Talk:Essjay controversy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:10, 1 April 2007 editQuackGuru (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →"a" Misplaced Pages founder ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:12, 1 April 2007 edit undoQuackGuru (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →"a" Misplaced Pages founder Next edit →
Line 235:		Line 235:
	::Note to Risker. I am refering to Jimmy Wales as "a" founder issue. You are trying to twist things up here now. You did not say take out Jimmy Wales from article. That speaks volumes. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)		::Note to Risker. I am refering to Jimmy Wales as "a" founder issue. You are trying to twist things up here now. You did not say take out Jimmy Wales from article. That speaks volumes. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Of course I didn't say take Jimmy Wales out of the article, Quack. Jimmy is still a part of Misplaced Pages, and was widely interviewed and quoted about this controversy. None of those points can be said about Sanger. Taking references to Wales out of the article would leave a hole the size of a Mack truck. Taking Sanger out would leave a hole the size of a skateboard. --] 06:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)		:::Of course I didn't say take Jimmy Wales out of the article, Quack. Jimmy is still a part of Misplaced Pages, and was widely interviewed and quoted about this controversy. None of those points can be said about Sanger. Taking references to Wales out of the article would leave a hole the size of a Mack truck. Taking Sanger out would leave a hole the size of a skateboard. --] 06:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Second note to Risker. This discussion here is about adding an to Jimmy Wales. I do not follow your logic. In fact you previously to this. I have provided many references, statements, and arguements which most or if not all of you have intentionally ignored. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)		::::Second note to Risker. This discussion here is about adding an to Jimmy Wales. I do not follow your logic. In fact you previously to this. I have provided many references, statements, and arguements which most or if not all of you have intentionally ignored. :) - <b><font color="669966">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 06:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:12, 1 April 2007

Skip to table of contents

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons (biographical material on a living person). Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Speedy keep, 12 March 2007, see discussion.
Speedy close, 8 March 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, Keep due to dramatic article changes, 2 March 2007, see discussion.

An entry from Essjay controversy appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 07 March, 2007.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Noam Cohen (March 6, 2007). "Misplaced Pages ire turns against ex-editor". International Herald Tribune.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

] (] · ])

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Restarted peer review

I restarted the peer review and added it to the Community Portal. People have made comments here, which you may wish to read. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed some basic formatting issues that need correcting, but beyond that, can anyone consider any compelling reason why we should not nominate for FA? The edit wars have died down, every sentence is referenced, and there is little press coverage any more we need to keep an eye out for. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe start with GA? - Denny 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

...Why? If it's good enough for GA, we may as well put the little effort in to reach FA, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the peer review is favourable, then I agree with trying for FA. If it fails FA we can always fall back on GA. --tjstrf talk 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points, nevermind me. :) - Denny 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... Essjay controversy is not going to become a mainpage featured article, for obvious reasons that I truly hope I don't need to adumbrate here. It was considered inappropriate a couple of weeks ago even as a "Did You Know" item. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can it have FA status bestowed by the community while not being on the front page (hypothetically)? - Denny 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but there's no reason it can;t be featured, is there? I like to think that the lack of feedback on the peer review indicates there's not a lot to say. :) Shall we get someone from the League in to copyedit, I'll fix the formatting I referred to, and then go for it? I think everyone here has done a fantastic amount of work on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles can be Featured, but never be on the main page. Prodego 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul says he keeps a list of FAs that he will never put on the front page, which seems justified. It would be incredibly narcissistic to put up Misplaced Pages for example, when it eventually passes again. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though it will never make front-page this will still be a rather momentous occasion seeing as it has not only been built at max-level citations from the ground up, but hammered out between a coalition of meta-editors and trolls. --tjstrf talk 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... remind me again why this is a good thing? Newyorkbrad 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Because most FAs are written by one or two people and this article has truly demonstrated the power of crowds that Misplaced Pages was created for? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it would help discount the opinions of the WP:1FA-type people who think Misplaced Pages space editors aren't capable of writing good content so they just sit around and argue all day instead. --tjstrf talk 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Essjay Letter Confirmation

Cbrown1023 deleted the letter on March 4, 2007, providing the following reason(s): "Essjay's Request"

Identity revealed

At some point, Essjay sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials, vouching for Misplaced Pages's accuracy. In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Misplaced Pages."

Cite error: The named reference Blog Insights: Misplaced Pages's great fraud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

1) References #7 in the article > ^ a b c d e Finkelstein, Seth (March 8, 2007). Read me first. Technology. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

2) Reference #27 in the article > ^ a b Blacharski, Dan (March 6, 2007). Blog Insights: Misplaced Pages's great fraud. ITworld. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

Foremost, I have provided evidence that the letter did exist. Further, many Wikipedians within the community have actually read the letter. Even Essjay said in his own words it was a letter. Therefore, the references are verifiable. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are any of those references external to Misplaced Pages itself? By which I do not mean you rehosting it somewhere else either. If not, then it's not a notable occurrence. --tjstrf talk 08:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html

http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/nlsblog070306/

Here are the external references. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The ITworld reference quotes the Guardian reference; that really tangles things up quite a bit. I am not convinced this needs to be there, particularly the selected quote. Given the large number of published sources that reported the controversy, and the fact only two referred to this particular issue (and one of them was quoting the other), I am hard pressed to see how adding this isn't giving the "letter" undue weight. Risker 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The letter was sent to a real world professor, vouching for Misplaced Pages accuracy using the false credentials. The usage of the false credentials is a major part of what this article is about. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to the "undue weight" concern, Quack. Two sources out of hundreds of published sources - one quoting the other. More sources referred to any number of other things (number of edits, which articles were edited, etc) than this "letter." Risker 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is a straw man here, I think. The letter is sourced and extremely relevant to the controvery at hand. What does counting of sources have to do with its relevance? —Doug Bell 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no undue weight concern. The letter is part of the events of the online persona and the false credentials. The letter was sent to vouch for the accuracy of Misplaced Pages using false credentials. "A central issue." :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I do understand your perspective, Doug - clearly I am having difficulty expressing my concern. The article is about the external reaction to the discovery of the false credentials. We have to go with what our external sources think are the issues of concern. The letter is a much bigger deal internal to Misplaced Pages than it was externally - and justifiably so. But dozens of respected reliable sources didn't feel it was important enough to even mention in passing. In particular, none of the articles in which academics are interviewed mention this letter - the exact place where one would expect to find a reference to it. Risker 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with one of your assertions. The article is about the controversy, not the external reaction to it. The external reaction may be what makes it notable, but the purpose of the article is to present a neutral description of the events. The letter is sourced and is centrally relevant. It deserves mention in the article. It does not deserve undue weight in the article, but it should be there. —Doug Bell 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. I will add the letter tidbit. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave extra time for commentary and suggestions. The letter is fully sourced and relevant. I will add the letter tidbit now. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've again removed Quack's insertion of unsubstantiated material -- the "source" for the ITWorld blog was Seth Finklestein's own blog entry at http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001157.html . As a blog post, this is not a citeable source. Just as much of what EssJay has claimed about himself has been admitted to be false, no published account has demonstrated that he actually wrote any such letter to anyone, college professor or not. --Leflyman 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided documentation the letter did exist. Both references are solid and both references are already in the article. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

New screenshot of User:Essjay available

This one shows the entirety of the academic claims discussed in the article. The image is at Image:User-Essjay.png. -- Kendrick7 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

...I think that would be workable. - Denny 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It is usable. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No no no. It is from six months before the article was published, and we cannot tell how many times it was modified in between. We have no evidence that this is the user page the journalist referenced when writing the article. It also is a low quality image; nothing can be seen unless people click on the image and then know how to work through the wiki-world to actually view the image in a legible format. It is also a primary source, when we have already fully included the information from secondary sources. The image adds nothing to the article, and moves it back to being an article about Essjay rather than the controversy. Remember that the controversy we are reporting is how the world outside of Misplaced Pages reacted and observed things. When the controversy arose, this was not the user page on display, either. Incidentally, it is not a "new" screenshot, it was removed from the article three weeks ago for these very reasons. Risker 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is the user page of Essjay. Enough said. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt it is a screenshot of his user page on one particular day. You have not responded to my points, Quack. There are at least four different screenshots of his user page around that I have seen; each one is different. None of them are contemporaneous to the article. That still doesn't answer any of my points, which are:

No evidence this was seen by the journalist
Poor quality image that is very user-unfriendly
Primary source, when relevant information already covered in the article from reliable secondary sources
Changes focus of article from the controversy to Essjay personally

As soon as this article reverts back to what it was in the days following the start of the controversy - that is, an article about the actions of one specific individual - we are back at AfD and quite rightly the article is no longer viable. Quack, please stop trying to insert personal information about Essjay into this article. Risker 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as currently scoped says, in the first sentence, that the controversy is about the lies he told on his User page. These are them. -- Kendrick7 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker's claims are ridiculous. He is just trying to keep stuff out he does not like. Remember these:

Edit in which Essjay claims to a user that he had a PhD and students under his charge - archive at WebCite.
Essjay's apology - archive at WebCite.
Letter by Essjay to an academic in which he falsely claims academic credentials and accomplishments. - archive at WebCite.
User:Essjay/History1 - archive at Google cache. Additional archive at WebCite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C.m.jones (talk • contribs).

I've compromised the issue in the same way that Criticism of Misplaced Pages handled Essjay's deleted user page. I have footnoted the Internet Archive version of the user page, to show the actual claim of the false credentials. I hate to add more footnotes to the article, but I'd like to settle this controversy. Casey Abell 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also added a link to Essjay's archived Wikia user page of 1-1-07, alongside the Martyn Williams footnote about how Essjay "came clean." Otherwise, the reference might be somewhat unclear. If we keep this stuff in footnotes, I think we can compromise the controversy about including the material while still informing the reader completely. Casey Abell 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

this footnote was just added. Shouldn't we web citation it in case someone at Wikia inappropriately removes it? - Denny 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I added the footnote to show how Essjay identified himself as Ryan Jordan. This Wikia user template been blocked from The Internet Archive but is available directly (go figure). I misspoke slightly above - Essjay's actual Wikia user page with the (supposedly) correct information on his background has been deep-sixed and protected from web crawlers. I can't find a copy of it anywhere. Casey Abell 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a copy of it on Misplaced Pages Watch, but there's no way I'm going to footnote that. Casey Abell 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect for deletion

Folks who've been editing on this article should be aware of this redirects for deletion discussion. (→Netscott) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"a" Misplaced Pages founder

It was already discussed at length on the talk page here. I was going with consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=114862436 Here was the compromise discussed at length on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=119150768&oldid=119148917 Here is a controversial edit along with the controversial edit summary. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack... what the fuck is wrong with you? No, really, what the fuck is wrong with you? Pull your head out of your ass and stop making everything a damn problem. (and to everyone who wants to yell WP:CIVIL at me, shut up, it had to be said). I am surprised at how patient everyone has been with you, Quack, but don't you be surprised when other people start breaking down like I just did. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL!! Seriously. If you've got a problem with him, take it to the proper channels. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop now, Ned, or this will go to ANI. Quack gets on my nerves sometimes (sorry, Quack) but this is beyond the pale. Stop now. - Denny 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, put to ANI. That is beyond hostile, sorry. - Denny 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to justify Ned's outburst, but I too find Quack's POV-pushing an annoyance. The correct appellative for Wales is "Misplaced Pages founder" -- not "a", or "one of" or "co-". This is how he is listed by the Wikimedia Foundation (which Wales also set-up) , and how news reports list him. This article isn't the place to argue to origination of Misplaced Pages.--Leflyman 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are argueing this point at this article. Before 2004 Wales never disputed - he as the co-founder. I will add more refs in the future if needed. For now I will add the agreed upon compromise for this article and revert the misleading edit summary. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You again are incorrect. As I pointed out previously, Wales has specifically stated, "I have never agreed that Larry should be called co-founder and have contested it from the time when Larry awarded himself the title." Please stop deliberately re-introducing mis-information into the article. --Leflyman 03:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Lets overview:

First: Consensus was agreed upon which you are ignoring.

Second: It does not matter what Wales' opinion or Sanger's opinion is.

Third: What is th definition of founder. A person who established Misplaced Pages.

Fourth: Two people worked togther to establish and build Misplaced Pages from the beginning.

Fifth: When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they are both called co-founders.

Sixth: There was never a disputed when Larry Sanger was still part of this project.

Seventh: Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).

Eighth: At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004.

Ninth: I have provided strong evidence (references) to color the picture.

Tenth: Here are some references for Wikipdians to get to up to speed on the facts and the history of Misplaced Pages.

Eleventh: Articles must be written from a neatral point of view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/technology/24online.ready.html?#ex=1293080400&en=431aff478b00239e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Early Media Coverage
http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html Links and more links
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&dir=prev&offset=20040119212409&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_Wikipedia&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Sanger&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales&offset=20040909053247&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Misplaced Pages pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2002 Official Misplaced Pages Press Release of 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2003 Official Misplaced Pages Press Release of 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Press_releases/February_2004 Official Misplaced Pages Press Release of 2004
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKIPEDIA_FOUNDERS?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4
http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+co-founder+plans+expert+rival/2100-1038_3-6126469
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222922,00.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia/

Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Misplaced Pages.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Misplaced Pages as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Misplaced Pages to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Misplaced Pages outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Misplaced Pages discussion list (Misplaced Pages-L) to facilitate discussion of the project. At the end of January, Misplaced Pages had seventeen “real” articles (entries with more than 200 characters). By the end of February, it had 150; March, 572; April, 835; May, 1,300; June, 1,700; July, 2,400; August, 3,700. At the end of the year, the site boasted approximately 15,000 articles and about 350 “Wikipedians.”

Yours Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ever still, this is not the place to dispute the petty and semantic "who founded Misplaced Pages" thing. There are two supportable PoVs on this although I must say, hired employees are almost never regarded as founders. This is not meant to diminish Sanger's widely documented sway and influence at the early Misplaced Pages but it was Wales who turned on the switch and made the ongoing decisions to keep the lights lit, so to speak. Gwen Gale 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, We go by reliable references for open source publishing on Misplaced Pages and not your opinion. So your arguement is irrelevant. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my post. Please review WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Gwen Gale 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another policy to pay attention to would be WP:THISARTICLEHASNOTHINGTODOWITHSANGER. Why even bring it up? It would be like bringing up arguments about the existence of God in an article because it had a quote from the book of Psalms in it. --tjstrf talk 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, tjstrf, I was just going to bring that up. As new editors have come to the article, consensus has changed, Quack. Remember to keep focus on what the article is about, not peripheral issues that are addressed in the article to which there is already a WP link. Risker 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of your comments are excused to have your new version of reality which does not meet the threshold for NPOVing on Misplaced Pages.

Here are some editors who agreed to "a" founder. BTY, it is about verifiable and not your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=114862436 The compromised version by Mr. Colt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=114872942 Risker agreed to this too (oh my).

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=114875941 "I say leave out the word founder altogether but I'm ok with Denny's way too."

Note: Some editors who agreed to the compromise are now having a new perception (changing of opinion) of reality (revisionism).

Any suggestions -- to the maintainance of a neutral point of view (upholding the standard for a good quality article.:) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Quack...my position was that if arguing about this didn't stop, we should take out the Sanger reference entirely. I am fine with that. Is that your preferred method of dealing with this issue as well? --Risker 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to Risker. I am refering to Jimmy Wales as "a" founder issue. You are trying to twist things up here now. You did not say take out Jimmy Wales from article. That speaks volumes. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I didn't say take Jimmy Wales out of the article, Quack. Jimmy is still a part of Misplaced Pages, and was widely interviewed and quoted about this controversy. None of those points can be said about Sanger. Taking references to Wales out of the article would leave a hole the size of a Mack truck. Taking Sanger out would leave a hole the size of a skateboard. --Risker 06:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Second note to Risker. This discussion here is about adding an "a" to Jimmy Wales. I do not follow your logic. In fact you previously agreed to this. I have provided many references, statements, and arguements which most or if not all of you have intentionally ignored. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 06:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: