The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jimmy Wales, will shill for timekeeping device
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 29th January 2010, 5:23am
Post #21


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 29th January 2010, 3:00am) *
It's not a write-off if Jimbo donates all proceeds exactly.


The problem is, there are contradictory statements flying around in amongst all the huffing, puffing, chest swelling and butt licking ...

On one hand the Maurice Lacroix is said to have paid ALL the money directly to the Foundation.

We do not know that. On past record, we cannot believe that without evidence. As it is likely to be an ongoing "ambassadorial" contract over a number of years, with spins off and unaccountable or personal values (... free watches, golf open tickets, flight and hotels to Switzerland, dinner with St Bob and the CEO etc ... who knows), what are the specifics?

OK, he wrote it was paid directly to the Foundation, therefore it will appear in their accounts.

So why all the huffing and puffing about "personal finances and personal giving"? Trading off the reputation is an important issue.

Probably most people just think, "gosh, I wish it was me" or "gosh, I will be more special if I can just be close to him". If it, or parts of it do go through his personal finances, it will impact on his tax paying.

Are the people who see the adverts in the Polo mags and business class inflight magazines going to believe the BS?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 29th January 2010, 1:31pm
Post #22


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 29th January 2010, 5:23am) *

The problem is, there are contradictory statements flying around in amongst all the huffing, puffing, chest swelling and butt licking ...

On one hand the Maurice Lacroix is said to have paid ALL the money directly to the Foundation.

We do not know that. On past record, we cannot believe that without evidence. As it is likely to be an ongoing "ambassadorial" contract over a number of years, with spins off and unaccountable or personal values (... free watches, golf open tickets, flight and hotels to Switzerland, dinner with St Bob and the CEO etc ... who knows), what are the specifics?

OK, he wrote it was paid directly to the Foundation, therefore it will appear in their accounts.

Jimbo did not say that all the money was paid to the WMF. He said that the largest recipient was the WMF, which means that there were other, lesser recipients.
QUOTE
All of the money associated with this deal is allocated to my charitable giving, which I consider a private matter and none of your business. The largest recipient, as always, is the Wikimedia Foundation. The details of the entire thing were cleared with the Foundation, and Maurice LaCroix very cheerfully at my request donated to the Foundation directly to induce me to agree to this.

The only way this makes sense is that Maurice LaCroix donated a portion of Jimbo's fee directly to the WMF as a donation. It is unclear if the rest went directly to Jimbo for him to distribute or was also donated directly by Maurice LaCroix.

No disrespect intended to Jimbo, but in that little movie he comes off, as usual, as slightly nervous and uncomfortable. I doubt he will be a very successful pitchman for Maurice LaCroix.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Fri 29th January 2010, 2:06pm
Post #23


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 29th January 2010, 8:31am) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 29th January 2010, 5:23am) *

The problem is, there are contradictory statements flying around in amongst all the huffing, puffing, chest swelling and butt licking ...

On one hand the Maurice Lacroix is said to have paid ALL the money directly to the Foundation.

We do not know that. On past record, we cannot believe that without evidence. As it is likely to be an ongoing "ambassadorial" contract over a number of years, with spins off and unaccountable or personal values (... free watches, golf open tickets, flight and hotels to Switzerland, dinner with St Bob and the CEO etc ... who knows), what are the specifics?

OK, he wrote it was paid directly to the Foundation, therefore it will appear in their accounts.

Jimbo did not say that all the money was paid to the WMF. He said that the largest recipient was the WMF, which means that there were other, lesser recipients.
QUOTE
All of the money associated with this deal is allocated to my charitable giving, which I consider a private matter and none of your business. The largest recipient, as always, is the Wikimedia Foundation. The details of the entire thing were cleared with the Foundation, and Maurice LaCroix very cheerfully at my request donated to the Foundation directly to induce me to agree to this.

The only way this makes sense is that Maurice LaCroix donated a portion of Jimbo's fee directly to the WMF as a donation. It is unclear if the rest went directly to Jimbo for him to distribute or was also donated directly by Maurice LaCroix.

No disrespect intended to Jimbo, but in that little movie he comes off, as usual, as slightly nervous and uncomfortable. I doubt he will be a very successful pitchman for Maurice LaCroix.


The slightly nervous and uncomfortable are an important demographic. As a group they need to be watched more than most.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lar
post Fri 29th January 2010, 2:14pm
Post #24


"His blandness goes to 11!"
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined: Wed 26th Dec 2007, 6:04pm
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 29th January 2010, 9:06am) *

The slightly nervous and uncomfortable are an important demographic. As a group they need to be watched more than most.

I forgot one of your favorite pastimes was making puns. Well played. You're second to none in our hearts on that score.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 29th January 2010, 2:24pm
Post #25


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 28th January 2010, 10:00pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th January 2010, 7:25pm) *

If I did an endorsement campaign where I was paid $15,000, and I then turn around and donate that to ProCon.org and/or other tax-deductible charities, that's still a net advantage to me financially of about $5,000 come April 15th, is it not?

Jimbo's taking the high-and-mighty route with his story, but I guess the tax break is lost on most Wikipediots who have not ever filed a Form 1040 with attached Schedule A.

It's not a write-off if Jimbo donates all proceeds exactly. In that case they are deducted from his income and it is as though they never existed for him, taxwise. He pays the same tax he would have if he'd never heard of these people.

If you were paid some sum and you donated the whole thing, I fail to see how it would have affected your taxes, either. happy.gif No doubt Anthony will have some words of wisdom on this.


Ouch. I probably did goof on that one. Yes, the endorsement income would have to be declared as income, then the donation would just offset that. My bad. Maybe Lar slipped something in my Yards.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 29th January 2010, 3:08pm
Post #26


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 29th January 2010, 1:31pm) *
No disrespect intended to Jimbo, but in that little movie he comes off, as usual, as slightly nervous and uncomfortable. I doubt he will be a very successful pitchman for Maurice LaCroix.


He should spend some of that dosh on a voice coach helping him lower his voice a little. I agree. Nervous and twitchy ... but then perhaps he is "the voice of a generation".

He is obviously well advised financially. "Reasonable" can be very reasonable indeed. I find the blur between what is Pee-dia's and what James's endlessly interesting. Cannot the man get a proper job by now?

He should be able to be utterly transparent. He should set new standards in transparency. He knows he will get nailed if he is not. Too many barracudas with teeth sharpened for having their time wasted on the website ... the ones that survive the blast fishing or drag net approach of most admins. It is Social Darwinianism as it rawest.

Jimmy certainly lacks the moral stature and societal respect of the old time philanthropists. He is more an 'in the entertainment industry' type. Adult and child entertainment industries.

For me the Wikipedia will always be Jimmy Wales's face and RichieX's cum shot animation.
QUOTE
Nonprofit corporations must not distribute profits to members, officers, or directors. A nonprofit corporation cannot be organized to financially benefit its members, officers, or directors. However, reasonable salaries and expense reimbursements are permitted.


Nonprofit corporations must pay taxes on income from "unrelated activities." Sometimes, a nonprofit organization will earn income through activities that aren't directly related to its nonprofit purpose; for example, commercial leasing of tenant space. The IRS requires nonprofits to pay corporate income taxes on such unrelated income over $1,000, whether or not the group uses that money to fund its tax-exempt activities.


Nonprofit corporations cannot make substantial profits from unrelated activities. If a nonprofit spends too much time on unrelated activities, or if the unrelated activities generate "substantial" income, the group's nonprofit status may be jeopardized.


This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Fri 29th January 2010, 3:16pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lar
post Fri 29th January 2010, 3:50pm
Post #27


"His blandness goes to 11!"
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined: Wed 26th Dec 2007, 6:04pm
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 29th January 2010, 9:24am) *

Maybe Lar slipped something in my Yards.

It was your daughter(1), not me. I just slipped it to her.


1 - who is quite charming. Bit of an attention seeker though.(2)
2 - I have NO IDEA where she gets THAT from.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 29th January 2010, 8:52pm
Post #28


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th January 2010, 9:25pm) *
If I did an endorsement campaign where I was paid $15,000, and I then turn around and donate that to ProCon.org and/or other tax-deductible charities, that's still a net advantage to me financially of about $5,000 come April 15th, is it not?

Jimbo's taking the high-and-mighty route with his story, but I guess the tax break is lost on most Wikipediots who have not ever filed a Form 1040 with attached Schedule A.
Uh, the non-existence of the tax break is lost on those who haven't reviewed the regulations or even thought about what makes sense.

The common sense approach: Okay, you have income of $15,000, but you donate it all. If the donation is *entirely* deductible, then it's a wash.

But it may not be entirely deductible, in which case you end up losing money. Depends on Jimbo's tax bracket and other factors. There is also the Alternative Minimum Tax which can trip people up, and hosts of niggling rules. Bottom line, you don't make money by receiving a payment for an endorsement and giving it all to a charity, and you might lose money. Better to arrange for the payment to be made directly to the charity; it's deductible completely for company paying, and there would be no tax implications for you.

So if you *do* receive it and want to give it "all" away, then give the after-tax benefit, such that you end up even. But this is all a tempest in a teapot.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Fri 29th January 2010, 8:57pm
Post #29


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



Ultimately, who want to buy a watch just because Jimmy Wales endorses it? Do women and gay men find him sexy? Do straight men find him a guy to admire? To lesbians care? Do you realize that if an octopus had 12 tentacles, Roger Moore would have been in the movie "Dodecapussy"? blink.gif

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Fri 29th January 2010, 8:58pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sun 24th April 2011, 2:25am
Post #30


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Breaking news, from the horse's mouth...

Half of the 30 silver pieces wristwatch endorsement money was delivered to the Wikimedia Foundation, while Jimbo donated the other half to his gal-pal's failed failing non-profit CiviliNation project-to-nowhere, ranked among the 4.6 million most-popular websites!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 24th April 2011, 2:29am
Post #31


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
I haven't yet started a campaign to have the first line of my Wikipedia entry changed to read "Jimmy Wales is a fashion model also known for..." Ha ha.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


<<< yecch.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 28th May 2011, 3:15pm
Post #32


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Quality control is one of the hallmark attributes of Maurice Lacroix.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sat 28th May 2011, 6:21pm
Post #33


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 23rd April 2011, 7:29pm) *

QUOTE
I haven't yet started a campaign to have the first line of my Wikipedia entry changed to read "Jimmy Wales is a fashion model also known for..." Ha ha.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


<<< yecch.gif

A fashion model noted for so-far failing to realize that he can read the exact time, updated by the cell network, from his cell phone. No watch required. Any watch not as accurate. Though I do admit myself to wearing a cheap Casio with a comfortable velcro sports band added, for the occasional situation where I'm not likely to have a hand free.

Jimbo, if you're going to wear a piece of heavy and uncomfortable mechanical jewelry on your wrist, why don't you have it rigged to read out something that is actually unique, useful, and personally-specific for you? Like, say, your girlfriend's fertility cycle? wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 8 17, 7:31pm