A message for Jimbo, can't a man get a proxy edit? Options Rating

[Doc glasgow]

I've removed it. Blatant trolling by/on behalf of a banned user.

Look Kohls, you use e-mail or write a letter if you want to contact Jimbo. Using Wikipedia to ascertain his views is as counter-intuitive as, I don't know, dumping your girl through the same media.

[cyofee]

I've removed it. Blatant trolling by/on behalf of a banned user.

Look Kohls, you use e-mail or write a letter if you want to contact Jimbo. Using Wikipedia to ascertain his views is as counter-intuitive as, I don't know, dumping your girl through the same media.

Because he's banned, everything he says must either be false, trolling, or just plain evil.

What would happen if Greg asked for posts supportive to Jimbo?

[Bottled_Spider]

I've removed it. Blatant trolling by/on behalf of a banned user.

Heh! Reminds me of an infamous Bill Hicks sketch, that, for some reason.

[EricBarbour]

I've removed it. Blatant trolling by/on behalf of a banned user.

Hey, if you removed it, why did it get reposted by "Larry the Singer", then re-removed by
Rodhull? Are you nerds tag-teaming Greg's socks? Nothing better to do on Sunday?

And while I've got your attention, Scott: if I posted the link to Larry Sanger's blog on Jimbo's
talk page, would you remove it too?

[LaraLove]

I'm surprised Doc removed it. I would have expected better from someone who spends time on WR, but perhaps he hasn't been paying attention.

The question is legitimate, which is why I think it should have been posted by a vested user, rather than a sock account, which was fucktarded. I would have just asked myself if I knew some dumbasses were going to create accounts to ask it. The question is not trolling. And for Doc to call it such is pretty stupid. The whole thing is stupid. It's blatantly obvious Jimbo is attempting to rewrite history. Anyone with common sense can see this. It's addressed in his article and it really would do a lot to improve his terribly tarnished image if he'd just get over it and admit that this wasn't his baby and his alone. Larry deserves credit for what he did, which was help found the project. The fact that Jimbo won't admit this is shameful. And the fact that admins clear it from the talk page, regardless of who asked it, is no less shameful.

Take it to email? Fucking stupid. This question needs to be answered for the public, and last I checked, Jimbo wasn't using Gmail anymore, so I don't think we're going to get public leaks of his convos.

[Son of a Yeti]

Heh, heh. User HappilyBrush has been blocked indefinitely "for repeated abuse of editing privileges".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HappilyBrush

Repeated. See his edit history to see how repeated the abuse was.

I was right that the message will be deleted and the author banned.

Now, time for an oversight.

[Cla68]

There are three reverts in in this diff, but they appear to be reverting thin air. Were the intermediate edits admin deleted?

This post has been edited by Somey: Tue 7th April 2009, 6:15pm

[thekohser]

There are three reverts in in this diff, but they appear to be reverting thin air. Were the intermediate edits admin deleted?

Just User:StaticVision doing a hokey-pokey. The comment goes out. The comment goes in. The comment goes out, and you troll it all about.

Greg

[the fieryangel]

There are three reverts in in this diff, but they appear to be reverting thin air. Were the intermediate edits admin deleted?

Just User:StaticVision doing a hokey-pokey. The comment goes out. The comment goes in. The comment goes out, and you troll it all about.

Greg

Hey, that's what it's all about! (howdja like my Somey imitation?)

[thekohser]

Several more additions and deletions (and IP blockages) this morning. Plenty more public IP addresses out there in the world.

Let's make it a GAME, everyone -- if you're ever at the university, the library, the Starbucks... contaminate the IP address for everyone after you... just by asking the same, simple question of Jimmy Wales.

Trust me, it is FUN.

[Hipocrite]

Several more additions and deletions (and IP blockages) this morning. Plenty more public IP addresses out there in the world.

Let's make it a GAME, everyone -- if you're ever at the university, the library, the Starbucks... contaminate the IP address for everyone after you... just by asking the same, simple question of Jimmy Wales.

Trust me, it is FUN.

This is clearly helping "eliminate unethical practices ... on the Internet," right? I mean, constantly trying to access a site you have been told you are unwelcome at is ethical, yes? Especially if there's an IMPORTANT QUESTION YOU WANT ANSWERED! WHERE IS MY BAWBAW!

[Moulton]

Several more additions and deletions (and IP blockages) this morning. Plenty more public IP addresses out there in the world.

Let's make it a GAME, everyone -- if you're ever at the university, the library, the Starbucks... contaminate the IP address for everyone after you... just by asking the same, simple question of Jimmy Wales.

Trust me, it is FUN.

This is clearly helping "eliminate unethical practices ... on the Internet," right? I mean, constantly trying to access a site you have been told you are unwelcome at is ethical, yes? Especially if there's an IMPORTANT QUESTION YOU WANT ANSWERED! WHERE IS MY BAWBAW!

I love the tongue-in-cheek ads for the Internet's premier post-modern theater of the absurd. Awbrey might think of it as a defective toy, but how can a theater of the absurd function at all without being dysunctional?!? Even Ottava Rima, who used to cringe at the suggestion that WP was a PoMo Theater of the Absurd, is now one of its biggest stars.

[Milton Roe]

I love the tongue-in-cheek ads for the Internet's premier post-modern theater of the absurd. Awbrey might think of it as a defective toy, but how can a theater of the absurd function at all without being dysunctional?!? Even Ottava Rima, who used to cringe at the suggestion that WP was a PoMo Theater of the Absurd, is now one of its biggest stars.

What do you mean EVEN Ottava Rima? You're talking the poor man's Stephen Colbert here, remember?

[thekohser]

This is clearly helping "eliminate unethical practices ... on the Internet," right? I mean, constantly trying to access a site you have been told you are unwelcome at is ethical, yes? Especially if there's an IMPORTANT QUESTION YOU WANT ANSWERED! WHERE IS MY BAWBAW!

I guess you prefer working in the service of man who publicly lies about a publicly documented history, knowing that your hard work helps pay for his next $80,000 speaker's bureau fee.

No, scratch that -- you prefer all of the above, PLUS the 24-hour "watch dog" force who will protect your leader Jimbo from such painful matters as the truth.

And, by the way, you may not have noticed, but half of those editors who were adding the question (including the very first one) weren't me. So are all of them ALSO "unwelcome"? I'm a past donor to the Wikimedia Foundation, Hipocrite. Is this how you treat donors? "Thanks for your money, now never come back to the site you've helped pay for."

Thanks for proving my point, once again, Wikipediot. Enjoy your hobby/job/mission, Hipocrite.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 6th April 2009, 11:08pm

[Doc glasgow]

And while I've got your attention, Scott: if I posted the link to Larry Sanger's blog on Jimbo's
talk page, would you remove it too?

Two things.

Firstly, to answer your question, almost certainly not.

Secondly, I don't get a toss about Jimbo. I've no interest in defending him, attacking him, or wasting my time discussing him. Whether he created, co-founded, or pinched the idea for WP from Moulton is of no interest to me whatsoever. I consider Jimbo an irrelevance to current running of, and problems with wikipedia.

Thirdly, I'd have removed just about any post imaginable that originated from Greg K, who is an idiot. If he were a serious businessman, he'd conduct his correspondence with the WMF with focus and decorum, keeping it on topic, rather than associating his name with every attempt and campaign to attack and diminish Wikipedia, Jimbo, and anyone else he can. (Oh, Wikipedia certainly can do with people attacking it and questioning it, it deserves not less, but serious business can't afford vendettas and personal campaigning.) Not only are the tactics unlikely to foster a future working relationship with WMF, if any prospective customer googles his name, they'll find such childish antics they'll run a mile. Yes, because the way to got yourself published on wikipedia is to use someone who spends his time waging war on it? Not.

Fourthly, that's more than two things.

[Random832]

If he were a serious businessman

Don't you know anything? Internet drama is SIRIUZ BIZNIZ


^ sixty emoticons and no :mrgreen:?

[Doc glasgow]

Don't you know anything? Internet drama is SIRIUZ BIZNIZ

If that were true, I'd have my broker buy shares in WyWikiBiz immediately.

[thekohser]

However, since it has been asked on his talk page about a hundred times...

So, as far as I know, the Yahoo! Groups post that Jimbo put forward, where he called himself "co-founder", only came to light last week. You're saying that this discrepancy of Jimbo's OWN WORDS shifting from "co-founder" to "sole founder" has been noted "about a hundred times" on his Talk page?

If you can provide me even 40 diffs (not even close to "about a hundred") that have asked about this discrepancy on Jimbo's talk page, I will send you $40, no strings.

Greg

[Anonymous editor]

I will come back later with a list of diffs. Some may have been deleted.

edit: about Yahoo groups? I don't care about Yahoo groups.

I was talking about the founder/co-founder debate which extends quite a ways back. If you're limiting me to a week, then I obviously can't provide 40 diffs.

So the whole big deal here is that you read something on a Yahoo group where Jimbo seemingly admits to not being the sole founder? That's even sillier than I thought.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Tue 7th April 2009, 4:34am

[EricBarbour]

Secondly, I don't get a toss about Jimbo. I've no interest in defending him, attacking him, or wasting my time discussing him. Whether he created, co-founded, or pinched the idea for WP from Moulton is of no interest to me whatsoever. I consider Jimbo an irrelevance to current running of, and problems with wikipedia.

Well put. It does appear that Greg has a slight tendency to view Master Wales as the Linchpin Of The Evil Universe, and so focuses on him--as if Jimbo could change the mess that Wikipedia evolved into. Still no flagged revs.

Moderator's note: Some material related to posts that were later split from this thread, and moved into another, non-public thread, was removed from this post for the sake of, well, whatever.

This post has been edited by Somey: Tue 7th April 2009, 6:22pm