Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:37, 21 November 2012

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 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, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

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

Economics graph removed from several articles

Jimbo, File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg has been removed from several articles recently by people who say it is biased politically. However, it is not clear whether the people who have been removing it are similarly biased against the conclusion which is suggests. Please see the discussions at Talk:Economics for more information. Jimbo, can you please have someone see whether and are factually accurate, to settle this? 70.59.27.75 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and not for me to decide. But speaking as an ordinary editor, the graph is absolutely and totally biased to the point of absurdity. Such oversimplifications to make a political point are the very definition of bias. The data was taken from US historical data and so ends up being a comparison of an era when the top tax rate was 80-90% to various modern eras. But that 80-90% era coincided with the post-war boom, which was caused by a large number of factors, which may or may not have included tax rates on the highest earners.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an IP sock of Dualus (talk · contribs). See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus - Alison 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am certain that if our positions were reversed, I would want you to tell me about Art Okun's mistake in 1975 in which he used year-over-year correlations instead of run lengths which is why the IMF recently radically reversed their position on austerity and many commentators suggest they did not go far enough. The graph is historically accurate, and in complete agreement with the new IMF anti-austerity position which had been pro-austerity since Art Okun's 1975 math error was identified and corrected last year. What governs income inequality more than the top effective tax bracket rate? Again, there is no doubt in my mind that if our positions were reversed I would expect no less than complete (and persistent!) honesty on such topics, whether they concern the toxicity of heavy metals or the plain truth about the position of the peak of the Laffer curve. There is a correct mathematical answer which may not be politically comfortable, but is by definition free from bias. I suggest that those who insist against evidence that the peak of the Laffer curve is less than 0.5 are in fact more biased than the accurate historical information on the graph. I am sorry if this is uncomfortable, but it is the truth, it is verifiable, and it is easy for anyone to prove it by examining the veracity of and (which are summarized in this deleted section.) 199.16.130.122 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Jimmy is right that the graph tendentiously implies causation between marginal tax rates and economic growth in different eras of 20th century American capitalism. Life is more complex. One could generate bar graphs of similar quality relating the average number of television channels on American televisions to economic growth (fewer channels = more growth). That's probably at least as high a correlation, I speculate — but it's a false relationship, there is no necessary causation there, rather declining growth rates are a function of time and the gradual disintegration of industrial manufacturing in the United States. I'm actually chiming in here to offer assistance to Dualus back into the WP fold if at some future date he wants to move past the POV axe-grinding, edit-warring, and sword-crossing with ideological opponents and to become a serious contributor of NPOV historical material. It's probably a six month or one year process getting back into good graces, I would guess, and will absolutely require a fundamental change in attitude as to what WP is about and one's place in it. But glancing at your edit history, there seems to be a good amount of energy, dedication, and commitment, albeit misdirected. Drop me an email if you want to talk. MutantPop@aol.com. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So do you believe, then, that the IMF was in error to reverse their position on austerity last month? In any case, thank you for your kind offer. I am sorry that you believe the use of mathematical proof techniques and adherence to their results is tendentious. My contributions stand on their own, and although I concentrate on controversial articles, I fully realize that these sorts of accusations come with such an interest. The vast bulk of my efforts stand unchallenged, and for those who question my commitment to improving the encyclopedia, I would point to my recent GA on Birth control ("before" version) as representative of the typical quality of my ordinary work here which does not get swept up in silly censorship games. 199.16.130.122 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved through third opinion with a related content dispute on Trickle-down economics. My general advice then and now is that these primary source graphs are often being used in a way that constitutes synthesis. This sort of graph should not be used to draw conclusions or imply arguments about the validity of any particular economic policy. Even the combination of two series such as the above graph is original research. I see very little use for such an OR graph in any article. Gigs (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The synthesis argument is not convincing because this particular controversy is central to the current most prominent political debate in Washington, D.C. It is very easy to find prominent eminent authorities who agree with the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs. Similarly, I can find no sources saying that raising taxes on the rich slows the economy or job growth which are based on empirical data. There are plenty of op-eds and publications in WP:FRINGE "Austrian economics" journals, but nothing peer reviewed by mainstream academic journals. Do you know of any? 81.169.144.135 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the graph represents either a biased or incorrect view. The only thing it says to me is that as tax rates go up, job growth is relatively unaffected. Are you folks saying the left scale is exaggerated? It is, but the size of the numbers themselves is sufficiently obvious to make that issue unimportant to me. Sure the variations in tax structure over the years make any comparison difficult and I would like to see more detail, but I doubt the higher granularity would make a difference. The argument is that top tax rate doesn't stifle growth. This may be because the top tax rate affects a tiny portion of the population that is more concerned with wealth management than income. I'm saying that as an old person who is more interested in managing wealth. Bob Calder 17:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B calder (talk • contribs)

• The general issue here is whether "original research" should trump sources when removing material. If you have a reliable source that says that raising taxes creates jobs, or an herb is helpful against a disease, etc., does the naysaying editor's general belief and assumption that "that can't work", in the absence of any cited source that says it doesn't work, override your source because "it must be biased somehow"? This was also the issue in the great VnT debate. When there are sources to say that something works and it doesn't work, obviously the best solution is "these say yes(ref) and these say no(ref)"; but when an editor has no source obviously the only "neutral" solution available to him is to expunge all data that conflicts with his POV. Wnt (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor point, but the example here isn't suggesting that raising taxes creates jobs (the overall tax rate as a percent of GDP has been remarkably constant in the US over centuries), but whether shifting the tax burden to high income earners creates jobs. I think it is strictly helpful to the encyclopedia and its readers to support the theory prevalent in the peer reviewed academic journal reviews and the historical data when they are agreement, even when there is a huge amount of paid advocacy from the rich in opposition. I hope Jimbo recognizes this. 71.215.79.206 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope that the above chart clears up any confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that those who are politically opposed to the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs would like to rebut the historical data and the theory of the academic hegemony reflected in the first graph above which has been removed from more than a dozen articles. I also understand that there is no substantial opposing data or theory in reliable sources since Dr. Okun's 1975 error was caught last year. The clumsy pirates-vs-temperature attempt at an implication that there is no causation or correlation is strictly false as explained in , in particular its Chart 4 shown to the right. I look forward to the day when Misplaced Pages economics content disputes are decided by those who do not hold ideology above accuracy. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the average net rate on total income does not appear to be linked to higher economic growth at all. During the 91% marginal rate years, the average net rate was reduced by the tremendous use of non-taxable income, deductions, and tax shelters. There was no "alternative minimum tax" in those days. Also the economic growth during WW II and Korea is included in that "graph" which makes reliance on it fatuous entirely. GDP growth rate (measured quarterly) in 1950 to 1951 was over 15%, and exceeded in 1978 (16.7%) If lower tax rates reduce growth, then why is the highest growth found in a year with lower tax rates? Three of the top 5 years were in WW II ... 1942, +18.5%, 1941, +17.1%, 1943, +16.4% -- which skew a graph which conveniently starts in 1940. One m might note that the top bracket in the US was raised to 63% in 1932. Yet the "growth rates" under what you state to provablby be good for the economy in that year before the graph was -13.1%. And 1946 (end of WW II) saw a 10.9% contraction with your higher tax rates. This is not "political opposition" it is statistical opposition to a grossly misleading "graph." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the "job growth" figure is also substantially affected by the choice of 1940 -- guess what happens to employment during wars? Oh? Collect (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you start at 1945, the last bar of File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg goes down slightly rather than up slightly on the right, more closely reflecting File:LafferCurve.svg with which it shares the same outputs (job wages growth, economic growth, and tax revenue) and similar inputs (top tax bracket rate instead of tax rate.) File:Federal Income Tax Rates in the US, 2009.jpg helps explain an aspect of the relation. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What an incredible *****y waste of my time that was

• Links:     Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Arbcom:  WT:Arbitration/Requests#Prem_Rawat. -Wikid77 15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

How does anyone find the time for this nonsense? I'm having nothing further to do with the Prem Rawat article. On and off for six years I tried to draw attention to the miserable revisionism perpetrated there by Rawat followers...started a RFC etc but was met only with abject disinterest and failure by the impartial people to do anything other than to conclude that Momento was 'uneducable' and then to make their FEEBLE excuses and leave. However you might be interested to know that, just like I said, Momento is now having a field day removing a ton of well-sourced material - all critical and of course - with NO opposition WHATSOEVER. Is this really acceptable? Anyway I'm out. Very disappointed to learn how easy it for people to abuse Misplaced Pages to bias articles. I feel like writing an article to the Times and my children's college... Really... it makes you wonder how Misplaced Pages articles can be relied on for a balanced picture when the work of years can be obliterated by one or two unconscionable idiots. This really is my last word on that pathetically handled article. Bye!PatW (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to weigh in there myself. I hope others will. I'll try to take a look soon. It would be helpful for me if you can indicate one single starting point. For example, one clear obvious and easy example of a reliable source that has been excluded unfairly. Or of something that is being "spun" falsely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Today I've banned a couple people from the article and warned another one, which has been a long time coming; I would have done it weeks ago, but other forces had different ideas. It honestly never should have gotten to the point where I'd have to do it 4 years after the original case, but it's here now, and sometimes the nuclear option is the only way to keep things from degenerating even further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. This has been a known problem area for a long time. I expect it to continue to be so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct. There will just be replacement followers to edit the article. Although I said that was my last word since you express some interest in taking a look and to answer your question - Here I attempted to resist one of Momento's moves to remove something that, in it's day was a notable furore and reported widely in newspapers, but that Momento wanted to exclude / play down on grounds of it being 'undue weight' in a BLP etc. The incident was when Rawat's Divine Light Mission's president, one Robert Mishler and another high ranking follower left, denouncing the Guru in various 'whistle-blowing' ways. At the time Prem Rawat was known as 'Guru Maharaji' and he was the recipient of more publicity (mostly adverse) than he has ever had since. In fact this largely bad press compelled Him to become distinctly 'press shy' ever since. That is why most of the sources about Him are from the seventies. The modern sources are mostly 'vanity press' organised by followers. Anyway, the Mishler revelations and other publicised incidents (such as the guy who'd 'pied' Rawat as a protest, being duly nearly killed with a hammer blow to the head by a vengeance-filled 'revered' follower ) contributed to public fears that this was a potentially dangerous cult. At the time public mistrust of cults was at a high following the mass suicides of followers of cult leader Jim Jones at Jonestown in Guyana. Mishler and his associate made the notable and controversial comparison of Guru Maharaj Ji with Jim Jones. Momento wanted to suggest that their claims were 'exclusive' although, as I pointed out, multiple sources, both newspapers and scholars saw fit to cover the incident. PatW (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, please stick around but please keep me informed. There's no reason to let apologists win the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - but I guess it won't be on articles about Rawat since I have managed to get myself 'blown up' by my own bomb :-) PatW (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This article clearly needs to be fully protected. This will force discussion to occur before changes are made. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo. I don't know how closely you, or any others are watching the Prem Rawat article. Clearly some are as I have received some private enquiry. However I will let you know if I see 'apologists' return (although I will be impotent to offer opposition myself). Over on Blade's page the banned Rawat faithful are asking him to reconsider. Rather than unblock everyone I concur with the above view that the article should be fully protected to force discussion. Without me or anyone informed enough of the subject to oppose, the article will simply descend into further religiously motivated editing. I do see the fairness in me being also blocked as a party to the 'battle-ground'. Such a 'battle-ground' was the inevitable consequence to opposing committed pro-Rawat editors. PatW (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll watch the article as much as I can, but it's going to take several of us. It'll be helpful if you can keep me informed here, thank you for that offer. I do think it is often helpful to have a "everybody out of the water" time-out. I have received myself an angry email from a Rawat faithful editor questioning my views of God, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - well you're about to be banned yourself from Rawat articles so you'd better watch your behaviour! See Here PatW (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The link I supplied above (to the stuff I described Momento removing plus my counter argument) was archived. It's been moved to here Sorry 'bout that. It's very hard to keep track of all this stuff. PatW (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons admins asleep at the switch?

Jimbo, I started a thread on the Commons' admin noticeboard to alert them to a fairly easy to spot pattern of copyright violation. During that discussion, I posted several examples with evidence that they were copyright violations. Some of those were subsequently nominated for deletion and deleted, as expected. What seems concerning is that other examples I gave have not been deleted or even nominated for deletion. In one case, that involves a set of over 100 copyright violation images. If telling admins on the admin noticeboard that something on Commons is a copyright violation doesn't provoke any action, something is seriously wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to hunt down copyright violations, and it looks like half of the files you've identified actually are. But the people who disagreed with you did so because they didn't think some files were copyvios, and figuring out if they are is complicated. Your "pattern" is something that you and other volunteers you recruit are free to use in looking for further infringing files - but if you're suggesting anything more, i.e. to abandon the assumption of good faith based on what a contributor's interests are, then that is a bad idea. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, once again you have managed to misunderstand what is being said. I am not suggesting that we abandon good faith based on someone's "area of interest". I am suggesting that uploads which follow a certain pattern are very likely to be copyright violations as I have demonstrated in that thread and elsewhere. The interests and intentions of the uploader are completely irrelevant. We are not talking about users who have misunderstood the copyrights involved - we are talking about deliberate and wilful copyright violation (including in some cases image manipulation to make sources harder to find and falsification of EXIF data). There is nothing complicated about the 100+ images uploaded by User:Freemont Solstice. Despite the filenames, the images have been available from many sources (here, for example) since 2010. That user is likely a sockpuppet of a repeat offender. Why are these images still on Commons? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you suspect this user of being a copyright violator and sockpuppet, why is the only message on his talk page a completely unjustified warning that "Commons has a specific scope". (That is some lovely artwork from a notable public event that is most definitely within scope) Since all of Fremont Solstice's uploads are photos of this one event, I have no idea how you decided he's a sockpuppet, but he certainly hasn't had a chance to defend himself. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Users cannot delete their own uploads. I have told the Commons admins that the uploads are copyright violations and provided evidence for my claim. They have failed to act. This has nothing to do with Commons scope in any way - copyright violation is a legal issue, not a content issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The images you reported depict public nudity. In cases like this, Commons admins are likely to suspect prudery as the prime motivation and tend to be less rigorous in investigating. This is to be expected, and in cases of copyvio in situations like this you need to push harder. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User education is the first and most important line of defense against copyvio uploads. If you spot them and you don't contact the user involved, you're wasting most of your effort. Contacting the user is also the best way to get OTRS tickets or other evidence that files are actually not copyvios. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, what part of this is confusing you? These are uploads of copyright violating material by throw-away accounts (some of which are very likely sockpuppets). On a different subject, how about instead of making nonsensical comments every time I post something here, you stick to the ridiculous troll bait reference desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

DC, are you pointing to a generally cavalier attitude among Commons admins toward copyright law or is there a pattern to it; for example, is it uploader-related (they tolerate their own or their mates' violations) or topic-related as Herostratus suggests, or is it mainly breaches of a particular section of the law? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a combination of all of them. First - Herostratus is right that certain topics get less investigation due to their nature. Adult/nudity especially. Its certain if something x-rated gets nominated, bad faith & prude accusations will be thrown at the nominator very quickly. Second - as many of the admins on commons are heavily 'invested' in the adult/nudity area, you have to fight against that in order to get anyone to listen. And finally - even if you manage to negotiate those first two hurdles above, and provide a legitimate legal reason it should be removed, the apathy from the general admin corps is just depressing. There are a few people who take it seriously, but when you have other admins who work to get someone banned from nominating copyvios for deletion, despite the validity of their arguments, under the premise they shouldnt be 'harrassing' regular commons editors... Its a mess. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable estimate of the scale of the problem, the percentage of Commons files that breach copyright? Are we talking Napster, Youtube, less? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable? Not that I have seen. As a total amount of uploaded files, anecdotally its quite low. However once you start drilling down to subject level - within that subject copyvio incidences can be quite high. The adult/nudity area gets a lot of attention by its nature, so its always going to skew the numbers either way. What it really needs is a full audit by subject. So audit 2% of files in each area and work your way up to a site-wide score. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could pay someone to do that; and maybe get them to assess the percentage and characteristics of violating files nominated for deletion that are not deleted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I would offer my services, but I dont think the WMF would be willing to pay my fees ;) It would be a solution however. Some sort of research grant maybe. In terms of auditing, it would be relatively simple to do once the list of files to be looked at is identified. Can probably knock up a script to pick X random files out of a catagory easily. (There is probably one already). I might try doing a very small-scale test on the weekend. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While I would be very (positively) surprised if the WMF were prepared to fund an impartial study looking into this point, there's no harm in asking. Andreas JN466 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well, I'll ask anyway. Do you know who the contact would be? Do they have a research department? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not offhand. You could ask Jimbo. :) Andreas JN466 08:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was not trying to suggest anything about Commons admins in general, but I agree with what others have said here. Perhaps Commons admins are not in the habit of reading their noticeboard, but it seems odd that after my identification of a string of copyright violations which have been deleted, some admin wouldn't take the five minutes required to look at the evidence I have provided and delete the files. Mattbuck did helpfully suggest that I file a deletion request, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I kind of keep asking this at every discussion about commons and porn, but why, again, do we allow porn images of identifiable people to be uploaded by brand new accounts who merely add a {{pd}} tag to it and nothing more? It's blatantly obvious that a great deal of these images are taken from random sites on the internet and uploaded to commons. It's so irritating that nothing's being done about this on commons. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask our researcher to measure the percentage of nudity/porn images that fit that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that allowing anyone to upload images and have them immediately available for reuse will inevitably lead to copyright issues. Admins and/or trusted users should be vetting the files for quality, scope, and copyright status before they are available off-site. Short of that, Commons admins should be aware of clues to copyright violation, which was the purpose of the original discussion on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

True. But the potential damage is far greater when it comes to nude/pornographic pictures of identifiable people, and as such we should not treat those exactly the same as the others. --Conti|✉ 14:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons admin Rd232 has been trying to make the same point on Commons. While I agree, conflating copyright violation issues (legal) with other concerns (moral) is problematic, especially on Commons where there is a knee-jerk reaction to any attempt to delete anything relating to nudity or sexuality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever actually nominate those Fremont images for deletion? Your thesis here is that Commons is full of copyvios, which you base on an argument about the dates these files were posted to other free photo sites and that an editor (who you have not contacted on his talk page either) added a page with the name "userpage" to the uploader's userpage. Someone has to actually evaluate evidence like this, not just delete because you said so. Commons admins have to actually consider the real possibility that this user is the one who took the photo series and posted it in various free places around the web, and give him a chance to respond. Everyone knows that people upload a lot of copyvio material to Commons, and volunteers are needed to root it out, but if you don't propose it for deletion then it's no surprise if it doesn't get deleted. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so". :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the moral issues could very quickly become a legal issue. I get your point, though, we should treat these problems separately. I think we can do more with the moral issue, though. Commons assumes good faith both in terms of copyright issues (if they add a CC-tag, it's assumed they have the rights) and in terms of moral issues (commons assumes the models gave consent and know which license the pictures would have, and what that actually means). I'm fine with assuming good faith about copyright issues (how else would commons be able to work?), but I'd rather not assume good faith that any porn image uploaded by a brand new user has no problems whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to differentiate here between people photographed in private and people who choose in advance to go nude at a public event. The risk of former lovers and others posting intimate snaps that were never intended to be published is real and we need to be hyper cautious about things which could be such images. But as far as nude photographs go, the least risky are surely those such as Delicious Carbuncle's examples of people who go to a public event clad only in body paint. There is a separate issue about copyvio, but my experience is that if you tag a copyvio for deletion and give a clear reason why it is a copyvio then it gets deleted. I've just checked through my deletion tags on Commons and the Commons Admins are not "asleep at the switch". ϢereSpielChequers 22:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Commission RfC Closure

Jimbo,

In accordance to the Electoral Commission proposal and your partial endorsement of the same, you are requested to close the advisory request for comment located at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Electoral Commission and appoint the members of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is comprised of 3 Commissioners and any remaining persons who are qualified to be "reserve members."

The interpretation of the results and appointments are left to your discretion, and the summary above was provided as a courtesy. Please make your appointments at your earliest convenience. The nomination period is active and due to close on 11/20/2012

Sincerely, --Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary is discourteous to the community. I had inferred that the expectation of the community was that Jimbo would read the discussion and make up his own mind. Providing a summary -- which has already been challenged on the corresponding talk page -- was not discussed in the AC election 2012 RFC and is inappropriate. NE Ent 15:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I moved an "and" and modified punctuation slightly in the notice above. User:Tznkai should of course feel free to revert. - jc37 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits and corrections concerning Jc37's comments. Specifically, I have removed the implication that Jc37's comments were negative, and pointed out there was the issue was addressed by various endorsers. As to whether or not the summary is inappropriate, it is my understanding of the RfC process that any and all users may, if they choose, suggest how they believe the closing administrator should interpret the results. I've done my best to leave as neutral and value-free a summary as possible, pointing out to Jimbo what issues have been brought up, since I was left to understand he had not tracked the whole thing in real time. Furthermore, I have every confidence that Jimbo's mind is reasonably impervious to my influence.--Tznkai (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This process is poorly defined and needs to change next year. It's not supposed to be an election, nor am I free to ignore it completely. The remit of the commission is poorly defined and in the event of a real crisis, the commission does not have sufficient community mandate to make a hard call without my support, but neither would I be free to ignore a poor recommendation from the commission. This is all pointless bureaucracy designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist, creating new confusions and problems and potential for controversy where there should be none.

I will proceed here by reading over the link above in great detail and asking ArbCom for their advice. As is my usual custom, I will try to make the decision that generates the least drama. But this is seriously broken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, indeed. What would you suggest instead? That we have an election for commissioners prior to an election for ArbCom? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes comes to mind. Perhaps the foundation could appoint commissioners? I'm afraid that many members of the English Misplaced Pages project may view that as an intrusion (albeit we do exist as a project subject to their rules and regulations). Should ArbCom itself appoint the commissioners? That would certainly allow for potential claims of bias, even if the individuals were all above reproach. Is this a situation where you step in as Godking and appoint on your own? There will be many complaints about that too, I am afraid. There is no good answer, per se. I think having an election is the worst option, as that just underscores that famous quip "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" but there does need to be someone or somewhere to go if there are any issues. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Jimbo - much as I agree with you about the practicalities here, the reality is that we've had an informal electoral commission pretty much since the inception of Arbcom elections. Most of the time that's worked fairly well; someone's managed the pre-election RFC, a few others have built the pages and templates. However, with the SecurePoll process, there does need to be a few people who are trusted to work with the WMF staff to set up the poll, and to monitor for socking and so on, before turning things over to the volunteer stewards who assess and publish the results. Thus, it's necessary to have a few very trusted users (they have to ID to the WMF because of access to IP information of accounts) to handle that end. Now, I'm not a huge fan of this process, but it's the process the community came up with for this year. No doubt refinements can be made. Meanwhile, however, we're now in a situation where in the past the volunteer "electoral commission" would have already been very active, keeping things in check and running the election like clockwork. While the ball is in your court, this is something of a time-sensitive task. Risker (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. I'll close it in the allotted time, but I'm not thrilled with it. The process alleges to leave things at my discretion, while the overall vibe of it means that if I do anything other than the obvious I'll be beaten up. It's not the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Sparta! This is the same sort of thing that plagues this place. The cause is just and the end result usually turns out for the best but the path is full of danger and drama and many an editor has been lost before they reach the end. If you are having concerns doing something you don't agree with, particularly with Arbcom, imagine how the rest of us feel who are completely powerless. Its a general atmosphere that needs to change. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think Jimbo's concern is more the rock vs. hardplace issue; and that most of the complaints will come from non-Arbcom participants in this project, not that ArbCom is being difficult. Of course, I could be wrong. -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Plan trying 10x longer than working alone: I think the secret to success, with improving the environment, is to keep trying for 10x times longer than if working alone to solve a problem. I have noted, "Misplaced Pages is 10% information and 90% deformation" as a general rule of thumb to beware the larger difficulties. For example, when verifying prior edits to articles, the proportion of edits, in a mid-range article, is typically 90% hack edits+reverts, compared to about 10% of edits actually improving the article page. Changing a template might take about 1 hour to alter the markup & adequately test the changes, but perhaps add another 9 hours to explain to others why the changed template would be better. Anyway, if an activity alone would take about 3 weeks to accomplish, then plan about 30 weeks if other people must be involved to gain consensus. The more complex the task, then typically the longer it will take to explain/discuss with other users. The factor of 10x is just an approximation, but at least it indicates the level of effort needed, to overcome frustrations, and work toward long-term solutions. I think people who only try 5x times harder, than working alone, in many cases will often fail to achieve the better results. That is why it is important to re-examine problems, or re-suggest solutions, over and over and over, to help move the larger group to make progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bold

It seems like the first paragraph of WP:Bold needs to be rewritten and reworded to be more in line with community standards. The first paragraph encourages users to make bold changes because that's not really how the community operates anymore. Bold changes frequently lead to blocks, bans, community bans and drama. I think it needs to be made clearer that editors need to edit with extreme care and that bold changes will likely result in the punishments listed above. The days of bold editing are quite a ways behind us at this point and this guideline needs to be updated to reflect that. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Bold. -- MST☆R 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

So be bold! - unless one runs afoul of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, being bold is fine (and commonly done). While it's true some people are too quick on the revert, most of the time being bold works really well. WilyD 12:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Trying to singlehandedly throw out a major policy - being bold. Requesting that Jimbo unprecedentedly overrule consensus - being bold, and asking him to be too. You've just very effectively proven that the best way to combat bold edits is with bold edits - not with a policy amendment. If a user boldly tags a page for CSD in error, then boldly revert them. If you created the page, but their CSD is just factually incorrect (G7 when you haven't requested deletion, or A2 when the page is in English, for instance), then, hell, boldly revert them, and include a summary citing WP:IAR. And if anyone gets too critical of you in their responses to this proposal (to the point of blatant WP:CIV violation), don't be afraid to boldly delete their comments. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 12:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone edits "boldly" these days they'll be blocked faster than you can say revert. Bold edits do occassionaly happen but more often than not, this rule no longer applies. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on how one interprets the word bold. WP:BOLD does a good job of emphasizing that being bold refers to situations in which one intends to constructively edit Misplaced Pages. Anyone can be bold in blanking pages or inserting defamatory comments, but that's not what the policy means. Also, people are bold on Misplaced Pages all the time. Just by making a change without first consulting others about it, one is being bold. You were bold when you made this edit without first consulting the talk page, and you haven't been blocked yet. Greengreengreenred (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Four days ago I edited the first sentence of France, Misplaced Pages's 207th most popular article, when, after a day, no editors had responded to my proposal to do so at the article's talk page. I have not been blocked, nor even reverted (though perhaps someone will read this, decide I was too bold, and revert me - and more power to them if they do!). Also, practically no one is blocked "faster than you can say revert": Yesterday I watched an admin calmly give all four levels of user talk page warning to an editor who was vandalizing his user page with personal attacks. Anyways, I'll step back now, since I feel I've reached the limit of appropriate boldness in responding to you, and I'm sure Jimbo can explain this much better than I can. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're begging the question here. Can you show examples of someone being blocked for simply making a bold edit, as opposed to a series of edits opposed by community consensus or one that ran afoul of a key policy (such as WP:BLP)? I can't support your proposal because you have yet to show evidence of the problem you claim. Resolute 17:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

English Wikinews

• meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews

I know that you have an opinion on this. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• It sure didn't take a Meta admin long to shut down that discussion when those who support shutting Wikinews down started to show up. I guess that joke of a project will continue to waste Foundation resources. Resolute 17:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well I'm no fan of Meta after they let Mbz1's abusive trolling of Gwen Gale to run amok for a month or two last year, but an old gadfly like Adam Cuerden popping out of the woodwork to try to torpedo a wiki-project was pretty much dead-on-arrival. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors who wish to contribute to Wikinews can prepare themselves by studying the style guide.

• Wikinews:Style guide - Wikinews, the free news source

—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

One of Many thanks

Just wanted to say thanks. You made a wealth of information available to everyone to share and contribute to. Broke the boundaries that things like encyclopedia's can only be managed by a few publisher's and a handful of staff. The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		an original Barnstar for being the original wikipedian 0pen$0urce (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

C++

Hey Jim,it's the ip from the "Don't Bite The IPs" stuff,my bans are over and now I making this place better for people.But something came across my mind,was C++ used in anyway used in the process of developing the Wiki Language? For I am an amateur programmer and this kinda stuff interest me.74.163.16.121 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software is written in PHP. However, the code for the MySQL database that is used as a backend is written partly in C++. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Massive deletion revision changes done to this page

I just wanted to let folks know that a massive revision deletion was poerformed on this page recently causing a lot of discussion comments including some by Jimbo himself to be removed. This has caused the discussions on this page to be incomplete. I have asked the editor (User:Risker) who did the revision to manually restore the talk comments that did not pertain to the affected text that they meant to remove but that discussion is dragging on so I decided to leave this comment here myself to let everyone know to check the revision history.

As a side note this happens a lot and it is my opinion and suggestion that if a large revision deletion occurs like this affecting discussions not part of the offending discussion that the deletion is intended for, that the deletor restores the unintended deletions with a followup edit. This happens occassionally, but not very often. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained to the IP on my talk page, all of the edits except for the one edit that was removed and was the basis of the suppressions are still visible on this page. I have suggested that he has some sort of technical problem, because the edits he says cannot be seen are clearly visible on this page. Risker (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

138.162, I think you might not quite understand what revision deletion entails: While Risker has made it so that you and I can't see what happened during 40 revisions, he hasn't undone their effects. (He's only removed the content of the very first one of those 40, as it was the one with the privacy policy violation.) Take a look: I've written two other comments on this page, and Risker's suppressed both of them; but press crtl+f (cmd+f on a Mac) and type in "Francophonie&Androphilie." You'll see that my comments are right where they should be. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a technical issue with the Rev del tool not me. As I said on your talk page. I can see the comment by Resolute and by Francophonie above that, but not the comment that IP made in between the 2. This is also true of other comments that have been made. If I could't see Resolute's comments then I would agree it might be on my end but I cannot see a technical possibility that would cause a comment in between 2 others on multiple discussion to just not be visible. Of course you can see it because you have the access but we don't have that. As I mentioned before, I have seen this before and not I have commented about it. I have done as much as I am prepared to do since its clear there is no desire to investigate or fix the problem other than to blame it on the anonymous IP. 138.162.0.44 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's a different kettle of fish. The village pump (technical) is fairly regularly monitored by the WMF developers. Would you please consider creating a "bug report" there so that they can examine the situation? If you're choosing to edit anonymously, I won't suggest you create a Bugzilla account (which requires an email address, and makes that email address visible); however, if you make the report there, I will do my best to draw the attention of the developers to this issue. That will also (I hope) put you directly in touch with the people who are best able to resolve the issue, and they will have the benefit of your description of the situation. Risker (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) You are correct that there is no "technical possibility that would cause a comment in between 2 others on multiple discussion to just not be visible". They are visible. And, to be extra certain, I logged out and checked that yes, it is visible to anonymous users. Given that you state unequivocally that you see the comment above and below, that there is no technical means by which the intervening anon comment could be hidden, and that I have in fact verified that it is visible, then there remain few alternatives other than you are simply mistaken or lying about the supposed missing comment. — Coren  21:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c x2)Are you sure you're not misreading the edit history? That IP does have a post to User talk:Jimbo Wales in between F&A's reply and Resolute's reply, but it was made to the "Electoral Commission RfC Closure" section, not the "Misplaced Pages:Bold" section, and is still visible, as you can see above. There are no revisions that would correspond to the IP posting a message in between F&A and Resolute in that section, and I'm pretty sure that revdel and oversight are incapable of removing all traces of a specific revision. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you've got it right, Writ Keeper. 138.162, I check this page fairly regularly (being what we call a talk page stalker), and I can assure you that everything that used to be under the "Misplaced Pages:Bold" section is still there. Just as, as Write Keeper said, the IP edit made between my edit and Resolute's is still there, just not in that section. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't know what to say I can't see it. I attempted to get a screen shot and load that but of course, the Encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit doesn't allow files to be uploaded without an account. It also appears that the Encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit requires an account to send an Email so since I am not willing to create a new account then I guess I may as well drop the issue. I also have no desire to bring it to another venue. I contacted the editor who did it and added this comment so other editors were aware which is far more than I intended to do. As a note the process for submitting these problems is too complex and beauracratic. It needs to be simpler if you are even remotely serious about having users comment about problems they find. As a measure of curiousity. What does it say between Riskers comment and Francophonie? 138.162.0.44 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Which comments? Risker and F&A have two comments apiece in this section. The first pair has nothing in between them: you can see the difference between the two at this link. The second pair as a comment by Coren and a comment by myself between them: you can see the difference between the two through this link. Just FYI: even though we can't see the contents of the edits, the edit summaries that are visible in the history tell us which section they were posted in (you should be able to see this, just like we can). On the "View history" tab, at the right of each line, there's a string of text surrounded by parentheses and in italics. Most of them will start with an arrow pointing to the side, then some gray text, then optionally some black text. This is the edit summary. The gray text indicates the section that the comment was posted in. IP 108's final oversighted edit to this page, made at 11:35, 20 November 2012 right after F&A posted, has the edit summary: "(→‎Electoral Commission RfC Closure: This is the trap that many editors fall victim too)". The "Electoral Commission RfC Closure:" bit, in gray, tells us that it was made in the "‎Electoral Commission RfC Closure". And if you look at that section right now, you'll see the comment there. You wouldn't see it in the "Misplaced Pages:Bold" section because it was never written there. But 108's edits, barring some bizarre bug with oversight, are all accounted for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The comments that are missing are not in this section. Look above in the section titled Misplaced Pages:Bold. At the bottom of that discussion is a comment by Risker and above that one from Francophonie. There should be another comment in between by the IP. Again, this is just one example, it is a by product and collatoral damage caused by using the rev del tool across multiple revisions. The tool is crap, it always has been. It works ok for one revision but when used across multiple revisions that include other comments for other discussions it napalms the other comments. Yes I can see the histories and that's what I was pointing to above. There are edits missing from 108, Jimbo, Conti and others but I can't prove it because I don't have a habit of screen printing the discussion pages in case someone rev del's them and I don't have access. But, all those comments in the history that are lined out, have content that do not show up. Even the edits by clue bot where restored. So if you look at what Cluebot archived then compare that last archive to the current page, you should see that some of what Cluebot archived was restored here meaning that it will archive the same content twice. I'm sorry I don't really have the time to keep fighting this. I brough the problem up in good faith and I have tried to explain it as best I could but if you all don't understand, or I am not explaining it clearly enough then at this point I don't think I can do anything more to help. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I, too, am going to drop this for now, but I just want to say that it's nice to see a user complaining about inefficiency and bureaucracy get speedy responses from three administrators on the founder's talk page - after, of course, a discussion on the talk page of one of those administrators, in which another administrator and a bureaucrat took the time to reply. In fact, I'm the only non-admin in this whole conversation! If there is a cabal, they're doing a pretty bad job at suppressing dissent. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

138.162.0.42, whatever you are doing that's fogging up your glasses so badly, you need to stop doing it. ☺ One of my edits was revision deleted, and yet what I wrote in that edit is clearly still on this page. I can see it, right there in the #English Wikinews section. Just as I can see commentary by Jimbo in #Electoral Commission RfC Closure and two comments by 108.28.162.125 in #‎Misplaced Pages:Bold, all of whose original edits have been oversighted like mine, but whose text is still there right now, datestamped signatures and everything, like mine. There's no technical issue to address. The symptoms that you describe quite simply do not exist in the first place. Not for the several people who have written above, and not for me, one of the very people whose edits were oversighted. Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

a kitten for you

Javiruz (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

a kitten for you

Javiruz (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy,

Is it ok for a candidate for a senior post in a chapter organization of a large silent conflict of interest? Especially if two candidate live in the same house in which a candidate owns the house and the other pays rent to the other candidate to live there? Would you consider it appropriate for these people do not have their commercial relationship to the foundation and the public disclosed, especially if these people have been applied together for money to the GAC already? Would you consider it ok that these two people were sanctioned for abusive behavior on Misplaced Pages, and threatened to block other member of chapter who objected to their flooding DYK with poorly written articles?

I am writing this under the wrong user name and not mentioning names as I fear retaliation from the two people involved, if they discover my identity. Ced Bix (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)