Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 8

message: Your tactic of censorship for phony reasons will backfire. Soon no one from UC Berkeley, Stanford and major institutions all over USA will be able to post to Wiki because you will be blocking all of their ISPs. You can't win nor should you. 
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.251.3 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insurgency Contra Wiki

message: I removed his userpage link that was under the title "Website" per WP:NOT ie Wikipedia is not a Personal web page and thus should not advertise his userpage as a personal website. Instead of just reverting Freakofnurture edits i thought i would bring it here as WP:NOT is a policy. I would like to hear Jimmy's option if he considers this his personal website or not. ExtraDry 10:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not as much his personal website, as it is his official page as benevolent dictator of this project. Aum. <strikes forehead against floor>. Highly relevant to his main area of notability. Keep it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If we are looking for a link which directs people to further information about me, the best link will be my blog, which I consider to be my "personal website" in the relevant sense.  My wikipedia userpage is a wikipedia userpage and therefore not a personal website.  However, as to the question of whether this article should send people to my wikipedia userpage or not, I guess that is a different question, and I have no opinion.  What do we generally do when subjects of articles also have userpages?  We should be more or less consistent, I suppose.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally we use . As this talk page has a special notice "If you need to contact Jimbo about something...", it might be a little spammy to add the NW template. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have that template here, disguised via a redirect. Look at the right column. --cesarb 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Having a link hidden in the talk page is not at all the same as having it in the article, I feel that the link Jimbo Wales should be kept in the article. Because the two subjects of Jimbo and wikipedia are innately woven together, coming from him being on wikipedia. Or to put it another way, a large part of his fame comes from the work he has done as a user on wikipedia. Thus it makes sense to link to his userpage on wikipedia. Exactly the same as if (pretend example here...) I became very famous for my writings the times, then it would makes logical sense to link to my userpage on the times (if it is informative). Mathmo Talk 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website as Userpage 

message: At least 2 pictures are missing from this article. I recommend the pictures be restored.  QuackGuru  talk 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is important, I thought. I think the pictures should be added back in.  QuackGuru  talk 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides picturing Wales they don't have anything to do with the article. They are redundant and should not be restored. 68.117.211.187 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing pictures 

message: Check out the external links. Per link policy, the external links need a very good clean up.  QuackGuru  talk 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd just kill them all except the first 3 and then put in a link to dmoz or something. RN 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About half of the external links should be removed. Thanks.  QuackGuru  talk 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link craziness 

message: That part I fixed yesterday in the education section is logically inconsistent. It reads like the school was donating the software to itself. It's not Jimbo's user page so I have right to fix it, right? Why has it been undone then? greg park avenue 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence in the education section 

message: can we list him as a libertarian even though he doesnt like the libertarian party? i mean you can be conservative but not be a republican or a liberal and not be a democrat. so would it be safe to add him to the "American libertarian" category?
:Probably not.
I suggest talking to Jim, so he knows your adding him, and he can disagree or agree on it.
 Megan :)  05:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that the threshold for inclusion of any information is verifiability in reliable, published sources, not truth. If the fact that he is Libertarian in his political philosophy has been published in a citable reliable source, then by all means add it to the appropriate section. VanTucky (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only evidence we have of his libertarianism are his expressed support of ostensibly similar beliefs such as Objectivism. Seeing as Objectivists, such as myself, Ayn Rand, and those at ARI, often dislike the use of the term "libertarian" in regard to us, this is no proof that he identifies himself as a libertarian. Until there is expressed knowledge, it should be left out. D prime 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian? 

message: As always, it is deeply inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on any controversial issue.  It is therefore wrong to call me the co-founder of Wikipedia.  Please someone fix this.  There has been a long standing consensus as to how to deal with this, a compromise that avoids the question.  "best known for his role in founding Wikipedia".  Whoever changed it should be asked not to do that again.
--Jimbo Wales 09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change, but I have not been able to trace back to the editor that changed it, yet.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to"known for his role in founding, running, and promoting" which I hope will remove the problem as Jimmy clearly isnt co-promoting or co-running wikipedia so hopefully this shouldnt happen again, SqueakBox 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: # I would like to thank Jimmy Wales for entertaining my interview last year prior to Wikimania 2.
# I would also like to thank some of the constructive members of the community including Mark_Ryan for originally introducing me to wikipedia.
# However, I cannot and will not go on receiving the blatant and total disrespect of the Wikimedia / Wikipedia communities in IRC and continue to sponsor this organization by making posts to it.
# This is all that needs to be said I'm afraid. Nice spending time with you.
# I'm really honestly sorry it has to close like this.
* chrisbradley@noisecontrolpublishing.com
--72.45.229.121 03:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS IS MY LAST ENTRY IN WIKIPEDIA 

message: The sections in here don't deal with massively controversial issues. This may be an extension of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in other biographies it's uncommon to have controversy sections over issues that are as relatively tame as the fact that he hosted erotic material online, that there was a small dispute over who founded the website, and, least important of all, his date of birth. Anyone else? It seems like the article is trying to adhere to NPOV as much as possible to avoid claims of hypocrisy, whereas the negative known aspects of Jimmy's life are quite insignificant.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, conflict of interest editing of his own wikibio for one thing. Next is the controversy over his downplaying of Bomis' adult content. Last was the controversy surrounding the accuracy of his birthdate. The birthdate thing is very notable because it's a microcosm of the larger debate surrounding Wikipedia's reliability; if we can't even get his birthdate right, how accurate is this project? It doesn't just have to be controversial things Jimbo has done, but controversies that center on him. As to the hypocrisy issue, I think the idea that we are being sensationalistic is folly. Surely Jimbo wouldn't hesitate to voice some concern or complaint if he thought this was rumor-mongering? I say, if the subject doesn't have a problem with the content in question, then it can't be doing him "harm". VanTucky (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the things mentioned..... Bomis, the co-founder debate, and Wales' birthday are all aspects of the controversy that arose from Wales' conflict of interest editing. You can't discuss that controversy without mentioning these aspects..... the DOB is just the latest, and silliest, outgrowth of this debate. Of course, the DOB thing wouldn't even be a controversy if Mr. Wales would just tell people when his birth is instead of telling people when it is not or going around saying "Nobody knows...". 68.117.211.187 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section - has what he's done really been particularly controversial? 

message: I am the sole founder of Wikipedia.  It is deeply inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on this point of controversy.  Please revert to the longstanding compromise version on this point.  And I think it is time to start warning the trolls who keep doing this.--Jimbo Wales 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're just like Stalin, Mr. Wales. Trying to erase history to your own benefit. Gostkowski 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume you're speaking of the first sentence of the "Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation" section? Or is it the intro's use of the term cofounder? Please clarify. But either way, you do realize that calling you the founder is also taking a stance on this, and possibly a more controversial and damning one for Wikipedia's reputation? We either don't use the term founder/cofounder at all (which, with the necessary explanation of your role, makes it verbose) or we choose the lesser of two evils and protect Wikipedia from being universally mocked like when we let you edit your own bio. VanTucky (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the co from the first sentence, SqueakBox 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jimbo that this would be damaging to the project and re BLP we should always take the subjects wishes inot consideration, equally for Sanger, SqueakBox 02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments above still stand, but I think I've changed my mind a bit. Simply saying founder, as long as we stay away from obviously inappropriate qualifiers such as "sole", leaves the implied possibility of other founders. Saying co does positively take the stance that Sanger's claim is valid, which is more a violation of NPOV. VanTucky (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an issue some are very passionate about.  I tried to find neutral ground over on Wikimedia Foundation as was trounced on by someone who felt "co-founder" was better sourced than Jimbo owning Wikipedia before transferring it to the Foundation.  I believe many articles can be made neutral by simply avoiding any sort of "stand", but there's enough who will edit war over it endlessly.  It drew me into some very ugly behavior, and I won't touch the issue again.  I think a larger portion of the community needs to address this issue and come up with a solution written into policy: how shall Wikipedia refer to itself and its history.  I don't mean to suggest any articles be locked down permanently, I'm thinking more like a strict manual of style relating to Wiki-history to prevent these issues from flaring up ever few months.  --InkSplotch 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again removed the co. I think we can comment in the article about this, as we do, though I have NPOV'd that a bit, but we cant mention it in the opening. Sanger was a paid employee and that makes claims that he co-founded wikipedia extremely unlikley if not plain absurd, SqueakBox 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So absurd that it was written all over the official press releases, noted by the New York Times and other media, etc. without the slightest contradiction by anyone until 2004, and since then only by Jimbo himself, without a single notable source agreeing with him... Bramlet Abercrombie 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever my personal feelings concerning Sanger's status may be, I agree that the debate is real. It's not some inarguable WP:FRINGE idea to disagree with Jimbo, so we need to give equal weight here. Not that I think it should say co in the intro. But a lengthy discussion of the debate over the role Sanger played is better left to the main History of Wikipedia article I think. I say we mention it here, but keep it succinct enough that it doesn't turn into another battleground on the issue. Just summarize what the main history article says. VanTucky (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's pretty much an inarguable WP:FRINGE idea to agree with Jimbo on this. His claim is completely baseless, not backed by one shred of evidence or by any notable source whatsoever, and his own mere say-so carries zero weight as he is obviously not an objective source in this - whereas the opposite view does not rely at all on Larry's say-so, it is backed by plenty of evidence. There is no "controversy" other than one between reality on one side and Jimbo on the other. Bramlet Abercrombie 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main issue is the wording in the inrto reads "is known for". Wales is in fact known for being the founder of Wikipedia; not for his role in finding it nor for being the co-founder (regardless of the truth... is he the founder or the cofounder? Doesn't matter, for he is known as the founder). Perhaps rewriting the sentence so it isn't as passive may help. But as it reads now it is just wrong. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if what he is known as is actually counterfactual, it would be wrong to state it like that and thereby give the impression that the view is correct. I think it's not particularly relevant that he's often misleadingly called "the founder" in the press; the article should be factual and thus state that he "is the co-founder". The "known for his role in founding" formula was some attempt at compromise, but apparently it didn't work. Jimbo's threat of "warning the trolls" suggests that he's intent on forcing the issue his way. Bramlet Abercrombie 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused then. Two entries above you say that Jimbo's claim is "not backed by one shred of evidence or by any notable source whatsoever", but here you say that he is called "the founder" in the press. So if the press calls him the founder (though it may be incorrect according to your beliefs), then why can't we say he is known as the founder here? That is what he is known for, truthful or not. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it's misleading. The press calling him "the founder" is not evidence of him being the sole founder. Jimbo just calls himself "the founder" everywhere, so to some extent that's what he's now "known as". But there's not a single press article which deals explicitly with the Sanger-Wales issue and takes Wales' side (while many take Sanger's side by calling them both co-founders). Bramlet Abercrombie 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no evidence saying he is known as the founder is counter-factual. Sanger was a subordinate employee and subordinate employees cant claim to be the equal and co-founder, well they can claim but their claim has no valididty, it'd be like early Microsoft employees saying they built Windows. He is definitely known as the founder and while some claim that iosnt sso I agree with Van Tuckey that that should go into the History article. Certainly what iedited to just a bit ago is absolutely a succinct description giving both more or less Jimbo's POV and Sanger's POV. Note Jimbo says he is the siole founder, thatis his real POV and I agree that we shouldnt include either that or the co-founder int he opening, SqueakBox 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as "the founder" suggests "sole founder", there is plenty of evidence contradicting it by calling him co-founder. What on earth has employee status to do with whether one can be a founder of something? And if this employee argument held any water, how do you explain that no one found it strange when Larry was called co-founder all over the place before 2004? It was well known that he was an employee. Again, it's not "Jimbo's POV" versus "Sanger's POV". Both of those are biased, so their views don't matter. The objective evidence matters, and it goes all one way. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with SqueakBox on this. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, there is a controversy about it, and all I ask is that Wikipedia remain neutral.--Jimbo Wales 23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you said 2+2=5, we'd have to note this mathematical "controversy" too? Your assertion is backed up by nothing and is obviously self-serving, so has no factual value. The only fact is that you make the claim. But since the objective evidence is entirely sufficient to establish the facts, your claim is irrelevant as to the actual question of the founding of Wikipedia. The fact that you have been trying to rewrite the history, of course, should well be noted in your article. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've said it before and I'll say again in here. This is THE most important issue/edit war whatever the hell you want to call it to face this project, period. If the fact that Sanger was referred to as co-founder in the past(in here and in the media) and edit historys show that is how these articles used/still read, and this material can be so bastardized or whitewashed or whatever the hell you want to call it to the point where the guy who helped found this project WITH others is now posting to a talk page and proclaimed "I am the sole founder of Wikipedia." and that is how his entry will read, this project ain't worth a dam because how can ANY article will be safe from this type of distortion/write of history? My first reaction to seeing the lead post above was that it was the work of some Jimbo imposter. If that really is Jimbo, thats pretty sad, imho. --Tom 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am definitely not an imposter of Jimbo's, lol. On the other hand I take BLP very seriously and as Jimbo cannot edit this article I am happy to at least make sure his views get a fair representation, though in this case I think we reached a neutral and balanced article with this version, the last I edited. Its been reverted so I am going to add an NPOV tag as I wont be edit warring over this again for at least 24 hours as that is no solution, SqueakBox 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the version you cited above neutral and balanced? Just for the record, you believe Sanger did not help found Wikipedia and Wales is the sole founder, is that correct? --Tom 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If what Jimbo says about Sanger being a subordiante employee is true I absolutely think that, SqueakBox 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is as clear cut as you (or Jimbo) wants it to be.  If I give you money and resources and then stand back while you create SqueakBox Industries, then you are the creator in the "sweat-of-the-brow" sense, even if you didn't bankroll the project.  The Wikipedia case is more ambiguous since Jimbo was actively involved in setting the direction of things, even though probably not with the same day to day intensity that Sanger had.  If Sanger had been identified as a manager or employee (rather than as a founder) in the early press coverage, then that probably would have been fine.  However, various pieces created during the early history of Wikipedia did refer to Sanger as a "founder" along with Wales, and that suggests either that Jimbo was comfortable sharing the credit at that time, or that Jimbo wasn't paying close attention to what people were saying (including Wikipedia's own press releases, e.g. ).  Fostered by the press releases and such stalwarts of reporting as the NY Times, many people acquired the perception that Jimbo and Sanger amicably and openly shared credit for founding Wikipedia (Jimbo for his bankroll and guiding influence and Sanger for his day-to-day management).  Since no apparent attempts to change that perception were made until after Sanger left the organization, the subsequent efforts have been percieved as revisionist and more than a little spiteful, hence the controversy.  (And frankly, if Jimbo really never did try to "correct" the press coverage until well after Larry left, then he deserves that criticism.)  169.229.142.185 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well SqueakBox is my name (or my nick) but if I get employees to do something that I pay them to do and I take the boss role, indicating how to solve the problems as they arise, showing them how to resolve them etc, how to initiate processes that do that etc then its my baby. And I would not claim to be the founder of TV Genius (whom I work for albeit I havent been paid so far because I am ashare holder) nor expect anyone other than the real founder to do so, so I am basing this stance on my real exoperience of life as both boss and employee, SqueakBox 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would assume that TV Genius hasn't been issuing press releases calling you a founder.  However, there are Wikipedia press releases over three seperate years (2002-2004) in which Wales and Sanger are jointly referred to as founders.  Wales bankrolled things, but I think the perception many people formed is that they operated as partners rather than employee/employer.  169.229.142.185 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly true. But there are bits of TV Genius that i would claim (basically our video clip collection) and equally there may be bits of wikipedia that Sanger can claim, ie the specific work he did for the project as an employee. But that doesnt make him the founder, SqueakBox 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a controversy and we can report that controversy (but not in the opening) including the press statements, but that is about it, SqueakBox 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: Why is there capitals in the first sentence? American can be american and Internet should be internet, right? thnx (86.82.184.75 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are proper nouns and should be capitalized. Nufy8 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: American is a proper noun, there is valid debate among linguists regarding internet or Internet. Riskier 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Am i allowed to remove vandalism warnings, copyright image notices, etc, from my user talk page? 
User:Yamakiri user has threatened to permanently protect my user talk page so that i cant edit it. Can i remove copyright image notices at least? i hope you see this soon. thx Modelun88 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin, I'm just requesting it.  And, you should post it at the help desk or something.  Besides you're removing vandalism and block notices  Yamakiri 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's right Modelun, you cannot remove vandalism and or block notices. Why would you want to remove them anyway? → jacĸrм (  talk |   sign ) 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually while discouraged there's nothing explicitly banning the removal of warnings from your own talk page. Primarily because the admins don't like the messy edit wars that result when someone tries to revert the removal of warnings and also because of the difficulty with defining what is acceptable given the clear allowance for removing inappropriate warnings and for archiving. So if someone removes warnings discourage them but don't revert or imply it's forbidden (since it's not). Block notices are probably a different matter though. I don't know what this has to do with the Jimmy Wales article in any case. If you were intending to ask Jimbo Wales then as the big header says at the top, this isn't the place nor is there a need to ask Jimbo such a question Nil Einne 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This article is about the founder of wikipedia. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 04:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of them, at least. 68.117.211.187 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: Mr. Rogers merely accused Jimbo of removing references to Larry Sanger, I don't honestly think anyone here would accuse Jimbo of accually whitewashing the history of wikipedia intentually (Jimbo perhaps accidently edited the respective pages in question or it could someone else in the Wales household testing the respective pages in question)--Trulexicon 04:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened is clear; there is nothing allegation-like about it. Rogers' blog post contains link to specific diffs, such as this this and this. I removed the allegations qualifier. — xDanielx T/C 05:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christine Wales could have been editing under Jimbo's name, perhaps she wanted to flatter her husband, it could have been anyone in the Wales household..as such it should be treated as an accusation--Trulexicon 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... I can't say it's impossible, but I find it very unlikely that Jimmy's wife snuck on to Jimmy's computer to make a total of eighteen edits over several days. Especially considering that Jimmy accepted the blame and apologized for what he did. — xDanielx T/C 09:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the references is missing a reference. I fixed the reference and Trulexicon reverted it. Trulexicon also added controversial material to the lead. See here. It says reference 47 but it has no reference. It should say reference 3 b.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogers issue 

message: Exactly what it says on the tin. Magnus 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you create a wiki? 

message: Uh, no. That's a franchisee (you?) and certainly not an independent source. NawlinWiki 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...
# This is not Jimbo's talk page, as the header clearly points out, it is the page for discussion about his Wikipedia article.
# Neither this page, nor Jimbo's talk page, is the place to complain about "admin abuse". The correct way to do that would be to raise a request for comment, or in serious cases arbitration case, or if it was something that needed urgent, immediate attention then perhaps a message on the administrators' incidents noticeboard.
# This is not "admin abuse". This is a case of several administrators, on 6 different occasions, deleting an article which has been tagged by users as being eligible for speedy deletion.
# NawlinWiki's comments to you have all been made in an attempt to get you to understand Wikipedia policy. You have been pointed to guidelines and policies that are supposed to help you understand why your article isn't acceptable. NawlinWiki has not "questioned [your] integrity as an editor".
# Your "contribution to the Wikipedia community", as far as I can tell, has been to repeatedly recreate an article after it was speedily deleted, which is usually a sign that perhaps you're not going about things the right way - especially when it's not just one person telling you so.
# You have, at least, finally done the right thing by listing the deletion at deletion review. Note, however, that in the light of what's been pointed out above, and there as well, it's unlikely to get restored - but that is not because of the actions of some single admin abusing their tools, but based on a consensus of regular Wikipedia editors.
# We are trying to be fair, and indeed to assume good faith, but that works both ways. Just because someone is interpreting the rules in a way that is unfavourable to the way you think Wikipedia works, or how you want it to work, that they are "a cancer that can rapidly kill all the ideology that stands behind Wikipedia". Confusing Manifestation 07:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is his talk page then? Magnus 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderator abuse 

message: This guy should at some point or another, be nominated for the Nobel Peace prize (for bringing "enemies" together in order to produce a commonly accepted manuscript, for providing high-standard education for free, etc.). At least that's what I think. Kalambaki2 13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Wikipedia community should be nominated for the Nobel Prize, but I think they only give it to a single person. I don't think Jimbo is any more responsible for Wikipedia's success than the rest of the community. He is an important part of Wikipedia and of the community, as are the rest of us. a.z. 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who acts like a digital Stalin as he did with that comment above isn't a peaceful person. It's fortunate that your comment won't be taken seriously by anyone who has any significance determining Nobel Prizes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gostkowski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure saying the community is important is on the same level as communism.--Banana 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it turns out they do award the Nobel Prize to a lot of people! They awarded it to the IPCC. And I'm not sure, but I think Gostkowski was perhaps referring to the first comment, not the second, and they were trying to compare Jimbo to a dictator. A.Z. 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel 

message: Hi. One of my friends keeps saying that the "founder of Wikipedia" (name uncited) was charged and arrested with a lawsuit of over $1 million. That person also claimed that Wikipedia is "completely plagarism". I know that is not true, because it is Wikipedia policy to cite sources and remove copyvios. However, where does this so-called "conspiracy under pressure" come from? Could there be any truth to it? Or, is it just a myth or an exaggeration? Thanks. PS the person I'm mentioning is severely biased against Wikipedia, and is also a former vandal. ~AH1(TCU) 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and No, no Mr. Wales was never arrested though; someone by the name of sollog did claim that jimbo was plagarizing some stuff he wrote (and was making a tonne of legal threats); but sollog is nothing but a quack and currently is a felon.--Trulexicon 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer is no--Trulexicon 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:NPOV. It is vandalism to express your point of view because wikipedia is not written from a point of view. --Banana 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo plagarism conspiracy - is it real? 

message: The lead photo seems just a little bit not cheery enough for a lead photo.
Perhaps find and use a slightly more cheerful photo. Jidanni 09:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead photo not cheery enough 

message: Ok, in all the involved discussion over DOB and founding, I'm afraid the actual text of the article is suffering (as disputed text at WP so often does). Me, I'm mostly a copyeditor, so I immediately noticed this right up at the top of the page:
Most of the time there were four children in his grade so the school grouped the first through fourth grade students together and the fifth through eighth grade students together. In his adult life, Wales enjoys sailing and is an outdoor enthusiast.
Is it just me, or do those two sentences seem rather absurdly juxtaposed? I have no idea how to fix it; it probably needs insertion of more incidental material between the two. Actually, I recommend the first sentence should be removed shortened, since the grade-grouping of students at Jimmy's (or anyone else's) grade school seems unlikely to be particularly encyclopedic. Eaglizard 12:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried removing the part about sailing and being an outdoor enthusiast because it makes the article sound like a personal ad for a dating site. However, it keeps on getting reinserted. 68.117.211.187 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: Please move content to proper area rather than delete it. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  content deletion 

message: I don't think such an extensive list of links is appropriate, per WP:NOT and Wikipedia:External links. Quatloo 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way too bloody long. But if you try to delete it someone will just undo it so it's hardly worth the bother. Maybe copy all the links over to a new page?  68.117.211.187 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive Audio/video links 

message: As long as Jim's birthday is mentioned in that section it seems as if 'issues' would be a more fitting word for it. --Is this fact...? 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Controversy?"

message: Is that supposed to be a lead section? Doesn't anybody here understand the lead section guidelines? You don't have a one paragraph lead in a good article. It clearly needs to be longer. As is the reader has the choice of reading 3 pages about him or one bloody sentence... Richard001 07:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead?

message: Arguments arise about the age about James Wales. Some say he is born on August 7th, while others say he is born on August 8th, discussion. Please? Ellomate 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just discuss up under one of the several previous blurbs on his birthday? Epthorn 09:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or read the section in his bio that covers the birthday controversy. 67.184.70.150 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This whole exercise is, I think, just Wales trying to see how our process works and (unwisely, in my opinion) using himself as the guinea pig. The encyclopedia should apply the same standards as a newspaper or a historian. What you are looking for is the most verifiable reference material. In this case, it is the local officials of the municipality in which he was born. It specifically is not his mother. The officials are trained and paid to get the correct and consistent data. 100 year from now, Jimmy Wales will be still be recorded as being born on August 8, 1966. Ask yourself: what will he have put on his gravestone: three dates like Terri Schiavo or something? 
 Wales / Jimmy Donal / Beloved Husband
 Arrived this Earth: August 7, 1966
 Born: August 8, 1966
 Died: November 21, 2051
 (Dove with olive branch)
 I kept my promise
or something like that?!? Puleez.--Straightpress 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age?