Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 2

message: I'm not saying that I could do it better, but the sound file in this article is of poor quality. I think it should be removed. --Candide, or Optimism 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sound file 

message: On a scale of 1-10, 1 being really ugly 10 being really attractive, what would you give give ol' Jimmy.
*7 Jimster 260 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Good Looking is Jimbo 

message: hey there, I created the infobox yesterday,, umm I don't think there's enough info there. maybe someone who know's him better can add some more info to make a nicer box I guess.. thanks --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 13:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The Gadget Show a Five (TV) television program today showed a feature on wikipedia. In that program they vandalised this page and possible also Larry Sanger. Apparently it took 40 minuites for the first edit to be reverted, then 20min and their final edit was reverted in 20 seconds. I did not see the program myself so I can't give further info. --Salix alba (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gadget Show 

message: --Light current 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you did not say it, it shall be removed!--Light current 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: --Light current 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from my talk 

message: I saw that you made some positive and useful edits to my bio, thanks.  One thing that has bugged me for a long time is that "few means" comment... you left it in, now attributing it (loosely) to me, but I would never say such a thing.--Jimbo Wales 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you did not say it, it shall be removed!--Light current 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: --Light current 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/enews/resource0206/default.htm
Apparently there is a Jimmy Wales from Ohio - the Ohio Department of Natural Resources - who works in Real Estate and Groundskeeping. —Chantessy 16:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Jimmy is a busy chap and lives in Florida, so it's probably not the same guy who's keeping Ohio looking good. Pcb21 Pete 09:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the same Jimmy Wales 

message: Has Jimbo Wales ever made any edits to this article himself? — SteveRwanda 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Steve. I see from your talk page that people are forever asking about your experiences in Rwanda. I am sure I will be another trotting along for advice myself soon enough having got the go-ahead from the wife to take our next holiday there (had to sweeten her up with the promise of a few gorilla permits, boy they are expensive :) ). Anyway to your question. Yes Jimbo has made a few edits to this article. He also got a bit of kicking for it from a few elements of the media - if you care to read the long archives of this very talk page you will see the criticisms were largely unjust but Jimbo seemed to take it on the chin and I believe from what he's said on the mailing list and elsewhere that he regrets the action even given the circumstances. I for one would be very surprised if he does it again, but you never now. See you in Kigali! Pcb21 Pete 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If I am not mistaken, he has. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at this edit. Hessam 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-editing? 

message: I changed the "home-schooling" and added "taught at home", which makes more sense to Europeans.
andreasegde 21:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: 'Wales spent many hours poring over the World Book Encyclopedia during this time'; do we have a source for this claim? --Robdurbar 14:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He didnt deny it when he posted me regarding edits to his article! But Ive changed it to 'reported' now. -Light current 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Verification Issue

message: I know he's handsome, but do we need two pictures if him right near the top of the page?--Light current 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I'd like to see who got rid of the overlord picture. I know Jimbo didn't like it, but it was better than the main one we have now, where a shadowy Jimbo seems to blend into an overly busy background. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Jimbo 

message: Do not remove the tag. The article is pitifully short for such a tall person. 4.249.6.72 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we expanding SlimVirgin? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because she likes to be everywhere at once.  SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the expansion tag; if it must be reinserted, please do it on the talk page where it is intended to be used. --Robdurbar 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand SlimVirgin

message: A few editors - some on the peer review - have criticised this article for its lack of content on the supposed pornographic material that was sold through Bomis. A few editors have tried to expand on this recently, but I feel it deserves a little discussion here. To me, the best approach would be to note more clearly that though some describe it as 'pornography', Jimbo rejects this accusation, saying only that 'adult content' was provided through its 'male-orientated' features. I think that's the current point that is attempted with the interview quote, though its a little unclear and can give the impression that we're ducking the issue. --Robdurbar 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that pornography is a loaded word which means different things to different people. We can't really answer the question whether the stuff is "really" pornography - all we can report is that it fits some people's definition and not that of others. The article shouldn't duck this "issue" but it shouldn't give undue weight or attention to it either. How much attention is appropriate I have little idea. A bit more than we currently have would be okay but not much more since this is not what Wales is notable for and it's rarely mentioned in the press. A more difficult question is whether it is significant enough to mention in the lead. In any case the lead definitely needs expansion. Haukur 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it should be in the lead; as you commented, its not what he is notable for. I would propose one or two sentences; I think its enough to say that some (possibly with their own agendas) call it pornogrpahy but that Wales doesn't. In the end, if we tackle the issue, we can avoid the inevtiable accusations of censurship that would come otherwise. --Robdurbar 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pornography

message: Does jimbo use up our money,what does he do?
It would not cost 100,000 dollars a month to run this site...so um im wondering what he does with the money.
:. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two words: Bling bling. Everyking 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that he's constructing an army of dwarfs with which he's going to conquer Djibouti. --Robdurbar 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does jimbo do with our money 

message: The " [citation needed] " to the birth dates made my day :). Hilarious! Even funnier, it probably good use a reference :). It is as it always was T | @ | C 12:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heh 

message: I just saw Jimmy Wales in a Milky Way commercial, and he was talking to a candy bar that looked like a tiny woman!  Did anyone else see this?  He was described as a "buffet of manliness." I like Vike 02:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that commercial. Maybe you just imagined seeing it. If not, and it is real, be bold and add it to the article. Factitious 09:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo Wales  in Milky Way commercial

message: So now any news report that makes Jimbo look bad is sensationalist, even when it comes from a reliable independent media outlet? Can we at least try to stay NPOV about this? He's not going to always get glowing press coverage. -- LGagnon 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, even if its a rather trivial point. --Robdurbar 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensationalist?

message: First, the lead needs expansion. Second, more importantly, there are some bias issues here - the main problem there is that it approaches basically every controversy with a combative, defensive stance, which looks really silly. A good example is the Bomis stuff (again...):
First off, it never says who called it soft-core pornography, so its like he's disputing something that doesn't exist... there is a similar problem with the time magazine + homeschooling example, for instance (which not only seems biased but is horribly confusing as well, because it says it was "incorrect" but then goes on to say that while "strictly speaking" it wasn't he was educated by his parents etc.(a better approach IMHO in this and other instances is to simply state what the source said, and then go on to explain/rebut rather than saying it is incorrect before actually doing anything...). Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes 

message: I changed a use of "Jimmy" to "Wales" in the early life section. I hope this is OK.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 05:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. RN 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: I put in a reference for his birth, but I'm unsure whether it meets biography guidelines or not. Better one would be appreciated (I scoured the internet for a while for something not looking like a complete copy of the wikipedia article) RN 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: On the category selection Jimbo is labeled both as an Objectivist and as a Roman Catholic which is technically impossible since the highly atheist philosophy of Objectivism is incompatible with Roman Catholism (and religion in general). So which is he, an Objectivist or a Roman Catholic? The Fading Light 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivist or Roman Catholic? 

message: There are quite a few quotes in here without citations. Could people please be sure to add a citation after everything in quotation marks? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference to the size of the Foundation travel budget, because it smacked of original research. I've also  tried to copy edit a little, although I found it very difficult to get any kind of narrative flow going with all these citation templates. Just a note about punctuation: footnotes come after punctuation, not before it; so not like this ABC (sample ref from #Quotes), but like this. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It smacked of original research? How is going to the foundation site and looking up the budget original research? Kasuro 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kasuro, our no original research policy says we're not allowed to put facts together in a way that appears to advance an argument or point of view that has not been published. Your synthesis of (a) "he travels to speak about Wikipedia," and (b) "the Foundation's travel budget is X" suggested (c) "he spends X amount of the Foundation's money on travel," when in fact we have no reason to believe that. If you want to publish that synthesis, you'll have to find a source saying "Wales spends X amount on travel and it comes from the Foundation," or a source saying "He travels a lot, and the Foundation's travel budget is X." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't advance any POV. I don't claim that he spends X amount. I cite the total travel budget and leave it to the reader to estimate what share of that total budget Jimbo, the boss, uses. At the very least, it gives a maximum: it shows he didn't use any more than $25,000 of Foundation money on travel in 2005. That is a useful information and no original research at all. Kasuro 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives a certain impression, which may be false. Someone else may have written about this, in which case we can use that publication as a source. I can't see anything about travel in the interview that was linked to.  SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People can get false impressions from anything. If it's factual and relevant, which I maintain it is, it should stay in. Kasuro 00:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on that. And as far as I am concerned, we should try to avoid that as much as possible  here at wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you might as well blank all articles. Kasuro 17:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: I'm removing :Category:Roman Catholics because it is not supported by the article text, which contravenes WP:BLP. Alan Pascoe 13:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholics category 

message: PhilWelch reverted an addition I made by saying "consensus is clearly against your edits" even though no one had yet commented about it. Or does he mean the consensus of reverts by him and KimvdLinde? I don't think consensus is supposed be established by one set of editors outreverting another. Please state your objections here before reverting again. Kasuro 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The objections to some of your edits (i.e. your misinformed blather about Objectivism) have already been stated here. If you revert again you will be in violation of 3RR. — Philwelch t 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you reverted entirely different edits. And as to the earlier ones, I have replied to the objections and I don't see a consensus since far too few people have participated in the discussion to make such a determination. And calling something "misinformed blather" is not exactly a valid objection either. Kasuro 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclusion of information is based on consensus, and as far as I can tell, at least three people disagree with your earlier insertions. On the later, that is two. So, I can not call that consensus for inclusion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, anyone can add information without getting a prior consensus; if you want to remove it, the burden is on you to explain yourself. Tag-team reverting alone doesn't cut it. Kasuro 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unilateral reverting doesn't cut it either. The least you can do is try to compromise instead of just reverting back to your version. — Philwelch t 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not just reverting, I'm discussing here, unlike you. And how can you say "The least you can do is try to compromise instead of just reverting back to your version" right after you just did the latter? Please also note that "rollback" is to be used only for reverting vandalism. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do work towards consensus, by discussing it here, to get to the bottom of any disagreement. You have yet to make any constructive post here relating to the substance of the dispute. You have only reverted, and supported this by nothing more than calling my edits "questionable" and "misinformed blather". That is not good enough. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a tip then: try making compromise edits that add in some things you feel you can defend easier while leaving out parts that most people are clearly against. — Philwelch t 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can defend all my edits. I don't know what most people are for or against, since few have commented so far. Just because it may be three against one doesn't mean the three can force their way simply by saying "we're against this". This is not a numbers game. Kasuro 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yeah, it does mean the three can force their way simply by saying "we're against this", especially if you won't try to come to a compromise. — Philwelch t 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that because you say so, or can you show me a policy that backs this up? I don't have to compromise with someone who refuses to discuss. Counting numbers is only applicable for stylistic or otherwise intrinsically subjective matters, but anything else will have to be discussed, and then only arguments count. Kasuro 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to add that even with a consensus, you can not insert incorrect information or speculation into the article. Consensus is not trumping policy, especially policies as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ISNOT are not negotiable at the article level. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons is applicable to this page. Some points:
*Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
*The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject
*Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.
*Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
*Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.
I hope this clarifies things.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that justifies you forcing your way in the present dispute, it doesn't. Everything I add is sourced, NPOV, and relevant. You seem to misunderstand the part that says "criticism should be sourced to reliable sources". Since "reliable" can't apply to the criticism itself, it only means  that you have to be sure your quotes are authentic (and of course from a relevant source). You can't just say "so-and-so has criticized X for Y" without giving a source where it can be verified that this criticism has been made. But you don't have to have a source showing that the substance of the criticism itself is "true" - this doesn't apply because criticism is always subjective. Margana 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, keep the discussion to the content, and not to the person. Reliable extends to all sources, and the source is unrelaibale, as it used ad hominem's, namecalling, etc. to make its point. Furthermore, I think the quotes above are clear enough. If you do not like them, start a discussion at the talk page of the relevant policies and guidelines to change them. It is not here that we can decide to overrule those. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how often I have to say it, but "reliable" doesn't apply to criticism. Sources of criticism may not deal at all in reporting facts, they may be all opinion. I have no idea how you get the concept of "reliable" in there. How are Roger Ebert's film reviews "reliable"? They're pure opinion, and we're quoting from them in numerous movie articles, because it's a notable reviewer, like Wikitruth is a notable Wikipedia-critical site. Nowhere does the policy say anything about entire sources becoming unquotable just because they use ad hominems somewhere. No one wants to quote ad hominems themselves. Margana 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As reminded above: Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources. I do not think there is any doubt about what this means. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it means what I just said. If an unreliable source says "X criticized Y" you can't use that criticism. But if you have source X directly criticizing Y, you can. Every site is a reliable source about what it says itself. From WP:RS: "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." There can't be a better source for the fact "X holds opinion Y" than X itself! Only if you don't have this primary source will you need a reliable secondary one. Margana 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, WP:RS is a general guideline covering the whole of wikipeida, while WP:LIVING is much more specific to biografies. The later states explicitly: Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources, which Wikitruth is not. The quote in question is an analysis of the way how Jimbo deals with things, and that is partially an opinion, and mainly unsourced speculation based on unsourced facts, speculation rumors, whatever. As such, it does not belong in this article. Furthermore, repeated reinserting of disputed information is disruptive, and can only be reinserted when it does not violate policies and when there is consensus here among the editors, which is still lacking. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now you're willfully obtuse: you just keep repeating what I have debunked above no less than three times, plus Robdurbar once. Maybe five times is the charm: "Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources" means you need a reliable source proving that this criticism was made, anything else doesn't make any sense, since criticism isn't fact. And the best possible source showing a criticism was made is the primary source that makes the criticism. Thus Wikitruth is a 100% reliable source about criticisms made by Wikitruth. Your personal opinion about the criticism itself is irrelevant. Also, you need a consensus for removing something, not for adding it. And you don't have that. Margana 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are pertinent wrong on the need for consensus before something can be removed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I? Then quote the exact policy. All you have shown so far is that unsourced information can be removed. You are removing sourced information. Margana 02:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikitruth.info is a joke site, assuming "Wikipedians are ugly lol" qualifies as a joke, and is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Kim is right. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way of missing the point. Read the previous discussion before making an argument already debunked six times. Seventh time: It is entirely irrelevant if you think Wikitruth is not a reliable source for facts, it is a perfectly reliable source for its own opinions. If you want to argue that its opinion is somehow not relevant to quote, it's an entirely different argument. Then please provide a reliable source for your contention that it is merely a "joke site". That's not what the Wikitruth article says. Margana 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The problem with Wikitruth is that it is not notable or reliable - sure it can be a source of it's own opinions, but to then include them here is to include original research because they are not referenced anywhere else. I oppose including thier rumor an innuendo - especially given their crusade to get people fired, and otherwise supress free speech on wikipedia by intimidation. Trödel 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would they have to be referenced anywhere else? It's a major website critical of Wikipedia. The quote in question is not "rumor" or "innuendo", it's specific criticism. Where do you see a "crusade to get people fired" or "supress free speech on wikipedia by intimidation" on Wikitruth? Margana 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A major website? Wikitruth as of today has 13 registered users, of which almost half are either marked as a bot, sysop or bureaucrat . . -- Longhair 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what makes it a major website. There are major websites with a single person behind it. It's not an open wiki after all. A better measure is that it's ranked about 80,000 on Alexa which is remarkable for a website criticizing another website. Margana 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Please stop reverting to your preferred version without yielding an inch and try to work together on this. Several editors have violated the WP:3RR or are very close to doing so (see     for example). I dislike blocking people for 3RR violations and I dislike protecting pages to stop edit wars but if this doesn't stop now it is likely that someone will do exactly that. Consider this your last warning. "The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am." :) Haukur 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone my last revert, and taken his page of my watchlist.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was very big of you. I hope you come back to editing this article after a short break, you have made good arguments. Haukur 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it would have been big had it been true. She abandoned the discussion but keeps reverting. Margana 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current edit war 

message: I would like to have an idea how people think about the insertion of the wikitruth quote (see discusssion above). Please sign with ~~~~. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strawpoll: Wikitruth quote insertion 

message: *-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not include

message: * Margana 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do include

message: --Robdurbar 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: I move this to User_talk:Jimbo Wales where it is probaby better located. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Print Version Probably Not Feasable

message: I find the recent change to inline cites to make the article harder to navigate in edit mode - but was wondering if there is some style standard for this in considering whether it should be changed back. help? Trödel 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think there is a standard for this, and I see literaly everything happening at various pages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Margana and I seem to agree on the cite issue - lets restore them Trödel 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing cites to inline cites 

message: I really, really don't think I'm notable enough (or that the CRO issue is significant enough) to be mentioned in Jimmy's biography. Could someone please remove this since I'm biased?--Erik Möller 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not knowledgeable on this topic at all, but I disagree; the issue seems relevant enough. I'm very open to being convinced otherwise, though. --Ashenai 18:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The quotes from your resignation statement shed some light on how the Board is run by Jimbo. Why is that not notable? Margana 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jimmy doesn't "run" the Board, he is its President. This is the article about Jimmy Wales, not about the Wikimedia Foundation or its history. The CRO issue is indeed briefly mentioned in that article (in reasonable proportion to the article as a whole). This article should be a biography of Jimmy first and foremost. The dispute was not between me and Jimmy, but between me and members of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Finally, the CRO was not even a paid position; it was a community role. There's no need to carry every little bit of Wikimedia politics into what is supposed to be a biography.--Eloquence* 18:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear on this, are you saying the dispute was between you and members of the Board excluding Jimmy, or are you just saying it was not exclusively between you and Jimmy? And if Wikimedia politics are so unimportant, we wouldn't need an article about Jimmy. But if we have one, I think his role on Wikimedia is of central importance to it. He wouldn't be notable just for installing a piece of wiki software once in 2001, nor for his founding of a barely-notable company selling porn, nor as an options trader. He's notable for his ongoing role as president of the Wikimedia Board (which seems to me to be equivalent to "running" it given that the president controls 3 of the 5 seats, making any voting a farce - he can always have his way). Margana 19:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not exclusively between me and Jimmy. Wikimedia isn't unimportant, but some of the internal politics thereof are. I have seen no evidence that Jimmy personally "controls" the two Board members he installed when he created the Foundation, and in fact, Tim Shell has abstained from most recent votes and will likely be replaced by the end of this year according to Jimmy.--Eloquence* 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who do you think picks the replacement? From the bylaws: "Should a Trustee resign, become incapacitated or otherwise be unable to serve the remaining Trustees shall appoint an interim representative if such Trustee was a Member Representative until such time as a new election can be held to fill such office at the next annual election. If not, the remaining Trustees may elect a replacement. In such case should there be a tie vote the Chair shall cast the deciding ballot." So, when one non-community seat becomes vacant now, Jimbo, together with his remaining appointee (Michael Davis), can appoint whoever he wants; if the community representatives disagree, it's 2-2 and Jimbo breaks the tie. Note in this connection this interesting announcement from the message you quoted: "My expectation is that we will see at least one additional member from the community, and one additional member (likely from the free software / free culture world) to provide additional external oversight." Once again he shows that he doesn't trust the community. The Board will just go from 3-2 to 4-3 against the community. And the non-community seats will be controlled by Jimbo because he can force any appointment and he will appoint only people he trusts not to go against him. It's funny how he speaks of "expectations" as if those decisions weren't solely in his hands. Changing the bylaws to enlarge the Board just takes a simple majority of the Board. So unless Jimbo makes a mistake and appoints someone he thinks he trusts who later betrays him, there's no way he can lose his sole, absolute, lifelong power. And you say he isn't running things! Margana 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're going deep into "original research" territory here. If you want to speculate about the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, this is not the appropriate venue. For the record, your speculation is based on the assumption that Jimmy's appointees will vote whichever way he wants, at least in some cases. While this may or may not be the case, there is no evidence one way or another.--Eloquence* 20:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRO controversy 

message: Isn't it fair to have a section about the criticisms of Wales' management practices? He has some very vocal (albeit few in number) opponents. Rompe 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Strawpoll:_Wikitruth_quote_insertion for the opinion of wikitruth. It saves you a lot of work. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Daniel Brandt and others? Rompe 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I could see, that was unsourced so not allowable, as other need to be able to verify  the content, and it need to be reliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brandt is covered in his own article (whether he likes it or not) and relevant information can be found there. But one person's allegations don't count any more than an anonymous site, and don't think Brandt's Jimbo-related activities have approached that level of notoriety, even if we'd like to think of him as Jimbo's arch-nemesis. Moulder 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Hi, Mr. Wales. Why did you delete the article about Brian Peppers?(And why was the talk page deleted?) I want to know more about him. I come to Wikipedia to get all my information, and I would be glad if you could give me an explanation. Thanks.  209.214.200.167 1:43 11 June, 2006
:You better post this at User talk:Jimbo Wales, this is a biography, and I am not sure how often he reads it here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why?(Brian Peppers article) 

message: The thing is ugly and should be removed as soon as possible. What exactly are the issues? --Banana04131 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was introduced by a user who could not convince the other editors of this article that her additions where conform WP:NPOV and not original research. Discussion has stopped. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh. . .finding no other objection then the singing monkeys, im going to remove it. --Banana04131 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I thought Larry Sanger was a co-founder? MisterCheese 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is one of those ongoing controversies, in which much is said, but little proven. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be put that he's the disputed founder of Wikipedia in the entry then? MisterCheese 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is quite clear from the text that there is some controversy about it, and I do not think there is a need to make it more explicite. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time the article named Sanger as a co-founder, but I think Wales removed it. This only increased the controversy and raised the question of Wales editing his own biography. . .Wales and Larry are the only ones who know for sure. --Banana04131 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Wales the sole founder? 

message: The audio for this article is pretty bad, no offense to whoever made it, but the person speaks a bit too quickly in some places. — Wackymacs 17:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the first one to say the exact same thing (see the very top post above), and I aggree, too.  It needs to go or someone else needs to step up.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio file 

message: What subject(s) has he earned his university degrees in?--84.61.140.111 00:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacherlor / Master in ?