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 Crockspot (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 7 September 2007 (→‎This site). 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.

CONFERENCE IN MALLORCA, SPAIN

Dear Mr. Wales,

We would like to invite you to give a conference/speech about free software, open source, and linux in general, in our hometown, Palma, in Mallorca, Spain. We are an association called InfoCoop, which belongs to the UCTAIB, focusing on developing our work within a cooperative effort, especially in education, which started two years back, as a support group for computer science teachers, and which later developed into organizing related events. Last year we invited Xavi de Blas, a university teacher from Barcelona who shoud be coming back to do his linux show later this year, last May we had Richard Stallman talking about GNU/linux, and in October, we will have a journalist, Vicent Partal who is running an online newspaper all based on free/open source software from Barcelona. Now we are trying to organize and book some more lectures, and we would be very interested in having you over here, and listen to what you have to say. The lecture would be open, and we usually count on the cooperation from club Diario de Mallorca, a local newspaper's venue which fits over 200 people. There is also further press coverage, including television, since we keep it open to everyone and invite and send information to all major organizations in the area. Obviously we we would cover travel, food and board, and your own fees. I hope we can meet soon in Mallorca, and attend your lecture, of course. Please let us know about your agenda, availability of dates for 2007-2008-2009, whenever it is more convenient for you (except July, August, everything seems to stop for the summer, over here) and costs.

Thanks for your time, hoping to hear from you soon,

Llorenç Mercer

ll.mercer@gmail.com

2 Million Mark

Hello Jimbo, as you can see from here we are edging closer and closer to the 2 Million mark with articles. What should we do about it? Should we hold a competition for the person who creates the 2 Millionth article? HarrisonB Speak! 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this calls for a lengthy discussion of a commemoration ceremony and a plaque but no actual getting out of chairs. ←BenB4 03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quality should be our focus now, rather than quantity. --Deskana (talky) 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with Deskana in this situation. Wikipedia is already one of the largest and farthest reaching single sources of human knowledge on any subject one could imagine, and to worry now about encouraging people to make more articles instead of improving what we have got is... you know what, I don't have the heart to write a big long rant here. At least I got to the joke before anyone else --lucid 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree with Deskana here. It should be more about quality than quantity now, and 2 million is a less remarkable milestone than 1 million.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
plaque misuses non-free image Image:Wikipedia-logo.png and should be removed -85.210.32.112 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article creation level is high, we might not know who actually does create the 2,000,000 article. And then we'd have a vicious fight over who actually did. But if things were simple, it would be nice, yes. Lradrama 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if the 2 millionth article got deleted though? Then what would happen? ACBest 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We came extremely close to deleting the 1,000,000th article. The 999,999th article was One million articles - see Talk:Jordanhill railway station/Archive 1#Thank god. Hut 8.5 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that we will know the two millionth edit, because of the very high risk of it being deleted as vandalism or reverted. And nor should we. Wikipedia is a project to build a meaningful reference database; it is not an ego trip for editors to hit a magic number. There will almost certainly be a number of two-millionth edits, and none should be publicised. Unless it is from Jimbo, because he deserves the credit. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the two millionth edit, it's the two millionth article. What do you mean by saying that only Jimbo's two millionth edit should be publicised? A.Z. 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant if Jimbo created the article. I can't see Jimbo reaching 2,000,000 edits very soon can you? Isn't the poor bloke busy enough? ;-) Lradrama 09:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WR (*cough*) is plotting to create the 2000000. --Isis4563 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I suspect are rather a lot of other people.Geni 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure, but if WR got the 2000000th, they would make it something bad. Something anti-Wikipedia. --Isis4563 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fun with numbers: Wikipedia has well over 160 million edits total (see m:List of Wikipedias#1 000 000+ articles). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why does your userpage get vandalized so much?--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's the founder of Wikipedia, and a lot of crazy asses hate him for it. Primitive men solving everything with destruction. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Founder" of Wikipedia is actually disputed. --Tom 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O_o why would someone vandalize a person's userpage who could block you in a second?--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IT'S A MADHOUSE!!!! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea i get that, some people are just crazy--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage vandalism isn't rare. Many Wikipedians' userpages get vandalised a real lot, specially if they are admins or vandal patrollers. Mine's been vandalised 23 times :-( . But being a famous guy around here, people think it's funny to have a mess around with his page. Lradrama 09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, mine's been vandalized about eighty times (I just eventually stopped updating the counter). The more you work at improving the encyclopedia, the more conflict you come into with people who don't improve it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people feel thier need to express thier anger at Wikipedia and how it works (or dosen't work) by vandalizing. Of course, he could always have his userpage protected but I guess he dosen't mind. 71.112.225.88 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic. LessHeard vanU 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Haven't you let Google buy Wikipedia yet?

Just curious, usually Google buys stuff that has severely changed the internet (like Youtube) 68.195.123.26 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's greatest asset is the community that creates it. The encyclopedia itself is just an array of data that fits on a disk. How do you sell a community? - Crockspot 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you buy something which cannot be sold? Raul654 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the data itself. It is freely licensed. Can't be sold. But if someone wants to cut us all checks or some stock options for our mad editing skilz, I'm all ears. - Crockspot 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Ariel♥Gold 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You remind me of that person the other day who asked how much for adminship saying 'Everything has a price' ACBest 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ACBest. This is most interesting. --Reviewisat(Talk) 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to buy it, all money to me, not Jimbo!! ACBest 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wish :D 84.250.110.93 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over at WikipediaReview - a website inhabited primarily by users who have been banned from Wikipedia for mishebavhior - they were discussing just that, ACBest. The consensus seemed to be that the most abusive admins (from their perspective) who are immune to the rules (again, according to them) could make HUGE money from selling their accounts. Raul654 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people think they can sell anything now ACBest 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My old World of Warcraft account is worth about £200 (which is like $400). Stupid, really. --Deskana (talky) 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for an online account...how crazy are some people. --Reviewisat(Talk) 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people get conned though - they sell the account, give a fake password, sell again. Its like selling homing pigeons :P ACBest 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fraud and you could be sued for that. (did I get the words fraud & sued right?) 84.250.110.93 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Brazil a group of people kidnapped a guy to get his password and sell his GunBound account. A.Z. 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, though (not like it'd ever happen)...how does one go about buying a nonprofit organization? I mean, Jimbo doesn't own the project, the WM Foundation does. So who/what would the money go to? =David(talk)(contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The money would go to me! MUHAHA! I dont actually know who it would go to... tough question... ACBest 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation, I assume, but what's the point of the foundation getting tons of money to spend on the wikis if its sold them all? This discussion is totally pointless, by the way, I don't see why we're continuing with it, especially on Jimbo's talk page. --Deskana (talky) 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you buy a business (singly owned, or partnership), you agree to purchase the outstanding assets and liabilities of that company. When you "buy" a corporation, what you are actually doing is purchasing 51% of the voting stock (Class A stock, usually. Note that for a company like Warren Buffet's Berskhire Hathoway, one share of class A stock costs around $100,000). A non-profit can sell its assets (the servers, the Foundation trademarks like the name "Wikipedia" and logos). So I suppose if the Foundation went bankrupt, you could buy the assets, but that's it. Buying the assets doesn't get you on the Foundation's board of trustees, which (in a legal sense) is how you take over the Foundation. Raul654 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're thinking:

  1. Google gives Jimbo a bunch of money.
  2. Jimbo escapes to mootxico and lives like a God-King
  3. Google takes over Wikipedia, puts google ads on the sides and tops of articles, all goes on as normal. Everybody Wins.

What would actually happen:

  1. Google takes over the Wikimedia foundation
  2. Huge dramafest over Wikipedia
  3. Community splits, someone imports the entire Wikipedia database offsite, mentions the GFDL, and someone starts a new site. The new site gets most of the community, Wikipedia gets most of the popularity (read:vandals)
  4. Nobody wins.

--lucid 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly take the money if Jimbo didn't want it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get on with it, Jimbo will never let us down by selling it to a search machine. Now could we please stop wasting space of our precious encyclopedia :-P ? 84.250.110.93 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, get on with it! :-) =David(talk)(contribs) 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally something diffirent

Finally some fun news, I was following recent changes and found 4 vandalism cases. I calculated from that onre hour how long would destroying wikipedia take and here it is it would take with that rate take 479500 hours to destroy wikipedia completely :P heh-he and I do remember that the current rate is low but I'll keep doing this for some time :) ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four vandal edits in an hour? Are you blindfolded? From my own experience, there are at least ten vandalisms a minute, if not many times more than that. - Crockspot 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; you have to keep in mind that the RC page updates so fast, it's completely replaced in less than a second most times of day. =David(talk)(contribs) 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I chased a half-dozen vandal IPs around one article for half an hour the other day; they were making that many bad edits in a minute or so... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a more accurate view, go to this IRC channel, and keep a log of every change made in an hour. Then filter through them to see what's : Good edits, good faith but bad edits, reverts, vandalism, and so on, and then do your statistics --lucid 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure if the IRCs would work for my computer (quite old) But still, even with a rate of 1000 per hour =>2000 hours= 83,4 days wich is a few months or 600 per hour ten a minute 138 days or four months. Or just for the sake of it 100 a minute 13 days, if my math isn't rusty! :P The thing I don't understand is why do the vandals bother? There's uncyclopedia but nooo they have to come to wikipedia, let's start promoting uncyclopedia for vandals, hello your recent edits to never never land are considered vandalism and will result in a block you might consider moving to uncyclopedia if you wish to continue writing nonsence. :P ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even Uncyclopedia has standards. Mr.Z-man 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Lee Nysted still wants his name, and any likeness of him, deleted...permanently.

For some strange reason(s) User:Yamla, and others here, persist on recreating Lee Nysted's user and talk pages.

Here is the original link that allowed Mr. Nysted to be free of Wikipedia, as to his real name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_24#Lee_Nysted_requests_that_his_user_page_and_talk_page_be_deleted_per_policy_and_guidelines

I do not think Mr. Nysted has requested that he be re-instated as a user of Wikipedia. Please respect his initial request and delete his user and talk pages. Thank you. FP. 9-4-07 Courtesy Copy: LN 9-4-07 OneDayToDay 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems like Mr. Nysted has reinstated himself by continuing to edit, in spite of his ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not just with that account, either. There have been a substantial number of accounts editing for Mr. Nysted. --Yamla 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mr. Nysted is quite comfortabe in Aruba. He has made it abundantly clear that he wants his own name not to be used as a user or talk page, here at Wikipedia. Please do not draw any conclusions about Mr. Nysted's activites because of the actions of fans or, as you say, the activity of "a substantial number of accounts." Wikipedia policy and guidelines are being ignored in this case and it is hardly worth any more time than it takes to simply do what is right. Thank you for your time, FP. OneDayToDay 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that Mr. Nysted's "fans" all have similar writing styles and use open proxies. Likewise, your first contributions were postings to your own talk and user pages that contained the same sort of Hallmark-card sentiments that Mr. Nysted normally posts to his sockpuppets' user and talk pages when he creates them. A curious set of coincidences wouldn't you say? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It must be difficult editing and playing police detective on Wikipedia while "practicing law" in Chicago, Mr.O.

What would you do if Mr. Nysted ever becomes notable enough or emo enough for Wikipedia? Either way, I think Wikipedia editors that want Mr. Nysted to have a user page will help add to his Google hits. The innuendos and accusations are not seemly and certainly look somewhat slanted and not in good faith. OneDayToDay 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr. Nysted ever meets the notability criteria, it would be entirely appropriate for someone to create an article on him. This would not automatically lift the ban on Mr. Nysted editing Wikipedia, of course. That can be appealed by going to WP:ARBCOM who, if I remember correctly (and I may not) imposed the original ban. --Yamla 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, that is settled. Now, please delete Mr. Nysted's user page and his talk page per his request in May 2007. (See above link found in Jimbo's archive.) The ban is not an issue here, today. I am quite confident, Mr. Nysted will never want to edit here while using his real name. Thank you. OneDayToDay 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read that link, you'll find that the admin who deleted your pages said, "The deleted pages of course remain accessible to administrators and can always be reinstated if there is any inappropriate activity in the future." "Inappropriate activity" would include continuing to use sock/meatpuppets to evade your ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? So you assume that I am Lee Nysted and everyone that ever edits anything about Lee Nysted will be seen as a sockpuppet or meat puppet of Lee Nysted? Velly intellestink. Wikipedia policy and guidelines / MySpace version? I am truly amazed at the potential scope such an inquiry could take and the lengths to which you and your cabal have gone to assure your ranks that the likes of someone like Lee Nysted will never gain a foothold in this hollow, sorry, hallowed place. Surely someone here will see that your tone and motives are suspect and certainly not up to the standards that have been established here. Thank you for your time. I pray Lee Nysted or his fans will read this and respond to this at some point in the future. OneDayToDay 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no cabal, and the fact that you know that term and how it applies belies more knowledge about Wikipedia's goings-on than an ordinary new user should. I am a complete novice to this conversation, yet I do quite understand why they believe that you have more than a passing relationship with Mr. Nysted. How do you know that he wants his pages deleted while still needing to "pray [he] or his fans will read this"? The fact that you don't have the ability to communicate this to him means that you have no ability to speak for his wishes. Wikipedia assumes good faith; but remember, our ultimate goal isn't to assume good faith until we've sold the farm, it's to assume good faith until we've created the largest compendium of human knowledge ever. I'm sure that the other users in question would agree with me. =David(talk)(contribs) 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the original link that allowed Mr. Nysted to be free of Wikipedia, as to his real name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_24#Lee_Nysted_requests_that_his_user_page_and_talk_page_be_deleted_per_policy_and_guidelines You can block the name, but not the voice. The letter speaks for itself and it is quite clear. FP. Cc: LN 221.18.4.186 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Who is he? ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We blanked Lee Nysted's user and talk page by request and on the grounds that the violations of WP:SOCK would end. These violations have recently resumed and so the pages were unblanked. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, the abuses are continuing. --Yamla 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as long as lee nysted is news you will have news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.83.74 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Blanking

I'm having a discussion with another user on the precedent you established of courtesy blanking arbitrations to prevent Google from turning them up. In our case, the user in question was suspended in part for overzealously blanking pages, making this somewhat ironic at the very least. I'd appreciate any insights you had into when it is appropriate to cover up the results of someone's arbitration. Jfwambaugh 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site

This is a good site! 72.84.245.38 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, it is.  :-) =David(talk)(contribs) 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the ninth most popular site on the net, so yes, it ought to be rather good. Hut 8.5 09:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then isn't it obvious? :) --Hirohisat Kiwi 09:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great site. It's an even better user-powered Encylopedia! Pursey Talk | Contribs 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. This website is not great at all. See the Wikipedia Review for more info. 81.132.78.69 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft... those lot on Wikipedia review are mostly banned people ACBest 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone there is banned from here, SqueakBox 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Best did specify "mostly". There are a few thoughtful people there, but mostly they can be made to dance like trained cats with the slightest tug of a string. - Crockspot 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo

Hi Jimbo, how are you?

I need speak with you by instant mensage, about rules and status of some wikipédias.

Speak in german.

Hallo Jimbo, wie geht es Ihnen?

Ich muß mit dir durch sofortiges mensage, über Richtlinien und Status einiger wikipédias sprechen.

My msn is trapmastertheemperor@hotmail.de. Add, I don't use IRC.

Trap Master The Emperor 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello from Persian Wikipedia

Mr. Wales we have a quite situation in Persian Wikipedia regarding to the issue of censorship. I wanted to see if in brief I could explain what is going on and if you would give your opinion.

Many Thanks --Kaaveh 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Burgstone article

Jimmy, what do you think about my criticism of the article about Jon Burgstone? It seems pretty obvious that he or one of his co-workers has puffed up this article to undue proportions for an encyclopedia. --Bessemer Venture Partners 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=156373524"