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

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Sections with no replies in 1 days are automatically moved here. An archive index is available here.

Archives
-index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 25, 2009 August 26 - October 3, 2009 October 4 - November 20, 2009 November 20 - December 21, 2009 December 22 - most recent archives Undated

(Manual archive list)

Contents 1 A Two Tier Administration System and division of responsibility is what is required 2 Twitter 3 Opinion 4 Greetings 5 Signatures in images

[edit] A Two Tier Administration System and division of responsibility is what is required

In fact, it has now become quite clear what the problem is. We have a core of admins and an arbitration committee with overlapping responsibilities, and arguments going on about what their respective jurisdictions are. The admins can issue blocks and freeze pages for the purpose of maintaining law and order on the project. But ARBCOM are concentrating on topic bans and other sanctions. The latter function seems to be exclusively political and not necessary for the maintenance of basic law and order on the project. The situation has been further exacerbated by the fact that some ARBCOM sanctions are like Tudor Ordinances or wartime emergency legislation in that they legislate a full dictatorial power to admins. And some admins adopt ARBCOM powers unilaterally without any opposition from ARBCOM.

What is needed is a clear division of responsibilities. We need a core of admins to control law and order, and we need an Arbitration committee that is totally independent of the core of admins, for the exclusive purpose of monitoring abuses of power by the admins. David Tombe (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of order, Mr. Tombe. You are now abusing this public space. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 07:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the oversight of power abuses, I would agree we need a two tiered admin structure. I will tell you why, I think that the tools should be seperated. I would not alwaysmake the right decisions in blocking but I would like the tools to work with the new article patrols. I could avoid the drama of the blocking part and be able to work on new article patrol only. It would also give us a incremental way of understanding who would use the blocking part of the tools the best. Think about the myriad of editors that don't want to block people just work on new article patrol? Kinda like stepping stones. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

(Out of order)

Perhaps another "learning moment", Hell in A Bucket, -:) the topic is out of order. This is not a freedom of speech issue, and yes, usually one could raise any issue on Jimbo's page that strikes you — but here the issue was raised after an appeal to Jimbo of sanctions by someone who has been sanctioned, appealed, and not gotten the answer they want. At that point, their beginning a discussion about changing the rules/structure on Jimbo's talk page is "out of order."

Responding to such a topic with continuing discussion is inappropriate (out of order).

Note: The topic could have been (usually I would have) reverted or hat/hab collapsed — but I had just responded with a broad suggestion regarding why this was not the time to continue pressing the matter to Mr. Tombe's comment higher on the page which I did not believe he had time to read (and heed the advice: This is not the time, nor the place).
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, You are quite wrong. The thread in question was not initiatiated by myself, and I don't recall making an appeal. I entered the thread to make a couple of clarifications of fact. Often the truth carries with it a strong indication of a correct course of action, but I don't think that you will find anything in my edits on this page that amounted to an appeal, as such. And you are in no position whatsoever to come here and decide what is, or is not, out of order. A perfectly legitimate suggestion has been raised. Hell in a Bucket has added his comments, and there is no need to have you hanging around trying to silence the two of us. The suggestion for a two tier administration is a matter of general interest to many wikipedia users. We need two independent groups, of which an arbitration committe will get into the habbit of assessing appeals objectively. David Tombe (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Mr. Tombe's 906 + 158 = 1064 words (How about $1/word donation?)

Regarding Mr. Tombe's previous (now archived) 906 words, I was being charitable ;-) in referring to them as "an appeal."

Speaking of charitable, perhaps Mr. Tombe' would be willing to donate $1/word to the current fundraising drive (which would more than match my own pledge of $1,000).

As for policy proposals, this is, as previously mentioned, the wrong place. And, while still the wrong time (given the givens), the right place to start might be WP:Village pump (policy).
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is out of order, please Proofreader, let David Tombe to leave his message in peace. Prodego ^talk 06:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is out of order in the context of all that has come before, including the response of others to the previous discussion now in archive, honorable Prodego. Surely Mr. Wale's talk page is not to become the home for such a discussion in any case, as I'm sure you are aware.

But while you're here, perhaps you will add an additional denomination to the current fundraising drive. Benjamin, Cleveland, ... The symbolism of James Madison would certainly be inspiring to us all. .-:)
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is he is hoping he will be able to ascertain Jimbo's opinion on the matter...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, I didn't start the threads which you are referring to. Those threads were about policy, and specific examples were used that involved my own recent case at ARBCOM. I entered the second thread to put a few facts straight. Jimbo replied with a reply that indicated that if an appeal were made, he would not oblige. But that is hardly surprising. Jimbo, on his own admission, has found himself in the role of the British monarch in relation to his own creation. And we all know that the British monarch hasn't exercised his/her power to refuse assent to parliamentary legislation since the year 1708, in the reign of Queen Anne. For Jimbo to overturn an ARBCOM decision on such a scale would be an unprecedented upheaval of the current system of things. I would have been very surprised if Jimbo had suddenly said 'OK. This ARBCOM case was totally out of order, I hereby make it null and void'. And that's all the more reason why we need a strong new-style pro-active arbitration committee for the sole purpose of monitoring administrative abuses. You seem to think that because I have a personal vested interest in this matter, that I have therefore relinquished my right to comment on these matters when raised by other editors. This is where you are quite wrong. And as a matter of interest, you also have a personal interest in these matters. I note on your user page that you claim to have voted for jehochman in the ARBCOM elections. So you are not without prejudice yourself in this regard. You clearly have a vested interest in opposing comments which are contrary to jehochman's interests. Just like Crum, Fram, and Viridae on the first thread, you are trying to divert the real issue away to my own personal case, and then rule it to be off-topic. David Tombe (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reminded Proofreader he doesn't OWN Jimbo's page. He disagrees.[[1]] To put it bluntly and explicitly as good faith is wearing out at this point. This isn't your page, it isn't your job to regulate things that are posted here unless they fail outside of Wikpedia policy. Jimbo has final say on anything here and he has not explicitly told him to not post here. A suggestion was made to return when he was less angry, that's end period point blank the end. Please stop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

“

... I think you really should step back and take a break from even looking at Wikipedia for a month or so. Get some fresh air. Find another hobby. And come back and let's discuss it when you aren't so angry.-- Jimbo Wales 06:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

”

[2] Proofreader77 ^(interact) 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Irregardless of the threats [[3]], which I find comical and out of touch with the reality of Wikipedia's policies. I think that a valid point has been raised, It isn't for someone on a powertrip to decide what is or isn't appropriate here and ask Jimbo to confirm for himself that this is a issue. So the ball's in your court Proofreader, put up or shut up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Twitter

Hiya Jimbo, Just wondering if [4] is in fact you? There seems to be a few accounts like that, and of course the owner of the account "Yes, I'm the real me" - just wondering :) — Deon^talk 05:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that one is me. [5] is also me, but as it warns, I don't use it. I hear that I can get twitter to verify me and kick people off of squatted names, but I haven't researched the details yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the place to request verified account status. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

Hey Jimbo, I just wanted to ask you a question regarding this matter I discussed. I issued a requested move to change the title of the United States page to United States of America. Although I lost, I have to ask you what you personally think the title of the article should be.

Here's the link to the talk page and to the article.--Valkyrie Red 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

My first inclination was to agree with you but when I read the discussion, I wasn't so sure. Then I went to Google, Bing, and Yahoo and searched for both "United States" and "United States of America" to see if there is a big impact on findability. There is none. (And, interestingly enough, all 3 of these search engines returned this entry in the #1 "normal" slot for both search terms - Bing has a special box for the usa.gov site that comes up higher, but that's it.) So, probably it doesn't really affect anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just passing by, and thought I'd drop my two cents. Both seem equally valid. However, per Occam's razor, I think most people will opt for the simpler of the two. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct terminology is United States of America. That's what should be used rather than a "commonly known as" shortened version. There are lots of United States as the disambiguation page on that subject shows United States (disambiguation). Better luck next time. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Dear Jimbo, Hoping you enjoy a Happy New Year! I wish you and Wikipedia the very best for continued success on behalf of Pakistani Wikipedians. --Saqib ^talk 11:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures in images

Hello. There has been some debate about the appearance of signatures in images of media content. Some users cite the policy against watermarks and credits as covering signatures as well. However, signatures are neither a watermark nor credit, but a proof of authorship. This becomes especially confusing given new age media that employs electronic signatures. So I would ask your opinion on a few types of situations to know if signatures are appropriate in them.

• In traditional media, such as paintings or drawings, where the signature is on the media and thus represented in any photographic images.
• In traditional media but the artist later adds his electronic signature, that is a computer generated image or device as proof of his authorship, to photographic images of the media.
• In new age media, that is anything generated by computer, where an electronic signature is the only way an artist may add his proof of authorship.
• In mixed media, like a drawing that is later coloured using computer software, where the artist either adds in digitally his signature of his own hand or his electronic signature.

The way, if I may generalize, it seems to go is that traditional media is allowed a signature f the media is old, and newer and less famous artists should not necessarily be allowed to show their signatures because they are not notable, even if their art is being used. New age media seems to allow small initials and small ambiguous symbols or devices without concern, but large initials or anything that includes the full name of the artist is met as unfavourable. So there is no uniformity on signatures, and I would like to attempt a clarification if I could. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this. I would say that digital signatures (not visible on the image, but contained in metadata for example) seem like something we should be using as much as possible - it keeps the attribution with the file. Visible signatures sound more like what you're talking about though, and current policy sounds more or less reasonable to me, although as I say, I have no strong opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)