Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stoodwiped (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 12 November 2007 (→Chairman of Wikimedia: What constitutes a "response to a complaint" and what constitutes "whitewashing uncomfortable material"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome Click here to leave a new message.

Now that's what I call ironic!

Contrast:

I suppose that everyone has the opportunity/privilege to edit the encyclopedia, but if that opportunity is abused, it can be revoked. That's reasonable, don't you think?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand on the above: Anyone can edit, absolutely. But those who do so abusively, disruptively, editors who go against policy, especially repeatedly after warnings and temporary blocks, risk losing their inherent right to edit. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. Ariel♥Gold 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone can edit" means "no imposed pre-requirements on editing" that while "[Wikipedia] is not a place where people have the inherent right to edit" means "we are not going to pay your internet access bill so you can edit, we are not going to allow IP addresses that vandalize edit, we are not going to allow edits from people who are trying to destroy us, and we will temporarily block people and IP addresses after evidence they are temporarily making edits that hurt the processes of creating an encyclopedia". Further since anyone can edit anonymously, people per se are not banned so much as specific personas; act different and wikipedia won't even know its you! This complaint boils down to complaining that Wikipedia won't let you edit an encyclopedia in a way that you have been told is not helpful to creating an encyclopedia. Poor baby. WAS 4.250 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is a privilege not a right, that's how I think of it.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is a privilege granted by a not for profit organization funded by the public displaying content supplied by the public and operating under tax rules that specify that it behave in the public interest. It is we as a society that grant that privilege through the mechanism of the foundation which in turn uses the mechanism of the steward-admins structure that varies according to project. WAS 4.250 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Sunny910910 got to it before I did, but I was also thinking about adapting the "driving is a privilege not a right" line from my old California DMV study guide. I think the analogy can be taken in some humorous directions. --Bobak 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like the divine right of the only two automobiles to run into each other? Did that really happen? -Susanlesch 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find this for my variations of "two drunk drivers accident only two cars in town" in Google. Thought I remembered a story like this in which the first two cars in some place hit each other. No idea anymore sorry. -Susanlesch 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoyce

Joy
Joy

Angel David (talk · contribs) hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia tendency towards christianity claims - why!

Dear Jimbo Wales! I recently stumbled over a BC notice in an artikle and changed it into BCE, which i would recommend for wikipedia because of a general "neutral point of view - policy", which should include also faith.

I then stumbled over a 12th century BC and changed it into a 12th century BCE and was pleased, because of its blue hue. Then I reasoned: it could might be that this system of "... century BC" would eventually be institutionalised into wikipedia for diverse christianity related reasons... and it was!

This was a drawback for me because i was used to this typ of "primate", which i have found in the german wikipedia, but not in english one.

Could you please exlain me why this is done in wikipedia and where one can discuss this system of "... century BC" because it is not an artikle and more direct under the autorship of wikidia-stuards and bureaucrats, i guess, and they might be in majority of christian faith. Why arent there neutral point of view algorithms including faith-related topics and systems of notation?

P.S. You might mind, that the aera of the messiah (=christ) is object to christian faith alone and BCE /CE could be read as beforeChristianEra/christianEra or beforeCommonEra/commonEra.

Thanks and regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.210.155 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We accept both BC+AD and CE+BCE, but it is arbitrary across wikipedia, the general policy is to just leave dates the way they were when they were initially added to the article and not to change them wholesale in the articles you encounter, despite how you might feel.—Cronholm144 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well - this is fine. I love the potentialities and feasibilities in wikipedia a lot. But your short reply dissatifyses me - I think: Your policy should make it even easier to imprint a primat of faith - against a culture of modernism and enlightenment. Arent your wikipedia-guidelines (or- practices) of notation in regard to dates/eras/centuries preformatted in christian manner, not seldom to bestow a favour on faith? This is offending, will and could offend people of non-faith or different religions. Why shouldnt guidelines of neutrality rather than guidelines of indeference be established in regard to christian dominance ( Leitkultur , de:Sendungsbewusstsein ) which has its arguments in faith and in the propagation of faith alone. This should fit to all people - and would offend none - especially in a world of wikipedia. Why then is this tendency evident in wikipedia which is eventually nearly to be recognised as a proclamation of faith rather than as an editing-culture or a personal state of affect? 87.160.210.155 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also custom and practice, many encyclopedia (and other information sources) use the BC terminology and this is transferred onto the online versions. Also, many (if not most) of the references used by the English language Wikipedia will have the old system and an article should have conformity with its cited sources. LessHeard vanU 13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would correcting usage to BCE/CE contradict cited sources? As long as you have a source giving the actual numbers, it would make no difference. Just as we often gives length measurements in both metric and imperial even when the source only gives one or the other. MartinMcCann 16:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Correcting"? Excuse me? This might be some indication of the problem (if I might use so grand a title) - using the abbreviations BC and AD is not a mistake, it is a choice (even if one that may be made out of ignorance). I wouldn't support anyone "correcting" BCE/CE, and I don't support the "correction" of BC/AD. To quote the Manual of Style

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.

(my emphasis) both forms are allowable. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with BC/AD is that it runs counter to NPOV. "In the year of our lord" is hardly an appropriate description of dates on a worldwide source of information when it refers to the beliefs of a minority of the world's population. Which supercedes which - the MoS or NPOV?MartinMcCann 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoS was written within the edict of NPOV; arbitrarily removing BC/AD is also POV, therefore both are allowed - as is both American and British (and other English speaking cultures variations) spellings of various words, but not in the same article. Also, no matter which version is used it is still dated from the supposed birth of Jesus, so the underlying systemic bias continues to exist - whether referred to directly or not. LessHeard vanU 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is CE/BCE more POV than BC/AD? The former states that it is measuring time around the believed birth year of the central figure of the Christian religion. The latter states that it is measuring time around the birth of God. A subtle difference, but an important one. The existence of various forms of English is empirical fact - the status of Jesus as God is a POV limited to Christianity. MartinMcCann 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using only CE/BCE is POV because it denies those who believe that Jesus both existed and was also a deity (or son of, or aspect, or whatever) - and a minority view does not mean that it should be disregarded - and therefore the literal meaning of the abbreviations is true, and also ignores the cultural history of the use of the terms in the Western world. Finally, although practicing (certainly fundamental) Christianity may be in the minority I would suggest that the majority of English speaking cultures are most familiar with the BC/AD usage. Please note that, in which case, I would not agree that BCE/CE should be removed.
Perhaps a Christian might like to comment here? LessHeard vanU 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got one - I'm Roman Catholic myself, I simply believe that a worldwide source of information such as Wikipedia should not be biased in favour of any religion. The BCE/CE arrangement makes no statement about the divinity of Jesus - it merely states the date of his birth. The BC/AD arrangement does make a statement about his divinity, and in doing expouses a Christian point of view - in violation of NPOV. MartinMcCann 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we shouldn't be biased in favor of any religion, then we shouldn't be using the Christian numbering of years, no matter what name it's called. Perhaps we should use the Mayan long count, or my personal favorite, AUC. --Carnildo 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that would be the optimum solution (though a more recent start date, such as the signing of Magna Carta would probably be a better point of reference) the ubiquitous nature of the Christian calender means that we need you use numbers that are recogniseable, and converting the actual dates would probably count as OR. That doesn't mean we can't describe the system in an NPOV manner. MartinMcCann 08:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AUC, there is no need of a Straw man argument. No one is saying that we should stop using the Gregorian calendar and switch to a "NPOV" one. Switching to BCE/CE is hardly a extreme idea. The fact that some people are offending by AD/BC and no one is offended by BCE/CE is for me enough of a reason to switch. But I also don't really care that much, any normal person can read either one just fine. It is not as if someone sees a date that says 40 AD and says "OMG, it says it was 40 years after the birth of God! Wikipedia says Christianity is right - I'm converting now". Calm don't, it's just dates. Jon513 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just have a "year zero" of either 15 January 2001 or 7 August 1966? — iridescent 13:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just call Jimbo "Pol Pot"? ;~) LessHeard vanU 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jon513, I can assure you that some people are offended by BCE/CE, just like people are offended by the opposite. You can check Talk:Common Era for a recent example. Fram 13:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I called him Kim Il Sung a couple of months ago - maybe there's a trend starting here. — iridescent 14:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether people are offended by whichever version is used is irrelevent - what matters is which version is NPOV. BC/AD makes a statement about the divinity of Jesus and thus represents a Christian POV. BCE/CE makes no such statement, one way or the other, and is thus NPOV - which means that it is the version that must be used in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. MartinMcCann 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, NPOV does not mean that - it means that all verifiable variations and differences must be represented in a neutral manner, with no emphasis given to any one viewpoint; thus removing the ability to use the BC/AD abbreviations is POV = not permitted by Wikipedia. Only the use of both (but not in the same article) is NPOV - not choosing one or the other. WP:NPOV states, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader..." By removing either dating system shows bias. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't every article required to have the date stated in BC/AD, BCE/CE, AUC, Mayan long count, calender of the French revolution, and every other dating system that's ever existed. Using BC/AD is stating "this date is measured from the birth date of the Son of God". Using BCE/CE states "this date is measured from the believed birth date of Jesus - the central figure of the Christian religion". The latter does not exclude the former, as it does not state that Jesus was not the Son of God, while the former excludes all religious beliefs except Christianity. MartinMcCann 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidance when there are conflicts between American, British or other variants of English; you stick with the original choice. I think I'm right that some of the articles on Dynasties of/Ancient Civilisations use the dating system from that epoch, with a translation to one or other English versions, as do some articles regarding Islamic or Jewish related subjects, for the benefit of readers.
Please, us debating the subject in English does not exclude the acknowledgment that there are other languages (or even alphabets or writing systems) that are equally as capable of allowing written communication - using an abbreviation of a Latin phrase does not deny any other religion has its own sovereignty of belief.
This time I really am going to walk away from this discussion, you and I will not agree and scarcely anyone else is interested. While countering bias is a worthy ideal it must be recognised that intergration should be the object, not removal. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy BCE says "we belive that western culture is the only one worth worrying about and what we consider common is common". Personaly I prefer BVE or BEV.Geni 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we need to think of something that people of all religions can think of as correct, but it's not going to be easy, I can tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceberg2229 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. According to the discusssions above, people don't like CE/BCE, and according to the person who started this discussion, people don't like AD/BC! --θnce θn this island Speak! 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde?

--Ye Olde Luke 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question might better be suited for the help desk, where they would have told you that it was probably taken out at some point by someone when they were editing the different files. Does it really matter? 128.118.226.88 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of Wikimedia

Did you just decide to retire all of a sudden? Is there a term limit or will we stay with Anthere until she's decided she's had quite enough of us? FinalWish 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "all of a sudden" and not recently. Anthere has been chair for about a year now! I have no clue how long Anthere will remain chair, but presumably for quite some time. :-)--Jimbo Wales 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the fact that Jimmy Wales runs the English Wikipedia, despite the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation Board should be running it. He is determining what content can and cannot appear on Wikipedia's pages. See also his incredibly inane edits of BonziBUDDY, which removes reliably sourced facts and replaces them with his own original research. This will become even more interesting when someone finally challenges the Wikimedia Foundation and they run for cover under the Section 230 protections, but the litigant will show (quite easily, it seems) that Jimmy Wales is actually the publisher of this encyclopedia, and not merely an Internet service provider of the information contained within. I would recommend that the tireless editors of this project who actually care about this thing called "truth" and "facts" simply revert these mysterious edits by Wales that always seem to demand that editors "contact him privately" before trying to disseminate the truth. It's frightening, isn't it, everyone? -- Venusboat 04:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, pish posh. If you want to help with the work on that article, email me, don't troll about it. It is absolutely not true that I added any original research there, nor is it true that I ask that people "contact me privately before trying to disseminate the truth." It is true, however, that I edit openly under my own name instead of trolling from a single purpose troll account.--Jimbo Wales 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Jimbo, if you ever did commit trolling (hypothetically, of course ...), nobody would dare block you as a troll :-). Anyway, "Venusboat" is mistaken on the Section 230 law implication. Immunity is not lost when someone in charge makes changes in response to a complaint (disclaimer: IANAL). Thinking otherwise is a myth that comes out of pre-section-230 situations. Note I am not taking a position here on Wikipedia and that issue - I'm saying whatever it is, edits by someone "in charge" in response to a complaint don't change it -- Seth Finkelstein 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seth, not to troll, but the editing by Jimbo that this Venusboat referred to above was not (disclaimer:AFAIK) in response to a complaint. In fact, decently-cited, referenced descriptions of BonziBUDDY were removed by Jimbo, and he replaced them with un-cited, non-referenced imaginations that seem to reflect his personal opinion of the BonziBUDDY software. Agree 100% that responding to a legitimate complaint does not threaten the encyclopedia's standing behind Section 230, but methinks we're not looking at a response to a legitimate complaint. --Stoodwiped 05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing a block from the spanish wikipedia

Dear sir,

Sorry if i disturb you. I am the user Clonick [2] and i have been kicked out forever from spanish Wikipedia by the administrator Escarlati [3].[4] The reason, be a sockpuppet of Mastegot[5] (we share the same IP address, it's a public IP address of a CiberCofee) who had been kicked out forever earlier without clear and specific block reason.please see "La IP que has comprobado no es la de los insultos"-the IP checked out was not the responsible of the injurious words,this is the "guilty" IP: 83.46.27.29You can check out yourself his contribuitions too [6] and try to find any vandalic act or similar to justify this maxim penalty. The real reason is censorship.

It's childish the explanation[7] that Escarlati has kicked me out to be a sockpuppet of Mastegot and the same time do not justify me why was kicked Mastegot out. What kind of crime did he make to deserve the maxim penalty? All is a blind alley. The reason is that there is no reason, only censorship. Mastegot was executed and murdered and now i have been executed and murdered too.

Please ask for proves not words but proves. Don't belive in what it can not be proved. I deserve to be judged only by my acts[8]. Share IP address and points of view is not reason enough to do anything against me.

Before all of this, i had been blocked incredebly by Kordas[9] for a week to report and prove publicly the imposture of Escarlati, his reasonings were not supported by his sources, twice (amoral and dishonest behaviour). [10][11].

Escarlati blocked my account[12], "my IP address" [13]) and my user talk page[14](!) to censor the contents and to avoid the appealing of the block (non-democratic practice).

I created a new account (sentoff[15]) to ask for a revision but administrator Petronas[16] did not want to help me[17] and then Kordas blocked me again[18] and Escarlati blocked my user talk page again[19](!!) with absolute impunity (i am the only sockpuppet with the user talk page blocked in all the spanish wikipedia [20]. incredible!)

The aragonese Escarlati do not respect the neutral point of view on the majority articles about the history of Aragon and Catalonia. He has catalanophobia.

Only three examples, Ramon Berenguer IV, count of Barcelona, was the ruling prince, sovereign Aragon in Britannica encyclopaedia[21] but in the spanish wikipedia is degraded to "primus inter pares" (first between equals)[22]Nobody can edit in this article, Escarlati undo all the users contributions and now it has been blocked with the Escarlati's truth [23][24][25][26] No one prestigious historician stands by this "joke".

In the article Flag of Catalonia [27] Escarlati, with an edit war, won a content dispute through brute force and the article was blocked with his "truth". (it keeps blocked since more than a year ago). Compare what is said about the origin in the wikipedia article and on this medieval armory page Vermadois (years 1285 to 1300) [28]"These are the arms of the Counts of Barcelona"

And in the article County of Barcelona, another Escarlati's war with the coat of arm: start,escarlati undo,me,escarlati,me,escarlati and now there is no arm.[29]. The wikipedia is his. Enough.

I have been talking Escarlati over here [30] here [31] and on my discuss page (now censored) [32]. Escarlati ignore that "administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute" despite of the leading members of the spanish wikipedia help theirselves so he would no have any problem to find a helper[33].

Finally, if you decide i am guilty and a danger for the wikipedia i will think it is very unfair but i will accept it but, please, unblock the iP address[34] is not my IP home, it is public IP and i would not like prejudice other users that share this IP address. thanks.

Marc Argenter - (clonick in the wiki) --Clonick 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude...

We have a user essentially claiming in this edit that you told him to ignore all WP policies and advocate this. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I'd say Jimbo has not in fact contacted this user. He's referring to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which he clearly does not understand. Just your run-of-the-mill troll. — madman bum and angel 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...that and several other policies. I've determined to just leave the guy alone. I just thought I'd let Jimbo know his name was being kicked around as having "told" a person to vandalize Wikipedia. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all rules can only be invoked for the good of the encyclopedia and vandalism is absolutely not that. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frage

(auf deutsch)|(in german)

Hi, Jimbo Wales,

also erstmal: dieses Wiki ist das Beste das ich je in meinen Leben gesehen habe. Ich hab eine Frage an dich: Also, ich wollte in meinem Portal etwas Schönes gestalten, doch habe ich es versagt. Nämlich, ich wollte bunte Felder erstellen, wo dort die Infos über die populärsten Charaktere von [frogger14.acc.de/Spiderwiki Marvel] drinstehen sollte. Aber das Problem ist: Ich habe ziemliche Problem damit. Zum einen kann ich die Überschrift von dem Feld nicht bunt markieren, zum anderen stehen dort keine Kategorieseiten, obwohl ich sie eingefügt habe. Und kannst du mir auch ein paar Tipps geben, denn ich stufe mir nur als Fortgeschritten.--Looter 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hier mein Wiki: Spiderwiki

hier mein Problem-Portal: Spiderwiki-Portal

(auf englisch)|(in english)

Hi, Jimbo Wales,

so at first: Your Wikia is the best, what I see. I have a question to you: So I was able to statures my Spiderwikia-Portal, but I fail. Cause I was able to made my fields colored where that was the Infos about the most popular characters by Marvel in Spiderwiki. But I have problems with them. I don´t can flag gaid the headline and I don´t can make in the fields categories, although I had dovetail the categories. And can you give me some tipps for me. I´m not a expert for Wikias.--84.56.105.48 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here my Wikia: Spiderwiki

here my Problem-Portal:Portal

Ping

Jimbo, I know you get swamped with email, but I just replied to the email you sent me, so I thought I'd give you a heads up to check your inbox. Thanks. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Emailuser/Jimbo_Wales --Agüeybaná 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hello jimbo i need some tips on how to use wikipedia. put them on my talkpage im Iceberg2229.Iceberg2229 23:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask these sort of questions on the help desk, where other Wikipedians will be most happy to help you. :-) Lradrama 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Hi Mr. Wales!

Just want to congratulate you on creating an entirely new internet paradigm! It's a really new and refreshing outlook on the world actually; as a college student I find myself constantly penned in by professors and their appeals to ethos. Apparently they're stuck in some hierarchical view of the world where they have more merit because of their years of intense study... little do they know that they're just holding information hostage! I hope that through your visionary spirit and the efforts of our fine Wikipedians we can finally move into an era where someone like Noam Chomsky can't bully Joe from Atlanta into believing in generative grammar.

Sincerely NPOV, Stubb(z) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood what wikipedia is about. NPOV is not against hierarchy and in favour of its opposite, etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. For hierarchy? What gives I thought the motto is anyone can edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit and hierarchy are anything but mutually exclusive, and anyone can edit but staying within the rules. Otherwise it would be anarchy and that would not work. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, I think I understand. Mr. Wales, I have a new respect for you. As the "de-facto leader" of Wikipedia, you effectively determine what's what around here. Logically then, you have the most credibility of any man in the world...an expert amongst experts. How does one obtain your autograph??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo does not determine what is what around here, with over 2 million articles he simply hasn't the time, and there are many more prolific editors than him. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors? I meant policy I guess. I confess my ignorance of who makes the proscriptive rules.... who is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is editors who make policy, I have never seen Jimbo involve himself in this in the last 3 years though I believe he did before. Admins police the system but they do not have any extra policy making powers, they are more like interpreting policy in the real world of wikipedia conflicts. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm. So Prima and Secunda are edit warring and despite best efforts they still want to kill each other. Arbitration Committee is brought in... and I do believe they are voted for but that "Jimbo does not consider himself bound by the results of the elections," making him King. I don't see how you wouldn't have a top to a hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.186.236 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Mr. Wales, I would like to know just how you came up with the idea for founding Wikipedia. Thank you.-- Vintei  talk  23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a comprehensive overview of the founding of Wikipedia, see the article on the history of Wikipedia. According to that article, the concept was an offshoot of an effort to produce a peer-reviewed encyclopedia called Nupedia. Feel free to consult the articles I've linked here, or to ask questions at the reference desk. Those routes might provide you with quicker service than asking the question here. --Ssbohio 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rfa Issues

I am not sure but I have heard A LOT of administrators speaking badly about the state of RFA. I am thinking if 5-10 editor's got together with you and the arbitration committee (seeing that the RFA'S are a very big concern). I think it would be a great idea if we could find out what all the editor's (Like a big debate) feel about it, and have them plus the arbitration committe come up with new policies for the RFA to make things better based on feedback from the community. I don't know much about it. However I have seen LOT's of people saying it is not good, and people proposing policies all the time that get declined. I just had the idea of getting first the opinion of each and every person that disliked the RFA and deciding what problems where relevant and what problems were not. Then basing the writing of policy for RFA on that research. --businessman332211 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet dude

Wikipedia is way sweet. Nice work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.216.122 (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=170909240"