Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 1

message: We need to formulate a policy on "Articles about contributors". It's a special topic. I can't think of a single case where complex or thorny problems haven't arisen. Easter Bradford got really upset with the article about him, after initially being jovial and buoyant about contributing here. Sheldon Rampton's article was the subject of a long mailing list discussion.
Whatever we decide, let's not use the Founder as the first case! Let's start with someone who is (a) not well known, (b) not controversial and (c) not a project leader. --Uncle Ed 15:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a policy.  Wikipedia:Auto-biography.  As long as you don't create the article about yourself, it's perfectly fine, and should be judged by the same criteria as any other article.  OTOH, I believe Jimbo is a special case, and if he doesn't want an article about him, I think we should oblige.  Anthony DiPierro 15:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Well Jimbo's article is the one that blew up yesterday evening/today, so it has to be sorted. I agree with Anthony that the current "don't create an article about yourself" will do for starters. However I also we shouldn't be embarassed to make a special case for Jimbo and not have an article if we best serve Wikipedia by doing so. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Jimbo's argument is that having an article for him does not best serve Wikipedia.  His argument is unique to him. Further, I think the fact that the subject himself has requested not to be in Wikipedia is a factor.  It shouldn't be the only factor, but in this case I think it pushes the matter over the edge.  Anthony DiPierro 15:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Sheldon Rampton  3. Osama bin Laden 2. JJ from Good Times-SV(talk) 16:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: No, if Richard Stallman starts contributing, we won't have to delete his page. If there's already a good bio in place, they shouldn't have to choose between being a contributor or the object of a bio. But we still need a policy (Steve was joking above, I assume). --Uncle Ed 16:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Like I said before, we already have a policy.  These pages are allowed, though it is discouraged for them to be significantly contributed to by the subject or a close associate of the subject.  It just doesn't seem to be the policy you like. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: One size fits all

message: Following Jimbo's input at Talk:Jimmy Wales there seems to be little appetite for a main namespace article on Jimbo, see e.g. Eloquence's comment there. Obviously Jimbo Wales and Jimmy Wales need to have the same solution so I am redirecting this page too. Should the old content be stored somewhere? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should be redirected to Wikipedia, not to Jimbo's user page. Anthony DiPierro 15:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a reasonable idea. But it seems mad to have Jimmy Wales redirecting to his user page and Jimbo Wales redirecting to Wikipedia. They should both point to the same thing. The advantage is that we don't have cross-namespace redirects, which is nice, but we may break links (in particular links beyond our control to change. What's the most important priority here? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The more important thing is to not have cross-namespace redirects.  At least not for encyclopedic topics such as this one. Anthony DiPierro 15:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  from T:Jimbo_Wales 

message: Note this page is for talking about the article Jimbo Wales. To write a general message to Jimbo, visit the talk page for his user page at User_talk:Jimbo Wales
----
There appears to have been a bit of squabbling about whether there should be an article at this location, or merely a cross-namespace redirect to Jimbo's user page. I think there is a strong case for an article.  Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, seems like there was a big discussion over at Talk:Jimmy Wales, where the important information was that Jimbo doesn't want an article about himself. This changes the complexion a bit, to my mind. See that page for continuing talk. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)
----
Since Jimmy Wales is protected, and this article and that one are on the exactly same subject, you are essentially violating protection and proper order of process when creating this duplicate article. Please stop editing until the issue is settled! — Sverdrup 13:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree. — Sverdrup 13:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, Jimbo Wales has 100+ links, Jimmy Wales has almost none. Martin 23:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk from Talk:Jimbo_Wales, now redirected here 

message: Please limit the kinds of trivia you include in this article, as with any biography.  Family details seem like they might be out of place.  I can't find the australian interview; is that where the stat on 'USD spent on wiki/nupedia' came from?  In any case, I removed the broken external link and the stat.  +sj+ 08:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopedic trivia 

message: Some factual material that may be helpful:
* this is my published academic work in options pricing
* Many press sources about me can be found on my homepage, but probably even more can be found on the WIkipedia news page.
* Bomis still owns the Ferrari, because the contest winner chose to accept cash instead.  (This is confirmable by a photograph if anyone needs proof...)
Some opinions and unverifiable biographical facts:
* While it is sort of ok to call me a "firearms enthusiast" it is more accurate to say that I take a strong interest in firearms policy and legal issues, especially constitutional issues.  I own guns, but I hardly ever go shooting, and I have never in my life gone hunting.  It's really more of an intellectual hobby than a practical hobby.
*It would make the most sense I think to add "while in graduate school in the early 1990s" to the bit about my moderating the philosophy mailing list -- it puts that bit into perspective in the story of my life.
*The Herald Sun article is talking about Australian dollars.  A later article in Time estimated the number at $500,000 US dollars total.  Both numbers came direcctly from me, so it's interesting to me to think about the process by which something I said to a journalist becomes a fact after they print it.  :-)
*The bit about 'erotic images' is true, but it makes me laugh.  I think of my time at Bomis as being marked by our early entry into the internet market, our early use of and promotion of the dmoz open source data, etc.  But, you know, whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A few verifiable facts and some opinions

message: Would-be Arabic squirrel, I and others have already explained this: pages in the article namespace should not link directly to pages in other namespaces. If such links are necessary, they should be treated like links to an external website. Reread Wikipedia:Avoid self-references if you haven't picked this up yet. —No-One Jones m 05:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly an internal link and not an external one. If you are very concerned about self-reference, the link can be omitted. Please don't sully the article with factual inaccuracies such as designating internal links as external. · 05:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Wales' Wikipedia user page and Wales' Wikipedia user page take the reader to the same page—and policy on the matter is clear, so why are you making such a big issue of this? —No-One Jones m 05:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: You (·) don't seem understand..Using the external link syntax wasn't a factual inaccuracy. However, if internal links are used, it will be _transformed_ into a factual inaccuracy as soon as someone mirrors the Jimmy Wales article on another site. They may not include the User namespace, or their version of the user page may get edited without Jimmy knowing it or it may simply become outdated. — David Remahl 05:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Haha :-). Anyway, remember that the purpose of the project is to build an encyclopaedia and that the web site (and associated talk, user and wikipedia namespace pages) are just vehicles. Another problem with using the internal link syntax is that, when printed, there will be no sign of where the user page (or wikimeet page) is located (or even it is a link, since links are not underlined when printed). The URL of an external link is displayed in print. — David Remahl 05:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: User pages are external to the encyclopedia itself.  Wikipedia the project (including user pages, talk pages, policy pages, etc.) is distinct from Wikipedia the encyclopedia (which is just the article namespace).  I don't think it is "wallowing in folly" to make that distinction.  Jimbo Wales 12:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkage

message: Wales owned a yellow Ferrari 308, which was photographed with adult model and actress Aria Giovanni as part of a promotion.
Anyone care to cite this?  According to Jimbo, the Ferrari is owned by Bomis. anthony (see warning) 11:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For marketing purposes, the car was referred to as mine.  It's like "Win Bill Gates Ferrari!"  But as a legal matter it was and is purchased and owned by Bomis.  It now sits idle with flat tires in a friend's garage because I haven't bothered to maintain it, and it's too much trouble right now to sell it.  Jimbo Wales 12:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I think we should work out what percentage of the car Jimbo owned, then truncate the sentence at that point, it would fit in well with our methods of resolving issues like Gdansk.  :) Pakaran. 17:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Shouldn't the full in the introduction be given as James Donald Wales instead of Jimmy? Ausir 20:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My full name is 'Jimmy Donal Wales', not 'James Donald Wales' Jimbo Wales 20:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, we don't have a timezone listed, so the date is ambiguous to within one day anyway. :) anthony 警告 17:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Stuff

message: I moved this paragraph from the main article, since I don't believe it is encyclopaedic and it is very self-referential. It is © User:Marco Krohn. — David Remahl 12:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section by Marco Krohn

message: What does this issue do here? (I have a user name in he.wiki contact me through avi.aharon@gmail.com)
:In my opinion, the whole bit about the Objectivism mailing list should be removed as pointless trivia.  This is not a request or a policy statement, just the opinion of a knowledgeable editor.  I ran a mailing list in college, so what?  The extremely outdated list of mailing lists?  What's the point of that?  In my opinion, both these things could be safely omitted.--Jimbo Wales 18:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely outdated list of Objectivism mailing lists 

message: Hello, I have added the factual information that Bomis' (main/only?) revenue is from the sale of pornography. This has been twice removed, without an explanation. Thanks, Fernsworth
:It is absolutely untrue.  Bomis receives the overwhelming percentage of its revenue from advertising sales in deal with Google and Infospace.  The mature audience (NOT pornography) portion of the business is significantly less than 10% of total revenues.  I am no longer the CEO of bomis, and have done virtually no work on Bomis for the past two years.
--Jimbo Wales 18:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bomis

message: Yikes, I have generally avoided reading articles about me and related matters, but today I did, and I found a number of major factual problems.
I was *this close* to editing this article myself, but decided that my longstanding ban on editing myself is a good thing overall.  So I offer my editorial suggestions here in the spirit of sharing information.
1. My academic career included publication of an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal.  You can look it up at the link I provided above, some months ago.  This is significantly more important and relevant than that I was the moderator of a mailing list, which strikes me as rather absurd trivia.
The Pricing of Index Options When the Underlying Assets All Follow a Lognormal Diffusion
ADVANCES IN FUTURES AND OPTIONS RESEARCH, Volume 7, 1994
Robert Brooks , Jon Corson and J. Donal Wales
University of Alabama - Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies , University of Alabama - Department of Mathematics and Affiliation Unknown - General 
2.  The article should reflect that I am no longer the CEO or President of Bomis.
3.  The question of how to describe the business of Bomis is of course an interesting one.  I do not like to see it described as "pornography" because unless you have a very very uptight view of the world, it is not pornography.  I'd say that 'adult content' is fine or 'content for mature audiences' or something of that nature.  I leave it to the judgment of the editors, but if Bomis is pornography, so is a significant proportion of the output of Hollywood.
:I would describe it as softcore porn. But different people have different definitions for stuff like that. Maybe it'd be better to call it 'erotica' - do you find that has a different (weaker) meaning? - Mark 06:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Staying out of it myself, Sanger actively and frequently calls himself co-founder. This is notable. --Alterego 21:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just discovered this bomis thing, clicked on the link to see by myself, recognized instantly 3 famous porn stars. Bomis is indeed porn. The soft kind (softcore) but porn anyways. 'adult content' or 'content for mature audience' is just another 'politically correct' biased way to say porn. A significant proportion of the output of hollywood could easily fall under the porn category, this seems correct as a significant of this output contains indeed 'adult content' or 'content for mature audience' such as sexy babes with big boobs, sex, etc. The question is why trying to deny that, and what is shameful about porn ? porn is the origin for many innovating breakthroughs and not only in the evolution of ways of thinking and perceiving, but in other too such as Internet, DVD video, DV movies, multiangle DVD...
* There's a difference between 'Bomis has porn' and 'Bomis is porn'. For an approximate comparison, we could say "Slashdot is [about] Linux." -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  wow! that's quite a sloppy approximation. Seems there some kind of a mix-up here between has / is / is about. A less approximate would be "Slashdot has Linux information" / "Slashdot is Linux information" or "Slashdot is Linux informative". The point here is that a website about porn doesn't mean that website has porn content. Bomis has porn content and as a matter of fact is porn. Unless I'm mistaken, when a publication contains porn, it is categorized as porn. - Izwalito
*I dislike the use of 'adult' (or 'mature') to describe material that's of primary interest to sniggering or masturbating adolescents (of whatever age).  I remember the shock I got when I saw a book of mine (popular philosophy) listed as 'adult reading' on one bookshop's page. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was *this close* to editing myself 

message: Is this the most vandalized Wikipedia article? ---Isaac R 00:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have seen, articles whose topics people already care about are vandalised more than articles important to Wikipedia. 119 02:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious... 

message: *I just wanna congragulate Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia for there was an article written on them in the June 6 issue of TIME magazine. --Megabyte73 01:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: The anon's text is PoV in hat presents as fact the claims made by Sanger.  One could simply word it more neutrally, but I think that some corroborating evidence should be provided, rather than just his own memoir. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text concerning origins 

message: ...should there not be a note saying this?
*"Not to be confused with the British film director James Whale"
The seem similar enough that some readers may be confused.--67.142.129.10 11:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  to avoid confusion... 

message: Is it true that Jimmy Wales is a substantial party donor?
:No, it is not true.  I can't recall ever making any political donations.  --Jimbo Wales 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party Donations 

message: This article really walks the line between neutrality and hero-worship that nonsense about "god king" etc really doesn't provide any usefull information. The continuation on that theme noting that the "god king" drives a hyundai is also completely pointless. He's a corporate officer, not a messiah.
:Anyhow I don't recall anyone ever calling me the "God King" of Wikipedia, except for Raul being quoted to that effect in Wired.--Jimbo Wales 05:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: As a member of the board of trustees, I ask that you remove all false, misleading, and libellous information contained on WikiPedia about me.  I remind you that continuing to hold such information is libel and is illegal.  I refer specifically to this webpage here:  and additionally to talk pages and user pages for this IP address.  All should be blanked in other to preserve the integrity of this service.  Failure to do so would constitute a smear campaign by WikiPedia, and, whilst it was initiated by persons such as longhair it is WikiPedia, and hence you, who will be sued as a result of any damages that this causes.  I strongly recommend for you to delete these lies and falsehoods.  203.26.206.130 02:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've carefully removed all references, in every Wikipedia article, to 203.26.206.130; I hope that this satisfies you, and that you won't make us all penniless and homeless. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Who knows?  There are times that I feel less like an editor and more like a psychiatric nurse. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: User:214.13.4.151 has been accessing a few articles, notably the Abortion and Karl Rove articles, participating in/sparking  controversial edit wars with POV 'lines of fire', has an RfC and had been on 24hr block for 3RR. 
All this can be handled within process easily - but there's one other thing. A user tracked back the IP and found it is inside the Department of Defense's 'Network Information Center'. I imagine that any member of the DoD is welcome to participate here, but I was unsure and thought it best to mention here. Thanks for your attention. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha! :-). U.S. Army trolling Wikipedia. Priceless. — David Remahl 03:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this anything more than subtly unnerving?

message: Can I repeat my un-answered question? (New Media /Old Media -cleared out)  
  
It was reported on Euronews this Spring , just prior to the death of Pope John Paul II , that a special conference was being held in the Vatican over the issue of new Media (ie the internet and presumably  things like the Wikipedia . Film appeared from within the modern conference hall , there seemed to be about 150 people maximum in a hall capacity of about 600 . There were Cardinals , not many , in the front rows , noteable for their cummerbund colours around their waists . There were people in civvy clothes as well . This was their new modern confernce hall , showing their arrival into networked communication .   
Euronews said that the conference was called by the Roman Catholic Church to study the new phenomenon of internet information dissemination . That the church was aware of negative information on the internet which could cause harm to the church and faith. That the church should being aware of these new tools, also see it as a positive opportunity for the faith .   
-
Euronews quoted the conclusion reached at this conference-three days I think it lasted . It concluded that indeed there was an urgent need for Catholics of all places to enter into these new media channels to counterract all such malign influences , and for them to recognise and take active part themselves in this new media as catholics . This to the faithful , was by way of being an order for a concerted entry into cyberspace , and was presumably reported through catholic media organs at greater length than the 5 minute Euronews report . This was broadcast repeatedly several times daily for a week(they repeat info that way) . 
 
I ask you again, in the fear that you may not have understood what I referred to , as the chief of a large media organ , if you are aware of this catholic conference's concluding instruction to the faithful ? Famekeeper 10:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes:The vatican's Media Conference and  the Wikipedia 

message: In the link section of the articel, there is still Jimbos personal blog as a reference. The blog has not been updated since early April of this year. Does anyone know if it has been disbanded? In this case, I think the link could be removed. Cheers,--84.165.244.214 08:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still live, I'm just a terrible blogger.--Jimbo Wales 05:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbos Personal Blog 

message: I truly am amazed that an article about our founder could possibly be NPOV, but it is! Congrats my co-editors  Redwolf24 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats to the writers 

message: In the interests of full disclosure, might the article be tagged with a disclaimer like this?
This wouldn't apply just to Jimbo (and I don't mean to pick on him...), but to any Wikipedia editor or admin who also is the subject of a biographical article.
--EngineerScotty 22:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Solution looking for a problem, IMO. Pcb21| Pete 15:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A really, really stupid question 

message: I call Jimbo -- a label I think extends beyond the man and into the myth -- the god-king of Wikipedia; but then I'm a polytheist and I don't have an excessive regard for any gods. Before I became heavily involved in WP, I used to apply the term "local god" to the sole founder of an online community, who pretty much wields absolute power, at least in the early days. 
I have myself been the local god of more than one online community; at present, I am more of an absentee landlord. I think a time comes in the life of every online community -- wiki or otherwise -- when the child is grown to a man and the father must step aside. (I do not think that time has come here, unfortunately -- WP is in the throes of a troubled, delinquent adolescence.) 
I suggest that the term "god-king" now is extremely troubling to all; as a Community, we seek to mature; as founder, Mr. Wales would like to reduce his responsibilities. These goals are of course compatible. The difficulty is that no respected authority has grown up to take Jimbo's place. Thus, to the detriment of all, he remains the god-king. — Xiong熊talk* 05:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Long time no see Xiong; still taking things too seriously I see. Keep up the confusing work. - RoyBoy 800 05:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  God-king 

message: Someone made a change to the former saying that "Jimbo is not the one that thinks this". Well of course that's true. But to say "X thinks Y" doesn't mean that noone other than X thinks Y! We are talking about Jimbo's opinions here, not the opinions of others so the "Jimbo considers himself" formulation is a lot more informative than the woolly "some consider" formulation. Pcb21| Pete 13:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jimbo considers himself" makes it clear that one person has this opinion. "Some consider" makes it clear that more than one person has this opinion. Since more than one person has this opinion, why not make it clear? --Rebroad 12:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, as I said above, we are talking about Jimbo's opinions here. Specific facts are better than vague "some people" weaselisms... who are "some people" and why do we care about them? Pcb21| Pete 13:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should the opinions be limited to those of Jimbo? This is an article about Jimmy Wales, not "Jimmy Wales' opinions". It should remain acturately factual within the subject of Jimmy Wales, and that includes other's opinions of him. --Rebroad 13:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be limited to Jimbo. Name some important peoples' opinions and maybe we should include them. Replacing a specific opinion with a "some people" weaselism is a retrograde step in terms of article quality. Pcb21| Pete 13:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pete; the "some" needs to be more concrete. — Dan | Talk 17:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some consider Jimbo sole founder" vs. "Jimbo considers himself" 

message: Wasn't Wales once a pornograper himself? Wikipedia seems fairly free of erotic content which is commendable, though it is not too accurate when it comes to content. Some of the articles need to be researched and cleaned up. Some of them are also quite useless such as who might be principle of some high school somewhere such as the one I found last night. When it comes to factual information one might be best to pick up a book or check out their local library.-61.24.85.136 14:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted further up in the Talk page, pornography itself has numerous definitions. In the C-Span interview, he noted that the Bomis content would be considered "pornographic" along the same lines that magazines such a Maxim or Details are considered pornographic. As far as the principles of a given high school, they seem to be there mostly to educate, and I'm not sure what kind of high schools have a single person that embodies their principles... I suppose your point in gathering factual information from a collection of sources is true, as most libraries and reference books have errors in them. Some might even confuse a title for a person of authority over an educational establishment with a statement of meaning and/or purpose. :O) Ronabop 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about past websites

message: Wales' increasingly authoritarian dictates, contrary to the freewheeling nature of the original incarnation, ironically led to the crashing downfall of the most popular Objectivist mailing-list/listserv, "Atlantis", which now persists in part as "Atlantis II" on a separate server with no input or control from Jimbo.  This event caused quite a stir in the Objectivist online community.  Perhaps it deserves a mention?
(It's also noteworthy that similar criticism has been drawn for recent encroachment against Wikipedia's original purpose in the form of authoritarian-seeming dictates relying on collectivism as their basis, such as the No Original Research policy.)
::I don't think it caused a stir in the Objectivist community, but only in that list.  Later Jimbo gained a lot of sympathy from the same listmembers who were upset about his policies, precisely because of Wikipedia, and most recently even more so because of the Seigenthaler episode. Michael Hardy 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales and the Fall of Atlantis 

message: If we're going to present Jimmy Wales as the sole founder, or even that he considers himself a "sole founder", we should probably have links to media which state the same. Preferrably links that dictate that there are no other founders, parents, contributors, etc. Ronabop 08:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Media sources interview the first sources, i.e. Jimbo himself. So this gets us nowhere. Quoting NOR here is going against NOR's purpose - we're underqualified to insert our own opinions or experiments into articles. Jimbo's the first source, so NOR isn't going against him, and any media would just interview him... Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sole founder

message: Remind me again how a Wikipedia user page is an external link? And how is linking to another page a self-reference? I was going to change it until I saw the note requesting that we consider what's said here first. I don't see anything about it. Could someone clarify this for me? —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Links from articles to other namespaces on Wikipedia should be handled just like links to other web sites, i.e. as external links. — David Remahl 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  self reference 

message: This article seriously needs a heading or a section with the title Controversy and/or Criticisms.  As it is, there are already criticisms and controversial content on the page, but they are misallocated under the heading "Development of Wikipedia."  I tried to make this change myself, but it was undone minutes later.  Without that heading, the page appears too sanitized and biased by not calling attention to both sides of view, instead highlighting only the positive in the subheadings.
:Maybe you could create a subsection within the existing section rather than change the name of the existing section. (and please sign your entries on talk pages with ~~~~) --JWSchmidt 15:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy/Criticisms 

message: The diff is here. Read all about it on The Register. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This only makes The Register look bad. It's a pity because they do have insightful contributions and the wonderful BOFH. Mark Hurd 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And in what way does it make The Register look bad? The whole article is in jest. Coolsi 10:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that article was fairly clearly in jest, but what about this one? I think they're trying to make a point, but like I said above, for me it only reflects badly on The Reader. Mark Hurd 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the content actually been submitted yet - as Mr. Stern said he'd do? If not, my two cents is that we keep an eye out for it and when he does, give him a polite warning and a reminder of the policy that Wikipedia shouldn't be disrupted to illustrate a point. Remember, anything we do can be used against us. --Kizor 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord. Google News needs to try to not scare me like that. That Register article was on the front page. 69.156.206.82 17:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. Likewise. --Kizor 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How nice. One of my actions was on the news. I think I blocked that vandal. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Register shot at home comments 

message: I have updated the article about Bomis, stating who accuses Jimbo of being a pornographer, and also that Jimbo disputes this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "As of 2005, Wales was conspicuously trying to obscure his past links to the world of female glamour photography due to criticism from the religious Right. [1]"  -- This is absolutely absurd. --Jimbo Wales 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I would agree. I didn't include this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As an accused (but not convicted) member of the religious right - I tried to make this section more NPOV. Trödel•talk 15:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, criticism from Caesar himself. Well, Jimbo, I still don't think you have any business commenting on the accuracy of this article. I mean, didn't you have some ethical principles in mind when you started this thing? Matt Gies 20:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, please. If he had changed it to an encomium, perhaps it would undermine his own credibility, but nothing he could do to his own article could possibly undermine the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. As it stands, he merely made several minor corrections, one of which is now disputed. Kindly refrain from making alarmist comments and save the panic for when it is truly warranted. — Dan | talk 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the community can't even get the article on Jimbo right, what does that say about other biographies? This is damaging to the credibility as a whole. — David Remahl 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, let's squash this stupidity before it gets worse 

message: I've restored the recent vandal edits to make it easier for non-admins to keep track of them. With these vandals, any information about them can be used as evidence, if we want to take further action against them (as opposed to merely blocking them). However, regarding the offensive edit summaries, I have made a request for a developer to remove them. --Ixfd64 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandal edit summaries 

message: I don't think we're going to reach a happy medium on whether the nude pictures on Bomis Babes are pornography. There's a What's New page and several thousand thumbnail images from premium.bomis.com, the site's pay service, that you can use to judge the content. I'd call pictorials titled "Vanity and Evita wet lesbians" and "lesbian strip poker threesome" porn, but I'm easily excitable. Regular customers of online porn would probably be disappointed in a site like that, because there appears to be no sex.
Here's my recommendation: "In 1996, Wales founded the search portal Bomis, which he described as a "guy-oriented search engine" in a September 2005 interview on C-Span. The Bomis Babes Report published sexually oriented pictures of models and coverage of the entertainment and porn industries, and a premium section offered nude pictorials commissioned by Bomis."
The C-Span interview is online, if someone wanted to footnote it. Rcade 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised my recommended text based on some feedback I received. Rcade 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving the Bomis Babes Dispute 

message: : Jeremy Rosenfeld initially came up with the idea to make the encylopedia wiki-based and Sanger coined the name Wikipedia.
:: from Jimmy Wales
:In January 2001 Sanger proposed the creation of a wiki to spur the development of articles, and the result of this proposal was Wikipedia
:: from Larry Sanger
So, whodunit? :-) bogdan 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's idea was the wiki-encyclopedia? 

message: Jimmy Wales himself would have changed this page several times. Changing one's own biography however is a violation of Wikipedia's rules about biographies. Among these changes he would also have minimalised the role of Larry Sanger.  Though my source is the Belgian quality newspaper, De Standaard, I wonder if there are other news articles that back this claim up. Mjolnir1984 16:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh. It's a guide, for goodness sake, not a hard and fast rule!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: True?

message: "Additionally, Wales has been accused of trying to obscure his relationship to Bomis."
:Let's find out exactly who says this, hmmm? I'd like to see a source. I've taken it out till someone finds me one. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's Rogers Cadenhead quoted at BetaNews. Times Online also alludes to that.--T. Anthony 13:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that article is that the source of the news report is wikipedia itself - so the original research information on wikipedia was used a source for a news report which is now being used to justify restoring OR material. It would be helpful if there was a verifiable accusation that predates the controversy ;) Trödel•talk 20:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote above is a direct quote of me, and was my own interpretation of Cadenhead's article as I had edited the Jimmy page. Anyway, I don't see what's the problem: Because Rogers has his own wiki user name, do you consider it "original research"? While I agree with that policy WRT people with no credentials other than being on Wikipedia acting as original researchers, I don't think it makes sense to apply it to everybody who happens to edit on here too. In as many words: I think that the mention of Jimmy's revisionism needs to be more explicit in the article proper. Matt Gies 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: I have removed the "watch out for vandals" tag on the article page, which I do not believe is appropriate for wikipedia article pages (having it on a talk page is fine.)  Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: slashdot tag

message: :"THE debate over Wikipedia has hit a fever pitch in recent weeks. Supporters of Wikipedia, the user-edited online encyclopedia, are pitted against traditionalists who call the site inaccurate and irresponsible"  
:Insider Editing at Wikipedia, NY Times December 24, 2005 -- Merecat 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times 12.24.05 

message: Why has this talk page been moved to Talk:Jimmy Wales/delete?  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved talk page

message: "More recently, perhaps inspired by the success of Wikipedia, Wales has founded the for-profit company Wikia (unrelated to Wikimedia) which hosts various wikis, and manages the Wikicities project."
:Wikia is not "unrelated" to Wikimedia.  When Jimbo established Wikimedia unilaterally he announced on the mailing list that he intended to stack the Board.  He proceeded to do so.  In the first election he announced that he intended to defer to the two of five elected Board members regarding issues of interest to the community.  This obviously begs the question of why then he needed to stack the Board.  Perhaps now we know.  Recently a vote of 200/268 screened voters voted to initiate the long deferred Wikiversity project under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The Board has issued terse confusing feedback and requested a complete rewrite of the entire proposal regarding how the learning communities (Wikiversity) would operate in detail.  Difficult to accomplish with an experimental leading edge prototype.  Something that still has not been accomplished with other Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia.  Is it merely coincidental that various participants impatient with their treatment on wikibooks have begun proceeding with content development at wikicities, which will incidentally line Jimbo the internet entrepreneur and philanthropist's pockets (or at least pay some of his operation's overhead) with advertising revenue?  How many years should Wikiversity wait in the wings to spring into action in case Jimbo and Angela et. al. cannot get rich of the many eyeballs, free labor, advertising model of the traditional dot.com internet fraud fiascos? (diff^tm)  Interlocking chains of executives, Board Members, owners, and God Kings should in no honest publication ever be called "unrelated".  Perhaps we should say "unrelated for tax accounting purposes" or perhaps we should say "allegedly unrelated and unaccountable to regulators and stakeholders".  Actually I like the former better as I think it is more correct.  The latter often crops up in discussions of "apparent conflicts of interest" which occasionally are determined by investigators and public opinion to have been in no way "unrelated".  Of course, if investigations show that Wikia business has been conducted on travel or Wikimanias expensed to the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation for the benefit of Wikia stockholders, managers, founders, owners, and/or executives then the former may be incorrect as well.  What is a good term implying unrelated for two activities substantially controlled by the same person/people?  Left brain, right brain.  Public/private.  Above board/stealthy.  Known/unknown.  Acknowledged/denied.
http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page  approved for fun and profit
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity/test  deferred until you make us happy, possibly to infinity
http://wikicities.com/wiki/About_Wikicities
http://wikicities.com/wiki/Wikicity_creation_policy
"Check that your idea is not already covered by an existing Wikicity. Check that your idea could not become part of an existing Wikimedia project (http://www.wikimedia.org). Check which other proposals were rejected for an idea of what not to request.
You must agree:
* to the terms of use.
* that the the content of the wiki will be licensed under the GFDL, a free content licence. This means the information can be reused, not only in other Wikicities, but by anyone.
* that the wiki will be open to the public to edit (see protection).
* that the wiki will be run as a community project. Wikicities are not owned by their founders. Users should strive towards consensus as the primary means for organizing their wikis."
Interesting that the above shows clearly a relationship between wikicities projects and wikimedia projects as potential competitors.  Further, it is clearly part of the terms and conditions that the "founder" is not an "owner" of the community founded.  Of course it does not say anything about "stacked boards" because that has already been provided.  Wikia owns the servers and collects the revenue from the advertising delivered to local users of the material created by the volunteer communities.  70.110.60.140 03:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Impression is Provided by this Paragraph 

message: I want to comment on this, "Wales confirmed that he had edited his own biography on Wikipedia, a practice generally frowned upon within the Wikipedia community. Wales's edits were in line with his view that former editor Larry Sanger should not be considered a co-founder of Wikipedia. "  I remember when I saw him do this and I commented, joking, "I saw that!"  As what it seems, I am the first person to see his Larry Sanger edit , and I want to say that I support Jimbo on this one.  He offers a personal view of what happened in the foundation of Wikipedia.  He already has enough stress with Daniel Brandt and the Seigenthaler controversy on his shoulders. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy 

message: As regards this - I hid the text as a result of an IRC conversation with Jimbo, in which he pointed out that no serious critics have called him a pornographer, or made a serious issue of it.  If the people who express these concerns are just a bunch of Internet trolls looking for an excuse to criticize Wikipedia, which is my perception, their claims and a huge defense against said claims don't need to be in the article.  Again, Jimbo didn't ask me to edit it, but I decided to after he brought up the issue.  -- Pakaran 20:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. I, personally, consider the mere fact that you conduct casual conversations with Jimbo to be prima facie evidence that you're not qualified as a neutral arbiter in this debate. As a matter of fact I consider myself a serious critic of Jimbo, and I call much of the Bomis material softcore pornography. So I can't abide the blanking of all that text on such a flimsy basis. Matt Gies 02:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems like every two-bit troll "Wikipedia critic" likes to harp on the "Jimbo is a pornographer!" line as an ad-hominem attempt to attribute guilt by association to Wikipedia.  Maybe no serious critics do, but some of the silly critics make a lot of noise, and are perhaps "notable" on this account. *Dan T.* 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I love the porno. What I hate is deception, obfuscation, blind faith, hero-worship, and hypocrisy. I don't think having made soft porn is bad; I think denying and trying to hide it is bad and highly unethical. Matt Gies 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that "softcore pornography" is "ludicruously POV", but erotic photography is a reasonable, inclusive term that everyone so far seems to have been able to agree to, so I've used it here as well.--Eloquence* 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden text 

message: In this edit  is the comment "correcting bad facts" but you changed it from one wrong version to an even worse vesion.
The actual historical fact, to my knowledge not contested by anyone, is that I registered the domain name, I tested several different wiki packages, installing several to test, and then I installed the Wikipedia software.  I made the first edits.  This was absolutely not over any objections of mine but as the culmination of many many months of me complaining to Larry that the problem with Nupedia could be solved with a more open editing model.  --Jimbo Wales 12:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait My mistake, I linked to the wrong edit.  This edit is perfectly fine.  I'll have to find the one I was complaining about. :-)  Apologies.--Jimbo Wales 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the questionable edit.  Notice how it is made by an anonymous redshirt and flagged as a minor edit.  Notice how it takes credit away from Larry Sanger while mangling the historical facts.  I know that people love to view this dispute as me thinking Larry gets too much credit, but in fact I think that in general Larry does not get enough credit.  All I care about here is simple historical accuracy.--Jimbo Wales 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correcting bad facts? 

message: No lawsuit has been filed, and there is very good reason to think that the website linked to in this article is not credibly about to file any such suit.  I know of absolutely no reason to think that they are, but in any event, there is not a suit now.  Therefore, linking to it as we do:
*Class Action Lawsuit against Wales and Wikipedia
is totally silly.  This method of linking implies that there _is_ a lawsuit.
The article doesn't even mention it, and so I question whether the link even belongs here.  I suppose if in fact it ever does amount to anything, it should be linked, but at the present time I don't think so.--Jimbo Wales 12:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it's one of the QuakeAID sites. I'm not sure this belongs here at all since it focuses explicitly on Wikipedia rather than on you personally, and so far it is only "gathering complaints".--Eloquence* 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to class action lawsuit 

message: "In late 2005, a controversy arose regarding Wales and the related Wikipedia entry on himself. After Wired Magazine picked up on work from Rogers Cadenhead, Wales confirmed that he had edited his own biography on Wikipedia,"
I have no real suggestions about how this alleged controversy (was there a controversy?) should be presented it, except to say that we should absolutely not follow the lead of uninformed media.  This wording suggests that Rogers Cadenhead sleuthed out some secret and then upon questeioning by Wired, I confirmed it.  The actual facts of the matter is that all edits to this article by me have been done openly, under my publicly known username, and so there was no need for me to "confirm" it.  This sentence contains an implication which I think will mislead readers of this article.
Perhaps something like this: "Wales has from time to time edited the article about himself in Wikipedia, in an open and public fashion, interacting with other editors on the talk page in the normal fashion."
The context of the alleged "controversy" is this: Adam Curry was caught (secretly) editing the entry about himself, and someone traced the ip number to him, he was confronted about it and admitted it.  Then, a couple of weeks later, the media picked up on a bloggers report about me editing about myself, and they seemed to assume that it was the same sort of thing.
Now whether or not me editing about myself is actually controversial, I leave to others to decide.  But what I do think makes sense is that we accurately report the story, and not suggest that I did this secretly and only confirmed it after being confronted by a magazine.
--Jimbo Wales 12:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note that the edits were visible and open. I've also linked your older mailing list post  where you stated that "it is a social faux pas to write about yourself", a quote by you which has been at the top of Wikipedia:Autobiography for quite some time.--Eloquence* 15:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assert Jimbo wasn't writing about himself per say (I have not gone through all of Jimbo's contribs), but rather about events for which he was a witness/participant. - RoyBoy 800 17:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's ironic that the founder of wikipedia himself is a complete hypocrite, both to the very concept of wikipedia and to objectivety in general.  I think it makes sense though,  I have a sister who studies ancient roman philosophers and writers, and many of them would espouse one idea, and then in pratice do the exact opposite.  As the Neitsche title says "All too human". Also I can't blame him too much, this project must have exploded his ego to tens times save levels.  Once someone is involved with something this successful, only a rare few can maintain their grounding in reality.--M4bwav 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The focus should not be on Jimbo, but rather on the edits themselves and if they are grounded in reality. If they are, then there is little to take issue with. - RoyBoy 800 17:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But aren't there issues both with a subject editing his own article, and specifically with Mr. Wales, who wields so much influence that any suggestions might be coercive? How can anyone possibly have neutral point of view on themselves? And doesn't providing inside information from a primary source violate the tenents of publicly known and independently verifiable information, which are cornerstones of encyclopedia? Freddie deBoer 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing my own entry 

message: There are several items on this talk page which do not appear to about this article, but are rather inquiries for me which should have been left on my user talk page, or simply rants against me.  I don't want to be accused of in any way stifling open discussion about this article, so I'm reluctant to remove or archive any of it myself.  Could someone do that?
What I would recommend is that we archive all the points that are more than a week or two old, so that we can have a cleaner workspace to work on the errors in the article. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to get rid of most of the unrelated items.  They can now be found on your Talk page under the heading "Comments from Talk:Jimmy Wales.  --Mr. Billion 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of this talk page? 

message: This edit inaccurately portrays even what the absurd Times Online story said.  "Despite resistance to the idea" by me is relevant, as the current paragraph gives the impression that over community objections, I'm considering advertising in Wikipedia.  The bit about "been known to assure people in the past" adds to the misimpression, in addition to being plainly false.
I have been saying exactly the same thing about advertising for many many years.  After the Times Online story appeared, I was interviewed by other outlets, who then more accurately reported on this.--Jimbo Wales 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this belongs here at all, this is a biography of yourself and not a history of Wikipedia, and as you point out, it is unambiguously true that your personal position on advertising has been consistent (in fact, it has been consistently your position that the decision should not be made by you alone). Your statements at Wikimania, for example, are on the record. If anywhere, the issue of advertising belongs in the Wikipedia article.--Eloquence* 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph about advertising 

message: Absolutely not true.  Michael Davis and Tim Shell are independent voices, people who I trust because of long association.  It is absurd for this article to claim that I somehow control them.  At the very very very very least this is original research, and then beyond that of course it is highly POV.--Jimbo Wales 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the facts that (1) you admit that they are long-time trusted associates and (2) they are not Wikipedians (active editors), it is not a far-fetched conclusion that, in any conflict between you and the community, they would side with you. Even if there is any need for them to be on the board because of the technical or business roles they supposedly play, it does not explain why they and you together need to have a majority over community representatives. Gohn 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the claims pending a source.--Eloquence* 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  effectively controlling a 3 vote majority? 

message: This page acquired a lot of unrelated stuff; mostly it was comments addressed to Jimmy.  It can now be found here. We should also archive this page, after the discussion Larry Sanger started above is finished. --Mr. Billion 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up unrelated content

message: ..Of Jimmy looking less, well, like he's about to announce his plans for global domination (not necessarily a bad thing?) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it has unknown copyright status and may have been deleted over at Commons. —Ilyanep (Talk) 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was deleted at Commons it wouldn't be showing here, as it's not separately uploaded here as what the images say, "this is a picture from commons, this is it's description page from there" ;)   --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotta say that I think his original picture was a lot better.  The new "friendly cuddly just happen to be editing wikipedia" look is just one big cliche. - Hahnchen 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added picture... 

message: Was this consciously done to minimize userpage vandalism; otherwise shouldn't it go into a See also section. - RoyBoy 800 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ASR.  In short, some sites using our content don't reproduce user pages, only articles, so if we link to the user page here on WP, those sites' users can reach it.  -- Pakaran 20:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User page external link? 

message: I tried to remove his home address from the article, but inadvertently removed all the other revisions now.  I think I'm just going to leave the page be.  Sorry for the disruption.  -- Pakaran 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home address 

message: There are too many posed photos of Jimmy on this page.  Borderline personality cult and therefor POV.  Let us get it down to just two photos.  Just use some judgement.  For instance, compare your treatment of Jimmy with that of Chuck Colson.  You got Colson's mug shot as his only photo.  You might like Jimmy and not like Colson, but it does not really give you permission to be unfair and POV.  I mean, NNDB hardly likes Colson, but at least they put a decent photo of him on their page:
http://www.nndb.com/people/446/000023377/
-- Pinktulip 08:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pinktulip. His face isn't changing or anything...you can illustrate perfectly fine with one two pictures. Four is excessive and not needed. Mike H. That's hot 09:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Pinktulip.  The first thing I noticed on the page was the high number of photos.  I think Image:DSC02502 modified.jpg should be removed and possibly another. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many photos of Jimmy 

message: james,jimmy,or jimbo.i think the last one is good.--Jayanthv86 18:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy is his actual name. bogdan 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  actual name? 

message: "so the school grouped together first through eighth grades"
There is no need for the sentence to read "first through fourth grades and fifth through eighth grades" when you could just as easily say "first through eighth grades". There is no grade between fourth grade and fifth grade, so "first through fourth grades" and "fifth through eighth grades" have no reason to be separated within the sentence.
69.138.229.246 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between having one group, consisting of grades 1 - 8, and two groups, one consisting of grades 1-4 and another consisting of grades 5-8. Your edit changes the meaning of the sentence. --BrianH123 05:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Life before Wikipedia

message: The post you removed was in no way an appeal. I do not intend to make an appeal to you concerning my accused POV pushing. I would suggest that you not allow of yourself to be put in the wrong, and suggest that you avail of the chance to repair the damage to yourself as publisher of an accusation made with such reckless disregard to falsity. This is not an appeal. EffK 11:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this be regarded as a legal threat? *Dan T.* 18:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Appeal:Reckless falsity,and truth Banned from your publishing organ

message: Jimmy,
OK to add the following link to this article?: it's the audio from your talk in November at UC Berkeley --
http://dream.sims.berkeley.edu/~jhall/wales_sims_03-Nov-2005.mp3
--Kessler 16:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK to add? your SIMS/Berkeley talk in November 

message: I have posted a bounty of $20 USD at the bounty board in an effort to get the biography of WP's founder up to featured article status.  Please help!  Thanks, Xoloz 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:Bounty]]

message: Socialtext's press release about Wales joining them is offline, requested for citation in the article, and out of Google's cache. What to do? Leffa 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialtext press release is offline 

message: I dare not edit this page ;-) so could someone please put up a link to User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia?  TIA. --Larry Sanger 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Gohn has now put it in External Links. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link please 

message: This article says "The wiki was set up by Wales and started on January 15, 2001.". Now, I'm not trying to disgrace/dethrone Jimbo or anything, I'm just courious wether that's precisely what happened. From this sentence "While the first edit on Wikipedia ever made is believed to be a test edit by Wales..."  one would think that Jimbo set up the wiki. But, here Larry, not Jimbo announced that Wikipedia is up. Now, I'm wondering, did anybody ever tried to figure out who was the guy who pushed the button, who actually installed the wiki and made the first edit? Well, why believing ("is believed to be"), why not asking Jimbo and Larry? They shoud know who installed the wiki and did the testing prior to Larry's mail on the list, shouldn't they? --Dijxtra 16:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nitpicking about start of wikipedia 

message: I reported this to vanalism in progress, but I don't know who too report this too ASAP, to stop user ASAP:
MAJOR VANDALISM PLEASE ADRESS IMMEDIATLY. Ta bu shi da yu is currently deleting every Time magazine cover on dozens of pages. He is ignorant of Copyright law, when I sent him a courteousy message, explaining copyright law and  a case on point which makes the use of Time magazine covers legal, he beligerently "said go ahead punk...My deleting will continue until a Foundation member or Jimbo tells me otherwise." He needs to be blocked immediatly for vandalim. Travb 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New to VANDALISM IN PROGESS, need to stop user ASAP, don't know where to go

message: When I try to edit this article, it only says "view source" instead of the normal edit.  Whats broken here????
—The preceding unsigned comment was added on 28 February 2006 23:38 by 207.200.114.52 (talk • contribs) .
:The article was protected. It's now been unprotected. jacoplane 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem editing this article

message: OK, so BB is not a brand.  I can accept that.  It would be nice to know how much money he made directly from Bomis Babes.  If it is part of a larger formulation of product, perhaps some traffic statistics would help in estimating whether "porno King" is an appropriate moniker for Mr. Wales.  It would help in evaluting a statement such as "Wikipedia was initially built with porno money." If these are unfair characterizations, then so be it, but right now, we and the reader are left wondering. Mr. Wales is now asking for a great deal of trust to be placed in him.  He has set himself up as a monarch within the Wikimeida Foundation. He is asking us to volunteer our time and money to his foundation.  He has the trust of a large number of young and impressionable minds in the form of both Wikipedian editors and Wikipedia readers in many institutions of learning.  A proper vetted process is appropriate and demanding candor, even about sensitive issues like fanancial matters is merely responsible guardianship of young minds. -- OlympiaDiego 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "Bomis Babes" and there never was. There was a "Bomis Babe Report", a blog among several, which was in part an advertising vehicle for Bomis Premium, a softporn paysite (no sex as far as I know; mostly nudie pics and some posing with dildos). The Wikipedia articles on Bomis and Jimmy mention what is publicly known. You can ask Jimmy for further details on the financial importance of Bomis Premium, but I doubt that he will provide any on the record. Original research into these matters does not belong here.--Eloquence* 08:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigma of "Bomis Babes"