Jump to content

User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 41: Line 41:


:::Why don't you try contacting them on their personal talk pages. This might be more likely to elicit a response. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Why don't you try contacting them on their personal talk pages. This might be more likely to elicit a response. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


== RFC/USER discussion concerning you (QuackGuru) ==
Hello, [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]]. Please be aware that a [[WP:RFC|request for comments]] has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in [[WP:RFC/USER|this list]], and the actual discussion can be found at [[{{ns:4}}:Requests for comment/{{ucfirst:QuackGuru}}{{highrfc-loop|page={{ns:4}}:Requests for comment|username={{ucfirst:QuackGuru}}|number={{{number|zzzz}}}}}]], where you may want to participate.<p><p>{{{1|}}}</p></p> -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC) <!-- Template:ConductDiscussion --> -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hi Quack, I will commenting at the above link. I'm not sure about all of your tactics, but I am quite sure that the point about Wales being the co-founder of wikipedia and the revisionism going on by editors is THE most important issue to face this project. If Wikipedia can change HISTORICAL FACTS about its creation, what article is safe from this same type of bastardization? Cheers! --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:14, 14 April 2007

OK. Lets review the facts:
  1. It does not matter what Wales' opinion or Sanger's opinion is.
  2. Undue weight does not apply in this case when facts must be written from a neutral point of view.
  3. What is th definition of founder. A person who established Wikipedia.
  4. Two people worked togther to establish and build Wikipedia from the beginning.
  5. When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they will be both called co-founders.
  6. There was never a dispute when Larry Sanger was still part of this project.
  7. Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).
  8. At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004.
  9. I have provided strong evidence (references) to color the picture.
  10. Here are some references for Wikipdians to get to up to speed on the facts and the history of Wikipedia.
  11. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/technology/24online.ready.html?#ex=1293080400&en=431aff478b00239e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Early Media Coverage
  12. http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html Links and more links
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&dir=prev&offset=20040119212409&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Wikipedia&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&offset=20040909053247&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2002 Official Wikipedia Press Release of 2002
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2003 Official Wikipedia Press Release of 2003
  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/February_2004 Official Wikipedia Press Release of 2004
  20. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKIPEDIA_FOUNDERS?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
  21. http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9
  22. http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95
  23. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4
  24. http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+co-founder+plans+expert+rival/2100-1038_3-6126469
  25. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222922,00.html
  26. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia/

Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Wikipedia.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Wikipedia discussion list (Wikipedia-L) to facilitate discussion of the project. At the end of January, Wikipedia had seventeen “real” articles (entries with more than 200 characters). By the end of February, it had 150; March, 572; April, 835; May, 1,300; June, 1,700; July, 2,400; August, 3,700. At the end of the year, the site boasted approximately 15,000 articles and about 350 “Wikipedians.”[1]

Yours Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I am not editing a protected page to add unrelated references that are involved in a content dispute. I don't think anyone disputes Sanger's role as a founder of Wikipedia. Prodego talk 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a dispute resolution process which can be used no matter who you are in dispute with. BTW it would be a policy violation for an admin to add disputed content to a protected page, which is why I won't do it. I do understand your point, but I don't think it is that big a deal. What does it matter? Prodego talk 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal, but I just filed an arbcom case, and based on my experience (I am not on the arbcom, and can't decide) your case would be rejected. The committee wants to see the rest of the process carried out, arbitration is a last resort. You are far better staying at step 1, Talk to the other parties involved. Prodego talk 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try contacting them on their personal talk pages. This might be more likely to elicit a response. Prodego talk 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&oldid=122809200"