Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Wales

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.41.154.157 (talk) at 07:52, 19 December 2010 (→‎Notability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleJimmy Wales was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 10, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 17, 2006Good article reassessmentKept
June 13, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 31, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
December 20, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 16, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Notability

Wikipedia wouldn't need to raise so much this year if they hadn't blown so much money on professional photo shoots to make Jimmy's beard look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.171.206 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy really notable? Who even cares about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.55 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG. Rodhullandemu 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? J390 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable if you think that Wikipedia is notable (which I do, as do millions of others).

98.245.150.162 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales is so notable that his page gets vandalized every year on April Fool's Day. =D CycloneGU (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I feel he has a point. Shouldn't he be, like, included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.79.174 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he didn't stick his face at the top of every page on this site, very few people would know about him. I think he's only notable because of his "personal appeal" and should be included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, as suggested above.108.17.72.3 (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He created the whole project, would you be here posting on his talk page if we was not notable, no. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Wikipedia is notable does not mean he is. Thomas Edison is notable; Every school kid in the USA knows his name and some of his inventions. Harold Smith helped invent the crayola crayon, but does not have his own article. Wales seems to be using Wikipedia to promote his own notability. This is just a personal appeal from someone not familiar with the bureaucracy of WP though, so I'm sure there's some policy page (like WP:SPIP) to prove my lay opinion of what "notable" is wrong.108.17.72.3 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABLE, then come back here if you want to make a real argument. NickCT (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABLE reads like a tax manual to me. I do not have the intelligence to become versed in Wales Rules of Order well enough to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. However, as a normal person, as most of the visitors to this site are, he's just the guy at the top of the page begging for money. (btw, telling anyone to "go ____ yourself" is kind of rude)24.2.117.244 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did accept the fact that he deserves his own article, I still do not understand how an article like this could be rated B class. Continuing with my suggestion that this be merged with an article related to the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't really think that an article like this deserves a B class label. Especially when there are people who doubt whether this article should exist. Agreed, fame and popularity do not mean that a person deserves an article of his own, but it definitely influences it. Apart from moving for the setting up of Wikipedia and its sister projects (which I admit are no small feat), what has this man done? The Wikimedia Foundation is notable, not him. He should be a subsection of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.125.43 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, Bill Gates is not notable either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just because something made someone famous doesn't mean they're excluded from being notable; it just means they shouldn't automatically become notable because they created it. Everybody and their mother knows who Bill Gates is; even if they don't know what he did (which is rare), they know he's filthy rich. I only know who Jimmy Wales is because I hail from the former GameWikis, where Gravewit and Jimmy Wales are regarded as two aspects of the Devil. I'm pretty sure if I asked the average person (not a frequent contributor on any wiki and not a business school student - not to say these are not average, but because they would be more likely than usual to know) who Jimmy Wales was, they'd say "Is that that guy with that 'urgent appeal' thing?" or have no clue. 128.252.255.142 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article proves his notability more than anything. − Jhenderson 777 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What or who made Jimmy Wales notable. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A whole bunch of independent sources made him notable. WP:CREATIVE for a quick answer. This is a silly discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources discuss Wales but what led sources to mention Wales in the first place. Is he really notable? QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what led sources to mention Wales in the first place - That isn't our concern. That you even think this is a topic worth discussing is interesting. I guess I have a couple of issues to look into in the morning. --Onorem♠Dil 06:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might help improve the article if we understand the notability and events that led to the notability. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(My last comment of the evening.) What exactly do you think is lacking in the explanation of events leading to his being notable? Please be specific. Start a new section if needed. Arguing whether he's notable is silly. Discussing what commentary is needed about why he's notable is a different issue. --Onorem♠Dil 06:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanger was excited about the idea, and after he proposed it to Wales, they created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001.[24]"
The part "they created" seems vague. I think it could be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not obvious that OP is trolling?

Jimmy's personal statement on the dob issue from last week

  • - I was born on the 7th of August, according to my mother. My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th. (The year: 1966)--Jimbo Wales 6:12 pm, 1 December 2010, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+0)

FAQ for Aug 8th Debate

Hey all, I have made an FAQ in response to the straw poll.

I did so b/c several editors including myself, seem to think it's a good idea.

See comments above from;

"And how about adding a FAQ to the talk page" - A Quest For Knowledge
"This item really needs a subpage FAQ" - Seth Finkelstein
" On the talk page we can have an FAQ, so that this is the end of the matter" - Geometry guy

Off2rob objected above, so I am asking for comments from other editors before I put it in.

Anyone got any opinions? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your links above. I think a talk page FAQ is a good idea, but it should contain more information: we need such an FAQ to prevent this silly debate happening over and over. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate for older info. Geometry guy 23:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Geometry guy - Could I suggest that you be bold and edit the FAQ I setup? If I dislike the changes I will revert per WP:BRD. The same goes for any other editor that wants to contribute. NickCT (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... This debate seems to have trailed off. I was bold and added the FAQ. I'm not going to be offended if someone removes/edits it. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and I support the addition. We could probably move the "this is not Jimbo's talk page" banner into the FAQ as well. Geometry guy 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I would point out there is already a note at the top of the page talking about this issue. It may be redundant to include it in the FAQ. Again, I don't mind if anyone edits/deletes. NickCT (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually proposing removing the note as redundant to a comment in the FAQ. Geometry guy 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you be bold and delete it. I'm a little concerned about SV's addition of the Wales' quote to the FAQ. I fear people are going to see that and whine about WP:AUTOBIO. I wanted to make the statement about the birth certificate without citation, to force interested editors to read the discussion.
But whatever... it seems that both SV and Geo are good with it, so I will leave it be. NickCT (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have also removed the last sentence of the quote, to avoid AUTOBIO concerns. Geometry guy 22:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better picture needed

The one you guys are using now looks kind of creepy. For the owner of the site, that seems like a mean treatment. How about one of the ones from the fundraiser banner? Most of those are a lot better.--74.193.55.195 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same picture Jimbo uses on his user page. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he uses it on his user page doesn't mean it isn't creepy. The personal appeal for money is creepy, too. 99.194.134.191 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, "creepy" is a subjective term, and I'm sure many people react differently to the same picture, but, for what it's worth, I personally don't see even a hint of creepiness in the current picture.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Clearly, "creepy" is a subjective term - Agreed. Personally I maybe can see a faint hint of what 74.193.55.195 is talking about, but I don't really think it's dramatic enough to worry about. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Re 'I'm with OP, I find it creepy, it's due to looking directly at you I think,, and having a very plain background etc. I don't think it'd harm to include another photo anyway though. But yeh i find both that and the appeal rather discomforting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.10 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well look. If you have a problem with it, propose an alternative. NickCT (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Jimmy's eyes. It's as though he gazes into your soul, reading your every sin. Yet, he isn't judging you. These eyes of demise do not judge, for you feel no shame or regret. His stare still scares you, as if it is there to tell you something. A commodity you may already know of. Yes, something you may be obligated to do. This cannibalistic gaze is corrupting your sanity, desecrating it with incongruous thoughts, repeating the same word you've known for as long you were alive - Donate. That's the only way to absolve yourself from that vicious scowl. That is the only way to eradicate those revolting chains that have locked your own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uggghhhhhhhh..... Ummmmmm...... Ugghhh....... Ok? NickCT (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the IP keeps changing....Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you gotta admit s/he's getting more dramatic.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page

Hello Jimmy,

can you please help me to creat my Pag? Wikipedia germany did it too and now i have to put all my staff in it'll be great if you help me

Thanks Dinzey Dinzey (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dinzey,
Please read the FAQ at the top of this page about contacting Jimmy. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&oldid=403143400"