Hosta

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Wikicities.com | My Website

Hi Jimbo. I noticed this page was updated with The Devil's Reject having used the word the most times so I updated Nil by Mouth accordingly. So I guess my source was this page but whoever updated it, I don't know where they got the source from. Thanks Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 20:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the information is not valid at all.--Jimbo Wales 22:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will test your german now... :-) Ich war positiv überrascht zu lesen, das Du auch freie TV-Listings als etwas wichtiges empfindest. Leider ist mein Vorschlag in den deutschen Wikinews auf wenig Gegenliebe gestoßen (s.a. http://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_Diskussion:Pl%C3%A4ne#Tv-Listings ). Ich würde da ggf. gerne bei dem Start von so einem Projekt mithelfen. Ich befasse mich ebenfalls seit Jahren mit Dingen wie Hypertext und Wikis. Mit den anderen 10 Punkten, die wichtig sind stimme ich auch überein, besonders was freie Datenformate und freie Bildung angeht.

As an important force in the creation of the ArbCom, I think you should take a look at this decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision#Coolcat prohibited from mediating. While the intent of the ArbCom seems to prevent someone who has no support from holding himself out as a credible mediator, there are serious worries that this is actually precedent to bar anyone who's seen as not effective at resolving disputes from doing it at all! As Kim Bruning rightly points out on the talk page, informal mediation is not something we should be discouraging. The ArbCom ought to be our last resort, and any decision the ArbCom makes that seems to reinforce the illusion of them being the "only" source of Mediation needs at least a strong clarification. If you could keep an eye out? TIA. JRM · Talk 21:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it from a psychological point of view, sometimes just getting anyone else to listen (i.e. post a few affirmations while to two parties try to work it out) can help to diffuse a situation. Sometimes the two sides just need to get it out of their systems (and reiterated it in front of that third party) before they will settle down and prepare to find a compromise. No special skills needs there: just the willingness to try and help. Anyone who has ever been to marriage counseling knows that. 69.181.82.221 15:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please just tell me you didn't say the things attributed to you in the Yahoo article. Freezing "stable" pages in perpetuity?! Even freezing them for a few days is incredibly staling, even for articles generally considered good. I can only assume you were grossly misquoted. Else I'd be worried. — David Remahl 21:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While few long-time editors are freaking out over this, we'd still like an official "my statements were misrepresented" (or similar) statement that we can point people at. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as there are a few assumptions about how it'd work: 1) there would be an alternate, editable version of the article available, and 2) new changes could be incorporated in the "stable" version after some deliberation, so it wouldn't really be "in perpetuity". This has been on the table for a long time, I think, and I think it would be a step forward that we need to take at some point. Everyking 22:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I've missed something (recent evidence would suggest I have), but isn't this called m:Wikipedia 1.0? [[smoddy]] 22:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is "Finally." Anything that reduces some of the idiocy in a lot of these articles' history is most welcome. RADICALBENDER★ 00:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I just posted this to Slashdot:

Wikipedia hereby formally announces tighter :editorial controls on Reuters and Slashdot... ;-)

I spoke in English to many journalists yesterday and :the day before (90 journalists registered to cover :Wikimania). I spoke to one journalist about our :longstanding discussions of how to create a "stable :version" or "Wikipedia 1.0". This would not involve :substantial changes to how we do our usual work, but :rather a new process for identifying our best work.

I spoke in English, and this was translated to :German. Then the German was translated back to :English, and then translated again into the Slashdot :story.

There was no "announcement". We are constantly :reviewing our policies and looking for ways to :improve, but we have not "announced" anything. We :don't even really work that way... if you know how :Wikipedia works, it's through a long process of :community discussion and consensus building, not :through a process of top-down announcements.

--Jimbo Wales 08:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo,

I think that Wikipedia ought to have its own song. I wrote a "Wikipedia Rap" a while back, but nobody seemed to like it. I suggest that we have a contest to see who can write the best song for Wikipedia.

Sincerely, NapSpit2

• There are some songs. Please check my user page; I didn't write them but I collect links. A rap would be a nice addition, though. Radiant_>|< 10:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

On your user page, it says "Please use that number only for press inquiries!"

Does this mean that the number may not be used for anything but press inquiries, or that all press inquiries should be to that number and no other number? Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 15:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A change to the current Wikipedia tagline has been proposed for discussion and adoption at Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. Interested contributers please visit this page. WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT -- Sitearm | Talk 18:47, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

The proposal has been updated:

• Leave current top-left text as is ("From WikiPedia the free encyclopedia.")
• Add new top-right text ("All articles are user-contributed in a collaborative effort.")

Interested contributors please comment here. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:03, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Jimbo! You also have some birthday greetings. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo,

I will just say "Happy Birthday" to you at this way, because I was not long enough at the wikimania-party yesterday. I hope, you have enoy your birthday present :-). --DaB. 20:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back Vietnam War because User:Stevertigo reverted while it was locked. I sent him a quick note that it was poor form to do this. Then he blocked me!

This does appear to be an abuse of Admin priviledges. I am formally asking for you to desysop him... however if this is not the correct way of going about it just let me know. Please also note he has been edit warring on Vietnam War.

Here is the entry in the block log: 12:59, 8 August 2005, Stevertigo blocked Ta bu shi da yu (expires 14:59, 8 August 2005) (contribs) (unblock) ( 1. Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice.)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am also noting this on WP:AN, WP:AN/I and User:Angela. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desysoping for what could be a simple mistake or misunderstanding is a bit over the top, isn't it? — David Remahl 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chmod007, you may not be aware that this isn't the first time: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Stevertigo. A desysoping not only seems appropriate, it seems absolutely nessesary in this case. The misunderstanding here in on the part of Stevertigo; he seems to have lost all sense of what purpose the admin tools are for, and when it is appropriate to use them. Func( t, c ) 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Yes, it really does look damning. :-( — David Remahl 03:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like much of a misunderstanding, considering that Stevertigo blocked Ta bu shi da yu for doing exactly the same thing he did on the same page. If you ever need a clear example of hypocrisy in action, keep this one handy. --Calton | Talk 03:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I also support immediate removal of administrator privileges for User:Stevertigo, or at least a promise to refrain from using them until this is sorted out. His behavior has gone from bad to worse in the last couple days. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo for more background. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, he apologised. If we can make sure that he doesn't do this again, I'd like to take back my request for desysoping this editor. We all make mistakes. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your block of User:Irate again, and the message you used to give your reason for it, and I noticed that as part of your reason you say that Irate promises to "continue "following" [our rules] as he always has". The obvious implication is that Irate is planning to circumvent the rules, or something to that effect, but I think another interpretation is possible, whereby Irate's comment (as I infer it based on your words) is simply a statement claiming that he has been following the rules, and that he means to follow the rules in the future as well. So by that interpretation, he did nothing more than claim he had done nothing wrong. Well, if we come at it from this direction, we have to wonder: since when do we block someone—indefinitely!—just for defending themselves? Of course this could be wrong, since I don't have much information to base it on. Everyking 04:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo, I have been wondering why the different wiki sites are rather separate: wikipedia, wikibooks, wikisource, wikiquote etc? It seems to me it would be easier on multiple levels if there was one unified namespace for everything under one site with one login, call it the wikiuniverse perhaps. Doesn't the concept of "wiki" trump even the seemingly arbitrarily imposed distinctions of "encyclopedia" and "books" and "quotations" etc? zen master T 14:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kbdank71 is trying to delete terrorism-related categories on the grounds that, "We've gotten rid of many other "terrorist" cats as POV, so this should probably go too." See for example: Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorism_in_India

This nomination was a typical "drive by shooting" with absolutely no discussion before the nomination or after.

It makes no sense to delete a subcategory of Category:Terrorism as long as the main category exists - as it should, because it's very useful.

Of course, if User:Kbdank71 can get a few friends to vote 'delete', he could probably get the whole Category:Terrorism deleted. It only takes a few people to form a phony "consensus" on Wikipedia which justifies any action, no matter how destructive. Mirror Vax 01:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to disallow anoymous editing for a particular subnet? See User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail for info on why I would like this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Blocks on Anonymous users only at Bugzilla. Thryduulf 19:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo. Can I ask you what the rules are about closing, reopening and overriding closed VFD debates. Some weeks back I closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews as a "no consensus" keep. A number of users complained about this, IZAK, Ambi, Jfdwolff for example (see my talkpage under "You make no sense"). I therefore decided to ask for the advice of two other regualar VFD closers, Rossami and SimonP and both of them agreed with me. The issue died down until Neutrality suddenly decided to delete the article (which had now moved to a new title)

• 19:47, 7 August 2005 Neutrality deleted "Historical persecution by Jews" (VfD debate had an overwhelming vote to delete (at least 2:1).)

When I discovered this, I brought it to WP:VFU [1] and informed Tony Sidaway, who had been involved in the debate. He almost immediatly restored the article as an obvious out of process deletion.

• 10:03, 8 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Historical persecution by Jews"

I promised to undelete this next time I saw the article get deleted without a VFD debate to back it up. Neutrality then decided to delete it again, and was reversed by User:Kim Bruning.

• 14:59, 8 August 2005 Neutrality deleted "Historical persecution by Jews" (Re-deleting. There was an obvious two-thirds consensus on VfD to delete. This is "broad consensus." A small minority of users will no be allowed to override the broad consensus. Take it to VfU if you must.)

and

• 18:33, 8 August 2005 Kim Bruning restored "Historical persecution by Jews"

There is now a question on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion on whether or not it is okay to "override" or "review" VFD debates which have been closed by an administrator. I would really appreciate your views on the matter, because my role as an administrator since I was promoted in June has mostly been closing VFD debates.

To finish off I will add some links to pages where this case has been discussed:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews original VFD debate
• Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews discussion of the original VFD debate
• WP:ANI#User:Sjakkalle,_User:IZAK_and_the_VFD_debate_on_Religious_persecution_by_Jews Discussion at Administrator's Noticeboard
• User talk:Sjakkalle My talkpage
• Talk:Historical persecution by Jews
• Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Historical persecution by Jews

Sorry about bothering you, but I have almost had it with the discussion of this article. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this endless dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( ,Pius in WWar 2) and removed on one page and insulted with neutrality on the other . . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP ( or whatever )requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you , for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Sherool points out below, Category:People is pretty broad. I guess that will have to be deleted under the new thinking? Mirror Vax 12:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian_people

• should be Category:Christians
• focus "This category comprises articles pertaining to people espousing or belonging to the Christian faith." this is completely inappropriate! Every European 400 AD - 1770 AD would need to be included. Focus should be restricted to people actively involved in theology, church, or proselytization, i.e. people whose adherence to Christianity is part of their notability. dab (ᛏ) 09:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What about Category:Jews and Category:Muslims? Also very broad. --DR31 _(talk) 13:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too broad. Radiant_>|< 12:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Radiant. --Kbdank71 13:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only a couple million WP articles fit this category. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too broad. -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No argument. siafu 19:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too broad. RedWolf 22:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Radiant. Hall Monitor 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Broad. --DR31 _(talk) 13:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad to be useful. Hall Monitor 23:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate only and rename possebly tweak it's text a little. It's part of a "hierarchy" structure, and the instructions also clearly says that biographies should not go into the category itself, but one of the subcats (and the quoted bit abowe was changed by the nominator too). IMHO deleting this as "too broad" would be simmilar to deleting Category:People (now that's broad!) or, sometimes a "too broad" category is needed to house more spesific subcats, IMHO this is one such case. --Sherool 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Christian leaders would make more sense as a category. Then we would have a place to put Pat Robertson. Certainly, someone needs to put him in his place. >:) Wahkeenah 20:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to talk about real some more. Earlier this year, I went for a checkup for the first time in 10 years. There were two suspicious moles on my back that needed to get removed. My mindset at the time was to try to make an appointment with Elizabeth Morgan and have her do them. She declined (we never talked in person). That is the level at which I play. With my whole being.

Now, we gonna start talking about the genuine stalkers in your organzation. We already covered Xaa and Nunh-huh. Now we deal with Antaeus Feldspar. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddy_Ebsen&oldid=20592765 Now: How do I know about "At the Codfish Ball?". It is only the end of a videotape of "The Little Princess". I have sat through it several times with my daughter (in the times I do get to be with her). That is where I got the lines about her memorizing scripts at age 5 and doing all those dance steps on her page. I did not recognize Buddy Ebsen. He was young and wiry, black hair, suave and graceful. He was not Jeb Clempet. But they only show Jeb Clempet on TV anymore. That is all these kids in your organization know.

Of course, since I added the lines, Antaeus Feldspar me down and undid my work.

Sir, I ask you: How bad is the problem that you cannot get Wikipeida into grade school. I can tell already that it is really bad. You have people like Antaeus Feldspar.

And check up on Tregoweth also. He did come after me, removed some stuff I made, and then conceeded the point after a discussion.

And just tell Michael L. Kaufman to keep off the sexual stuff completely. That boy has no sense. How does it feel to be "banned" by all grade schools, or at least teachers with any sense? I tried to explain in the Linda Lovelace thing that I do not value my "Amorrow" handle. You should give these people pause by making them consider renaming their handles. Do not do it, but get them to think and shape up. They are a wolf pack. You need to address this problem, sir, if you are going to become relevant. You may still get there, but those guys are going to slow you down, but good.

So I been sending Geni (or should I say Geni-username?) a LOT of email. Like I said, I am in Silicon Valley. I went to view, again, the Rodin Gates of Hell at the Cantor Art Museam at Stanford. Right now, I am at the Clocktower Cafe in Mountain View. Hell is simple: you made mistakes and you lost to someone smarter, better, more mature and maybe richer.

I have had a rich and deep experience with Wikipedia. I continue to process the information about psychology that I have gather. I continue to make analogies, because they help me in my analysis. Maybe a few times, I have applied the wrong template. But basically, conflict is conflict. Whether it is a pissing contest on a discussion tab, or Microsoft (or whoever) eating Wikipeida's lunch or the blood and gore of the Civil War or whatever.

I already know what is on my userpage. I WROTE it. Do not unblock my username. But make one concession. Unblock my user page, so that the World can see for itself it if I am a bad man or a good man. On the other hand, there is so much stuff there, maybe it will not help, but do it anyway. Oh sure, dummies will say "Gotcha!" on this or that. Let them look. I looked into the Gates of Hell yesterday. It ain't so bad. It simply defeat. But I will tell you: Victory is better. Now let the World look at my silly page and judge for themselves. You arleday know I can put a copy of it anywhere I want to. I can create a sock-puppet that you DO NOT recogonize, if I have no already done so. Mabye I got a freind in Japan to make one for me and just tell me the new username and password and hand it off to me. See how that works? Stop trying to squash me: you are wasting your time.

Let's work together on this. Huh? Microsoft (or somebody else) is coming after you even as you read this. When they finish you off, they will do it painlessly. You will never feel it coming. You will just go to sleep. Forever.

Look at this site: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/ You want them on your side. If Microsfot buys thems, they have snatched away from you something valuable. Look at the list of great directors. I am doing this to you on the open channel on purpose, to give you a sense of urgency. Look at that http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/gilliam.html Beautiful. You want that. How you gonna get it? What if one day you have to use your MS Passport to read that? That would suck. Or even just a Paypal thingy.

Think about it.

I oppose this change on the grounds that all of the proposed alternatives are aesthetically awful. The tagline is short and sweet and should stay that way. We should not lack self-confidence and feel we have to put a disclaimer on everything.--Jimbo Wales 12:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on Tagline proposal, but rephrasing and reposting here:

We can't just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that our articles will be free from vandalism and inaccuracy when a first-timer visits from a google link. They see "free encyclopedia" at the top and trust everything they read as much as they would a traditional encyclopedia.

We don't trust everything we read on the Wikipedia. We're constantly looking out for bits that need updating or vandalism that needs to be removed. We shouldn't encourage an atmosphere in which newcomers trust the content more than we do.

I absolutely disagree with smacking a giant disclaimer or apology on every page, but I do think it's very important that we make the source of our content (ourselves) and basic principles of operation the first thing a google link follower sees.

My proposal was a condensed version of the main page greeting (which newcomers don't see):

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Short, sweet, optimistic, and clues in newcomers as to the source of our information. - Omegatron 14:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

User --Ragib and --Mel Etitis are contionusly vandal the article rohingya. please see it in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&action=history. Such Violaton shall be stop .please keep wiki standard updated .violations would not be accepted by any reader of wikipedia . go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. please advice. Thanks,--Bobjack 14:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is mainly about two dashes (?!?). I responded to the user on his talk page, no need for you to respond. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 15:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The hitherto anonymous editor in question should seriously consider focusing his or her energy on imporving Rohingya villages, me thinks. El_C 12:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(This is already announced on Pump and Rfc but I'm adding it here because you contributed to the proposal talk page discussion.) Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 05:38, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

I realize you're a busy man, so I understand if time prevents you from answering this in a prompt manner, or at all for that matter. A number of Wikipedians, myself included, have been trying to put together a draft for a standard on obscenity in images. Before we are ready to request comments we first would like to search the "case law" as it were of Wikipedia to find standards which may be suggested by history. In particular we have been looking at the following example of a comment by you:

Link to the diff where you commented in the summary

This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline

We would like you to clarify why you felt the image was unacceptable so we can understand the case law here, and try to incorporate it into our suggestion. Do you remember the incident? Would you be able to share your insight into what you believe/believed make such images unacceptable? Thanks for your time. Agriculture 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was reported as a policy violation, which, technically, it is. It was reported at least once, to WP:AN/I. It is not uncommon for people to create discussion pages wholly unrelated to Wikipedia, and I had deleted and protected it before I figured out you were actually behind it. We routinely send such people to other, more general wikis.

It would be helpful if you would let the community know about these sorts of things in advance so that we can excercise the appropriate forebearance.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tony had done so earlier as well. I will put up notices to try to prevent it from happening again. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was wondering if you or anyone has said anything about what reading level Wikipedia articles should be written? 3rd grade, 8th, 12th, college? Just wondering. I see a lot of articles written well above and/or well below what most people come across in newspapers and paper encyclopedias. Thanks! --JPotter 23:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to chime in here, I don't think there's any kind of standard; I think a lot of it depends on the subject matter (some things are so complex that dealing with it in simple language is too difficult and long-winded) and personal style. I don't know if you know it, but we have a Simple English wiki, which I think meets the needs of people who aren't so proficient, so we don't need to go too far out of our way to simplify the kind of language we use. Everyking 10:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reading level of some WP articles is pitched way too high - often at undergraduate or graduate level, which isn't generally appropriate. Why shouldn't a non-graduate be able to read the article on chromosomes, for example, and come away with an idea as to what they are and why they are important? Yet at the moment, I'd advise against anyone below undergraduate level reading it, as it'd just be a waste of time to do so, jguk 12:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency and the VfD debate on it would be welcome. Zoe 06:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Agriculture 06:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my position on the VfD in question. It's obvious that discussion of certain kinds of topics are no longer welcome on Wikipedia. It's not your fault Jimbo, you had a great idea and I salute you. You are one of the few visionaries left in the world, and on Wikipedia. You may ignore my previous request for your comments as it will no longer be relevant. Agriculture 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo - I would like to schedule a San Diego meet-up to coincide with your trip to San Diego in October. Please let me know what would work best with your schedule and I will arrange accordingly. Thanks! Johntex 00:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, I know you are terribly busy, but I wonder if you will have time while in San Diego this October to attend an event if I put one together? Please let me know. Thanks! (PS - best of luck with the funding presentations) Johntex 02:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would Wiki be at all interested in principle in participating a federated identity scheme such as SAML? Assume for the sake of discussion that the federated identity scheme would be fully FOSS compliant and run as a carrier grade infrastructure. I note that at the moment separate log-ins are required for different wikiprojects. There is a big problem with the proliferation of log ins in the blogosphere, it is training people to be rather careless with access credentials and this in turn is causing problems for some very large banks. I am looking for parties that might be interested/able in facilitating a transition. Ideally everyone would have one (or more) portable internet identity and this could be expressed as a URL and used at multiple sites. --Gorgonzilla 21:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more of a trivia question... What is the oldest page still active here at wikipedia? I tried the main site, this one, some of the links provided on a picture of the main page soon after it started, but nothing I found goes beyong 2002. Pellaken 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, I think, is that we lost some (all?) of the records of our oldest edits in server crashes during the early days (I wasn't around then, so that's as much as I know). Everyking 11:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles Thryduulf 15:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense when done for the purpose of harassment. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you deleted the page... although I was proposing a system for sending snail mail (for which step 3 was If it has consensus, letter is passed on to Wikimedia Foundation official for approval), the page had a separate section that was intended to be a guideline for sending independent, non-Wikimedia-approved mail. I'm going to restore the page and delete the offending section for now. Andre (talk) 04:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

And besides, rejected proposals go to Category:Wikipedia rejected policies. Andre (talk) 04:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I deleted it. I shouldn't have done that.--Jimbo Wales 21:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was easily undone. Thank you for the apology. Andre (talk) 22:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard to you. --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No!!! You must join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard! Remain apathetic! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (or at least get a laugh from all three projects...)[reply]

I support moustache removal only, is there no room for a centrist like me!! Pellaken 10:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Jimbo's visage has starred as "man with short beard" in our beard article for some months now! jguk 10:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo

On 21. Aug 2005 I suggested Markus Schweiß (one of German Wikipedia's most active admins) to be elected as third buerocrat in German Wikipedia. The only active buerocrat Michael Diedrich is in fact not neutral. In this case he demanded others to change my statement in the nomination and manipulated my statement calling me a liar: X. A normal election was not possible any more. I am sorry that I have to complain and would like to ask you to discuss this with the foundation. Also, congratulations to all its members and good luck for the next period.

Gmoeller 18:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently majority voting is on the rise, because of the influx of new people who do not realise that wikipedia is supposed to be run by consensus. I'm starting to understand why Ed felt he had to take drastic measures. I'm getting to that point myself. :-/ Kim Bruning 20:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this over the VFD I started? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that was a major back door. And there's also recent stuff on TFD. actually also to do with the VFD you started, now that you mention it. :-/ Kim Bruning 20:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fsck and I thought Ed Poor was causing the death of VFD, I might have caused the death of the project. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cool, it doesn't have to be that bad! Kim Bruning 20:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has Wikipedia entered its own Eternal September? And it's still August! JRM · Talk 21:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, and I've been making this point for a while now, is that majority voting necessarily increases as the community grows. Consensus becomes a less viable option as the number of people involved grows. My opinion is that consensus should be treated as an ideal, but that we should also reject bias against majority voting as an appropriate way of solving issues in cases that require it. Everyking 15:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use majority voting to define encyclopedic content, Everyking!

An actual naked vote occurred on [[2]] . JamesF is on it. Kim Bruning 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've weathered similar stuff. There was a vote about naming of Gdansk a while back where someone contrived to declare a consensual suspension of 3RR on the basis of a limited majority vote. You just go in and wag your finger a few times and eventually people get the message. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikimania you announced ten things that will be free, and blogged about two on Larry Lessig's blog. Then you wrote that the next will be announced on your blog, but there is no mention of it. I wonder, is this "project" dead or something? I am just curious. Samohyl Jan 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something got me thinking. While millosh has been planning your whole stay in the Balkans (presumably somewhere between October 19 and 31), I've checked if you are really busy. And the thing that worried me was this - TENTATIVE Lithuania visit. The whole Sebian and other neighbouring wiki communities are really glad you're coming, since they've been told that you'll probably come and Millosh has planned the whole thing. Now, I know you've e-mailing each other over the time and I just want to know if this thing is for sure, i.e. will you really visit us again? Thanks in advance. :) --Dungo (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I do plan to try to come to the Balkans but I really most likely can not come at that time. :-( --Jimbo Wales 06:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a vulgar article has been created on the Greenlandic Wikipedia page. I attempted to delete it with the 'move' option but it didn't work. Could you have someone take care of it.

(from WP:PE)

I blocked Boothy443 for having a very offensive link on one of his user pages. This caused me a fair amount of embarassment as I clicked on it in a work environment. I have no idea what the policy is, so I only blocked him for 17 seconds. But I think admins should hold themselves to a high standard of professionalism.--Jimbo Wales 19:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange. You are the second person I can see who talked as if Boothy443 were an admin. He's not, I checked on WP:LA and on the logs. Why did you come to that conclusion? --cesarb 23:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email asserting that admins should behave better, and showing me the link. I took it at face value on the bit about him being an admin, obviously a mistake. Boothy443 is lucky, then, becuase if he wasn't an admin, I would have blocked him for longer than 17 seconds. I did that on the assumption that he'd passed the community test and just had a little lapse of judgment there. Now I find that he's been blocked more than once, etc. Ah, well. He's still lucky I'm in a dandy mood today.  :-) --Jimbo Wales 04:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume that meeting with the suits to try to get server equipment went well. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't just remove the link. Symbolic blocks are worse than no block at all; at least a block of some length serves a functional purpose. A 17 second block is just an annoyance which is only likely to make him even more hostile. Everyking 06:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's lucky I only blocked him for the 17 seconds. It was my attempt to reach out to him in a friendly way. His response suggests that this was a little bit pointless on my part. --Jimbo Wales 16:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And your thoughts on this?

just a note that there is a discussion here about the issues with Boothy. 06:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

There is a good deal of difference between goatse (clearly labeled no less) and Last Measure. The former is akin to having a link to our circumcision article. --SPUI (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the two links, but I would not call it a 'good deal' of difference. Both are juvenile, annoying, and unprofessional. Neither has the character of wickedly clever wit, they are just blunt tools. I encourage you, and Boothy443 of course, to do better.--Jimbo Wales 16:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While everyone's discussing changing his beard, and even glasses, why not change his name from Jimbo Wales to Jumbo Whales? His actual name is as offensive as his beard is. Can I have a poll of keeping his name, or changing it? Adamwankenobi 14:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You shouldn't be changing his name without his mom's permission. *Dan* 15:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Moral concepts like "should" and "shouldn't" have no place here, but the name is okay as it is. ZacharyS 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Both Jumbo Whales and Jumbo Wales are already taken (and blocked). As is, probably, just about every other variation of the name "Jimmy Donal Wales" imaginable. JRM · Talk 00:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we block User:Jimbo Wales as well, just to be on the safe side? jguk 19:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to WikiWales. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with God 195.92.40.49 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi jim ive been editing as an anon user for a few months now and i believe that has hurt me.if you look into my history you will see most of my edits are to the special forces page on wiki for the U.S. and there are some registered users whi i will not name that are consistent on deleting my edits.i have even cited sources but they delete the source saying you need more than one,but, how can you have more than one if you delete the first?i was wondering if you would just please watch out for them,making sure they're not abusing their power. thank you.

I was actually astounded to see there wasn't a wave of supports after you voted at that VfD ;) The link is now fixed but for laziness sakes here it is again. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jane_mcgonigal. Enjoy Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was at first the page was Jane mcgonigal with the lowercase M and thats how it was nominated for VfD. When I went to write {{Oldvfd}} on the page I saw the page was moved and I'd have to type {{subst:oldvfd}} and fix the link myself. But I made a typo "mcgonical" You then capitalized it I see and then JRM fixed it. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you get behind the creation some sort of court, or tribunal comittee of some sort to relieve the arbitration committee of the burden of trying all these misdemeanor cases?

In the real world arbitration and tribunal are two entirely different things.

Arbitration is the process by which two parties to an unresolved dispute JOINTLY submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person. [3]

A tribunal is a court of justice before which an accused is brought for justice after being provided with a summons citing precisely what sections of the code he is charged with violating, and specifically what particular actions of his are alleged to be violations of the code. [4]

There is a big difference, and I am sure that in the long run, Wikipedia will want to establish a separate tribunal where such misdemeanor (bad behavior) charges are brought. The capital of the arbitration committee should be spent arbitrating CONTENT DISPUTES submitted for arbitration, don't you think? --172.194.231.160 21:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is DotSix, as per WP:VPR#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration_is_being_used_as_a_tribunal_-_that_ain.27t_right. ~~ N (t/c) 22:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you interested in following policy and comment on the content of what was written, not on the contributor? You would prefer to go along with the obscurantist crowd and post argument _ad hominem_ instead of discussing the issues?--172.197.155.60 01:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend that as an ad hominem, I was just making an observation. I have no strong position on your proposal, except to note as I did on the VP that, although Wikipedia's arbitration process is actually closer to the dictionary definition of "tribunal", this does not in any way make it less valid. And I am not an obscurantist, unless the definition is "anyone who disagrees with DotSix", as it appears to be. Besides, aren't you prohibited from editing here? ~~ N (t/c) 02:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. An OBSERVATION?? I think you misspelled CONJECTURE, old boy, and an argument _ad hominem_ style conjecture at that, don't you think? 8^)

2. Are you going to assume from now on that every anonymous contributor is User:DotSix?

3. Are you in the habit of making a lot of assumptions with no basis in fact, sir?

4. Why are you still trying to make this a discussion about the contributor? Has there been a change in policy I haven't heard about? Have you forgotten already, comment on the content of what was written, not on the contributor? --172.192.16.159 06:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you move this to User_talk:Jimbo Wales. Pcb21| Pete 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is approaching a crisis. My thoughts on this situation are set forth at: User:Robert McClenon/Crisis. Robert McClenon 19:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I first started to read the immediately above post, I thought that it might also be discussing the need for dispute resolution reform. It is not. It is only a silly dictionary argument about whether the existing Arbitration Committee is misnamed. I think that if he thinks that the Arbitration Committee exists to resolve content issues, then he misunderstands how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Robert McClenon 19:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A joint request by the two parties for arbitration of their content dispute is not the last resort for handling content disputes, sir? Doesn't the chart at right show the route content disputes are suposed to take?? If not, then will you please post the correct chart right below here, sir?

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 00:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could the User Page on which the summary statements are made please be protected and that protection monitored by at least one admin? Regardless of the veracity of the claims, the text is no doubt going to be a vandalism target. Please protect its content. Courtland 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, I wanted to point you to Votes for deletion/The Manual of Crime. The book in question is similar to The Anarchist Cookbook in nature. Reading over the Wikicities policy, it seems like this book would not be allowed. So, it would seem to me that Wikibooks should at least have standards no lower than Wikicities. (In fact, the standards should be higher in the sense that no original research should be allowed.)

The discussion itself has turned somewhat into a discussion of where Wikibooks should draw the line. I think we all agree that textbooks, how-tos, and the cookbook have a place on Wikibooks; though there is no agrement whether video game walk-throughs should be included, or, indeed, the more significant point if there should be single books devoted to breaking laws. I don't think any of us have problems with chemistry books, in the proper context, describing explosives; but I think this has gone too far. If you could shed any wisdom on this discussion it would be greatly appreciated. MShonle 07:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikibooks is to host works which constitute a curriculum of textbooks from Kindergarten through the university level. The cookbook, for example, qualifies, since such courses are taught. The manual of crime does not fit the definition of any course that I know of, and should be deleted. This is not a decree, since I haven't even looked at it, just a recommendation for now.--Jimbo Wales 14:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the reply. MShonle 23:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the Encarta/2004 lists have been deleted with great urgency, having been humming along happily for 6 months or so. I saw your mail on WikiEN-l, but there was little reasoning given there. Would you mind furnishing me with a little more detail behind the decision, privately if you prefer? I just have a feeling you wouldn't have written that mail from a plane apropos of nothing! Pcb21| Pete 15:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea these lists were around, or they would have been deleted immediately. While opinions seem to differ among the lawyers on juriwiki-l, it seems that this would likely be determined to be a copyright violation. As such, I feel an obligation to delete these pages and any like them immediately.--Jimbo Wales 16:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be non-trivial to subscribe to juriwiki-l. It would be useful for someone with access to those posts to post a precis of the discussions so that those who used the lists understand the reasons for their deletion.

On the other note, I guess I am quite sad that you had never heard of the lists, as it indicates my advertising campaign to get people involved failed! Pcb21| Pete 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, could you clarify the meaning of "any like them"? There are a range of things that might fall under this edict. Should it be extended to cover lists compiled from the indices of books, dictionaries and other reference works, not just other encyclopedias? Does it make a difference if the list is single source or not (there are a couple lists that people have created by combining the contents of multiple works)? And lastly, does it matter if the sources are known (there is one list page which states that it was compiled by combining multiple reference works, but has never disclosed which ones)? Thank you for clarifying this matter. Dragons flight 17:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is important to indicate what changes could have been made, or what other-formatted-list could have been used, that would not be in potential violation of copyright. An underlying sentiment among respondants is likely "what will next disappear?" In order to reassure editors as to the legality of their actions, or inform them of their illegality, some clarification is needed. Further, its important to clarify whether the deletions (and implied like ones coming in the future) were done as pre-emptions against potential legal issues or as clearcut purging of Wikipedia of surely illegal content. If we are now in a position where pre-emption by purging boundary-skirting content will be the rule, that will necessarily change the editing climate across all Wikimedia Projects, in my opinion, and necessitates a reduction in the openness of the editing environment. Thanks for the further comment. Courtland 20:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedure, I was under the belief that if a page qualified as copyright violation, then someone should put a copyvio tag on the page, to give people the opportunity to discuss the issue. Only last week, Bluemoose suggested that copyvios should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion, only to have the idea discounted (see [5] for details). Bluap 21:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is that this particular sort of list had been discussed many times over the years and thought to be a copyvio each time. This sort of list is an extraordinary risk to us, a special case, since it is a copyvio *of an organization with whom we directly compete in the market*. That's what makes it intolerable for me, because the specific legal risk is so high. As to the exact parameters of lists of this sort, I think this warrants a serious community discussion.--Jimbo Wales 03:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an action as benevolent dictator, or do you consider an action like this appropriate for any administrator should the situation arise? Jarvik 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the potential for this type of conflict between Wikipedia and other information resources, it might be prudent to establish something along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject CopyVio Monitor that has as its specific goal detection, consideration, and resolution of potential copyright (and related) violations with particular emphasis on other players in the Wikipedia activity space; similar activities could be established for each of the Sister Projects and coordinated at the Wikimedia level. Courtland 04:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Would it be possible for someone to put together a clear set of guidelines of what is permitted in Wikipedia, to prevent this from happening again... Bluap 09:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "many times over the years..." It is true that your opinion has changed over time... see e.g. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011449.html. Pcb21| Pete 19:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so! Goodness.--Jimbo Wales 21:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:). That wasn't meant as a criticism by the way, just that I felt it might help explain some of the confusion over these lists. Pcb21| Pete 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with your statement that we should not use topic lists from "an organization with whom we directly compete in the market", I have now deleted 4 additional topic lists generated from copyrighted works that market themselves as "encyclopedias". This still leaves open certain other questions such as whether the list of topics in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology is acceptable? As it is specialized and does not describe itself as an "encyclopedia", I was not sure whether to include it under a direct competition standard. Dragons flight 19:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that lists of names of individuals generated from telephone books have been found by the courts to be copyright violations. So just about any list culled from a copyrighted source is probably copyrighted; this includes top-ten lists (!). I am not a lawyer. linas 05:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, you have this exactly wrong. Phone books are the famous example of lists which are not copyrighted as neither the selection nor arrangement of items in a phone book is a creative act. This is in contrast to encyclopedias/indices/cookbooks and most other lists where the selection of topics is clearly a creative act. Top ten lists are copyrighted if and only if editorial judgment was involved in their creation. For example, a list of the 10 largest cities in the world is a collection of facts, not subject to copyright. A list of the best resteraunts in Bombay or any late night talk show list is a matter of opinion, hence creative and protected. Dragons flight 07:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ony when those lists were generated by extracting them directly from the phone book, with no creative act in between. Going "The first name in the telephone book is…" etc wouldn't be a problem. I don't think there have been suits about having a computer do that step, but I doubt that would be allowed given current precedent (layman's opinion). --fvw* 05:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[When I first posted this I stupidly omitted the heading, so it got buried in someone else's post. You may have overlooked it or just didn't consider that it needed a comment. For what it's worth, and for form's sake, here it is, properly headed. — J M Rice 21:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Hi, Jimbo. I just wrote a piece on Wikipedia:Anti-elitism called, "The problem is not anti-elitism!". Since the page begins with

Anti-elitism at Wikipedia is at the root of both of its biggest problems.

1. lack of public perception of credibility, particularly in areas of detail

2. the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers

It must be jettisoned.

and since you were referred to a couple of times on the page, I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my comments. (Guess I'm asking for it.) — J M Rice 04:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, Jimbo, if a user is banned for a certain timeframe, is there a set number of sockpuppet attacks beyond which the issue of a lengthening of a ban (as opposed to its rebegining on each occasion) arises? You no doubt remember the wonderful (sic) User:Skyring. Since his ban early in August at least 22 sockpuppets strongly suspected of being him have appeared and been blocked (same edits on the same pages, same abusive comments, same language used, one picking up as soon as another was blocked, etc.) Others are being found. There probably are many everyone missed. It may be an area where some form of policy might be worth adopting; namely that while everytime a sockpuppet appears the ban is restarted, if the number of sockpuppets hits a certain threshhold an extra ban (say 1 month, or 3 months, or one quarter of a ban for bans of less than 1 year, etc) is added on as punishment. And don't worry I'm not planning to round up a posse on Skyring (though the guy has now begun writing to Irish newspapers to seek evidence that supports one edit some of his sockpuppets wanted to add in to an article — he is that nutty!). But his conduct raises an interesting set of issues of the sort we faced with Michael and DW before. Slán FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

to see that he is causing much more trouble than warranted.  Take care, Molotov  (talk)  21:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]