User talk:Qxz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! — Lost^(talk) 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub types and welcomebot research

Hi again... Well Wikipedia gets lots of new articles every day most of which are stubs. Unless they are correctly categorised, the stubs may just get lost. Adding a relevant stub tag automatically adds a relevant category to the article which helps when people with related interests come to work on the stubs.

Regarding the welcomebot research category, I think its a project by some people who are trying to gauge the editing patterns of new editors. You will get more details at the top of Category:WelcomeBotResearch, which you may have probably already seen. Let me know if any more help required. Cheers. — Lost^(talk) 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Parallax:

Your recent edit to Parallax (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So the bot fails to spot the vandalism, but reverts me when I try to fix it? That's really not a lot of use, you know – Qxz 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PediaPress

I was looking into your request to have the {{prod}}'ed article undeleted when you pulled the request. If you look at the deletion log, there was a PROD deletion, a WP:CSD#G11 deletion, and a garbage article deletion. Be aware 1) that the PROD'ed article was essentially identical to the CSD#G11 deletion, so the recreated article, if not significantly improved, may well be deleted again as advertising. I recommend either following the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test about finding independent sources and seeing if you can create an article therefrom, or just converting the link on Wikipedia to a sentence explaining the business. GRBerry 06:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

From Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Citations of generic sources:

"The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus."

Emphasis mine – Qxz 23:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why post this to my user talk page? Is it really necessary to smack me in the face with a WP page that tells me I'm somehow wrong about something? I never said that it's imperative that we do convert all references to that format, I'm saying that I believe we should do it. There's no need to come around just to tell me that I should have no right to say that (I do) when I haven't even made a big deal out of it yet. —msikma (user, talk) 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Robotchicken1886

Re your message: Call me an optimist. However, if he comes back, I will gladly extend the block for a longer or indefinite time. -- Gogo Dodo 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in popular culture

Hi, I noticed you just edited this Wikipedia in popular culture. For some reason, it's been fully protected, and {{editprotected}} requests are piling up on the talk page. Could you possibly take a couple of minutes to make those edits? They're all very small, they'll only take a few seconds. Thanks – Qxz 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, all minor fixes, all done. Let me know if there's any more. Proto::► 12:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1993

Thanks, didn't notice that little header. --Averross 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism patrol

Hey, thanks for helping out doing RC patrol, it's always needed. I've been noticing notes you've left on a vandal's page and I wanted to make a suggestion. I'd suggest going up in sequence through the test templates, rather than skipping to test 4 (or other "last warning") after a test 1 or 2. While not everyone does this, it is encouraged. It makes it easier to block the vandal, since it's clear that they've received the full set of warnings (Many admins will remove a vandal from AIV if they've not got the whole set of warnings). Also, there's a chance that the vandal will desist after a few warnings. It's also easier for the next person if you go in order (e.g. if someone leaves a t3 for the first message, do I leave a t4 for the second? Go back to t2?). Anyway, you can do with this advice what you want, I just thought I'd let you know my thoughts on it. Hopefully I haven't been too annoying by leaving you bossy messages as my introduction to you! Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Thanks again for doing RC patrol! Hopefully see you around. Peace, delldot | talk 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry to bother you then. Peace, delldot | talk 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Thank you, but if I've given the impression I have an ounce of sense, I owe you an apology. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See my reply at talk:Wikipedia. I know it's frustrating, but don't take it out on the guy who unprotected the article for a legitimate reason. If you had taken a look at my protection summary, you would have seen why I unprotected the page. In the future, you better watch those personal attacks. We don't tolerate this on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't call me "hopeless optimistic" and don't go on and say "finally, someone with sense" after SlimVirgin re-protected the page. There are many newly registered users and IPs that participate in ACIDs, and with the semi-protection, they will not be able to edit. I unprotected the page (and would only keep it unprotected for 3-4 days) so that these users could freely edit the page. As I said, there are hundreds of people who are watching the page, and dozens of them spend their time looking at their watchlist or RC patrol. These people can surely spend their time reverting vandalism on Wikipedia, as it is what they came here to do. As for the article history, that shouldn't matter. People can just go back into the history if they really want to see the constructive improvements to the article. Also, I want to stress that I did not unprotect because I was being optimistic and hoped vandalism would die down. I unprotected only because it was this week's ACID, and I would have unprotected by the end of the week. Nishkid64 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For you :)

		Glen's Anti-Vandalism Barnstar!
		Glen is thrilled to award Qxz with this small token of appreciation and acknowledgement for exceptional performance in the art of troll extermination, cruft elimination and for ensuring Wikipedia is safe for public consumption... You are a legend, please keep up the great work! Glen 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your vandalism accusation

"An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person." --Wikipedia vandalism guidelines

Marjorieconnolly 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OSCAR

Thanks for pitching in and making that happen. I had forgotten all about that. :)  — MrDolomite | Talk 19:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiger

Uhh... how does adding a fact to an article constitute vandalism?

I don't know how that managed to appear on the page, considering I did not write it during my edit. But could you at least revert the legitimate fact I added? – User:70.68.228.208 08:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you

You stated on the petition talk page: "There are no plans to discontinue this" How can you prove that? Do you know that people fought and died for the right to vote for elected representation in many countries and have that right entrenched in a constitution? Here it is all at the discretion of the board which is the same thing that goes on in a dictatorship. The board can do whatever it wants. It has complete control; they can decide to give the donations to pay high salaries to big corporate bosses or spend it all paying board members to fly them around the world to go on various "retreats" The servers and bandwidth only cost about $50,000 a month as far as I can tell. The bylaws also said that we should be given notice of all changes to the bylaws and elections (if you read it carefully I think you can figure that out) but no proper notice was given of any of those attempted changes. In fact if you read the Florida statutes it says that we are supposed to have an annual meeting, did the board ever have an annual meeting? NO. It has been operating in secret all these years being totally unaccountable to the (former) membership. If tomorrow the board past a resolution stating that all the members of the Board were to be personal friends of Brad Patrick that would be perfectly legal under the bylaws as they are now written. How is that fair? How is that respecting our rights as volunteer contributors? Many people were thinking they were volunteering because they could participate in an open and transparent organization. The people who "took" control have perverted that into a board that does mostly everything in secret who has employees give "notice" on obscure web pages and expects that all us volunteers have to check every web page on Wikipedia and if we don't it is our hard luck. You think because someone says that they will do something that they are obligated to do it? About three weeks ago Jimbo Wales told me he was going to write to me a few days later because he was too busy flying out to California (from Rotterdam) before he went back to Florida (that was around the 20th). Now I just found out he was here in NYC giving a talk at NYU on Wednesday and he didn't even bother to write me and tell me that (I live in NY and was at NYU a few days ago going to a talk by real friend of mine Madison Smartt Bell who just published a new and fascinating book on a real revolutionary, not an internet crackpot). Jimbo is too busy to respond to us "peons" -- we are not important to him, he has much more important things to do and so what if he promises a volunteer something and does not follow through, after all we are all working for nothing here, so our time is worth nothing, unlike him because he *is* the Foundation; that million dollars *he* just raised is for *him* and his *pals* to use to keep us enslaved as the real workers that make his fame and fortune possible. Think about it, the only edits I could find that he has made recently (besides deleting defamatory stuff that people complain about) were to change the history of Wikipedia to erase Larry Sanger as co-founder.[1]. I guess when you are an internet millionaire (he runs and *owns* a company that has about 40 employees and his just received *private* financing from Amazon.com) and prophet even though you tell everyone else not to edit their articles you can do so yourself because who is going to tell you to stop doing that? Eh? No man is above the law, but someone is above "Official Policy" at Wikipedia. Food for thought. Alex756 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur William Bden Powell

Agree to the speedy deletion. After it's gone I will replace with another article all my own work. GrahamBould 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You were right

[2] My finger moved too fast. Musical Linguist 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Memory (short story)

Why the speedy delete? Nareek 03:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh--never mind! Nareek 03:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Please, if you tag something that might be transcluded somewhere else for speedy deletion, like Talk:American Foxhound/Comments, add <noinclude> around the speedy deletion tag. Otherwise, it can make it annoying to figure out where the speedy deletion tag is coming from, especially when CAT:CSD is filled up. Thanks. --BigDT 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page speedy deletions

It is my understanding the {{db-blank}} is not appropriate for use on talk pages. From what I remember, blank talk pages should just be left alone since they're not hurting anything, and they'll only have to be re-created if someone then wants to use them. The only CSD criteria for talk pages, I believe, are G6: Housekeeping, G8: Talk pages without a main page, G9: Office actions, G10: Attack pages/libel, and G12: Copyright infringement. I'm just trying to make sure a valued contributor like yourself isn't wasting time on unnecessary work... happy editing! timrem 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Short pages

If you don't already know about it, see User:Zorglbot/Shortpages. —Centrx→talk • 07:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

your warnings

could you indicate what level the warning you are posting, so it will be easier for later warnings and blocks to be applied if needed? _→AzaToth 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

how do you do it...

I decided today to try my hand at vandalism reversions using the "recent changes", and I was fairly quick, but 4 out of 5 have already been reverted by you by the time I click history! Number one, kudos for your tireless effort, and number two, how are you so quick(as I might want to speed up my process as well)...Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis 02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message to another user

"I wrote these messages myself, they don't follow the "levels", which I don't see the need for anyway. There's a warning, and a final warning, and after that I report them to AIV.

If someone blanks a page and writes "Penis" three times, are they realistically going to stop if you issue a third warning, or would it be better to just report them and get them blocked as soon as possible? (It's a rhetorical question).

If I've warned someone before and they vandalise again, I leave them a final warning. If they still haven't figured it out by the time they've read that, then they're not going to contribute constructively. It's the administrator's call in the end, but by this stage they deserve to know. Remember that users often manage to vandalise two or three times between warnings.

And yes, those of you who seem to enjoy imposing petty rules are being too bossy. I just warned myself by mistake (the buttons are like right next to each other) and not only was it reverted, I got told to go and read the policies! Spend your time dealing with problem users, not picking at us. Thanks – Qxz 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)"

I couldn't agree with you more. If I find a vandal that has gone unnoticed and has hit an article umpteen times with spam, blankings, obscene stuff whatever I jump in with the last warning maybe the 2nd to last blatant warning if I am being generous. I am not going to say "oh you may have put "penis penis" unintentionally umpteen times on a page in case you did this by accident blah blah blah. I am going to slap them on the wrist and hit em with warnings. Its an easy common sense call. You can easily tell a vandal from someone experimenting. Keep up the good work --Xiahou 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your counter-vandalism tactics

Hey, I was just doing some RC patrol and for quite a few pages that I went to revert, you had already reverted them. Bravo, you are an asset to the wikipedia community with your quick action.

However, I do have to question your methods of using one warning then a final warning tag. In some sense, this may constitute biting the newbies. I scanned through your talk and your message above, in which you believe that placing more warnings won't help the situation. I realize that wikipedia warnings don't have a 100% guideline and they can be placed at the discretion of other users. However, I think it's far too harsh to give users two warnings. Some of these people truly ARE experimenting. For example, on one user he edited 3 times, you reverted, and he edited right after you; you gave him one standard and one final warning. Don't you think he was just experimenting to see if anyone would notice and see how fast it would get reverted back? And don't you think he didn't have TIME to notice his warnings?

You have to realize that warnings are there for constructive purposes as well. If he hasn't seen your first warning, then placing a final warning is unnecessarily harsh and does not help the situation at all!

I'm not telling you what to do, I just hope that you can assume good faith with these newbies. After all, many are IP users and if they are on public machines, you don't want innocent users slapped with a bright yellow bar telling them they might be banned! Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jack Johnson

I don't see how you have come to the conclusion that I vandalised Jack Johnson's page, I actually made the page revert back to its state before it was vandalised. I had nothing to do with the vandalisation. I trust you will make an apology to me and withdraw your complaint. I am a huge fan of Jack and I would never write such ridiculous comments! – 168.105.127.22010:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle

Hi! Looks like I messed up a vandalism revert, and you sorted it out. Sorry if i gave you any trouble. Philip Trueman 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Qxz for continually beating me to vandalism reverts this evening. Good work Khukri - 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart (pt. 1)

I am really confused, I just got a message from someone saying for me not to vandalise a page on Elizabeth Smart, I was the one whom left a message on the page asking for Wikipedia to remove someones rubbish which they had write on there regarding her. I dont know how to remove swear words, graffitti etc so thats why I left a message asking for Wikipedia to remove the idiots scrolling and asking for the person to be banned from posting if they persist on leaving rubbish and I have just logged in and find I am the one who has a warning ! That doesnt make sense. I am trying to help and I am the one being warned, whats that about ? As Wikipedia clearly cant see I am trying to help then can someone please tell me how I can remove peoples graffitti and rubbish left ? 74.166.16.195 – 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart (pt. 2)

I am not quite sure how to email you directly but my reason for typing what I did was that Elizabeth Smart was my great Aunt, although I never met her my grandmother told me much about her and so I think I have quite a reason to be upset if someone is using vile and I mean vile language regarding a relative of mine. Perhaps you need to look back at what was said and you can see for yourself what I mean. Wikipedia should be more responsible in letting people edit. For example if a swear word is used, there should be an automatic block if the system picks up a swear word used in an edit. This would help at least somewhat. Otherwise people will consider sewing if slanderous words are being used about peoples relatives. I appreciate your time and in bringing your attention to this matter.

Sincerly

Adam – 74.166.16.195 07:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your PROD of Abdul Rahman Husseini

It looks to me like your prod was for the vandalized version of the page - in which case the right solution is to revert the vandalism (as I did). If your prod was about the unvcandalized version of the page - I object; if you still want it deleted - feel free to use AfD. Eli Falk 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

wrong revert!!!!!!!!!!!!

In [[[Māzandarān Province]], I only edited the top info box of the article. but you reverted me! I just noticed that anon user prior to me has done the vandalism. please if you have done that by a robot, fix it. --Pejman47 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the diff. you are right, but I only changed the info box and clicked on the "save page", do you any cause for this? --Pejman47 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your comments. In future, I will try to use the "show preview" bottom. Again thanks. --Pejman47 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:67.174.27.138

User actually vandalised Wikipedia:Disambiguation after your stage 4 warning - did you realise? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

YOU WERE NEVER A MEMBER

Alex756 wrote:

You stated on the petition talk page: "There are no plans to discontinue this" How can you prove that?

See the Meta page I referred you to. If you don't believe me, ask a member of the Board.

You say "ask the Board" I did contact them and they ignored me. Are you someone special with some special status to contact the board? IAAL and I know that a board resolution has no binding power, i.e. the board can change it anytime without any notice to anyone. This is how dictatorships get created. Isn't this what Hitler did in the Weimar Republic.

Do you know that people fought and died for the right to vote for elected representation in many countries and have that right entrenched in a constitution?

This is hardly the same thing. You aren't comparing like with like.

Why not? The basic idea of representation is an ancient idea that is founded ::in the belief that we are all equal and we have the right to have our voice heard. You really do not understand representation by voting. This is something that is very important in our society (I don't know where you are from but I think you are from the Former Soviet Union according to your edits so perhaps you do not appreciate voting).

Here it is all at the discretion of the board...

As it always has been. The Board has always had the ability to define "contributor" for the purpose of the elections, currently specifying 400 edits. There's nothing to stop them specifying 1,000,000 edits and having nobody able to vote — except good faith and common sense, neither of you have factored into your argument.

The Board never had the unilateral right to take it away without seeking consultation from the members. The board was created with the idea that it would seek participation on an ongoing basis. Jimbo spoke about how this was a grand social experiment. I am not talking about consensus decision making but that we as contributors would have the right to participate. I hardly believe that someone who started editing in January would know anything about this. Are you a sockpuppet for someone who is too afraid to disclose their identity? It would not surprise me. In any case the idea is that the board had a duty to establish reasonable qualifications as all legal agreements (and the bylaws are like a contract) rely upon good faith and fair dealing. If the board set the number of edits to 1,000,000 that would not show good faith or fair dealing (just as the unilateral dissolution of membership does not show good faith or fair dealing).

...which is the same thing that goes on in a dictatorship.

No, it isn't. Again, you are not comparing like with like.

They meet in secret, they make decisions without consultation of the users who are the people who are doing all the work here. The GFDL contributions were based upon the idea that this would be an open community adventure, not some closed, secretive board that did whatever it wanted to do. These self proclaimed leaders only want status so that they can do whatever they want, appoint their former employees to paying positions and use Wikipedia as a source of fame and fortune. Us lowly volunteers mean nothing, we have no status and what we say and think means nothing. Really that is like a dictatorship so why isn't my comparison valid, you are not giving me specifics you are just spouting aphorisms that are meaningless.

The board can do whatever it wants. It has complete control;...

Within reason, yes, provided it is compatible with the Foundation's goals. That has always been the case.

No, I disagree. First the board is limited by Florida law and the common law of corporations. It was started as a membership organization. The IRS was not consulted when it changed its status from membership to non-membership. Maybe the tax exempt status is in question now? Has anyone considered that possibility?

...they can decide to give the donations to pay high salaries to big corporate bosses...

No, they can't. That would be incompatible with the Foundation's goals.

You obviously know nothing about how the not-for-profit sector works. It would not be incompatible. There are many NPO officers that make a lot of money. Look at this article: http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v18/i24/24003901.htm it clearly states that the pay increases for NPO CEOs is outpacing private sector increases. "The median compensation for chief executives was $327,575, based on information from 241 organizations that provided data for both years. In 2004, the median salary was $316,058." That is a lot of money that a couple of years ago was run completely by volunteers. What happened? It is the fear of allowing volunteers to really do "important" things because the staff is afraid of volunteers, isn't it?

...or spend it all paying board members to fly them around the world to go on various "retreats"

No, they can't "spend it all" this way. They do indeed spend some of the money this way. A very, very, small fraction of it. I'd argue that's an acceptable use of funds.

So they can fly around the world but they have no accountability to the people who are giving them material that is allowing them to raise money and take these trips. They don't have to have these trips, they can meet online with video conferencing, skype is free. There are people who are donating their last five euros when they don't have money to buy food. Anthere said today at a conference that WMF only has enough money to keep going for about three or four months and yet they are hiring more and more people. What is it with all the other money?

The servers and bandwidth only cost about $50,000 a month as far as I can tell.

Actually, it's slightly more than that, and remember that $50,000 a month is $600,000 a year, and that's before you factor in depreciation and increasing costs caused by the inevitable continued growth of the projects. The proceeds of the last fundraiser (about $1 million) will barely see out the year.

They normally have four fundraisers a year, so you are saying that the other three fundraisers are not necessary if they don't spend money on anything than the servers. I agree with you! We don't need employees, it is a waste of money. You and I agree! Let us just use the money to pay for servers and stuff rather than having all these self proclaimed "big shots" being paid to do all kinds of things. It is a waste of money, really this was started as a volunteer organization but these people see stars in their eyes and they have taken over thinking that they are important and necessary people. We could get rid of almost all of them and keep the WMF running. Why are they necessary? It is a waste of money.

The bylaws also said that we should be given notice of all changes to the bylaws and elections (if you read it carefully I think you can figure that out) but no proper notice was given of any of those attempted changes.

I agree that the changes were sudden and unannounced, contrary to the bylaws, and that this may be viewed as a problem. However, this is a procedural complaint. In addition to this, you are complaining about the content of the changes, and I disagree with this part. You seem to be claiming that some right has been taken away; I fail to see that this has happened.

Have you ever heard of "due process" or "fundamental justice"? I don't know what country you are from, I am Canadian and we believe, like most people in Commonwealth countries (and the US and other "common law" countries) that it is important to give people notice. Why because they can influence the discourse. Here we were denied that opportunity, perhaps if we had the chance to be heard (audi alterum partem is an ancient incantation) we could have changed the decision making process that might have changed your status (you might now be a member of this grand undertaking rather than just a "community" participant (that is the term eBay uses to refer to people that sell trash on their site).

In fact if you read the Florida statutes it says that we are supposed to have an annual meeting, did the board ever have an annual meeting?

Yes.

NO.

No, really, it did. In fact the board has been meeting a lot more often than annually. It's had one meeting this year already, and it's only Februray. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings.

An annual meeting of MEMBERS requires notice to all members. IT WAS NEVER GIVEN!!! You do not know anything about NPO law; have you read the Florida statutes? Obviously not. I am a lawyer, what is your qualification?

It has been operating in secret all these years being totally unaccountable to the (former) membership.

"All these years"? It's only been in existence for three and a bit, and it's spent most of that time doing nothing at all. The recent changes to the bylaws are part of the current push to actually get things going.

Google bought Youtube for 1.65 Billion US dollars after something like 15 months, in the internet reality three years is a LONG time.

If tomorrow the board past a resolution stating that all the members of the Board were to be personal friends of Brad Patrick that would be perfectly legal under the bylaws as they are now written.

Oh, don't be rediculous.

I am trying to make a point (and I won't correct your spelling). You say the Board can do whatever it wants. The whole point of membership is to give the organization some kind of stablilty so that people on the outside think that there is someone who criticizes the decisions of the staff and just does not take everything at face value. Everyone on the board is voting for all the propositions "unanimously" it is a big happy family, some friction would be good for them and that would come from members who are now disenfranchised. I know a about friction, in our society it is a very important force. Ever read Hegel?

How is that fair? How is that respecting our rights as volunteer contributors?...

You have precisely two rights; the right to leave, and the right to fork.

That is not true at all. That is total bullshit and it makes me think that you are not a newbie but someone who is a sockpuppet. I did all this work to make Wikipedia (I was once one of the top editors in 2003) because I believed that what Jimbo and his pals were saying was true and they were not lying. You guys keep harping on this GFDL like it was some holy grail, it is still subject to the context in which it is given. There is no such thing as a 100% totally irrevocable license, especially when it is gratuitous. Now I find out that "they" (remember when it used to be "us"?) are just using WMF for their own individual gain, not to really do anything that involves the volunteers in a so-called "community" (except when the community members agree with Jimbo and his pals). This is not right, this is not an open and free society. Do you really disagree with me about this? Is this what it was like in Soviet society? They keep trying to brain wash you into thinking you have given up your rights so you never really exercise them. I feel sorry for such people, they do not know how free they really are or can become.

Many people were thinking they were volunteering because they could participate in an open and transparent organization.

Open and transparent? Well they can forget the Board, then, they should be more worried about the administrator cabals.

There is the rub, it is not only the Board, it is the whole organization. There needs to be a serious reform movement within Wikipedia or it will devolve into a "white elephant".

The people who "took" control...

You make it sound like some sort of hostile takeover. Half of them were elected, by us (well not me, because I wasn't here, but "us" the community).

Once again I think you are not who you say you are. They did take control because they never gave notice to all the members that they could vote. Who knew about the elections? I only found out about them after they occurred so I could never participate; is that fair? You had to log on every week to figure that out? I have another life besides Wikipedia, I am not Jimbo, Brad or Danny, I am just a volunteer and I think if they had sent me an email (which I do check every day) I would have participated. Is that unreasonable? I do not think so. How is it possible when there are millions of people from hundreds of countries that only one thousand people vote? There is something really, really, wrong here...

...have perverted that into a board that does mostly everything in secret who has employees give "notice" on obscure web pages

It was posted on the Foundation website, linked from the home page. Given that Wikimedia projects operate almost exclusively over the Internet, how else do you suggest they do it? You want them to phone you up in person and tell you?

The bylaws are very clear about this even now. Mail or email. Did you ever read the bylaws? Probably not, this comment shows that you don't really know what is going on, you are just attacking me, not being rational. You are really showing your ignorance here, you did not even read the new bylaws! (that part about notice via email was not change by Brad!)

and expects that all us volunteers have to check every web page on Wikipedia...

They don't have to check any pages on Wikipedia. Though I recommend you do so anyway; there's a lot of interesting stuff buried in there.

"You" recommend that "I" check pages on Wikipedia? Have you checked my user contributions? You don't know who I am? I was writing Wikipedia articles when you did not even know about wiki software. Ha!

...and if we don't it is our hard luck. You think because someone says that they will do something that they are obligated to do it? About three weeks ago Jimbo Wales told me he was going to write to me a few days later because he was too busy flying out to California (from Rotterdam) before he went back to Florida (that was around the 20th). Now I just found out he was here in NYC giving a talk at NYU on Wednesday and he didn't even bother to write me and tell me that (I live in NY and was at NYU a few days ago going to a talk by real friend of mine Madison Smartt Bell who just published a new and fascinating book on a real revolutionary, not an internet crackpot).

You're confusing Jimbo's own personal life, arrangements and relationship with you with the Board and its goals.

Not at all, Jimbo makes it sound like his "personal" life is part and parcel of his being the "God King" of WMF. Look at his photos on Flikr. He is the big chief and if I contact him it is because I am a long time Wikipedia contributor, a volunteer who has donated a lot of my professional time (probably worth in excess of $100,000 if it was properly accounted for) and someone who Jimbo has stated (in an email to myself and Anthere): “Let me say that Alex is and has always been for me a trusted advisor and the that foundation could not be where it is today without him. I would personally recognize this by saying that he was the first lawyer for the foundation, who gave freely of his services “pro bono” and did an excellent job of it." I think that since he wrote that email (around December 15, 2006) he has changed his mind, because he is not responding to any of my emails. In mid January he told me he would write back to me in a few days because he was going to San Francisco to a Wikia board meeting. I was writing to him about being on the board of my new organization that would help NPOs that are collaborative internet organizations get organized. Then I found out he was in NYC and he never bothered even to tell me. I could have just gone and said hi to him. He kept telling me in emails that he was my "friend". The point is he is pretty flaky and he does not keep his word. He just makes statements and expects us "peons" to forgive him for his lapses because he thinks we want access to him. I don't need people like that, we have a word for them here in Brooklyn: hypocrites.

Jimbo is too busy to respond to us "peons" -- we are not important to him,...

Well, there are a lot of us. I count over 3,000,000 registered user accounts on the English Wikipedia alone. He can't attend to all our individual needs in person.

I wrote to him about being mistreated as part of the last election. I was trying to make a point about what happened and how public statements were issued that resulted in misrepresentations about my historical role as Wikimedia's first legal counsel at title that Brad took on for himself [3].

...he has much more important things to do and so what if he promises a volunteer something and does not follow through, after all we are all working for nothing here, so our time is worth nothing, unlike him because he *is* the Foundation; that million dollars *he* just raised is for *him* and his *pals*...

With all due respect, you're just beginning to sound ignorant now. Jimbo has no personal control over that money, or over Wikipedia, (which he once owned but has now donated to the Foundation) or over the Foundation. He was once chair of the Board, and two of the Board members were essentially friends of his who did as they were told. However, neither of those things is true any longer.

Jimbo referred to the Board as "his". I really think that everyone still does not want to do anything that might piss him off. As far as him "owing" Wikipedia I think the application to the IRS stated that he never owned it, but that it was always a volunteer activity. If everyone votes the way he wants he does have personal control. He stated that he wanted Kat and Oscar to be elected to the Board in September and then when they didn't get elected they got appointed in Decemeber. What does that tell you? He decided to hire Brad without having any kind of search or hiring committee even though we had plenty of volunteer lawyers who were working he decided to hire someone who was already working for Wikia? He obviously has control over money decisions.

...to use to keep us enslaved...

Oh, please. The two rights that we do have more than take care of this. Right to leave and right to fork, remember?

Really? We do all the work and then get thrown out or run away because we don't agree with Jimbo? I thought of taking that position and that is one reason that I resigned as Chair of the Fundraising Committee in December (the other reason is that a lawyer cannot be working for his client if there is a dispute beween the client and the lawyer, this is the fundamental reason that I was under a moral obligation to stop helping the Foundation in any material way). But after much thought I realized that people need to know what is going on at WMF because I dont' think anyone really knows everyone thinks everything is "roses, roses, roses". They have forgot the thorns.

as the real workers that make his fame and fortune possible. Think about it, the only edits I could find

You're not seriously using EDIT COUNT to judge the activity of the BOARD, are you? For goodness' sake... even the Editor Review people know not to do that.

Everyone says you should not edit article about yourself, but Jimbo is doing that. That does not seem right to me. We are all editors, we created Wikipedia, I am sorry Jimbo did not do that, he only thought of the idea with Larry Sanger and gave a few servers and some bandwidth, now he has been repaid for that many times over (I can't imagine that he did not profit from funding from Amazon.com) so he should just bow out and let others take the reigns for a while, he is not ireplacable.

...that he has made recently (besides deleting defamatory stuff that people complain about) were to change the history of Wikipedia to erase Larry Sanger as co-founder.[4].

Yes, he has been engaging in an edit war with his co-founder. I certainly don't condone that, but that is an entirely separate (and in the scale of things, unimportant) issue from any Foundation business.

No it is not unimportant because I think that the question is, does Jimbo try to change his mind and cover up what happened? This is my experience with him since I resigned and wanted to talk to the board (he would not let me, he wanted to mediate it himself!). He likes to waffle when it suits him. He has always been a bit flaky, we all know that about him, it is nothing new, but if he uses that and does not admit his faults, that is really not good news (especially to newbies like you).

I guess when you are an internet millionaire (he runs and *owns* a company that has about 40 employees and his just received *private* financing from Amazon.com)...

Are you referring to Wikia? That's not solely under his control, or even close to it. See Wikia, Gil Penchina, Angela Beesley. I think you're also overestimating his personal assets a little, though obviously that's a private matter and I have no figure for it.

It is not really a private matter because he has benefited from Wikipedia. If it were not for starting Wikipedia he would have never gotten so renowned. Now he is using that star status to try and get more money. He is just trying to make money for himself. Nothing wrong with that but it does relate to Wikimedia and for some strange reason Wikimedia hires former Wikia employees. Did he ever read the article about intermediate sanctions?

...and prophet even though you tell everyone else not to edit their articles you can do so yourself because who is going to tell you to stop doing that? Eh? No man is above the law, but someone is above "Official Policy" at Wikipedia. Food for thought. Alex756 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't even be bothered to respond to that. Forgive my laziness – Qxz 09:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does that not surprise me, after all you joined here after the bylaws were changed, you don't really have any standing to be part of this debate. What Wikipedia needs are people who question authority not people like you who are supporting authority. What is your motivation in doing that? Alex756 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia

My apologies - was trying to revert some spam on the talk page. CloudNine 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports

Please report users only AFTER they have edited past the test4 or BV warnings. You seem to be doing it concurrently: warning the user and reporting them at the same time. I've had to remove and/or continue to check back on several reports you've made in the last hour or so to see if the user has vandalized again. In several cases, they haven't and were removed as inactive. Thanks, Metros232 14:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You did this again just now reporting the user at 05:17 before the final warning was given at 05:18. The user hasn't edited since the final warning yet. Please wait until after they break the test4 before reporting. Thanks, Metros232 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! Jhinman 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto! Kafziel ^Talk 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Thank you very much and happy editing! Fvasconcellos 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Well thanks very much for your kind message, it did actually mean a lot to me. See you around :) delldot | talk 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Wales Article

I noticed you did a reverse edit of Pete on a Pongo Stick edits to the article of Wales, but what I saw mostly between his edit and your reversion was a huge deletion of information that seemed relevant. Mind you there was a lot that I skimmed through but I did not see any vandalism within and I now see this user has been indefinitely blocked. Just curious was why his edits were reversed?--Ozgod 08:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete copied multiple copies of the article into itself. So it looked OK, but wasn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the reason; difficult to spot, which is why it was a while before it got reverted. The user's indefinite block came after persistent and somewhat more obvious vandalism to other articles – Qxz 16:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding {{2CC}}

I just read your comment at the TfD page on these templates. The maintenance task you did making all those consistent is exactly the reason I am voting delete. It's a pain to do and someone gets stuck doing the dirty work. Thanks for all your work in that area. We dab cleaners dont get much appreciation :) - grubber 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Fender Musical Instruments Corporation

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Qxz! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule petitiononline\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Qxz for a great job at cleaning up vandalism and reverting my user page, twice! Keep up the good work! mrholybrain's talk 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I see you watch recent changes like me and sometimes you beat me to the punch. Take a star and keep up the good work. BuickCenturyDriver 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ditto!!! you are ridiculously fast Qxz Stizz 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you for your great anti vandalism work! --Kukini 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Stikipedia!!!

Stikipedia! It was the original name of this whole foundation, which the founders DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!! It's funny! I'm putting it in the article, bay-bee!! – 139.133.7.37 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for reverting that vandles vandilisum :} ♥sailor cuteness-ready for love♥ 23:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RC patrol

Hey Qxz, just wanted to ask you what do you use for the recentchanges patrolling thing? a script? a program? You're incredible. :)

Thanks. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC) PS: you aren't a bot, are you? About 1700 edits today!!

"Doing something not quite right"? Are you kidding, this is great!

Will you release that program someday in the future for other wikipedians to use it? FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Inhuman

How can anyone human revert so much vandalism? --Ideogram 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Freakin' Fast!

It is amazing how many times you beat me in reverts. Daily: Oh, damn, that Qxz beat me again!!! -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Hal Turner:

Your recent edit to Hal Turner (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no! Qxz turned vandal on us. :( We're all doomed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the diff – the bot reverted the reverter, rather than the vandal. (Does it often do this...?) – Qxz 07:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

More often than I'm sure we'd all like. Here, my only guess is the == characters threw it off (perhaps it saw sections?). Large character removals usually do attract bot attention. Worst they'll do is report you to the bot section on AIV, where somebody'll quickly see what's happened and remove the report. Some of our anti-vandalism bots will revert once; most of them keep adminlists and won't revert admins (just for your reference, if you find yourself in revert wars with them). – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Glitch on "Ann Coulter"

Can you figure out what the devil is wrong? -- Lonewolf BC 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. What precisely is the problem? – Qxz 09:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, I figured it out. I simply made a syntax error on a footnote. It's amazing the difference one mis-placed "/" can make. Thanks anyway. -- Lonewolf BC 09:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I've done that a few times before; the reference syntax in particular can cause very confusing errors. Probably best not to blank the page, though – if it does mess up, revert to the last working version and then figure out the problem with the "Show Preview" button before saving again. Remember people are viewing the article all the time. Thanks – Qxz 09:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It wasn't the best idea. But it was the one that came to mind, which is a clue that I should hit the sack. (By the way, you might as well answer here, for sake of continuity -- though I imagine you'll most likely see no need to answer again.) -- Lonewolf BC 09:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)