Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.52.88.228 (talk) at 21:58, 22 December 2008 (→Have you sent an email to Herby?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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: 2 days

Archives

Index -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 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

ArbCom Appointments

With this edit, I am making the following appointments to the Arbitration Committee:

3 year terms:

• Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse

• (expansion seat)

• Jayvdb

2 year terms:

• Vassyana, Carcharoth

(expansion seat)

• Wizardman

1 year term:

(expansion seat)

• Coren

Some notes:

1. Some in the community suggested that I should look at both percentage of support and at net "pro" votes. Or that I should look at net "pro" votes instead of percentage of support. As it turns out, when making 3 expansion appointments, there is a lucky coincidence: - Top six on both metrics are all appointed to 3 year terms - Next three on both metrics are all appointed to 2 year terms - Number ten on both metrics is appointed to a 1 year term

So, in this case, it would not matter which metric I favored.

2. As a "sanity check" on the appointments process, and in response to public and private concerns raised about inappropriate block voting, I also considered the votes of *just* admins. In the end this had no impact. There were two interesting small variations: - Jayvdb got much higher admin support, reflecting I think the results of an offsite campaign (I checked into the concerns of the campaigners and found them to be without merit) - CoolHandLuke got much lower admin support, reflecting I think the nature of his campaign - "In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us."

These variations are interesting, nothing more, and certainly not sufficient for me to posit a major rift between the broader community and the admins. Most of the vote counts were very similar for admins versus non-admins.

3. All 10 appointees have agreed to identify to the Foundation. This is not a requirement of the Foundation, and I chose not to make it a requirement for my appointments, either. It was merely a request. Nonetheless, all 10 eagerly agreed to it. There is no need for them to do so *before* taking office, and I'm sure it'll happen quickly enough.

4. Deskana is resigning his seat. I am not filling that seat right now, but I intend to do so in an interim election at some point in 2009, yet to be determined. There have been some mentions of other possible retirements, and so I will wait to see if anyone else is looking to retire early next year, and then we'll see about an election in March or June or so. With the 3 expansion seats, it is not as if we will be short-staffed.

My exploration of the voting results tells me that this was an election for change. The only 2 current Arbs who were running were soundly defeated. This was a key factor in my decision to expand the committee - appointing 7 of 15 seats would not even be a majority, and 8 of 15 (by filling Deskana's seat) would barely be.

As it stands, we have 10 of 18 seats filled with new members, and with 1 retirement, in fact we have 10 of 17 arbs new. The community has asked for change, and I support this fully.

The mandate for the new arbs, as I see it, and a small change.

1. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom moved much too slowly, and got too little done. I intend that with more members, the committee will explore ways to get more things done and more quickly. Various proposals have been put forward in the past, and all have merits. I encourage the new committee to act quickly and decisively to reorganize and reexamine working methods to get faster resolution to conflicts - justice delayed is justice denied.

2. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom was too opaque, hearing too many matters in private. I encourage the creation of new rules clearly limiting the scope of private decisionmaking.

Rather than completely outlawing it, because I do think there can be situations where a privately-handled matter is important for the dignity of all participants, I will simply strongly discourage private votes of any kind. There should be no "secret trials" or anything resembling them, and there can be no valid ArbCom action unless the person being sanctioned has had the opportunity for a public defense.

There are problems with this: drama on the wiki will increase in some ways. But the bigger drama of conspiracy theories and decisions made in error due to insufficient eyeballs on the case will be avoided.

3. We want arbs to be both responsive to community concerns, and also immune from populist campaigns that push rash decisionmaking. These are competing concerns which must be kept in balance. I request the new ArbCom to reflect on and discuss the creation of a method for the community recall of unpopular ArbCom members. This discussion should take place in June of 2009, once the new Arbs have some experience of the job and thus a deeper understanding of the pressures involved. I would like to see a procedure in place by the time of the next election.

The small change: while not completely outlawing all private decision making, I will simply state that I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote.

I leave it to the new ArbCom to make their own decisions regarding the use of public workshops versus the private ArbCom wiki versus the mailing list - all are valid tools. I simply strongly encourage a renewed focus on the desire of the community for strong transparency in ArbCom operations.

--Jimbo

Replies

On a first read through of the rationale and comments... I am impressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine choices; I'm glad that you didn't need to intervene for Jay. Sceptre 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent choices. Very pleased here! ;-) ayematthew ✡ 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how a mid-year election would go, but thanks for listening to the community. Majorly 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Great choices. I wish all the new ArbCom members well. Willking1979 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One election a year is enough. An interim election risks much disruption with little benefit.Genisock2 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I've found a mistake. Doesn't Tranche Gamma expire in Dec 2009 and Alpha in 2010, not the other way around? Sceptre 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope I didn't make a mistake. I used a spreadsheet and worked partly from memory. Let's check my work quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I really really like these times because they match the mandate from the community. For the moment I am removing the tranche names while we sort this out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In either case, are you appointing a new member when Deskana formally resigns, if he hasn't already? Sceptre 23:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Aawww, I always fancied myself as an alpha male (chuckle) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Cas! Sincerement, --A Nobody 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure, these start 1 Jan 2009, or now? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to the committee (old and new) to determine transition strategy. Whatever is traditional, I suppose. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Liking the mandate. Thanks, Martinp23 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that "I will stand for re-election in two years, and if re-elected I will stand down after another two years". John Vandenberg 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that into account here and we'll finalize the details over the next day or so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I find the comments very helpful; I think those points were themes of many of the successful campaigns, and working on those issues should improve the community's trust. Cool Hand Luke 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was right. Just kidding--thanks for taking what we gave, for the top 10. rootology (C)(T) 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't approve of your role in the process, Jimbo, I am happy that you appointed the candidates according to the community's will and issued a call for more transparency—lack of transparency is indeed one of the committee's biggest problems. Everyking (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be time to pause and consider the possibility that my role is important to the execution of the community's will, rather than an impediment to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to complain if you make good decisions. If you continue along this unobjectionable path, it is entirely possible that your role could be to execute the community's will. Everyking (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would echo Everyking's sentiment's above. I have issues with the system, but the results are acceptable. I am particularly impressed that you opted to appoint a prominent Misplaced Pages Review member to a three-year term, and I wonder if that should send out some sort of message? GTD 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but my impression so far is that Misplaced Pages Review is full of embittered rejects with an axe to grind, and those that manage to maintain a presence here as well as there have too much time to spare. But I'm open to persuasion. --Rodhullandemu 00:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

With an axe? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) (LessHorrid vanU)

Not necessarily. My preferred weapons are words and ideas; but personally, I can find enough to do here without spreading my efforts elsewhere. There are always articles needing improvement, and defending against deletionists. For example, if I survive beyond New Years Eve, I have set aside January to deal with all articles related to The Prisoner (how apt!), establishing their notability, creating a Prisoner portal, and getting it to featured status. An admirable goal, but I expect no help from the Misplaced Pages Review mob- it's not the sort of thing they, er, do. --Rodhullandemu 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? So what is it "we" do? Personally, I like to think I write articles, but maybe you disagree. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I really am not interested what you do elsewhere, but my commitment is here; I'm sure you are a very good article writer; but if you care to click on "Random article", I guarantee you'll find something that needs proper care and attention above and beyond the politics. It's a measure of Misplaced Pages's success, perhaps, that it attracts outside criticism; nothing new in that, but my focus is to minimise the incidence of that criticism. This may be against all the odds, but it's nonetheless a worthy enterprise as far as I am concerned. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is number one? You are the new number 6 – wait a minute, that's someone else. Congratulations to all the new numbers. . dave souza, talk 10:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm thoroughly impressed. The expansion was much-needed. Thanks, Jimbo....and to all our new ArbCommers--congratulations and best wishes. GJC 00:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Will second that, congratulations and best wishes to all, look forward to a refreshed spirit of tranparency and just decisions. . . dave souza, talk 10:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is nice. Keep up the good work, boss man. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Congratulations and condolences to the new Arbitrators. Thatcher 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Like many others above, I personally object to any one unelected individual having so large a role in EnWiki as Jimbo does. <silliness> It is very frustrating, then, to see, time and again, Jimbo making such well-reasoned decisions, having his finger very acutely on the pulse of the community, and generally making practically everyone pretty happy. It's hard enough to over throw a tyrannical monarch, much less a beloved one. Jimbo, couldn't you maybe get us into an unpopular war, or suggest all wikipedians may have to convert to Catholicism, or build a lavish palace while the populace is starving??</silliness>. Which is to say, I disagree with Jimbo's role here, but I have to admit, so far, he has done a damn good job of it. Good work. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• So now we see what the benefit of a couple days' worth of thought can be - a restructuring of sorts that puts the emphasis on the new voices and thoughts. Looks like a good option to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• I am very pleased with your decision to expand the ArbCom, as they are (were?) severely overworked, and the top ten candidates are all very, very good IMO. Thank you for being willing to take this step. I would like to offer my congratulations to all the newly appointed Arbitrators! J.delanoy_adds 04:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, this just won't do. There's only one objectionable and incompetent arbitrator who I don't like very much left on the committee. What happened to respect of Misplaced Pages traditions? Who will we complain about? Does this mean we will have to edit articles instead of whipping up Wikidrama? Editors DESERVE TO KNOW!!!! :P Physchim62 (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Jimbo, thank you. Cheers on this much needed expansion, along with your thoughtful, meaningful takes on the election altogether. What you have to say about on-wiki decision-making, along with what you plan to do if arbcom needlessly strays off-wiki, is and will be very helpful to the project. To echo Thatcher, everyone on arbcom has my best wishes, along with my heartfelt sympathies. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you. What a stunningly well thought out decision! --TS 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• I think it is important to thank everyone for their participation in Misplaced Pages. In particular I think it is important at this time to thank the outgoing ArbCom members and the new ArbCom members. It is a time consuming commitment and it should be appreciated by the whole community. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• I think you have the right to be pretty pleased with yourself. What a well-thought out solution, and what wisdom to listen to what Wikipedians wanted this election and interpret it so well. I think it's no accident you are being acclaimed by the community for this decision. Credit given where credit is due. Congratulations, and thank you. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 09:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• umm, what is this arbitrtion thing? thats all

Dcollins52 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested clarification

I will simply state that I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote

Do you mean both a public discussion and vote or just public discussion or a vote? One thing that bothers me about the current process is that the bulk of work the arbitrators are seen to do is simply voting, usually with no public rationale. One often (in fact usually) has no specific idea why an arbitrator is voting in such a manner when they have had no input into the workshop, nor any reason besides good faith to believe that they have worked on comprehending any of the evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd love clarification on this as well. It seems to me that, for example, a discussion page that only arbs could edit but we could all see would be a good thing, and that they hash out their differences there, rather than via whatever off-wiki method is now used. IronDuke 01:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like and to me, and a welcome committment to the openness and transparency which is essential to give legitimacy and gain widespread acceptance that actions and decisions are just. The rationale behind decisions should be made clear. A good restart, and I'm hopeful for the future. . dave souza, talk 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably need to hone the good ole psychic abilities, as it doesn't look like an answer is gonna be given here. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tranche seats

Jimbo: See {{ArbitrationCommitteeChart}} you need to sort out where Coren, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Wizardman go. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the terms should be of the length that I specified, although Jayvdb should be moved to a 2 year term per his request above. I am afraid that this screws up the chart a bit, but on the other hand, it also provides an interesting breakpoint in the future for us to consider the possibility of reorganizing into 2 tranches of 2 year terms (3 being generally considered too long).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I mean, Coren's ends before the others in Alpha, and the three new ones in Gamma go past the expiration of the older arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, is that another way of saying "Jimbo screwed up"? ;) From his words above, I glean that he intends his originally specified term lengths to be in effect, and the "tranche" nomenclature to be redundant.

Additionally, I'd support the idea of two-year terms, but with the addition of a tranche with one-year terms. This opens the possibility of arbitrators serving any of 1 through 4 years. I'll also take the opportunity to restate that I think we should all reconvene on Feb. 1, 2009 to begin a comprehensive discussion of the exact way that ArbCom voting procedures operate, from top to bottom. Franamax (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what we have seen, a 4-year term would be awful. There is high arbiter burnout and a strong perception (both earned and unearned) that arbcom thinks of itself as a special class of Wikipedian. Both of those issues are exacerbated by allowing for a 4-year term. I think limiting terms to 2 years with some sort of review process after one year is an important step. --B (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, if Newyorkbrad still has a spring in his step a year from now, I'd be happy to give him at least one more year (and probably two) before taking him out to the back shed with rifle in hand and tears in my eyes. Three-year terms have not demonstrated themselves as successful, but an extension upon review, after either of one or two years, for a duration of one or two years, may have a chance of working out. Agree on the idea of term limits though. Franamax (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm ... Brad is the one and only arbiter in whom the community overwhelmingly has confidence. Using this rare exception to say that a four-year term is a good idea just doesn't make sense. Besides, Brad would have no trouble getting reelected after two years, so he would not be hurt by a two-year-term. He isn't the reason for limiting terms to two years. The reason for limiting terms to two years is ... well ... everybody else. --B (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason for the tranches to necessarily be balanced, particularly since the length of terms may be open to change; I'd suggest just putting the new appointments into whatever tranche corresponds to the length of their term (such that every seat in each tranche is up for election at the same time) and not worrying about the fact that some tranches will now be larger than others. Kirill 02:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Have to say that this is the most commonsense method; not tranches but expiry dates. If tranches are insisted upon, then they may be formed by taking expiry date as the factor and not "time remaining/served". LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not everyone gets burnout. It depends on the fit of the task and the environment to the individual. Thatcher 01:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In the history of arbcom, only four arbiters have sought reelection and been reelected. All three of them had previously served only partial terms. On the other hand, I count about ten that served for less than a year. That's not a ringing endorsement for anyone's support of lengthy terms. --B (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the tranches

If you want to stick people in the same 3 tranches we have used before, you have to jump one of the new 2-year appointment to 3 years and cut one of the 2-year appointments to 1 year, and Deskana's replacement would get a one year term in gamma, see User:Thatcher/temp (I shuffled some names around as an example, nothing personal is intended). If you are thinking about abolishing the tranches or dropping to a 2-year cycle, this is what you have now (Sorry for the photoshop, this surpassed my chart-coding skills). 4 Arbs to retire/re-elect in one year, 8 Arbs to retire or re-elect in 2 years, and 5 Arbs to retire/re-elect in 3 years. Plus Deskana's replacement, whoever that is, if there is a special election. The current group is pretty unbalanced, and after a year of historically high turnover there could be a year of historically low turnover. You might want to shuffle some people around a bit, especially if you are thinking about 2 tranches of 2 years and 9 Arbs each. Just something to think about. Thatcher 02:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your chart looks accurate as of right now. And it does look like we may have a year of historically low turnover next year. But with routine retirements and the introduction of an ArbCom recall process, plus with the prospect of a potential further expansion, it's not really clear what the future will hold, so perhaps we can worry about the details later.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're interested in keeping the current tranche structure then IMO this layout is the most in line with that. Tranche Alpha is entirely corect, Beta is missing a member, and Gamma has two members with extra-long terms. So any mid-year election wouldn't actually be "replacing Deskana" so much as 'filling the empty seat in Beta', with a term length of two and a half years. Happy‑melon 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Jimbo Wales's Day!

User:Jimbo Wales has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jimbo Wales's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jimbo Wales! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice move.

(ArbCom appointments).Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Winter

Happy Winter, man! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Deadline shmedline!

Hey Jimbo,

In a happy effort to completely destroy your deadline, we have a productive discussion going about a proposal for a method to increase accountability and Arb responsiveness to the community going at Misplaced Pages talk:Review Board (and, of course, the actual proposal in project space).

Your opinion there would be highly valued. — Coren  05:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

K50 Dude The Great is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Have a great holiday, and an eventful new year!

From K50 Dude

Ping

Your meta page directed me here. Could you have a look at my comments on your Planet Wikimedia request? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you sent an email to Herby?

I have no information about this at all, as far as I am aware.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Then I have to search for another guy. Merry Christmas 78.52.88.228 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)