Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 7

message: It should be mentioned in the introduction that he is the founder of Wikipedia as that is his main claim to fame.  --thedemonhog 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, albeit in a limited way to avoid POV.  --  Zanimum 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I removed the birtdate per discussion above. I notice that there was a newspaper source on one instance, and the paper does indeed give a birthdate, but it does not mention a source for that. For all we know, the paper used this article as a source for that date. Since the subject obviously does not want his birtdate in the article, I removed it. Crockspot 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times of London not being considered an acceptable source == LOL. Quatloo 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally, it would be, but they do not state where they got the date, and there are no other sources to be found, so I highly suspect they got it off of one wiki or another. Since this is a BLP article, the subject is resistant, and the information from the Times cannot be verified independently, it shouldn't be used. Crockspot 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case BLP specifies that we should generally remove it if the person complains anyway 203.109.240.93 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The diff may be gone but the page still exists where he says what his birthday is. BrianH123 01:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate removed 

message: This thread was started by indefinitely-banned  aka  aka  aka as various other titles. He is to be blocked on sight, and everything he does is to be reverted. I've removed the entire thread, as it looks as if all the different IPs came from the same user. Musical Linguist 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's our hairsplitter for us... 

message: This is a good image, but most of it is empty space. I was going to crop it myself, but since it's JPEG and since I'll almost certainly degrade the quality when I save the cropped version, I'd rather let someone who knows the basics of working with JPEG images do it. The image would look much better cropped, as it would leave more space on the left for text and would display a larger thumbnail in the article. Richard001 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Save it as a PNG; lossless, so no degradation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.125.85 (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Jimbo-wales---fosdem-2005.jpg]]

message: Voting is open until Feb 14th for the election of the 10 finalists of the competition Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. The final will take place from 17-28 Feb. We would be honoured with your vote. Alvesgaspar 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Year 2006 - voting is open 

message: Please see the history diffs. Sorry about the db-attack on the article. One of the re-directs put the tag here it appears. First redirect was at 18:02 local (about 58 minutes ago). Second one at 17:39 local. May have been one more in between. All the re-directs are not showing up in on my Watchlist. Very sophisticated user/vandal at work. Ronbo76 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there's nothing sophisticated about it at all. Just garden variety, moronic page move vandalism. Although this one managed to get more page moves done than usual before being stopped. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone is creating re-directs to [[Jimmy Wales]] 

message: Probably should be deleted as the image does not appear or is nominated for deletion. Ronbo76 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boomis babe jpg in article 

message: Bomis was a "guy-oriented" search engine that often sold erotic materials, and it was described as similar in nature to "Maxim" magazine with sometimes scantily clad women.
Wales described Bomis as a "guy-oriented search engine", with a market similar to that of Maxim magazine.[4]
Er, just a thought, but shouldn't the "encyclopedic" content not sound like a parroting back of Jimbo's own words? --Dookama 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely, this is one of the discussions that seems to have gone on for a long time. Wales gets to have his own words here because of his connection on Wikipedia - there are very, very few articles where people would be a supline as they are here. Tompagenet 11:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parroting . . . 

message: Should it be included that Bomis has been described as softcore pornography in the career section? I think it deserves at least a passing mention like I put in this revision (which was reverted). --Dookama 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no objections, so I added something in. --Dookama 11:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Dookama asessments. You have added details and accuracy, thus improving the article. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What other side? The nebulous "Some Wikipedians have described it as soft-core pornography" side? In fact, the Wired article makes the claim that "Rogers Cadenhead said other Wikipedia editors described Bomis Babes as 'soft-core pornography'" -- which does not even match the claims being made put forth that Bomis itself was thus described. --LeflymanTalk 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Honestly, I could use a diff as a source for other Wikipedia editors describing Bomis Babes as such as a second resource. Tertiary and primary sources there -- should I hunt for a secondary? --Dookama 02:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Nevermind about the hunt, first or second Google hit on a search for bomis babes softcore pornography . And a diff  --Dookama 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *1) You've just pointing to another article with the exact same claim by Cadenhead that was in the Wired piece-- that doesn't make it a different or better reason to repeat something already in the Criticism section; 2) Wikipedia doesn't cite itself, or diffs of articles as sources -- that's a basic principle. --LeflymanTalk 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Right; but you still haven't answered how or why another reference to the claim that Boomis Babes were pornographic is relevant or necessary in this article. What is the point, exactly?--LeflymanTalk 04:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *How about agreement between different sections of the article (statement of something as fact under career, but say that it's disputed elsewhere)? Maintaining NPOV throughout (since there's obviously a POV opposing the "let's skirt the subject through semantics" stand)? What reasons would you provide for its exclusion?--Dookama 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still agree with Dookama. No reason has been given to skirt this issue. A detailed description of both sides of the issue is relevant. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomis 

message: He has siblings, whose friends he posts pictures of on his Flickr account. Sadly, Flickr's not a reliable source, I presume.  --  Zanimum 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister 

message: writing under this section is the funniest $h!t i've ever read in wikipedia. just wanted to point that out. 128.253.53.140 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia revisionism 

message: *Article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EnviroGranny (talk • contribs) 10:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: Danski14 recently changed "best known for his role in founding" in the introduction to "best known for helping found".  We all know that there is a dispute between Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales about who founded Wikipedia: Wales says he was the founder and Sanger was an employee who helped, whereas Sanger says that they founded Wikipedia together.  I think that the NPOV policy requires that the article not take sides in this debate.  Therefore, I suggested the "role in founding" wording for the introduction, since both Sanger and Wales would agree that Wales had a role in founding Wikipedia: they just differ on what Sanger's role was.  I think that "helping found" is too POV towards Sanger's perspective.  Similarly, I think that the statement "Wikipedia was founded by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales" is too biased; the article presents the two men's claims, and the early evidence on the subject, in the "Wikipedia revisionism" section.  If people think that the article can say "founded by Sanger and Wales", they should explain how that's compatible with the NPOV policy (and yes, I do realize that the NPOV policy was written by Sanger). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree your phrase best summarizes Jimmy Wale's position without going into any details. Like you I was also worried about NPOV, but I can't say I helped much, looking back there is not really any connotative difference between "role in founding" and "helping found"... but I think your's sounds better. The stuff I had read on the founding was Sanger's account, (), and I somehow felt perhaps he wasn't getting enough credit. However, I think you make a good argument overall...Sanger's role is explained later on. Danski14 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Role in founding" and NPOV 

message: Is it true that Wales likes to play chess?  If so, that should be added to the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a little esoteric, but it probably should be in "Hobbies and Interests" or something TalkFissionfox 11:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got a citation? And even if it was true it probably shouldn't go in the article. Picaroon 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chess? 

message: Why is the Bomis search engine listed in two different sections (career and controversy)??? Isn't one enough? TalkFissionfox 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicates of sections 

message: Just a suggestion: if you look at the history for this page it seems like there are dozens of acts of vandalism every single day. Wouldn't it just make sense to make it semi-locked os only users with a certain level fo experience can edit it? it seems like non-users (only shows IP) are the ones committing vandalism. I know people are diligently checking for vandalism, but there's just so much of it everyday. I mean just a few moments ago it said "and hired a whore to be its editor-in-chief." Davelapo555 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested it to be semi protected, and my request was approved. DietLimeCola 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-locked?

message: after spending countless, and mostly fruitless hours on myspace, i wanted to let you know that i am now able to put my rhetoric and articulated vocabulary to good use. this place is well, good. the_undertow talk 10:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yo 

message: Hi Jimmy, I use another wiki called Shetlopedia, is there anyway of getting an edit counter on my page over there? JAStewart 16:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says on the top of the page, Jimbo Wales rarely looks here. This is the encyclopedic article about him, not a place to talk to him. I'd advise either asking him on User talk:Jimbo Wales, which is the place to talk to him. Or, you could ask your question in the Village Pump, where someone might know the answer to your question, and it'll certainly be answered faster there. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting an edit-counter? 

message: This and this are clearly unacceptable and bizarre personal attacks. I dont believe DXRAW has any justification for such a bad faith claim and would like him to calm down and stop making wild accustions. I have a history of editing this article and this is pretty much a criminal accusatioon he is making against me, SqueakBox 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. Regular people can be stalked and have criminal accusations made on them--$UIT 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalking allegations

message: Was rather surprised to see this article in the nz herald , he is after all a rather succesfull businessman! Probably should be included into the article his views expressed in this article about him. Mathmo Talk 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia founder says he's no businessman" 

message: I know that King Jimbo has a little notability as co-founder of wikipedia, but why is his article as long as it is? He is not that notable, and wikipedia is not supposed to have any bias, even for their own commander-and-chief. I mean, his article is longer that William Hung and hung is BY FAR more notable.
76.22.115.136 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have GOT to be kidding. Nobody whatsoever has even heard of William Hung where I live. Nukleoptra 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Totally. William Hung is bottom of notability. And I don't live in Nerdtown. But probably in America he's more popular than in the UK, I don't know.Nukleoptra 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing of someone is not a measure of notability. I'm sure there are hundreds thousands of notable people I've never heard of. If there are multiple published sources where the subject, whether Jimbo Wales or William Hung, is the focus of the article then they are notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Wikipedia grows based on interest. If nobody is interested in a topic, even if it is extremely notable, then it won't be developed. In this case people are more interested in expanding the Jimbo Wales article than William Hung. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, which doesn't mean there is equal development of unrelated articles. There is a WikiProject; Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to try and avoid this but it works on more obscure articles. If you think the William Hung article is lacking then please improve it. James086Talk | Email 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability only concerns whether an article should exist, it doesnt concern the length. Anyone notable to be here has the right to a long (if well sourced) article, SqueakBox 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: I like how the page includes the bad stuff about Jimbo Wales. It's good that the truth isn't completely suppressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeb edee (talk • contribs) 09:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The truth 

message: The phrase "Wales's father" refers to the father of Jimmy Wales.  In this case, the "Wales" refers to Jimmy Wales himself.  Since it is only referring to a single person, this "Wales" is singular...to form the possessive, you add an apostrophe and then an 's'.  You only add a single apostrophe to form a possessive if the noun ends in an 's' and is also a plural noun.  This is not the case here.  Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect.  The "s" is also dropped for singular proper nouns ending in "s", such as the name "Wales".  See http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/possnouns.html #3  Dragons flight 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was always taught otherwise, and every language manual I've ever seen has it the way I have been doing it, but I guess it's one of those ambiguities of the language.  It's not worth fighting over if that's the case.  Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive nouns 

message: Check out Jimmy Wales#External links. Why are most of those links there? It almost looks like a listing of every page on the web where Jimbo has said something, which isn't quite in line with WP:EL. I'm sure some of that stuff could be used for citations, and if it can't, why keep it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links section could be trimmed a bit. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link craziness 

message: Jimbo mentioned at the education.au conference in Melbourne (April 2007) that he has a genuine interest in sailing, but this has yet to appear on his wikipedia page (even though he's suggested this to many different people). The left-handedness was just an observation made by me. Isn't the sum of all tidbits what makes up a page in wikipedia?--ric_man 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Of course it contributes to a Wikipedia article. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sailing and left-handedness 

message: He got four out of ten questions in The Chaser's War on Everything, today, now. Fluck 11:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was awesome. Although, none of his answers really made sense, like "a lot of coffee" and "17." Still awesome to see he has a sense of humour, though. Here's the video. Could anyone find the edit that Andrew Hansen supposedly made? --CrookedAsterisk (contribs • talk) 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that footage was a hack job, which accounts for the nonsensical answers; maybe not. Although I must say Mr.Wales cuts a better figure on TV than the picture in this article.... --Jquarry 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sure it was very planned out in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=126094459 This could be the edit. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was rather fun.  Of course my answers made little sense, it's a humor bit you know.  I wish very much I had been able to REMEMBER all ten questions, but they came at me out of the blue very quickly, see.  So I did my best to just pretend to answer them.  If I had been a little quicker on my feet, I would have said 10 weird things in quick succession.  But I was sort of cracking up too much.  In all, I enjoyed the surprise. :)--Jimbo Wales 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure the edit to Jimbo's article was made not by Hansen, but by someone who had read about the incident in the newspaper (I make the assumption based mainly on the fact that the timestamp seemed to be some time after the article appeared in the paper, although I may have gotten my UTC and AEST mixed up). Incidentally, I think 4/10 is either the 2nd or 3rd best score achieved by anyone faced with "Mr Ten Questions", and I'm pretty sure Anthony LaPaglia had help (the segment showing him answering the questions was heavily edited). It could have been worse - politicians are often subjected to "Pursuit Trivia". Incidentally, Jimmy, why couldn't you have visited Sydney about six months ago when I was still living there? :P Confusing Manifestation 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4/10 

message: Wales is on the cover of the new issue of Reason magazine.  Is it ok to put that picture on this article? I thought it would be good in the section discussing his libertarianism. Acirema 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any reason you wouldn't be allowed to include it—assuming it's in the public domain. Upload it, put it in, and wait to see if it gets removed, I guess. --Dookama 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's highly unlikely that the image is in the public domain, Dookama. So no, the image can't be used in this article. The only place where the cover of reason would be fair use, is in the article about that magazine, but even then it could be argued (from a content point of view, not copyright) that it would be too self-referential to replace the current cover in that article by the one with this cover. --JoanneB 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well. I know nothing about the logistics of public domain/fair use. --Dookama 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wales on cover of Reason

message: Brusquely here, just listening to Radio National, and thought I'd revise Jimmy Wales's entry to include recent revelations that he is a teenage druglord from Malaysia.  Why has the edit function been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.107.139 (talk) 
:First of all, sign your comments with ~~~~. Secondly, I seriously doubt that the information you have heard from Radio National is accurate, and will more than likely cause your edit to be reverted. Finally, the page is semi-protected, meaning that it cannot be edited by anonymous users or registered users that have been around for less than four days. --Ryan Schmidt (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you have just answered your own question. But hey, if you can find a decent reliable source(!) for that (and no, the Chaser's War on Everything or a reference to that, does NOT count), feel free to let us know. --JoanneB 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Editing?

message: So, someone found a source.  Interesting.  Still doesn't match my birth certificate, though. :)  I am writing Britannica to see what I can do about it.--Jimbo Wales 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather funny when you have to find a source for an article about a Wikipedian. :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the irony... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you have to find a source for (technically) everything on the site. The funny part is that Jimbo has a problem with his birthdate being known for some reason. —Dookama 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: Should we include the information mentioned at http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=The_Case_of_the_Disappearing_Diff in a birthdate controversy subsection? --MarSch 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthdate controversy 

message: Are you sure that Mr. Wales merits such a long article? After all, he's not that notable, being less notable than, say, Satoshi Tajiri, the guy who made Pokémon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.246.188 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability affects only whether there _should be_ an article, not what the length of articles that should exist should be. --MarSch 10:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not as notable as Satoshi Tajiri 

message: "In his adult life, Wales is quick to speak of his sailing triumphs." - oh, that's hilarious.  This makes it sound like I am some kind of competitive sailor.  In fact, the article in question details what might be my only sailing triumph in my entire life, and it is in the form of a joke really.--Jimbo Wales 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the sentence. Are you happy now? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sailing triumphs" 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays Jimmy Wales has a right to his privacy of his birthday according to BLP. His DOB should be removed aggressively. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he actually complained about the inclusion of this information? *Dan T.* 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What an unencyclopedic policy. Wales birthday is clearly verifiable. If we were to remove anything from a persons bio that they think violates their privacy, the integrity of the encyclopedia would be in question. / Fred-Chess 11:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Read both links provided. He is not saying to clearly remove his DOB but he is giving a subtle message which is clear. He does not want it here and it is our job as Wikipedians to listen to BLP concerns and to respect his privacy. Please respect his privacy. Thank you, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points: 1) He can't feel too strongly about keeping his DOB private since he's mentioned it publicly numerous times, here's one example. 2) Mr. Wales has never asked for his DOB to be suppressed, if he ever does then we should respect his wishes. He has challenged the credibility of some of the sources used to verify his birthdate but I don't think those concerns extend to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Once the full protection is removed Mr. Wales' full DOB should be restored unless he explicitly asks for it to be removed. Jhurlburt 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did not mention his DOB publicly several times. He has specifically asked for his DOB to be removed. He has challenged the credibility of some of the sources because this is his way of sending a subtle message to aggressively removed it. His DOB might be returned if and only if Jimmy Wales asks for it to be returned. Please have respect for his privacy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Statements made about the validity of a source are NOT the same as asking for a DOB to be suppressed. There's no reason for him to send "subtle messages".... if he does not wish his birthdate to be published all he needs to do is say so and we'll respect the BLP. FYI - Mr. Wales has mentioned his DOB publicly several times, I linked to a Wikipedia example in my earlier post. Jhurlburt 00:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not provided evidence he has mentioned his DOB publicly several times. I understand the "subtle message." Jimmy reads this talk page from time to time and reviews the article too. If he wants it back in the article he can let us know. Maybe you want to leave a message on his talk page about this. I will respect his privacy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So.... how many do you want? Here's number one, "My actual birthday is August 7th, 1966. This is unverifiable information, I'm sorry to say, since my driver's license and passport say August 8. If we must revert on that basis, then I guess we must. *g*. Maybe I'll have to upload a signed note from my mom as documentary evidence; the only proof that I have is her sayso. :-) Jimbo Wales 20:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You said numerous times. Please provide your evidence. If Jimmy wants it back in the article he can let us know. I respect Jimmy Wales' wishes and his privacy. Thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's number two. Notice the information was added by Jimbo Wales on Sept. 18, 2004 at 7:35pm. Jhurlburt 04:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number two is not numerous. You said numerous. Jimmy Wales is sensitive about having this information on Wikipedia. You have added this information against policy. If Jimmy wants it in the article he can let us know. It seems there is no consensus. You can request for more comments. You can ask Jimmy on his talk page. You have more options about this. Again, Jimmy can always say if he really wants it in. From his previous comments on this talk page, I believe he does not want it in the lead sentence. Please respect the privacy of our defacto leader. Thanks you, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  privacy violations 

message: Proof is needed that Wales made any money in futures and options.
:Would you be willing to add such proof? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  13:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof 

message: Hello,
I would like to offer to include an interview with Jimmy Wales published on the Web 2.0 Profy blog in March, 2007 and titled Jimmy Wales - Artist of Web Community. The link is http://www.profy.com/2007/03/12/wales-interview/.
My idea is to add the link to the External Links (News/Media) section of the article.
Please, advise if this interview is appropriate.
--S Gladkova 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview with Jimmy Wales offered to be included in the article 

message: Protected due to Colbert sleeper accounts vandalising. Luigi30 (Taλk) 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, "He can benchpress 500 pounds". Yeah, he was just on The Colbert Report. I wonder if the people at Spanish Wikipedia are going to know what is going on. :)--Jersey Devil 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When the protection ends, it might be worth adding his Colbert guest spot to the "Media Appearances" section, especially noting that the bench press vandalism hit the page within seconds of its mention on-air.  (You just know someone had the page on Edit, fingers hovering over the keyboard-- just waiting) Halcyon1234 04:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would rock if we could have a source for how much Jimmy Wales can actually bench press.  Mathiastck 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a privacy violation against Jimmy Wales' wishes and a content dispute. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the editprotected request. The proposed addition is controversial. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: ... Wikipedia:Peer review/Jimmy Wales.  I have put up a new Peer Review, it's been awhile since discussion about this article's quality and ways to improve it.  Smee 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New peer review requested... 

message: His appearance on the Colbert Report recently could be added to media appearances. Mkeranat 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance on the Colbert Report 

message: Is there any rhyme or reason for the photos incuded in this article? They don't seem to illustrate or make reference to anything in the article itself. Some of them should be deleted or replaced with new photos that are appropriate to the sections in which they are placed. 68.117.211.187 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures are fine. When more pictures become available, we can evaluate the new pictures. Thanx, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos don't add to article 

message: Is there any reason why Mr. Wales' date of birth can't be provided in the main article and his infobox? That seems to be the standard form for most biographies (e.g. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, David Brin, Kenneth Lay, etc...etc... Jhurlburt 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth in article and infobox 

message: just so i know --AnYoNe! 09:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not paid for his work with Wikipedia.  Dragons flight 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much money is he makin' 

message: Noting his involving with Bomis.com and in producing this manner of smut: . Why hasn't this been done already?BroaderPerspective 12:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add this person to Category:American pornographers 

message: From the Maxim article, "The magazine is known for its extensive pictorials of scantily clad women."  For outside sources, there is this, this, this, and this from the NYTimes, this from USA Today, this from NPR, this from the OC Register this from the San Antonio Express and many, many more. These all vouch for the status of the photos in Maxim as almost entirely "scantily-clad". Not "usually" or "sometimes", but simply scantily-clad. Not including a qualifier is not a comment on the quality of the photography or its merit. VanTucky 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The magazine is known for pictorials of scantily clad women but not every single picture is scantily clad. That is all I am saying. Most pictures are of scantily clad women. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then don't obfuscate the fact by adding qualifiers. If you check out some of the sources, one or two even say that Maxim has other real content. But none of them say it has any covers or centerfolds that are not scantily clad. VanTucky 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to find a word that says: who are 'mosty' scantily clad women. 'Usually' does not equal most or the majority of pictures. Just add the correct descriptive word. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be the need for a qualifier. Defining what "scantily-clad women" means in the context of Maxim is the job of the disambiguation link, which does so very thoroughly. For those who don't already understand that what the comparison means, the dismabig'd article for Maxim explains that it doesn't mean just a bunch of soft-core porn with no other content. The disambig for the description of the images (i.e. scantily clad) supported by independent sources makes it clear what the phrase entails for the appearance of the images. And it doesn't make value judgements (NPOV). But not a single newssource I could find referring to the content of Maxim said it was "mostly" scatily-clad, or "usually", or even "extensively". If we're insisting we stick to the source material (like you suggested), then no qualifier is allowable. VanTucky 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  maxim comparison 

message: Per WP:COI? W1k13rh3nry 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was meant to be a joke but thinking about it... really. W1k13rh3nry 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD?

message: Jimbo is the reason no one takes Wikipedia seriously.  This information has no value at all, and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia.  In fact, I have never seen an encyclopedia with entries about the editors and all the other obscure people who produced it.  And now I'll be banned from editing, probably by Jimbo himself, for pointing out these facts, even if Jimbo's own standards qualify this article as a "good article".
:Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~), and observe that article talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic. You will not, and cannot, be blocked from editing for simple criticism of Jimmy Wales or an article about him. However, personal attacks or insults are not tolerated, as they are a breach of WP:Wikiquette. If you feel this article does not meet the criteria for WP:Notability, then by all means attempt its deletion with an WP:AFD process. Also, you might note (by looking at the article's history) that Jimbo did not approve or nominate this as a GA. VanTucky 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he still an editor? Or an administrator?--LtWinters 01:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out User:Jimbo. VanTucky 01:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales 

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.160.42.73 (talk • contribs)
:…and so, was someone arguing for the opposite somewhere? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-founder