Talk:Wales (surname)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Jimmy Wales[edit]
Jimmy Wales is actually the sole founder of Wikipedia, on the site. Jimmy is socially accepted as 'THE' founder.
- Well i fully agree that he is accepted as the latter. What I find difficult is bringing this "co-founder" squabble issue to a disambig page like this that has nothing whatsoever top do with the dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence of your further trolling, Bramlet,, is your indifference to using the talk page to defend your blatant and horrible POV pushing,. Please stop, the description of you as an SPAS troll is, IMHO, correct. Why dont you start a blog instead of spending all your time ont hsi site trolling the founder. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Meanwhile in the real world, it is of course this comment of yours which is further evidence of your dishonest tactics in your blatant campaign of pandering to Wales against better knowledge. As you well know, I have discussed the matter at length on a variety of talk pages - including with you - so I hardly need to rehash it on this particular talk page. Aside from all the other discussion, the Britannica link I gave in one of the edit summaries here would alone have been sufficient to establish the factuality of my edit (to which you characteristically responded with a bizarre non-sequitur "this is not Britannica"). So unless you have any actual reliable sources for your view, I suggest you give it a rest. You seem to view reality itself as being horribly POV. Reminds me of Stephen Colbert saying that reality has a well-known liberal bias. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but what has this page got to do with the dispute? It is a disambig page, for God sake. Taking this dipute and putting it into countless articles that have nothing to do with wales or the dispute is clear and abundant evidence of trolling, and your general nastiness towards Jimmy. I need no RS's for the founder dispute, all I need to do is point out WP:N, now pleases top your bad behaviour before somebody blocks you again, the community's patience is really exhausted re youtr trolling this issue,a nd your defence of such behaviour pathetic21:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
- There is no dispute. It is a fact that he's co-founder. So the fact is being mentioned on a disambig page like anywhere else, wherever a short description of Wales is needed. Get over it. Now what on earth do you mean, the page has "nothing to do with Wales"? Why is the name Jimmy Wales mentioned at all then? I didn't introduce it there, but it is obviously relevant to a disambiguation of the word Wales, and since all the other persons mentioned have a short description, so does Jimmy Wales. And a proper factual description of Wales is "co-founder of Wikipedia". And what WP:N should have to do with anything here is anyone's guess. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- You surely mean wherever you can troll it in, as it is you and you alone who are obsessed with this "dispute", without you as an editor it would not exist on wikipedia, and you are an SPA warrior trying to justify your POV pushing your fringe view and testing everyone;'s patience with a couple of lame old refs. And if you cannot understand me I suggest you try better, this page has nothing to do with your dispute that Sanger somehow deserves recognition even here. I mean, what? Trolling or what? Please reconsider. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- "I alone", except when it's QuackGuru or any of the other editors who have told you the same things, right? I just replied on the other talk page to the absurd "old ref" charge, and instead of having any rebuttal you just repeat it here, together with another nonsencial attribute "lame". All the time while you have not a single ref for your view! And yet you have the nerve to accuse others of POV pushing (and, by the way, implicitly accusing Britannica, the New York Times, and all kinds of reliable sources of POV pushing). By your own logic (although the very concept of logic does not seem to disturb your thought much) - i.e. by assuming that there is a dispute - obviously both "founder" and "co-founder" would be POV and the only NPOV solution would be to avoid both, and yet you happily put "founder" in the article while calling "co-founder" POV. This is not about anyone "deserving recognition", but simply about factual descriptions of people. (Personally I don't think founding Wikipedia is something anyone deserves recognition for, since it was an obvious idea which simply had become possible and which would have been realized by someone around that time in any case. It didn't require any rare genius.) Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not need to give a ref to not include something and anyway this is a disambig page. if you can ref that Wales surname has anything to do with the co-founder issue we can add it, in the meantime we should avoid mentioning the issue. You are out on a limb with this oen while pretending to hold the consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You need to give a ref for things you do include, like "founder". What has it being a disambig page to do with anything? Jimmy Wales is being described on this page like the other persons listed here, and co-founder is his proper description, that's what "co-founder" has to do with the surname Wales. We are not mentioning any "issue", we are giving a simple description. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You need to source the relevance to your dispute of this surname. I find your logic inexplicable and, as others have said before, certainly verging on trolling. This is a dab page, it is not somewhere for you to POV push your belief that somehow Sanger has been done down. Why are w e talking about Sanger on this page? Because of your obsession. If you had done this to anyone else you woul;d have been indef blocked long ago for malicious BLP disruption. The founder issue should not be mentioned ouitiosde opf Wales, sanger and Wikipedia. Your spreading ti wherever you can on wikipedia and then edit warring to protect your POV is niot acceptable wikipedia editing, as many have told you time and again. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, the first one to mention Sanger on this page was you. Frankly, I find your logic nonexistent and your behaviour verging on vandalism. So describing someone the same way Britannica does is "malicious POV disruption"? Interesting. The issue here is not some fictional dispute but simply the question of the proper way of giving a short description of Wales, and that is "co-founder of Wikipedia". That's what he's most notable for. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- You need to source the relevance to your dispute of this surname. I find your logic inexplicable and, as others have said before, certainly verging on trolling. This is a dab page, it is not somewhere for you to POV push your belief that somehow Sanger has been done down. Why are w e talking about Sanger on this page? Because of your obsession. If you had done this to anyone else you woul;d have been indef blocked long ago for malicious BLP disruption. The founder issue should not be mentioned ouitiosde opf Wales, sanger and Wikipedia. Your spreading ti wherever you can on wikipedia and then edit warring to protect your POV is niot acceptable wikipedia editing, as many have told you time and again. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You need to give a ref for things you do include, like "founder". What has it being a disambig page to do with anything? Jimmy Wales is being described on this page like the other persons listed here, and co-founder is his proper description, that's what "co-founder" has to do with the surname Wales. We are not mentioning any "issue", we are giving a simple description. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not need to give a ref to not include something and anyway this is a disambig page. if you can ref that Wales surname has anything to do with the co-founder issue we can add it, in the meantime we should avoid mentioning the issue. You are out on a limb with this oen while pretending to hold the consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- "I alone", except when it's QuackGuru or any of the other editors who have told you the same things, right? I just replied on the other talk page to the absurd "old ref" charge, and instead of having any rebuttal you just repeat it here, together with another nonsencial attribute "lame". All the time while you have not a single ref for your view! And yet you have the nerve to accuse others of POV pushing (and, by the way, implicitly accusing Britannica, the New York Times, and all kinds of reliable sources of POV pushing). By your own logic (although the very concept of logic does not seem to disturb your thought much) - i.e. by assuming that there is a dispute - obviously both "founder" and "co-founder" would be POV and the only NPOV solution would be to avoid both, and yet you happily put "founder" in the article while calling "co-founder" POV. This is not about anyone "deserving recognition", but simply about factual descriptions of people. (Personally I don't think founding Wikipedia is something anyone deserves recognition for, since it was an obvious idea which simply had become possible and which would have been realized by someone around that time in any case. It didn't require any rare genius.) Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You surely mean wherever you can troll it in, as it is you and you alone who are obsessed with this "dispute", without you as an editor it would not exist on wikipedia, and you are an SPA warrior trying to justify your POV pushing your fringe view and testing everyone;'s patience with a couple of lame old refs. And if you cannot understand me I suggest you try better, this page has nothing to do with your dispute that Sanger somehow deserves recognition even here. I mean, what? Trolling or what? Please reconsider. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- On this page? I am talking about your inserting him intop the dab page by dragging up the historical co-founder issue here, and your trolling claim that I am vandalising is a classic POV SPA claim when this is a BLP, N content dispute, not vandalism, buit do try reporting it ont he vandalsim page, that would be amusing. On the other hand you could just leave this issue be, about which you feel so strongly, to the relevant articles and do not troll it into dab pages or anywhere else irrelevant, because of your sense of grievance. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- LOL what? I "inserted Sanger" on the dab page by describing Wales as co-founder? That's like saying that calling George W. Bush the 43rd U.S. president means "dragging up" all the presidents from Washington to Clinton. But there's nothing inappropriate about calling Bush the 43rd president, or Wales co-founder of Wikipedia, on a dab page or elsewhere, because that's what they are. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is no dispute. It is a fact that he's co-founder. So the fact is being mentioned on a disambig page like anywhere else, wherever a short description of Wales is needed. Get over it. Now what on earth do you mean, the page has "nothing to do with Wales"? Why is the name Jimmy Wales mentioned at all then? I didn't introduce it there, but it is obviously relevant to a disambiguation of the word Wales, and since all the other persons mentioned have a short description, so does Jimmy Wales. And a proper factual description of Wales is "co-founder of Wikipedia". And what WP:N should have to do with anything here is anyone's guess. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comparing this to Washington is really wild as nobody disputes this, you on the other hand do dispute that Wales is the founder of wikipedia. I am willing to offer other alternatives, buit you with your complete obsession with this issue have never compromised once anywhere. As Jimbo has said, you are a virtual SPA troll, and you really need to stop this BLP harassment of somebody you do not like personally. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody disputes the co-founder thing either, except Wales. You just don't get that, do you? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have protected this page due to you edit warring here. Please do not edit the page until a consensus is reached. Martinp23 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your actoon seems a bit lame to me as I gave up on this particular trolling and hence the edit warring stopped (Bramlet will clearly never stop). Your further comment that you will take sides I am going to ignore. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)