Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 2

message: I've tried voicing my concerns with the Wikipedia volunteers and/or administrators, since I really don't know who's who on here. So I've come here to the source behind Wikipedia hoping this will get me somewhere. First off I feel volunteers/administrators, not all but at least the select few i've had to deal with, are extremely biased and only want what they would like to read/see in articles. No matter how hard I tried everything seemed to be deleted with the simple wiki excuse "copyright problems and/or not reliable sources, or the article was written in a POV." This simple excuse has been the only one I've recieved after spending hours upon hours of typing, editing, typing, re-editing. All for some biased "volunteer" to tell me it's not good enough for them and delete everything I just worked so hard doing. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great idea what these 2 gentlemen tried putting together. A "free" encyclopedia that someone can use without having to spend hundreds of dollars on 26 heavy books. But the word "free" is referring to monetary means not "free" speech. Articles are written and edited by those trying to turn everything into their POV without saying the words "I think, or I believe." I've read numerous articles without sources and which have been written in a POV state, which volunteers and adminisrators seem to overlook on certain issues. These are encyclopedias, surely not "free" but also not biased or discriminatory,(1)http://encarta.msn.com/, (2) http://www.britannica.com/ (3) http://www.worldbook.com/. It would be a complete and utter outrage to consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia in it's current state. Wikipedia is more of a blog webpage where anyone with the internet and a keyboard and fingers to type can logon and make an encyclopedia article, no brain or morals neccesary. In conclusion I honestly believe this site should be well constructed and put together more professionally, without the millions of different volunteers/administrators/ and the normal everyday joe, with millions of different opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matteo747 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Concerns 

message: may i compliment you on what a great job you do on getting the worst most rudest volunteers that instead of helping they just spend there time insulting people they dont even know!, the person that created this site might consider being more hands on because if i were that person i would be ashamed on what a reck this is turning out to be. You might want to consider volunteer clean up because this site needs people that dont involve their personal life and personal problems such as racism and gossip with professional business i am well aware nobody gets paid to do this job but like they say if your going to do something do it right or dont do it at all Bacanaleranica 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What racism and gossip are you on about? Nobody can constructively respond to a complaint like that, because it has no specifics. Derex 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bacanaleranica is referring to issues pointed out in Talk:Nicaragua. To Bacanaleranica, can we discuss your dissatisfaction in concrete ways on the talk page for Nicaragua? It sounds like you really want to make Wikipedia a better resource and website, so let's get a it! Would you be willing to participate in the discussions started at the aforementioned site? Thanks JeffreyN 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: may i compliment you!

message: There are a few other biographical items mentioned in this news article. He received his MS and PhD from OSU. He also taught there. --TedPavlic 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few other biographical items

message: To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times.  That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004.  With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement.  In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.
The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the
confusion:
http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html
--Larry Sanger 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links of interest 

message: The article says:
:Meanwhile, Sanger's status as "co-founder of Wikipedia" came to be disputed by Wales, who described Sanger as having been merely a subordinate employee.[3] Sanger concedes that it was Wales alone who conceived of an encyclopedia that non-experts could contribute to, i.e., the Nupedia.[4] However, Sanger maintains that it was he who brought the wiki concept to Wales and suggested it be applied to Nupedia and that, after some initial skepticism, Wales agreed to try it. (Wales has claimed that one Jeremy Rosenfeld first suggested the idea of a wiki to him, though he claimed earlier, in October 2001, that "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software" [1].) Sanger also maintains that he "came up with the name 'Wikipedia', a silly name for what was at first a very silly project." [5] In response to Wales' view of his role in Wikipedia, Sanger posted on his personal webpage a collection of links which he claimed confirmed his "co-founder" role.[6]
I "maintain" a lot more than what this article says, and if you examine http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html you will see that many other people have "maintained" a lot more than what this article says.  For one thing, I organized and led Wikipedia in its first 14 months.  It has relatively little to do with who "conceived" of Wikipedia (though that's a small part of it), or who named it (an even smaller part of it; and this isn't something I "maintain" but a fact that no one has ever disputed).  It has to do with who guided the community, and that is something that I did--and this is something that not only I "maintain," but which no one, not even Jimmy, has ever even disputed. --Larry Sanger 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you think this article's biased, check out a recent interview with Wales about Wikipedia  in the well-known UK science magazine New Scientist, which doesn't mention Larry Sanger at all. Jsteph 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic paragraph 

message: Added recently as a 'minor change', this should be discussed here first.  The sentence + refs below were added along with the clause "co-founder of Wikipedia" under Larry's picture.    I'm not sure how to deal with the issue of project-founding in general (it's not just a matter of wales's & sangers's opinions; many others close to the project have opinions one way or another), but please be open about making controversial changes. +sj + 15:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the founder issue, we compromised on Essjay controversy to just refer to both Wales and Sanger as "a founder", which seemed a fair compromise as Wales now says he is sole founder, but RS and his own words before 2004 said otherwise, and RS both refer to both men as founder. In other words, since it comes down to Wales word vs. Sanger's, we can't favor either... and since Wale's own words are contradictory, and RS are balanced, we split the difference and just called both a founder. Accurate either way, in that case, per ATT/RS/NPOV. We should do that here... - Denny 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "minor" yet controversial additions 

message: To accomadate relevant discussion, I've moved all further discussion related to Wales and Sanger from Talk:Essjay controversy to here. Since users at that talk page have consensus to discuss it here, restoring it to Essjay's article will result in a block for disruption! --wL<speak·check> 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the logic of this move/merge.  Most of the discussion below is about whether Wales has an official title or not, why is that relevent to this article? Second, stop threatening people with blocks for discussing a legitimate topic. If you don't like it you could take the article off your watch list. David D. (Talk) 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed everything not relevent to Sanger. See Wales' talk page. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preferred version personally is to describe Sanger as "Citizendium editor-in-chief and former Wikipedia community manager", because that explains why his opinions of Wikipedia members matter (he runs a competing organization and has ample experience with the Wikipedia meta side) without delving into whether this makes him a "founder" or not. --tjstrf talk  08:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a message to your account Quack. I will make this short and sweet. These posts are disruptive and are trying the community's patience, further disruption will cause you to be blocked. --wL<speak·check> 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I should add that the statement is libelous, and as such can be removed without regard to 3RR. If someone is something, you can't say he "refers to himself as X", even though that's technically correct. It is like saying "George W. Bush, who refers to himself as president of the United States" - with the inevitable implication that he isn't really president. Sanger doesn't cease to be co-founder (as evidenced by official Wikipedia press releases and numerous other sources) just because a single person (Wales) suddenly starts to deny it, three years after the fact and without any evidence. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *The statement is not libelous (of which I'd recommend you review the meaning); it is what the article being cited from the Boston Globe says: "Sanger, who at times calls himself the cofounder..."--LeflymanTalk 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's within a totally different context. The way you use it, it sounds like Sanger claims to be, but isn't really, the co-founder. And why should a single press reference be good enough for your wording, when there are many more references that directly call him co-founder? Bramlet Abercrombie 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seldom seen anyone so consistently, willfully, and wrong-headedly misinterpret policy as you, Abercrombie, from your very first edit on. If it's not willful, then it's just sad. Derex 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion moved from [[Talk:Essjay controversy]] 

message: :::::My preferred version personally is to describe Sanger as "Citizendium editor-in-chief and former Wikipedia community manager", because that explains why his opinions of Wikipedia members matter (he runs a competing organization and has ample experience with the Wikipedia meta side) without delving into whether this makes him a "founder" or not. --tjstrf talk  08:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a message to your account Quack. I will make this short and sweet. These posts are disruptive and are trying the community's patience, further disruption will cause you to be blocked. --wL<speak·check> 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I should add that the statement is libelous, and as such can be removed without regard to 3RR. If someone is something, you can't say he "refers to himself as X", even though that's technically correct. It is like saying "George W. Bush, who refers to himself as president of the United States" - with the inevitable implication that he isn't really president. Sanger doesn't cease to be co-founder (as evidenced by official Wikipedia press releases and numerous other sources) just because a single person (Wales) suddenly starts to deny it, three years after the fact and without any evidence. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *The statement is not libelous (of which I'd recommend you review the meaning); it is what the article being cited from the Boston Globe says: "Sanger, who at times calls himself the cofounder..."--LeflymanTalk 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's within a totally different context. The way you use it, it sounds like Sanger claims to be, but isn't really, the co-founder. And why should a single press reference be good enough for your wording, when there are many more references that directly call him co-founder? Bramlet Abercrombie 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seldom seen anyone so consistently, willfully, and wrong-headedly misinterpret policy as you, Abercrombie, from your very first edit on. If it's not willful, then it's just sad. Derex 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: content moved from Essay controversy talk page

message: Sanger was paid as editor-in-chief of Nupedia, not Wikipedia. "First" indicated there was a series of paid editors, which is not the case. --LeflymanTalk 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanger was not "first paid editor" 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#History_of_NPOV
*Sanger was the community leader of Wikipedia. He ran the project. Did you know when we are a citing policy on Wikipedia we are citing Sanger? Larry Sanger did a lot of work to establish and build Wikipedia from the ground up. I find it to be very interesting that anyone could deny the facts. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia

message: I have removed a statement that is linked to a blog written by the subject of this bio. Is it me, or does anybody else think we can do better than that? Thanks! --Tom 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: blog entry

message: Larry Sanger has, at the Citizendium blog, states that several of Jimmy Wales' claims regarding the founding of Wikipedia are libellous.  I've tried to insert this claim into the article, but have been reverted, on the grounds that Larry Sanger's blog isn't a reliable source about Larry Sanger. (This is a misunderstanding of WP:EL.) However, would it be a better solution to remove all of Wales' claims which Sanger has characterized as libellous from this article, in accordance with WP:BLP, except those which are more reliably sourced than Sanger's claim of libel? User:Argyriou (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanger's blog is an entirely reliable source about Sanger. From WP:BLP#Reliable_sources: "Material found in self-published...blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject. --C.m.jones 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I argued that, as well, but the larger question remains - Sanger has claimed that Wales' recent claims about Sanger's role in creating Wikipedia are libellous. Should those claims be removed? The fact that Wales has made such claims is amply documented by reliable sources, but does BLP allow us to present potentially libellous claims, when the subject has called them libellous, and has provided evidence of their falsity? Wikipedia is not committing libel by publishing them, so long as we state "X has said Y about Z", rather than stating "Z has done Y". But BLP is more than just about libel. User:Argyriou (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also from reliable sources, material should be included only if :it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; That material falls into those it seems. --Tom 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Material found in self-published...blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject."  That does not mean blogs should always be used when written or published by the subject. That just means they should never be used in other cases.  It's a logical fallicy to assume otherwise. SakotGrimshine 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be short, there is no consensus for this statement by Larry Sanger. Thanx, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libellous claims? 

message: So I dont know why I get into this again. And my edit note did not make much sense, it is too early. But I encourage Anonymous IP to start a discussion here to attempt and build consensus on the founder issue before changing the article. Good luck. --mceder (u t c) 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert on the founder issue, again 

message: NOTE: Jimmy Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, not a co-founder. Larry Sanger was just his employee following his orders and cannot be considered as a co-founder. If you started a business and your employee says that he/she is entitled to be a co-founder of your business because they were there at the beginning of the business, is that an argument you would accept? It doesn't make sense does it? Sanger's argument is not logical. I feel that he has taken advantage of Jimmy Wale's generosity in allowing him to be credited as a co-founder when in actuality he is not. Sanger was simply a paid employee doing what his boss directed him to, with Wales entrusting him with the freedom to do as he deemed fit. Why is Sanger so hung up on being known as a co-founder of Wikipedia anyway? All his activities to date has shown that he is trying to destroy Wikipedia. Would a co-founder want to destroy his own baby? This clearly shows Sanger was never a co-founder of Wikipedia and should be reflected in Wikipedia as such.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.42.73 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed. Larry is the only one claiming co-founder status. The press picks up on it, and so now its sourced and "fact" on Wikipedia. In fact, there is CONSIDERABLE controversy over Sanger's claim that is strangely being hushed up in this article. So much for multiple POVs. Guess we'll have to wait for Wales's book to make it official, it will be very embarrassing for Sanger in the long term. He should be ashamed of himself for claiming co-founder status without approval from Wales. Who does he think he's kidding? People see through it, "co-founder" is a dark mark on his reputation. -- 71.191.43.139 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the press releases from Wikimedia, stating he was a co-founder at the time of press release? mceder (u t c) 08:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder/co-founder comment 

message: We're keeping the stuff about Wikipedia in the intro. Larry Sangers is largely known for being the co-founder. Especially when it is so, I have to suspect your motive for purposely attempting remove the Wikipedia info in the intro. It's not even provocative or POV - it just says "helping". Our dear Jimmy has gone mad. (Wikimachine 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably just sounded bad. parenthesis would work better. Look, we're on the same page. (Wikimachine 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I preferred my wording, but okay - it sounds neutral enough to me. — xDanielx T/C 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arguably" can be considered a weasel wording. Also it's two-edged. It could mean that Sarry Langer is most likely a co-founder, it could also mean that the fact that Sarry Langer is co-founder is arguable. (Wikimachine 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually XDanieX, your edit there is the best. (Wikimachine 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could agree with this compromise for the time being--Trulexicon 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's up, Trulexicon. Your contributions is quite interesting. You joined today. You engaged in an edit war today. And that on Larry Sangers. You seem to know much about Wikipedia & its policies. I hope that this is not a sock puppetry case. (Wikimachine 05:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've editing as anon for quite sometime (in the 200 range) mostly on polish related articles, this controversy has been pretty heated in aol chatrooms as a matter of fact, so I wanted to try to edit with npov on these wiki related articles.--Trulexicon 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. Could you explain what you don't like about the current version? Or are you just being cautious by reserving right to propose changes in the future? (Wikimachine 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version isn't bad at all, it is a point of contention over whether Sanger truly co-founded wikipedia (the word "found" is a loaded term besides...e.g. Columbus found America)--Trulexicon 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very true ;)--Tom 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The info added to the intro is already in the 'origins of Wikipedia' section. It is essentially duplication. In addition, I will also remove an irrelevant external link that was recently added. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The intro should not contain duplicate text already mentioned in the Origins of Wikipedia section. There is no point to adding the redundancy.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2004 dispute is clearly mentioned in the Origins of Wikipedia section.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Trulexicon has repeatedly added an external link that is not notable in any way to Sanger.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BLP, the external link must be removed. The link is also unreliable and not notable.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Tom 14:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The website is an attack piece and has no value for any encyclopedia.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  irrelevant external link 

message: <see here!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trulexicon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrespective, like saying that Columbus founded america; Mr. QuackGuru as far as I'm concerned this issue is far from being resolved.-Trulexicon 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a false analogy. Debolaz 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanger talks 

message: Check it out!  Mr.Guru  talk  16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrespective, like saying that Columbus founded america; Mr. QuackGuru as far as I'm concerned this issue is far from being resolved.-Trulexicon 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a false analogy. Debolaz 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo talks 

message: http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=367096  
The second voting says;
"9/20/07 PH2 5 5 5 5     I am a sock puppet on Wikipedia named Trulexicon."
Here you state you are a sock puppet where you edit in both the Larry Sanders artical and the Jimmy Wales artical.  
Your comment of being a sock puppet at the very least should be a block of posting anything to either of these articles, but my personal opinion is that your account should be permanently blocked as a sock account which you seem to proudly announce on the external link.  But this of course is not up to me so I will bring it to administrator’s attention.  --CrohnieGalTalk 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trulexicon, please explain this! 

message: of course he was the co-founder of wikipedia  is proof that Jimmy tried to cover it up  some more information if you think i'm just pulling sources out of my ass. Larry was the cofounder of wikipedia and i don't know how else to prove that wikipedia is trying to censor that. Mrmattkatt 01:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more hilariously, Jimbo has apparently created (or had created) a user category of "Founder" (n.b. not "Founders"), of which he is the sole member.  I laughed until I cried. -- EMET-MET 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: non cofounder bullshit

message: Hi, is his surname  or  in IPA? (In other words, is the g pronounced as in "finger", or is it just "ng" as in "singer"? --Kjoonlee 15:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Unfortunately, for what is an interesting read (of a story I already knew) the prose, style issues in particular and balance/point-of-view issues partially mean that this article does not meet the good article criteria. I've detailed a few of the issue below but basically: The lead is too short, prose needs lots of work, style (references and quotes) are a problem and the article reads as unbalanced and occationally pushing a point-of-view.
;Well Written - please check through the article (this is a cherry picked list, so is not comprehensive). There are a lot of prose issues that prevent this from being well written enough. 
*A partial list of authored work, essays, and presentations Sanger has written include: (implicit in "written")
*"On 25 March 2007 Citizendium ended its pilot phase and went live, into its beta phase, and the site became publicly readable" -> "On 25 March 2007, Citizendium ended its pilot phase, entering a live and publicly readable beta phase"
*According to philosopher Sanger -> According to Sanger. It's already been stated he's a philosopher.
*In December 2005, Digital Universe Foundation announced that Sanger had been hired as Director of Distributed Content Programs, where he would lead the Digital Universe Encyclopedia content resource of the larger web project launched in early 2006 - Split into two sentence and reword "of the larger web project launched in early 2006"
*Unlike Wikipedia, the Digital Universe encyclopedia plans to bring in recognized experts to certify the accuracy of user-submitted articles as well as to write articles themselves. There seems no need for "Unlike Wikipedia" and this could easily be cut down to The Digital Universe encyclopedia plans to recruit recognized experts to write articles, and to check user-submitted articles for accuracy.
*Sanger returned to the academic world as a lecturer at The Ohio State University, -> Sanger began work as a lecturer at Ohio State University, "returned to the academic world" is needlessly wordy and the indefinite article is not needed here.
*Wikipedia's co-founder Sanger said in respect to seeking to create a better and more credible online encyclopedia -> In reference to the creation of a more credible online encyclopedia Sanger said. It's already been stated sufficiently that he's the co-founder of WP and "better" is such a loose term - better that what in terms of what ? Better to leave better out.
*Responding to frustrations with the slow progress of Nupedia, in January 2001 Sanger proposed the creation of a wiki to spur the development of articles, and the result of this proposal was Wikipedia. This is long, clunky and does not need the note about Wikipedia as it's clear from the preceding and following sentences- better as something like  Frustrated at the slow progress of Nupedia, in January 2001 Sanger proposed a wiki be created to spur article development
*Later, in December 2004... dec 04 is clearly later to a reader from the context.
*Too many quotes in the text. Many of these should be cut down and converted to prose that flows.
*The origins of Wikipedia began when Ben Kovitz, a computer programmer and regular on Ward Cunningham's wiki, introduced Sanger to wikis over dinner on the evening of January 2, 2001. - "The origins of" and "began" duplicate the same information and, given the context, "Wikipedia" is unneeded - better is Sanger was introduced to wikis at a January 2, 2001 dinner with Ben Kovitz; computer programmer and regular on Ward Cunningham's wiki
*Sanger announced a fork of Wikipedia, named Citizendium -> Sanger announced Citizendium, a fork of Wikipedia . He did not announce a fork, he announced Citizendium and stated it would be a fork.
*Sanger took a "leave of absence" - why is leave of absence in quotes ? Seems no need for this.
*The density of the redundancies/issues really requires work. I suggest the league of copyeditors to help
;Style issues
*The lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article (see WP:LEAD)
*Per Wikipedia:Avoid self references the Wikipedia links in External links should not be there, probably the Meta ones too
*Multiple references - while I understand the need to really well source things like the Wikipedia cofoundership the layout of the ref links makes the article very hard to read. Better is:
*:"Sanger has been widely cited in the media as a co-founder".
... With all of the references combined into one so the reflist reads the same length and the article is less messy
*The references inside the "Citizendium launched" quotes do not make sense. A quote has one reference at the end not three, with one of these in the middle. If you need multiple references then it's clearly a constructed quote from multiple sources which is misleading.
;Balance/POV/broadness
*The article appears unbalanced - only 1 paragraph (140ish words) on his first 30ish years  but over 700 on the 2 years he was at wikipedia. I think the latter section could do with some editing down and it would be good if something could be found on the citation/usage of his theses and more on his life prior to Nupedia.
*Two weeks after the launch of Citizendium, Sanger heavily criticized Wikipedia...perhaps let the readers determine if the criticism is heavy. This is not the only place that loaded qualifiers are used - need to be watched for as they are biased and unnecessary.
;Non essential stuff
*would be good to add the persondata information (see Wikipedia:Persondata)
- Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated and expanded the article. Please review for a good article. Quack Guru 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failing as a good article 

message: It is disputed to say the l;east that Sanger is co-founder and we have to abide by our neutrality policy and to state this as fact is simply violating that policy. We can discuss the issue in the article inclus=ding Sanger's claim to be the co-founder but we are not empowered to make him the co-founder. Jimbo Wales is known as the founder in common usage and this contradicts that. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't disputed. It is disputed by Jimbo, and that's it. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an argument, it is a claim of yours, you and the hard core group of DSanger supporters do not own the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Squeakbox, I think this is where you lose credibility: "hard core group of DSanger supporters" . I don't know Sanger. I don't want to know Sanger. I really don't care about Sanger. What I care about is the "bastardization" of this article from its earlier versions. Maybe we should call him just "founder" since that is what editors want to refer to Wales as, and the same argue that that doing so does not imply that he is the sole founder. There are ample reliable sources that call Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia. I could call people who want to remove "founder" from Sanger's article a "hard core group of JWales supporters" but I will not do that. Anyways,--Tom 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We cannot call Sanger the founder as he is not known as the founder of wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then just call him co-founder, as he has been called that by many reliable sources and we can be done. --Tom 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fact. No one ever showed anyone else of note disputing it. The burden of proof is on your side to show there's a general dispute. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Its not a fact and its not common usage either. In terms of wikipedia I certainly dispute this and outside of wikipedia no need for a dispute, Wales is known as the founder, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, and Sanger isn't. I left the piece about him being chief organiser so I am certainly not POV pushing against Sanger. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You disputing it is meaningless. If you want to put Sanger's co-foundership in question, you need to find sources explicitly contradicting it - but there are none, the only one who does so (and even that only since 2004) is Jimbo himself, who is obviously not an unbiased source in the matter. There are plenty of sources confirming it, so your edit calling it "alleged" is absurd. "Alleged" by Wikipedia's own press releases? "Alleged" by the New York Times and countless other media? Amazing how for you Jimbo's mere say-so becomes the default truth, negating all reliable sources. I guess it's the same mechanism by which the mere fact that The Register reports critically about Wikipedia makes it ipso facto an unreliable source. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't allege that the edits and opinions of your fellow editors are meaningless as such statements will be interpreted by many as trolling. You'll have to do better than that with an experienced wikipedian like me. Your claim that only Jimbo disputes this is unsourced and IMO unsourced rubbish, Jimbo is not known as the co-founder but as the founder by the vast majority of people, and while The Register clearly can be a reliable source you bet that it isnt so re wikipedia due to the barrel scraping tabloid nature of their recent articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said is that your opinion is meaningless in the wider world and does not make something objectively "disputed". If you want to claim something is disputed, provide evidence of such dispute, i.e. explicit claims that Jimbo is sole founder coming from any notable source other than Jimbo himself. Ball's in your court. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not disputed. Jimbo doesn't admit that Sanger is the co-founder, but multiple reliable sources do, and last I checked, that's all that matters. Jimbo's status as god-king doesn't overrule WP:RS, at least at the moment. Mr Which??? 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't make something exist merely because you want it to, please desist from what looks like an attempt at POVing this article in favour of an opinion. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stop. The only one "POVing" anything here is you. Multiple reliable sources call Sanger "co-founder." I personally don't give a damn what's actually true. All I know is that multiple reliable sources call Sanger "co-founder." You can pound on us all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that multiple reliable sources call Sanger "co-founder." The sooner you deal with that fact, the better off the article, and this talkpage, will be. Mr Which??? 03:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Co

message: Folks - this is way out of hand and the ad hominem arguments will never help to improve the article or assist Wikipedia in any way. It is very clear that:
* Sanger calls himself the co-founder (and goes to great lengths to back this up) - as this is well documented it's relevant to put in the article.
* The media, as noted in the article, generally calls him the co-founder so it is correct from a Wikipedia point of view to refer to him as such (once please - repeatedly will make the article look odd).
* Jimbo disputes this, claims himself as the founder and is ill-at-ease with the subject. This well documented and so it is also relevant to put in the article.
* Lots of people feel strongly either way and perhaps should read the essay on their approach.
Editors need to make sure that articles do not become a vehicle for opinions rather than encyclopedic records.
- Peripitus (Talk) 03:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the media calls Jimbo the founder, a few POV warriors here will not change that or the fact that we need to follow NPOV and common usage. I fully agree that this article must not become a vehicle for opinionated people. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Mr Quack has merely proven my point with his latest edit summary "blockworthy disruption per WP:BLOCK policy" which is as trolling an edit summary as I have ever had the displeasure to see. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw this at WP:ANI.  I recall someone mentioning once that in former Wikimedia documents and press releases, Larry Sanger was referred to as the "co-founder" of Wikipedia.  QuackGuru, are you familiar with this?  --Iamunknown 00:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to rely on reliable secondary sources, which clearly support the "Jimbo as founder" reality, we are simply not empowered to claim that Larry was the co-founder when he wasn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if primary sources, such as from the Foundation, mention that he is co-founder?  I don't know of any such sources, but I recall that people have mentioned them before.  --Iamunknown 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm down

message: SqueakBox, can you explain your logic here? If this was another topic I would think you would agree that the sources are reliable and there are more than enough to close this debate.  Yet, it is still going on months after it started. From my outside perspective you do not seem to be treating this objectively.  What am I missing? David D. (Talk) 21:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources do not make him the co-founder. What they do is illustrate that there is a dispute and these sources should be used in the bulk of the article while discussing the dispute, not to make out he was actually a co-founder when he clearly wasn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But its not clear he wasn't. Why are you so sure of this? David D. (Talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Two points, one is that he was paid employee of Jimmo Wales organisation whereas Wales was not a paid employee of anyu organisation or person, and the second is that wikipedia is widely known and it is widely accepted that Jimmy Wales, who is as well known as wikiepdia, was the founder. There is some controversy as to whether Sanger, who hardly anybody has heard of, was actually a co-founder, as he claims, or not, which can be included in a neutral way in the bulk of the article but to state as an undisputed fact in the opening that he is co-founder is being dishonest to our readers, violates our neutrality policy and also has BLP issues as alluded to above. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please source the controversy, using outside reliable sources. What evidence of this being disputed do we have? Lawrence Cohen 23:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that if we cannot find reliable sources then perhaps it indicates the dispute is not noteworthy of innclusion, and indeed this would be more reason and not less to not include co- in the opening, or indeed anywhere in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps, shaving this "controversy" with Occam's razor, it would show that it's only Jimbo that disputes this. We have plenty of sources that meet WP:V (a policy, not a guideline), showing that Sanger is co-founder. You have no sources (other than Jimbo) that say he's not. Mr Which??? 23:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see comments from Jimbo to some newspapers, that he disputes this, and noted that Jimbo edited Sanger's article to change the statements that he was co-founder. What verifiable outside sources do we have that state (beyond repeating the primary source of Jimbo's statements) that Sanger wasn't co-founder? Lawrence Cohen 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Verifiability cannot trump NPOV and nor does this assertion meet WP:Notability guideline, the refs certainly do not demonstrate that this is common usage (which it most certainly isn't) and calling this fact violates our neutrality policy right down the line, injecting a minority or fringe viewpoint as fact merely because some refs agree with the assertion, and of course many possible refs do not. We simply cannot use refs to push our own OPOVs around this issue, that is to misunderstand how the project works, we must be neutral and presenting as fact that Sanger is the co-founder merely because a few people (such as himself) think he is. Certainly verifiability means we can mention this as his belief in the bulk of the article, something very different to what is there currently. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the link I put in above, to the Google searches? Are you actually suggested that Sanger being co-founder is the fringe view? Based on the sourcing, the minority fringe view is the exact opposite. And you're actually suggesting that a demonstration of dozens, if not over a hundred, sources that call Sanger co-founder fails to meet notability for that statement? Where is the NPOV violation to say Sanger is co-founder based on sourcing? We have a few sources, all attributable to one single primary source (Jimbo Wales) who says Sanger was not co-founder. We have fifteen to twenty times as many sources that say Sanger was co-founder, attributed all over the place, including back to Wikipedia documents and statements. NPOV failure would be to not say Sanger was co-founder based on this information. Lawrence Cohen 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think fringe is probably the wrong word because of its connotations but I am certainly saying that the common view is that Wales is the founder, we discuss the issue excellently further down. A parallel of the present situation is that if I could find a ref that Hitler was mad then I demanded that we include this in the opening of his article merely because there are refs existing that say that he was mad. But I am not trying to suppress the controversy either, merely saying that NPOV demands we do not treat this statement as an uncontropversial fact in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not make the article non-neutral to point out the verifiable fact that Sanger is the co-founder (which does not invalidate the fact that Wales is often referred to as the "founder") in the lead. It's a huge part of who he is. To not lead with it lends undue weight to a unverifiable claim by Jimbo that Sanger was not the co-founder. No one claims that but him. Oh, and you. Mr Which??? 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the onus is always on the person who adds and never on the person who removes imformation, as I am sure you know anyway, so please, I am not going to take on board that in this case it should be the other way round. Other than to push a POV you haven't given any good reasons. We don't state what the opponents of Tony Blair and George W.Bush's numerous opponents believe (as reported in reliabkle sources) as fact in the openings of bios of these people, nor what their supporters (as reported in reliabkle sources) believe because NPOV is paramount, and it needs to be so in the opening of both Sanger and Wales as well. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. And we've provided multiple, reliable, verifiable sources to support our view. You've provided nothing to argue against inclusion except "Jimmy says so", which isn't an argument at all. Citing articles that call Wales the founder argues for calling him the founder in his article, not against calling Sanger the co-founder. You're barking up the wrong tree here. You've lost this argument before it began, and the sooner you realize that, the better off we'll all be. As for me, since you have nothing more to add to the discussion than repeating the irrelevant (to this discussion) NPOV policy over and over, I'm finished with this discussion. I'll make certain that the information included in this article stays verifiable, but until you take a more reasonable position on the issue, I'm finished discussing it with you. Good bye, Mr Which??? 02:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And I do not object to your views being included in the article, merely as an NPOV assertion masquerading as fact in the opening, and your claim that I lost the argument before it started is simply you opining. And your claim that NPOV is irrelevant to any wikipedia article (as if we can somehow ignore it just for this article) is contradicted by the central place of NPOV in all mainspace articles. Its our only defence against people inserting their own viewpoints into articles as fact, as is happening here. And if this is your argument for refusing to discuss any further I take it you don'ty disagree with the removal of this POV assertion in the opening, as other than that some reliable sources say so you have given no reasons for why we should state this co-founder POV as fact. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOLOL ... I may stick around here for awhile, just for the humor factor. In all seriousness though, is there some reason you keep insisting that referring to Sanger as the "co-founder" is my "POV"? I've stated repeatedly that I don't give a damn about Sanger. I have no "POV" on Sanger. He's just some guy who helped found WP--at least according to reliable sources, as is required through WP policy at WP:V. You, on the other hand, have somehow concluded that including this important aspect about him in the lead somehow violates a WP policy (NPOV) that it does not violate. The most ironic thing about it is that, if it's not included in the lead, that would most likely violate NPOV, as it would give way too much weight to Wales' protestations. But, as I find the semantical dance you're doing quite humorous, by all means, carry on. Mr Which??? 05:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to protect these articles from his edits, but someone should probably take this to ANI, before it gets out of hand. Mr Which??? 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for 'Larry Sanger' (without quotes) under News gives plenty of reliable sources for Mr Sanger as a CO-founder of WP. Of the first 10, 8 refer to Mr Sanger, the other 2 have the words 'Sanger' and 'Larry' in them, but don't refer to Mr Sanger (remember, search was without quotes). Out of those 8, 5 refer directly to him as 'CO-founder' of WP, 1 refers to him as 'creator' of WP, 1 refers to him as "former de facto editor in chief", and the last states that he "helped start Wikipedia". Repeating the search but with quotes gives us similar results. Looks to me like there is widespread recognition of Mr Sanger as a CO-Founder of WP. Malbolge (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Co-founder is referenced. Please review the reference section. Both Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders as early as September 2001 anyhow. Quack Guru 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In accordance with what Wikipedia policy or reference was this edit attributed to? Your edit did not match your edit summary. Please discuss. Quack Guru 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How does this edit improve the article? Quack Guru 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit is in Spanish, Quack, and if you wish to dipute it please go to the Spanish wikipedia talk page, we cannot discuss my edits to es wikipedia here. Malboge is, IMO, correct. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can still discuss your allegations here. Do you agree with your edit or after reviewing the references agree with the current version. Quack Guru 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, of course we discuss the en version here. I would prefer no mention of the word co-founder in the opening though it certainly could be mentioned as a disputed fact in the bulk of the text. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you prefer no mention of it in the lead. It meets the lead criteria, and passes the notability test. Did you review the references? Quack Guru 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No I don't like the refs. Well the first ref is great for the body of the text where we should say that Sanger disputes not being co-founder, the second ref is fine for proving he was involved in the starting up of wikipedia but could equally be used with very different wording and I don't think the third ref is relevant to this particular issue, its about Citizendium. Indeed it looks to me like he got interviewed in San Diego and told them he was a co-founder and they believed him, and I don't dispute that he thinks he was a co-founder and indeed propagates this information. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of references which clearly identify both as the co-founders. There are also historical references such as The New York Times 2001 reference. Quack Guru 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity - co founder or not

message: WP:EL says "External links should typically not be in the body of an article. Include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox.".  This article has a link to the Citizendium FAQ, in the body of the article, formatted to look just like an internal link.  It should be moved to the External Links section of the article, or perhaps the References section so that the reader can find it via footnote, or at the very least it should be formatted to look like an external link, in my opinion.  People clicking on plain blue links in Wikipedia articles expect to find themselves on other Wikipedia pages (at least, I do), not on some other website. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look into it soon. Quack Guru 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you fixed it.  Thanks!! --Coppertwig (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden external link 

message: A Wikipedian tampered with the reference templates. It was vandalism to the references. Check it out!. Quack Guru 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:VANDAL|Vandalism]] 

message: Reared is a better use of English than the word "Raised." See here: --Trulexicon (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reared sometimes refers to an animal. He is not an animal. He is a human being. This may be a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Quack on this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite aware he is a human being; there are some sources which use the term "reared" refering to an animal, although I've seen many sources shuch as the book provided above which use the term rear for a human as well. There are cases in which the term rear is inapproprate, such as the term being used outside one's formative years; for example Larry being born in Alaska but being reared in Seattle (and was 17 at the time he moved). In that case yes that would be an inapporprate use of the term reared.--Trulexicon (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "reared" is a BPL problem. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, My intent is not call Sanger an "animal," its just I feel word "reared" is better English than the word "raised;" overall I think most people would understand reared is better wording than raised.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If your intent is not to call Sanger names (reared refers to an animal) then I hope you will stop adding the word reared. Please! QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reared vs Raised 

message: The reverts are going back and forth faster than a toddler on a see-saw. Please use the talk page to discuss. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=193187727 The fact tags were added to the 7th reference. The reference is there. The reference is the citation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/13/media.newmedia Here is the 7th reference to support the text. The ref is currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The facts tags are inappropriate. The text is a direct quote from the reference. Please read the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss 

message: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
#Is it reasonably well written?
#:A. Prose quality:  
#:: 
#:B. MoS compliance: 
#:: 
#Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
#:A. References to sources:  
#:: 
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
#:: 
#:C. No original research: 
#:: 
#Is it broad in its coverage?
#:A. Major aspects:  
#:: 
#:B. Focused: 
#:: 
#Is it neutral?
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#Is it stable?
#: No edit wars, etc: 
#:: 
#Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
#:: 
#:B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass or Fail: 
#:: 
Placing on hold. Will (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Passed. Will (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! —QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Origins_of_Wikipedia
Wales, who is the current de facto leader of Wikipedia, has publicly disputed since 2004 that Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia.
 Wales described Sanger as having been merely a subordinate employee, and stated of the co-founder issue, "I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable."
The body of the text explains the story. It smacks point to add extra material to the lead. This article is about Larry Sanger and not Wales' view. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like he asserts he is co-founder, I agree we should try to avoid mention of Wales in the opening but am unhappy with simply leaving the co-founder as if it were undisputed fact, eg we could say "and he says he was co-founder of its successor" (my addition in italics). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Co-founder is well sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It is undisputed fact. Show me anyone other than Wales himself disputing it. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One half of all people in a position to know clearly dispute it.  How you go from that to "undisputed fact", I don't follow. The whole thing is idiotic exactly because the phrase "founder" is ambiguous. They don't seem to actually disagree on any of the specifics of who did what. They just disagree, and legitimately so, on how to describe those specifics, because the phrase "founder" can mean a range of things. The solution is quite obviously to state neutrally the agreed facts, and omit the ambiguous descriptor (i.e. "founder"). However, I do think it is good for Jimmy's soul to see  warriors winning the day through sheer mulish tenacity on this article, as happens on so very many other articles. Gresham's law of editors. I also find wikitruth somewhat amusing, and so won't quarrel with their likely emissary (first edit).  08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still undisputed fact.  Even so, there's plenty of explanation within the article itself, and it doesn't look very good to pollute the head with that kind of POV-ridden, sourceless statement.  Celarnor (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord, Bramletsock.  It's plainly disputed. How then is it undisputed?  English, do you speak it? If it weren't disputed, there would be no quarrel. Also, if people were interested in neutrality, there would be no quarrel, because it's easy enough to stick to the facts without references to the disputed word.  People are interested in pushing a point of view -- that's the only fact in evidence here. Let them; I don't care; I just can't stand the hypocrisy without pointing it out. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord, Jim Wales sock.  I don't see the problem here.  The controversy is right there in the article, I just don't see what the point would be of pointing it out in every other paragraph. Celarnor (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: According to the references: But if you look back at an old email Sanger sent to those working on Nupedia, Wikipedia's predecessor, you can see that if anyone is the sole founder of Wikipedia, it's Larry Sanger. According to an email leaked to The Associated Press, the chairman of the Wikimedia Board describes Jimbo Wales as someone who is "constantly trying to rewrite the past." All the best,  QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There are many sources confirming to WP:NPOV + WP:RS + WP:V & WP:ATT policies. For example, take a quick look at this website.  At the website, there are plenty of references clearly stating co-founder. This should be easy to understand. For your information, Wikipedia is not the venue for DISRUPTION per WP:WEIGHT + WP:BATTLE + WP:NOT#ADVOCATE & WP:GAME policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's WP:CON. End of discussion! QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually want to end a discussion, it is extremely unwise to crow "end of discussion" after repeating the same tired old lines for the billionth time. A better way to end the discussion would be to actually respond to the point.  The point was that "founder" is ambiguous and that is the entire nexus of the dispute.  If you care to carefully define exactly what "founder" means at the first use, that would be a reasonable solution. If you prefer to avoid the word as ambigous, that would be reasonable.  Beating your chest and shouting "I win", while linking a litany of policy completely tangential to the point is not "end of discussion".  Though, I'll end my part in it now.  As I said, seeing up close and personal the shitpot of cranks and warriors that Wikipedia is, is good for Jimmy's soul. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "founder" is vague. We can't use that word. The sources say co-founder. The key is understanding that co-founder is highly referenced supported by primary sources on Wikipedia from the early years, it is also supported by historical references, and Wales never disputed the early press articles describing him as a co-founder when Sanger was still part of the project. The dispute is between Wales and the historcial facts. We can't rewrite history. Revisionism smacks point. End of story. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't have a point in regards to this particular article, but I would like to make the case for ignoring whatever ramblings are made from IP address 130.56.65.24. This person has been vandalizing my page and undoing my changes for days now, for no reason whatsoever than to cause a fight. You can not assume goodwill on the part of this person. Just my 2c.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helixweb (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Wikipedia 

message: All you who believe that Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia, please read this letter. It clearly shows that not only did Wales not originate the idea of using a Wiki for an encyclopedia, he actually thought it wasn't a good idea initially. But he can take credit for one thing he did found; the Cabal, its origins lie in this e-document. That is the simple truth, not trolling. Perhaps it constitutes original research, but it is not in article space.--70.185.113.212 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cabal of which Jimbo speaks in 2001 is what we now call administrators. QuackGuru (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TINC Mr. Guru.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No, that was a much later and different discussion, in which Jimmy made his infamous no big deal comment.--70.185.113.212 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to claim that Wales didn't found wikipedia when we have multiple sources that consider him the founder is a bit of a non-starter. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. SqueakBox, maybe you should take a closer look at the historical references such as The New York Times piece. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Primary as well as historical secondary sources say or describe Larry Sanger as a co-founder. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy founded What?

message: I made additional edits to article which called Larry Sanger the Assistant Founder of wikipedia, however I decided to revert myself because I want hear what Jimbo has to say about my compromise before I edit on this article; I think Assistant Founder is a better word to use than Co-Founder, Founder...it is also more respectful to Sanger's key role in helping to "found" wikipedia (without de-basing Jimbo's more important role)
By the way Quack, to say that Sanger was reared isn't an attempt to mock him or make fun of him, it's just I feel the word "reared is better english than raised.--Trulexicon (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The verifiable sources say co-founder. The term "assistant founder" is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wow i learned a lot here Uconnstud (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Wars 

message: The Citizendium community is polite and friendly.
It's a little unencyclopedic ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions for a rewrite? QuackGuru 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed this from the article... 

message: The current first sentence
: Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger (born July 16, 1968) is an American philosopher; professor; and the creator of Citizendium, an expert-guided encyclopedia.
is quite misleading, and recently, reporters and others have asked me if I am a professor.  I am not.  In fact, "professor" usually means people who currently have the title "professor."  While I have taught college both before and after getting my Ph.D., I have never held any "professor" title; I have always been "instructor" and that sort of thing.  I have not taught college since 2005, anyway.
Also, the main reason that there is an article in Wikipedia about me is that I co-founded Wikipedia.  So, this should be stated first--not that I am philosopher.  While I do consider myself a philosopher and I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and while I am flattered that this is mentioned first, I am sorry to say that I am not really known as a philosopher.  Along those lines, I am far better known as a thinker and speaker about the Internet.  You can confirm this for yourself by looking at larrysanger.org.
As to the Citizendium, I would not describe it first and foremost as "an expert-guided encyclopedia" but as an open encyclopedia project that requires real names and makes a role for experts.  There are many other expert-guided encyclopedias, but CZ is actually open and collaborative in a way that most other expert-guided online encyclopedias are not.  However you describe it briefly, I dislike reducing CZ's identity to the short phrase "expert-guided," simply because that description is, used by itself, actually misleading--it suggests that we're top-down and not open to the general public, which is factually wrong. --Larry Sanger (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the first sentence 

message: If he himself has outlined why he does not meet the criteria to be accurately labeled a philosopher and or a professor why are my attempts to edit those labels out undone and then blocked?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.167.157 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once a philosopher always a philosopher! Professor is no longer in the lead. The first sentence has been improved. QuackGuru 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopher? Professor? 

message: I have protected this page because of the high risk of vandalism. If you think it should be open discuss it in the talk page.--Ahmediq152 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. The page was actually not proected. The template you added simple notifies readers that the page is proected but does not protect the page itself. Had it actually been protected I could not have removed it. If you want protection please go to WP:RFP. --76.69.167.70 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:protection policy|protection]]

message: Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page.
Could you take part in discussion ? 
Thanks 
ARP
Apovolot (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles 

message: Sanger clearly claims to be co-founder but there is no evidence that he is considered to be so in Nov 2008. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit and this edit is not NPOV. QuackGuru 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-founder