User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

There are also active user talk pages for User:Jimbo Wales on Commons and Meta. Please choose the most relevant.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 1 day

Archives

Index

–index–

This manual archive index may be out of date.
Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

(Manual archive list)

Does Wikipedia exist for providing a free knowledge or it is looking forward to achieving a global domination?

According to Sue Gardner "Cell phones could be Wikipedia's path to global domination". The words "global domination" regarding encyclopedia just do not sound right, or I am missing something?67.169.11.52 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might just be the author taking the liberty of saying she said that. I don't see that in quotation marks. --Malerooster (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the author suggested, not what Sue said. Apteva (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky: "Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"

The Brain: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky—try to take over the world!"

_{Excerpt from Pinky and the Brain. Copyright of Time Warner. Used here as critical commentary.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

When we achieve global domination, can I have a nice little island someplace warm? Modern infrastructure and beaches preferable. GabrielF (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take something up north; give me Greenland, and if that doesn't work I'll gladly settle for Svalbard. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are divvying up the planet now....can I have Hawaii back please.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for anyone else here, but the only reason I joined Wikipedia is to become supreme autocrat of Moravia. I hope you won't disappoint me, Jimbo... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding global domination as the 6th pillar. For a world that anyone can edit! Monty ₈₄₅ 06:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, man. Global domination of the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" market! F--- yeah! Our army of geek volunteers can't be stopped! :) 72.94.164.248 (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not greedy. Ill take the Costa_Chica_of_Guerrero in Mexico. Wonderful lagoons with almost nothing more than fishing villages... at least for now!Thelmadatter (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I claim Florida! I also claim the right to forcefully relocate Floridians to Texas and annex the land as the 11th province of Canada. Because lets face it, half the population of the state are Canadian already. Spring break partiers still welcome. Reso lute 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is I who is looking forward to achieving a global domination not wikipedia!! The world is mine!! Mwwoaoaoahahaa!!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has been sucessfully thrown off the trail. The Universe is ours, piker. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have global domination, sort of. If redirects to disambiguation pages count. Formerip (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support global domination. Jehochman ^Talk 01:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The world will be a cruel and hostile place, if Jehochman is allowed to dominate it. Wikipedians, please help save the world by keeping Jehochman inside Wikipedia.67.169.11.52 (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Jimbo promised me the evil overlord role. ME, Jimbo! Don't you remember??? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First they took my book of quotations and I said nothing cause I couldn't look up a witty response, then they took my dictionary and I said nothing cause the right word escaped me, when they came for my encyclopedia there was nothing left to say cause I didn't know who Niemöller was. Alertboatbanking (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first rule of global domination is you don't talk about global domination.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Any good, mad scientist would tell ya that much! Bwahahahahahaha!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we got rid of VNT

Talk:Kerry_and_Kay_Danes#Edits_required

Summary: two people were railroaded by a dictatorship. The media listened to the dictatorship and spread lies about them. It is argued that Wikipedia has to present those lies because they come from reliable sources. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: we --> were. Bad typo because it can affect the meaning of the sentence. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't get rid of VNT, we just don't feature it as prominently in the lede of WP:V anymore. Gigs (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken, I don't know this particular case at all - never heard of the subjects before. I just looked at the link you sent, and it sounds like a very complex issue. We did get rid of VNT as a formulation because it was confusing people - stated out of context it was leading people to the conclusion that we should repeat falsehoods supported in reliable sources even when the consensus of thoughtful editors is that they are falsehoods, which is clearly not the case. But this doesn't answer the hard questions of what do we do, exactly? Yes, we don't mindlessly repeat nonsense, but we often need to report on it and contextualize it. Yes, we are not transcription monkeys but if someone is challenging what reliable sources say, we need a really good reason to agree. (The point is: those good reasons do sometimes exist.)

This case looks interesting, so I'm going to spend some time now reading up on it. It might be a few days before I feel up to speed enough to really help though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've just read through the article, and the discussion. What a disaster. I'll be talking things over with Wayne, who I think has been terribly discourteous to the subjects of the article, and is mistaken about several points of policy. I'm also going to take a radical approach to removing unsourced and poorly sourced claims from the article. I would appreciate as much help as I can get on this one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't know much about this other than what I read just the other day. I was pointed to it by some comments in WP:BLPN. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and team spirit

Civility I asked some candidates for arbitrator the following question: how do you feel about applying the principles that we use for BLPs (Biographies of living persons) also to editors: "a high degree of sensitivity", "attributed to a reliable, published source", "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered"?

Team spirit I like to see in the Main page's (frequently discredited) DYK section 1950s American automobile culture, the result of admirable teamwork begun here (where some may not exactly expect civility) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great collaboration from great editors. Something we should all look at and see the true sprit of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now archived, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping, Venezuela topic POV

Jimbo, I mentioned you here. (I was busy all spring, summer and fall, but also ... I gave up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1000 DYKs

I've become the first person to reach 1000 DYKs, the 1000th article is Fatima-Zahra Mansouri, although L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon (London) and L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon (Hong Kong) appear at the same time, so either could be considered the 1000th. Perhaps somebody could highlight this at the signpost or wherever.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the proposal to put this achievement as a separate DYK is evenly divided, and unlikely to pass. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't {{main page banner}} what we use for events like this? Though I don't think we mentioned Koavf using it... Legoktm (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. Can we? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported it solely because I think it will be a good way to promote DYK to other editors, and perhaps increase a little more interest in it. I can't think of a better reason to evoke WP:IAR than to praise the hard work on one person, while encouraging others to participate as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ubiquitous commons . . .

Interesting trivia tidbit for the day: The August 11, 2010, online publication of the Archaeological Institute of America credits a photo to Wikimedia Commons. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news: Potential censorship

OK, so we've got some bad news. According to TIME magazine, (on the World page of the Dec. 17 issue) it revals that there is a UN proposal to censor the web. Just an FYI here. Thegreatgrabber (talk)^contribs 07:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the most recent drivel from The Register, fine purveyor of random quotes? It says not only the opposite of what you say, but also claims, rather stridently, that there was no such proposal anyway.

Sound and fury signifying... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most fortunately. We don't need censorship at the time. _{Note: Someone needs to put that in the article}Thegreatgrabber (talk)^contribs 07:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See International Telecommunication Union#World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012 (WCIT-12). More specifically, [1], [2], [3], [4]. Etc. Apparently there is much confusion as (a) the decision was supposed to be by consensus, not vote, then a vote was taken, and the support exceeded opposition, but was less than half of the membership; as the organization rightly does not actually apparently have power to censor in countries that oppose it (or alas, to repeal censorship) the meaning of the supposedly non-binding treaty is also a bit up in the air anyway. But I don't know much about this. Wnt (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE ENTRY OF BAHIA DE "ALGECIRAS"

I am afraid that if you take at face value any information coming from Spanish contributors it is going to give Wikipedia a bad reputation for spreading disinformation.

The wikipage headed Bahia de Algeciras is totally false as no such bay exists (only in the minds of Spaniards). The proper name of this bay is THE BAY OF GIBRALTAR, or GIBRALTAR BAY. There is the port of Algeciras in the BAY OF GIBRALTAR. There is no talk page on the Spanish version of that wikipage and corrections (as expected) have been discarded.