User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Rachel Marsden

Something should be done about the "Rachel Marsden" page. In my professional opinion, as a journalist with 25 years experience in Canada, it breaches the Canadian libel laws and leaves Wikipedia open to a lawsuit. It's incredibly biased, uses discredited sources, ignores sources that contradict its negative POV, and appears to be an attempt to ruin the reputation of its subject. Marsden was involved in two harassment scandals, but the article tries to link her private life to her politics and her work as a columnist, and accuses her of lying about her qualifications. Formerly, it published information about a man with the same surname, claiming, without proof, that he was her father (as though that should matter). I have tried to make the article fair but have had it reverted. I don't want to become some kind of crank. It just bugs me that a couple of writers and a Wikipedia administrator perpetrate this entry and continue to defend it. I have never met Masrden and I don't work with her or have professional dealings with her. You have already posted on the dicussion page, but to no avail. I suggest the page come down or be reduced to a minimal entry, as the subject is not a major player in Canadian journalism and the harassment controversies are now of minimal public interest. Mark Bourrie M.J., PhD (cand) Dept of History University of Ottawa, Canada

We should have an article about Irene McGee. In case anyone wants to do something fun.--Jimbo Wales 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikicities.com | My Website

I've declared talk page bankruptcy and cleared everything out.

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians interested in weighing in on the userbox issue: there is a substantial discussion about the state and future of userboxes going on here, which, if you hope to help build community consensus, is almost definitely a more effective place to leave questions and suggestions than on this talk page. (Jimbo, please feel free to remove this notice if you don't agree, but it's been my observation that far too much of the conversation on userboxes goes on here, rather than where it belongs.) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC), tweaked by JDoorj a m Talk 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Polemical, divisive, etc

Hi, Jimmy. The main problem is we're leaving the interpretation of these adjectives to people who have agendas or are otherwise fallible. I'd suggest that you come up with a defined set of rules, or it will continue. I'm not thrilled about it, either way. I'd prefer to be editing. ... aa:talk 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like WP:UUSM? </plug> - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and seeking clarification

Hey, Jimbo.

You're a busy man, and my writing is rarely imbued with a great deal of wit. Reading only the next paragraph and the final one would be sufficient to provide the gist of my comments.

I had a question regarding a recent post you made to the mailing list. You described the contentious userbox conflict (as far as you can determine) as "a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun." My question is: "What groups are you referring to in this comment?"

Now, I'm not asking for anything too specific (that would cause you to run afoul of WP:NPA, for example), but I'm seeking clarification because I think it's important to know which groups you're generalizing about here.

More personally, my gut reaction to this was to take offense, as I initially interpreted your remark as strictly identifying those who support you and oppose userboxes as the true Wikipedians, and those who favored userboxes were just uninitiated newbies following the recent wave of PR-issues, who hated restrictions and enjoyed arguing. Now, I do tend more toward favoring userboxes, which under my initial interpretation placed me with the not-Wikipedians (I'd always considered myself one), the newbies (I've been around for more than a few a months), those opposed to restrictions (I follow them), and those that love to argue (the polemic atmosphere surrounding the issue has damn near made the site unpalatable to me).

Less personally, there's pro-userboxers that spend a lot of time editing the encyclopedia (deserving to be called Wikipedians) and have good faith reasons for liking userboxes. There's anti-userboxers too that that seem to think they can do whatever they hell they want, and can be as provocative and seem to take as much pleasure in arguement as their vehement pro-userbox counterparts.

I guess my point is that people ought to be taking a more balanced view of what's going on. There's incivility and poor actions coming from both sides of the debate, and there's good-faith actors seeking reasonable solutions on both sides as well. Suggesting that all the problems are coming from one guilty, mean-spirited faction while the other faction is composed of well-meaning , innocent individuals is neither accurate nor helpful in resolving the issue. Neither side can be (or ought to be) described with these sort of stereotypes, and such descriptions are divisive and probably not all too beneficial to our "Our Loving Little Community".

Stepping back from my gut reaction, I endeavored to assume good faith and concluded that you probably weren't making the sort of "anti-userbox == good Wikipedian", "pro-userbox == argument-loving newbie" generalization I initially thought of. Still, I'm not sure what groups you were referring to there, and I'm loathe to try and put words into your mouth. When referring to the dispute as a "cultural war", the pro- and anti- userbox factions seem the most obvious of groups of cultural warriors, so I imagine that I might not be the only one to react to your statement in that way. With the ongoing arguments (surely to be accelerated by the recent spate of deletion sprees), tempers are high, and I think it's important we all keep a cool head in trying to understand what's being said by both sides. Specifically, understanding what it is that you are saying is of even greater importance, since there are a number of people out there that view any comment from the BDFL as a statement of policy. If you could clarify your meaning, it might go a long way in preventing any further misunderstandings. All my thanks. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Censorship

This question was left at Wikipedia talk:Censorship

Autofellatio had an image of the type you advocate and Jimbo himself deleted it. How do you propose to deal with the issues of that infamous case? WAS 4.250 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain the circumstances and reasons at Wikipedia talk:Censorship? Thanks, Gerard Foley 01:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Mr. Wales I have grown sick of you. Wikipedia was started as a free place. I came to Wikipedia because of the idea that users could contribute freely and express themselves and interact with others. The sad reality is that this is no more. I am afraid that if this goes through, you will not only lose the faith of many users, you will also lose a motivated editor. I have many edits that I wish to make which will not be commited unless you overturn this ruling. Although you probably do not care about one user, as you have shown us through letting many other users down, this is how I feel. By doing this, you will lose many Wikipedians and you will not suffer, rather, your own child will suffer. Your child named Wikipedia. The one who you concieved and worked on will be neglected by no-one but its own father. You. --Shell <e> 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Meg Griffin

Why was this user blocked after only 4 edits?--Greasysteve13 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That is rather strange. None of the 4 edits are to articles, and none are useful, but none seem to be harmful in any way. FYI, User:Morven blocked this user on Feb. 13 with the summary "Reverend Abramovich sock". Everyking 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like shorthand for "Sockpuppet of the banned user 'Reverend Abramovich'" --Carnildo 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Really request clarification on WP:CSD T1

Hi Jimbo. I have just removed a lot of speedy tags from more arguably polemical userboxes with the reason "Speedy deleting this will just spark more wars, please use TFD". I am still a bit uncertain of how divisive and inflammatory a userbox has to be before it qualifies as a T1. Can you please review these boxes and decide whether my decision to remove the speedy tag on them was appropriate?

Were any of these T1 candidates as you intended T1 to be. (I know you don't like these templates, and several of them are ones which I don't like either, but are they speedies?)

The decision I made was based partially on the fact that if these boxes are speedied, they will be brought to DRV, there will calls for sesysopping whoever speedied them, calls to ban those who created them, and the likely result will be to undelete anyway. From what I can see that kind of fighting is a waste of very many peoples' time which could rather be spent writing an encyclopedia. I think that this fighting is causing more harm than the userboxes themselves. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We just need to run a tighter ship at DRV, make it run more on the rules and less on consensus. If a speedied userbox does come up for review just point to the new policy and say it isn't coming back. The users are welcome to scream and request desysopping all they want; they are by far the vocal minority. And if you look at the edit counts on a lot of these vocal userbox supporters, they have most of their edits in project and template space and almost none in main article space. Not a big loss, really ... they're here for the userboxes, not for the project of building the encyclopedia. And yes, there is going to be some fighting over these userboxes while we go through the adjustment period, but it's a lot better than the alternative ... which is to do nothing. A stitch in time saves nine, and all that. There are already 6,000 userboxes and they are growing at an exponential rate. And they're attracting all the wrong kinds of people. If we don't do something now it's just to going be even worse down the road. --Cyde Weys 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here I see the magic number 6000 again. Can you please enlighten the less technically inclined, how exactly was this statistic obtained? Thank you. Misza13 ^(Talk) 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Evidence#Growth_of_Userboxes. -- SCZenz 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU are the one causing community disruption.

I have not seen one problem with userboxes, NOT ONE, mind you, until you set your mind to removing them. Now, Wikipedians are at each others throats, admins are attacked daily, and the negativity flows like a severed vein.

Face it. There's no good way to win this. If the userboxes go, I go, leaving behind all my unfinished articles and unsubmitted edits. Coolgamer 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured most Wikipedians don't see a value to the project's goals in having POVs expressed in userboxes, but they're just not as loud and vehement about it because they are busy working on the project for the most part. Of course Jimbo already knows this, but that doesn't stop the vocal few from crying censorship and the immediate end of the world coming if userboxes are dissallowed. There are plenty of good outlets for personal statements of views and beliefs, that practice is just not aligned with Wikipedia's goals. - Taxman ^Talk 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Fredrik Johansson 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Crappy said. Robust Physique 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just got an okay from time magazine

I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com

Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.

Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.

Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

ISTM that the "link back to time.com" is their garnish. Rich Farmbrough 21:34 9 March 2006 (UTC).

Userbox solution

Here's a solution we (well actually RadioKirk) came up with regarding userboxes. Please tell us what you think. --D-Day ^{Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody!} 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry Reid

How long are you planning on leaving Harry Reid protected under WP:OFFICE? It's been five days so far, and I think it is severely problematic to have an article on a major national political figure (possibly the most powerful member of the U.S. Democratic party as of this writing) protected for that long. I'm also very concerned for the precedent it might set if politicians learned that they could get their articles locked just by complaining to the office. What happens if they do this near election time? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, today (2/21/2006) was supposed to be the day in which Wikipedia was explained to Reid's staff, their concerns noted, and the page unlocked. My question is: what were their concerns and when will the page be unlocked? I don't think this is an unreasonable question. Remember, m:Protected pages considered harmful. Danny has already said that this was not a legal issue. Therefore it is hard for us to see how this fits in the protected page policy. There was no edit war. There was no vandalism. AS far as I can tell this shows a lack of trust in the Wiki community to edit this particular page and determine the scope of content. Tbeatty 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved (or at least the lock has been removed). Is a reason for it's locking going to be released? It seems to be outside the normal scope of WP:OFFICE. Was there an inaccuracy or other Wiki liability that we, as editors, should take notice of? Tbeatty 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson

Greetings, sir! I thought I'd give you a heads-up, if you were not already aware, that Jack Thompson has recently arrived at Wikipedia as User: Jackthompson and begun his trademark name-calling and legal threats at the help desk. I just thought I'd warn you; he may make things messy. Best of luck. --Maxamegalon2000 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Transliterating 'Jimbo Wales'

I wonder who changed the french transliteration from 'Djimebo Ouéles' to 'Jacques Galles'? And I notice a few others in other languages (Giacomo in Italian for example). It's obviously frivolous, but someone needs to check the definition of Transliteration, including this: "Still, most transliterations map the letters of the source script to letters pronounced similarly in the goal script, for some specific pair of source and goal language." and "Transliteration attempts to be lossless, so that an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling of unknown transliterated words." Ahem. Stevage 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

in fact, as the interwiki links on the article Jimbo Wales demonstrate, languages which use the Latin alphabet generally do not transliterate names that were originally in that alphabet. (Albanian and Latvian are, I believe, exceptions.) right now the list mixes genuine transliterations (from the Latin alphabet to another writing system), approximate pronunciations according to the rules of pronunciation in different Latin-alphabet languages (this would include the Albanian and Latvian, I guess), rough translations (names made up of the equivalents of "Jimbo" and "Wales" in other languages—e.g. the French, the Italian, and the Spanish versions), and silliness like Cockney, 1337, and Pig Latin. very confusing. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MySpace

It is interesting how you throw around the phrase "Wikipedia is not a MySpace" yet your userpage has a picture of you and your car and a bio of yourself. You also link to a list of your travels and include a whole section about your name in other languages. What pushes me over the edge is how you have a whole page of funny pictures, many of which have no purpose execpt for your own userpage User:Jimbo_Wales/Funny_pictures. And you can tell me that I can't have userboxes because it makes my page a MySpace. Please explain to me how your page is so incredibly different. --Shell <e> 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a "This user believes Jimbo should get out of managing article content and user issues" userbox. I wonder how fast that would get deleted? Everyking 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Users should review the edit history of Wales' user page before criticizing him for its contents. If they did they'd find that he rarely edits it - the last time, back in mid-December, only to update his contact info. The page's content is determined by the community. -Will Beback 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also of note that recently, he deleted quite an few number of userboxes from his userpage; he wasn't even initially aware that the were present. -Zero^Talk 11:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Help

Dear Mr. Wales,

I have added three printed citations and an online one to an entry on Wiktionary.^[1] However, some users on that project are claiming that it isn't enough. They say that I should have three citations from other sources--and dictionaries don't count.^[2][3] I understand that we're having a drive on Wikimedia projects for verifiability--but isn't one citation from a published, reliable source enough? They have made clear, per the Wiktionary Criteria for inclusion page that they will delete it.

I am a donor to Wikimedia and believe strongly in its mission. However, I think that, in this case, common sense is being ignored. I was wondering if you could contribute your opinion to the discussion we are currently having on the Wiktionary Beer Parlour (a page similar to the Village Pump) found here <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/WS:BP#Verifiability>? If you would, I would be very grateful.

Sincerely,

Primetime 00:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Is there a reason you deleted this? This was a useful page of the encyclopedia, and there was no consensus to delete it. The arguments with userboxes like "go write the encyclopedia" no longer apply - this is the encyclopedia! --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the brian peppers page deleted

I wish Brian Peppers was brought back :( --Andeee 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Brian Peppers

My apologies for instigating the latest round of the controversy. I can not say that I am sorry for the result but I regret that we were unable to establish a decision process which did not require executive intervention. Rossami (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see you dealt with the issue, unfortunately I disagree with the decision to put the debate off for a year hoping it will go away, as I don't think it will. That is however within your right to do, and I respect the decision. However, I personally feel that resolving issues on Wikipedia rather than putting them off to be dealt with later is in the project's best interest. I realize you are going through a lot with the userbox issue and can see where you are coming from not wanting to have to deal with both issues at the same time, so I understand your decision. I look forward to your input on this issue when it is revisited in a year. VegaDark 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a whole debate and a vote on the brian peppers article and in the end it was voted to stay. Everybody agreed and the wikipedia authors who didnt shortened the article to be one paragraph long, nevertheless out of nowhere after all this debating you came along and deleted it with no reason what so ever. Why is this whole encyclopedia filled with ridiculous deletions and claims from its users. im assuming that it was something opinion based that led to this deletion. i thought there was a general consensus among the main authors and community to stay with voting and everything. so all of that was a waste of time? im glad that the real world is not moderated by the wikipedia authors because if it was we would have all white houses with all plastic furniture inside with nothing interesting ever going on and o yea and i forgot about the dictatorship which determines what is art,literature,math, get the point? im dissapointed that this encyclopedia will not recognize the significance of brian peppers and of how big this internet meme actually is. anyways i hope the moderators eventually come to their senses on this article.

But Jimbo deleted, it was his choice.. it's his site so we can't appose him can we? --Andeee 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Upload.Wikimedia.org server seems to be down, and our photos aren't appearing as a result

Will someone fix this problem asap? thx. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

Congratulations, you win. Speech is now impared and userboxes are dissapearing because of your vendetta. I am afraid that your reign is forcing me to leave wikipedia temporarily, if not indefinitely. --Shell <e> 06:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC) It is a shame you have to go. --Andeee 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Userbox reword suggestion

I hope I'm not too late: I came up with a possible step towards compromise; it is intended remove advocacy in userboxes and turn them into anti-POV tools. I hope it's more elegant than moving POV userboxes out of Template space (since the problems with the boxes would still be around). It's at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#POV_Userbox_Suggestion. --AySz88 ^-^ 07:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the "Beliefs" userboxes are "strongly discouraged" - my initial reaction (as a newbie to Wiki) was "Who *is* this guy to make such a sweeping statement?!" - glad I read your userpage before I asked *that* dumb question ;) - however, I remain curious as to why such innocuous belief userboxes as Utilitarianism and opposition to facsism are "strongly discouraged" - I look forward to your response. Oh yeah, and thanks for the Wiki! :) Longshot14 19:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

hardware orders or "Where is my money?"

Is the page meta:Wikimedia_servers/hardware_orders up to date? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.57.61.82 (talk • contribs). 11:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The last time it was updated was in December (per history). Broken Segue 00:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Request to start page concerning you

Jimbo, I wonder if you would object to me starting a page titled either Wikipedia:Jimbo is not God or Wikipedia:Jimbo is not a deity? The reasoning behind it would be to explain that people should not try to divine policy out of statements you make in interviews, talk pages, and discussion lists . As has been seen in the recent userbox wars, some people have tried to take a collection of statements you made in various places and piece together a dictate of policy(example).

My own feelings on this, and I believe of at least a few other Wikipedians, is that if you want to dictate a policy you will do so in no uncertain terms. Those who are trying to divine policy are acting like high-priests interpreting their deity's commands to the masses. The masses can't understand for themselves so the priests keep their jobs by doing it for them. I feel it would help to have a page stating in no uncertain terms that comments are part of a discussion and not a dictate unless you specifically say "this is a rule", "this is policy", or something to the same effect.

Thanks for your time. --StuffOfInterest 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. It's very frustrating trying to figure out exactly what Jimbo is advocating and what actions he wishes taken. I wish he would be less ambiguous and just step right out and set policy or declare "this is to be done". --Cyde Weys 10:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Peace for who deserves peace

Dear Mr. Wales
In the last time in the german part of wikipedia, the admins
deletes most of the addings of users from all over the world.
They deletes and let delete all what they don't like, without
any request. i.e the Article about Ahmadi Nedjad:
They deletes the speak of him that I have translated.
They truly make zionist propaganda (see aricle of munich)
So they provoke others to contradict. Aktually it is so bad
that there are openly editwars and offense. Offense in words
and with links. User 790 even made a Karikatur of the Prophet
Mohammad. The admins didn't intervene.
Is this the spirit of Wikipedia? Offenses and Editwars?
The spirit of wikipedia will not go for long, if this lobby
will stay for longer! Users can't speak free, or critisize anyone
with facts. They will be deleted by the Lobby.
Is this the spirit of Wikipedia?
When I heard first about Wikipedia, I remembered the Encyklopedia
Galactika by Isaak Asimov. A fundus of Knowledge..., but today?!?!

Please, excuse my poor english.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.227.103.74 (talk • contribs).

LordRevan

I have seen your ideals on the userboxes, Jimbo, and I agree with you that it is not what Wikipedia represents, and yet this is what Wikipedia has turned into (in my view). My only problem with the recent deletions of some userboxes is that they were limited to right-wing userboxes while many of the opposite userboxes were left alone. I respect other peoples beliefs but if you delete one groups political templates while saying you believe that both should be taken away, it kind of discredits you. I do not know if you plan to take all userboxes away, or if you just decided to take away the right-wing ones first. Just thought to drop by to see your view points. LordRevan 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom declare these people as "Propeganda source"

To proove the quote of the Mufti to "Kill the jews" we used quotes from books and also quotes from web site called 'Jewish Virtual Library" - both are sources compatiable with Wikipedia Verifyable sources policy.

Here is what Fred had to say about the sources we used:

"I don't doubt that this Nazi collaborator said at least the equivalent of this and probably worse, but the sources that have been advanced for it have not been good enough. These are the propagandistic sites we are complaining about. Fred Bauder 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC) "

Here is a list of the poeple who are on the comitee of one of the oragnizations whos's web site we used as source:

Rep. Gary Ackerman Rep. Tom Lantos Rep. Howard Berman Rep. John Linder Marshall Breger Rep. Nita Lowey Rep. Ben Cardin Rep. Michael McNulty Sen. Richard Durbin Rep. Carrie Meek Sen. Dianne Feinstein Sen. Barbara Mikulski Douglas Feith Rep. Constance Morella Rep. Robert Filner Rep. Michael Pappas Sen. Charles Grassley Rep. Ed Pastor Rep. Ralph Hall Dr. Daniel Pipes Rep. Alcee Hastings Rep. John Porter Richard A. Hellman Esq. Sen. Rick Santorum Rep. Sue Kelly Rep. Jim Saxton Rep. Peter King Sen. Charles Schumer Hon. Paul Simon

Let me again asuure you that ArbCom mistakes (now signed by all 8 membesr) will not end here in Wikipedia. I am waiting for the case to finally close. Zeq 04:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office Actions

Hi Jimbo,

I have some concerns on the above-mentioned proposal, mainly on the possibility of the avenue being subjected to abuse. You have mentioned in the page the following :

However, in most cases, even with the invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the long run.

I would like to point out that there will be some people who may attempt (with the intention to) bypass policy simply by just calling in to complain. In turn, this may actually encourage more people to call in to complain just to have things their way. I wonder if you have any checks and balances in mind to take care of this?

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is another person decalred as "propeganda source" by your ArbCom

EDWIN BLACK is an award winning, New York Times and international best-selling investigative author of IBM and the Holocaust, The Transfer Agreement, and War Against the Weak. Black's writing has also appeared in numerous newspapers across the United States and Europe, and the world's leading magazines have also carried his work, from Playboy and Reform Judaism to Der Spiegel and L'Express. He is the recipient of numerous awards, and last year won the two highest awards of the American Society of Journalists and Authors: best nonfiction book of 2002 for IBM and the Holocaust, as well as best investigative article of 2002 for his piece on IBM at Auschwitz that appeared in the Village Voice. He has appeared on scores of network TV and radio shows from NBC's "Today Show", CBS's "Morning News", "Dateline", and NPR to England's BBC, Germany's ZDF, and France's TF-1.

His quote of the Mufti: "kill the jews" [4] was rejected by ArbCom in the argument that we used "propeganda sources" for this quote.

Zeq 12:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion issues

I have submitted 2 articles for speedy deletion and monitoring the "Candidates for Speedy deletion page" and I notice that none of the admins seem to want to touch the articles or delete them, possibly due to their "political" nature.. The two articles are Ciaran Paul Donnelly and Tomasz Winnicki and soon will be requesting that Alex_Kulbashian Also be deleted based non-notability. I was wondering how I could bring this issue to the admins so they actually review it rather that skip over it. THank you - 72.136.34.96 18:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Defense of content

Hi Mr. Wales - if/whenever you have time, I ask for you to take a look at a proposal I have aimed at protecting content quality from vandalism. I'm proposing that all edits made by anon IPs (and if necessary, young user accounts) be delayed from taking effect by a particular amount of time (the proposal currently says 3-5 hours, but I think its within tens of minutes now), in order to give time for administrators to fight off vandalism and blatant POV violation before they pollute Wikipedia.

This is based upon the feeling that an encyclopedia's quality is measured over all of its content, and we can't have blatant propaganda, vandalism in any article even for a few minutes. At the same time, its mindful of anon participation freedom. I request you to take a look and give us your precious feedback. Thank you for all you've done in creating this tremendous project! Rama's Arrow 19:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

offensive admin

Wahkeenah is being really offensive as an admin making statements comparing anonymous IPs to Al Qaeda. As someone who enjoys posting as an IP, I find this statement really horrible and totally unwelcoming to new Wikipedians. I hope you can do something about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matt_Leinart

You might get a little more sympathy if you hadn't posted a personal attack. 84.71.141.97 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin recreating an article after its deletion

Admin User:HOTR recreated an article after a speedy deletion. The speedy deletion request stated that the individual named in the artcile James Scott Richardson is not noteable and showed that a lot of the information was unsourced as well as misleading (I.E. article posted with title suggesting the individual plotted to assassinate the prime minister, rediculous, the article itself though doesn't support the suggestion the content makes. Afd vote on the article had a few votes that refered to a plot on the prime minister of canada's life to be a point of noteability, thus the title of the article is being used to disparage the individual. Either way, individual is not-noteable, claims that he is racist and that he was arrested for charges that were withdrawn. Is there anything I can do to get the article deleted permanently? There is politics at play in the decision to repost. Imstillhere 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that this article was ever deleted. What I have found is that it overwhelmingly survived the AfD you put it through, and then you tried to speedy delete it a number of times afterwards on various grounds (one of which was that it was the talk page of a deleted page? creative..). Such speedy deletion nominations make it hard to assume good faith on your part, and your apparent mistruths on this page do nothing to repair that situation. And now anyone who peruses Jimbo's Talk page and likes whacking vandals are far more likely to add James Scott Richardson to their watch list. JDoorj a m Talk 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)