User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

There are also active user talk pages for User:Jimbo Wales on Commons and Meta. Please choose the most relevant.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index

–index–

This manual archive index may be out of date.
Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

(Manual archive list)

Florida's 9th district

Perhaps someone can help me call this problem to the attention of the right group of interested people. This map is significantly different from what we have at Florida's 9th congressional district and is pointed to by the State of Florida website. Additionally, the representative for the 9th district, Alan Grayson, lives in Orlando, suggesting the official map is correct and ours is wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one from flsenate.gov appears to be a plan for re-districting from 2012. Not a map of the actual districts at that time. The one we have appears to be a 'this is how the districts are' map at the time it was used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map from prior to 2012 courtesy of the Fish & Wildlife service appears to show it in the same place as us. Senate plan for redistricting dated Jan 2012 shows as complete. So as far as I am aware 9 should now be in the middle and ours is out of date. Which probably means all our Florida congressional district maps are out of date. Although since the FWS are too, cant really blame us ;) Although the article itself has been updated with the info that the congressman has changed due to redistricting, but no one changed the pic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now 27 congressional districts in 6(?) maps: That official flsenate.gov/Session/Redistricting document notes the plan as completed on January 25, 2012 (last year), with Florida having 27 congressional districts (expanded from 25). The document also lists 6 PDF maps which seem to cover all 27 districts:

Northwest: H000C9047_map_nw.pdf
Big Bend: H000C9047_map_bb.pdf
Southwest: H000C9047_map_sw.pdf
Northeast: H000C9047_map_ne.pdf
East central: H000C9047_map_ec.pdf
Southeast: H000C9047_map_se.pdf

Those maps should provide a sanity check for each of the 27 districts, as with number 9, "Florida's 9th congressional district" or "Florida's 15th..." etc. Then check back in a few days to see if maps were revised in June 2013. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Began updating maps for renumbered districts: It took me a while to get over the shock of the new locations of the 10th, 12th and 9th district (moved from the west half to east half of the Florida peninsula), but I finally wrote a description of the new 9th congressional district, as located from Orlando down around Osceola County. I re-captioned the old map as the "Former 9th district" and created an interim map box to show the new 9th district, until public-domain maps can be uploaded. There has been talk that the Florida state-government maps are "public domain" (PD), but we had trouble with claims that Italian police crime-scene photos are PD when I think "fair-use" is more accurate, and so the Florida state-govt maps might need to avoid Commons and be kept on WP as fair-use images. Meanwhile, I will put interim maps in articles where boundaries shifted the most:

Florida's 9th congressional district - cities were ok but added interim map & noted counties
Florida's 25th congressional district - adding an interim map for raised location
Florida's 26th congressional district - adding an interim map as new district
Florida's 27th congressional district - adding interim map as new

Jimbo, I am glad you spotted the problems because it might have been years before the maps were adequately updated, to note the massive relocations of some of Florida's congressional districts, while the U.S. NationalAtlas maps are still outdated. What a nightmare. -Wikid77 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some coding tasks that would help make things easier. First, we should have a map "reprojector" which lets you mark the location of a half dozen coordinates on any Wikipedia map and then gives you back a version that is reprocessed to whatever coordinate system you prefer. Next (or combined with this) we should have a map reader that takes data like those Florida maps, automatically recognizes the big colored areas, and turns them into SVG profiles according to their latitude/longitude (as transformed for the desired system). I've made a crude start at the third step with Module:MapClip which can zoom in on a piece of a large set of maps. Fourth, by overlaying multiple images with transparency (or computer generating divs directly from the SVG coordinates using Lua) it should be possible to rework arbitrary road map + congressional districts coordinate data into decent maps of the congressional districts. Hopefully the latitude and longitude coordinates of the congressional district boundaries are not copyrighted, even though there are few artistic works that involve more creativity and scheming in their creation! Wnt (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using "concept diagrams" of congressional districts: To avoid any copyright issues, although rare, I am merely highlighting the boundaries of whole Florida counties in those districts and then displaying reddish square boxes, superimposed live, on adjacent areas in each district. Because squares are non-copyrighted "shapes" then showing the district boundaries, as rough shapes, is fine until we get U.S. Govt maps as public-domain images. -Wikid77 22:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florida district articles were accurate but labels misleading: As would be expected after the U.S. national elections in 2012, the contents of the Wikipedia articles for the 27 congressional districts of Florida were accurate, in descriptions, but the map captions gave the misleading impression of being outdated, by saying "District of 2003 to 2013" which seems to mean "2013" as being current maps for this year. Instead, I have been rewording the captions as, "Former district 2003–2012" to omit 2013 and avoid confusion about 2013 being the current date of the maps. Ironically, those district maps had been added on "28 December 2012" just 4 days before they all became obsolete for 2013, despite no maps in those articles during the past 10 years when the maps would be showing the current boundaries. All around, it was a "series of unfortunate events" to put maps in those 27 district articles, with misleading labels, just 4 days before the maps became obsolete, after 10 years with no maps when they would have been appropriate. Anyway, the basic content of the articles has been accurate, and "all is well" (or getting better) in the world of Wikipedia pages about Florida districts. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created color-square images to highlight map areas: An unexpecting side-effect of trying to provide current maps, for the 27 congressional districts of Florida, has been the creation of standard "color squares" to overlay and indicate areas on the district maps. Despite 10 years of map images, there were no obvious "red-square" or "white-square" images to overlay onto maps (but hundreds of special variations). Hence, I have created obvious name "File:Red_square.gif" (for "") on Commons, to work with any browser, while wondering why no one ever created "File:Red_square.svg" or "File:Red_square.png" as other obvious image-names to display a red square. I think other people have likely created some complex mapping techniques which require special knowledge to navigate, such as the train-route diagrams (wp:RDT). Anyway, those simple blue-square (etc.) images can be overlayed to highlight parts of maps, as when the official map might not be a public-domain image yet. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map all

Discovered Firefox map alignment differs from edit-preview when saved (fixed 26 June 2013?): As if there weren't enough MediaWiki user-interface problems, now I have discovered the map div-sections (this week) shift up/down after being edit-saved for Firefox browsers, as noticed when I was working on creating rough district maps for Florida's 27 congressional districts. After all the other, chaotic user-interface nightmares, then I don't mind shifting some map markers up/down to anticipate different alignments after being edit-saved, as being 2-pixel height lower when seen in edit-preview of map alignments. However, it makes me wonder just how much user-interface mush could new users tolerate before being driven away. I am really seeing strong evidence of why computer managers have warned for decades: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" because computer systems tend to always be more complicated than the available manpower at hand, needed to correct the hideous problems caused by rampant changes to computer software. It takes many days with many people to verify all operations after major changes are made. Firefox browsers showing a shifted alignment between edit-preview and edit-save of map div-sections is a clear example of how bad it can get. -Wikid77 00:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recaptioned old maps "former...2012" but few new maps: I just changed most of the district articles to recaption the old map as "former nth district, in 2003 to 2012" because I was distracting by fighting the misalignment bug in Firefox browser where the new map div-sections edit-preview as 2-pixel higher than edit-save (fixed 26 June 2013?). Fortunately, the bug only appeared in Firefox, while tests with MSIE show the map's div-section alignment is the same for both edit-preview & edit-save. If preview alignment cannot be fixed, then I'll write another error-essay to explain the 2-pixel higher edit-preview in Firefox, such as with essay "wp:98% table width anomaly". -Wikid77 23:41/15:55, 25 June, 05:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Map-alignment bug seems fixed, so all is well: After extensive tests on 26 June 2013 (all-day), I could not re-create the week's map div-section alignment bug (2-pixel up/down shift) in Firefox browser, so I conclude it was fixed. Hence, there are no other problems with updating Florida's 27 congressional district articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden editing?

I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere. In the media there have been reports of user accounts used on various tech discussion sites by Edward Snowden. He was apparently quite an active person online, particularly a few years back when he was younger. It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what usernames he used on other websites? I expect they might have the same name as a possible account on Wikipedia. However, I'm curious as to why we need to know? — Richard BB 08:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we 'need' to know. I'm just curious, and I imagine many other people would be as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we care? This violates our outing policy, so please desist from attempting to connect Snowden to some Wikipedia account. Being "just curious" is no reason to out somebody. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the relevant statement published in Slate: 'Snowden's comments on the tech website were discovered by Anthony DeRosa after Reuters reported that the now-famous leaker had previously used the online handle "The True HOOHA" on an anime site. From there, it wasn't exactly a leap to his Ars username of "TheTrueHOOHA."' Slate Ars Technica, Independent, UK, and New York Times also cover the known facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any account on Wikipedia named either TheTrueHOOHA (talk · contribs) or The True HOOHA (talk · contribs), so I think that's probably not the case. — Richard BB 09:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression as well. I was mostly wondering, as per the original inquiry, whether this has been discussed extensively somewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI involving this conversation and a "high profile admin"(Jimbo Wales) has been started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attempted_outing_of_Edward_Snowden Dream Focus 10:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be in the minority opinion here but as long as he hasn't violated any of our rules or policies I don't really care if he does edit. I also think its likely that he has done so but I don't think its really relevant. Kumioko (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Didn't take long for that one to explode into a big ol' ball of drama. Checking some of Snowden's aliases, I found one account that I'm curious about. Probably not him, and I guess I can't name it anyway. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be intimidated - that drama isn't about Snowden, it's about drama for the sake of drama. If you aren't sure it would be appropriate to make it public, please do feel free to email me so that I can assess it. It seems likely that this is of interest to reporters as well, and so I think it is important that we be prepared with a full understanding of the facts. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that your original post appears to be an invitation to ask people to post here information that risks Snowden's outing. That could have been a slip of the keyboard, but then your response when the outing issue was directly raised seems to suggest that it was intentional and you do not care if your question encouraged people to post such information. Do you think it is acceptable for people to speculate or provide evidence here of Snowden's WP identity? If you do, why isn't that outing? If you don't, why did you take the risk? DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 'outing' when the user ids in question are already published widely in the media in reliable sources. I looked for a couple of variant spellings and found nothing, so I asked to see if others could find anything. I think it is not only acceptable but highly desirable for people to openly discuss such matters. If someone discovers or knows something that they feel would be inappropriate to post publicly, then they should send it to me privately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We at the NSA applaud our friend Mr. Wales's ingenious suggestion for Wikipedia users to "email" him "privately" with information on our friend Mr. Snowden. We hereby reassure Wikipedia users that we shall of course fully respect the privacy of the emails, in accordance with long-established NSA practice. Writegeist (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Execept "Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?" (my emphasis) doesn't really convey that. I didn't read your post as saying has anyone in the media identified Snowden's account, if so what did it say. If that's what you're saying (as opposed to "let's do our own digging"), then I have no problem DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for drama, but your comments could be seen as a call to action to out him, Jimmy. You are aware of how literal some will take your comments. Journalists are free to do what we aren't supposed to do as Wikipedians. Clearing that up might make some of the drama go away. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage people to engage in an open discussion of publicly available information relating to this issue. I strongly discourage anyone from engaging in outing. Those who would seek to block even a conversation about this are mistaken. Wikipedia must always thrive on open and honest discussion and transparency.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another website said that in addition to "The True Hooha" that he also used "Phish".--v/r - T P 12:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources aren't infallible. My concern is that one typo and one enthusiastic editor can create a lot of pain for an innocent party here. The potential for harm shouldn't be underestimated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's another good reason why we should have all the facts subject to careful scrutiny.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I don't really understand what is to be achieved by all this, other than "isn't that interesting". If someone discovers that User:xyz is Snowden then what? Look to see if he's dropped some revelatory WP:OR into an article! It doesn't feel like what we're here for. DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops, User:xyz exists. Just to be clear that was meant to be random and no claim that that user is Snowden DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, you send mixed messages when you encourage us to out a Wikipedia editor just because he's in the news. I think it would be more appropriate for you to start this type of discussion at Wikipediocracy. That's one of the reasons that site exists, to discuss WP in a place where you don't have to worry about coming into conflict with WP's bizarre policies and the arbitrary administrative actions that half-heartedly enforce those policies. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm sending any mixed message at all. To the extent that Wikipedia has "bizarre" policies, we should discuss them here - openly - and change them here. How would you propose changing policy in this instance?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, how about a BLP policy that prevents this sort of thing from appearing in a hugely viewed BLP -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specific change do you suggest? I mean, such an edit is already against BLP policy, so what tweak or modification to policy do you think might best prevent it. I strongly support (as do many people) liberal semi-protection of BLPs of controversial people, particularly at a time when they are actively in the news. Are you thinking that we should strengthen the language around that? Seems reasonable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales:I strongly agree that articles like Snowden's should be semi-protected. The fact that it's not currently is baffling. I've encountered various instances in the past where admins have refused to semi-protect an article "pre-emptively". In an instance such as this, I think pre-emptive semi-protection is essential; would you not agree? — Richard BB 15:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi-protected it for a month, so hopefully there will be less of that for a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing the purpose of connecting Snowden to a Wikipedia account. You've taken "fight the man" stance on SOPA and related issues in the past, so even if you did uncover an account here used by him, wouldn't you want that fact kept from Big Government? Tarc (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the logic in that at all. I'm not talking about outing - I'm talking about a public discussion of public facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (e/c)I don't think it is wise to invite something like this for discussion on such a widely tracked page. Outing can occur even if not intended. If we make a mistake, that person might be forced to out himself to prove he is NOT Snowden and that is not acceptable. Part of what I truly admired about Wikipedia's coverage of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was that the community actively prevented and ignored discussion about identities both IRL and digital until definitively proven. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - People around here have gotten blocked or banned for mentioning/linking to "public discussion of public facts" when they exposed the real name of a Wikipedia editor, so there is some hypocrisy in seeking it here. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the context of Wikipedia Snowden is also an innocent party. The request to dig up Snowden's identity, (clear call for outing as far as I can understand) and the subsequent clarification is unfortunate. Talk pages too have a purpose: "To discuss how to build a better encyclopaedia", I don't see how this discussion meets that criterion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally think in general Snowden is an "innocent party" - a hero, in fact. Discussion of questions surrounding identity, famous people in the news, editing of Wikipedia, and so on are all well within the scope of discussions about how to improve the encyclopedia. One of the important roles that we play in the world is to encourage and emphasize openness, honesty, and transparency.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What value would information such as: "Snowden is user:X", even when it is sourced from the most reliable sources have? Wouldn't we need Snowden himself (as declared in a reliable source) to associate with a particular account in order that we may use that information in his biography or elsewhere on this project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not everyone shares your views of him and linking the wrong editor to him here can cause a lot of grief for that editor by those same people. If Snowden wants to link his real identity to his account here (as I have) then he can. Again, the potential for harm to innocent parties is palpable here. The fact that we may accidentally violate an editor's privacy if they really are Snowden exists as well. I don't think an extended discussion (or fishing expedition) on who is or isn't Snowden is the wisest course of action, particularly when the only benefit is seemingly to feed an intellectual curiosity. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jimbo...I have checked the editing history of a dozen likely articles and nothing is popping out with red flags. Maybe he just used an IP to edit if he ever even did edit.--MONGO 13:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. If anything turns up, please do let me know. Probably best to do so privately given the high emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People, please try to keep /some/ level of sanity on what is probably on of the most 'public' places on Wikipedia, ok? Saying "Has this been discussed?" is so far from a request for 'outing' that even /trying/ to read that into it verges on the ridiculous.....it's far easier to read it as "Have there been any discussions of this that I should be aware of since that /might/ violate outing policies?" My 'reading' at least somewhat acknowledges what Jimbo actually wrote..... just because he's the 'founder' doesn't mean people can violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA by 'assuming' something that's a distant stretch... Please drop the 'accusational' BS and act like adults, ok? Revent (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ravent, but I'm accustomed to it by now. It wouldn't be Wikipedia sometimes without the drama. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA will by now know exactly which accounts and IP addresses have been used by Snowden. There are likely quite a few CIA informers active here, and they could be instructed to assist the CIA to help track down Snowden. E.g. by provoking him to edit the NSA can find out his present location. Count Iblis (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that he's in the company (according to news reports) of legal support from Wikileaks, I think that's unlikely at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else not think it's a bit absurd that this debate is still going on considering we don't even know if he's even edited Wikipedia? The fact that users have actually now started searching edit histories for various different articles in an attempt to track down someone who quite possibly never even edited this site is a bit ridiculous. — Richard BB 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seems like an interest story more than a problem. Albacore (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hum....Seems pretty unlikely that a techie would have not edited this website...a number of covert operatives like me might find such edits interesting...but I actually did some checking weeks ago and nothing overt popped up.--MONGO 14:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's worthwhile information. It's good to know that people have looked and haven't found anything obvious. Even that little bit is helpful to know.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone gets hooked on Wikipedia...so if I had to venture a guess I'd say yes he edited and probably only in passing and unregistered. Anymore than that such as possible username(s) will send you an email.--MONGO 15:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I just forwarded you an email I got this morning. I'm not sure if it's related or not, or if it could turn into something that's related or not. FWIW - Dusti^*poke* 16:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say I'm a bit puzzled, Jimbo, on why you believe Mr. Snowden is a "hero". Now, as a minority I know that civil disobedience is necessary for the common good every once in awhile when a law is unjust, and that "I was following orders" is not a reason for allowing people to do despicable things and neither is it a reason to keep things secret.... but Mr. Snowden broke the law, he is not being framed or railroaded, he committed treason, allegedly. Now it would be one thing if he came forth, said I want a trial, I want to state my side in court, I want the people to know I am not ashamed. But he fled, he goes to countries and/or seeks asylum in countries not on the best terms with the US when it comes to extradition (Russia and Ecuador). To me, whatever you may thing of what he originally did, how he has carried himself since makes him a coward. I leave you with this thought- the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. never hid after breaking the Jim Crow segregation laws or marching on Selma. He stood up, he got arrested, he spent time in jail. Would he or Rosa Parks be revered if they fled and hid? No, they stood up, they worked against the system by using the system. Snowden is a coward, not a hero. Dr. King is a hero.Camelbinky (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Jimbo called Snowden a hero. Did I miss something? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I personally think in general Snowden is an "innocent party" - a hero, in fact." is what Jimbo said.Camelbinky (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like that some people want to stand up to the NSA spying on us. But Snowden gave us the people a 41-slide Powerpoint presentation, through a media source that gave us a grand total of 4 slides. The Chinese government, on the other hand, have reported "drained" the contents of four laptops. [1] I mean, it's one thing begging for crumbs from the table but here we're scarcely even smelling the food. Somebody tell us how much insider trading goes on when people know everybody who is talking to anybody, what it means when they say "you talk, Sync listens", or precisely _how_ the Chinese drained those laptops, maybe I'll be in a better mood about it. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, let me try to lift your mood. The article you link actually says that Western intelligence agents (not even Western Intelligence Agencies, much less Western Governments) had suggested that "agents had likely drained the contents". Do you consider "Eastern intelligence agents" (or indeed, Eastern governments) less likely to be reliable than Western governments or Western intelligence agencies or Western intelligence agents? If so, why?

Or were you asking about the exact means by which data could be copied, perhaps still encrypted, from an "encrypted laptop"? If so, either me or ErrantX may be able to expand on that, but is this actually what you are asking? Either way, if someone did so, they opened the luggage bags to do it. Trust me on that.

As for 4 slides of 41, ask the media source!

While I'm here, I think someone suggested the Chinese government encouraged or aided or abetted Snowden's movements. That's a rather naive view, and it's worth looking at the BBC's various analyses (and even The Register's various analyses) to see why. Beijing and Hong Kong are two different systems (one country, lol). Neither the people in Beijing nor the people in Hong Kong want an equivalent of an Assange-in-Embassy nuisance on their territory. What the BBC (a reliable source) put forward is that it's likely the Hong Kong government, with or without encouragement from Beijing, suggested to Snowden that either he find someplace other than Hong Kong to spend his time, or else they might get all co-operative with the Americans. And thus the departure. They didn't want to help him, they just wanted him to leave.

Russia is likely to take the same view. While they don't want to be pandering to the Americans, neither do they want the guy hanging around their territory and making a diplomatic conundrum for them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hard to believe that someone could fly through Russia without a valid passport and be taken down to some ... thorough... questioning, nor that their laptop wouldn't be searched. (Even Customs agents have been known to do that). I don't really trust the intelligence agencies but it's hard for me to believe they didn't have a way to drain the laptops ... otherwise why didn't they demand them at gunpoint to, um I dunno, "preserve the evidence"? (Just as a way of helping out, you know) I certainly am in no position to know, but I'd bet the number of backdoors in a Chinese made laptop (how many aren't) rivals a Texas cantina. They have built-in network cards, other potential transmissions... I'm thinking there must be a way to conceal passwords and perhaps even substantial amounts of unencrypted data. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there had been talk in US news that he might reveal more secrets than "(self-)righteous whistleblowing" as a tech guy who was trouble-shooting (and copying?) various computer network nodes around those offices, and it reminds me of the issue, years ago about the stealth-propellers on submarines (to evade sonar detection), where the design specs were traded "sleeping with the enemy" and they learned how the stealth propellers sounded on sonar, plus learned how to machine similar propellers themselves. However, if it adds any comfort, when I was travelling in rural China, those people seemed the friendliest I had ever met, even to laugh with a Chinese army officer who was also "huffing and puffing" when climbing the entire rebuilt section of the Great Wall of China. But, I did wonder what did the Chinese gov't gain by giving Snowden safe passage at the risk of alienating the US arrest order and his revoked US passport status. I guess we could update some related articles on tactics of "Treason" and "Bribery" unless that would be aiding and abetting the enemy. At least to better explain a "loose cannon". -Wikid77 (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, are some people really suggesting that committing treason and leaking classified government documents is OK and should be excused from conviction of what is clearly a crime (or do you doubt that it is a crime?...)?????? I'm confused by people's reactions over Mr. Snowden's actions and that somehow the American public has a right to know things the government does not wish to tell us... There is no Constitutional provision that the government must be transparent and open and tell us EVERYTHING; there are sunshine laws at the Federal and state levels and provisions that allow FOIA requests (but again, you must ASK and you aren't always told "sure"); but those are laws and not Constitutional rights that are undeniable. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of self-expression, freedom of assembly, these rights, and any "penumbra" you can infer from their existence do not collectively give people or organizations the right to force information out from the government or make it legal to do so. The press has the right to not be interfered with when reporting, but the government is not required to do their job for them and hand over information; and there are, as with any Constitutional rights some common sense reasons that Congress and the courts have put restrictions on speech and the press (cant yell fire in a crowded theater, libel laws for some examples). And I haven't even gotten into the point that technically from the viewpoint of how the Constitution was originally written and interpreted prior to Marbury v. Madison that technically anything that Congress passes into law is by definition constitutional, it was the purpose of the President's veto to be used only to veto things he in his opinion thought was unconstitutional, and if Congress disagreed they could override; the Supreme Court was not envisioned to interfere; and Congress can theoretically and has many times actually threatened at any moment strip the Supreme Court of its self-appointed power of judicial review permanently or on a law-by-law case, though that could cause a constitutional crises. But I digress greatly, and I apologize. The point is- the law is the law and there is no right to knowledge about what the government does, ironic that both true liberals and conservatives agree that Mr. Snowden was in the wrong but it is the faux-liberal (actually libertarians, and libertarians are by no stretch liberals!) and the faux-conservatives (actually anti-anything that happens under President Obama's watch) who are the ones who are on Mr. Snowden's sideCamelbinky (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC) (As a historical aside- Congress did in fact put several Reconstruction laws out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in fear the SC would declare them unconstitutional)Camelbinky (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky, I think everyone on this talk page is now familiar with your very strong feelings on this issue; it's not really necessary for you to belabor your points (nor does it help the Wikipedia project or encyclopedia). More important, you really need to back away from your repeated assertions that Snowden committed "treason". He is not accused of the crime of treason by any authority, and it is doubtful that his actions – even assuming that everything said about him by the government is correct – meet the U.S. Consitution's very strict limitations on what constitutes "treason": [2]. He is charged with other serious crimes, but treason is not among them. As a matter of factual accuracy and also adherence to WP:BLP, if you can't reign in your editorializing, at least stop making unsupported accusations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, when did this page become an article and therefore fall under BLP? Now if someone wants to sue me for libel, well Mr. Snowden please come forth to the US and sue me in civil court, as people in Wikipedia seem to assume it is a criminal act when it is actually civil and only you, Mr. Snowden have standing.Camelbinky (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, please read it and familiarise yourself with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky, the consequences of upholding the law in this case is precisely what makes this case controvesial, because that leads to the conclusion that he could be sentenced to decades in prison for something that about 50% of Americans think was a good thing to do. Normally, when someone is guilty of a crime that leads to a decades long prison sentence, there wouldn't be a controversy of whether or not that person is a criminal (putting aside possible questions about whther or not the person is really guilty as charged). This case is different, and that's why other countries can have a different opinion (Russia or Hong Kong would not hesitate to extradite a mass murderer back to the US). Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the polls are quite different depending on age; but yes overall it does seem to be 54% of Americans in favor of trying Snowden, now that's not a lot, but there have been elections considered a landslide at that percentage, and when broken down by political party both Democrats and Republicans are in majority of trying him; it is only when broken down by age range do you see such a disparity in what would normally only see in a "red state" "blue state" dichotomy (which doesn't really exist, see Morris Fiorina's book Culture War). What I was questioning and hoping someone would answer, especially Jimbo, is why do some believe he was a hero? Do they truly think it was not illegal? Do they believe in jury nullification? I don't know what states, if any actually have jury nullification as a legal consequence, most I believe allow the judge to determine in those cases that he will vacate that decision and substitute his own. I do not believe Federal law allows for jury nullification either.Camelbinky (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible explanation for question about Snowden editing

First, Jimbo was never suggesting that a pseudonym used by Snowden should be outed. Second, as Jimbo said, anyone who thinks that the Wikipedia policy on outing is "bizarre" can discuss why they think that, possibly on the talk page for the policy. Third, there is a perfectly good reason why Jimbo might be asking whether Snowden has been editing. The Wikimedia servers, as was mentioned in a different context, are not within the scope of British courts. They are within the scope of the US federal courts and the US Justice Department that are pursuing the case against Snowden. Wikimedia could be subject to a summons, subpoena, or other court order to provide information about whether Snowden was editing, either to obtain general background information to pursue the case, or (more seriously) to determine whether Snowden had saved secret information, either by posting secrets in article space, or by saving secret information in any other space. For those reasons, Jimbo should be asking whether Snowden has been edited, while abiding by Wikipedia policy as he is. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If for instance he edited articles and put info in that was classified, it may have since been removed as "unsourced" since I assume he'd have no way to source his classified material... unless of course he did source it to a classified document. Either way if he posted classified information that was not to be shared with the general public of course the government has the right and need to know. Any contributions, if they can be traced to him, should be looked at by the government, and any attempt to destroy or hinder the government's ability to get the information would land that person (or organization) in contempt and prosecuted. I'm left-wing and even I don't think anyone should interfere or protect those that commit treason, or in any government's investigation. Anyone who calls themselves a liberal and thinks its ok to stimey the government and the government is "bad" is not a liberal (they'd be a hippie and a crackpot needing to look for the black helicopters).Camelbinky (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that the WMF/Jimbo should take proactive measures to assist the government in prosecution, even when not required to do so? That is an extreme stretch of the privacy policy. darkweasel94 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least with respect to me, it is something that I would oppose - like secret mass surveillance, secret courts, etc. with every fiber of my being. There should be no illusions on the part of anyone that I would agree to any such thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We try and try and try since years to become more respected as Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Community "outside" our special world. Thanks to you, that we getting such a terrible press. You know, if you not would be "Jimmy Wales" - you already had been blocked here?! Rules also there for you, not only for us. Maybe you should start to think about it. Everything you build with your hands you try to destroy with your back, it seems. You are becoming more and more a ptobolem for the movement. If you don't stop taking this way, we have to talk about your position in our movement. And yes, I know - I'm banned from now on from your site, I know, you can't handle critics. Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus, that's absurd. All I did was ask if there has been any discussion of publicly available information. I am opposed to outing. I am a big fan and supporter of Snowden.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I found this discussion from that derstandard.at article as well. Its basic message is that Wikipedia is collaborating with the NSA and proactively trying to find Snowden's Wikipedia identity. I have to say I'm disappointed, since that is really not very far from the truth. darkweasel94 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not collaborating with the NSA. I have said quite clearly that I am opposed to outing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, if all you did was "ask if there has been any discussion of publicly available information", then that's ok - though this talk page section seems to be the only place where any discussion of Swanson having edited Wikipedia has come up. Problem is, people here took this to mean they should look for user accounts likely owned and pages likely edited by him, and that is the definition of outing. Anyway thanks for clarifying what kind of information you want. darkweasel94 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard.at article now leads to an article in Spiegel online ([3]) that has a much higher impact in Germany and the german-reading world - and this is really rerrible press. Without knowing the backgrounds it really seems that you are searching for Snowdens identity and to make it available (and I think I and others in the de-community will get confronted with this). I really do not know about the backgrounds of this discussion and the backgrounds of the conflict with FRAM but I really would like to read and cite an official statement by you to oppose these press articles and to clarify the situation. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Fram, but what Wales said is very much here, and my interpretaion (shared by others too) is how you tell us Spiegel interprets it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was apparently quite some misunderstanding which should have been clarified by now. Even SPIEGEL-Online (website of a major German weekly magazine as refered to above) added a clarifying update in consideration of Jimbo's recent statements. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification in the final paragraph of Der Spiegel article reads (my translation follows): "Follow-up: Jimmy Wales has issued a statement on this issue. He is said to be a "passionate defender of anonimity and privacy on the web", and is dismayed to be presented differently. Following discussions, the Wikipedia Community did indeed question Edward Snowden's possible activity in the online encyclopaedia; Wales, however, is to have warned against an "outing". Where did the community discuss this issue beforehand? I find it very difficult to reconcile this account of things with the actual chain of events. WilliamH (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. This is no different than other world news headlines in the form of "DANGEROUS SPEECH THREATENS, MUST BE SUPPRESSED". The fact that this caused uproar is nothing but a signal that the Wikipedia user base is becoming less American and more global (probably European, the land of ~~civil rights~~ human rights) and that this is running up against American political culture. WP:OUTING follows the classic European government architecture: ban conduct/speech because of recognized problem, make the details of the ban ambiguous, use arbitrary interpretation. Suffice to say that the world is actually very pro-censorship, the only thing that changes is what speech is verboten and who decides (hint: look for the guy with all the weapons; it ain't called a ban "hammer" for nothing.) Int21h (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true. I don't miss some kind of "political cultue". Kind regards, --Kellerkind (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (Sorry for beeing unpolite) P.S. Ah, I see, you can say everything but not read everything? Hm. --Kellerkind (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning text to the right: Is a political organization editing Wikipedia to suit its interests? (Haaretz, 17 June 2013)

Hi Jimmy and everybody else. I have wondered for some time, and with it making headlines in the Israeli daily Haaretz a few days ago (see article), I am outright curious – that's not an allusion, although I did read the Snowden discussion above – if the English Wikipedia does inform other Wikipedias about its findings and decisions if any in cases of "organizations engaged in tendentious editing," as Haaretz puts it, particularly regarding Israel-Palestine issues with cases like NGO Monitor and CAMERA, so that other Wikipedias which may also be targeted but are not aware of it can profit from the English Wikipedia's findings? The reason for my wondering is that, e.g. in the German Wikipedia, where I edit frequently, including Israel-Palestine related articles, I have never yet encountered even the slightest awareness of the problem, although it imo quite obviously should be considered. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence there is a bastard -- I had to read it five times before I could parse it. The answer is that there is no formal system for different-language Wikipedias to inform each other about anything. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I got quite stuck on the "everybody else" bit as well. And you're right - we're not even married. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Match-making was not what I had in mind, but how could that be changed, or shouldn't it be chaged? What's the use of going to all that trouble - I'm referring to having POV-pushing members of organizations infiltrating Wikipedia exposed and blocked - when they or other members of the same organization can happily go on with their POV-pushing in other languages? Ajnem (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first sentence is an outrage, now that I reread it. My apologies for that. Am I to understand, that informing other Wikipedias in cases like having discovered members of specific organizations editing in the English Wikipedia with the aim of doing harm to Wikipdia, to put it simply, has never been an issue? If so, I admit that I'm surprised and confused. If such attempts are being made, and knowing that they are being made in what shape and form ever, wouldn't it be prudent to assume that the same organizations will try their luck in other Wikipedias after having been discovered in one, even if they have not been active there before? I don't want to sound touchy, but there are other Wikipedias in other languages than English which also contribute to Wikipedia's reputation - good or bad. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia's troll in the news

FYI, Kevin Morris, "How Wikimedia Commons Became a Massive Amateur Porn Hub." This does indicate that Russavia directly commissioned the Wales portrait and that he paid by trading a Wikipedia biography for the portrait — something for which the artist would usually charge $200, I note. The portrait survived a deletion challenge at Commons, which should surprise no one... Carrite (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Money quote: "Making things even worse are a small group of porn aficionados and exhibitionists who use the Commons as their personal playground, turning the high-minded educational repository into the world's crappiest amateur porn hub." Carrite (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is a public figure. It is quite ridiculous to compare him to some random young woman who is undoubtedly a private individual. Were that young woman to say, "please delete this image of me" then I would support deleting it, but Jimbo isn't some unknown young woman who got photographed flashing her breasts at Mardis Gras. Honestly, this is turning into the Streisand Effect. The article on Pricasso has gotten about 1,500 views, most of them on a single day, while the image has gotten several hundred more views due to all the rancor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's perfectly fine to commission such an image just to get back at another user, just because that user is Jimbo Wales? --Conti|✉ 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it was to get back at him? Jimbo, being our Dear Leader and all, has many people who disagree with him and the idea that any of those people doing something with his image he doesn't like are "harassing" him out of some personal feud is really quite absurd. People will use Jimbo's image to make a point because he is the public face of Wikipedia, something he is more than happy to benefit from in his daily life. If Russavia was trolling or otherwise trying to be provocative, then he used Jimbo's image because he is Jimbo and not because of any personal grievance.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia has intentionally done this to annoy Jimbo, there's no other way to look at it. Russavia has been trolling, and when asked, Russavia has explicitly refused to answer even the simplest questions about all this. Now we know why. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to imagine Jimbo not fully grasping what it means to be a public figure, and I guess it makes sense that editors here who freely interact with him have difficulty grasping what it means for him to be a public figure, but the reality is that he is a public figure. Even if something was done knowing it would annoy him, it does not mean it is personal or even really about him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that even intended to make sense? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand how being a public person means you can insult said public person in as many creative ways as you can think of on Wikipedia without having to fear any kind of repercussions. "He's a public person" has practically nothing to do with what happened here. --Conti|✉ 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Devil's Advocate", while living up to his namesake, is woefully and rather pathetically naive in this instance. Tarc (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that we don't let people use Wikipedia to settle real-life grudges. That was the lesson of the Qworty and Little green rosetta fiascos, and it applies here. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia isn't even remotely comparable to them, and even then we don't just undo all of their contributions even if it was a contribution with an ulterior motive. We evaluate the contribution on its own merits as though it were made with only the best of intent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia is clearly comparable in that he's used Wikipedia/Commons as a tool to settle a real-life score with someone. In terms of magnitude, yes, the other two were far worse, but none of their actions are acceptable. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has everything to do with it. He is the public face of Wikipedia and anyone disagreeing with something on Wikipedia is liable to invoke his name or image when expressing that disagreement. Presuming Russavia was trying to make a point or be provocative, Jimbo's image was used in the same fashion one would use an image of the President to make a point about U.S. policy or an image of the Prime Minister or Queen to make a point about British policy. All that said, I consider the basis for creating the image distinct from its utility.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that nobody who makes a point about US politics usually happens to have been in a personal conflict with the president. About sexually explicit pictures. Before commissioning a sexually explicit video about the president. --Conti|✉ 18:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Russavia was in a "personal conflict" with Jimbo is like saying someone who challenges Obama's policy at a speaking engagement was in a "personal conflict" with Obama.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has told Russavia to be ashamed of himself at one point and has said other not so nice things about Russavia. Russavia, in turn, tends to treat Jimbo like a clueless newbie on Commons. How on earth is that not personal? And that's disregarding the fact that Jimbo and Russavia stand on opposite sides of the whole Commons-porn drama, and are both very vocal in their opinions on it. --Conti|✉ 19:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has criticized a whole assortment of random editors, as Obama has criticized a whole assortment of random citizens, and Jimbo is kind of oblivious to how things actually work on the various Wikimedia sites.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say that neither of those statements are correct. --Conti|✉ 20:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When this first arose, analogies to these [in]famous "art" and "censorship" cases: [4], [5] came to mind, but here the issue seems to revolve around how and why it was created, rather than the artwork itself. Does anyone know of analogies from off-wikimedia where these were in issue? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect TDA, one would have to actively choose to be ignorant not to see that antagonism was one of the purposes behind Russavia's actions. He was quite successful in his trolling. Perhaps enough that the current block will become a de facto ban. Wonder if it was worth it? Reso lute 19:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that, but this has already been discussed more than is useful and the header to this section is using a fairly loose definition of "in the news". Just for variety, someone please open a new section so we can move on to the next dead horse in the cycle. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very easy for people here who lack perspective to believe that it is some personal vendetta and that, once people believe it, convincing them otherwise is very difficult. People often assume malicious motives where none exist or assume the motive is more malicious then it is in reality. My personal impression is that Russavia probably did it partly for the lulz, because the idea of doing something so edgy tickled him pink, but did actually think it was worthwhile to have a free image of the artwork. Is the lulz a great reason to contribute something here? No, but it is hardly the worst reason and doesn't take away from the second reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. if we are going to start giving our 'personal impressions' of what motivates other people to post things on Wikipedia, here's mine. I think The Devil's Advocate is trolling here, probably due to an exaggerated sense of his own self-importance. I also think he is making a fool of himself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People like to throw around the term trolling on the Internet whenever someone raises an argument they don't like. It is rarely employed accurately and this is just another example of a reactionary use of the term.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Reactionary'? Are you sure you mean that? Are you accusing me of opposition to political and social change? Or have you just failed to use the term accurately? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word's meaning is not limited to the definition you give.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So which definition was intended? Do tell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that he intended to say that you have been participating in some sort of process involving the re-arrangement of atomic bonds to create one or more chemical compounds or elements. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You see, what you two are doing is trolling. Compare and contrast.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I'm making fun of you, for which I apologise. But, really, if you're going to get on your high horse about people using words correctly, the least you could do is double check you understand all the words in your own sentence. Formerip (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word correctly, it is as simple as that. End of discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just have a conflict about Commons at the wrong venue. Because it's the wrong venue the objective can't be reached, people get frustrated and you get an escalation of the conflict until something gives way, in this case that was Russavia getting banned. But that only released the pressure temporarily, the volcano will erupt again unless the problem is dealt with at the right venue. Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the reporter on this story the same one that Jimmy previously qualified as "not a real journalist?" Jimbo, do you still stand by that comment? Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does depend what is meant by "real", but he is quite plainly a blogger who regurgitates emails people send him. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a blogger and the Daily Dot is not a blog. It is a niche news source, sure, but a news source nonetheless and Morris is a journalist no doubt. Plenty of reputable journalists make mistakes or don't get all the facts straight, as do plenty of other generally reliable authors. If you think he got some details wrong then you should point them out.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well since we are onto a new topic, should Morris have not disclosed, if Jimmy Wales said that about him? It did seem odd that he did not say anything about contacting Jimmy for his story/blog, what have you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that no-one told him to say that. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons user here who does not contribute a lot to enwiki, but who has noticed that this seems to be the place where people feel is the right place to discuss Commons, and who therefore looks at it from time to time. Has anybody ever provided any evidence (≠ assumptions, conjectures) that russavia intended this as a provocation towards Jimbo, rather than as a simple illustration of Pricasso's painting style? To me, choosing Jimbo as a subject is just as reasonable as, when illustrating an article about web browsers, having Wikipedia open in the screenshot: it is simply a little self-reference, and I believe this is a textbook case of where AGF should be applied (in retrospect, it may well have been better to choose another subject). Note that I have not checked exactly what other things russavia did to get blocked here, and this isn't what I'm here for; this is a genuine question, and I am asking it here because the people who believe there is any bad faith here seem to be following this page. And, for all those who don't know yet, there is a discussion about the scope of Commons, and I invite everyone who thinks "Commons is broken™" to participate there. darkweasel94 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we do need a page that summarizes all the events that led up to this somewhere. The short version is that Jimbo and Russavia clashed multiple times in the past, for the most part over the Commons-porn issue(s). Jimbo has said some not very nice things about Russavia, Russavia has been treating Jimbo like a clueless newbie over at Commons at every opportunity. So there was some bad blood between the two before the image was commissioned by Russavia, who knew that Jimbo doesn't like the porn. It is very, very hard to imagine that Russavia did not know exactly how Jimbo would react to the image and video, once presented to him. --Conti|✉ 11:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't pretend to be able to read russavia's or Jimbo's minds. When I saw the video, to me it portrayed "somebody painting with his penis". Not "somebody rubbing his penis against a picture of Jimbo" or "somebody implying oral sex with Jimbo" or anything like that; the fact that the subject was Jimbo seemed only marginally relevant, just like in the article Internet Explorer it is only marginally relevant that the site the screenshot portrays is Wikipedia. I could now (perhaps if the uploader of that screenshot were a known critic of Wikipedia) say that this was certainly also done in bad faith: after all, using Wikipedia to portray a browser which many people would consider the worst browser of all could be read to be an attack on Wikipedia. But if I said that, you would laugh at me, and you would be right. This situation seems similar to me. darkweasel94 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso and WT:Did you know#Pricasso. The perfect troll—figuratively rub your opponent's nose in someone's "penis, scrotum and buttocks", and put a drama link on the main page. And the best part is that no one can every prove that trolling is trolling. Well, perhaps the best part is that people will argue over whether the trolling is trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it follow from the unverifiability of trolling accusations that in unclear cases one should assume that a certain action is trolling? I hope not. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in a dispute with someone, and anonymously commission a portrait of that person created with someone's penis and buttocks, then publicly post the portrait and a video of the creation, it isn't a stretch to see that as harassment. Certainly it would be grounds for instant dismissal in any workplace I've been in. Perhaps it wasn't intended as deliberate harassment, but certainly it was interpreted as harassment by Jimbo, as the subject of the image, and under the circumstances (an anonymous commission within the context of a dispute), you'd have to make a fairly strong case to say that it wasn't. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia lost the right to AGF on this matter long ago. Reso lute 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take those answers to mean "no" - it seems to still be just assumptions and conjectures that have made some people (especially on enwiki) think it was deliberate harassment and done in bad faith. Thank you for the information. darkweasel94 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see an even moderately convincing explanation how all of these actions could have been taken in good faith. I mean, sure, if you just completely ignore the context, and then hypothetically change the context into something entirely different, then you can create a scenario where all this happened in good faith. That's what a lot of people here and on Commons do. But if you look at the actual context? If you look at Russavia's history (hello, Polandball), if you look at the Commons/enwp dispute, if you look at the Jimbo/Russavia dispute, if you look at Russavia's reaction to the whole drama, and his outright and explicit refusal to do anything against it.. then no, I do not see a way to assume good faith. I'd love to be convinced that there was no bad faith involved here, but I just cannot do the mental gymnastics. --Conti|✉ 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying if I, who has not yet had any disputes with Jimbo, had uploaded the exact same work, your opinion would be different? darkweasel94 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But if you would react exactly like Russavia did (explicitly not explaining whether it was his idea, explicitly not explaining why he chose Jimbo after it was revealed that it was his idea, explicitly opposing any form of alternative solution like asking the artist for a different image), I would start questioning your motives, too. I would ask you the same questions I asked Russavia, and if you would have told me that you did not mean to cause any distress for Jimbo, I would believe you. --Conti|✉ 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear darkweasel, don't pretend that you entered into this conversation with an open mind, your first post describing yourself as primarily a Commons user let us know exactly where you stand and what your preconceived notions are. The Daily Dot article tells how a person who "never revealed his name" commissioned the painting for an article he was writing on Pricasso. The artist himself states ""I was surprised that someone would do an article on me." So here at Wikipedia, Russavia created the article, and Russavia adds the Wales image to the article. If you can't connect the dots there, then the deficiency lies with you, not with the logic of anyone's argument here. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am primarily a Commons user; I simply wanted to make this clear from the beginning on so that nobody could later tell me I didn't mention where I was coming from, though I don't know why that would make me inherently have any preconceived notions. And yes, it is clear that russavia commissioned those files in question. I'm not doubting this. I'm doubting he did so with the specific intention of annoying Jimbo, especially since (something I don't find good either) he first wanted to remove the link to the video from this talk page - why would somebody who wants to annoy Jimbo not want him to see it? However, I did not know that russavia first put the image, not the video, into the article; that may indeed be a hint, since the video would certainly have illustrated the article much better. However, I still wouldn't want to base accusations of bad faith on such a choice. darkweasel94 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

darkweasel94, you've made one of the worst AGF I've ever seen. I call it hypocrisy. There's no more to add. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8 pages here already, so this whole "trolling" allegation doesn't hold water. Russavia doesn't need to troll, he can just sit back and watch. Count Iblis (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the article contains a substantial inaccuracy: it claims that Commons has a policy that "Commons is supposed to remove any photos of identifiable people unless they have consented, especially if they were taken in a compromising position where the subject had some reasonable expectation of privacy." Whereas the Commons policy is "Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded." The article uses this misinterpretation to give an impression that Commons regulars were men shouting BOOBIES! and throwing aside policy in their haste to keep that topless photo, whereas in reality they were preserving existing principle. Wnt (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, there are several things wrong in your comment. COM:IDENT, which you quote, is not a policy - it is a guideline. Yes, there isn't actually a polisy on Commons that deals with these crucial issues, just a guideline. And, as the WMF Board observed, that guideline is not consistently applied. They, the people who own the servers which Commons relies on, said "consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place". I'm not sure they considered that paintings might come into it, but you will note how little that statement resembles normal practice at Commons. And although I saw no one shouting BOOBIES!, one merely has to look at the uploads of the user who added the Mardi Gras image under discussion to see that they are the very model of a user who treats Commons as an amateur porn site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's picture was released freely and was very public - used in fundraiser banner ads - so that doesn't apply. Wnt (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The painting created by Pricasso is not the freely released image, even if it was the basis for the painting. Even you should be able to understand that. Perhaps you can use the painting in your fundraising banner ads when you fork WP and Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* The article does, however, make a strong suggestion that Pricasso was paid to produce the painting, which - if true -- would suggest that commercial personality rights might actually apply to his work. I truly and honestly have assumed throughout that Pricasso would contribute his work for free, as the publicity from his article is already a great boon. But if not, then Jimbo might have a legitimate legal issue against Pricasso, though not one I am personally happy about. Note however that this would be true of everyone Pricasso has ever painted. I think we may have an opportunity to see here whether personality rights are one of the many forms of "copyfraud" or whether they are actually held as meaningful obstacles by courts. Wnt (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The article says that Pricasso was not paid for the painting. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - yeah, I read part of that and somehow had the impression it was a denial, sorry. Wnt (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia has a thing for offensive humor. He does troll by employing offensive humor, but he does seriously try to serve the educational purpose of these sites at the same time. The problem is that he has a hard time separating his troll side from his serious side and he does not respond well when he faces the consequences of that inability to compartmentalize. As a result, people such as those above are quick to assign everything objectionable he does to a malicious motive. Russavia, rationally speaking, should be someone of no consequence to Jimbo on a personal level and any interactions they have had should be recognized as rather trivial encounters. Unfortunately, people aren't being rational and so they assume Russavia is being malicious and inflate his interactions with Jimbo to make them into some intense personal conflict. Not assuming good faith doesn't mean you should assume the worst of someone, but not everyone gets that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Call me utterly boring, but I do not want anyone to troll on Wikipedia, no matter how much good work he does elsewhere. Not to mention you simultaneously call Russavia's action trolling, while also saying that there are no malicious motives behind those actions. Isn't trolling by definition something done with malicious intent? Or is there such a thing as a good faith troll now, and we should all assume that Russavia's trolling was done with the best intentions? --Conti|✉ 11:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I still haven't figured out what was supposed to be so terrible about Polandball. In any case, hopefully he will spend some of his additional free time working on coding skills. With all these beaks in its guts Wikipedia isn't long for this world - everything everyone has contributed is going to be property of somebody, and if you don't know how to code you don't get a seat at the roulette table. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, editors here show they do not understand the terms they enjoy throwing around. Failing to act in good faith, is not the same as acting maliciously, and it is not even a simple question of either acting in good faith or acting in bad faith. You are falling for a bifurcation fallacy. If someone pulls a prank on you, do you accuse them of being malicious and acting in bad faith?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone acts like an obnoxious little shit, it isn't 'bad faith' to accuse them of acting like an obnoxious little shit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, good/bad faith is not binary. But I do not know of any definition of trolling that would allow for bad faith not to be present. If someone trolls, he does so in bad faith. --Conti|✉ 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

When you say "[...] essentially close this page", what do you exactly mean? Albacore (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely means to just discuss elsewhere: So, notifications here about wp:ANI incidents should just focus comments at those ANI threads, or concerns about a particular user could be discussed at that user's User_talk:___ page (no longer debated here). Many of the issues I have mentioned would just remain inside the "walled garden" of the wp:Village_pump (limited to reading by those users who wade through all the other topics), such as at wp:TECHPUMP for technical topics, or wp:VPIL (Idea Lab) when people want to imagine ways to better protect BLP bio-pages. The benefit of posting here had been to collect some diverse opinions with Jimbo's perspective or viewpoints, at a cross-roads meeting, where few of us follow the daily talks at other pages, where Jimbo does not indicate priorities of concerns there, such as checking wp:ANI daily to see whose talk-page is linked as a trail of concerns about their recent actions. For a person being investigated, then that is probably the best tactic, to politely inquire at each user's talk-page about their activities, and each user could archive any excessive remarks which would usually be enshrined (for days) at an ANI discussion. Meanwhile, for others wondering about Jimbo's advice, then perhaps re-read the archived sections of User_talk:Jimbo* in /Archive_135, /Archive_134, or /Archive_119 (etc.) to review earlier discussions. There is so much to re-read, and reconsider, to fill the weeks while Jimbo is gone. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fully decided. At least on the day of, I plan to blank the page and ask people to post elsewhere. I will protect it (or ask others to do so) if policy permits (haven't studied that). I'm not comfortable just leaving it open if people are using it thinking that they are talking to me. I'd like to encourage people to move the usual philosophical discussions elsewhere for awhile, or just take a thinking break with me so we can come back with new ideas. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo, I hope you will forgive those of us who come back from that thinking break with renewed vigour for getting people to accept the same old ideas that we've been pushing for, well, years. Speaking of which, why don't we turn on pending changes for all BLPs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Sorry if I bother here but, Jimbo is right. People post here thinking Jimbo it is watching all the time but the man has his own life (I think)... I also think his talk page is for matters that involves him and only him... But again, I am just a small person in this huge encyclopedia Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 14:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Jimbo should reduce this page to a wikibreak notice, then full-protect to "salt" this page. There are too many pranksters who would fill this page with insults while many of us are also on vacation and not here to redact insults, to be viewed by 1,000 people per day. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, though, he cannot do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that people might think about staggering over to Wikipediocracy.com to liven that place up with some fresh takes on old and new issues. There is a registration delay, so it might be a good idea to get a head start on it. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could this page be redirected to a sub page with title and header note reflecting that Mr. Wales is on a break and probably won't be reading it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Jimbo needs to do really is set the archive time from "algo = old(1d)" to "algo = old(1h)". Most thing will just slide off. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other administrators do full-protect their own talk pages (for shorter lengths of time) in unusual circumstances, for example User:Kudpung has recently done so. Really the "talk page must be accessible" thing is because if someone is editing then they are supposed to accept feedback on that editing. Since we can presume Jimbo is not going to be editing during his break, then it should be fine for his talk page to be non-functional during the break. If we still have qualms over "oh my gosh an admin shouldn't do that to their own talk page", then someone else can full protect it for him. The 1-hour archiving idea is a good one, but somewhat open to gaming by people who desperately want their own noise to be heard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Hall of Fame

Congratulations on being recently inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame :) Andise1 (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Internet Hall of Fame".—Wavelength (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations, Jimbo, if only they knew how hard you worked to make Wikipedia quick to use, and fought against slanting of articles, fringe takeover/images, verifiability-not-truth, and curbing of numerous insults to diffuse personal disputes. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A shoo-in, but congratulations! Really, they needed him to bolster their list's credibility. :) Wnt (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Talk:Tenedos#Name_of_the_article

Chrisrus (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JW gets a New York Times Magazine profile

Congratulations to JW on his New York Times Magazine profile. There's a great deal of personal detail, which editors might find interesting, but not much new on Wikipedia's process or culture. GabrielF (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be cautioned, though, that the article contains significant and mysterious factual errors. For example, that Wikipedia was never headquartered in a strip mall. "The original Florida address for one of the Internet’s most life-changing innovations is now a UPS store with a faded red awning" - bizarre, and merely slightly reworded after the fact checker asked me about it and I explained that it quite simply isn't true.

That one isn't all that important or controversial, but it indicates the overall quality of the piece.

Another paragraph begins "Wales has a complicated time balancing his new life with his old one." And then goes on to tell an anecdote that I expect any working parent can relate to - issues with the house keys. That has nothing to do with my alleged "new life" versus my "old one".

Then there is the cute bit about "B.D.F.L." - but as Wikipedians will know quite well, it's just not true. I'm not that, I'm not known as that, I've completely rejected that title, and it doesn't reflect the history or current reality of Wikipedia.

Here's another one (I've skipped over several others): "Scott Glosserman, a filmmaker who spent a year with Wales filming “Truth in Numbers?” - this is just patently untrue. Scott Glosserman never traveled with me, not even once, and did not spend a year with me. He doesn't even know me (we have met once, maybe twice). Nic Hill, who did travel with me for a year filming that movie would have been an interesting guy for her to talk to.

Her description of what I said about Aaron Swartz is incredibly off-base, and I'm 100% sure that in our extensive conversation about him, she fully knew what I said and what I meant. She makes it sound like I tried to distance myself from Aaron for being extremist. What I said is accurately quoted but in a context that makes it seem to say something different. I was incredibly moved by Aaron's life and incredibly saddened by his death - but I refrained from public commentary about it because other people like Larry Lessig and Cory Doctorow were commenting very well and were actually close to Aaron. I met him once, and I'm not the kind of person who would jump on the bandwagon of someone's suicide for political purposes when I don't even know him. That would be weird. It had nothing to do with Aaron's supposed extremism.

"This time he shut himself in the greenroom with a publicist." - that's just false and I explained it to the fact checker. I hung out in the green room with a couple of personal friends, Danny and Emma. Yes, the publicist was there but could easily confirm that we weren't back there going over talking points or anything - I was just chilling out with friends.

Anyway, it's a weird piece with lots of errors of basic fact that could have been gotten right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the majority of the articles here, funny, isn't it. --Malerooster (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a note on the article (which appears on every page, I think), that it's the author's first article for the NYTimes Magazine. Maybe her future work will be more carefully fact-checked. (Or maybe it's not her fault but editorial spin or editorial laziness, who knows.)

Some guy travelled with you for a year? Is that really financially viable?

I am a big enthusiast of cracked leather sofas, the one here is not quite in a suitable state of disrepair just yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Hill. Not on every trip of course. But we went to India, South Africa, Europe, etc. I don't even remember all the places we went together. Over the course of a year I spent a lot of time with him. The movie he wanted to make was about the Wikipedia community - about all the wonderful and quirky people we are. He was warm and loving towards everyone because that's his nature and he had a very good eye to see the passion in our community. Glosserman managed to wrangle financial control of the film and to finish it in a very different way, as a talking heads think piece. My refusal to promote the film wasn't because it was critical (it wasn't, really) but because it wasn't the film that Nic set out to make. A key point here is that Amy Chozick wrote all of that without asking me anything about it at all. The fact checker didn't check to see if Glosserman spent a year with me, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think sometimes, these days, people just want to see the headlines about disagreements, or about themselves getting mentioned by media sources... and are not really interested in the encyclopedia itself or in the actual enthusiasm that people all over the world have about it. That's sad, because that enthusiasm is still there, and it's very important. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her article wasn't really critical of Wikipedia at all. It wasn't about WP, it was about Jimmy. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought also. She kept the focus on Mr. Wales. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious, who was first one to label Jimbo as "B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life"? What's the origin of that label? Mr T ^(Talk?) 08:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD that Jimbo should probably be aware of

No comment from me, other than to note that the AfD appears to be running (correctly) towards a SNOWBALL close.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate Garvey. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a husband in the world (at least not one that wants to stay married) that would confirm their wife is "non notable". I wouldn't expect much comment form him on this one.:-) Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes. It might be best for Jimbo not to participate in the discussion - but it seemed reasonable to me that he should at least be aware that it is going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guestbooks

After reading what Jimbo saidon Guestbooks, I was wondering if he signs other people's. Just asking, not a big deal. Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]