm discovering working with one editor is precisely how challenging it is working with differently able folk. Meeting erudite, educated, expressive folk who express themselves and think differently is a huge challenge. We do need some form of initiative, I'm sure we do. Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware of any Wikipedia initiative beyond what has already been mentioned in this discussion and on the linked pages. You might wish to mention "WP:AUTISM" on your user page, as a reminder to yourself or as a publicity to others or as both.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the reason for my message here. I am hoping to catch Jimbo's attention and imagination. Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo needs to give attention to his wife and to their first child and to the roles that he has as a father. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 140#I will be mostly away for a few days (August 2013). He will probably be more receptive to your suggestion after a month or a few months. Meanwhile, you can try to promote it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Many issues need more public awareness, and many people need to establish priorities with many things competing for their time and attention.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC) and 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's kind of you to remind me of that. Fiddle Faddle 06:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I just raised this topic at the wrong time here. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Internet security crisis

Academic mathematicians are on the verge of decrypting the Diffie–Hellman key exchange and the RSA (algorithm), which "underlie many of the authentication and verification standards on the Internet." Those include the HTTP Secure protocol.

• 'Cryptopalypse' Now: Looming Security Crisis Could Cripple Internet | TechNewsDaily.com (August 21, 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Some WP:CRYSTAL involved here. This article from the MIT Technology Review on 2 August 2013 says "Our conclusion is there is a small but definite chance that RSA and classic Diffie-Hellman will not be usable for encryption purposes in four to five years." Elliptic curve cryptography has been suggested as an alternative. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. From the news story: Both algorithms are on the verge of being "cracked" — proven to be vulnerable to attack — by academic mathematicians. "There is a small but real chance that both RSA and Diffie-Hellman will soon become unusable," said the Black Hat presenters . . . "On the verge" is not quite the same thing as "small but real". Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's quite surprising that in this area you can still have elementary high school level methods that are still to be discovered. You would think that since the times of Euler or even Gauss, there is nothing simple left to discover. A very simple modular arithmetic algorithm to reconstruct a fraction a/b from the modular value a*b^(-1) where the inverse is computed modulo some sufficiently large integer, was only found in the early 1980s, see here.

But then there is a simple cryptographic method that can be proven to be unbreakable, this is called (as Looie pointed out to me on the computing ref desk), the one-time pad method, you then only need a good source of random numbers, using pseudo-random numbers is bit problematic here. You could use a device that generates noise (perhaps noise from a radio tuned to a frequency that is not used). Count Iblis (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I posted the following suggestions, now archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#On comparing articles now with six years ago (March 2012)

• "You can use RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service. You can use 100,000 Digits of Pi (Pi). You can use 10000 digits of e (e (mathematical constant)). You can use Digits of Phi (Golden ratio)."

—Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I would not feel secure encoding files by taking the "random" bits from well known constants. Especially not pi, given that the binary digits of pi can be generated by a rather simple algorithm. Count Iblis (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Using pseudo-random numbers in a one-time pad isn't "a bit problematic", it's completely fatal: doing so reduces a one-time pad to a stream cypher. --Carnildo (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But if the message is small enough, or multiple non-RANDU, pseudo-random numbers are combined, then the "stream cypher(s)" will not be seen within the wide banks. Or use frequencies from the 1975 song "Philadelphia Freedom" or any orchestral piece written by Richard Strauss (with the non-repeating melody lines!). Also, it helps if the messages say, "Will discuss details when we talk in private" ;-). -Wikid77 02:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This may interest participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The one time pad is not quite as unbreakable as some realize. Note that certain conditions have to be met, which are harder than they sound to meet.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of a moot point. The practical issues of key exchange and key security make one-time pads essentially unusable in the real world. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You could use it to deal with different issues than the traditional methods are designed for. E.g. Snowden can communicate via the one-time pad by simply uploading pictures from his appartement in Moscow to ImageShack without the US authorities noticing what is going on. It's not so much a decoding issue (the US authorties know very well what Snowden has) rather that this happens in a way that goes unnoticed. Al Qa'ida has a similar problem to deal with, pedophiles want to hide what they are doing too etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Negative BLP being written by Paid Editor

Just for information.Someone has paid a freelancer money to write a negative biography very close to an attack page the article is Robin Haynes with his picture and it accuses the Subject of being a hacker and being a member of the White Hat Alliance. The article is being written by User:Neurosciency a Elance Editor and who admits to writing this article for a Third Party .The Editor using an IP removed my note to the Closing admin and removed Tag from another page and also here.This is clearly libelous Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the article (yet) nor researched this. I just wanted to make a quick note first: even if it stops short of actual libel, it's wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia on multiple levels. It's vicious behavior and a very clear example of the path we would go down if we softened our stance on paid editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the article has been deleted, I don't see any way in which this was negative or defamatory - unless, of course, it was actually untrue. Indeed the article was at pains to suggest that Haynes' hacking was benign. However I'd agree that Haynes is almost certainly non-notable and thus the deletion was correct. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

More: looking at previous articles created by that editor, three have been speedy deleted, two through AfD, and the remaining one Thomas W. Carey looks pretty non-notable to me. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Language Log: "Manning's pronouns"

Language Log has a discussion at Language Log » Manning's pronouns.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Google cache of the page.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Appeal - was formerly titled "Can an Arbitrator's Block be Overturned"

I am enclosing the inquiry in a hat only out of an abundance of caution, but restoring it for transparency and openness. As a general principle, appealing an ArbCom decision to me once is not a block evasion and should not be treated as such. One important principle of justice is checks and balances. It is additionally worthwhile to note that he was told some time ago by the ban appeals subcommittee of the ArbCom: "We do not accept appeals from one editor more often than once every six months, so you cannot appeal your block to us again until after 22 August 2013." As that date has passed, it seems a reasonable time for him to make inquiries. To the banned user - I will look into this early next week. It may be helpful to email me since discussion on-wiki is likely to be problematic for you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you're one of the few who read this here before, sorry, but it was only up for like 45 minutes before Tarc pounced to erase it, called me "troll," and tattled to ANI. I feel like I've been a constructive Wikipedia editor for years and I'd like to get some genuine feedback on my situation. If you respond to this comment it makes it a little tougher for the ANI crowd to erase me. Jimbo, I was no warning/no discussion/no explanation permanently blocked last year by Wikipedia arbitrator Timotheus Canens. He clicked some Twinkle script button that labeled me a sockpuppet but provided no evidence. I appealed it to ArbCom, and Silktork said no, he suspected me to be the sock of a mysterious ArbCom-sanctioned user he would not name. I am not that user. I kept trying to be unblocked and after a long time it ended up at WP:AN/ANI. Those are horrible environments for a block appealer really, a great mass of people yelling and accusing and making sport of a single one. They wouldn't even let me defend myself. A lot of them though pointed to Silktork's theory that I am the mysterious sanctioned user, saying he must know something they don't, and they must respect his authority as an arb, even though he provided no evidence. I still want to be unblocked, but am told I must go to WP:BASC, a three-arbitrator block review panel that rejects, literally, more than 90% of appeals. Making it worse is that my original blocker, Timotheus, sits on the panel and refuses to recuse. I really think there are fundamental issues of unfairness here, and I'm hoping that by posting here, I can find support and finally get unblocked, and if not me than to try to get the system improved so that other editors don't get treated like I've been. In closing, it is true that by posting here with a raw IP that I am "block evading" but I feel I've been left nowhere else to turn. This is Volton Vosmic (replace "V" and "V" with "C" and "C"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.209.7 (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Make Wikipedia more User-Friendly and Global. Thanks!

Jimmy, it was great meeting you and in my articles, I always praised your work. However, I do feel that Wikipedia needs to be more user-friendly for Indians and Indian sub-continent. Sometimes, experienced Editors from 1st world nations often force views on others on editing, while there needs inclusion of Indian sentiments and culture while working with Indians. I wish, that the fashion articles on India on wikinews and wikipedia be more readable for the Indian fashion fraternity. We should work together on the same. I truly wish that Wikipedia gains more respect (that it needs in India) in a nation where a huge population does not have electricity, expecting technical knowledge to edit Wiki articles will be a bit too much. We should make wikipedia more user-friendly available to the masses as Wikipedia is still available to the classes (rich people who posses a computer and electricity and a smart phone). Wikipedia's mission is noble, it needs to spread it's knowledge to the masses. Let's collaborate and do something together and spread Wikipedia among all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sou Boyy (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

These pages may interest you.

• Category:Indian fashion
• Category:Wikipedians in India
• Category:Wikipedians interested in fashion
• Help:Mobile access
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility
• Wikipedia:Systemic bias
• Wikipedia:Teahouse
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India

—Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sou Boyy and welcome to Wikipedia. I have just been looking over your contributions from a Teahouse request in regards to handling new editors. I think a great deal of what you bring up is valid, however you also appear to misunderstand or not understand many of our policies and guidelines. I note that you appear to be uploading a great deal of promotional material in the form of images with watermarks in the center of the image with your blog Site [26], [27]. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote yourself or your work off Wiki. Is it possible that your reacting negatively to those that are attempting to help guide you here? Try to understand what Wikipedia's goals of freely licensed content is for and how it works. At the moment you may have a few issues needing to be cleaned up, but that is no reason you cannot be a productive editor and a large part of our community. Just have patience, listen to what others are attempting to say and accept the occasional criticism. Good luck and happy editing.--Mark 20:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy, Wavelength, and Mark. I do wish there would be more Indian presence on Wikipedia. Also, I went through the categories given by Wavelength, those were nice to browse/read through. It will be great to meet at next Wikimania and discuss more on the same. Thanks for the info. Thank You! --Sou Boyy (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Massive updates of new IndoPak articles: Also, I would like to emphasize the extensive work being done to update articles about India and Pakistan, to better fit the style of other articles, such as for phrasing, lower-case text, and conversion of measurements such as km/miles. It has become common knowledge that whereas other articles might require about 50 changes to copyedit for clerical issues, it has been common for IndoPak articles to need 500 changes to reach similar levels of text styling. We have seen numerous sections written in ALL-CAPS text, and so Template:Fixcaps can be used to quickly convert sentences of uppercase text into mixed-case, fixing the capital letters of proper nouns or names in India. In the 1970s, many computer terminals (and keypunches) displayed only uppercase letters, and the introduction of lowercase text was somewhat of a revolution in computer technology, requiring faster printers to display 52 upper/lowercase letters. However, we are prepared to accept such text from India or other regions. One article with massive improvements is "Gurdwara" as a place of worship and gathering for Sikhism; however, numerous town or religious-site articles of India are being updated, such as "Thiruninravur" to remove duplicate phrases and reformat text as similar to other articles. -Wikid77 08:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown is assisting the editor.--Mark 10:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are Jimbo's statements regarding the Manning article reliable and authoritative?

I'm closing this discussion because it appears to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what I have said. I have made no proclamations. The idea that entering into a thoughtful discussion on my talk page is a violation of the rules of Wikipedia because I didn't provide any sources is just laughable. I have no interest in having silly conversations about nothing. If people find my reasoning persuasive, then they will. If they do not, they will not. I am making no proclamations so there's no need for drama.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a general discussion, but arises out of the Manning affair. Jimbo has made some proclamations on what should be the current status with regards to the renaming of the Manning article. With all due respect, since Wales is the founder of the Wikiverse, and is the Archmage of Wikipedia, I don't think Jimbo's statements have any right to be considered as authority. Nor can they be assigned much reliability. This is because, whilst Wales is accepted as having some authority by consensus by virtue of the aforementioned position, he is still treated as an ordinary user - he does not specifically state on his userpage "I am the Supreme Authority in all things Wikipedia". The "What would Jimbo do" article reflects this, since this article is humorous, and DOES NOT in any way reflect Wiki policy. Further, in regards to the statement Wales purported to make as Supreme Governor of Wikipedia, he does not ahve any sources attached thereto. The fact that he states that he thinks that the article "should be moved [to Chelsea, we presume]", isn't worth tuppence, since Wales, the epitome of WP policy has violated WP policy by not sourcing anything, especially in such a controversial topic as this. Finally, Wales' comments on this matter are unreliable, since Jimbo obviously doesn't know the current circumstances of Manning. He is still male - he has male organs, and (as far as we know) still executes male bodily functions (such as sperm production). Also, it's unlikely the army will accept a purported gender change, so, for all purposes, Manning is male. I remain, nonetheless, a committed editor, seeking to uphold the multitude of laws that constitute this project, according to my interpretation thereof. --The Historian (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Answer: Yes, Jimbo is indeed reliable and authoritative about Manning, as an encyclopedia/wiki expert (re Nupedia), as WP admin for 13 years and editor or reviewer for numerous articles involving name titles, including renames for nobility titles. In general, ask other authorities: I am a computer and information scientist (hypertext and SEO), as editor of hundreds of wp:BLP pages, so that is the basis of my judgment. Also "Jimbo is right" 99% of the time, IMHO, even though many people do not always understand his views initially. All articles do not require sources but rather be wp:verifiable, although extreme claims in talk-pages should include sources. -Wikid77 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Even if all you say about Jimbo were right it doesnt make him wrong on Manning, and there are masses of RSs to support the name and gender changes as well as many policies, BLP, IDENTITY and most importantly NPOV ie not putting the POV of editors like yourself as more important than what Manning has had to say as published in a whole stack of RSs. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC) All of which is just your opinion. Many (many, many) others interpret WP:NPOV compliance as referring to Bradley Manning by his given name and by his actual gender, which is male, until steps are taken to actually change either. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC) A big issue here is at what level the useful information resides in the real world. The higher you choose the level, the more processing on the raw data will already have been done. So, the right level of the information we should use, depends on the processing of the information we are supposed to do here. If we extract the name "Bradley" from a newspaper, then that is too high a level of information because the more primary information about the facts has been processed by the editorial policies of the newspaper while we have different policies. So, we should use lower level information from the newspaper which are about the gender identity isses Manning has been dealing with and process that using our own policies. Count Iblis (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) BLP policy dictates we err in favor of the subject of an article if reliable sources can be cited to confirm such an issue.--MONGO 14:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) What BLP says and does not say is actually kind of a question in this particular case. It might be clarified, especially if it's going to be considered a decisive policy, and I've never seen it used to resolve title disputes. Just as a general comment, Jimbo knows how the project should work, how it does work, and tends to provide useful insight. His views are convincing not because he has some specific authority but because what he's saying makes sense. I disagree in this case, but it's just the article title, it's not a big deal. There are some wacky things where Jimbo speaks on behalf of the foundation and those are unusual and extreme cases which would be obvious if they were happening. I'm not aware that the foundation is acting on this particular case. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) The title is, indeed, a big deal, to have "Chelsea Manning" listed in "Category:Transgender and transsexual women". Make sense now? -Wikid77 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC) You are absolutely correct that WP:BLP is confusing on this issue. More to the point, it doesn't address the issue of article titles for transgender people directly. If Jimbo believes, in his capacity with the Wikimedia Foundation, that there are legal implications (e.g. libel) to using a transgender person's birth name as the article title, it would be important for us to know that so we can update WP:BLP accordingly. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we all just drop the manning talk and leave poor Jimbo alone?

Jimbo has made his opinion I do not see why the edit wars have come here, if there were people warring on my talkpage I would be pretty fed up as well after awhile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary decision of German Wikipedia

Sounds like this is resolved and doesn't need my attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Users, after almost one year on German Wikipedia article Igor Janev, with arbitrary decision user Cú Faoil has been removed, as a SPAM. Professor Igor Janev has been prominent Macedonian diplomat with credits for US recognition of Macedonian Constitutional Name. After, some misunderstanding on the issue of "Tosa (Hunderasse)",user Cú Faoil in arbitrary procedure, as a revenge, claimed that art. on German Wikipedia about dr. Igor Janev has been SPAM! It was removed in completely unjust way, with no real basis. We would appreciate, if you can inform chief administrative user of German Wikipedia, and reinstate unjustly removed article about Igor Janev. Best Regards, Former Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Macedonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.85.23 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Facts about Igor Janev Dear Wiki users, see basic facts relating to Professor dr Igor Janev 1.http://s241910817.onlinehome.us/html/articles/janev/janev.html (*Dr. Igor Janev, Former Special Advisor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia) 2.http://www.mia.mk/en/Inside/RenderSingleNews/289/105947751 (wellknown professor Igor Janev) 3.http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2 (Diplomat Igor Janev) 4. His contribution in US - RM relations http://dobarglas.info/naslovna_v6.htm (in Macedonian) 5. further http://www.makemigration.com/iselenistvoweb/index.php?page=iselenici&id=247&tip_iselenici=7 (in Macedonian) http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2008/sonce748.pdf/12_15_janev.pdf (in Macedonian) http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/1999/sonce287/Tekst09.htm (in Macedonian) http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2003/sonce451/Tekst14.htm (in Macedonian) and so on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.125.35 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC) There was a regular deletion request with the result that it was speedily deleted as cross-wiki spam of a machine-translated fake that was supported by a zoo of sockpuppets. (This is not my own conclusion but that of the closing admin. I was not involved in that case.) --AFBorchert (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Ongoing deletion review on de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung#Igor_Janev. --MBq (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary decision of German Wikipedia 2

This question was answered up above. The Germans made the right decision.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear users, German Wikipedia had just proved (once again) that it is not a reliable source of information. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC) What is not a reliable source of info? Please clarify. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC) They removed article on Igor Janev, with no basis, calming that this person is not a diplomat, and that he is spaming! They did not take facts in the consideration: 1. News agency Maknews : http://s241910817.onlinehome.us/html/articles/janev/janev.html (*Dr. Igor Janev, Former Special Advisor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia) 2.http://www.mia.mk/en/Inside/RenderSingleNews/289/105947751 (world well-known professor Igor Janev) 3.see http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2 (Diplomat Igor Janev) 4. His contribution in US - RM relations http://dobarglas.info/naslovna_v6.htm (in Macedonian) 5. further http://www.makemigration.com/iselenistvoweb/index.php?page=iselenici&id=247&tip_iselenici=7 (in Macedonian) http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2008/sonce748.pdf/12_15_janev.pdf (in Macedonian) http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/1999/sonce287/Tekst09.htm (in Macedonian) http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2003/sonce451/Tekst14.htm (in Macedonian) and so on..... Janev in Macedonia is a well-known person to ordinary people more than most of the European politicians.

Personal behavior of users in German Wikipedia: case of Cú Faoil RM-RH

Enough. Please stop posting this here. If you know someone who speaks English, please ask them to help you explain and translate your issue to me and send it in email. Your complaints here which appear to be translated using Google Translate are not easy to understand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the conduct of procedure for removal of art. on Igor Janev, German user humiliated Jimbo Wales: " Also, regarding your question, the chief administrative user on Wikipedia is en:User:Jimbo Wales, who I am sure will be delighted to assist you in this matter. --Cú Faoil RM-RH 20:45, 25. Aug. 2013 " I wonder is this normal way of behavior in the Wikipedia or someone will do something about this kind of humiliations? In any average company such a person would loose his / her job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC) further see about same user similar humiliating behavior" Cú Faoil RM-RH 05:14, 22. Aug. 2013 (CEST)PS: I find Commons: Igor Janev – Sammlung von Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien fairly hilarious." Every normal person can only be disgusted with such statement! Are there any standards of conduct in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia sanctions such people?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC) There is nothing to sanction here, the "Commons: Igor Janev – Sammlung von Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien" is basically a family photo album with no value to Wikipedia; it is in fact hilarious. 23PowerZ (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Well, people might have said "yet non-notable person" or self-declared diplomat, without commenting as "hilarious". -Wikid77 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) One of the persons (Commons: Igor Janev )is President of Republic of Macedonia! Is he Macedonian self-declared diplomat!!! How long people like Cú Faoil can hide his / her identity. What if all this discussion become a subject of Macedonian journalists!!? What will happen to people like Cú Faoil when their identity will be eventually discovered! Would there be any legal consequences for Wikipedia? There are already elements for criminal charges for person hiding as Cú Faoil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC) SeeWikipedia:No legal threats. According to our article, the President of the Republic of Macedonia is Gjorge Ivanov. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Please see image Janev000.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Janev000.JPG Wikipedia is under obligations not to use internet for attacks on any one. Mr. Cú Faoil linked President of the Republic of Macedonia under discussion relating to fighting dogs!! According to that photo of the President is hilarious. And Igor Janev is hilarious too. This kind of language is subject of Criminal Law. Wikipedia can not be here exempt from responsibility! Further, Wikipedia should do something about committed acts of Cú Faoil, particularly for jokes involving dignity of Jimbo Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The user stated your behavior is hilarious, which it is. Stop embarrassing yourself. 23PowerZ (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Big picture on the Manning incident

I apologize for creating a new thread on this. As a quasi-retired editor am still seeing a lot of the same behavior that made me reassess my participation in the project. There were regrettable actions for this incident, and these kinds of mistakes will happen and can be fixed. The ultimate problem, however, is that many editors have turned the discussion page for the article into a WP:BATTLE situation and there has been very little attempt to fix that problem. This scares away editors interested in writing encyclopedias and attracts editors interested in fighting wars. This will not be the last heated discussion, and I encourage the project to evaluate what can be done to further discourage WP:BATTLE situations. One possibility would be an "admin boot camp" for training admins on effective methods for handling the situations. I do not expect a response or an immediate plan, nor would I suggest wading into the ongoing battle on this particular page. It is, however, something that concerns me as a long-time watcher, infrequent editor (~5k edits over 6 years), and frequent user of Wikipedia articles. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Riding the crest of trans culture 3 months: A major part of the turmoil, leading to wp:BATTLE conflicts, is due to the emerging terminology in trans culture. For example, the world "transphobia" was only added to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Microsoft Office software within the past 3 months (see: "Transphobia Is in the Dictionary", 25 July 2013) although the word has been used as slang for many years. Many people did not know about the major insult to refer to a trans female as "he/him" or "Mr." or using the former masculine name. This has been a learning experience for numerous people, as a case of "When in Rome" and probably few even knew the words "cisgender" or "cissexist". Consequently, WP needs to update policies or guidelines to properly encompass the trans terminology, even with radical changes to policy. As aerospace personnel might say, we are "pushing the envelope" to adjust the naming guidelines and inform other Wikipedians quickly. Hence, there have been numerous recent debates after the Manning name/gender announcement. The crucial need to respect a person's chosen name has been well-known since "Norman Maine" in A Star Is Born (1937 film) or after 1964 when world-famous Cassius Clay chose the unusual new name "Muhammad Ali". As Jimbo has noted earlier, in his busy new-father life, the need to quickly recognize people's new names and update the BLP status details (new profession, marriage) has been overlooked in many cases (beyond The artist formerly known as Prince). However, thank you for noting the intensity of the debate conflicts about Manning, where others talking with Jimbo might have been unaware. -Wikid77 08:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing the point, though - my concern is not the specific details of the Manning case, but the fact that the situation was badly handled. It took days to bring the discussion to anything approaching civil, comments seen as highly offensive went unaddressed, and so on. Given Wikipedia's long experience with these kinds of disputes, it would seem that we could help admins by putting together a list of best practices on how to calm the storm, what thresholds and tools should be used for short-term disruptive behavior, and so on, because the admin corps came across as completely lost in handling the situation. I'm not concerned about the details of articles, we'll figure those out, I'm concerned that we're recruiting time drains like SPAs and scaring away productive editors when we encourage this kind of battleground behavior by looking the other way. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed to "miss the point" when describing fundamental problems where the groundrules of the discussion were in utter turmoil. It was like noting arguments about people constructing a house on a hillside, BUT the groundfloor of the house slid when "The Storm of the Century" flooded the area with a mudslide never seen in the region. Remember, this is the first time in the history of the world to have OED give a formal definition to "transphobia" while people discuss how to properly structure a wp:BLP article about trans people. Consider if admins even knew 4 months ago the word "transphobic" was not formally defined in Oxford. Meanwhile, there were massive problems in the wiki-groundfloor, including the instant renaming of "Kate Middleton" away from the 99%-used wp:COMMONNAME to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" while people insisted "Chelsea" had no significant basis in the title, even when announced in a legal notice on a U.S. nation-wide TV broadcast (NBC's morning Today show), reported by other sources. -Wikid77 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Wikid. With all due respect, we're not here to "push the envelope," we're here to write an encyclopedia, based upon published secondary sources. The reason this exploded isn't because of "transphobia," its because the logic of the encyclopedia based on published sources (reflected in the standard WP:COMMONNAME) was set aside in favor of "pushing the envelope." We should not be "pushing the envelope" at all... Carrite (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Progress came by wp:IAR when wp:COMMONNAME failed. Other people here see the need to continually "push the envelope" for better quality of articles, including data coverage which is broader and faster, or editing which is quicker or semi-automatic: "{{fixcaps|GOnE WiTH tHE /wIND}}" for "Gone with the Wind ". The instant renaming of "Kate Middleton" away from the 95%-used wp:COMMONNAME to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" can seem like a double-standard, when rejecting another person's formal announcement of name change on a U.S. nation-wide television broadcast. This isn't "Royalpedia" where only royalty is treated to instant updates of status or name. Similarly, there is no requirement to mandate the rejection of edit-conflicts, so I have been pushing strongly to auto-merge simple edit-conflicts and stack multiple replies at the same line, into LIFO ("last-in, first-out") order. Overall, no one is insisting for everyone to "push the envelope" for faster or broader updates, but yes some are actively expanding and quickening those capabilities. I welcome others to join us. -Wikid77 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"We did it for Kate Middleton" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is an argument to be avoided. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it's worth nothing that WP:COMMONNAME is not the only relevant policy for article titles. This is certainly true with respect to royalty and nobility, where for a great many reasons there are special naming conventions. I think for that reason, royalty makes a poor "for instance". Name changes of celebrities upon marriage is a more interesting and useful comparison I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd hoped for a conversation about editor retention, but it appears that it's just becoming another question about content. Oh well. Feel free to close this topic, there's nothing being said under this heading that can't be said elsewhere. Yes, same human different IP. 166.147.88.30 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it can be frustrating to discuss limits to conflicts, but "form is content" when words are debated about whether they are insults, as "xenophobic" seems an insult about a mental phobia, but "transphobic" often means a dislike of transgender. Perhaps discuss at wp:WikiProject Editor Retention. In general, many words are borderline insults, such as the phrase, "editors are slow to update a page" has been interpreted at wp:ANI as meaning, "slow-witted". Hence, beyond concern that a talk-page is full of uncontrolled insults, there is the reverse danger of censoring a person for years who used the word "slow" when referring to other editors. So, a talk-page full of intense phrases might be better than having numerous editors blocked and censored for years. -Wikid77 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia generation

Imagine a world in which "the sum of all human knowledge" affects the way The New York Times or the Associated Press (AP) handles the names of transgender people. Some commentators even noted the importance of the talk-page as a historical document for 2013 ("Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move"). For some time, various people have stated, "WP should not lead world changes" but we are in the "Wikpedia generation" with teenagers who never knew the pre-WP world, teenagers who do not depend on buying numerous books to learn some background about 30 million articles (in whatever language). I am reminded of comments speculating if Cleopatra VII had lived longer, for ancient Egypt to better influence world affairs, beyond our 365/366-day calendar or eye makeup or "lost languages", then technology today might be 200 years more advanced. Think: "no wp:edit_conflicts" when paragraphs are moved (just kidding), but others have noted quicker medical advances, such as knowing bee's honey was an antibiotic treatment, etc. We need to consider the impact of WP on "epistemic feedback" because WP is fast becoming a major factor in the world's current knowledge. What I mean is: we cannot pretend WP does not affect world events. Too late for that. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is true that we do, and true that it is too late for it to be otherwise. It is true as well that this poses some puzzling philosophical dilemmas for us, as well as some practical research dilemmas. (For example, there are cases of errors originating in Wikipedia being then repeated in reliable sources - we need to have the wisdom to back things up to the time before the error and discount sources that appear to have gotten misinformation from us.)

I don't think there is any valid argument that says "Because we inevitably affect the world, we should try to affect the world through systematic deviations from neutrality that serve our agendas." As soon as we start to play that game, we lose a lot of hard-earned credibility - and introduce impossible and horrible arguments into the community that we'll be much happier avoiding.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Of course compiling "the sum of all human knowledge" will affect how the world behaves. Isn't that the whole point of making knowledge accessible? What good would it be to register all the world's history if that wouldn't influence future human action? That still doesn't mean that we're creating that knowledge; just sharing it in the most efficient way. (When we *do* create new knowledge, that's against our original research policy and should be treated as something to fix, of course).

In the Manning debate, our style guideline was not merely developed in-house; it's primarily based on published guidelines from expert sources like GLAAD's recommendations for journalists and writers, and thus based upon direct wisdom and analysis of the topic at hand. This only means that we're assimilating essential knowledge faster than other media, which are specialized in providing updates on the latest news instead of distributing basic knowledge. I see that as a good thing, not something to avoid. Diego Moya (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In the words of one old song 'This old world keeps spinning round. Its a wonder tall trees ain't laying down.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: errors originating in Wikipedia and then being repeated in reliable sources, it's called citogenesis. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps Wikipedia does create new knowledge by organizing information that exists at a lower level and creating information at a higher level as a result. It's analogous to how a community of cells forming a brain can take in information about the environment and react to that by applying certain rules. At the level of these cells, no new information is created, but at the level of the collection of cells (the brain), you can have new "knowledge" as a result of this processing. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps have essay on Wikipedia generation:' One path would be to have a new essay "wp:The Wikipedia Generation" to address some issues, of the now 13-year timespan, and link related essays about mirror-sites and sources actually based on older WP data. Plus, the dangers of advocacy as a top website. -Wikid77 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready for Yusuf Islam?

With the decision to rename looking like a lock for Chelsea Manning, are we ready to unravel the issue of stage names, performer names, and religious name changes? The article presently titled Cat Stevens has a vote from April saying to keep the name, but compared to Manning it is a very small vote. The comparison was made to other performers like Lady Gaga. But I'm thinking perhaps it is time for the gnomes and trolls to make some room for the hobgoblins...

The consistent solution I'd suggest is that we first recognize that there could sometimes be two different articles about a stage performer - one about the famous persona, one about the human performer of it. It seems clear to me that the persona "Cat Stevens" is notable and worth covering, and that the person "Yusuf Islam", entirely apart from any performance as Cat Stevens, is also notable and worth covering. In this case, we could merge the two articles into one, with some cramming, and have what we have now. But the united content of a general article about Yusuf Islam and a specific article about one of his personas must surely be named after the general category it covers, i.e. Yusuf Islam.

In some cases (perhaps with Gaga, but I didn't read very carefully) it is possible that in every notable appearance, a celebrity has appeared under her stage name, and that as a human with a human name she does not have the notability to create an article. Then we could have an article only about the persona, not about the person.

Sometimes we could also have both articles and keep them separate.

Before barging into the Cat Stevens article and raising trouble, I think this could be voted and agreed on under some relevant policy or guideline; I'm not sure which. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Stupid. Just plain stupid... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, sometimes consistency is impossible when you are trying to respect a living person and the consensus of editors. Consensus can always change. Just start there and work your way up. Don't proclaim a logical leap when one doesn't exist. You can't lump everyone together and say we treat them all exactly the same. Everything needs to be handles on a case by case basis.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'd like you to strike that remark. Insults aren't a very helpful response to policy proposals. I do not think it would be desirable (except in a few cases where there is a clear "character" played throughout a career, see Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries) to have separate articles under a stage name and personal name. I don't think Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam is a very compelling example for the simple reason that, as far as I know, reliable sources still very strongly tend to call him Cat Stevens. Unless I'm mistaken he made his name change in 1978, long before Wikipedia existed, so we didn't ever face the same kind of complex environment in which reliable sources were in flux and confused temporarily themselves.

I agree with Mark here that "everything needs to be handled on a case by case basis" but would add "in a principled manner". That is to say, we have to weigh up various competing concerns and factors and come to decisions, not willy-nilly, but with a comprehensive look at all the facts. That's sometimes going to be straightforward, and sometimes going to be quite complex. My main advice to everyone is to relax a notch or two. Not every editorial dispute in Wikipedia is the final clash in a war to save the culture. I think there is significant common ground for all sensible people here. My own view is that we should change the name in the article when reliable sources tend to do so, and my further view is that this means now. I think fewer people will agree with me on that second point, than on the first. But the first is the more important one, and even there, if people have slightly different views on it or ways of expressing it, those are still reasonable disagreements that shouldn't make us emotionally troubled. Do completely unreasonable views exist? Sure, but such is the human condition.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closer sources say both Yusuf/Stevens so no rush: A quick look shows YusufIslam.com with, "Official web site for Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), acclaimed singer-songwriter, humanitarian and philanthropist" so that tends to support either name. Plus, Al Jazeera English has article of 18 April 2012, "Q&A: Yusuf Islam on music and faith - Features" which notes both names when stating, "Artist once known as Cat Stevens explains why he left music, why he returned and why his latest project tops the rest." Also, the related Twitter and Facebook accounts have both names, whether self-run or by fan clubs. In contrast, we have a legal notice by Manning stating her wish to be known by the new name Chelsea, and so it is a matter of self-identification. If I ruled the wiki-world, I would instantly have articles allow sub-titles, such as "(aka Cat Stevens)" and categories could be displayed with the sub-titles either shown/hidden, but only after/during the fixing of wp:edit_conflicts to stack multiple replies at the same line into LIFO ("last-in, first-out") order and allow edits to separate parts of the same line (separated at one word). Anyway, a search for "Cat Stevens" as allintitle could match either the title or subtitle. If there were a legal notice to prefer only "Yusuf" then renaming would be clearer. -Wikid77 20:47, 27 August, 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Jimbo Wales on German Wikipedia are with no response / I will not give any more comments

Dear Jimbo Wales, for reasons explained above, with full respect to you, it is apparent that you can not protect people and institutions from all kinds of brutal attacks on Wikipedia. As I stated, Wikipedia is not a reliable and serious source of any personal information. For this I will not use it, particularly since German Wikipedia was used by group of irresponsible people to discredit highest institutions of Republic of Macedonia. I will not comment on this issue any more, but I am deeply disappointed. I hope that all this will finish here. Sincerely yours. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. All photos in Wikimedia Commons Category:Igor Janev are nominated for deletion. How democratic way of conduct of business in Wikipedia!