User talk:Jimbo Wales/May24 - July 2006

Here comes the Spiderman!
(No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."



This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Thats what I love about this Wonderful, wonderful website.

Next stop: The Kremlin!

Thankyou!

By Permission Only Images to be deleted
I Do not understand other admins interpretations of your decisions. .

This seems to be talking about how if you can find an alternative you should replace the image, However, I have seen this Policy being applied beyond when a free alternative is impractical and Offends the Copyright holder even more.

Specifically in the UserSpace Zone in combination with fair use. Please see the talks of these images for examples.

Image:User browser firefox.png as a replacement for Image:Firefox-logo.png

and Image:Uncyclopedia_logo.png When a free alternative is not practical and

Is their some policy about misinterpreting what you say?

I feel Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for this very reason. I am sorry to involve you in this issue but I can't stand when people keep quoting everything you say and claim it means something unrelated. You are a reasonable person, however some of your followers will take what you say unconditionally with the least respect to the our community. I am approaching you because this is about what you said. I can't reason with somebody who say Jimbo say this or Jimbo said that. It seams Impracticable to involve you in every dispute. Can you make some statement so we can free the minds of people who are encapsulated by the belief that you have the final word on everything. PS. Don't you also own Uncyclopedia? (outside of the sense that everybody owns the wiki)--E-Bod 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the images you link to are permission or noncommercial. The Listserv post you quote is totally irrelevant to them. —Simetrical (contribs) 04:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They cannot use the template because they are uploaded after May 19, 2005. And yes. That is my Point. "The Listserv post you quote is totally irrelevant to them" however admins are assuming this is the rule. I need a statement from Jimbo because i was told


 * Wikipedia does not accept specific permission to use images (Jimbo has personally intervened on this matter), so it is only usuable under fair use. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Quoted by --E-Bod 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My Point is that this Listserv post is being misused and only Jimbo himself can tell Ed this. Image_talk:User_browser_firefox.png May be a bad Example but Image talk:Uncyclopedia logo.png uses this list server as evidence and refuses to discuss the issue because he believes Jimbo said XY & Z. Personally i do not believe a Listserv is a policy. I totally agree with you. This issue is irrelevant and that is exactly why I need Jimbo to make some statement about misusing his listserv. I don't think their is a template to allow special permission for use on user space. I will be more than happy to make one but I need some grounds to defend the template or else people who remove fair use from user space will jump all over me.--E-Bod 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am really upset with Ed now. He holds others to higher standards than he hold himself as i will talk about on User_talk:Ed_g2s I Might regret this latter I do regre this i am pponting to an old issue several yers ago but Numerous people have had issues with this user removing fair use images in questionable situations but now i find out he still hasn't removed all fair use images from his userspace after i told him about it(and I was blocked for WP:POINT without a warning or a notice i was blocked by a arbitrator who met him at a wikimeeting in real life).  I have not yet given him a chance to respond yet so my opinion is very one sided.  This user is very bad at confronting fair use violators yet is is one of the biggest Fair use Violators to date.  This is unacceptable and i think he should lose admin privileges.  He has received numerous complaints already.  I take back my first statement.  This is the only User I have heard miss quote your e-mail.--E-Bod 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is not sufficient for its use, nor is permission to use an image only for noncommercial purposes (yes, even on userpages). The relevant permission for Image:Uncyclopedia logo.png is (currently) "I'd like to allow the logo to be used for Wikipedia userpages, userboxes, etc. - in other words, as "decoration" for Wikipedians."  That's permission and thus unacceptable; unless it's released under an acceptable license, it can't be used except under fair use.  Likewise for the Firefox logo, etc.  I don't understand what your difficulty is. I misspoke when I said the Listserv post was irrelevant.  It's entirely relevant, insofar as it indicates that the images must be fair-use.  I just glanced at them, saw that they weren't permission/noncommercial, and figured it wasn't applicable; I was incorrect.  It is, and I'm not sure why you think it's not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets put this whole episode in historical perspective.


 * On 5 January 2006, the Policy tag was added to the Fair use criteria page. There was no debate about this.  The one user who added this vaguly mentioned he did this because of a conversation with Jimbo, but when pressed, avoided the question and provided nothing. This one user did not follow: How to create policy.


 * The first debate, to my knowlege, about fair use was with TSBY regarding Time magazine and fair use images. He took an email from Jimbo and overstepped the bounds of the the email, deleting the images without using the normal channels.  This caused a firestorm and a RfC found here: Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2.


 * Then there is the case of Ed. Ed began deleting images from user's userpages. When I asked him to provide where he was getting this authority to do this, he ignored my question. At least TSBY had an e-mail from Jimbo (albiet he was interpreting wrong).  Ed doesn't even have this.  It is as if admin one day decided to delete thousands of images with no consensus and no direction.  Ed is creating discontent and anger on wikipedia.Travb (talk)  [[Image:Police_Man_No.png|25px]] 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry For the report on ed. That actually was an out of date report. Back to the issue. I have not seen on any policy page that we are not allowed to obtain permission. Infact most pages just say it would be a waste of time but does not forbid it. secondly this this quote from Jimbo is the only place i can find the issue please point me to it and this quote says (This is a standard photo of the Mission District in San Francisco -- getting a free alternative will be simple.) If you fallow the spirit of this post and not the rule I interpret what Jimbo is saying as When a free alternative is easily obtained their is no reason to use an image with permission.

However I infer that when an alternative is not possible to obtain then permission can be granted for the use of the image past fair use. I can't make an alternative Uncyclopidia image because it would have to have the same rights as the origin because it would be a derivative. an image. When the user says we can use it and the spirit of the rules do not forbid it there is not reason for use to get caught up on the technicalities of rules that are not addressing the issue.--E-Bod 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are missing the bigger picture. Images that only Wikipedia have permission to use is not compatable with the GFDL license Wikipedia is released under. We simply can not accept content that is more restrictive than GFDL with regards to who can use it for what (that's my understanding anyway). Aparently (properly used) fair use content can be compatable with GFDL to some extent, but not always wich is why we have a fairly strict fair use policy too. Your permission wold make the image legaly free to use on Wikipedia, sure, but Wikipedia is not a project to build a great website, it's a project to make free content available to anyone, this Wiki is just the tool we use to make this content, and in that context it makes no sense to add content that can only be use on the Wikipedia website, and I don't see why it would be worth complicating our license situation by starting allowing it either. --Sherool (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You are the First person I have encountered to actually address the issue I am bringing up.  However Your Legal concerns do not address the 2 instances I am talking about.  My particular Issue is For use on User space.  The issue is that Images listened free for Non Commercial Purposes  are not allowed on Wikipedia Despite Wikipedia being a Nonfor profit image.  I am talking about General Permission that would apply to sight beyond Wikipedia.  For instance The Uncyclopedia logo has permission to be used as decoration and is licensed uner   so we have every legal right to use it.  Now if your concern is if we or somebody else wanted to sell the Encyclopedia then we may have problems, however Userspace is not going to be included on a sold copy of this encyclopedia.  The Issue Is that the image is licensed for me to use it a certain way.  I want to use it that way.  If it wasn’t licensed I could still make a Fair use Claim.  The user has Given permission.  And the only thing stopping it is this That Wikipedia has put additional restrictions past the legal ones saying it won’t use Images licensed for non Commercial use and so the image is put into the Fair use category.  I can’t make my foar use claim because we won’t allow it on userspace and I have permission to use it but we won’t accept that ether because People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when  No free alternative is obtainable.  We are 100% legally allowed to use it.  We just Have People who will not take the spirit of the rules into consideration.  The problem is that several rules that should not apply to all circumstances are baing miss applied.  Of one of these rules were clarified I would instantly be able to use the image on my userspace--E-Bod 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when No free alternative is obtainable."  Jimbo never said that.  He said "As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight.  Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use"."  No provisos, it's unconditional.  It happened that the two examples he gave could be easily replaced by free images, but that's not a requirement. User pages are licensed under the GFDL as well and must be just as free as articles. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have since found something that Does not Quite work as an alternative but is a temporary fix until this fair use Thing gets clarified User:Yskyflyer/save My clam is that this Image is used for Identification purposes. Mirror sights would still be allowed to use the image--E-Bod 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick clarification of image commerciality
If we receive permission from, say, Mozilla to use the Firefox logo for any nondisparaging purpose that does not compete with Mozilla merchandise, is that a "no commercial" license unacceptable for our use (outside fair use), or is it a free license? It would mean that in the context of any kind of mirror, reproduction, modification, etc. of Wikipedia, the image would be usable; you'd have to actually do something like print it onto a T-shirt and sell it to violate the terms of use. Should we use that or fair use? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And how would we enforce the bit about "nondisparaging purpose"s? The policy as I understand it is that such permissions don't matter; it's still an unfree image, usable only under fair use. Yes, that means that combined with the strict fair-use policies, you can't use them on user pages. Yes, that has deeply hurt many people's feelings. I'm not sure why they don't get some free web hosting space to build the home page they really want, but that's just me. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a userpage or a Village pump? My question was about not allowing permission.  Your' telling me I am not allowed to use images with permission is exactly what I want Jimbo to Clarify.  I asked Jimbo as a last resort.  I expect him to answer.--E-Bod 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would I want to talk about
 * Relevant wikipedia articles
 * How I edit wikipidia
 * Where I have a Conflict of interest when editing a wikipedia article
 * on a free web hosting space. My userspace is to help me use wikipedia.  I can't edit wikipedia on a free web hosting space.  Anyway this is the wrong place to talk about this issue.  I know what WP:NOT and your comment is irrelevant.--E-Bod 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want I can Explain how I can use Permission company logos in each of these examples. Don't take one policy and claim it says something different.  That is the point i am bringing to Jimbo about a point he made that may be misused by admins.  You are simply a user with tools.  Policies should be stated outright without room for interpretation or lack consideration for unaddressed issues.--E-Bod 05:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely Jimbo will answer you. He doesn't answer most talk-page questions.  Mostly, yes, this is a village pump. Anyway, on consideration, I've retagged the image as logo. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

hello jimbo i need help
kevin1243 is not leting me put a criticims part on the tommorow book series page it is his favourite series and he will not let me put the criticisms on everytime i do he deletes them vandalises my user page or makes up stories to try get me blocked please help jim

The truth about the tomorrow series must be heard

please reply to user talk: carbine ( post made by User:Smugface the untrustworthy dwarf )

Tdxiang's song!
My song, sir! Hope you guys like it. :D-- 陈 鼎 翔    贡献  Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD reform
Hi. I don't believe as many people review Template:Cent as they do this page, so I'm using it to bring attention to my proposal for AfD reform. El_C 12:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Free wiki host stole wikipedia logo
I'm not sure if this is the right forum to present this information, but the free wiki-host ElWiki uses the Wikipedia Globe logo combined with the text "ElWiki Knowledgebases" as the default Wiki.png file on new wikis. Basically, they're taking the copywritten logo and not attributing it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's a direct example of what he's talking about. GarrettTalk 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If that wiki changes the logo, I can get a copy... which reminds me: I really should change my ElWiki logo about now. -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reported to the Trademarks committee. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement on elimination of anon voting?
Hi Jimbo, I have a question for you. On Talk:George Washington, someone recently suggested the article should be permanently protected from unregistered users due to persistent vandalism. Terence Ong mentioned that people have suggested protecting the entire Wiki from anonymous editing, but that you had "said no" to previous attempts.

The only reason I raise the issue is because Kaiwen1 has a poll going on whether to ban anon editing, the results of which he's planning to forward to the Board of Trustees. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know exactly how much authority you, personally, wield over issues like this. Is Kaiwen1's vote a waste of time? I'm curious as to what you have said in the past that Terence Ong remembers so clearly. I asked Terence, but he never replied.

(Full disclosure: I'm against blocking anon editing, and voted so on Kaiwen1's page.)

Kasreyn 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Similarities
Between your talk page and Fraggle Rock are uncanny! Just an observation... Cheers -- Samir  धर्म 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use criteria being policy
Do you approve of the current Fair use criteria being policy. I know you are busy. A simple "yes" or "no" would be great.

Thank you for your time, Travb (talk)  13:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A simple "yes" would be great if that's your answer, but if your answer is "no", it would be nice to know why not. (For example, do you think the policy is too strict, or too lenient?) Angr (t • c) 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also A clarification On Images used with permission when a free alternative is not possible to obtain as in the case of logos. Any free alternative would still be a derivative.--E-Bod 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Game guides on Wikibooks
Given the harmless nature of such guides are you sure that they should be banned from Wikibooks? They are contained in their own section, the distinction between games such as Doom and Chess is debatable and, in the last couple of years it has become possible to actually trade inside games see Business week story. The users at Wikibooks are definitely uneasy about the ban. My userid is RobinH at Wikibooks.

Drawing the line seems very easy to me. There is a simple question: can you point to a course at an accredited institution which uses this sort of thing as a textbook? I think there are college courses on chess. I think there are not college courses on Doom. Simple. Some people may not like that Wikibookians do not want Wikibooks to be a dumping ground for whatever doesn't fit in Wikipedia. But we have a charitable mission, and we need to respect that. --Jimbo Wales 21:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you totally boss.(Considering I don't edit on Wikibooks), but your statement there might get met with controversy, as there ARE some college courses based on pop culture, like video games. All I'm saying is I don't want that to be another CSD T1. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there are courses, then there can be textbooks. :) --Jimbo Wales 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your note on the Staff Lounge has clarified this debate. I, for one, had not understood that there were legal constraints. Cheers. RobinH

We have the Doom Wiki with plenty of room for Doom strategy information. And if there isn't a Wikia about your favorite game, you can go there and start it. As much as I like games, game guides just aren't part of Wikimedia's mission. Fredrik Johansson 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, which I put up for deletion? Gerard Foley 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I imagine it would depend. Are there classes that would use an annotated look at Harry Potter? If so, it would be valid. If not, it may need to go. On a side note, we gonna ask Jimbo on every book we put up deletion? ;-) -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a major change to Wikibooks, I don't think it's asking too much to get a few examples of what's OK. Gerard Foley 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as was discussed on WP:CVG, "the StrategyWiki team (including myself) have made preparations to import all suitable videogame guides. This is not going to be a half-hearted history cut-'n'-paste like transwiki bots do either, instead the authentic full edit histories will be imported directly from database dumps thanks to the excellent MWDumper." (Comment was made by Garrett). I think that this would be an ideal situation. If at some point in the future colleges do start to give courses teaching students to become "professional gamers" or something, they could always be re-imported using a similar technique. jaco ♫ plane 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Details of 501(c)(3) are given at: Tax exempt status for your organization. The charter for Wikimedia is at : Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Please could you point to where these exclude documents such as game guides, or have I missed a crucial document? Robinhw 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Idea
Jimbo, I'm testing out an idea and I'd be interested in your feedback. Wikipedia has many great and long articles. Many vistors to the site however may simply be looking for very short snappy summaries. I've created an infobox called synopsis which could be placed near to the table of contents, to contain a two or three line synopsis of the article. For example

Any opinions on the idea? FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what the lead section is supposed to do? --Carnildo 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. On most pages here the lead paragraph is merely an introduction before delving into the topic, rather than an overview of the topic. Take a look at Pope for instance. In this case the intro is a good one, but it certainly doesn't cover everything below it. It doesn't even tell who the current Pope is! GarrettTalk 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, the lead section should be fixed. Fredrik Johansson 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuntately all too many fixes produce edit wars from those who think their rambling openings are OK. In addition many articles are (correctly) written in a detailed style that younger users mightn't be able to follow. The infobox can be written deliberately in simple language as an opener for young users, to tell them in simple language, in one or two sentences, what the article is about. for example,

FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what we have simple: for. I'm against this. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

quv!


There's your name written in a Klingon typeset. tlhIngan Hol 'oH HoS, rur SoH! vIHHa' SoH SoQ tlhIngan Hol Wikipedia! :P Computerjoe 's talk 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of your note at Talk:Jimmy Wales
For what is it worth, I think it is in my rational self interest to care about what happens to kids in Africa, and far from being destructive of my self-interest, it is beneficial to my self-interest. Even as "destructive of" isn't likely the locution I'd have employed, I must commend you for having made a point so often overlooked by those who criticize objectivists (or even, in some cases, libertarians), viz., that one may, for whatever reason (inculcation by parents/society, apprehension of religious obligation, preternatural disposition, etc.), find pleasure/relief in helping others, such that he/she may act in a fashion consistent with his/her self-interest but ancillarily (or even primarily) be concerned with acting salutarily vis-à-vis others. I take as axiomatic that humans, as all living creatures, act wholly self-interestedly, but I also believe that humans (perhaps unlike some other living creatures) sometimes derive joy from helping others, such that an individual's self-interest may correspond to the interest of another. (I realize the point of your post wasn't to illustrate this, but I was happy to see it in any event; your criticisms of the article were, to be sure, accurate as well) Joe 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have digged through your comments, fact checked and changed accordingly when I think the facts where not supporting the claims in the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Q.E.D.
Logic Logical argument Rigour Causality Necessary and sufficient conditions Logical fallacy Fallacy Validity Soundness Logical consequence Psychology Sociology Political science Anthropology Groupthink False consensus effect List of cognitive biases Conformity (psychology) Herding instinct Herd behavior Collective hysteria Crowd psychology Stupidity Pack (canine)  Pack Psychology Argumentum ad populum Propaganda News propaganda Spin (public relations) Trolling Internet troll Troll-friendly Evolution Natural selection Requests for adminship [[Wikipedia:Arbitration