Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:31, 24 February 2006 view sourceSimetrical (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,694 edits []: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 21:54, 24 February 2006 view source Simetrical (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,694 edits Um, I seem to recall something about CSD T1?Next edit →
Line 35: Line 35:


:::I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--] 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) :::I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--] 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::::You know, not to be sarcastic or anything, but it would probably help if you didn't institute a new CSD that said "any divisive template can be deleted on sight by any admin with no discussion beforehand"? If that's not giving an okay to mass-delete political and religious userboxes, I don't know what it is. After all, it should be evident that a very plausible interpretation of "divisive and inflammatory" (especially based on your past statements) would include any and all political and religious userboxes. —] (] • ]) 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


::Jimbo, maybe the cabal is after you.... ;) --]]Zach| ] 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC) ::Jimbo, maybe the cabal is after you.... ;) --]]Zach| ] 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:54, 24 February 2006

Shortcut
  • ]
Archive
Archives


We should have an article about Irene McGee. In case anyone wants to do something fun.--Jimbo Wales 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikicities.com | My Website

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just point me at their user pages. I'll delete them. Start revert wars over userboxes. Oh, that's not what you meant :). Tbeatty 02:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • g* Funny isn't it? I keep stumbling across pages ranting against my irrational vendetta and ban of userboxes when basically I'm just saying Everyone please relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, not to be sarcastic or anything, but it would probably help if you didn't institute a new CSD that said "any divisive template can be deleted on sight by any admin with no discussion beforehand"? If that's not giving an okay to mass-delete political and religious userboxes, I don't know what it is. After all, it should be evident that a very plausible interpretation of "divisive and inflammatory" (especially based on your past statements) would include any and all political and religious userboxes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo, maybe the cabal is after you.... ;) --WikieZach| talk 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This is what I was refering to with this post on your talk page yesterday. People try to interpret what you say and differences in that interpretation can lead to semi-religious wars. --StuffOfInterest 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way now is to implement one from 1984: "Ignorance is Strength" AzaToth 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page

Hi Jimbo! If I may be so bold, you should read Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. Archiving your talk page is fairly easy, and useful for those who want to read old posts here without searching through the page history. Thanks for your time! --JiFish(/Contrib) 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please ask for donations on search results

Would you please put a regular request for Wikimedia Foundation donations up on the search results page? --James S. 18:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Any administrator could do this, why don't you suggest it at The Village Pump, and see if others would like this added? Prodego 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo, I Give You These Big, Yummy Carrots :D

Carrot Giver 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Killian documents

All the links in that article now point to "footnotes". Why is that being done at KD and not elsewhere too? Pointing links to "footnotes" increases the steps required to gain the benefits of a wiki (links) and confuses the readers. 192.168.227.195 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is more a question for the Village Pump than Jimbo, who by the way doesn't control everything that happens on Misplaced Pages.  ;) Links are put into footnotes mainly so that they're in the same place as printed references, which obviously can't be put in full at the place of reference. Also, proper citations allow you to more quickly see useful info about the link, such as date and place of publication.

As for why it was implemented in Killian documents specifically, footnotes are actually being used across Misplaced Pages. Look around, especially at contentious topics. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)