Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎What if you pay yourself?: The 8-year Joe job!
Line 70: Line 70:
:[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::I prefer at the present time to define "paid advocacy editing" pretty narrowly to avoid wasted time talking about borderline cases - a classic rhetorical tactic of those who oppose reasonable measures to deal with the worst abuses. Having said that, I think best practice clearly frowns on edits of that type, and that if Mr. Kessler really did make that edit, it was inadvisable at best. (Note well though, the possibility of a [[Joe job]]).--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::I prefer at the present time to define "paid advocacy editing" pretty narrowly to avoid wasted time talking about borderline cases - a classic rhetorical tactic of those who oppose reasonable measures to deal with the worst abuses. Having said that, I think best practice clearly frowns on edits of that type, and that if Mr. Kessler really did make that edit, it was inadvisable at best. (Note well though, the possibility of a [[Joe job]]).--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Jimbo, do you really think this might be the case of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/KesslerRonald&offset=&limit=500&target=KesslerRonald eight-year-long] Joe job? I'm not sure how gullible you think you average Talk page users like Smallbones above are, but let me assure you that I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. So, it seems to me that your new push to advise the WMF Legal department to recommend to the WMF board that the Terms of Use demand disclosure of paid editing will not include these "inadvisable" cases of self-promotion. Thank you for clarifying. As for that needlessly antagonistic so-called editor Smallbones, I'll remind him that [[WP:COISELF]] isn't a "rule", it is a "guideline". And if he has any concerns about my editing of Wikipedia as a "sock of a banned editor", then he can direct his investigation to the nearest CheckUser noticeboard. Until them, he can suck my socks. - [[User:Checking the checkers|Checking the checkers]] ([[User talk:Checking the checkers|talk]]) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Jimbo, do you really think this might be the case of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/KesslerRonald&offset=&limit=500&target=KesslerRonald eight-year-long] Joe job? I'm not sure how gullible you think you average Talk page users like Smallbones above are, but let me assure you that I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. So, it seems to me that your new push to advise the WMF Legal department to recommend to the WMF board that the Terms of Use demand disclosure of paid editing will not include these "inadvisable" cases of self-promotion. Thank you for clarifying. As for that needlessly antagonistic so-called editor Smallbones, I'll remind him that [[WP:COISELF]] isn't a "rule", it is a "guideline". And if he has any concerns about my editing of Wikipedia as a "sock of a banned editor", then he can direct his investigation to the nearest CheckUser noticeboard. Until then, he can [http://vinyllisteningproject.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dont-care-single-klark-kent/ suck my socks]. - [[User:Checking the checkers|Checking the checkers]] ([[User talk:Checking the checkers|talk]]) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:39, 2 March 2014


    (Manual archive list)

    May I ask

    to put this graphic on your user page? Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just note that I put the graphic on Jimbo's user page about an hour ago. It was reverted and I explained to the reverter and put it back in. In any case I won't start an edit war about this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it, please add it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I just sent another email to you, saying, among other things - Thank you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could this also be added on Image description? Paid_contributions_amendment, we might be able to get more people to give comment.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be good to tie it to a specific campaign.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, is it good? if someone didn't agree with this they may revert it. Thanks Jimmy.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 23:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, too easy. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    May I update the image to an svg version with better clarity and a little better graphics?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Same design, better clarity - why not? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'll use the original SVG handshake (I was tempted to use the Editor retention hands but that changes the look too much) and copy the rest for a little better clarity and improve the graphics a bit but stay within the spirit of the original.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. When this graphic was mentioned months ago I put it on my user page too, and the new one looks much cleaner. Well done :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    The Original Barnstar
    You are awesome! Yoadi (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello!

    I must say, it is quite an honour to be messaging you, sir. :) --What the Heck am I doing here? 05:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What if you pay yourself?

    Jimbo, is it paid advocacy editing if you're advocating for yourself? For example, this recent edit wasn't paid for by anyone, but presumably it could promote a greater income for the editor who made the edit. Do you consider that particular edit to be a promotional one? Do you presume that the editor is self-interested (considering the User name)? Is he placing his own goals before the goals of the Wikipedia project? Is it "advocacy" editing? We would like your judgments on this matter, because (as Carrite's recent comments show) there is still a lack of clarity on what exactly constitutes "paid advocacy editing". - Checking the checkers (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We've had rules about this forever, see WP:COISELF.
    Now, I've got some questions for you. Are you editing for your own self interest? Are you a paid editor or are you editing as an entrepreneur (as your example might be described)? Are you a sock of the banned editor Mr. 2001? Why do you bother people who are simply not interested in your opinions?
    Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer at the present time to define "paid advocacy editing" pretty narrowly to avoid wasted time talking about borderline cases - a classic rhetorical tactic of those who oppose reasonable measures to deal with the worst abuses. Having said that, I think best practice clearly frowns on edits of that type, and that if Mr. Kessler really did make that edit, it was inadvisable at best. (Note well though, the possibility of a Joe job).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo, do you really think this might be the case of an eight-year-long Joe job? I'm not sure how gullible you think you average Talk page users like Smallbones above are, but let me assure you that I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. So, it seems to me that your new push to advise the WMF Legal department to recommend to the WMF board that the Terms of Use demand disclosure of paid editing will not include these "inadvisable" cases of self-promotion. Thank you for clarifying. As for that needlessly antagonistic so-called editor Smallbones, I'll remind him that WP:COISELF isn't a "rule", it is a "guideline". And if he has any concerns about my editing of Wikipedia as a "sock of a banned editor", then he can direct his investigation to the nearest CheckUser noticeboard. Until then, he can suck my socks. - Checking the checkers (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]