User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Template:Fix bunching  

What links here - Santorum (neologism)

It occurred to me that perhaps one of the reasons the 'neologism' form of the word is so popular with Google might have something to do with how many other Wikipedia articles linked to it. So I checked, and there sure are a lot of them. Perhaps someone concerned about this attack on the politician (or some admin interested in keeping Wikipedia fair and impartial) might want to review these and delete any which aren't actually relevant/appropriate. (Just skimming through some of the names of the articles, I have to say "it's a real stretch" comes to mind.) Based on your earlier suggestion, I will avoid pointing out any possible motivation anyone might possibly have had in creating these links, and assume absolutely everything was done in good faith, with an eye to spreading nothing but encyclopedic knowledge. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, quite a list. To me, something that warrants a look is why Dan Savage's website 'Spreading Santorum' comes up first in a search for Santorum. Since Google can tweak its results, and often does, why would they let an attack website with 1 sentence define the results for a politician rather than more germane results? Incidentally the neologism here is #2, and Rick Santorum finally comes in at #3. The idea that Google is actually ranking these in some kind of rational way is somewhat questionable, but who knows? -- Avanu (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at all the stuff that links to Bareback (sex) - a list about as long, because it is part of the same Template:Sexual slang. But Wikipedia doesn't come up until the end of the third page - for Bareback riding, which has a much shorter set of links. (though Wiktionary comes up at the bottom of the first page). Phantoms. Wnt (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Savage's page, but...Google's algorithm looks at, among other things, if the search term appears in the url (especially in the root) and if the way its used within the page implies it's the major topic of the page. That's part of the 'relevance' checking. And no, I don't believe Google 'tweaks' individually, although they do tweak the algorithms when it's clear they're being gamed.) My point is about 'internal links'. There's a reason some people are determined to create as many separate (and carefully named) articles as possible, and as many templates as possible to link them. This isn't an issue in only this situation, just a particularly noticeable example. Flatterworld (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The history of the templates that include the santorum article is as follows:

1. On 10 May, Template:Dan Savage was created, [1]
2. On 11 May, Template:Political neologisms (since deleted) was created, with santorum included, and added to about 120 articles [2]
3. On 15 May, the santorum article was added to Template:LGBT slang: [3]
4. On 15 May, Template:Sexual slang was created [4], comprising about 120 general, LGBT and pornography slang terms, including santorum, and then added to these 120 articles

That's what created the unusual number of inbound links. --JN466 12:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, too, that Dan Savage has been on the DYK section of the main page twice in the last few days, and editors seem intent on featuring another five DYK hooks on Dan Savage on the main page. Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Dan_Savage, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Removed_some_of_my_self_noms. --JN466 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I will have caused the digestion subproducts to collide with the rotational air displacement device, but that was so egregious a BLP violation that I excised it from the template. That this attack deserves an article on Wikipedia is arguable (although the current title is dubious at best), but pretending it is actual sexual slang in order to have it linked from all of those pages is so blatant a misuse of Wikipedia to perpetuate an attack on a living person that it cannot possibly be tolerated. — Coren ^(talk) 16:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a number of editors who are willingly supporting the use of WP as part of a political campaign. What is WP's administration going to do about it, other than declare it unacceptable? Cla68 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I am glad to see some common sense is beginning to creep into this mess. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this mess a bit off and on, and it has become a gargantuan stain on Wikipedia's credibility. Personally my politics couldn't be farther from Santorum's, and personally I'd be happy to see him out of politics altogether, but I am completely dismayed by the manner in which the encyclopedia has been thoroughly gamed for political purposes. I hope that someone might finally look into these shenanigans for what they clearly are. We need to set a precedent here that Wikipedia will not be the pawn of political activists trying to Google bomb their opposition into defeat. And by the way, how on earth does this qualify as a notable "neologism? If there is a topic of note here its the google bombing campaign, and that is it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and this is only one example. There's been a whole lot of this gaming going on for the past several elections, especially in the last week or two before an election. That includes but is not limited to "this party's candidates are always notable and should have their own articles while this other party's candidates are held to an entirely different standard" (for googling advantages), to a partisan campaigner being blocked immediately after an election (ooh, wow, that sure showed him/her!), to me being banned for several days immediately prior to an election because I was reverting bad-faith deletions (such as an official debate website because the university used its official YouTube Channel "and YouTube isn't allowed" - and yes there were many more of that level of imbecility/gaming). And the admins involved thought it was hilarious. I'm still irritated over that, especially as I believed the consensus on 'lessons learned' in 2008 was going to followed in 2010. (I also believed the Project Guidelines on how much 'campaign stuff' was allowed in politician articles vs. election articles would be followed - again the admins have been of zero help.) I really would like to see a flat and level playing field for 2012, instead of repeating our 'tradition' of having the foxes watch the chicken coop. Flatterworld (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above, Coren has filed an arbitration request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Political_activism. --JN466 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Power

Let's try to focus on content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RockSound#Blocked Rocksound[5] was recently accused of being a sockpuppet and was blocked by Black Kite[6] almost instantly [7]. Rocksound has been actively working to improve the Meredith Kercher article[8]. Black Kite is the same user that wrongfully blocked many other editors from working on this article in the past. Black Kite has done nothing with this article in months but came back to make a very quick decision regarding Rocksound. This extremely aggressive block is an obvious abuse of power that damages Wikipedia and should not be allowed. Progress is being made on the Meredith Kercher article but there is still work to be done. Unwarranted blocks by abusive administrators only works to destroy the progress that has been made. I am hopeful that you will take the time to look into this matter. Thank you in advance for your time. BruceFisher (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Rocksound has been edit warring, aggressively attacking other editors, continuously referring to those he does not agree with as a "pro-guild clique", and recently made vague legal threats on the article's talk page. There also the strong likelihood of him simply being a returning sock of a previously banned editor. All in all, a negative was removed from a contentious topic area, story closed. Tarc (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC) No surprise about what side you stand on with regard to the Meredith Kercher article. Why not just admit that you are happy to get rid of another editor that has a differing opinion? Funny how blocks are made by those who disagree with your opinion, not by those who are trying to uphold Wikipedia policy. Wikid77 was also topic banned recently as yet another example of harassment. BruceFisher (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bruce, you suffer from the same battleground mentality as rocksound; I do not have a "side". Not everyone that finds problems with you and rocksound's edits have a "side". Tarc (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Tarc, your comment below shows that you clearly have taken a side. It's a joke to think that a line hasn't been drawn here. You point out below where you think we will get media attention and you mention 2 advocacy sites. You are not here to simply uphold Wikipedia policy. You have taken a side so why not just be honest about it? BruceFisher (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "Rocksound has been actively working to improve the Meredith Kercher article" ... often in the form of lengthy political editorials that brand masses of other users "pro-guilt" (or something to that effect). Interestingly, an uninvolved administrator who reviewed the block did not seem to find a fault with it. SuperMarioMan 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Shocking to see another user with the same views as Tarc regarding the Meredith Kercher article coming here to support the block made by Black Kite(another user with the same views regarding the Meredith Kercher article). Is anyone seeing a pattern here? BruceFisher (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC) BruceFisher, please remember to discuss contributions, not contributors. The WP:ANI discussion relating to User:RockSound has yet to be archived; it would perhaps be more appropriate to raise concerns about an alleged "abuse of power" at that venue. SuperMarioMan 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This seems to be a perfectly good place to talk this over. Rocksound has been wrongfully banned. I really see no benefit of posting on that discussion as you suggest because the decision has already been hastily made. BruceFisher (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Jimbo, you have please got to help put an end to abusive admins on the MOMK article. Black Kite is well known as the most abusive admin who caused many, even most, of the previous problems on the article by blocking and banning editors. They have been gone for months and returned to first thing block yet another editor. This abusive admin needs to be topic banned and in my opinion removed from being an admin because they abuse their powers. There have been a lot of improvements to the article but I have noticed a black slide with the attempt to ban CodyJoeBibby, the successful topic ban of Wikid77 and now block or Rocksound. It is always editors that believe in innocence and never those who think they are guilty that this is done to. There is obvious abusive of power. Mlauba is another abusive admin who showed up on ANI to help topic ban Wikid77. These two editors should be restored and the admin involved at least topic banned from the article. I am also after stating my mind fearful of retaliation by these admins and other editors. What kind of editing atmosphere is this creating for the MOMK article and Wikipedia? Issymo (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "It is always editors that believe in innocence and never those who think they are guilty that this is done to." If this is true then isn't that "caso chiuso" as far as determining whether or not a 'cabal' exists/conspires in order to slant the article in a certain direction, that of "pro guilt"? How is this acceptable? How does this demonstrate "neutrality"? Fancourt (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I am at a loss to know why RockSound has been blocked. I do know that he has been posting rationally and reasonably in recent days and is arguing that the MOMK page should present a clear evidence based picture of this crime and the subsequent continuing trials. There are editors who disagree and are arguing to preserve the page's unbalanced approach. They do so by prevarication and obstruction; by asking for reliable sources and then arguing that every source produced is not reliabe. Eventually they lose patience and block editors who disagree with them as Black Kite has just returned and has done to RockSound. When I made a couple of suggestions a while back, I was accused of being a Sock Puppet, yet I am practically the only editor on the page who is using a real name and can be identified as a real person! This hardly shows good faith. Trying to do anything here is torture. The abuse of power by a clique of editors is breathtaking in its scope and persistence. Why is it that only editors who are trying to improve the page are blocked? No one is trying to block the editors who are happy with a page that continues to spin the case unacceptably. Wikipedia procedures and protocols seem to be impotent in the face of this continuous bullying and abuse of power. Mr Wales, your occasional appearance are welcome, but the culture that infects this page has not changed and I am beginning to think that it never will. There needs to be a proper investigation of everything that has gone on here from day one. If this is not sorted out there is no doubt that sooner or later this controversy will reach a wider audience, to the detriment of the reputation of Wikipedia. NigelPScott (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) The "Friends of Amanda" group and the "Injustice in Perugia" web forum will certainly be in a tizzy, and the two local rags that are sympathetic to your cause...the "West Seattle Herald" and the "Seattle Post-Intelligencer"...will no doubt give you some press. Beyond that? No. You don't seem to understand that the bullying and the abuse have come from the very editors that have been (rightfully) blocked. The oldest trick in the book is for the abusers to themselves cry "abuse!" but here, no one is buying it. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Tarc makes no attempt to hide where he stands with regard to this case. It is quite obvious that he is not a neutral editor. His comment above clearly shows that he is deeply entrenched on one side of the debate. It is no surprise that he supports blocking an editor that disagrees with his position on the article. BruceFisher (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Facepalm That I can identify a group of problematic editors and their off-wiki meat puppet gathering spots does not place me into the "opposition" category. I have said this a dozen times and will say it a dozen more if you need; I do not care what happens to Amanda Knox, guilty or innocent or somewhere in between, I do not wish to see the Wikipedia used for advocacy for any cause. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Say it a few dozen more times, it won't make it true. Your actions contradict your words. Do you think the West Seattle Herald is a gathering place for meatpuppets? You have repeatedly attacked editors on one side. You are an advocate for the other side whether you believe it or not. You are currently advocating for a cause. If you do not wish to see Wikipedia used for advocacy then stop advocating. BruceFisher (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I'll say it as many times as you need to hear it, bud. Once again, finding fault with you and your fellow forum-readers (looks like a lot of traffic over there last night, some interesting reading), does not equate to being "for" the "other side". I'm sure you don't need me to point out just which logical fallacy you're running up against here, do I? Tarc (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Jimbo, it's time to back up those admins who are laboring hard in a difficult cause in the MOMK article by making it clear you do not sit as a court of appeal on them and fully support them as the people who are trying to clean out the Augean stables in a drought year.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Why is it that only editors who are trying to improve the page are blocked? No one is trying to block the editors who are happy with a page that continues to spin the case unacceptably. Perhaps because certain editors who are there for one purpose alone (i.e. to advocate innocence at all costs), who attempt to "improve the page" through a combination of personal attacks, soapboxing, edit-warring and vague legal threats, are generally the ones who can demonstrably be shown to have the least respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines (even when reminded of them) and are therefore - generally - the ones who most merit blocking? Let's just be honest and tell it how it is. SuperMarioMan 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Really? You think that's honest? Why don't you go back and review the language from both sides and make a better judgement call? John and Tarc have repeatedly attacked other users without so much as a warning and there are many other examples. Why did Black Kite, who has had nothing to do with this article in months, come back to make a quick block? It looks like the decision was made instantly. You want to bring up honesty, then stop playing games and be honest. No need to post messages on my talk page reminding me about Wikipedia policy. We can talk right here as adults. BruceFisher (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I don't recall John, Tarc of any of the other users considered to be "pro-guilt" (the definition of which would appear to extend to just about anyone who isn't 100% "pro-innocence") soapboxing, edit-warring or making legal threats. My argument is that a combination of the aforementioned, coupled with frequent personal attacks, merits a block. Why is the fact that Black Kite "had nothing to do with this article in months" such a big problem? Many SPAs at this topic demonstrate a rather similar trend - disappearing for weeks and months at a time and then returning en masse for the latest big debate. Perhaps that too is suspicious. SuperMarioMan 17:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Per my proposal at Black Kite's talkpage I have reblocked and taken responsibility for the sanction of RockSound as a block evading sockpuppet. For the sake of transparency, I acknowledge that I am a British citizen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC) It is good to see someone here with a verifiable identity. Thank you for that, LessHeard vanU. However, it is simplistic for some experienced editors to claim that because many people who are trying to make a contribution may be pro-innocence, that they are trying to ignore the facts and push a particular POV. This is not the case, in my opinion, but they are frustrated because of the consensus of controlling editors who are pro-guilt and unreasonably obstruct the introduction of anything that can give the article balance and accuracy. There is no way that anyone wants the page turned into an Amanda Knox/Raffalele Sollecito innocence campaign piece, but neither should it be skewed against them by continuing to contain multiple inaccuracies and failing to acknowledge the degree of international concern over the prosecution of the case and what it reveals about the failings of the Italian justice system. It was like pulling teeth to even get many editors to accept that this is a controversial case. The NPOV tag was removed without consensus and however you argue it, the only editors who are blocked are those who disagree with the slant of the page. Wikipedia editors should be able to look at this dispassionately. People can be right even if they haven't been editors for twenty years and don't have stacks of badges on their home pages. NigelPScott (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Given the discussion below started by Truth Mom about WP:SPAs, I note that every one those above in favour of having Rocksound unblocked is a also SPA: NigelPScott, BruceFisher, Fancourt and Issymo. Bielle (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, it's been quite a problem for the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic. WP:IDHT issues abound. SuperMarioMan 17:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I'd help out if I could, I have no view on the case in particular and have never edited it, but I have six articles in progress, several reviews, a couple of image hunts and a pending visit to an archives to get ready for. But more importantly, I'm too nervous about tonight's basketball game. If you need an admin on an emergency basis who is guaranteed uninvolved, let me know though.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the kind offer, Wehwalt. Currently there's a discussion/poll about whether or not to re-insert a contested NPOV tag. It could soon turn into quite a storm (no, I'm not joking), and could probably do with someone uninvolved for the purpose of closing it, when the time comes. SuperMarioMan 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I see above that I am being described as an SPA, which I think means single purpose editor. This is not true. I would describe myself as a novice. I have edited another page that has no connection with this at all. On the MOMK page I have never edited at all because I am aware of the sensitivity of the issues and the speed with which edits get reverted if they are not made by certain editors. I do not want to get involved in that. I do have opinions and I have done research which I have demonstrated. The fact that I have not been a long time editor (as I stated above) and I do not have boy scout badges for editing scores of pages, does not make my contributions worthless. I have qualifications and I have a life outside of Wikipedia. In other places people are usually treated with more respect and their contributions are accepted in good faith. NigelPScott (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC) With 2 edits to herpes related articles you're still a SPA. Give me a break.TMCk (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I see somehow I was drug into this as well, (which I would like no part of) for simply asking a question below... thus this is actually confirming the whole battle zone going on, and how even those NOT involved are being drug into it. I am below a novice actually, but that does NOT mean I want to read fighting and bickering constant to read about things regarding Dear Meredith's death. So i would appreciate keeping me OUT of your airing of dirty laundry so to say. Thank you kindly ...--Truth Mom (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) It's strange that you're both taking this as an accusation of something. By calling you an SPA, people are describing your editing patterns. You need not worry yourself with the terms. The fact that you're working yourselves up into a frenzy and seemingly trying to deny something which isn't even an accusation is a bit odd. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I asked below CLEARLY what my concern and more so curiosity was. I dont understand some of this, but I do understand i want NO part of this what I view as a war, I am not sure what this is all accomplishing myself. if you would like to help clarify for me my concerns that would be appreciated greatly : )--Truth Mom (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Please actually read what I said, as your response had nothing to do with the content of my message. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) When will the games end? I have now been accused of being a sock for posting this topic here.[9] I am one of the few people that uses my real name on Wikipedia. Just sweep everyone out that you don't care for. Accuse them all of being sockpuppets and get rid of them. Is that really how Wikipedia is supposed to work? BruceFisher (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) No comment on the "games" allegation and that last question, but using one's real name doesn't necessarily amount to much - after all, isn't much of the internet anonymous? SuperMarioMan 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC) You honestly think I'm a sock? If you say anything other than no then you are playing games. You are well aware that I am not posting under any other name. We have had our disagreements in the past. You like to take little jabs at people(well within Wiki rules of course) just to try and irritate people. You posted a comment on my talk page yesterday for no reason at all. Go ahead, clean house. Get rid of everyone that gets in your way. Wikipedia will slowly deteriorate with people like you, Tarc, John, Black Kite, and others at the helm. BruceFisher (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I was just trying to make a general statement about editing, actually. I've certainly never believed you to be a sockpuppet. SuperMarioMan 04:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) If you don't believe that I am a sockpuppet then for the good of Wikipedia I would expect to see your support regarding that accusation; or do you only speak up for those you generally agree with? BruceFisher (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain what this is about?

Let's try to focus on content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I know it has been sometime since I have spoke with you. KIDS!!!!!!! is the reason :). I was wondering if you could take a moment to help me to figure out what this list is and why I am on this. Who is this list for, and what is it about? I have no clue why my name appears on here, Why am I on the list. What did I do? or why names are collected by this user from the Meredith article for this purpose or what purpose. Is this a normal situation, or can you possibly explain what its about to me? [[10]]Thank you kindly ....... --Truth Mom (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Truth Mom I have had a look at that list and I'm also not sure what it's about. As the list is run by User:Pablo I've posted on his talk page to let him know of your query here.--5 albert square (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your response, I am not good at editing, but I can read. I am working with children of school age doing a variety of things regarding this case. It was all brought to my attention, when I noticed a constant fight like playground bullying going on. Wiki, is something that is under the name of Mr. Wales, and I am sure this is not the path he has hoped for it to take. I also just took notice of the section above this, there you have it, thats the same as the talk page of Dear Meredith's murder. Very sad, to see such a thing taking place :( --Truth Mom (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) It would appear from the title of Pablo's page that it is a list of WP:SPA accounts in which he has take an interest. A SPA account is one in which the user takes little or no interest in Wikipedia except for a single article or series of related articles. Sometimes that can be problematical as the commentary about the numbers that have been blocked for contentious and/or non-neutral editing. Bielle (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Just because one does NOT edit, does NOT mean one does NOT use Wiki and many articles for reference.The fact this one was brought up, and I spoke up, as the constant fighting on it, in which I had watched for along time, throughout this case, ( and this fighting is not on others I have used ) that I have directed children to use as a place for information. There is no law is there that I have to edit in order to discuss on a talk page is there? So the posting of my name in a list is baffling, no one really has no idea what articles I am interested in, in order to make accusations of me correct? Because there are many I do follow as well. :) I feel its just another avenue being taken to cause more playground bullying again. I have no desire to play that game. --Truth Mom (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I should have been more specific: a Single Purpose Account is one which is used to edit a single article or related range of articles, narrowly defined. Of course, no one can tell what articles any of us read or use otherwise for reference. The pertinent section from the linked page is: Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy. For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and SPAs carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Bielle (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying. :) I actually have NEVER edited that article to be quite honest. In fact all this fighting was brought to my attention, by a group of 14 year old kids. How ironic is that? So then I sat back watching it all, have you ever sat back on a playground and just never said or done anything but watch? It does not take long to see who is what and what is a group of bully's and who are the ones trying to dominate, and who is trying just simply to play, but the bully's are not happy without adding dominating ways and having control? When they can't push one around, they call in back up.. ones who have a pack type mentality to not really have a clue what the beef is, just know they are being called upon, and "hey ya Im going to push you just because so and so didn't get their way " Well i have clearly seen it and I have still refrained from speaking of what is what and who is really who and involved....I have even tried to discuss some stuff on the talk page...there were a few that were very kind and while I appreciate that and them, there are some that really.... it is not even worth trying to talk there..... they just want to shove to show their power. I have a saying I live by.... "When people really show you who they are... believe it. As people may or may not remember what you said or what you did, but they will never forget how you made them feel "...... It has all really opened my eyes to Wiki and what it is that is for sure. I have the same respect for Mr. Wales as I came with, but something needs to be seriously handled with that whole hornets nest. This is an issue that a turned cheek should NOT be the outcome.--Truth Mom (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I believe that talk page edits with respect to the article count as part of a "narrow range" of editing. :-) Bielle (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "Truth mom" has indeed never edited the article, she has instead been careful to keep the focus narrowly on appealing to Jimbo Wales to intervene on the subject matter. We'd have to look through the talk page archives, but I am fairly certain that it was this editor who initially brought the infamous "open letter" to his attention a few months ago. No less a part of the overall problem than any of the other single-purpose accounts, though. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Actually it was someone else, ( don't recall the name) that brought it to his attention. Not myself, as I actually read it here as well on this page. Not sure how you locate that, but it is there in writing I am sure of, and being the valued proficient editor that you are, rather then one without the knowledge to locate those things, like myself, I am sure it is possible to see that. But again, I am not getting into the argument stage with you. I had a question for Mr. Wales, I brought it where I felt comfortable, and asked. Some others were trying kindly to help me understand all this, just as SuperMario, Ben and a few others have done in the past. --Truth Mom (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) So who was this then? --John (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I just did a review of this page's archives on the matter of the "Open letter". The list of names of editors that appears in your comment, Truth Mom, in January of 2011 is identical (including commentary) to the one you are now questioning at User:Pablo X/spa except that Pablo X's list was started in September of 2010 and there has been in-line commentary since that date, as well as new names which appear (out of alphabetical order) at the bottom of your "shared list". It would appear, then, as if you have previous experience of this list -used it, in fact. Truth Mom is one of the new names. Bielle (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Added to that, in the diff John cites above, Truth Mom states "I myself was previously blocked in a single first posting sometime back" - yet Truth Mom's block log is clear. pablo 19:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Would "block-evading sock puppet" be too harsh? Bielle (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yes. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Consider it unsaid then. (And if somebody could tell me where "strikeout" has been hidden on the Edit screen, I would actually do that.) Bielle (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Just place <s> before and </s> after what you'd like to strike out (although I don't think you have to to be honest).TMCk (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I try to err on the side of kindness, but thank you for your support. Bielle (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC) And you made a good choice. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Woah. That's certainly interresting and I'm sure user:Truth Mom can explain it by simply reveiling the (then?) blocked account!? Just like you we too prefer the truth so here is a start for you.TMCk (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC) The fact then, as I am new as stated was I was not logged in is the reason I couldn't edit, and this is my point now on the list. That list I had found previous and now I am on it is the point. Lets not carry this out of the sort again WHAT IS THIS LIST? So .. look all you want, I am not a sock.. I am not a block invader, I am a Mom, and I am a concerned one on the fact that a school has now banned the use of Wiki for students to research over the arguments ways that now I am seeing. I am me and that is that. It is pretty simple, and now that a frenzy has been worked up, Thank you all for the kind welcome to a novice user. Ill be happy to give my IP , phone number or whatever you would like to check me. Same email for the last 25 years even. --Truth Mom (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC) What is the list? Well, Bielle answered that some time ago: "It would appear from the title of Pablo's page that it is a list of WP:SPA accounts in which he has take an interest." There's not much needs adding to that, seems straightforward to me. I'm pleased that you have found it useful on more than one occasion. pablo 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Im pleased you found a need to add me to it, may I donate my phone number to it as well? The fact I was on it was my curiosity, all though I now know what a SPA is.. and had no clue before, I must admit it is a false title. There are many articles in which I use this site for, some may even be things you would enjoy as well :) So single purpose account user really does NOT apply to me, but i am glad you came and clarified your point of it, as well as the others. The reason I posted on Mr. Wales talk page, was I was actually asking him the question :) Thank you so kindly...--Truth Mom (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC) No thank you, I do not want your phone number. Your editing shows that yours is a single-purpose account. Jimbo Wales' talk page is watched my many people, and is open to anyone to edit, any question you post here may receive answers from other people too. I'm not sure what "The fact then, as I am new as stated was I was not logged in is the reason I couldn't edit, and this is my point now on the list" means, can you clarify? pablo 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Of course I can, I am a normal person if you would take the time to find out. Many have had to help me and walk me through doing things. I could not edit as I was not logged in and my account was not, I think you call it confirmed ? Correct? at the time. This is why I thought I was blocked. When I had commented prior to that I was unaware to click save page. When I got back here it showed that thread had been closed and a sign on it DO NOT EDIT so I didnt touch it. Not that I even knew how. I to be honest am not sure still what the deal is with the list, but Im done asking, if you want me on it, then go for it. I know I am not here to argue, I have got along with everyone if you read around what I have posted, I am so sorry, that I was respectful enough to only talk on talk pages and not edit articles, feeling it should be done by those qualified something I do not feel I am, so if I am on a list for being respectful and thinking it is best not to touch things I am not sure of, then thats what it is. I hope that answers your questions :) --Truth Mom (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) If I could ask a follow up question, was the difficulty that you were having at the MOMK article or some other article (s)? We do have a help desk and ample resources for the new user.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) It was with Wiki as a whole. I appreciate your direction to those resources. The few I have spoke with on my talk page and theirs have been very helpful. --Truth Mom (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Pablo X... just for the record, I have edited on another article. I have been working to learn Wiki and how to get the information and pictures uploaded and into it, for my best friend Mr. Jay J. Armes. That information should be easy to locate, but the question is still, why am I on a list you hold of blocked users and such? Can you please answer that specifically?--Truth Mom (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) It is a list of single-purpose accounts which I keep for reference. Some are blocked, some are not. pablo 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Ok Great and Thank you kindly, I am proud to be a SPA and so happy I made your list : ) Have a wonderful evening/day :)--Truth Mom 05:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

donate

wikipedia should accept donations in bitcoins, like the EFF--190.195.54.103 (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The EFF isn't accepting bitcoins now as they've removed the option from their donation page. Technically though, they still have an address you can send bitcoins to.Smallman12q (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets block TruthMom for being new and trying to figure this all out...

Let's try to focus on content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking ill start a new topic on this since it seems to be an issue below and cluttering my topic question which was in reference to 'why am I on that list with all those blocked editors?' and getting off track. Apparently me figuring out that I can't edit without being logged in is a major issue for some. Thank you kindly --Truth Mom (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) You are on a list of WP:SPA editors, some of whom have been blocked because of their editing behaviours. (This is the first time, however, you have mentioned that it is because some of the names on the list have been blocked -in fact were blocked when you first quoted the list- that the list is of concern to you.) You have explained that though you once claimed to have been blocked, you were merely logged out and "unconfirmed". (I even struck out my comment about "block-evading sock puppet" on the grounds of kindness -and this was before you explained what had happened.) As far as I can see, your explanation has been fully accepted; I freely confirm that it is something that could, quite easily, have happened to any new, and not-so-new, user. Bielle (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you kindly.... I did think it was going a bit far. I am NEW i admit it, I am courteous to all, and all I ask is the same in return. I am still human and have np with anyone asking me stuff or taking a moment to say hey I am willing to help you to figure it out. I would think everyone was new at one point. --Truth Mom (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Experience has taught me that virtually all editors who include the word "truth" in their usernames are troublemakers, and that there would be little collateral damage from blocking such editors on sight. You are helping to confirm the validity of that belief. It's time to stop trolling. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) That was a really rude comment and not welcoming in the least. You should apologize. Truth Mom seems like a nice lady to me. A lot of mothers care about this case because they know this situation could have happened to anyones children. Issymo (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Does “this situation” include being a murder victim? Frankly, I don't care whether a contributor is a mother, a father, or a hedonist hermaphrodite. There has been quite enough emotional blackmail, and appeal to maternal/paternal instincts already. How about discussing facts instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Jesus christ, appeal to emotion much? This is just getting surreal. Tarc (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you so kindly :)--Truth Mom (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC) When I was a kid When I was a kid, my father would say that if we can't stop fighting over something, he'd take the the item away and then no one would be able to play with it. How about we delete Murder of Meredith Kercher and Santorum (neologism) articles? Probably Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes, too. These are articles that clearly, we as a community, are not mature enough to handle. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) WP:THISISWHYWECANTHAVENICETHINGS ? Tarc (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC) ...And while we are at it, List/Category of ethnicity X/nationality Y's, and all the other arbitrary intersections and combinations thereof. I think Wikipedia would be much better if it consisted solely of members of the category Stuff you'd expect to find in an online encyclopaedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Actually with all the complaining I'm seeing about both those article's everywhere, Quest's suggestion is sounding pretty good these days. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I think it is a win-win. We lose the clouds of lunatics on both sides of the issue, and average writing quality goes up once the article's deleted. Shall we IAR?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I think this could actually be a great solution. These articles consume a huge amount of energy that would be better spent elsewhere. Nanobear (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I think if anyone went ahead and did it, the community would back them. However, I worry about what the media would think of us "Wikipedia, aricles on everything*" "*Except difficult subjects".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Finally might find something to agree on. Issymo (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I agree with the above 10000% This is the best thing I have read all day... Logic is speaking clearly here .. --Truth Mom 03:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, the fact of the matter is, there are a few subjects that the Wikipedia just isn't set up to handle well, shouldn't try, and by trying adds a net decrease in total information. Herostratus (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC) The best solution has always been to delete the Meredith Kercher article. This idea has been suggested several times and shot down. The Wikipedia format is clearly not suited for this type of article. Anyone who is well educated on this case that tries to edit is accused of being an advocate by those who have little to no knowledge of the case. If the media gets it wrong then Wikipedia gets it wrong, it's that simple. That's not acceptable for an article of this nature. BruceFisher (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

An IP that seems to need to be blocked...

I wish to report |68.9.137.145. This ip has somehow been given last warnings multiple times. For me, whenever someone gets a last warning, the next offense would be the block. Since he has done so much EEEEVIIIIEEELLLLL evil for Wikipedia, why don't we just block him already? LikeLakers2 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place for such a request. Try the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. -- Avanu (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Username "Jimbo"

Hi Jimbo. Is it allowed to use the username "Jimbo" in any other Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. --88.251.9.227 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Can you be more specific? I would say that in general, no, that isn't a good username, but if someone is already using it and not doing anything harmful, I'm not too wound up about it. Of course anyone using it to impersonate would be blocked immediately, I am sure.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, is your first name James or Jimmy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:LoliWikipetan.jpg

Just a notice that an image you deleted has an undeletion discussion occurring at Commons: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg. (Was closed as "email me if you have questions"). – Adrignola talk 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was great meeting you on Monday

It was great to get to meet you at Georgetown on Monday, and to hear you and Andrea Weckerle speak about civility online. Next time you're in DC, we need to get the regular DC meetup group together and do a dinner meetup with you! SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

New Export formats

Exuse me for my bad english. I am a User from it.wiki, and I own an eBook reader. I do often download some wiki pages to read them offline, but it seems to me that .pdf download is not that useful. Will it be possible to download wiki pages in .epub extention? 87.8.127.128 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)