Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2010-11

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moved from Foundation wiki feedback

How do I get an article about myself?

This is more of an inquiry than "feedback." I am an author and am interested in being listed on Wikimedia (or Wikipedia?).

How do I go about getting entered? Whom should I contact about this question?

Thank you,

Walter LeCroy (contact info redacted by Kylu)

Generally, we ask that you not try to do so yourself. The best way of getting an article on yourself is to continue writing your books, rack up sales, be noted in the media, and have a raving fanbase. My percentage for the advice is negotiable by the way, contact me for rates. :) Kylu 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

getting a Douglas

Getting a Douglas is a common phrase in parts of London (UK). It refers the the fine line between the claims a man makes about sexual conquest and the reality of the situation in the eyes of all other parties.

(incredible amount of background informational email redacted) - Please see wikt:Wiktionary:Neologisms for adding neologisms there. This phrase has nothing to do with the website. Kylu 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the benefits of wikipedia?

I am very much impressed with this website: largest free encyclopedia. WIKIPEDIA is helping me in so many areas since many years.

I would just like to know, what are the benefits of WIKIPEDIA after maintaining huge data and providing worldwide at free of cost?

Thanks to the master minds.

I think you answered your own question. ;) Kylu 19:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I interpreted this question as "What does Wikipedia get out of providing a huge sum of free information worldwide?". A question which I cannot answer. sonia 07:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If, by Wikipedia, you mean the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, then nothing but a happy feeling when the board goes to bed at night. It's a question you would have to ask every contributor and volunteer, rightfully. Many of the volunteers do so out of a sense of obligation, after a while, but almost everyone starts by seeing an error on a page and correcting it or adding new information that they read in an article or on a news site elsewhere.
There's no "Wikipedia Company" traded on the stock market, and the vast majority of volunteers never see a red cent for the countless hours they eventually put on Wikipedia and its sister projects. For that matter, most volunteers rarely even receive a word of thanks. We help here because we can and because we want to try to make a difference. Kylu 11:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Scott O'Grady

Dear Wikimedia
Hello, I don't know if you are the right person to ask this but, I have been looking for this man since we meant 14 years ago. I got to meet him while he was doing his book tour here in my little town of Mesquite NV. Could you direct me to him. please I have to know some things. I've been like I said looking for him for a very long time and every time that I have come close but, no cigar. I know that I am not suppose to use this page, but, your foundation, but, I couldn't find how to contact your sponsor. could you please tell me how??? Thank you very Miss Dana Glass p.s. my e-mail address is removed by Kylu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2010

Rather the wrong place to ask questions like this, sorry. You really want to check the Wikipedia Reference Desk, if anyplace at all is appropriate. Kylu 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

improvement suggestion concerning info management found in your pages

Hello, Congratulations for all you do

I bumped into the impossibility to send the super nice appeal from the founder of Wikipedia to a friend I wanted her to see how handsome this super guy is and how well is done the page setting in English with a beautifully worded short text that says it all. Google refuses to recognise the http address of it I copied so what do I do? I write to you the following:


suggestion to add two or three buttons at the top right of every one of your pages for people to save your infos or send them in a userfriendly, humanly normally spontanuous organizational way. My yahoo mail does not have them, it only offers print and this is not practical and it is a very partial action to which misses 75% of its fullness and it drives me crazy not to be able to save my mails on my desktop in Word style, such as the print version but not printed just saved. And here in Wikipedia too. The real thing in a computer - user - mind is Save and Send Communication is the key to everything. I need fast swift efficient communcation and to print this beautifull page just as it is with the founder's face and stick on my office's wall for all to see.


Please, could you add at the top right of every and each of your windows the following buttons:

         "[[save this page          save this article"            "E-Mail this page"

Check, French singer, composer who participates in the organization of free access to all art.

Thank you mille times for being there all of you, LOVE FROM HELENE

can we facebook Wiki

I am very fond of searching any random thing on Wiki and find it an amazing resource, can we show our favourite page in/on facebook. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

This isn't the page you really want, but to answer you: sure. I'm sure Wikipedia/Wikimedia would love for you to link to stuff on facebook. Killiondude 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


You see I love Wikipedia, and I often see it has more knowledge than anyother database, but since people can contribute off the internet the teachers and any school I go to say that they are not ccredible sources, but that we may go to the reference section and get information from those pages but I thought that it would be way cool to have wikipedia as a recognized source of information if that was possible that would probably be a great advancement


My God, man! Don't be a fool! Lots of school kids depend on your site, but their parents can't afford to donate.

We'd like you to stay. I doubt many would object to your selling a simple banner ad link, (similar to your appeal, for example). We'd be more upset if WIKI went away. It would be yet another Harvard business class case-study of how the people can't do anything for long without corporations or government. If I were a large corporation I wouldn't mind paying $1 million a week to reach so many eyes. You could probably get ten times that. Possibly 20 times. I think they're up to $2M / minute for Super Bowl ads. World-wide, I'd expect you might collect $40 M a month. Why beg from millions when you can demand from a few hundred? A few hundred who should be begging for your attention. Choose advertisers who won't compromise your integrity, (i.e. politics or porn). Just please don't insult us with "We care" (CBS or BP Oil-spin) ads, cookies, spyware, and the like. Toyota and Chevron never know which billion in ad money is working. Choose something most will completely ignore. I'm guessing if you don't, you'll fade away, and someone else will replace your good work with a WIKI knock-off, AD-ding what I suggest. I would if I had the money.

A one-year year test. Currently investment returns are very low. Yet for nearly a hundred years, the S&P Index fund would get you 10% in your sleep. Until recently, of course. Over most any 20 year period, safe investments can generally be found that average a 6% or better return. Assuming 3% goes to inflation, that's 3% you can withdraw annually to run the site. So you only need to collect (33 months X $20M / mo.= ) $660 M to build a fund to forever run the site. I'll bet you could collect that in a year with little or no ill will. Just to be safe, collect a billion, then give me one percent so I can self publish my book. It's a plan to fix the education system and eliminate poverty in the US in 15 years. Globaly in perhaps fifty. But that's a second book. Of course your $10 M consultation fee would eliminate my poverty immediately. Solve two issues with one billion, so to speak.

I didn't realize it cost $20 M / yr. to run your site. I appreciate your desire to keep WIKI advertisement free, but I don't see a million people a year keeping it alive either. Best of luck, and thanks for the service as long as we have it. Thomas Monary

You do know that this approach has actually worked quite well for the Foundation, right? Especially since these donations are coupled with large contributions from philanthropic interests? harej 03:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining the level of information

Dear all In past the information on wiki was more for general public use , I feel the information are getting more & more professional & specific, which is good for semi professionals in the field but ordinary people will get lost in given information. I suppose it will be great if information on Wiki to be given in 3 academic levels ( basic to advanced ) so still many people with different scientific back ground ,on the issue, can use it. Hamid R Habibi MD

Power supply of Wikimedia servers

Hallo, to my knowledge, the wikimedia server are sited at Tampa/Florida and Amsterdam/Netherlands.

  1. From which companies does Wikimedia purchase its electric energy?
  2. From wich sources (e.g. coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, petroleum, solar, wind etc.) does the energy come?
  3. Is Wikimedia intending to change its power supply to a suplier with non-nuclear or renewable sources?

--Rosenkohl 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Tampa, but in Europe WMF servers are hosted by EvoSwitch. I suppose you should ask Danese Cooper for the new datacentre in Virginia. --Nemo 08:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Evoswitch writes on

"'Green' electricity. The electricity that EvoSwitch consumes has been generated in an environmentally friendly way. We get our ‘green’ electricity from the DELTA power company. It’s called 'Zeeuws Groen' – the green electricity from Zeeland. The difference between ‘'Zeeuws Groen' and ordinary electricity is the way it is generated. 'Zeeuws Groen' is 100% 'green' electricity and is generated from sustainable energy sources such as wind, sun and biomass. With the profits on 'Zeeuws Groen', DELTA invests in new projects for generating more environmentally friendly 'Zeeuws Groen' power."

which could be an answer to my questions 2. and 3. in the case of Amsterdam.

However, this raises some other questions. Till June 2009, the servers in Amsterdam were run by the "Kennisnet" company. According to the page Wikimedia servers, Kennisnet still seems to be a partner of Wikimedia too, so the question about power supply would refer to Kennisnet too. How can I ask Danese Cooper? Is the Virginia datacentre going to replace Tampa altogether, or are Virginia and Tampa going to be run parallely? Greetings--Rosenkohl 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for the deletion of "Anais" article in the Azerbaijani language Wikipedia

Dear Users, I asked the administrators of Azerbaijani Wikipedia to express their attitude to the content of Anais article: [1]. They did not reply me, then I wrote the similar requests at the personal pages of all the administrators of Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Again there is no reply. Previously, I asked qustions and tried to discuss the content of this article with its main editor and creator (User: Gulistan) in Russian Wkipedia's Azerbaijan project discussion page. But his replies contradict to the recommendations to the sources and citations. Wy do I consider that this article and this content should be deleted? This article is about Anahit - an Armenian pagan deity of fertility and maternity that was worshipped by the Armenians 2,000 years ago before 301, when Armenia adopted Christianity as state religion. The academic sources characterize Anahit as deity or goddess of fertility and maternity. But a psychiatrist Cesare Lambroso, who worked out the theory on the heredity of the inclination to commit crimes, i.e the criminals are born criminals. and Azerbaijani user Gulistan giving links to his work in psychiatrics several times names Anahit deity "a goddess of prostitution" that she had never been please do not mix the sacred prostitution with the modern prostittion). By the way, the Oghuz tribes in Iron Age also had a deity of nature and fertility that is proved by the petroglyphs found in Altay mountains and folklore rites that were recorded by several authors. Moreover user Gulistant giving the link to an article of Russian historian Izmailova, uses only the citation of Strabo (1st century AD) that Izmailova mentioned. But he did not use any definition of goddess Anahit, applied by Izmailova in her article (she names her an ancient Armenian goddess of fertility and maternity). I will not continue my explanation, because it will take more space here and your time, but this content has political goals that is very far from the aims that Wikipedia was created. And one more detail: this user was blocked in Russian Wikipedia for placing abusive articles against Russian Wikipedia, the administrators, Arbitration Committee and users, publishing a user's pics and personal data [2]. So, I would like to know your recommendations and receive any assistance for the deletion of this schovinistic and abusive article. If anyone wants to receive his or her own opinion and check my words, one may translate the named article from Azerbaijani to English with the help of Google translator. Here is the link to Anais article [3] The link to my contributions page in Azerbaijani Wikipedia [4] Link to the discussion in Russian Wikipedia: [5]. Thank you in advance for your recommendations, Zara-arush (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) PS: There are new comments to the new edits in the article [6] Zara-arush (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all, who participated in the solution of this matter and deletion of the unproper content article from Azerbaijani Wikipedia. My special thanks to user Sortilegus. I hope it was a good experience for all, who participated, and the cooperation shall be continued. Best wishes, Zara-arush (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Anais article with its abusive content was recovered proving that what is wrong in Azerbaijani Wikipedia is not my fantasy. I understand it as the sign that Azerbaijani Wikipedia entered in edit war and other provocative activities against me, -- Zara-arush (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If the community consider that they need time to improve the content, I will wait for. Thanks to Google translator I may enjoy their discussion. Very interesting, I may say. Now they are in search for other sources besides Strabo and Chesare Lambroso to prove that the Armenians worshipped prostitutes more than 2,000 years ago. OK, let's wait, Zara-arush (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
After several days, when the Azerbaijani division admins and users working on improving the named article, there are some changes: 1) the word for "prostitute" is mentioned 7 times in the text with the link to the article on modern prostitutes. 2) several lnks were added, including personal blogs and an article of some Russian writer, holding the dinploma in engineering, as well as a book "Story of Phallicism" (1927). 3) a better quality pics of the bronze image of Armenian goddess of fertility and maternity, medicine and wisdom were added, 4) the title of the article was from "Anais" changed to the true name "Anahit. If this may be considered an improvemnt, I have no words for further comments. So, it means that none of my explanations were considered, and none of the admins was interested in reading English division articles with the corresponding content to see, how the deities of fertility are represented in other divisions and in the mainstream historic science. Zara-arush (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I was told that none seriously treat what is written here, I shall add one more of the abuses that I found in AzerWiki. According to AzerWiki there are only 3 prominent Armenians in the world and all 3 are pornostar girls to the contrary to outstanding Azerbaijanis that are Nobel prize winners, famous sportsmen and warriors! Believe, I am not joking, they really write such articles in AzerWiki! Of course, it is great that you give them such a strong tool that they employ with maximum utility! Zara-arush (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, everyone. The sidebar of the Recent changes has a list of wikis called "sister-projects". All of this projects are English projects (except Commons). Why is that? If Meta is about all the Wikimedia projects and there isn't there shouldn't be given any privillege to a particular language or project, it doesn't seem to be reasonable.

There should be linked the links that would include the others projects (these links) and not just the english language projects. That's my opinion. Thanks.” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 08:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that a list of 7-800 links would be useful. The point is that there is a link for each project, then when you arrive there you find links to local languages RC. I don't know if those links are much used; if they're not, they may be replaced with links to other "backstage" projects which are more likely to be followed by Meta regulars. --Nemo 08:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Nemo. Thanks for answering. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm not talking about changing the number of items in that list (wouldn't be useful indeed); there is no need to any change on the number. I'm just looking for a reasonable answer for the question "why does the list on the RC direct only to English projects?" and suggesting that the links on the list be changed for these: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (seven).” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 06:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point. mickit 07:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point (2). CasteloBrancomsg 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Because the links on RC should link to RC; the links you mean are already on the main page... Seb az86556 03:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand... but why the English projects? Why not... let's say... the Japanese projects? They have recent changes too.” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 03:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that no one translated MediaWiki:Recentchangestext into different languages. If, for example, someone created MediaWiki:Recentchangestext/de, then anyone whose preferences have German as the default language setting will see the recent changes page as that, including linking to the German projects, if the translator made it like that. --Yair rand 04:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice, Yair rand. I didn't know it is possible; seems to be a perfect solution. With a little help, I can translate to the portuguese version. I'm sure that there will be others interested in translating to other languages. What should I do? Should I start to translate "MediaWiki:Recentchangestext" to portuguese?” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 02:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
And no one translated, I guess, because it's necessary to be a sysop to do that. It's a MediaWiki message. Should we create a subpage and make a request when the translation is complete? CasteloBrancomsg 03:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You can post a translation on the corresponding talk page using {{editprotected}} and an admin will get to it shortly. Killiondude 04:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I will try to translate to portuguese. I hope other users are interested in translating to other languages too. Thanks everyone!” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.” TeleS (T PT @ C G) 06:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting wider acceptance


I have a very large concern for kids before College in that most schools ban the use of your website. This occurs not because a lot of your material isn't great. Most Parents request access for their kids but because their is content that is not rated or there is not way to filter out content not appropriate for children. I urge you to do what Google, Bing or Yahoo does by default have a preference set on the home page and others that by default filters out content inappropriate based on Internet Ratings or your own standard and can be turned off for more objectional pages. This would be a great feature and many sites are trying to set web page ratings to assist browsers and content filters to determine access levels. I know if you took one of these steps to help with your ratings you would automatically get approved for viewing of students.

I am one of these school board computer engineers who does not allow access to your site and can not until some more appropriate way is setup.

Hope you care about getting children access if you think of how many school age children there are in North America alone this would make a huge boost to your success.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2010

I doubt you will get wikipedia to pander to the censorship-policies of US-American schools. Plus, there is no way of deciding what's "appropriate" and who gets to decide. Seb az86556 18:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The "censorship" can be handled by the school itself, without any change by Wikipedia. There is free software available that will filter web content to detect and mask inappropriate images and there is free software that can filter content based on banned word lists. Simple. QU TalkQu 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You might want to take a look at w:Wikipedia:Advice for parents and in particular. Killiondude 04:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I know that when I was in high school, and especially my senior year of high school, WIKIPEDIA would have been a huge help to me, but we also didn't have it due to the fact that you mentioned, plus we also had several English teachers who thought students would simply just COPY DOWN the entire Wiki article and try to turn it in as an essay! It had absolutely nothing to do with the articles not having correct information, that is for sure, looking back at how they didn't want us "copying down material" and "cheating" perhaps maybe it had to do with the opposite! But you are right, because simply the "fear of students copying" instead of researching links (and finding more info the way I'd have liked to have done/had a way to do from the library there back then!) was NOT the only reason given as to why our school could not let us access Wikipedia. Such a loss now that I love the site and rely on it so much for information about anything and everything, really. I recall our very own school board computer lab engineers attempting to explain to us the reason(s) that you just stated, and now I understand, 8 years later but better late than never. However, I hope that we are able to get Wikipedia into high schools if any when it comes to our education system (especially SOON considering how much us high schoolers used it for college essays and end of year graduation papers that were important), because I am still shocked to hear that schools do not have access to it without the possibility of coming across inappropriate information. Surely, a main user could handle what is blocked and what is allowed, etc. Coming from a student who was forced to only used the "card catalog" for years since that's all that we had, I would have really appreciated having access to this when it came to doing such hard term papers or essays that contained different subjects all in one. Quite rough with nothing to do to research other than carry 5-10 books out of the local or school library and hope to understand them all within a week! Good luck!

Attention to RfC section please

I don't want to bring the entire dscussion here, but it will be appreciated if admins pay attention to resolving this issue- Requests for comment/Armenian Wikipedia tolerance. Thank you. TimBits 16:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is a librsvg update possible?

There is a bug in the path parser of the currently installed version of librsvg (see e.g. second version of this file: File:Wappen_Ahorn_(Baden).svg#filehistory. This bug is fixed in Ubuntu Karmic with librsvg 2.26.0-1 on my local machine. So dear system administrators, can librsvg on the servers be updated to this version or a newer one? --Zupftom 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I found that other files still don't work properly. I'll test the latest version and come back later to report. --Zupftom 08:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't build the latest version (some libs are too old and I can't update them to the required version), so I'm not sure whether the path parser now works O.K. Until this is clarified, it's not worth updating librsvg anyway. --Zupftom 09:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Log In problem - capitalization?

I used to be MacAuslan on wikipedia, later turning this into my global username. I created this address some 6 or so years ago. Now my browser - or the wiki - disallows it, normalizing to lower case macauslan. When I try to log on to that - or my own form - I can't. If I then try to create an account with either, I'm told it exists already. When I follow that up, I find that it is an account of some 4 years ago, with 4 contributions listed (I have made hundreds). How do I get my account back, please?

(This contribution has perforce to remain anonymous...) 21:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Account MacAuslan exist on 4 projects. Have you try the option of sending a new password? --WizardOfOz talk 22:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem able to change the password unless I can log in to the account - which is the problem: I can't. 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC) (i.e. MacAuslan)

[14] << try this. Seb az86556 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Seb: it worked (proof: MacAuslan 09:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Is Russian Wikipedia Corrupted?

ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Скайпочат (need to translate somehow)
Brief descripition:
In Russian wikipedia was revealed the Secret Society that includes part of Administrators, Arbiters, Bureaucrats, Checkusers and so on
by decsion of arbiters two persons were punished:
the one who revealed this secret society lost his rights for participation in discussions
the one of memebers lost his flag of Bureaucrat
no one else was punished
(cf. a half a year ago when was revealed another secret society that didn't have so many Administrators as memebers they had a lot of punishment) --Idot 17:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Now I am a candidate for Arbitres (please see ru:Википедия:Выборы арбитров/Осень 2010/Выдвижение), but for questions about this Secret Society [15] I was voluntarily blocked [16]. And then I was threated [17] to be excluded from the list of the candidates (Idot 17:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
I concur if this summary is accurate, (I dont speak russian so hard for me to evaluate) we need to look into this ResidentAnthropologist 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
4 of 5 checkusers who shoold check votes are known members of this society(mentioned in ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Скайпочат as members), and 5th is its advocate. the Ombudsmen from ru-wiki is a known member of this society (Idot 11:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

I would donate if your articles didn't have a liberal slant

...but alas, you, like NPR and other "public" funded sites seem to all have this incessant fascination with the left. Steer at least to the center and I would consider donating.

And before you say "what? us? Liberals?" Come on. Do we really need to go there? Do you really want to try and imply your hive mentality doesn't lean that way? Come on. Really. You're going to go there?

Tell me if if I need to spoon feed you with nearly endless examples...

Until then...

Regards, Jason

Well, you can always edit the articles to include your conservative slant and then donate. ;-) --MZMcBride 03:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Jason, if you see bias, you can and should address the issues by editing the article.  fetchcomms 23:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Would it be possible to create a share facility like so many other sites where we can show on Facebook, Twitter and other social network sites that we have made a donation thus possibly encouraging others to do so?

Wonderful creation btw, All the best....Adrian.

Hi, we have a Twitter account: @WikiContribute. You can follow us and tell the world that you donated by posting a tweet saying so, and add #keepitfree at the end. Thanks for your support,  fetchcomms 23:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Can Meta be polite?

I was attempting to translate the Frequent Questions for the 2010 donations. While following the links of the master english language text I often reach a site which greets me with the message>:

Attention! THIS MEANS YOU! READ THIS! This site is for documentation and discussion on Wikimedia projects.

If you are trying to add a page to your company's internal wiki site, you're in the wrong place. Just hit "back" in your browser until you find yourself back home.

This is not the place for information pertaining to the MediaWiki software. The software has its own wiki at


The wording of this message is obnoxious. This response is adressed to the Wikimedia administrators who conceived and approved this message. I MEAN YOU.

We are all volunteers and should work together in promoting the various Wikimedia projects. If you have any responsibilities within Wikimedia this does not make you smarter than the other volunteers and does not give you right to be rude. Yes, I mean YOU.

I have given up translating for Wikimedia. Thanks to YOUR attrocious manners. I might start again, if the responsibilities of setting up the responses are take over by persons who have at least some elementary knowledge of what manners are required to communicate in a civilized society. And in stead of being rude, giving some workable indications on how to proceed. Afil 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing the subject given that this is about Meta. Afil, those messages are obviously not directed to project contributors, but to occasional editors who often add spam or offtopic pages. If this is not obvious for everyone, maybe we should indeed change the messages. --Nemo 11:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Facebook?

I love what you do. I hate Facebook. Would you consider creating a Wiki Social Network? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

I don't think that is covered by Wikimedia's Mission. By the way, the page you're looking for is Proposals for new projects --Church of emacs talk · contrib 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and pointing me in the right direction. As far as the Mission Statement, it would enable people to connect.

Consider making Wikimedia-UK donation Gift-Aid-able

Hi, I've been taken to the "Make Your Donation Now" page at [18] and noticed that even though the site correctly detects I'm in the UK, it does not seem to offer me the opportunity to GiftAid my donation. Please consider making this option available, as it seems to generate significantly more income for charitable organisations. Apapadop 19:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK has applied for charitable status, I believe, but is still in the application process. Philippe (WMF) 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Appriciation and Best wishes.

I am gaining knowledge through your website since last three years after retirement as Airline Engineer.Now after reading your personal appeal,I feel very much ashamed that I am not in a position to donate anything except thanks ,appreciation and best wishes for your hard work.My core of heart want to say many many more but It has no vocabulary.May God bless you Jimmy Whales. Best regards, Syed Musarrat Ali

Your kind words are much appreciated. :-) Thank you! PeterSymonds 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Personal appeal for donations from Jimmy Wales

Just one comment: I believe the concept of Wikipedia is a great one with boundless potential for the propogation of knowledge worldwide. BUT -- the problem of inaccuracies and personal agendas needs to be taken more seriously before I will donate any of my money to this enterprise. Most people who are at least moderately intelligent know that one must take any information found on Wikipedia with a grain of salt, precisely for this reason. It is a fact that Wikipedia's greatest strength, that it is 100% user generated and moderated, is also its greatest weakness. There is no established oversight by qualified professionals, and in my observation, little or no concerted effort on the part of Mr. Wales to achieve such oversight. If anything, it appears he relishes the idea of a knowledge site produced and run wholly by largely unknowledgeable people.

It may be true that a vast and previously unimagineable amount of information can be and has been spread through this site. But, does information equal knowledge? Are the two synonymous? Many, myself included, would say no. Information for information's sake, without adequate checks, may do more harm than it does good.

No serious scholar would give 10 seconds' consideration to an article written with Wikipedia sources. That means Wikipedia is neither a reliable nor a respectable source of knowledge, and by extension, it means there are numerous more deserving recipients of my monetary support.

Thank you for your considering my input.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]])

Thank you for your input. Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary source for information, but rather a launching point for more specific information (in print, on the web, etc.) that you CAN cite and use. We have a lot of work to do in ensuring that everything possible is cited on Wikipedia, but with the help of editors and donations, we can make that happen. I hope you will reconsider, but if not, please keep enjoying Wikipedia. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

for the people by the people

Dear Mr Wales,

I was reading the site of ANH and it seems that your webiste is changing what has been written about certain medicines, which would indicate to me that you are nno longer following, your statment that it is for the people by the people... It sounds like it is for the people by the Pharma cartel, which would indicate that you have been bought...

I think that if this is true then you are on your way out.

Kind Regards,


Wikipedia is a community-edited resource. I'm not sure what ANH is, but neither Jimmy Wales or the foundation staff are involved in the day-to-day editing of articles. If what has been written about medicines has changed, perhaps it is because new information or opinion on said medicines has changed as well. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 00:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not putting an ad?

Dear Mr. Wales,

As a chemistry and engineering student in college, I started using Wikipedia since 2003 or 2004. I don't remember when is the first time I clicked on the, but I genuinely appreciate the existence of Wikipedia as a media for those accomplished pioneers of all fields of knowledge to pass on organized information for an unenlightened freshman like myself.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with an ad put on the wikipedia page just like the current one with your photo on. As long as ONLY ONE ad which can be kept small and take no larger then 10% or less percentage of the page, it really doesn't bother a frequent user like me. Instead, user like myself can feel better with the ads because of the following reasons:

1.) Every year when Wiki Foundation starts asking donations, it makes me worry about the possibilities it can be shut up due to insufficient funds. Especially when a personal appeal from you and when the amount needed to hit the target represented on Wikipedia page. It can brings anxiety to users which do not expect to be exposed to financial concerns of Wikipedia.

2.) The idea of appealing for donation seems to be contradictive to the idea of "free" source of knowledge which is the central idea of Wikipedia. If it's with ad; however, the user can be secure that it is "truly free" while the company has income to maintain itself. It can make a happy ending for all the three parties: Wikipedia, ad-posting companies and users.

3.) The appeal give an expression that the expansion and development of Wiki Foundation are indeed limited by the source it can acquires from users. Users like myself will rather it does not go this way.

Plus, ads may make the pages look a little more colorful and interesting, as long as they are proper and doesn't depreciate the professionality of the content of the page.

As a loyal user of, I sincerely hope Wiki Fonndation has stable source of income and maintain excellent financial status. I do understand that Wiki Foundation is a non-profit organization and it may be difficult to take up ads immediately. However, I do wish for the day Wiki Foundation will be steadily funded and expand to provide more service to the users worldwide, truly free.

Sincerely, Rain P. Wong Chemical Engineering, Ph.D student Northwestern University

Rain, it is not the size of the ads that we are concerned with, but rather the integrity of our articles. For instance, imagine an article on a company or a product, with a page featuring an ad for that product, bought and paid for by the company that makes it. It would put serious doubt on our ability to be unbiased in our articles. Quite literally, it would be "selling out". We're not in this to make millions, and we'd love to get great big donations from people; we're just not comfortable selling ad space that might compromise our articles. Thank you for your long-standing use of Wikipedia, and I hope you continue to use it more in the future even after your studies conclude.DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Donations in rupees

Indian users can't work out how to donate, and no one at the Wikipedia Help Desk seems to know the answer. The latest question is here. -- John of Reading 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Get more donations by completing registration of Wikimedia on such state-based websites as

Today (T 11/16/10) is "Give to the max" day in Minnesota, which last year raised over $17,000,000 for registered 501(c)3 non-profits listed on

To my amazement, nowhere on the list of registered organizations was Wikimedia or any of its associated creations.

Please do promptly to and register.

If ever I can be of help to the Wiki community, please let me know (in case I don't learn of it in the course of using the various resources).

Bill Rev. William M. Weir 10505 8th Ave N apt 206 Plymouth, MN 55441 763-568-7022

It's actually there... Seb az86556 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Peekarica SpamList


How do I require people to sign up and let them edit articles? My Wiki has been edited for 1,500 times and I am getting sick of it. Peekarica 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Add the following lines to LocalSettings.php
# Require login to edit
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user']['edit'] = true;
Allen4names 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the problem is not fixed. They still keep coming back, hundreds of them. 11:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

IPv6 deployment

The reason I am writing this is that if it isn't crunch time yet it soon will be. Broken clients, connectivity issues, and blocking may all need to be addressed.

IPv6 deployment information
Name servers

We should have a web site (2 URLs) for IPv6 deployment information, public name servers that can be used to obtain A and AAAA records, and a wiki ( so that users can familiarize themselves with the changes that will occur when AAAA records are added.

Further reading

Allen4names 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia is generally a great concept and is often useful to me on a daily basis.

However, there are many cases whereupon I require a simple explanation of a concept e.g. in physics, electronics etc. Yet, the page is extremely technical, complex, laden with indecipherable mathematical formulae and, as such, suited only for erudite minds.

I really wish that each such category could have a simplified section for those lay people, like myself, who really only need the basics.

Until I see a greater effort towards a goal of improved knowledge access, I remain hesitant to contribute to Wikipedia in order to avoid complicity with what I regard as intellectual/informational elitism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010

We are constantly working to improve the accessibility of our articles. Without contributions, we cannot have strategic planning towards that goal. If you think articles are too complex, you are welcome to edit them and simplify the prose. However sometimes that is just not possible as a result of the subject matter; nothing to do with informational elitism. Wikipedia brings the opportunity to learn this information to the entire world; there is nothing less elitist than that. I do hope you will reconsider your position -- judging by your vocabulary (erudite, formulae, complicity, etc.) I would point out that a "lay person" without much formal english education would not necessarily be able to decipher your complaint above. It's very easy to point out the problems; it's much harder to dig in and fix them. I hope you will join us in helping to fix those problems. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 17:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

constant money begging

I wanted to make a comment about the constant money begging at the top of wikipedia pages. It is obvious that you made it kind of hard to do this for a reason.

I like the idea of wikipedia, but I have to let you know I am not inclined to give any money. The reason is that Wikipedia has become overrun by editors that are constantly bullying and rolling back edits of other users. I have stopped adding edits to pages because of this, and I believe wikipedia is on the decline about it.

Until wikipedia gets its house in order and reigns in these dozens of rude editors only out to show how important they are I will never give a dime to wikipedia or help it's efforts, no matter how laudable they may be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010

Please note that WIkipedia articles are edited by volunteers. The people rolling back your edits are not Wikimedia Foundation employees; as such donating to us would not affect whether your edits were reverted. I would suggest that if they were, it is probably because you inadvertently violated one of our policies and guidelines (most edit rollbacks are because of this). I would urge you to not let that affect the presentation of knowledge that Wikipedia can provide, and to donate. Regards, DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Over the last 3 years wikipedia has become the laughing stock of those with referential knowledge and most intelligent IT minions, with this last year negating any benefits from the exchange of relevant, objective and multi-level information that may actually still exist here.

There are 2 camps attempting to wrest control which wikipedia is failing miserably to address, and it is no longer a research tool of any consideration. The north american lead onslaught of sensationlistic hype, outright lies and page camping advertisers has reduced wikipedia to a poorly organized commercial billboard meant to skew, disinform and indoctrinate the masses to a mindset and knowledge of inferior and feeble proportions, with the majority of "contributors" laboring under enterprise interests. Accompanied by the throngs of fangurls and gladhands with extistential proclivities for egocentrism and narcassism, the overwhelming effects of which are to waste any but the most elementary and clueless viewer's time, wikipedia is exemplary of the abuse and meanspirited intent of business, using name calling, labelling and subterfuge in a politicized, so called "free enterprise" that north americans are being directed to blame others for.

It is both sad and outrageous that attempts to convey realistic and true referntial information on wikipedia are constantly wiped out, across almost any topic, by those individuals and groups that are paid to support their business organizations goals.

Let the pervasive multitude of advertisers pay for this reckless tripe - good riddence

Possibility of displaying Advertises without loosing Independence.


I think there is this a true possibility, to show some advertises not loosing the independence, keeping the same as before.

As the site has about one third of internet's actual users-visitors, it might interess many advertising companies, that would conform with the rules of Wiki.

I make a vow that solutions will be auspicious and this huge knowledge be maintained steadly.

Carinho, pema rinchen.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010

Our community has continually rejected including ads, because they would compromise the integrity of our articles. We have extensively explored this and repeatedly come to the same conclusion. Thank you for your vow. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dan and Team,

Beging your excuses for my naivety and lack of knowledge about the facts that you know, I imagine that besides the actual ways that provide the continuity of Wikipedia, it would be possible to develop new ways. Through very carefully thought, discussed and experimenting ideas.

Limiting, for example, to no more than 1,5 - 3,0% of total ad income from any source. Spreading to a huge number of ad contributors, togheter with strict rules, seriously kept (as the ones in the present structure) could be a solution.

I perceive that there would be how to do a change without compromising the integrity of the articles.

Anyway it goes i wish good luck and the best ways. Thank you very much, carinho pema rinchen.

Thank you for the suggestion. You might want to try bringing it up on foundation-l, our mailing list. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

why don't you start taking advertising?

That would solve your money problem. I would buy ads from you. Welcome to America—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2010

We are already based in America. As we've stated repeatedly before, advertising would endanger the integrity of our articles. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, its just a request. not to hurt the feelings of Mr.Jimmy wales. how about adding a self written matrimonial feature, where people come and write about themselves and do an advanced search for their prospective partners and give a minimum contribution of 1 dollar or maximum of their choice, if they get any results. we have a need for a website which has a reach like wikipedia in searching for marital partners. how is my idea??. thanks for reading this mail. let me know your feedback by keeping your answer near this suggestion itself. regards,—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2010

An interesting idea, but Wikimedia does not do social networking at this point. You might want to try an e-dating website.DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 17:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


What association, if any, do you have with wikileaks? 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Shelby Smith, Cortez, Colorado

None! Savh 16:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Wikimedia chapter in India

Sir, I'm truly to see how Wikimedia has grown over the years. From many years, your prodigal site has been helping us students. We Indians would also like to be a part of it. Can a Wikimedia chapter be opened in our country? Yours gratefully, Sanket

You're just in luck! It was approved this last summer. See Wikimedia India for more info. Killiondude 18:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Donating to Wikimedia UK = Donating to WMF? (European donors too - BEWARE!!!)

As a UK resident, clicking on the fundraising banner will always bring me to a page (WMFJA1/GB) which is for donating to Wikimedia UK and the currency used is always GBP(£). However the following issues have made me very doubtful of donating to Wikimedia UK.

  • From what I can gather Wikimedia UK is not a charity approved by the UK Charities Commission. Gift aid is not available - but this is not the point. The main issue here is that while the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organisation in the US, Wikimedia UK (aka Wiki UK Ltd) operates as a normal private company in the UK. And normal private companies have to PAY TAX - in the UK the main corporation tax rate is 28% - that is for every 3 pounds received by Wikimedia UK, about 1 pound is going straight to the British Government! Given that the UK is a major source of Wikipedians and readers, just imagine how much the Foundation will have lost in UK tax before receiving anything from UK donors?
  • Of the money received by Wikimedia UK, what is the percentage that will be forwarded to the Foundation? How has this ratio been worked out? Is Wikimedia UK bounded by any legal agreement to forward this ratio to the Foundation, or its managers/directors have absolute discretion on the amount that will finally be forwarded to the Foundation? These are questions which every UK donor is entitled to answers - and they are not getting any. Unless these questions are answered satisfactorily, the operations of Wikimedia UK will remain opaque and is therefore a hotbed of corruption.
  • Given that donations to Wikimedia UK and donations to the Wikimedia Foundation are processed separately, donations from the UK (which must go through Wikimedia UK) are not counted in the Contribution Statistics page. The generosity of UK donors are not being recognised like those in the US. More importantly, there is a serious TRANSPARENCY problem here - the audit reports of the Wikimedia Foundation are open for public scrutiny, whereas Wikimedia UK is a private company, the same openness is not mandatory - and is currently lacking.

Wikimedia UK is not the only chapter which has a MONOPOLY of processing donations in a country. European countries like Germany, France, Switzerland .etc are countries with huge populations of potential donors. They have their own chapters and will receive ALL the donation from donors of their belonging countries before the Foundation even sees a European penny. The aforementioned problems, therefore, also applies to these chapters if they have not attained charity status.

I therefore call for the Foundation to look into these issues urgently, and urge anyone who is being asked to donate to a Wikimedia chapter instead of to the Foundation directly to think twice - or thrice - before doing so. -- 23:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm one of the board members of Wikimedia UK; I hope that I can put to rest your doubts. Your message contains a number of different points, so I've split them up into each topic below.
  • Company status: we are a non-profit company limited by guarantee. We are in the process of applying for charity status - that has been our goal since starting the organisation, and being able to claim gift aid on UK donations was one of the original motivations behind starting a UK chapter (see this page from 2005). Unfortunately this is not a trivial process, and we're in lengthy discussions with the Charity Commission at the moment about this. In the meantime, we operate exactly as if we were already a charity. Our Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association are derived from the Charity Commission's model legal documentations. All expenses, grants, etc. that we pay our are done as if they were from a charity, in full compliance with UK charity law - including transfers to the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • Corporation tax: we do not have to pay this, as we aren't making a profit (obviously, as we're a non-profit organisation).
  • Legal agreement: yes, we are bound by an agreement with the Foundation: you can see this at wmuk:2010 Fundraiser/Agreement.
  • Percentage that will be forwarded to the Foundation: as specified in the agreement, this will be 50% of the donations - the rest will be used locally within the UK. We've been doing a lot of work to figure out how we can transfer money to the Foundation - if we were a simple for- or non-profit organisation, then this would be trivial, however as we're following UK charity law it becomes more complex - we cannot simply act as a collecting agency and forward donations on, as we need to be sure that the money will be used for charitable activities as defined in UK charity law. In this case, we will be giving the Foundation a grant for their general (charitable) operating costs at the end of the fundraising period.
  • Transparency: we endeavour to be as transparent as possible in everything we do. We share as much information as we can via our website - e.g. minutes for all our Board meetings are public. Our budget is developed on-wiki: you can see our 2010 Budget and the 2011 Budget - the latter is still under development, though, and is set up for a different fundraising scenario at the moment (when this was last edited, we were not sure whether we would be able to participate in the fundraiser - due to charity law - and hence were making contingency plans in case we weren't able to participate). Our income and spending for the last financial year will be audited soon (we've been delayed with this as we're all very busy, and most of us are volunteers - we only have one part-time staff member who was only hired a few months ago).
  • Donor questions: we answer all questions from donors as completely and accurately as we are able to - as this response hopefully shows. You can always email us at, ask questions on our website, etc.
  • Donation statistics. We provide ongoing fundraising statistics to the Foundation on a ~daily basis, as do all chapters. For technical reasons, these are not included in the contribution statistics page. We should be providing the statistics for donations to WMUK publicly, though, although we don't currently do this. I'll take this up with the WMUK board forthwith.
Each chapter participating in the fundraiser will be in a similar position to us. Note that every single Wikimedia organisation has been started by the Wikimedia community, and is community-led.
I hope that this answers your questions: if you want any clarification on these point, or if you have any other questions, please let me know. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation /wikimedia france

Vous n’avez aucune idée de la mauvaise image que produisent à l’égard de la wikimedia foundation les membres de wikimedia france. Leurs exactions et leurs doubles discours vont bientôt faire perdre toute crédibilité à votre entreprise. De nombreuses personnes demandent comme moi et comme ils en ont le droit, le retrait de toute mention de leurs noms et de leurs pseudos ainsi que de leurs adresses IP des pages de french wikipédia et de tous les projets wikimedia : il ne reçoivent aucune réponse et leurs demandes sont effacées des pages. Est-ce cela le respect des auteurs ? est-ce cela la « liberté » que propose wikimedia ? Vous seriez bien inspirés de modifier cette attitude et de retirer toutes les informations personnelles et contributions à la moindre demande. Merci de votre compréhension. Altshift

[machinetrans Seb az86556 16:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC) tweaked translation --Enric Naval 11:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)]:
You have no idea of the bad image that the members of wikipedia france give to the wikimedia foundation. Their abuses and their double discourse will soon make you lose all credibility in your business. Many people like me and other ask how they have the right to withdraw any mention of their names and their aliases and their IP addresses out of the pages of French Wikipedia and out of all Wikimedia projects: they don't receive any response and their applications are deleted from pages. Is this the respect for authors? Is this the 'freedom' that wikimedia proposes? You would be well advised to change this attitude and remove all personal information and contributions at the smallest demand. Thank you for your understanding.


Is Wikileaks the recent source of leaked US Military papers? I love and support Wikipedia but SHAME on YOU if you endangered American Soldiers or our allies. They are the defenders of YOUR RIGHT to FREE SPEECH. Use that right responsably. Sincerely, Father of a US Air Fore pilot.

Thank you for your concern. Wikileaks is independent of/not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation; we have no influence over what they do. Jimmy Wales himself has on numerous occasions been critical of their approach.
You might be interested in this:
Jimmy Wales: 'If I Had Some Information, The Last Thing I Would Do Is Send It To Wikileaks' (huffingtonpost)
Jimmy Wales on why Wikileaks should be cautious (bbc)
Wikipedia Co-Founder: WikiLeaks Was Irresponsible (abc news)

Seb az86556 20:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

stop begging for money jimmy

your website is only any good because its free, stop begging for money or we will use another website—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Nothing in life is free. It costs money to keep the servers running. (Though, admittedly, that money has been raised at this point.) The extra money supports the Wikimedia Foundation. --MZMcBride 07:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about implementing a vertical slide menu

Hello Boys/girls,

This is my first post on this first. So excuse me if i do something crazy here.

Whats my question? I want to implement a vertical slidemenu within on my Wikimedia:Sidebar. And i want to use this slidemenu or

Does anyone know how to do this? I search everywhere on the net but i cant find it.

I've used Vector as my default Wikimedia skin.

Thanks in advance

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fainaforumboy (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See mw:MediaWiki:Sidebar or MediaWiki:Sidebar first, then read Manual:Sidebar at MediaWiki. &#150; Allen4names 18:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ten wiki

What is the interwiki link of Ten Wiki?--Waihorace 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It will be [[ten:]]. See bugzilla:25875. Killiondude 17:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not work now!--Waihorace 00:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It is tenwiki. Here is a link to Wikipedia 10. &#150; Allen4names 18:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Different password on a different site

If I login on certain wikis, I have to use one password, but if I login on the rest, I use another password. Why is this and is it possible to do it different? Arlen22 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Unified login. &#150; Allen4names 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

wikilieaks is biased

Why is it that they "leak" information that is critical of the USA and potentially damaging to our national defense.

I find it hard to believe that they don't have the same kind of info on the Chinese, Russian, Iranians, North Koreans etc. What a bunch of hypocrites!

Right! I mean, if they are going to "damag[e] national defense", they should at least do it to all nations! Killiondude 09:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Vikipedio domain name

Few years ago wikipedia was owning domain name "Vikipedio" what was a redirection for Wikipedia has lost it. A third party has used it during a few years and now it is free again. Could Wikimedia Foundation buy this domain name again and make it redirection again ? Arno Lagrange  08:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

GOK god only knows

Moved from Talk:Requests for comment#GOK god only knows. I added the bold. This message has been on that section since June 1st. 2009:


I am sure you are not where this message should go but I am also sure that you knot who to get it there. I am legally blind and I ccannot find a "contacht us" link.

I have two concerns. The first is simple. I love lyour printable version,. My conputer talks and is not too good at skipping the stuff I don't want, lke your left hand column. The printable link has stripped off the mechanisms and irrelevancies and leaves me a free field to read you with my JAWS screen reader. I wish you would publicise the way you manage to clean u p the page. Go to the magazine webpage, The Week and look at it as a an over illustrated maze full of irrelevant links. They don't do it on purpose. I think they would probably be willing to offer the printable version. You might want to talk with their bublisher, Henter Joyce, which has a web site to contact them Freedom Scientific / Henter Joyce 1 800 444 4443 while you're at it ask for their demos and have hun. WYNN is for kids and they love it.

My other concern is the Poison Control Centers. They are a reliable source on the dangerousness of various chemicals, etc. [they also identify pills and prescrible treatments for poisonings]They have an extensive database which I suggessst you access and add to articles as a free-standking attachment. I heard the eco-scare of the week -- sodium laureth sulfate causes everything from excema to cancer and homosexuality. It makkes the bubles in shampoos and laundry soaps, some foaming bathoil and other detergents. The Wiki did not addreess the quesstion. I ,ake no otjher concrete suggestions: the poison control centers have the technical expertise and I don't

I Love the Wiki. Never a contributor, no relevant expertise, butmany opinions that might help If I knew how to contact you.

Keep up the good work

Kristine Watkins

This is a message that made me feel strange. Happy to help someway, but, in other hand, worry about not to do much more. Well, I love the wiki, too. Did someone already sent Kristine a response? It's been a long, long time... CasteloBrancomsg 05:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks putting American and NATO Forces lives it risk.

The danger and damage Wikileaks is doing to the United States and our allies in NATO on the War On Terror is obvious and needs no discussion. Americans can and will be killed by this irresponsible and criminal behavior. Your continued attacks against America have set a pattern. Wikileaks is now an anti- American organization and an enemy of the United States.

As a retired combat veteran, I can assure you that any attacks against America resulting from your criminal behavior will be taken personally, by U.S. veterans and troops in Europa and elsewhere. We will no longer ignore your attacks against America.

You actions are tantamount to declaring War on the United States and there will be repercussions, if Americans are injured or killed, by your continued irresponsibility and greed.

We have asked President Obama to shut Wikileaks down and extradite all guilty parties to the U.S., for prosecution.

Thanks for your comments. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is in no way associated with Wikileaks and has absolutely no control over what Wikileaks does. Regards, Tempodivalse [talk] 20:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • sigh* maybe we should put a big banner on the top of the page; this is the nth time... Seb az86556 21:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


So are you the same as the WikiLeaks or connected to them in 'any way?' That's all I want to know.

Thank you,

Alice Hudman

Hi Alice. No, there is no affiliation between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikileaks. No connection at all. The name "wiki" accounts for a type of website, and both use the same software (as do many other unrelated websites). We both use "Wiki" as part of our name, which is coincidental. Hope it helps. Best, PeterSymonds 19:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Hope to donate in near future

Thanks! Much appreciated! PeterSymonds 20:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Releasing contents of an encyclopedia under free license

Hello, I am placing this topic here because this page is not active anymore. If there's a more proper place to discuss copyright issues, please direct me/move this discussion there.

My question is about the procedure to release the contents of an encyclopedia(s) under one of the Creative Commons or other Copyleft licences in case the editor-in-chief/director of an encyclopedia publication expresses interest in doing so. Is a written consent from the editor-in-chief enough? If not, what other legal documents are needed? If yes, should there also be a digital copy of the consent? If so, should that be sent to Wikimedia foundation, or be displayed in some other way?

Any/all help about this topic will be much, much appreciated. Chaojoker 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably yes, but this really depends on the exact wording of the laws.Jusjih 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The best solution would be to contact the Permissions queue for instruction. See OTRS#Permissions for a list of them. If you wanted to release the 2010 English-language Britannica encyclopedia, for instance, and you were Jacob Safra (the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Encyclopedia Britannica), we would expect an email from ... which is just an example, but it'd be nice. :) If you have further questions, feel free to ask, of course! Kylu 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My good-willed edits are not accepted; can't donate as it is

There's a bunch of self-appointed wp deletionists who keep removing completely normal and useful articles while utterly rubbish topics are often preserved for eternity. See user ShoWPiece talk page on Wp. There you can read a discussion about how an article about a serious attempt at improving the monetary system is constantly dropped (now in fact locked), while the the media sensations of the day like "keyboard cat" etc. are preserved for everyone to see because it's such an important topic. There's a shocking contrast in how utterly useless articles are kept while useful ones are repeatedly removed.

I can't and won't support the community's complete inability to distinguish between intellectual pearl and garbage, and in particular, I don't have time to fight (or find out where and how to fight) this overly entrenched WP bureaucracy.

Since this way of filtering articles is apparently "the way it works", I have to conclude that hundreds of man-years of useful articles, edits and images could be regularly invalidated by a click of a button, while thousands of man-years of garbage is preserved by the same community. I wouldn't mind the garbage at all if that's what some people like, but I'm unable to accept why articles that are useful to some are regularly dropped. And no, this is too obvious a topic to be fought 10000 times at the level of each debated article.

WP is one of the few places I'd love to be able to donate to (and I have done so in the past), but as it is, I can't. Not until whatever wp-redtape regulation is eliminated so the site becomes truly free to be enriched by anyone who has useful articles or edits to contribute. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[19]

No agenda?

I had to laugh when I read that part of the "Wales appeal".

There are more agendas on this web site than I can keep up with. I often see competent arm's length contributions to articles erased by those with "no agenda". ROFL

The handling of the entire pedophilia controversy could not have been more poorly handled. Idiots in your fold have no clue that free speech does not include materially contributing to criminal enterprises.

I used to contribute to this site, but no more. I have become VERY cautions about believing any information on the site, and I double check anything I find here with reliable outlets before I use the information. This is a convenient spot to get started, but now has no credibility with anyone who has kept up with the travesty much of the site has become. If it goes away, it goes away. No tears shed. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 00:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[20]