Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jimmy Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:48, 5 March 2008 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,659 edits →Consensus: sigh← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:21, 21 January 2025 edit undoTornadoLGS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,205 edits Reverted good faith edits by 2601:204:C500:BF20:EEA6:B60F:B11B:2C60 (talk): WP:NOTFORUMTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Article history
{{talkheader}}
| action1 = AFD
{{ArticleHistory
| action1date = 14 October 2005
|action1=AFD
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales
|action1date=2005-10-14
| action1result = kept
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales
| action1oldid = 14579563
|action1result=kept
|action1oldid=25464126
|
|action2=PR
|action2date=23:22, 15 June 2006
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jimmy Wales/archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=58840827
|
|action3=GAN
|action3date=2006-07-05
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=62024022
|
|action4=FAC
|action4date=2006-10-10
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jimmy Wales/archive1
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=80703703
|
|action5=GAR
|action5date=2006-10-17
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_8#Jimmy_Wales
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=81895538
|
|action6=PR
|action6date=2007-06-13
|action6oldid=137788265
|action6result=reviewed
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jimmy Wales/archive2
|
|action7=AFD
|action7date=2007-08-14
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (2nd nomination)
|action7result=speedily kept
|action7oldid=151226064
|
|action8=AFD
|action8date=2007-08-31
|action8result=speedily kept
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (3rd nomination)
|action8oldid=154849721
|
|action9=GAR
|action9date=2007-12-20
|action9oldid=178824205
|action9result=delisted
|action9link=Talk:Jimmy Wales#GA Sweeps (on hold)
|
|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Socsci}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPBiography |class=B |priority=Mid |living=yes|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages |class=B |importance=mid|nested=yes}}
{{WP Internet |class=B |importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Alabama |class=B|nested=yes}}
}}
{{WP1.0|WPCD=people|class=B}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: left;"
|-
| ]
| '''If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at ], not here.''' As Jimbo explains...


| action2 = AFD
"People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my ] than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --] 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"
| action2date = 14 August 2007
|}
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (2nd nomination)
| action2result = speedily kept
| action2oldid = 151188864


| action3 = AFD
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Jimmy_Wales.ogg|small=yes}}
| action3date = 31 August 2007
{{wikipedian-bio|Jimbo Wales|Wales, Jimbo|editedhere=yes|small=yes}}
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (3rd nomination)
{{archives|auto=[long|small=yes}}
| action3result = speedily kept
| action3oldid = 154846896


| action4 = GAN
==CRITICISM==
| action4date = 25 March 2012
Most[REDACTED] articles on people have a section called 'criticism' or 'controvesies'. Now, why is Jimmy an exception? Because he founded wikipedia? Com'oon this is a 💕. We don't have any taboos here!
| action4link = Talk:Jimmy Wales/GA1
To give wiki users an idea on what to write in this section: please see http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4386200
| action4result = failed
And of course, users should include his responses to criticism too...
| action4oldid = 477279005


|action5 = AFD
P.S. for Jimmy: Please do not remove this post. Thanks...
|action5date = 14:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (8th nomination)
|action5result = speedily kept
|action5oldid = 758452878


|currentstatus = FGAN
|topic = Social sciences and society
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes |collapsed=yes |class=B |vital=yes |listas=Wales, Jimmy |1=
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Mid |websites=yes |websites-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low |IN=yes |IN-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alabama}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
{{WikiProject Objectivism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Open |importance=High}}
}}
<!-- Inactive Projects -->
<!-- End of Inactive Projects -->
{{Press
| subject = article
| author = Yermi Brenner
| title = Taking On Misplaced Pages's Bias
| org = Medium
| url = https://medium.com/better-humans/11acd4a7f44c
| date = {{date|24 June 2013}}
| quote =
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6ITfm2rhu
| archivedate = {{date|28 July 2013}}
| accessdate = {{date|28 July 2013}}
| author2 = Madeleine Spence
| title2 = Larry Sanger: ‘I wouldn’t trust Misplaced Pages — and I helped to invent it’
| org2 = The Sunday Times
| url2 = https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx
| date2 = {{date|1 August 2021}}
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 =
| author3 = ]
| title3 = VIPs expect special treatment. At Misplaced Pages, don’t even ask.
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-john-eastman-editing/2021/10/28/f2d61bea-35fd-11ec-9bc4-86107e7b0ab1_story.html
| date3 = 28 October 2021
| quote3 =
| accessdate3 = 29 October 2021


| author4 = ]
| title4 = Misplaced Pages's Jimmy Wales Has Already Solved the Internet's Problems
| org4 = ]
| url4 = https://reason.com/video/2022/04/28/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-has-already-solved-the-internets-problems/
| date4 = 28 April 2022
| quote4 =
| accessdate4 = 6 May 2022
}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Jimbo Wales|declared=yes|editedhere=yes}}
{{tmbox|type=content|class=tmbox-talk-notice|text=
<big>This talk page is '''only for discussions concerning Misplaced Pages's article on Jimmy Wales'''.</big>
* '''To talk to Jimmy Wales himself''', please use ''']'''.
* '''To get help with general Misplaced Pages questions''', see the ''']'''.
* '''To discuss Misplaced Pages policy or practices''', see the ''']'''.
* '''For other useful links''', see the ''']'''.}}


{{merged-from|Jimmy Wales Foundation|14 December 2020}}
{{pp-move-indef}}


{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
==So this man supersedes consensus?==
|target=Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive index
I long to stand on the shoulders of giants, but this man crushes his own 5 pillars with his own immense weight! ] (]) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
|mask=Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0
== Relevance of certain topics ==
|indexhere=no

}}
I'm having a hard time understanding both the meaning of the following paragraph as well as the relevance of its topic:
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}
"Later, during a question-and-answer period, Wales was asked by a school-aged child what Wales’s favorite article was that a third grader could read. Wales (after some consideration) said that Inherently funny word would probably be the case. He later cautioned that a parent may want to check on this before sending their child to the site. However, perhaps a new word will be added to this article because the questioner after a few attempts at pronunciation asked if “genie-whatever that was” was one of those words, and if it was the study of genies. Wales said that this question should be answered by his parents and continued with the forum."
|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 14
This seems to be an anecdote, but nothing more. I do not feel that it should be included in the article. It is also difficult to comprehend without careful examination. What does everyone think?
|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(30d)
Also, the "Personal Philosophy" section does not seem relevant to me. Everyone has a personal philosophy, and usually it is not notable unless this philosophy was a major cultural influence (such as in the case of Adam Smith or Ayn Rand). Furthermore, the philosophy of "freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them", seems basically the same as what we in America know as "progressivism", so I would not say it is even a notable philosophy.
|archive = Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Feedback, anyone?
|target=/Archive index
] 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
|mask=/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0
:I agree. Both segements should be deleted - it would improve the article greatly if they were removed. ] 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
|indexhere=yes}}
::Only the first should be deleted. The personal philosophy is inherently notable for (someone claiming to be) a founder of an encyclopedia. And Objectivism is not progressivism. ] 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
__TOC__
:::I would nuke them both, but thats me :) --] (]) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
== Date/age issue ==

:That's not ]; ], perhaps. (like most of Misplaced Pages's editors; or perhaps you'd prefer "socialism". "Eight Ways to Run the Country" is a good source.)

==What a clever guy==
This guy made Misplaced Pages. He must have 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000IQ
: Hey, it's not like he didn't have ]. ] (]) 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::Nah, he decided to purge that help, along with the rest of the truth on Misplaced Pages.
:Speaking of Sanger, there's been a little edit war over the controversy section, with two editors undoing ]'s edit to change "Misplaced Pages co-founder** Larry Sanger" (where *s are citations) to just "Sanger". I'm going to repeat the same edit, but I'm going to explain my reasons here so I don't end up as a candidate for ]. The preceding sentence already mentions Sanger, and the fact that there is controversy over Jimmy editing this article to remove references to Sanger as co-founder. Thus, it is a simple matter of style to say that (1) you don't need to mention the full name, and (2) you don't have to call him a co-founder. It's not like the citations are lost, either, because they're both repeated from elsewhere. ]<small>(])</small> 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::It seems that it would be clunky to mention Sanger as co-founder in the previous sentence. The next sentence introduces Sanger's comments so its appropriate and in context to call him co-founder there. I am not sure if as much space is given to flesh this point out is really needed. It seems like it rambles abit at the end of that section and we have multiple quotes of Wales calling it preposterous and absurd?? The whole thing could be shortened. Anyways, --] (]) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::The way I see it, I'm not sure it has to be mentioned at all. The first time Sanger's name is mentioned is in a description of his role in creating Misplaced Pages, so obviously calling him a co-founder there isn't really necessary. Then, in this section, the previous sentence refers to Jimmy removing references to Sanger as co-founder, thus at the very least establishing the fact that there is a ''claim'' of Sanger being a co-founder. Then, in the "Development of Misplaced Pages" section, we apparently have more of the "Jimmy says he isn't, but these sources say he is" (which incidentally isn't about the "Development of Misplaced Pages" at all anyway - may as well call it the "Co-founder controversy"), and finally, in Sanger's article, all the evidence is presented again.
:::I certainly don't dispute the claims that Sanger is a co-founder, but I agree with Jhurlburt's edit summary that suggests that the "Misplaced Pages co-founder Sanger" bit is "shoehorning" the fact in. ]<small>(])</small> 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Hang on, I notice that was actually ''just'' split off from the "Misplaced Pages biography" section by ]. Like I just said, at the very least I'm not sure it's the right title for the section. ]<small>(])</small> 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::You don't like my edit. Therefore, I reverted it. Happy? ]] 05:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== redirected from fatass ==

just thought you should know. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Early roles of creators ==

What's the point of this section in a biography? Seems like it would be more relevant in an article about the early history of Misplaced Pages. It should be deleted. ] (]) 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it contains several classic errors, such as that Sanger was responsible for the idea of applying the wiki concept to the encyclopedia project. The first person to propose it to me was a different employ, Jeremy. And even in Sanger's telling of the history, the idea was given to him by a friend of his, Ben Kovitz. I do not think Sanger has ever claimed to have had the idea.--] (]) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, for heaven's sake! I used to think you must be a really great guy, but this shabby business of you trying to take the credit away from Larry Sanger has severely lowered my opinion of you. It's not that I think that it doesn't matter who was responsible for what - I think it's very important, if only because knowing what someone has achieved in the past allows you to judge how much time to give their ideas in the present and future, which is of course important given that we only have a finite amount of time to give to other people's ideas. It's just that the that Sanger presents is surely concrete. Contrary to what you write above, and as I have no doubt you are very well aware, Sanger does ''not'' claim that the idea of applying the wiki concept to an encyclopedia was Kovitz's, but merely says that Kovitz introduced him to the concept of a wiki. Sanger ''has'' claimed all along that he had the idea of Misplaced Pages (as well as coming-up with the name). If you know anything about history, you should know that the truth always comes-out, and becomes widely recognised, with time. All you've achieved with this childishness is to ensure that history will refer to you as the guy who co-founded Misplaced Pages, but who tried to make everyone believe that he was the sole founder. ] (]) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Wow, that was quick ==

Are you sure that reads better than my version? ] (]) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
: I preferred your edit. The concept of good grammar escapes some people. ] (]) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. The version they prefer is every bit of an eyesore. ] (]) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

== Why was this erased (was it good faith vandalism) ==



]] 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the reference you posted? The information in Wales' bio is wrong according to the reference. This is what you restored:

''"In 1999 Wales had a student design software for a top-down design multilingual encyclopedia website; however, it proved to be too slow to be usable."''

And this is what the reference says:

''"Jimmy Wales: I had the idea for a freely licensed encyclopedia written by people in various languages in 1999, and I had a philosophy student design it. The problem was that it had a top-down design and was way too slow."''

The philosophy student Wales refers to was Sanger and the encyclopedia was Nupedia. Sanger didn't design the software for the Nupedia, he just setup the framework for the encyclopedia. The sentence you keep on reinserting makes it sound like he hired some student to build a program to run an online encyclopedia but it was too slow and buggy to work. This is not the case.

Your addition to the section "Early life" is also quite poor:

''"...Doris, and his grandmother, Erma, ran a small private school, in the tradition of the '''one-room schoolhouse, where Wales received his education'''. '''Wales' early education took place in a one-room schoolhouse'''.".''

Sounds a bit redundant to my ears. Almost as redundant as the line you keep adding to the section "Misplaced Pages biography":

''"...Wales had removed references to '''Sanger as the co-founder of Misplaced Pages'''. '''Misplaced Pages co-founder Sanger''' commented that..."''

Literally three words separate the two co-founder statements. ] (]) 04:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

==Is this guy even of note?==
Why is there an artical on this guy, I thought it was against the[REDACTED] rules to make personal articles about non-public figures. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Yeah, I was also under the impression vanity pages were against the rules ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:This should be at the bottom of the page, but anyway ... First, it's not a vanity page - that assumes it's written by the person who it's about, or someone closely related to them, and while Jimbo has edited the article at times, most of the text is definitely not his. Second, the threshold for deletion is ], which requires multiple non-trivial references to the article's subject in reliable secondary sources to determine notability, and if you take a look at the number of references in the article you will see that there is no problem with that. ]<small>(])</small> 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

== NPOV problems, as usual ==

"During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of a dot-com erotic soft-core pornography search engine, Bomis, that later helped in the initial funding for Misplaced Pages."

Bomis was not an "erotic soft-core pornography serach engine". It was a general interest search engine, which covered the whole of the Internet. It is absurd to repeat this lie yet again, even when later in the article there is the very clear section about me disputing this nonsense.--] (]) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:I removed the interesting part of that sentence, which Jossi had altered. The reference given plainly doesn't support any characterization of Bomis, except as a search engine. It further doesn't purport the characterization of the site to be at all significant to jimbo, except insofar as he opposed calling it porn. ] (]) 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

=== Bomis ===

Could somebody please tell me what is supposed to be controversial about Bomis? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::Its very nature. Wales describes it as a search engine, whereas others seem to remember it essentially as a porn portal. The matter wouldn't be controversial, of course, if Wales hadn't removed it from the Internet Archive, in which case anyone could see what it was... ] 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::: So that gets discussed on ]. Oh, hey, look, it ''is'' discussed on Bomis! There is nothing especially controversial about that, though, is there? I mean, it's not like he's ] or anything. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Then you might as well remove the Misplaced Pages-related information, because it's discussed on ], and cut the article down to a stub. ] 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

* Also it would be good to have some indication that "Wales edits own biography shock" has made the front page of Time or something; I feel it's distinctly self-referential and not actually of that much interest to anyone else. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::Things don't have to make the front page of Time to be notable. This was widely reported. ] 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::: It was dfiscussed a bit, a while back. are we sure it's one of the most notable events in Wales' life? That's what we're saying here. Looks like ] to me. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, his obsession with his own image and his attempt to write Sanger out of history is very telling about his character. ] 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::::: Hey.... keep your personal opinions about people treated in Misplaced Pages articles, ''out of talk pages''. Discuss the article, not the subject. ] <small>]</small> 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::: It's good that he's up front in this way. Having openly admitted that he has an agenda against the subject of this article, it is plain that Bramlet Abercrombie has no business editing the article directly; it's always good to know when people have these strong biases against the subjects of biographies so we can watch and restrict them from damaging the articles. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with Guy and Jimbo on this one, and re ] we need to respect the subject of this article and his observations about the article. Thanks, ] 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== DOB controversy ==

'''Keep''' - The DOB controversy is notable for several reasons.... various reliable sources disagree about the date, it plays to the debate about the accuracy of Misplaced Pages (i.e. if we can't even provide the correct DOB for Misplaced Pages's founder how can any of the info be trusted) and it ties in with the greater controversy about Wales' editing of his own bio. Plus, from a pragmatic standpoint, it provides an easy reference point for Misplaced Pages editors for when someone decides to change Wales' birthday, which happens every few months. ] 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:We need refs about the dob controversy, refs indicating different dobs will not do. Thanks, ] 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
: See ] ] <small>]</small> 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:: They are there.... I see Wales' blog (normally blogs don't count but if they are maintained by the subject of the bio Misplaced Pages allows it), the article where Wales says nobody knows when his birthdate is and the EB researcher's footnote. ] 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:Please can you give me some refs here on this page to have a look at. Thanks, ] 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
: Can someone explain ''why'' that is a "controversy" and why it is notable for inclusion? ] <small>]</small> 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

: Jhurlburt: the vast majority of your last 500 edits are exclusively to this article, most of which could be considered ]. May you consider stopping this for a while? ] <small>]</small> 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:: The vast majority of my edits are listed to whatever IP I'm assigned when logging on. I only log in when I feel the desire to edit a protected entry. I'll probably stop paying attention to Wales' bio once editors start respecting the concept of NPOV (e.g. stop referring to Wales as the sole founder or shoehorning Sanger in as co-founder every chance they get). ] 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::: I am referring to . ] <small>]</small> 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
:::: Yes, you've already stated that. But do you have anything to say about the article or any particular edits? Personally, I think that the mention in EB and the article by Rogoway provide enough of a bases that a controversy exists. Plus, primary sources can be used in a BLP if the primary source is the person themselves (e.g. Wales' blog and his statements in his Misplaced Pages Talk page). Since some jokers keep on inserting Aug 8th as Wales' birthday every few months having a section that addresses the birthday issue along with all relevant sources seems pretty useful to me. ] 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

<s>== Re: Rfc: Can statements challanged for a long time and not cited be removed on a biography? ==

You might want to take a look at ] regarding a group of editors who are insisting on keeping unverified (and challanged for a few months via the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag) in the article in contradiction to ]. Thanks for your time and interest. ] (]) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)</s>

==Citing WikiPedia==
I added the BBC News which I read here in our Philippine Daily Inquirer which stressed the importance of[REDACTED] for students:

On December 6, 2007, Wales stated at the Online Information conference in London's Olympia that teachers who prohibit students from citing Misplaced Pages are "bad educators". Wales reasoned that new editing and checking procedures make Misplaced Pages more reliable. ] (]) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

:Personally, I don't think we should be including every news article that turns up the pike about Wales. We recently deleted a whole section that was nothing but a huge list of such articles and I think the bio is he better for it. I really don't see how this statement by Wales adds to his bio..... it would be a good addition to an article about Misplaced Pages, which this is not. ] (]) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

== Repeated text in the article: ==

During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of the web portal Bomis, a website featuring user generated content that linked to adult content on the Internet and which The Atlantic Monthly called the "Playboy of the Internet." Bomis also provided the initial funding for the Nupedia project. During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of the web portal Bomis, a website featuring user generated content that linked to adult content on the Internet and which The Atlantic Monthly called the "Playboy of the Internet." Bomis also provided the initial funding for the Nupedia project. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Fixed. ] (]) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

== Bomis paragraph in Career subsection ==

What's the point in having this paragraph in the ] subsection?

<blockquote>
Bomis sold erotic materials until mid-2005. Wales was asked in a September 2005 C-SPAN interview about his previous involvement with what the interviewer, Brian Lamb, called "dirty pictures." In response, Wales described Bomis as a "guy-oriented search engine," with a market similar to that of "Maxim" magazine's scantily clad women. In a phone interview with Wired News, he also explained that he disputed the categorization of Bomis content as "soft-core pornography" saying, "If R-rated movies are soft porn, it was porn. In other words, no, it was not. That description is inaccurate."
</blockquote>

Wouldn't this be better utilized under the ] subsection or in the article for ] itself? ] (]) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

:I think it is okay where it is as Bomis was clearly a part of his career. I have, though, removed "Bomis sold ] materials until mid-2005." as unreferenced, please do not return without a ]. Thanks, ] 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think the paragraph above is in the right section as it seems to be connected to a contraversy later in his carreer about the nature of Bomis.com. If you don't know anything about later events it is unclear why the site's nature is such a big deal. If this is connected to the edits to his Misplaced Pages biography in 2005 then I think this information should be in that section. If this information is notable for other reasons the information needs moving to the relevant section and its importance needs to be explained in the article. --] (]) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

==GA Sweeps (on hold)==
This article has been reviewed as part of ] in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the ]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The lead is too short. It should be 2-3 paragraphs long.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a ]. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through ]). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at ]. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, ] (]) 08:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

:This article also has stability problems. It changes significantly, sometimes week by week and is a constant source of edit warring. It's verifiability and neutrality are also in question.... at least in regards to the sections ] and ]. Does it really meet the ]? ] (]) 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Added cleanup notice on main page in order to promote edits that will preserve Good Article status. ] (]) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I removed the cleanup notice, because the reason it was put in the article ("to promote edits that will preserve Good Article status") is taken away by delisting the article. And otherwise the notice could be added to all articles that are not of GA status. – ]] 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

{{{subst:icon|]}}} As I can observe the lead has not been expanded. In addition a clean-up tag was inserted into the article. I feel that I have no other option except delisting this article. ] (]) 12:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

==Please help me - I just want to clear my name now==

::''This section moved to ]''

Wow! You'd have thought the guy suggested that "Jimbo" Wales didn't create the idea for Misplaced Pages! Sorry, not currently logged in... ] (]) 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== V8 juice ==

Do you like spicy V8 Juice? Some magazine said you always had it in the refrigerator, according to 67.81.42.30 ] (]) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages is actually Nupedia! ==

I didn't know that Wales "co-founded the free online encyclopedia Nupedia (2000), that was later renamed to Misplaced Pages (2001)". Wow, the more you know! ] (]) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:Actually it is a lie put here by people who want to adversely affect Wales' reputation. Unfortunately[REDACTED] is not always reliable, as in this case as he was the founder of wiokipedia. Thanks, ] 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Oh. Well, I guess someone should correct the article's lead. I would but the article is protected.] (]) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== Regarding "Media and honors" section ==

I've made a list form of that section in ]. Strangely, I've noticed that the way the current section is arranged seems to resemble a list that was changed to be more "encyclopedic". I wasn't sure if that really was the case, even after looking in the history tab and the this talk page's many archives. As a result, I could be just be suggesting an old suggestion...

For now, though, would my draft be suitable as a replacement for the current section? ] (]) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:I like it. However, I think we should limit the list only to the many awards and honors that Mr. Wales has received and not include every single media appearance the man has made. I see no reason why Wales' Nov. 4th 2006 appearance on ''Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!'' is so notable as to warrant listing. In another vein Wales' Dec. 6th, 2007 quote about teachers who refuse to let their students use Misplaced Pages should be worked into the article instead of being thrown haphazardly into a list. ] (]) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::I can definitely agree with those two appearances. I copied this article's "Personal Philosophy" section to my sandbox, too, and just added the Dec. 6, 2007 quote to that section. I really don't think the ''Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!'' appearance is all that important, either (at least not for an encyclopedia). Well, I'm going to replace the article's certain sections with my section and see how things work out. ]] 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

==Question==

This is proberbly the wrong palce, although as a relatively new editor I dont feel confident putting this on the guys uuserpage. I followed some links from another userpage, and something came up about a mailing list scandal, and stuff like that, is this all a load of BS? Or is it untrue that WP: THERE IS NO CABAL? Cos certain behaviour shown in the article of users and admins here are in common with behaviour Ive seen before, but Im reluctant to just believe anything I read especially as this is quite a big issue from waht I gathered. So was there really a mailing list scandal? Do users really get blocked for questioning authroity? Also, were several (namely four) articles policed by editors intent on what I can only assume was shilling? I dont mean to accuse anyone, I just wnna see if there is an y truth in this based on the facts, or whether its just stupid. Dont just delte my comment if you feel its in the wrong place or somethign without awnsering, cos that would just confirm for me that THERE IS A CABAL.] (]) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:Quick summary: An ] blocked a user, and when questioned about it said that the evidence was confidential, but had been emailed to other administrators and aribtration committee members. It turned out that the block was apparently invalid. As a result of this (and I believe other cases), there was a whole bunch of discussion about whether such confidential evidence was really the right way to go, including ] and a ] in the works. Then certain media outlets and organisations, including several that are known to be highly critical of Misplaced Pages, picked up on it and magnified the drama past even the level it reached on-wiki, turning it into cries of "OMG SEKRIT ADMIN MAILING LISTS". As for the rest of your questions, I'll just point out that there are many policies and guidelines explaining how to treat articles, and editors, and 99% of the time they work. And next time, you certainly can post on ], where you're just as likely to get an answer like this from a person like me as from Jimbo himself, anyway. ]<small>(])</small> 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

==GENIUS!!!==

This guy must be a genius if he made this entire site!!!!!! Of course, he had some help, but making all these templates... It's a popularly used resource for research in this generation!!!!! WOW!!!!!! Just goes to show when you have a genius and lots of people around the world to help, you can really make something big!!!! Hananoshi 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Hananoshi
:Have a son with him if you really like him ¬_¬. This is a talk page, not a forum. --] (]) 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Well, he didn't create everything, but he did found it. If you'd like to compliment him directly, he's got an account; ]. ] ] 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== As bad as I have ever seen it ==

1. Bomis was not an "adult webportal". This is trolling, plain and simple.
2. WP:UNDUE is the only response I have to the nonsense of having my disagreements with Larry Sanger in the lead paragraph. I have done many interesting things in my career, and had many newsworthy things to say about many different things, but this is chosen as somehow being important enough to include in the lead... This, too, is trolling, plain and simple.

Notice, by the way, that Bomis was a fairly unimportant project from the beginning of my career, and not what most readers will be interested in. It is, of course, what most trolls are interested in, due to the ongoing smears about it. This article is a complete disgrace.--] (]) 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:I removed the Sanger business from the lead. --] 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== Bad educators? ==

"On December 6, 2007, Wales, while at the Online Information conference in London's Olympia, stated that teachers who prohibit students from citing Misplaced Pages are "bad educators". Wales reasoned that new editing and checking procedures make Misplaced Pages more reliable." This is complete rubbish. Did no one bother to ever read the actual text of that article? My position, as I state repeatedly in the media and elsewhere, is that teachers should generally prohibit students from citing Misplaced Pages: same as ever. I certainly do not call teachers who make such prohibitions "bad educators". This article is an embarassment.--] (]) 13:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:How would you rewrite that section? Does it even belong in the article? TIA --] 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have removed it. I suggest if anyone wishes its inclusion they should discuss here first. Thanks, ] 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::Restored. "Citing" had already been changed to "accessing," resolving the concern of inaccuracy. ] (]) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I've corrected the sentence to reflect what Jimbo is reported as actually saying in the article. The blurb at the start of the BBC article doesn't accurately reflect the content of the article for example as the world teacher is not used in the body of the article. --] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:Wow. You have to be a real asshole to talk to us that way. I have contributed over 8,000 edits to wikipedia. My time was donated, for free. I never made money off of Misplaced Pages, nor was I ever flown around the world to promote it. I didn't make a name for myself off of it. If someone made a mistake with that quote (and it wasn't me, as I have never edited this page), the least you could do for the contributors who have gotten you where you are is politely point out that a mistake has been made and request someone to fix it. No one likes having their work called "rubbish" and "an embarassment ." As for me, you've convinced me to stop working on this project. --] (]) 09:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::While I don't believe that it was your intention, Jimbo, and the comments about doing it all for free and not flying around the world promoting a subject are neither here nor there, I generally agree with Descendalls sentiments that you are being rather harsh on the editors here. If the text wasn't checked, then that's a mistake. Which can be corrected. This is afterall a wiki. I understand that it is hard to remain civil if you are being misquoted, and words are put in your mouth that you didn't say, and put you in a bad light. This is in essence a BLP issue, which should be taken seriously, and that other options that are available for other subjects of articles like OTRS are not available to you in a normal way, but that tone is really uncalled for. You know it's a wiki. <s>Civilty on the web was practicly unheard of before you introduced it.</s> You have done a lot for civilty on the web. Let's adhere to it. ] (]) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::"Civilty on the web was practicly unheard of before you introduced it." Give me a break! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Refactored comment. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==Japanese Text of ]==
This introduction smear Jehovah's Witnesses and I write over NPOV text, but Japanese Wikipedian adoministrators block my contribution because of my faith, then I will decide to bring this case. Please comment. ] (]) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== Quit edit warring ==

Can we please quit this slow motion edit war about whether Wales was the founder/co-founder/sole-founder/whatever else I'm missing? In particular, I see that ] and ] have been going at it, the past few days. I have no opinion on the outcome of the argument, other than that the edit war needs to stop before blocking and protection become tempting options. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:Certainly the consensus above is not to mention this in the opening; its only Bramlet who wants it in the opening, there are clearly BLP concerns here as well. Bramlet might care to discuss his behaviour here. Thanks, ] 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::Actually the consensus was precisely the version I reverted to, namely to mention his "role in founding" or that he was "involved in founding" rather than either calling him founder or co-founder. ] (]) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

==Image size==
Does anyone know how to reduce the image size in the infobox template? It's too large and it's making him look slightly maniacal. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 13:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've added image size to the info box template on the page and set it to 200px for now, if the ratio needs changing use 200x300px (max width & max height). If the problem is the image itself there's a nice picture on the top of Jimbo's userpage that could be used instead. --] (]) 13:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::That looks much better, Kaly, thank you. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

==Revisionism==
To claim Wales engaged in revisionism is blatant POV pushing and makes him sound like a Stalionist. please do not re-add. Thanks, ] 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:Squeak, re: your edit summary, I didn't undo all your edits, just the name thing. :-) <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:If it makes him sound like a Stalinist, it is perhaps because he acts like one in so blatantly trying to change history. ] (]) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::Bramlet, your POV is showing. But facts remain facts. NPOV remains NPOV. You should stop editing this article entirely.--] (]) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Facts remain facts, and co-founders remain co-founders. ] (]) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::This article could actually use a complete rewrite. Regardless of POV or anything else, the writing is just not good, and we highlight things that are not what he's known for, while being a little mealy-mouthed about the stuff that made him famous. I may try to work on something on a subpage, so as not to cause chaos. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== Too short intro ==

Restored "Too short" tag to encourage the expansion of the intro so it meets Misplaced Pages guidelines. The lack of a proper intro was the main reason this article lost it's "Good Article" status. ] (]) 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

== DOB ==

There are conflicting sources as to what his birthday really is.

The Florida public records say his birthday is August 8, 1966.
Sources:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html
and here: http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/ he insinuates that his birthday is August 8, 1966 by saying Britannica is wrong (which lists his birthday as August 7).

I think we should change this article to list his birthday as August 8 instead of August 7 because according to his blog, August 7 is wrong, or at least give note saying that his DOB is debated. ]<sup><font color="3388AA">]</font></sup> 09:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


This is already covered in his ]. More reliable, ] list his birthday as Aug. 7th. I've copied the relevant information below. ] (]) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<blockquote>
Wales had previously edited his entries on Misplaced Pages and on the Wikimedia Foundation's website in 2004 to indicate his date of birth is ], ].<ref name="original_birthday">
{{cite news
|first=Jimbo
|last=Wales
|title=Edit by Jimbo Wales at Wikimedia Foundation
|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/search/?title=Board_of_Trustees&diff=prev&oldid=406
|work=
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-08
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="originalbirthday">
{{cite news
|first=Jimbo
|last=Wales
|title=Edit by Jimbo Wales at Misplaced Pages
|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=5987088
|work=
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-08
|quote=}}</ref> He also made a statement in 2006 in which he wrote in part: "'''My date of birth is not August 8, 1966.'''"<ref name="DOBnot080866">
{{cite news
|title=Wales claim birthdate is not ], ]
|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Wales&diff=63246911&oldid=63223187
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-12}}</ref> The '']'', ], and ] support these statements.<ref name="dob">{{cite web|title=Jimmy Wales |url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9438001/Jimmy-Wales Britannica Book of the Year, 2007|accessdate=2007-07-25}}</ref><ref name=dob1">{{cite book|title=Current Biography Yearbook 2006 - Publisher: H. W. Wilson (], ]) ISBN 978-0824210748}}</ref><ref name="dob2">{{cite book|title=Who's Who In America: Diamond Edition - Publisher: Marquis Who's Who; 60th edition (], ]) ISBN 978-0837969909}}</ref> According to a researcher’s note on the Britannica’s website in June 2007, Wales contacted Britannica claiming that the date of ], ] was incorrect but was unwilling to provide them with a documented alternative.<ref name="researchers_note">
{{cite news
|first=
|last=
|title=Jimmy Wales's date of birth
|url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9439003/Jimmy-Waless-date-of-birth
|work=Researcher's Note
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-08
|quote=}}</ref> '''On ], ], when asked by ] reporter Mike Rogoway when his birthday was Wales is reported to have mysteriously stated, "Nobody knows."'''<ref name="dob"/> Moreover, on his blog Rogoway claims that a Florida public records search shows that Wales’ drivers license lists his date of birth as ], ].<ref name="dob"/> In August 2007, Wales expanded on this in his Misplaced Pages talk page by stating, in part: "In any event, the quotes in the Oregonian are correct."<ref name="DOB"/>
</blockquote>
(the above comment appears to be unsigned)

Note also that ] says that Jimmy stated his birthday was August 7, and then subsequently used the oversight function to remove his own comment.

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo's_birthday

This diff pretty much substantiates Wikitruth's claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Wales&diff=5987141&oldid=5973463

Here's the redacted comment:

<blockquote>My actual birthday is August 7th, 1966. This is unverifiable information, I'm sorry to say, since my driver's license and passport say August 8. If we must revert on that basis, then I guess we must. *g*. Maybe I'll have to upload a signed note from my mom as documentary evidence; the only proof that I have is her sayso. :-) Jimbo Wales 20:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)</blockquote>

Please do not remove this comment. Wikitruth is obviously not a reliable source of information, so it took me a bit of digging to actually substantiate their claims. I don't want to make other people waste time repeating the work. --] (]) 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Wife==
Why does the article name his daughter, but does not name his wife? ] (]) 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:The marriage index states the previous or maiden name of his wife. Can we state it? ] (]) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

==Co-founder dispute and BLP==
The following articles mention Wales as co-founder, including with refs, and yet none of the articles have anything whatsoever to do with the dispute. Thus for ] reasons the co bit must be removed. Its okay in articles with relevance to the dispute but articles such as August 7 and Eric Hellweg clearly have nothing to do with the dispute, I am concerned people have been spamming this information into the articles in order to promote POV in this real life dispute. I bring it here because I based my research on the what links here page of the article. Thanks, ] 17:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

*{{la|Asia Commons}}
*{{la|August 7}} (birth section)
*{{la|Blogdex}} ref x 2 (indeed the only refs in the article relate to dispute)
*{{la|Computer Security Institute}} ref x 2
*{{la|Criticism of Microsoft}}
*{{la|Eric Hellweg}} ref x 2
*{{la|Imagine (TV series)}} ref x 2
*{{la|James Wales}} dab page
*{{la|Jimbo}} dab page
*{{la|Librarians in popular culture}}
*{{la|List of University of Alabama people}}
*{{la|Louise Blouin MacBain}}
*{{la|Mark Fletcher}} 2 refs
*{{la|Mark Taylor (politician)}} 2 refs
*{{la|Net@nite}}
*{{la|Notable Auburnites}}
*{{la|Open source political campaign}}
*{{la|Owning the Future}}
*{{la|Peer-to-peer (meme)}}
*{{la|Randolph School}}
*{{la|Sollog}}
*{{la|St. Petersburg, Florida}}
*{{la|TED (conference)}}

You're making no sense at all. At ], for example, ''every'' listed person has a similar description, and co-founder is a factual description for Wales. I agree the refs should not be necessary, but they were added precisely to deter people like you from removing the "co-". As to "the dispute": again, there is no such thing. Wales alone disputing a well-sourced fact doesn't create "a dispute". Come back when you have a single relevant source clearly taking Wales' position. ] (]) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should any of the articles have to be about "the dispute" to confirm he was known as co-founder? ] ] 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the question is why we should include the information. Remember our policies make it very clear that it is the person who adds info not he who removes it who has to jsutify themselves. Thjis is aminor point in Jimmy's life so why do you claim it is notable enough to go inot articles that have no relevance tot he dispute. To claim IO am making no sense at all strikes me as you need to re-read what I have written as your failure to comprehend is not my responsibility. Wales has countless times on[REDACTED] made it clear that he objects to this and therefore we have serious ] concerns here too. I dont to need to source Wales position to remove the info from articles that have no relevance to the dispute but you have certainly to prove notability and have so failed dismally. I await something better. Thanks, ] 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:We should include the information because we include similar information for any other person in those articles. It's not a minor point in Jimmy's life that he co-founded Misplaced Pages, it is the thing that makes him most notable. What facts people object to is irrelevant. We aren't talking about some matter of privacy so that has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. It has to do with NPOV. Yes you need to source Wales' position if you want to put it in the article, but there is no source other than Wales himself, thus it's meaningless. ] (]) 18:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

'''Here's what ] has to say about who founded Misplaced Pages, released one year after the founding (Jan. 15th, 2002):'''

''<blockquote>
"''The founders of Misplaced Pages are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project.''"
</blockquote>''

'''I think that should settle the matter'''. ] (]) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The matter is not at all settled, we haven't even begun from the look of it. You have still failed to show the notability of adding the co-founder bit of founder to any off topic articles, and without some very strong arguments it will need to be removed from all 23. I suggest we do this one article at a time. As I say I ma okay to keep the mention in relevant articles like Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales and Misplaced Pages. Other users have pointed out that even adding to these articles in inappropriate ways is nothing other than trolling and I think this would be particularly apt were unjustified re-additions of co into non-relevant articles without a very strong justification first. I haven't even seen a weak justification yet for any of the 23 articles, and it is important that you are willing to compromise on this one. Thanks, ] 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:What could be of ''more'' notability to Wales than the fact that he is co-founder of Misplaced Pages? And calling him just "founder" is needlessly imprecise. Encyclopedias are supposed to be precise. "Founder" on its own tends to make people assume "sole founder" which would be incorrect here. For an equivalent example, Misplaced Pages also Steve Wozniak invariably as "Apple co-founder", never just as "Apple founder" because that would be misleading. ] (]) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''As ] shows there was more than one founder of Misplaced Pages. In such a case when you need to refer to one of the founders and not all of them you must either say "''a founder of...''" or "''co-founder of...''". To simply say "''founder of...''" implies a singular number of founders, which in this case would be inaccurate. ] (]) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)'''

SqueakBox, are you saying that Wales' role in starting[REDACTED] is unnotable and should not be in this article at all? ] ] 18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are splitting hairs where there are none... Fact is that Wales is an historical founder and current lead of the project. No one refers to Steve Jobs as "co-founder" of Apple. In the same manner, we do not need to prefix his name with "founder" or "co-founder" ... just wikilink his name, and that is enough. ] <small>]</small> 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:. ] (]) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:As far as I am aware he is always referred to as the CEO of Apple. As far as him never being referred to as co-founder of apple, that seems . ] ] 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:: LOL indeed. 800 hits on google for "co-founder" and 12,400,000 hits for his name, which is the point I am making. ] <small>]</small> 19:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Patronising me for looking at the quotes in context will not really make your point any stronger. Google should never be used as competition for quantity, look at the quality and context. The fact is he is referred to as co-founder by very relevent sources. Not "never" as you suggested. ] ] 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Dude, Job's bio on identifies his as co-founder. That's what he is.''' ] (]) 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::What is that point exactly? As David said, he's most commonly called CEO, which is a title of more current relevance. It's still also a fact that he is co-founder. And with Wales, you have no alternative, since he refused to adopt any "leader" title. ] (]) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, Jossi. You have made a good point. I have no interest in seeing him recognised as any type of founder on these pages, what i object to is people insisting on bringing the conflict into aarticles that have nothing oto do with it. There are no refs that link Heggwell, Augyust 7 or Asia Commons to this di] 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::The opening says internet entrepreneur, we could use that and remove any reference to wikiepdia in the 23 articles that actually have nothing to do with wikipedia. When you say "refused" you seem very hostile to Wales which I am not sure is appropriate given our BLP policies. Thanks, ] 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

'''If you want to go around and change all the references to Wales on Misplaced Pages to read, "Jimmy Wales, internet entrepreneur" go ahead and be my guest. That is an accurate description of who Wales is and does not misrepresent his history or that of Misplaced Pages. I think he is better known as Misplaced Pages's co-founder but I can endorse the use of the description "internet entrepreneur" as a suitable, if vague, compromise.''' ] (]) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Misplaced Pages Controversy (co-foundership is referenced) ===
I was doing research to expand the Larry Sanger biography. Then I noticed something interesting. Someone may be deleting all references to co-founder wherever it is mentioned. What are the motivations for this or this ? Saying his claim to fame is as "" co-founder is a blockworthy BLP violation. Co-founder is referenced per ]. Please review the . Both Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders as early as September 2001 and Misplaced Pages's own press release in January 2002 described both as co-founders. ] ] 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Just silly. Squeakbox, would you honestly pursue such a case for any other bio on this website given the available documentation? ] ] 19:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:: '''Why are you bringing this up on the Jimmy Wales' discussion page? Either talk to the user directly, mention it in the Discussion page for Sanger or file a report. It has no business here.''' ] (]) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::Just take it to the Spanish wikipedia, it has no business here, indeed I would propose deleting the thread as this clearly has no bearing on the English wikipedia. I would also point out that nobody on the Spanish wikiepdia has revrted me or made any comment about my edits there. Thanks, ] 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::'''Wow.... that's the pot calling the kettle black. Your recent thread, ], also had no reason to be posted on the Jimmy Wales' discussion page. This page is only for discussing the ] article and nothing else.''' ] (]) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:Not true as all those articles relate to the en wikipedia, they area part of it, and in the spirit of fairness I felt it best to bring the issue here. The what links here page is always useful in rooting out BLP violations. There may be BLP vios in es too but one has to go there to fix that. Remember most people here do not speak Spanish but we can all read the articles I link above and judge for ourselves their relevance to Larry Sanger. The issues are not comparable but really if people care about what happens in es[REDACTED] thta is great and I am happy to discuss these issues over there. Also do remember that by discussing es[REDACTED] issues here we would be excluding the Spanish[REDACTED] community from making choices re the articles they have in Spanish. So no kettles or pots involved. Thanks, ] 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of Misplaced Pages (]) ===

Hi there,

(This is a response to SqueakBox's last e-mail. It's time to go public with our private e-mail exchanges.)

I have an idea what happened. Wales never disputed the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Misplaced Pages press releases, early versions of Misplaced Pages articles, and several media articles, all describinbg Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never objected to being called the co-founder until at least 2004. Isn't that "revisionism." Sanger started being critical of Misplaced Pages after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim he is the so-called sole founder. Wales feels strongly about it. Yep. He is problably not at the best of terms with him because Sanger criticizing Misplaced Pages. There is more evidience of revisionism. For example, he wrote in November 2007: "" However, Jimbo originally stated in October 2001: "" Why? I think we know why. And I think we know Wales is the co-founder. There are plenty of historical ]. Wales did not dispute anything until Sanger left the project. What did Wales do at Misplaced Pages in the early years. Not much. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to manage Nupeda. When Misplaced Pages got started, he mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Misplaced Pages. Historical references verify the facts and is NPOV. Wales' claims is mentioned in his own biography which is more than enough. It is only a claim from a man who seems not so happy with Sanger. Please review the references again. The key is the references from the early years of Misplaced Pages confirm both are the co-founders. I suggest we add ''co-founder'' to the ] of the Jimmy Wales biography after reviewing the facts. There is a pile of available documentation for verification of the co-founder title. The evidence (]) meets ].

Regards, ] ] 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::It is not at all true to say that "mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work". I was leading the project, and Sanger, who was not the co-founder but an employee of mine, was working under my direct supervision.--] (]) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah sure Quack and I have been communicating on this issue, and indeed since way back. And its true that Wales only disputed after Sanger left the project, based on the available evidence, but I don't believe that this justifies this issue being brought to the opening of this article, but I am open to negotiation and compromise. Thanks, ] 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::It is not true that I only disputed this "after Sanger left the project". I never accepted it, ever, and have disputed it from the moment anyone said it.--] (]) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Clearly people "said it" since 2001. So where did you dispute it before 2004? ] (]) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::SB, take a look at the early history of this article. Say, back in . It was NPOV then and it is NPOV now. ] ] 06:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with QuackGuru that the prefix belongs in those entries. Calling him the "founder" would be incorrect. As for POV, it's hard to inject bias into facts. The statements don't strike me as biased. On the other hand, the word ''founder'' does do that.--] (]) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

::Then omit the term entirely. Introducing a factual falsehood which is also known to be disputed into the introduction of the article is a blatant failure of NPOV.--] (]) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::: The reference states Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project." Thoughts. ] (]) 08:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

== FA ==

Oh, come on! Jimbo isn't Featured? What? ''']]]''' 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''Only ] can be featured'''. ] (]) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::that's not actually true if you mean that an article has to hold GA status before it can hold FA, an article can go from stub to FA if it has been expanded enough, however if you just mean to say that the article has to be of good quality, then yes. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If you ask me, I don't think anyone calls him Jimbo. Someone should put a big fat Citation Needed next to it. ] ] (]) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

==wikipedia logo==
hi zimbo, I am one of the in Hindi wikipedia. I don’t know that you are really about one issue related with wiki logo. In that one of the block indicated wrong . We are still not able to convince the local people in this regards. Therefore you are requested to rectify the error in Hindi words and make a corrected logo for the[REDACTED] accordingly.
regards--] (]) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:Responding on user's talk page. ]<small>(])</small> 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== How does he make money? ==

What exactly is his means of income? ] (]) 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

: ]. -- ] (]) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:Not so, he apparently lives off money he made in the past, this is highly feasible so we have no reason to doubt it. Thanks, ] 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== Atlantic Monthly is wrong ==

"During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of the web portal Bomis, a website featuring user generated webrings that, according to The Atlantic Monthly, meant the site "found itself positioned as the Playboy of the Internet"."

I am surprised to hear that Atlantic Monthly said that, but in any event, Atlantic Monthly is wrong. I defy anyone to find any contemporary press reports which described Bomis in that fashion. Presumably the Atlantic Monthly was misled, ironically, by Misplaced Pages, which has been consistently wrong about this point... and many others... for years, despite my complaints. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Playboy and Maxim have virtually the same market and sell almost the exact same product - the only difference is that one features totally nude models and the other features models that are only semi-nude. Wales has gone on record as stating that Bomis had a market similar to that of Maxim. However, Bomis, unlike Maxim, contained links to nude models (via user generated webrings). Therefore the Atlantic Monthly isn't really that far off in saying the Bomis "found itself positioned as the Playboy of the Internet". Of course, I never visited Bomis during it's heyday, what does the Internet Archive have to say on the matter? ] (]) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::Whether its acurate or not I think it needs reworking as its not very encyclopedic, for the phrase to work it needs the reader to have a knowledge of what playboy is and the type of content it contains and the cultural connotation this had at the time the article was written. This may not be a problem in some parts of the world but in others it could make the meaning of this overly inaccessible. The end of the paragraph gives information about the controversy about content so, unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the quote and add some more informaitn about what Bomis did. --] (]) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I object, the quote provides a valuable point of view. If a reader is confused about what Playboy magazine is, which I find a ludicrous suggestion, all they need to do is click on the hyperlink for more information about this multinational corporation. ] (]) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::::The information about the content on Bomis and the controversy that surrounds it is repeated in the next sentence so I don't think any information or points of view would be lost. Which point of view needs reflecting? If there is one that is only shown by the quote I think it would be clearer to present it as outside a direct quote.

::::Looking at the playboy magazine article it's banned in a significant number of countries and has international additions with different levels of nudity, the company is a multinational corporation but the magazine itself isn't world wide. The article on playboy magazine also doesn't give any information about the magazines position within the marketplace and so doesn't help to clarify the quote. --] (]) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Personal life ==

We all know that "Jimbo" Wales is married to his wife Christine with whom he has a daughter named Kira. Does'nt anyone else think that this should be included somewhere in this article regarding his personal life? ] (]) 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:Feel free to add it. ] (]) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Born James? ==

I know for a fact that Jimmy is used as a nickname for James. Out of curiosity, was "James" Jimmy's original name?
] (]) 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:My understanding is that his given name is actually "Jimmy" and he was never "James". ] (]) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

Could some please explain to me how this phrase violates NPOV:

<blockquote>
Wales is one of the best-known entrepreneurs of the Web 2.0 revolution. Together with Larry Sanger, Wales has helped popularize a trend in web development that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users.
</blockquote>

Wales and Sanger worked together and both helped popularize the Web 2.0 revolution. This statement completely avoids mentioning anything about the founding of Misplaced Pages, which would be sponsoring a POV. ] (]) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

<blockquote>Together with Larry Sanger, Wales founded Misplaced Pages, which has helped popularize a trend in web development (sometimes called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users.</blockquote>

I think this would be NPOV and the previous consensus before the edit war started. ] ] 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:FWIW, I found the first edit to the current software system ] from Jan 2002 and it describes them both as co-founders. Granted its original research on my part, so content couldn't be based on it, but I figured it would add to the discussion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::I have made an attempt to put the second paragraph of the lead together somewhat differently. I realize the controversy over Sanger's role (and its presence or absence in the lead) is the subject of ongoing dispute. However, I'm proposing we separate the statement of the project's founding with a characterization of Wales' role in shaping the project long-term and his broader influence as its most visible spokesperson. This characterization may not be 100% accurate yet, but may I suggest that it wasn't just the founding that helped popularize the project, but an awful lot of work between then and now? The term Web 2.0 didn't even come along until 2004. --] (]) 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::An awful lot of work, certainly, but not by Wales but by the thousands of people who built it up. The content alone made it popular; Wales' travels and media appearances are quite superfluous and serve mainly his self-aggrandizement. I fail to see anything important he has done since the WMF was founded. ] (]) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: Your assessment of Wales' role is original research that does not square with the picture created by reliable sources. --] (]) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::The reliable sources created a picture and not fact. Agreed. ] (]) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yes, and according to ] the standard is verifiability, not truth. I can match Bramlet's personal perspective with the polar opposite personal perspective, because a radio interview Jimmy Wales did last spring was highly influential in my own personal involvement in the project. I'm guessing there are other wikipedians who would say the same thing. But that's also original research, no more valid than Bramlet's view. Instead of this debate, how about we discuss alternative wording approaches here in an attempt to reach consensus? Here's another try:

:::::::Together with Larry Sanger, Wales created Misplaced Pages, laying the foundation for its rapid growth and popularity. The success of the project popularized a trend in web development (called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users. As a result of his work with Misplaced Pages, which has become the world's largest encyclopedia, Wales appeared in Time magazine's 2006 list of the world's most influential people. Wales continues to influence the public's perceptions of Misplaced Pages's value and reputation by serving as the project's most visible spokesperson.
::::::--] (]) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I would like to see the differences. Edit the article and then self-revert and then I can clearly see the differences. ] (]) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for your response. I've made the edits I suggested a couple days ago; don't quite understand the need to self-revert -- you can see changes in my last diff. --] (]) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::. References are need for this edit. Thanks. ] (]) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::. References are needed for that edit. ] (]) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(undenting) I restored the first part of my suggested change, quoting from the Marshall Poe Atlantic Monthly history. With regard to the second suggested change -- "Wales continues to influence the public's perceptions of Misplaced Pages's value and reputation by serving as the project's most visible spokesperson." -- what of that is challengeable and needs to be sourced? Is there another more visible spokesperson that I'm not aware of? Cites throughout the article support the fact that Wales plays this role, and the sentence itself does not state whether that influence is always positive or otherwise, so by itself, I don't see how the sentence violates NPOV. --] (]) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Wales is Misplaced Pages's unofficial spokesperson. I gave it a try. ] (]) 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== Edit warring solution - completely unprotect the page ==

Does anyone else think that the main cause for edit warring on the ] page is the result of the protracted, semi-protected nature of the article? By allowing only individuals with accounts to edit the page edits become much more personal and some individuals find it harder to "let go" and let changes happen. Anonymous editing might also go a long way to improving the overall quality of the article, which appears to have declined since the page became permanently semi-protected (i.e. as seen by its losing of ] status).

How about an experiment? Completely unprotect the page for a week and see what happens. ] (]) 08:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

==Is Jimbo Wales an active user on Misplaced Pages?==
#Does he have a user page?
#Did he just leave Misplaced Pages?
#I think I found his Userpage but think it may be a fake or may be real (?)
#Can you help me find him?
] (]) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:Like it says at least twice up the top of the page, his userpage is at ]. It's unlikely you found a fake because most of the obvious "imposter" accounts are doppelgangers which have their userpages redirected to the real one (e.g. ], ], etc). Once you're there, you can look at his contributions to see whether he's left Misplaced Pages (hint: he's posted on this page in the last couple of months), and if you really want to find him, just look for the guy in the red-and-white striped outfit with glasses, cane and optional beard. ]<small>(])</small> 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

== Honors and awards ==

I think the "Honors and awards" section should be renamed or some of those items need to be moved to a different section. It seems rather bizarre that the ''Chaser'' incident, for example, is being called an honor or an award. I'm sure Jimmy was personally very honored by their attention but still...;) Thoughts? ] 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Attempt made: I started new section (section head may need further improvement) for "Other notable media appearances", since media mentions are interspersed throughout the article and every media appearance does not need to be added. Other editors may question whether the existing list of media appearances seems notable enough to mention, I for one don't think it adds much to the overall article but hesitate to delete it. --] (]) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==Personal Life==
Anyone wanting to change this article to include new information on the subject's personal life, must provide really really really ]. Please don't even add information to this talk page without sources. ] applies here as much as anywhere, whether we like the subject or not.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, poorly sourced smut has no place in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::Agree wholeheartedly. Reliable sources must be used. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)</em>

:Yep, we are watching. Thanks, ] 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

==Statement from Jimbo admitting relationship with Marsden==
He admits being separated from his wife, and the relationship with Marsden in this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008
This should be added to his page, as it is definitive, first-hand proof, straight from the horse's mouth. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No offense, but who really cares? I mean my gosh. Suppose you had a biography here. Should we list every date you ever had on it? Give me a break. This is an encyclopedia for gosh sakes. Who cares about that nonsense?--] (]) 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:: Agreed. Unless a reasonably reliable source discusses this (not a self-described silicon valley gossip magazine) we have no good reason to include this. ] (]) 06:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::: Per ], the information stays out unless it's covered by a reliable source. And even then, we might want multiple reliable sources, since we've got three living people whose privacy we need to be aware of: Wales, Marsden, and Wales' wife. Though it ''might'' be reasonable to change the "Wales is married" line to "Wales is separated", since that seems a reasonable update of "marital status," which we can take someone's word on, per ]. --]]] 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:The separation is acceptable, to add the Marsden allegations right now is not, IMHO. Happy editing, ] 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::It is not an "allegation"; Jimbo has ''admitted'' it. I agree that it shouldn't be added, but only because it isn't significant yet. Not because it'd somehow be a BLP violation to do so. -] <small>]</small> 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:::The way worded it is fine but I would like to see a in the future. ] (]) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Per Misplaced Pages policy, Wales' statement cannot be used as a source. See ], "Articles and posts on Misplaced Pages may not be used as sources." This certainly includes statements in user space. ] (]) 00:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:We can adhere to the letter of the policy and pretend that they aren't seperated, even though there is clear evidence that they are. Or, we can recognize that sentence as being a measure to prevent people from posting OR and then sourcing it elsewhere, and accept the man's statements about his life as definitive. I prefer the latter. -] <small>]</small> 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::There is no need to pretend anything. We can adhere to the policy by not addressing the matter, since it is not important and doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. If it were important, there'd be a ]. There is not. ] (]) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::Also, your argument seems to be "I want this poorly sourced statement, which violates both ] and ], to remain in Misplaced Pages to prevent someone from possibly adding original research to the encyclopedia." I suggest that this is not a very good argument to justify a violation of policy. ] (]) 01:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== Citation ==

can anybody cite that jimbo is the unofficial spokesperson for[REDACTED] as it says at the end of the intro?...thanks--] (]) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:This was an attempt at characterizing Wales' continuing role with the media in a neutral way; see NPOV discussion further up the page. What of the statement is challengeable and needs citing? His media appearances related to Misplaced Pages have continued, and these, I believe, are adequately cited within the article. --] (]) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::That makes sense, isn't he the official spokesperson though?--] (]) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Technically, he is not the official spokesperson of Misplaced Pages. He has not claimed the title. However, if he says he is Misplaced Pages's spokesperson then we can change it officially. ] (]) 05:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

=="Early life" section==

As this section contains information as recent as "as of March 2008", shouldn't this section be renamed "Personal life", "Background" or something similar? ] ] 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I removed that. Even if it is sourced, it has no relevance to the article, especially, like Jimbo says, it was a short-term relationship.

If we would keep that, what would be the next step? ''List of girlfriends, hookups and dates of Jimmy Wales''? We should keep only the personal details that are important. If this affair would have lead to a controversy which would be published by The New York Times, then yes, it should have been in the article, but otherwise, it's just a piece of trivia. ] (]) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:I don't see why it has to be in the New York Times. The Canadian Press isn't trivial... -] <small>]</small> 01:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:: The source might not be trivial, but the information itself is trivial. ] (]) 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Why is the information trivial? They felt that it was important enough to devote an entire news article to. -] <small>]</small> 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, and in case you aren't satisfied with The Canadian Press, . -] <small>]</small> 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, that's not a tabloid by any stretch of the imagination. Given that article it would make much more sense to mention it here since it emphasizes the Misplaced Pages element. I'm not convinced that it should be mentioned here or on the Marsden page, but the case for here is looking much stronger. ] (]) 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

: Heh, has a story on this. ] (]) 14:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::I think the fact '']'' has now featured this suggests a neutrally-worded sentence or two is becoming more and more appropriate. I've added one. ] ] 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the only remotely notable aspect of this is as one instance of many, of the media leaping to conclusions about how Misplaced Pages works without doing full research (as in, criticizing Wales' editing of Marsden's entry, without realizing that the editing predated the personal relationship.) Beyond that, yawn. Not notable, just like any number of anecdotes about public figures, while covered in the media, do not belong in their WP article. -] (]) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

: It is hard to see given the Times and other coverage why we shouldn't at least mention this. ] (]) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages / Jimbo Wales / ] controversy and sources ==

#{{cite news
| last = ]
| title = Canadian pundit, Misplaced Pages founder in messy breakup
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/03/02/marsden-breakup.html
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Goodman
| first = Lee-Anne
| coauthors = ]
| title = Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Misplaced Pages founder
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.cbc.ca/cp/media/080302/X030204AU.html
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Goodman
| first = Lee-Anne
| title = Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Misplaced Pages founder
| work = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSOd2XLhTZ0E3mtqlBZlhukSa21w
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Spurned Marsden selling ex-beau's stuff: But Misplaced Pages founder admits to only 'brief' liason
| work = ]
| publisher = Pacific Newspaper Group Inc
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b1c9eef3-679c-4f86-955e-aa7a7806475f
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Pundit peddles ex's items online
| work = ]
| publisher = Canoe Inc
| date = March 3, 2008
| url = http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/03/03/4891171-sun.html
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Naughton
| first = Philippe
| title = Jilted lover uses eBay to hit back at Misplaced Pages guru
| work = ]
| publisher = Times Newspapers Ltd
| date = ], ]
| url = http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3475722.ece
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = O'Donoghue
| first = JJ
| title = Misplaced Pages break-up causes web stir
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=195750
| accessdate = 2008-03-03}}
#{{cite news
| last = Grabham
| first = Dan
| title = Misplaced Pages founder embroiled in online spat with ex-lover: You really could not make this stuff up
|page = Section: Internet
| work = Techradar.com
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wikipedia-founder-embroiled-in-online-spat-with-ex-lover-256202
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Megan
| first = McCarthy
| title = Misplaced Pages Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending
| work = ]
| publisher = CondéNet, Inc.
| date = ], ]
| url = http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/03/scandal-in-wiki.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-03}}
#{{cite news
| last = Coleman
| first = Joey
| coauthors = Erin Millar
| title = Another chapter for one of SFU’s most (in)famous alumni
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/03/03/another-chapter-for-one-of-sfus-most-infamous-alumni/
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Cooper
| first = Charles
| title = My e-mail breakup with Jimmy Wales and other sordid doings
| work = ]
| publisher = CNET Networks, Inc
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.news.com/8301-10787_3-9884531-60.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-03}}
#{{cite news
| last =Moses
| first =Asher
| title =Ex takes her revenge on Mr Misplaced Pages
| work =]
| page =Section: Tech
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/revenge-of-the-ex-after-tycoon-dumps-her-online/2008/03/04/1204402405901.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Leonard
| first =Tom
| title = Misplaced Pages's Jimmy Wales in online love spat
| work =]
| publisher =Telegraph Media Group Limited
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/webay104.xml
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Ramadge
| first =Andrew
| title =Misplaced Pages icon's Silicon Valley sex scandal
| work =]
| page =Section:Technology
| publisher =News Limited
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23317586-5014239,00.html
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Gardner
| first =David
| title =Dumped Dot Com: How Misplaced Pages founder used his website to break off relationship - and how she used eBay to get revenge
| work =]
| publisher =Associated Newspapers Ltd
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=525571&in_page_id=1770
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Naughton
| first =Philippe
| title =Misplaced Pages Founder's Fling With Columnist Ends in Nasty Public Breakup
| work =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334652,00.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Dumped on Misplaced Pages, revenge on eBay
| work = Metro.co.uk
| publisher = Associated Newspapers Limited
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=109959&in_page_id=34
| accessdate = 2008-03-04}}
#{{cite news
| last = Nelson
| first = Sara
| title = Wiki love split cyber storm
| work = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article873835.ece
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Pavia
| first = Will
| coauthors = Philippe Naughton
| title = Misplaced Pages founder's dirty laundry for sale on eBay: It was a boy-meets-girl story for the Web 2.0 generation. But when it turned sour, the recriminations resounded through the blogosphere while the dirty laundry was put up for sale on eBay.
| work = ]
| publisher = News Limited
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23319878-2703,00.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04}}
#{{cite news
| last = Agrell
| first = Siri
| title = Ms. Marsden's cyberspace breakup: tit-for-tat-for-T-shirt
| work = ]
| publisher = CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wlbreakup04/BNStory/lifeMain/home
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Bidding war for Misplaced Pages T-shirts
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/195964.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04}}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = A 'Wiki' love gone wrong ends on eBay
| work = Canada.com
| publisher = Canwest Interactive
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/story.html?id=f96de9c9-1ba9-4079-bfd9-0ba77008b92e&k=58058
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Messy Break Up Posted on Blogs, Misplaced Pages and eBay: Misplaced Pages Founder, Internet Columnist Say Goodbye on the Web
| work = MyFoxNational Reports
| publisher = Fox Television Stations, Inc.
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5937107&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Bergstein
| first =Brian (])
| title = Misplaced Pages's Wales Hit Over Expenses
| work =]
| publisher =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030401869.html
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =McCarthy
| first =Megan
| title =Misplaced Pages Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending
| work =]
| publisher =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4386200
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
Will update as more ]/] secondary sources become available. ] (]) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

: Ok, that looks like more than enough sources. Inclusion is very hard to argue against at this point. ] (]) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That last link, with the talk about excessive spending, is rather disconcerting to me. --] (], ]) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, it will be interesting to see if other financial-based secondary news sources pick up on that. ] (]) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::To get more to the point, my faith in Misplaced Pages's leadership may be lessening if Danny's statements turn out to be true. --] (], ]) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, keep us posted if you come across any follow-up to that piece in other ]/] secondary sources. ] (]) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::I will. --] (], ]) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==Trash tabs==
Misplaced Pages may not replace the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it's well on its way to challenging the National enquirer for supremacy on its own turf. Time to get lives, folks. ] (]) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I see Jimbo's stuff is up to about $700 on eBay. Anyone else see the fundraising possibilities here? ] (]) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Exactly! That was my first thought when hearing about this. "Oh, this must be Phase II of their fund raiser, great idea!" ] (]) 08:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Removal of sources?==
I am being edit-conflicted with someone who is bent on removal of sources from this biography while I'm trying to make corrections, some of which are required to make this article comply with ] policy. Is this appropriate? I'm done editing this article for the time being, I simply don't have time for this nonsense. ] (]) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== Protected ==

I'm not getting involved in the details. But we DO NOT edit war on a BLP over issues covered by the BLP policy. Please discuss here and reach consensus over what should or should not be in the article, and what is or is not complaint with ] ] and ]. Once that is done protection can be removed.--]<sup>g</sup> 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== "Affair" and "breakup" ==
A one-night stand does not usually equal an "affair" or "relationship," and the idea of a "breakup" after a one-night stand, however it's done, seems a bit overblown. (Note that Mardsen appears to be the only one to have referred to it as such.) Nobody will care about this in a few months. -] (]) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::Note that Wales appears to be the only one to have referred to it as a one-night stand. We don't know when it started. The term "affair" is vague enough to cover all possibilities. ] (]) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::"Affair" does not have a good connotation, though. I think "relationship" is more appropriate. --] (], ]) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Uhhh, when you're not actually divorced; but merely separated from your wife, then it's an affair. ] (]) 08:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Like I said, "affair" is not neutral. We're not here to pass judgment on Wales's personal life. --] (], ]) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Well I hope so, but I don't know if that's an argument against including mention of this incident, which isn't fully over. Otherwise, I'd have to agree, Marsden is making a mountain out of a molehill here. --] (], ]) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:: I agree, it's possible the issue could expand and become more significant. In fact, adding a bunch of coverage to this article would likely contribute to that! On the number of sources that Cirt has diligently assembled, that does prove that the incident has some notability, but doesn't say that it should be included in ''this'' article. We don't cite every article that mentions Jimbo Wales. -] (]) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::No, we don't need to reference every article, just whatever verifies the facts we state. --] (], ]) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Pete, you say "in fact, adding a bunch of coverage to this article would likely contribute to that!" which is the best argument for not giving this subject any coverage right now that I have heard. Happy editing, ] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::News stories generally don't grow because other groups cover them. Pete's view seems pretty paranoid to me. What would we have to fear by covering something as we always have? --] (], ]) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::: Paranoid? Oh dear...I just meant it as a joke. I don't really care that much about this issue, I'm gonna leave it to you guys. -] (]) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I didn't mean any hard feelings. --] (], ]) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== WP:UNDUE ==

In relation to the Marsden issue, ] without doubt applies. ''If'' the issue is worthy of mention at all, the '''''maximum''''' coverage permissible without giving undue significance to this event is the following: "In 2008 he had a brief affair with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden." Furthermore, 6 or 7 sources do not need to follow this sentence: 1 is sufficient, for instance the CBC source currently used. Any further discussion of this issue in the article violates WP:UNDUE and is simply prurience. ] (]) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:The incident is not notable because he had a brief relationship, it's because of what happened when the relationship ended. And I don't think calling it an affair is appropriate. Wales said he was already separated from his wife. --] (], ]) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::There is nothing notable about "what happened when the relationship ended." "Affair" does not imply cheating, but if you prefer, the sentence could be formulated, "In 2008 he was briefly involved with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden." ] (]) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::That wording is okay. What I mean is that it seems the reason that this story is going anywhere is because Marsden wigged out and put a t-shirt and other stuff on eBay. --] (], ]) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Like I said, nothing notable. ] (]) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::If we were talking about Jane Doe, sure. --] (], ]) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Jimmy's T-shirt being sold on e-Bay by an ex-lover doesn't seem notable to me, and certainly not for our encyclopedia. Happy editing, ] 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It is notable in the context. I'm not sure we'd have all those sources if it hadn't happened. --] (], ]) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It is possible to have sources about non-notable events; this is one of them. · ] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Non-notable to you. These are pretty respectable sources, not some Internet zine. And without the second half of the story, which, if I may say so, appears to be what most of the reports are focusing on, it becomes pretty much worthless trivia. --] (], ]) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Reminds me of the Corey Delaney incident... · ] <sup>]</sup> 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:(un-indent) How so? --] (], ]) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::Something the media loves to publicize, and is news on most notable websites/newspapers, but inevitably dies down in a few weeks because it isn't very notable (well, the other one was BLP as well). · ] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I see. In any case, I don't think this has died down just yet. --] (], ]) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::May I point out that Corey Delaney's article was deleted before the fuss had died down, because he wasn't notable? I think the same applies here: who cares with whom Wales slept with on a random night? Doesn't seem notable&mdash;or encyclopedic&mdash;to me. · ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::] isn't notable now? Or their relationship? Seems that enough people care that there are umpteen separate stories about it. --] (], ]) 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure why this incident is mentioned on Wales' page, but not Marsden's. Seems to me that her notability is largely defined by this kind of occurrence, and it might therefore be better to have the information there, rather than here. And about the stories, like I said, those same people won't care about this in a few weeks... · ] <sup>]</sup> 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the Marsden page. Actually, that should be done ASAP. I won't do it, though, for COI reasons. --] (], ]) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I've moved the text over to the Marsden page, and removed it here. · ] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::(copied from ]) Sounds good to me. After all, it's a lot more relevant to Marsden. This way we can treat the subject with a brief mention in the Wales article and go into it in better detail on Marsden's. --] (], ]) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Since we don't know if it started only in 2008, it is wrong to write "In 2008 he was..." ] (]) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
: The undue an argument might apply in the Marsden article but it is hard to see how it would apply here since Wales is specifically notable for his work with Misplaced Pages and the news reports have specifically brought up the affair in that context. ] (]) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:: I beg to differ. The fact that we have some ] does not mean that we ''have'' to use these sources. We have to respect ], ] as well. The incident is frivolous and has no place in a biographical article besides a short mention. ] <small>]</small> 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed. · ] <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree that it shouldn't be long but it still needs a mention. ] (]) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::: I tried to leave this comment here before but it got deleted and I was banned. Apparently it's OK to leave it though so I'll try again. The comment was
::::: ''It doesn't just need a mention, it needs to be added properly. You're in denial and trying to cover up if you think otherwise. If people read all those reports (from respectable sources) and then see this article and the cover up you're doing (WP:UNDUE. Yea right! - who do you think you're kidding?), you're just damaging your own reputation and confirming the claims of the critics. Pretend it's not Jimbo's article. Edit it like you would any article on Misplaced Pages. Be honest, that's all anyone can ask. Have some respect for yourselves and show Misplaced Pages (and all those thousands that have contributed to make it what it is) the justice it deserves''.
::::In the half day it's taken me to get unbanned and confirmed that I'm allowed to leave a disagreeing comment I've had some more thoughts on the matter as I've had a chance to read your policies a few times while waiting. The WP UNDUE policy talks about a "view held by a small minority" and this discussion section is saying that the recent news can't be added to the article because it would be against WP UNDUE because a minority view would be exerting undue weight to the article. So if that's true then what exactly is the "minority view" that's being held and who are the "small minority" that hold it. They must exist or the argument can't be true. The minority view must be one of the views expressed in the media sources so it must be one of these; That there is an auction for Jimmy's clothes. That he had a relationship of some sort with someone and it's over. That he used his position to have an article on this person changed, That he spent some money on expenses. If WP UNDUE is a reason not to add something to the article, could someone explain which of the above are the minority views and who the minority is that's expressing them? Also, if you're going to ban me for leaving this comment, could you leave a comment or message on my page explaining what policies it's broken. Thanks ] (]) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Quoting from WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." In this case, the issue in question is trivial. ] (]) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Hi, thanks for answering the question rather than banning me. You mention that the issue is trivial. Can you define exactly what issue or collection of issues it is that you're talking about. I noticed that the discussions on this page mention different ones at different times. To get a consensus you need to all be talking about the same ones or the same thing probably. Is it one of these issues; That he had a relationship of some sort with someone and it's over. That he used his position to have an article on this person changed, That this person is auctioning Jimmy's clothes, That someone says he spent money on expenses in some kind of inappropriate way, or another issue or a combination or them? Also, you've quoted the WP UNDUE policy to support the argument that "in this case the issue in question is trivial", but the WP UNDUE policy doesn't mention or concern triviality. Are you saying that the issue or issues are trivial, or that they're are being given undue weight, or either or depending on which keeps them out of the article? Thanks ] (]) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*The reason it was mentioned here and not at Marsden's article is a result of two things: 1) where each article was in its respective edit war when it got protected and 2) the fact that the authors here started by adding one reasonable sentence and then edit warred over expansion, while over there there never was a just one reasonable sentence version. Factor 1 is pure luck, factor 2 is a result of more admins who work on this article. ] 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==Criticism==

Jimbo fanboys are repeatedly removing the Criticism section. Please leave it in. I realize the man has accomplished many great things, but a balanced and NPOV article should also have criticism about him, of which there is quite a lot circulating.--] (]) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Fanboys? I haven't seen anybody like that around here. Happy editing, ] 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== In the name of balance and fairness, the Jimmy Wales article should include ==

] (]) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The controversy over the Mzoli entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/Mzoli%27s

The LA Times take: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-webscout30sep30,0,344107.story

Here's the original Misplaced Pages article about Snuh: http://www.thehumphries.org/SNUH%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia2.htm

It wasn't considered worthy and after all references to Internet Snuh was obliterated, was merged with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Itchy_&_Scratchy_&_Marge

It's too bad what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Ridiculous stubs about the founder's favorite eatery is okay, but not a referenced entry. If you not going to hold Mr. Wales to his own standards, at least be public about it.

:The Mzoli's article was turned from a teeny stub into a respectable article. --] (], ]) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::Good. Then the people that worked on expanding it would have no problem working on other articles deemed for rejection. I'm sure Mr. Wales didn't experience any special treatment, Misplaced Pages editors always help all equally. ] (]) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I think in all honesty and with some experience following Wales as subject matter at[REDACTED] that he is generally held to higher standards than normal. Happy editing, ] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:The subject matter was always notable. Some people seemed to object to it because Mzoli's isn't in America or Europe. Happy editing, ] 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::My god, that is extremely subjective. ] (]) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Well I won't go into more details but will say that some people behaved very badly. Happy editing, ] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I believe the term is ]. --] (], ]) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==jimmy separated or divorced?==
citation please? --{{user|71.123.183.141}} 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:Here's one: http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/statement/
:He's separated according to his own blog. -Sam <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Change back to the version the article was protected on, please ==

Seeing as the protection was due to this same thing, continuing to remove the information when the article is protected seems questionable at best. Actually, it's near-abuse of admin priveleges. -] <small>]</small> 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:I think only a short mention is necessary. A better treatment can go in the Marsden article. I partially reverted, it couldn't be any more neutral now. --] (], ]) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::Admins editing a protected article per their own POV or wishes is a clear abuse of admin privileges. ] (]) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree w/ {{user|Amarkov}} and {{user|Sethie}}. ] (]) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::(2x ec) I only reverted to the protected version, with a slight wording change. I intend on preserving the protected version until the dispute here is resolved. --] (], ]) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, it my fault. My suggestion was only discussed for a few minutes in a section I imagine not many people read, and therefore my edits were uncalled for. My apologies for not discussing further. · ] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Not blaming you. I was under the assumption that we'd only have that one sentence in the Wales article, and deal with it further on the Marsden article where it's more relevant. --] (], ]) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::That could work as well (at least until the buzz dies off). · ] <sup>]</sup> 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, {{user|AndonicO}}, and thanks for the comment/explanation here. And I think that the edit by {{user|Merovingian}} is minor enough to be okay even though it was made while the article is protected. But for future edits to the article while it is protected, probably best if we discuss here first? ] (]) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. · ] <sup>]</sup> 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A question - why should a better treatment go in the Marsden article than this one? Incidentally, that article has been protected on a version that contains no mention whatsoever of the story. And this one has a single nondescript sentence. The story (incident, issue, whatever) now has '''fifty-eight''' media articles written on it (). ], ], ], the ], ], ], ], ], front page of ], ], ], ], the ], the ], and 45 other news sources () have all considered it notable but we apparently do not. I wonder why? ] ] 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Either we're extremely biased, or they're just publicizing this like any other "personal" scandal. · ] <sup>]</sup> 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Personally, I'd like to see a decent treatment of the incident in both articles. --] (], ]) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Nobody cares about the Marsden angle. They only care about the Jimbo angle, i.e. did he cross conflict-of-interest lines. At this point it's on the front page of ABCNews.com, yet all we have here is a terse mention of a "relationship"? ] is one thing, but the Misplaced Pages connection is the ONLY reason it's news. --] | ] 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Protected==
Can we please use semi-protect 1000 times more than full protect? There's almost never any good reason for full protection.] (]) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Correct - there are obvious reasons, but rarely good ones. ] ] 10:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== Full Protect?? ==

Why in the hell is this page currently on full protect? Wouldn't semi-protect be good enough?

(Also, just throwing it out there....Can we please, please have someone else figurehead Misplaced Pages? I mean, seriously, this guy is embarrassing ...) ] (]) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:It's protected because a minority of admins believe well-sourced, neutrally worded facts that make Jimbo look bad are not allowed, and will edit war to ensure the article gets protected on their preferred version. I would like to see the article back down to semi-protection, and a neutrally worded sentence or two stating the facts (like we had before BCST2001 - a new editor - butchered it misquoting WP:UNDUE ). ] ] 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::: Hi. I tried to add a comment saying exactly the same thing, that WP UNDUE was being misused, but I got banned for saying it. I've been unbanned now though. Is there somewhere I can get permission to leave the comment. I tried asking the person that banned me but they banned me and I've tried asking the person that unbanned me but I guess they're busy. Where can I get permission to leave a comment on Jimbo's talk page. The comment is . I'm sorry for leaving this comment on this page to ask permission to leave a comment on this page and I realise that might be against the rules. If you're going to ban me for doing that, when you're banning me can you can you leave a comment on my page letting me know where I can get permission. Thanks ] (]) 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::BCST2001 is not a new editor - see the blanked history in their talk page. ]] 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I love the fact you think you can read my mind. *I* protected this, because it's a biography and there was *unseemly edit-warring*. Once there's some sort of consensus developed as to what should go in the article, then, whatever the consensus may be, it can be unprotected. That means people talking and collaborating (like with a collaborative project). Shouting and throwing allegations will only result in the protection remaining. If I undid my protection right now, there would be an edit war, as people put in what they thought without discussion with others. So discuss it and get a consensus, if you are so desperate for a resolution.--]<sup>g</sup> 09:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:I am always desperate to see disputes resolved. See below. ] ] 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Jimbo Wales is someone who is always going to be in the Wikilimelight as long as Misplaced Pages exists, my point here being, this doesn't so much prevent an edit war but forestall it. The reality is, it's a subject that's going to be addressed, and full protecting this page was an unnecessary step. ] (]) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::Full protect should never be used in content issues like this. *Admins have NO priveledged editing position*. And should not imho. Semi is the preferred protection. Thanks. ] (]) 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::No, semi-protection is intended for preventing vandalism (by new or anonymous users who are too numerous to block or by one vandal using several IPs or sockpuppets). It is never appropriate to use semi-protection in a legitimate content disputes. — ] 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree it needs to be full or nothing. While I hate to see this article fully protected i can predict what would happen if it were unprotected today. Happy editing, ] 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The community never agreed to use full-protection to allow admins to edit what-they-will while established editors have to sit and spin. It's not a fair use of full-protection. It creates a two-tiered society of "haves" and "have-nots" in the editing camp. There is no consensus that admins should be "haves" for content-editing purposes. That was never the agreement we reached. ] (]) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Consensus==

Simple question - do we:

:'''A''') Mention the Wales/Marsden thing with one referenced sentence ("Wales had a brief relationship with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden.") - this is what we currently have.

:'''B''') Expand that, ensuring all information is referenced (e.g. something along the lines of "Wales had brief relationship with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden which has attracted media attention. In March 2008, she stated that he announced their breakup through Misplaced Pages, referring to a statement. Wales published a statement on Misplaced Pages in which he said he was "no longer involved with" Marsden. Marsden subsequently advertised items of clothing belonging to Wales on eBay.)

:'''C''') Remove it entirely.

It's not a simple vote, so please try and explain your view. I am for '''B''' - given the weight of recent media coverage, I think a short, neutrally worded paragraph is wholly appropriate. If we go for this, the precise wording and what we do and do not mention is an aside; once we have an agreement for a couple of sentences, then we can thrash out the wording later. ] ] 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*Hm, dunno. But not A. We don't list people people slept with. We don't list short affairs, unless they are significant. Is this significant? That's the question. I don't think we know yet.--]<sup>g</sup> 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:The affair in itself I would agree is wholly insignificant, but the media furore over the aftermath warrants a mention (and then the affair has to be mentioned for context). ] ] 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''B''' for the same reason as Neil. ]] 10:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*I think '''C''' ('''A''' would also be acceptable), but '''B''' in the Marsden article. · ] <sup>]</sup> 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:Question - why no mention here but one in the Marsden article? ] ] 12:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*::Self-quoted from above: "''I'm not sure why this incident is mentioned on Wales' page, but not Marsden's. Seems to me that her notability is largely defined by this kind of occurrence, and it might therefore be better to have the information there, rather than here.''" · ] <sup>]</sup> 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Two to tango. Surely this event should either be mentioned in both articles, or not mentioned in either article. — ] 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*I'd say '''B''', as the notable thing is not the affair, but the fact that she claims he actually broke up with her via Misplaced Pages, the ''encyclopedia'' that was founded by him. --] (]) 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
**He denies that. So, do we generally include unsubstantiated allegations by an ex with an obvious axe to grind in a biography? I'd say not.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
***Possibly, as its exclusion could be noticeable; especially if its quoted in a "reliable source". A he said/she said can be short and sweet, given the context I'd think Jim would have the last word. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*The A B C is a limited list of things to get a consensus on. The best thing to do is to be honest and include all the sourced and reported possibilities so when there is a consensus there can't be any allegations that consensus was manipulated by only allowing consensus on a few options, like having a democracy where you hold free elections but you can only vote for members of the one and only party that is allowed to exist. Isn't it also about the allegation (sourced and reported) that Jimbo exerted influence to have her article changed, which is mixed in with IM conversations (alleged but reported) while he's doing it. I'm not saying it's true but it must be relevant to the page of the founder of a Misplaced Pages with rules that say you can't do that. You have her (reported) side. You have his side. You can be balanced and fair. There's also the mention of unrelated expenses, although I'm not sure how reliably that is being reported. To me, it would make sense to first reach consensus on what should be included, then consensus on how much they should be included and in what way ] (]) 13:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*:The ABC options provide an outline of the direction to go. B allows for a broader story, which is what you are aiming for. However, attempting to get a "consensus on what should be included" will be a long/complicated task, and will only be possible down the road when the dust settles. We need a starting point, and that is what these options provide. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::The task is the same length or complexity but just has a different starting point. Deliberately choosing a starting point that eliminates one of the major reported and relevant issues is a way of keeping it out because it's unpalatable to some. It's relevant, of significance, very widely reported and sourced and both his and her points of view have been reported so it can be added neutrally. If it was an article about anyone else it would be added ] (]) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::::It is false to argue that if the article was about someone else the material would be added. The contrary is the case. ] (]) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::::: And yet the material is not being offered up for consideration to be added. It's conspicuous by it's absence. A proposed discussion about what should be added doesn't include the material, when in the vast majority of sources it's intricately linked with the reporting of the material that is being considered, as well as being relevant, of significance, well and reliably reported and easily to add from a neutral point of view perspective ] (]) 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*I'm initially unsure if '''B''' belongs here or in Marsden article, I agree with AndonicO's point on her notability; but this break-up is mostly notable because of Jim and the involvement of Wiki. So that drags it back here to some extent. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:I think the only way to avoid claims of "one rule for Jimbo" is for the same content needs to be on both articles - I don't see why it couldn't be. ] ] 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:I agree with Neil that the level of detail regarding this event should be equal in both articles. I doubt it could be objectively demonstrated that one person is more "notable" than the other, and do not believe that the "relative notability" of either person would be a meaningful factor in deciding whether or not to include this information in either person's article. — ] 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
* If we are going to go with B (which I favor some variant of) we should mention the claims that this resulted in a COI. I don't think personally there were any actual COI issues but reliable sources have discussed the concern. I disagree with Charlotte's claim above- this is actually much more about Jimbo than it is about Marsden. If anything there should be more content about this here than on his page. The only reason this has gotten any coverage at all is because of the COI issues. ] (]) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:You mean because the community of Misplaced Pages editors expected better from Jimbo, but not from Rachel? If there are "COI issues" or "concerns about COI issues" it's still equally about both of them, as it would be ''his'' suspected conflict of interest regarding the content of Misplaced Pages's article about ''her''. — ] 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*** No, but the press coverage has focused on Wales, not Marsden. Furthermore, the responsibility is essentially his; there's no accusation that I can see that she had a COI that was at work here; the accusation is that Jim had a COI due to her relationship with her. ] (]) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*As indicated at ], I believe that option '''A''' is the maximum permissible coverage of this issue within policy. The other option is '''C''', which would not bother me at all: it is probably preferable. ] (]) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:Information should be given weight in proportion to available sources. It is misguided to impose artificial restrictions on the detail of one section or article based on the lack of detail in other sections or articles. Every Misplaced Pages article is inherently an unfinished work. Articles should ultimately reflect what our sources say, no more, no less. The order in which pieces fall into place isn't of major consequence. — ] 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*::Actually, according to ], one of the core content policies of Misplaced Pages, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The question is what is appropriate, not some formula weighing the "proportion" of sources. In this case, the material is trivial, and inclusion of detail on this matter is ''not'' appropriate. It is also invasive, and raises ] concerns. If, somewhere down the track, some weighty significance is found to attach to this material, then it can be re-weighed. As it stands, there is no such significance and, as I indicated earlier, much of the attempt to include this material amounts to prurient interest. ] (]) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:::You are wholly wrong. There are no BLP concerns. Please actually ''read'' ]. It requires information must be reliably referenced and neutrally written (all it really amounts to is a particularly emphatic rewriting of ]) when dealing with articles about living persons. ] ] 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::I have read WP:BLP and it says substantially more than you suggest. ] (]) 18:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*I would support '''B'''. We should include whatever can be appropriately referenced. Maybe we can put more in Marsden's article than in Wales's. --] (], ]) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have been thinking that the current sentence should be altered with the clause "that attracted media attention" -- essentially the first sentence of '''B'''. I see little reason to go further than that at this moment. I think the media attention is the only reason this topic has become notable, and the only justification for mentioning it at all. I would also like to point out that arguing for a lengthier treatment in Marsden's article could also be perceived as systemic bias (based on Wales' role in Misplaced Pages AND his gender) and I would argue against that. --] (]) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::I agree entirely with the last sentence of your comment, but explicitly mentioning that something has "attracted media attention" and implicitly suggesting that "this is why we have published this information" seems a bit tautological as we generally don't publish information that has not attracted coverage in secondary sources, i.e. mediums independent both from the subject and from ourselves. Perhaps to use a more descriptive summary word than "attention", or better yet to actually explain the nature of the "media attention", would better serve our readers. As a rule, if Misplaced Pages didn't read it somewhere else, you wouldn't be reading it here. To a cynical reader, emphasizing what should already be taken for granted can actually make us sound defensive. — ] 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, you're probably right, perhaps the "attracted media attention" part should be amplifed, so long as the summary does not wander into original research or synthesis, which is the problem I see with the approach attempted below. That said, however, I think the rest of the attempted approach in '''B''' above misses the point -- it gets into the he-said, she-said chronology, but does nothing to characterize the story's significance, which may require slightly more perspective than we have (through reliable sources) at the moment. --] (]) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"In March 2008, Jimmy Wales was claimed to have ended a relationship with ], a Canadian political columnist, on Misplaced Pages. The original announcement was moved to his private blog, but not before a minor backlash occurred online on blogs and other websites. There is also some doubt as to the veracity of the claim that Wale's first mention of it occurred online; Marsden's romantic interests found their way to public attention on several occasions, involving both harassment of a counter-terrorism officer / boyfriend and the ]. ] (]) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

* I want to remind the editors here that want to shove the bulk of the coverage into RM's article that we shouldn't use ] to judge whether this is more significant to her life than Jimbo's. Every Misplaced Pages editor has heard of Jimbo while they may not have heard of RM before. But that is systemic bias in our editorial knowledge. I also want to remind editors here that we've already had one ArbComm case about BLP violating edits on her article, and that once this article mentions RM, it is subject to remedy #2 of ]. "Articles which relate to ], may, when they violate Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit." I encourage editors here to assume that they can't rely on any coverage remaining in her article. ] 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

* Most of these versions miss the relevant point; the accusations of COI. Any mention of this is going to have to make that clear. ] (]) 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== T-shirt ==

If his or more, I think that should be mentioned. No doubt it will appear in reliable sources. ] (]) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. --] (], ]) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
: That's gotta be some soft cotton, for sure. ] (]) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well the price has fallen from $15,000 last night to only $2,000 today. Perhaps some <s>insane</s> people have withdrawn their bids. I am not sure I could agree that a merely two thousand dollar t-shirt is actually notable. ] (]) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Publicized auctions tend to attract hoax bids, which eBay removes when information can't be verified. --] | ] 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== democracy the wiki way ==

I used to love wikipedia. Is there ANY REASON why there are 60 TOPICS here on a closed page that won't allow alterations, all of them negative, when the profile is so glowing and complimentary? There is a balanced view on many subjects on WIKI, that's the point. Be it in relevant historical articles, or irrelevant ones on Tom Cruise etc. Yet Jimmy Wales' is solely complimentary. Any balanced journalist would notice that there's 60 topics here needing addressing, yet it is vert clear to the Wiki community that none of these will ever be allowed through , blocked by legions of admins. So I merely am asking a simple mundane question in this post - Should the community be able to voice their (60+) opinions or should they be ignored ? hope to hear a nice diplomatic answer. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:They don't require the ability to edit the article if the talk page is meant for discussion. If the article were unprotected, everyone with the 60+ opinions would try to edit at once, and would undo the edits of people that disagree with them. It is better to discuss rather than have edit wars. I hope that answers your question. (Oh, and ].) · ] <sup>]</sup> 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:: They should be able to voice their opinion, because the idea of a full protect on an wiki was absurd to begin with. Ban users, ban IPs, don't prevent who actually do this wiki thing as a long-term hobby from being able to edit it just because a lot of people might go after it at once -- so what? If it turns into a morass, just revert. I thought we have reliable servers, so I know it can't be that. Is there a fear of having his page be in a state of construction for more than a day at a time? It's not like schoolchildren are busy doing research papers on this man, and college students have more interesting people to write about. This is solely my opinion, but I think this full protect is unfounded and represents a sick bit of censorship being claimed to be in the best interests of the community and encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== wired.com ==

here is a link to a recent well established wired.com article. I presume this wont be banned as its a reputable online magazine..
<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi 68.122 - it's not banned, but it's a copyright thing (we can't copy entire articles, even to talk pages), so I've replaced it with a link. No judgement on whether this should be in the article. ] ] 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::It's also a blog on Wired.com, not the magazine itself, so therefore of dubious reliability. --] (]) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::This is true. If I were referencing the statements, I'd probably go with another source. --] (], ]) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::: Er, we've discussed this before at RS and elsewhere. Just because a reliable source labels some of their coverage a blog doesn't make it a blog for our purposes. What matter is that it has editorial oversight and such (which they do). This is why for example the New York Times "blogs" are citable. ] (]) 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Right, I understand, but except in the case of obscure events, there are other more traditional stories about something. We're at the point in this incident that blogs are good sources, but not the best. And I think we should also probably point out in the text when something comes from a blog. --] (], ]) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::The Danny/spending issue from the Wired article, at the very least, can be cited to . One imagines, notwithstanding the A/B/C !vote supra, that whatever we write about the Marsden issue will ultimately focus on untoward conduct, either vis-à-vis the Foundation's finances or in the context of any editorial involvement with the ], that is alleged&mdash;the associated controversies, after all, appear on their way to becoming rather notable&mdash;and the MSNBC article is perhaps as good a source as any we have at present. ] 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Wales statement re Marsden==

We don't need to self reference now - if we do choose to mention it - as Jimbo has moved it to his blog (), which I believe we can link as a primary source. ] ] 10:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)




There is a date/age issue in the second paragraph of the "Early life and education section". "When he was three, in 1968" cannot be correct if he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966. In 1968 he was either one or two, not three. ] (]) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


:That ''Daily Beast'' source says "When he was three, his mother bought a World Book Encyclopedia from a door-to-door salesman..", so no year mentioned. I am unable to open the first source, ''The News Courier'', either original or archived, so can't see what it says. ] (]) 09:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::@] Returning to this, the other source says: "Doris Wales’ husband, Jimmy, wasn’t sure what she was thinking when she bought a World Book Encyclopedia set from a traveling salesman in 1968. Their first-born son, also named Jimmy, was not yet 3." So the cited sources disagree about whether he was 3 or not yet 3. ''''']''''' (]) 05:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


== Jimbo ==
== can this be included on jimmys page or does it have to stay here? its true so why cant it be posted? ==


Sure we need to mention he’s username in the intro? Barely any sources mention it, and it isn’t a common name given to him. Cheers. ] (]) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
http://valleywag.com/362814/the-goodbye-email-from-jimmy-waless-girlfriend <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Errrm, the article opens with: "{{tq|'''Jimmy Donal Wales''' (born August 7, 1966), also known on Misplaced Pages by the nickname '''Jimbo Wales'''...}}" So that's the 15th word in? ] (]) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:Blogs are not considered particularly ] for something like this, where they are being used as a "secondary source". They're only really okay when used as a "primary source" (e.g. a statement from and about the blog owner, for an article on them). ] ] 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::What? That’s my point. It’s in the intro. Yet it’s a username without any real-life importance. (I mean that it’s not notable enough to be mentioned in the intro. It’s not a common name, it’s his username). Jimmy Wales has no special rights! Down with the dictatorship! ] (]) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::I would suggest this as a source: . The Times (London). 4 March 2008.
:::Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I think it's been there for quite a long time. And I think it probably makes him more accessible, to editors and readers alike. I also can't imagine anything much less like ]. ] (]) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>
::::{{ping|Martinevans123}} Inform yourself better before making bold claims with no factual truth (see: ]). As to Jimbo Wales, you might think I’m a picky asshole, and I might think it myself, and it might be true, but clearly this goes against policies, or more generally the way biographies are written. This is just a guy who created an online encyclopedia, might be this one, who knows? That this guy is also coincidentally a user on Misplaced Pages should not be in the article, and definitely not in the intro. Cheers. ] (]) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::What an wonderfully enlightening essay, full of "factual truth". Thank you so much for sharing that. And yes, what an amazing coincidence that is - an inventor occasionally using his own invention. Who knows, maybe that nice ] will be using ] before too long? ] (]) 17:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|Martinevans123}} This biography is like any other. The username Jimbo Wales, is not a common way of calling him, and is not described ''enough'' in the sources to be notable. ] (]) 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::And this is an article Talk page, like any other. So, as per ], we need to arrive at a consensus to remove that detail, instead of just edit warring? ] (]) 17:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Martinevans123}} Sorry. Then let’s discuss. Taking aside what I said before, I did genuinely want to discuss if his username, which is not really notable in any way, should be mentioned in his article. Considering that, yes, genuinely, this article is nothing special, and if Elon Musk was editing Misplaced Pages, his account would not be mentioned. In other words, stating that he edits Misplaced Pages under Jimbo Wales, provided there is a source, can be added, but having Jimbo Wales in the intro just seems a little bizarre. He is not commonly referred to as such, and the ] has nothing to do at the very top of an article. He is not commonly referred to as such, only in Misplaced Pages, and only by those who know he is there. ] (]) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Experience shows that no good comes from new editors popping in here and poking the bear. I know it's terribly unfair that Jimbo gets special treatment just because he founded Misplaced Pages but most of us have learned to live with it. See ] and ] for why rules that generally apply are not always applied if there is a good reason to do otherwise. ] (]) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Johnuniq}} I get it. Again, sorry if it seemed that way. What I find frustrating is that what I said on my first message was serious, I genuinely want to discuss if we need to put his username in the Intro. It legitimately feels bizarre. It’s not a common name by which he is called, I also know that Misplaced Pages "rules" are just recommendations, and I also do not care that much about this intro. Cheers. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::]… This sums it up perfectly. I am legitimately asking if we can keep a not commonly known ''username'' of an online encyclopedia, as an alt/name of Jimmy Wales, in addition to making it sound professional by writing "is known on Misplaced Pages", instead of "known on Misplaced Pages by his username". And in fact, it makes this article a lot less professional, seriously, I’m not kidding. Cheers. ] (]) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::, took about 20 seconds to find this one. ] (]) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ok. I better shut up now shouldn’t I? Cheers, and happy new year. ] (]) 02:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::<small>Looking forward to Twitterpedia. Now that might well be a ]? But at least we'd get updates . ] (]) 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC) </small>
For the next time this comes up, {{user|Encyclopédisme}} was CU indeffed and globally locked on 27 June 2024. ] (]) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)


== Hatnote ==
There was some uncertainty as to whether Mr Wales could write about his past romance from a “neutral point of view”; equally, it was unclear whether his statement that the affair was ended constituted a “novel narrative or historical interpretation”.


{{u|JLCop}} recently removed the hatnote. I reinstated it for now but I do think this subject is worth discussing, given that projectspace links within mainspace are generally discouraged. I noticed that ] also has a similar hatnote but that this is not the case for the average person listed at ]. Thoughts? ] ] 03:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
What Mr Wales acknowledged was a “far more important” issue was the allegation that, as he became involved with Ms Marsden, he intervened to redraft her Misplaced Pages biography.


:Delete. ] (]) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*] which doesn't seem to have been closed or concluded (first item on the page). ] (]) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
* I removed this before seeing this discussion. This is a clear case of ], as the edit notice itself says. I also removed the hatnote from ], for the same reason. ] ] 03:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Fair enough. Given recent events, I think it's best to stay away from this article going forward just to be on the safe side. I appreciate the input from others in this discussion. ] ] 03:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


== RfC using ] to link ] and ] ==
...


I propose that we add something like this to the top of the article, as Jimbo has an information page other than user page, and there are many other mainspace articles related to Misplaced Pages that links to internal pages like this.
History will decide whether Mr Wales broke his own principles, although before that happens there may well be a Misplaced Pages page devoted to the controversy.


{{For|the personal user page and related internal page|User:Jimbo Wales|WP:JIMBO}}
</blockquote>
I would suggest that failure to include anything on this makes[REDACTED] look poor.] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


There was a ] on this, editors refused to link the user page in the article itself because it would constitute an exception, but the new proposal using a "for" template to link the user page does not constitute an exception per above. ] (]) 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wlbreakup04/BNStory/lifeMain/home
* '''Oppose''' per the previous discussion, this is still a blaring ] violation. It shows internal strength to not let our guard down when writing about Misplaced Pages, and instead write the article in the exact same way we would about unrelated subjects. In no other context would it even be conceivable to link to someone's official website at the very top of the article rather than at the bottom in the "external links" section, so we must not do so here. ] ] 22:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*:] only applies to ] and not ] though, and this is an internal link, not jimbowales.com which would belong at the bottom. ] (]) 00:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*:: It's only a "internal link" because you're letting your guard down in exactly the way I said not to do. Please read the edit notice: "This article relates to Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that links to non-article namespaces should be treated as external links and not included in the body. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so references to it must comply with WP:ABOUTSELF." ] ] 01:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::That edit notice exists in other pages such as ], ], ], etc and still use hats containing internal links. Do you suggest to remove those hats? ] (]) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::Pinging participants in ] @] @] @]
*::::Pinging participants in ] @] @] @]
*::::Let's see which is the consensus on this. ] (]) 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::<s>Whoever this Noel Body is, I just don't trust him.</s> Whatevs. ] (]) 22:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Per the newly added COI section on my user page, I don't think I'm the best person to be commenting here. ] ] 22:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Pppery, non-article namespaces are treated as external links in articles related to Misplaced Pages itself. Also, the fact that other pages also use these hats isn't a good argument, and I would suggest also removing them: someone searching for our project page ] most likely isn't going to type ]. ] (] · ]) 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)


== Newer 2024 image? ==
==Oh dear==


Not sure whether or not it'd be right from me to change the infobox portrait myself, so I decided to ask y'all here. I propose that the current 2023 image (which has an admittedly distracting blurry background) is changed to a newer, fresher image from the 2024 Wikimania. Below are my proposals. I personally favor Option C.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2008-03-04-wikipedia-wales_N.htm?csp=34 ] ] 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
<gallery>
File:Jimmy Wales in New York City March 2023 blurred cropped.jpg|Current image
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x4 (1).jpg|A
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x4 (2).jpg|B
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x2 (3).jpg|C
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x2 (4).jpg|D
</gallery> ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:I prefer the current image. It's better lit and less grainy than the other options provided. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 18:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I agree, the current image is best. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 06:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Here are a few new options, and I prefer option F 、 option G.
<gallery>
File:Jimmy Wales visited the Youth Affairs Agency. Photo portrait 2024 (cropped).jpg|E
File:Jimmy Wales visited the Youth Affairs Agency. Photo portrait 2024 (cropped 2).jpg|F
File:Jimmy Wales visited the Youth Affairs Agency (cropped).jpg|G
File:Jimmy Wales welcome to Uzbekistan (cropped).jpg|H
File:Jimmy Wales in Uzbekistan (cropped).jpg|I
File:Jimmy Wales and WikiStipendiya (cropped).jpg|J
</gallery>
:] (]) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:F is great. No odd facial expression, everything well. ] (]) 22:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I believe it's the same Brian Bergstein Associated Press article already listed as #24 in the ref list higher on this page. Certainly we don't need to note every appearance of the same article. Please take the time to compare before adding. --] (]) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:I prefer the '''current image'''. It looks like a professional headshot, has the best facial expression of all of these, and is fresh enough to not be out of date. –] <small>(])</small> 06:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' the current image at this time. Wait at least several years beforehand. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' I was asked to comment here, which is very kind. I'm happy with the photo that is there now, and I'm happy with any of them. It's not really up to me of course. I'd say that some older photos look better but probably aren't right either, since my beard has gone grey (as in the current image) as compared to some of the oldest ones. :-) --] (]) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' the current image, no alt appears notably better. ] (]) 18:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:21, 21 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Wales article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Former good article nomineeJimmy Wales was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
August 14, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 31, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 25, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 5, 2017Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
[REDACTED] Misplaced Pages Top‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED] Internet culture High‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconChicago Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconComputing: Websites Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBusiness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Indiana Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconAlabama
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconObjectivism (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism
WikiProject iconOpen (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This talk page is only for discussions concerning Misplaced Pages's article on Jimmy Wales.
The contents of the Jimmy Wales Foundation page were merged into Jimmy Wales on 14 December 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.


Date/age issue

There is a date/age issue in the second paragraph of the "Early life and education section". "When he was three, in 1968" cannot be correct if he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966. In 1968 he was either one or two, not three. Timothy Cooper (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That Daily Beast source says "When he was three, his mother bought a World Book Encyclopedia from a door-to-door salesman..", so no year mentioned. I am unable to open the first source, The News Courier, either original or archived, so can't see what it says. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 Returning to this, the other source says: "Doris Wales’ husband, Jimmy, wasn’t sure what she was thinking when she bought a World Book Encyclopedia set from a traveling salesman in 1968. Their first-born son, also named Jimmy, was not yet 3." So the cited sources disagree about whether he was 3 or not yet 3.  Mystery Merrivale  (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Jimbo

Sure we need to mention he’s username in the intro? Barely any sources mention it, and it isn’t a common name given to him. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Errrm, the article opens with: "Jimmy Donal Wales (born August 7, 1966), also known on Misplaced Pages by the nickname Jimbo Wales..." So that's the 15th word in? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
What? That’s my point. It’s in the intro. Yet it’s a username without any real-life importance. (I mean that it’s not notable enough to be mentioned in the intro. It’s not a common name, it’s his username). Jimmy Wales has no special rights! Down with the dictatorship! Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I think it's been there for quite a long time. And I think it probably makes him more accessible, to editors and readers alike. I also can't imagine anything much less like a dictatorship. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Inform yourself better before making bold claims with no factual truth (see: Dictatorship of neo-socialism). As to Jimbo Wales, you might think I’m a picky asshole, and I might think it myself, and it might be true, but clearly this goes against policies, or more generally the way biographies are written. This is just a guy who created an online encyclopedia, might be this one, who knows? That this guy is also coincidentally a user on Misplaced Pages should not be in the article, and definitely not in the intro. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
What an wonderfully enlightening essay, full of "factual truth". Thank you so much for sharing that. And yes, what an amazing coincidence that is - an inventor occasionally using his own invention. Who knows, maybe that nice Mr Musk will be using "X" before too long? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: This biography is like any other. The username Jimbo Wales, is not a common way of calling him, and is not described enough in the sources to be notable. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
And this is an article Talk page, like any other. So, as per WP:BRD, we need to arrive at a consensus to remove that detail, instead of just edit warring? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Sorry. Then let’s discuss. Taking aside what I said before, I did genuinely want to discuss if his username, which is not really notable in any way, should be mentioned in his article. Considering that, yes, genuinely, this article is nothing special, and if Elon Musk was editing Misplaced Pages, his account would not be mentioned. In other words, stating that he edits Misplaced Pages under Jimbo Wales, provided there is a source, can be added, but having Jimbo Wales in the intro just seems a little bizarre. He is not commonly referred to as such, and the Misplaced Pages:Glossary has nothing to do at the very top of an article. He is not commonly referred to as such, only in Misplaced Pages, and only by those who know he is there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Experience shows that no good comes from new editors popping in here and poking the bear. I know it's terribly unfair that Jimbo gets special treatment just because he founded Misplaced Pages but most of us have learned to live with it. See WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR for why rules that generally apply are not always applied if there is a good reason to do otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I get it. Again, sorry if it seemed that way. What I find frustrating is that what I said on my first message was serious, I genuinely want to discuss if we need to put his username in the Intro. It legitimately feels bizarre. It’s not a common name by which he is called, I also know that Misplaced Pages "rules" are just recommendations, and I also do not care that much about this intro. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Ignore every single rule… This sums it up perfectly. I am legitimately asking if we can keep a not commonly known username of an online encyclopedia, as an alt/name of Jimmy Wales, in addition to making it sound professional by writing "is known on Misplaced Pages", instead of "known on Misplaced Pages by his username". And in fact, it makes this article a lot less professional, seriously, I’m not kidding. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
New Scientist Jimbo nickname source, took about 20 seconds to find this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I better shut up now shouldn’t I? Cheers, and happy new year. Encyclopédisme (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking forward to Twitterpedia. Now that might well be a dictatorship? But at least we'd get updates 25 times a day. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For the next time this comes up, Encyclopédisme (talk · contribs) was CU indeffed and globally locked on 27 June 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

JLCop recently removed the hatnote. I reinstated it for now but I do think this subject is worth discussing, given that projectspace links within mainspace are generally discouraged. I noticed that Steven Pruitt also has a similar hatnote but that this is not the case for the average person listed at List of Misplaced Pages people. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. JLCop (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC using Template:For to link User:Jimbo Wales and WP:JIMBO

I propose that we add something like this to the top of the article, as Jimbo has an information page other than user page, and there are many other mainspace articles related to Misplaced Pages that links to internal pages like this.

For the personal user page and related internal page, see User:Jimbo Wales and WP:JIMBO.

There was a previous discussion on this, editors refused to link the user page in the article itself because it would constitute an exception, but the new proposal using a "for" template to link the user page does not constitute an exception per above. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Newer 2024 image?

Not sure whether or not it'd be right from me to change the infobox portrait myself, so I decided to ask y'all here. I propose that the current 2023 image (which has an admittedly distracting blurry background) is changed to a newer, fresher image from the 2024 Wikimania. Below are my proposals. I personally favor Option C.

  • Current image Current image
  • A A
  • B B
  • C C
  • D D

Nursultan Malik 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the current image. It's better lit and less grainy than the other options provided. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree, the current image is best. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Here are a few new options, and I prefer option F 、 option G.
  • E E
  • F F
  • G G
  • H H
  • I I
  • J J
Nagae Iku (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
F is great. No odd facial expression, everything well. Nurken (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I prefer the current image. It looks like a professional headshot, has the best facial expression of all of these, and is fresh enough to not be out of date. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep the current image at this time. Wait at least several years beforehand. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I was asked to comment here, which is very kind. I'm happy with the photo that is there now, and I'm happy with any of them. It's not really up to me of course. I'd say that some older photos look better but probably aren't right either, since my beard has gone grey (as in the current image) as compared to some of the oldest ones. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep the current image, no alt appears notably better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Jimmy Wales: Difference between revisions Add topic