And right after that, he changed it
Just admit it, Master Wales, you have no control whatsoever over your idiotic "community". They are so
insane, you (The Sole Founder) can't even offer them a suggestion.
Responding to the above list supplied by Jimbo;
1) Good for you - however the fact that you may have additional programmes that you'd like to see on this article is irrelevant. If they are of editorial importance to make the article high quality they will be included. If not - not. What "you" want to see is irrelevant I'm afraid.
2) Please post a reliable source (see WP:RS) - ideally a third party source - and this can be fixed - if it is editorially valuable to have the information at all, which is subject to debate of course.
3) As Jimbo says, please use this talk page to avoid a conflict of interest; any links to reliable sources (again, third party if possible) may help. Note also that your disagrement is secondary to the verifiable nature of what you do - as opposed to what you claim to do. Pedro : Chat 20:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth would 2) need a third party source? A self-published source would be perfectly fine. --Conti|✉ 20:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote - I said ideally. Obviously self published is ok (in this respect), but third party is clearly better if available. Pedro : Chat 21:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it would have been nice to clearly mention that in the first place, especially when dealing with newbies.
--Conti|✉ 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Another thing, Pedro, is that your tone is hostile and annoying. "the fact that you may have additional programmes that you'd like to see on this article is irrelevant" - that's actually an absolutely irrelevant comment on your part. Please go read WP:AGF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. The fact that anyone wants to see or not see something in an article is the start for any good faith discussion on content. I thank the correspondent for bringing these ideas for improvement to editors' attention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology, I think we are getting on track now. I'm not sure what you mean about "acting in both capacities". I am acting solely as a Wikipedia editor here. They approached me as such, lots of people do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 8th March 2012, 9:28pm
Sorry again I had thought you had worked for them as a volunteer advising them on their internet strategy. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC))