Template:Fix bunching

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

Jimbo, in this article, you state that "Sanger was absolutely adamant that Wikipedia must have ads, and it was my refusal to do so that led to Wikipedia being as it is today. The Spanish fork did not provoke any changes of any kind. We stayed the course. I didn’t want to have advertising, and I found ways to avoid it."

Sanger responded by posting an email from 2002 in which you said that, "Just as the National Geographic Society is supported in large part by advertisments in the National Geographic Magazine, I expect this to be a potentially necessary thing at some point in the future, if we wish to have an impact beyond our own little corner of the Internet. (And, I think we all do.)."

Could you comment on what could be interpreted as a discrepancy in what you and Sanger are saying took place with regards to intent to use advertising in Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the discrepancy is supposed to be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo thought advertising might prove to be necessary, but he didn't want advertising, and successfully sought was to avoid it? Is this any more than that Wales and Sanger held differing predictions of need of advertising, one short term reluctant and long term tentative, the other adamant? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sanger is saying that Jimbo's behavior at the time did not illustrate, as shown by the email, a "refusal to have ads". However, Jimbo appears to be saying that the email indicates nothing of the kind. Sanger says that he himself made no effort to have ads, contrary to Jimbo's assertion. So, we seem to have a "he said, he said" situation. This is your talk page, Jimbo. Do you agree with my assessment? Cla68 (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human long term memory is revisionist. It is not reliable. When thinking about an old memory, you alter it. Jimbo is neither an independent nor objective source for his thoughts ten years ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ SmokeyJoe-Quotations from the subject of an article are surely admissible to the article ? JWales may not have total recall (or other superpowers :)- I will verify with Marvel Comics), but certainly no-one else at all at all can say what his thoughts were or were not. Who knows? maybe the man has kept a daily thoughts journal for decades? Sometimes executives have to adopt a short term strategic position in an email. Whether it was or was not JWales who was the chief mover in keeping ads out, I am delighted with the result.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy is much simpler than all that. By saying, "Sanger was absolutely adamant that Wikipedia must have ads, and it was my refusal to do so that led..." Mr. Wales fairly straightforwardly implies (1) that he was opposed to ads, (2) that I was adamantly in favor, and (3) that he actively resisted my (supposed) demands. In fact, (1) was false, (2) is silly (I was not "adamant," I wanted to keep my job), and (3) is inaccurate (he tried to sell ads, and failed; or so he told me). The fact of the matter is that Mr. Wales had himself long declared that Nupedia and Wikipedia would eventually be supported by ads, and he told me in December 2001 and January 2002 that he was trying to sell ads in order to support my position. But you don't have to take my word for that; on the salient point, a better quotation can be found from Feb. 2, 2002, in which he says, "However, with the ongoing hard times in the Internet economy, we do anticipate adding some forms of advertising to the site in the near future." Read the whole post; Mr. Wales' support of ads at the time was quite definite. So you see, no reliance on memory is necessary in this case. --Larry Sanger (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, could you please respond? Cla68 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to what? In the development of any project, people go through various phases when hopes meet reality; rarely, if at all, does a complex project turn out as originally envisaged, and rarely, if at all, do the people involved keep a consistent and unchanging position on anything of significance. No benefit will result from proving that (a) Jimbo is infallible and never changes his mind, or (b) Jimbo is fallible and has floated inconsistent ideas in the last ten years. Further, no proof is possible. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Well put.--MONGO 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, did you tell Larry that selling ads was necessary to facilitate his continued employement? Cla68 (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I smell Wikipedia Review...--MONGO 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to avoid each other, squabbling again, you've got your own wikis, why not limit yourselves to it and cease the disruption, give us a break, who cares, move on , get over it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someday I'll publish all the old emails from back in the day. In the meantime, I'll simply reiterate what I've said so far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate what? All you said was, "I don't see the discrepancy," and I pointed out the discrepancy quite clearly. I guess you're reiterating that you still don't see any discrepancy. Well, apart from your toadies, everybody can see the discrepancy, and you can too. So this is a typical Jimbo non-response: when confronted with lying, or wrongdoing, you simply say something that sounds like friendly communication but really dodges the question. Anyway, as I've said before, when you lie about the past, especially when it is to my detriment personally, I am going to call you on it. If you don't want to respond, that's your right, but decent people will draw their own conclusions from your non-responsiveness. --Larry Sanger (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, if Larry disagrees with what you say about him in the media, it's expected that he's going to publicly give his side and ask you for an explanation on why you said what you said. If you're unwilling or unable to respond, perhaps you should avoid publicly saying anything negative about Larry, especially when it gives the appearance of you trying to put your own actions, in comparison with his, in a more positive light. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind not being so rude, calling users that don't agree with you - toadies and winging on descent people give over, shouldn't you be off building your wiki. I came to this wikipedia after all this tedious crap occurred, its historic naval gazing, move on. I would block you, your clearly not here to build the encyclopedia - you can communicate via emial. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, you really should block Larry Sanger as it would provide further evidence of who has the higher moral ground in this situation. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lucky for Larry and perhaps for me also, I have no authority here, I know he would like to be blocked to get a bit more of that moral ground. I just see all this as disruptive, lets just agree to differ and Larry can focus on his project and users that want to focus on this one can focus on this one. It is difficult speaking in a media bubble, everything you say, is quoted out of content and miss quoted and then preserved in wikipedia for years... why not in the future if you guys are asked questions about this hair splitting stuff, just say like a rock star - I can barely remember those days, I was doing so much ****** and **** that looking back is like looking through a snowstorm, lets move on, I would like to focus on the present and the future of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo states "potentially necessary" and in the second "ads turned *off* by default", "Advertising must not interfere with the content of the encyclopedia" and "Those people are invited to step forward and pay for Wikipedia out of their own pockets if they like.  :-)"

To me that shows his unwullingness to accept advertising, and a realisation that the editors did not want it either, after which he provides the solution we have today.

As for Mr Sanger, all I see is a man with a spade digging an OR heresay hole with comments like "he said I said they said". The comment "we do anticipate adding some forms" is realising that unless the situation changes the only solution to prevent closing may have been advertising. Yet again this is NOT stating that it will be there, I want it and it should happen.

Your comment, Mr Sanger: "At some point in 2001, it had become quite clear that the nature of the participants and the project itself was such that the encyclopedia would have to become non-profit. This is something that I had asked for early on." actually says that you were in support of advertising does it not ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, maybe if we'd accepted adverts for Specsavers right from the start, Sanger's goggles would have been replaced with something more hip... I am joking though Larry, no offence intended... From what I can see back in the wiki prehistoric period though it would be impossible to predict how wikipedia would function today. The wikipedia phenomenon, a website not even funded by advertising would have seemed almost implausible at one stage. Of course Jimbo would have considered it, but only as a last resort it seems.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to contribute a business income of $12,000 that you got in Japan to the foundation.It is the fund which a Japanese user offered for Wikimedia project, and the income is not your personal income. You should do the personal diversion.--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo may or may not have something to say about this, but in the meantime, please could you provide a link to evidence that Jimbo received a business income of $12,000 from one individual Japanese user, for the Wikimedia project? Also, please tell us if you have a connection with that user? Also, please tell us if you are connected with the person from Japan that previously made enquiries about financial matters involving Wikimedia and Japan, here on Jimbo's en.wikipedia talk page? Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikimedia Conference Japan 2009　（WCJ2009） entrance fee　￥2,000 × 300 people = ￥600,000
• wikipedia10　in Kyoto entrance fee ￥5,500 × 50 people = ￥275,000
• sponsor income and money of support, miscellaneous income. ￥200,000
• Total About ￥1,075,000　= ＄13019.89

--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that $13,000 was spent on the costs of running those events. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A meeting place is an institution of a university and the support company. The expense was gratuitousness or a small sum.As for the machine parts, most are private properties of the staff.

Wikipedia10 in Kyoto is about ￥3000（＄36） actual expenses of the meal fee, and remains ￥2500（＄30）.

Therefore there is profit by appearance in large quantities.--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people reading this talk page will know this, but just to be clear. I am not involved in any way in running events of this kind for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia chapters. I am not compensated by the Foundation or the Chapters in any way for my work on behalf of Wikipedia, neither a salary nor expenses of any kind. (Apart from the occasional meal at a board meeting, sharing a taxi with a paying staff member while on Wikimedia business (fund raising, press appearance, etc.), etc. Small incidentals.)

Having said all that to establish clearly that any accusations of me profiting personally from Japanese events is nonsense, I will say that I am interested in looking into it further. Local activities should be well-managed and responsibly organized. (I should note that I think it could be perfectly fine for local chapters to organize and run quality events that make a profit for the chapter. That's not always going to make sense, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it that I can think of.)

With respect to the Japanese events in particular, I know very little about them, and had nothing to do with them in any way. I am likely not the best person to ask, as I have at hand no information that isn't publicly available. This page says that the conference was organized by the Japanese Wikimedia community and the "Center for Knowledge Structuring". I assume, but I do not know, that it was this Center for Knowledge Structuring - a unit at the University of Tokyo - which acted as the legal entity for collecting money and paying expenses. I have no way of knowing whether they operated the event at a profit or loss, but it would strike me as highly surprising if they were doing anything bad.

Regarding the Wikipedia 10 event in Kyoto, it seems that the sponsors of the event were the Wikimedia Foundation and Hatena. I don't know what Hatena is, exactly, but it appears to be some kind of web company or software company. Where the registration fees went for this conference is not clear to me, and so on this point, I think our visitor has a valid question. I shall pursue it as best I can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You gave them a patent by a former argument[1].It was done press release in Japan by wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation when I held WCJ2009[2].Tokyo University does not participate in administration.The place was only offered. It was performed as an official meeting by Wikipedia and Wikimedia　Foundation.The meeting place of the national university juridical person was offered by the condition.It doesn't lend it for the use of mania's group. Therefore, you have a legal, ethical responsibility as the person in charge.--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give anybody a patent or anything like it. I don't even know what that means, really! I certainly did not give permission for this meeting nor the use of our logos for the meeting, but it should be noted: I don't have anything to do with that at all.

I have now checked with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation had nothing to do with either of these meetings, other than Jay Walsh appearing as a speaker. The second event (party for Wikipedia) was not an official event of the Wikimedia Foundation at all, it was just a group of users. If you thought the price was too high, you were free to organize your own party.

To repeat: I have nothing to do with any of this. I'm happy to help you research it, because I do think it is important that local community events be well-managed. But I know very little about this particular case. (And I know nothing more than what I have told you already.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

山吹色の御菓子: I wonder if you're making all the correct assumptions regarding the finances for these events. Assuming the 2009 event sold out, this might have brought in anything from ￥300K ($3,600) to twice that - but probably nearer the lower end, since most attendees were probably students at the University. Presumably the organisers needed to at least pay for venue hire, Jay Walsh's expenses (I'm guessing he flew in for the conference) and catering for 300 people.

For the 10th birthday event, there seems to be a note on the wiki saying that any surplus would be put towards the organisation of future events. According to Google translate, there was also a party afterwards in a "suppository shop", which can't have been cheap. (I'm guessing it was actually a sit-down meal).

I'm not sure it looks likely that anyone is making a fast yen out of these events. --FormerIP (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stymied by the apparent fact that the tool bar has a tool that don't do its job properly. I've been called to task for adding bare URLs as footnotes, when all I do is use the footnote tool that appears at the top as a little book with a ribbon bookmark in it. Why is it there if it doesn't make satisfactory footnotes? Or are they actually fine with you but not with some picky editors? I see the advantage of a proper footnote, but see no reason to have the beguiling little tool/icon if it doesn't do its job well. And I can't figure out how to make an MLA or APA style footnote in WP format. Yopienso (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People shouldn't be so picky; they should simply get on and help you out with improving the citations by formatting them. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Citation templates for some info on formatting citations; Reflinks is a tool that helps to convert bare urls into formatted citation (though best to become familiar with it, to try it out in your user space first). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.84.62 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try the refTools gadget: Wikipedia:RefToolbar_2.0. You can add it in your My Preferences-->Gadgets. The little "cite" button is there whenever you edit a page, and does all the formatting for you after filling out a form. It is a courtesy to readers to be able to see what the reference is without having to go search on another website. First Light (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Light, I've not used that one, thanks for mentioning it! Should it be made part of the defaults? I think Yopienso is right, and it's unfortunate if the best answer is for people who are new to the site to have to go digging around in gadgets.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a default gadget very soon, as there is strong consensus for just that in a current discussion here at the Village Pump. Nearly everyone there agrees that new users should see it in their editing tools from the beginning, since many of them don't even know that they can search for such gadgets. First Light (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who edit should learn the conventions on citing and not expect others to go round cleaning up after them. I speak as an offender in this regard .--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wonderful tool and is very easy to install and use - I have helped quite a few bad referencing editors to install it and they are always really pleased with it, as I am with the not-having-to-go-round-cleaning-up-their-mess outcome :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were quoted here [3] at ArbCom. Please check for accuracy. Best regards. Smatprt (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence#Evidence presented by Jimbo Wales (subsection two), I don't understand which admins you are referring to with "I support a strong degree of thoughtful discretion on the part of admins". ScienceApologist (now user:Joshua P. Schroeder) is not, and has never been, an admin, and I can't see any admins in the merge discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um...ScienceApologist is not an administrator? We were all led to believe he was. He closed the merge discussion and registered a finding, and in the aftermath, set himself up as overseer of the article, issuing instructions and assigning us all various duties. He was referred to as an administrator on numerous occasions (example - [4]) and never corrected anyone. If this is true, this is really disturbing. His early close and poor decision are the direct cause of so much of the dissension that has now resulted in the ArbCom case... and my earlier topic banning. Wow, I feel like I've been had.Smatprt (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common misconception among editors who avoid the dark corners of Wikipedia that people who step up and organize things are admins. However, there was no attempt to deceive and anyone who jumped to the "admin" conclusion were mistaken on two counts: ScienceApologist is not an admin, and an admin can make mistakes and can be challenged just like a humble editor (i.e. politely question them at the page in dispute if appropriate, or at their talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear my name is YONAS i am boy scout Eritrea .As we learn in my country ERITREA scout movment was found on 1945 .But you at this article it wrote it was stared on 1950.but in 1950 it was in ETHIOPIA not in Eritrea.I hope you will be answer my quetion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.76.18 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask this at the Reference desk, not Jimbo's talk page. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]