User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

The lest year a don’t have a work, so I went in http://yi.wikisource.org/ , and I have buildet it. I put already almost 2000 texts of Yiddish. And that is my question

I want to purchase a program that converts PDF documents to Word documents, in Hebrew. I have quite a few books in Yiddish in the PDF format and have to change them to Word. That way we'll be able to expand the web site with hundreds of texts. If we don't add them, they won't be used by the general public because these books are no longer printed. They were published from 50 to 100 years ago in Europe before the war and are studied in universities. They can't be bought anywhere and can only be photocopied at the university. The program that converts the PDF costs $700 here in Israel.

--Israel.s (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much do you think it costs in Indonesia?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Israel.s, are you aware of the Proofread Page software that we use on other Wikisource projects? You can see the statistics here. This software can be set up on Yiddish Wikisource as well, however I think there may be a bug with right-to-left languages. The $700 could be spent fixing that bug ;-)

This software works with PDF files. You can see the English Wikisource projects at s:Special:IndexPages, and I encourage you to come to English Wikisource to learn how to use it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:12725 has been fixed, which means right-to-left languages can now use the new software. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the Proofread extension is not what Israel.s had in mind. He is looking for a pdf2txt software, or, to be more precise, an OCR software (since the PDF includes images of scanned books). To the best of my knowledge, there is no free OCR software which can work with Hebrew letters.

I guess that after he will be able to OCR all his documents, he can use the Proofread extension to correct the OCR SW mistakes.

Anyone has the money for him? -- Ori229 (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Israel.s uploads the PDFs to Commons, and proofreading projects are set up, other people who already have suitable commercial software will be able to OCR the PDFs and upload the OCR results into Yiddish Wikisource.

Also, he could contact meta:Wikimedia Israel. They may be able to organise for a local university to do the OCR. Or the chapter could buy a copy of the software, and use it to fulfill OCR requests from any Wikimedian.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Mr. Wales.
You direct me to many options which can help me, when the simplest thing would be that I'll have this SW and can work with it without being dependent on otheres. Since Wikimedia doesn't have the sum to fund this, I will try to collect money from my friends, which will probably take a few month. Then I will but the SW and will be able to add many hunderes of texts to Yiddish wikitext. --Israel.s (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Jimbo Wales. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Has Become the Source of Disinformation - A Public Forum To Mislead and Con the Public

Wikipedia is a free forum, unregulated, confusing and irresponsible.

Now, criminals use this forum to post lies.

Wikipedia is being used as an authoritative and trusted source of pseudo-encyclopedic information to mislead people and steal money. Wikipedia is being used to convince unknowing users to accept lies about professional requirements, to promote social agendas, and to influence public opinion - not to educate. Even scams are being perpetrated. Confidence-game practitioners and sales departments of companies are scheming through Wikipedia articles to influence busy decision-makers. This encyclopedia is used to deceive people into enrolling in education seminars or worse. People purchasing professional services are being mislead about many different legally regulated activities. The purpose of misinformation is to alter the beliefs of the targeted victim; as used in Wikipedia, its purpose is to get money from people or to trap them.

As nice an idea as it is for a completely public contributor based encyclopedia, this source of information is gradually being polluted by dishonest people who have a selfish agenda, not an interest in providing accurate and informative information. Wikipedia is now, by consent, contributing to this disinformation.

If Wikipedia doesn't do something to control the editing process so as to eliminate these misleading and inaccurate postings, and malicious deletions, two things will happen.

First, Wikipedia will become a joke and the last place that anyone will go to get an explanation.

Second, Wikipedia will get sued in a Federal or State Court for contributing to fraud and violations of many State and Federal laws.

Wikipedia has to take responsibility for what it is aiding to do, deceive the public.

ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk • contribs)

Sounds to me like someone didnt do his homework and got scammed. If you think checking one web site is enough of a background check... That Wikipedia is public and can be edited by anyone is common knowledge... and like any other encyclopedia.... research certainly can begin there but should never end there.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing is that a lot of articles are checked by the media wanting to drum up the "Wikipedia is wrong" story, and most of the time they are surprised by how accurate Wikipedia is. And WP can't be "sued...for contributing to fraud" for simply being inaccurate. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one can tell exactly what ArchitectBoiseIdaho is actually complaining about. There is no reason to speculate about it or to respond. —Finell (Talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But from my POV, this comment is something of what we call "the same old reason to leave Wikipedia". It looks like that he's leaving Wiki here. Plus, the lack of source, lack of NPOV, and the inaccuracy of the editor itself attributed to such criticisms. Wikipedia cannot be sued for such misleadings. And Wikipedia cannot be sued for any defamation posted. But the USER posting it CAN be. So I can conclude this as a content dispute.-Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If User:ArchitectBoiseIdaho is complaining Wikipedia's notability, or the latter of any accuracy on Wikipedia, this only requires the response of Wikipedia heights. I think he feels that Wikipedia is just not as fun as it was then. If he feels so, please, ask him to leave.-Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification RE: Wikipedia Principles[1] and Five Pillars:"Anyone Can Edit"

I have been ordered to create an account:

As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs[2] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[3] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[4] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [5] which interestingly may have produced this response[6] to my edit here:[7]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage:[8] as a stub without references. This was my work:[9]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.

As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute[10] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed[11] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here[12] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. A previous discussion here on this page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history[13] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here[14]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time.|-99.135.174.186 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed at wp:ani#Join or be banned?. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's so difficult about creating an account & signing in, anyways? One would think it would be worth it, after all this. Regrettably, the refusal to do so creates the impression of (at worst) evasiveness (as though the person were a banned editor, avoiding a ban) or (at best) spitefullness towards those who are requesting he/she 'sign in'. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The willingness to jump to such facile impressions should be suppressed and not be allowed foothold in our fair community. There is nothing that prevents a banned user from creating a new user account, indeed the desire to appear established and appeasing the paranoia of others should if anything, be regarded with more suspicion than one who asked merely to have their edits judged on content. Unomi (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the blocking of the accounts of deceased users?

This is what I'm worried about. I've seen this on their [[Special:Contributions]] page and find that they were indefinitely blocked! Any guidelines referring to this matter?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be thought of as disrespectful in any way. If anything, I suppose the motivation is likely to be to ensure that the passwords aren't cracked and then these accounts used in a way that is disrespectful. I don't know if there are guidelines or discussions about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Urs Wäfler

Ich habe soeben als Administrator kandidiert. Ich will in der Deutschen Wikipedia Administrator werden.

Es waren 24 Administratoren gegen mich. Diese 24 Administratoren haben ihr Meinungsbild basierend auf komplett falschen Informationen abgegeben. Diese 24 Administratoren haben einzig die Edits berücksichtigt. Ich habe wenige Edits. Ich bin aber ein Sichter.

Sollte ich ein Administrator in der Deutschen Wikipedia werden?

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got some of that. Something about blocking. But why don't you post it in English...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's about an unsuccessful self-nomination for adminship. Nothing to write home about. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sour grapes?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme sour grapes... --Geos (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Ich bin ein admin'? HalfShadow (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "I have just submitted my RfA. I want to become an admin on the German Wikipedia.

24 admins were against me. These 24 admins made up their mind on completely wrong informations. These 24 admins have considered my editcount alone. I have few edits. I am however a Reviewer (translation note: refers to WP:FPPR, not autoreviewer).

Should I become an admin on the German Wikipedia?"

After withdrawing his candidacy, the beginning discussion on his talk page revolved around the fact that he didn't have enough edits to pass the threshold for automatic Reviewer status, whereas Urs' counterpoint is to explain that he has, in fact, obtained Reviewer status and so that the 24 persons who voted against him (who he qualifies as admins, I haven't bothered to fact check) were not qualified for an admin job since they weren't able to recognize him as a Reviewer.

Further, he argues he met someone in August 2009 who is aquainted with Jimbo, which makes him more in the know than many other admins and more qualified for the job. MLauba (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about 12 of the 24 were actually admins. and as far as i could see nobody had problems with his reviewer status, just with the assumption that you automatically become admin after being a reviewer and having ~250 edits. -- southgeist (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 ::After withdrawing his candidacy, the beginning discussion on his talk page revolved around the fact that he didn't have enough edits to pass the threshold for automatic Reviewer status, whereas Urs' counterpoint is to explain that he has, in fact, obtained Reviewer status and so that the 24 persons who voted against him (who he qualifies as admins, I haven't bothered to fact check) were not qualified for an admin job since they weren't able to recognize him as a Reviewer.
 ::Further, he argues he met someone in August 2009 who is aquainted with Jimbo, which makes him more in the know than many other admins and more qualified for the job. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ([[User talk:MLauba|talk]]) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
+:::about 12 of the 24 were actually admins. and as far as i could see nobody had problems with his reviewer status, just with the assumption that you automatically become admin after being a reviewer and having ~250 edits. -- [[User:Zeitgeist|southgeist]] ([[User talk:Zeitgeist|talk]]) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)