Jimmy twitters on Feb 27 that the NYC skyline is impressive.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that he repaired the recently protected bio of NYC babe Wendy Diamond, because he frequently edits article space.

And it's possible that Jimbo is humping some media person's leg again, in yet another attempt to eventually snag a little pussy. This guy's got to get a new modus operandi, if that's his game. Couldn't he just climb the Empire State Building with her and swat some biplanes?

Leviathan: What do you think about offending people?

King Kong: It's easy. I just stand there in the town commons, and people are automatically offended by my presence.

Leviathan: What if you apologized to them?

King Kong: You can't be serious.

Leviathan: I'm just posing a Koan. What would happen if a gorilla apologized for being a gorilla?

King Kong: It would be a humbling experience.

Leviathan: It would be humbling?

King Kong: Yes, it would humble the townfolks to have to accept the apology of a gorilla for the crime of existing.

Leviathan: You have an interesting way of thinking about things.

King Kong: Try some celery. I have more than enough for both of us.



Leviathan: Do you think humans are becoming more tolerant of gorillas in their midst?

King Kong: Koko's doing pretty well.

Leviathan: Is that because she can communicate in American Sign Language?

King Kong: There does appear to be some evidence that a little learning is a disarming tactic.

Leviathan: Can one overdo the learning thing?

King Kong: Absolutely. Too much learning will cause others to re-arm themselves. I'm proof of that.

Leviathan: What is the solution to that conundrum?

King Kong: Wisdom to go with the Learning.

Leviathan: Like Ishmael?

King Kong: Like Ishmael.

Leviathan: What is Ishmael's secret?

King Kong: He teaches Maieutically. And employs Paradactic Models, too.

Leviathan: Does it work?

King Kong: So sayeth the Anthropologist from Mars. Personally, I'm not that advanced. I'm just now exploring the potential of the Living Dialogue.

Leviathan: Would you like to become that advanced?

King Kong: I fear it would be lonely. I'll have to think about it.

Leviathan: Where do you go to meditate?

King Kong: To the upper stories of tall urban structures.

Leviathan: Don't climb them alone. Take someone with you. Someone comely who is also a good listener.

Jimbo removed a piece of IP nonsense that had been there a week:



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=271663327

Presumably, Jimbo was told about this privately by someone close to the subject. Why else would he personally swoop in and get rid of it?

(Oh, and IP nonsense on WP is "removed within minutes by a team of observant volunteers". Except when it isn't.)

The revision history of Old Wendy's Miss Diamond's rather gushing article is interesting and quite funny in that, apart from the very few vandals (and Jimbo!) most of the names are probably based on the one individual (Animalfair and Cubanb31 certainly). Who this mysterious person is I have no idea.

No doubt Jimbo's interest in the article will attract those who will attempt to input some "balance" into it. I predict full protection real soon.

More than a year later, and Jimbo's still blundering into Wendy Diamond's article on Wikipedia.

Jimbo says that this...

...was not "a real argument", and he removed text that indicated "Diamond once argued about dog training with a well known dog trainer, [[Victoria Stilwell]], openly on a dog show TV in 2008. She told Stilwell, "get over yourself", when Stilwell disagreed with her."

Then, there is the consideration of User:Luckyanimalfair, whose edits would seem to coincide with the POV of a woman named Wendy Diamond, founder of Animal Fair, "a lifestyle media company for animal lovers".

Here's an example of one edit by Luckyanimalfair:



Conflict of interest? Surely not! Considering how he handled the Wikipedia Review affair with such emphasis and finality, the fact that Jimbo is carefully watching the Wendy Diamond article should be enough assurance to us that there will be absolutely no use of Wikipedia for self-promotion by pretty brunettes.

Right?

Announcing the birth of a Nøø Pøøh Pøøh — the “h” is silent —

WP:SA (Staged Argument) can now be used to dismiss whole new categories of inconvenient data.

Jon

Interesting to note that "Wendy Diamond & Lucky" appeared in a 2008 American comedy film, Goyband, according to the Wikipedia article about Goyband, complete with gratuitous external link to AnimalFair.com.

I wonder if that user "Luckyanimalfair" could possibly be linked to Wendy Diamond?

Anyway, the user who added the Cast section to Goyband was MacTavish14, and if you have any intentions of removing the article about Goyband from Wikipedia, he advises that you "please e-mail at goyband@gmail.com if you feel like deleting this page again".


I am coming to the conclusion that Wikipedia, in the aftermath of the Wikipedia Review drama, has come to a new, tacit policy or guideline regarding self-promotional, conflict of interest editing...

Editing that very easily can be identified as self-promotional and is inserted by an editor with a clear conflict of interest will not only be tolerated, it will be lovingly tidied up after by one of Wikipedia's co-founders.

Yeah, but they put a "tag" at the top that says, "this article has multiple issues"! That makes it okay, right?

I would think that as time wears on, the tendency of most articles that are about people or things that might benefit from promotionalism would be towards more blatant promotionalism, while articles about people or things that might suffer from worsening defamation would be towards more defamation. In other words, as the few remaining idealists become disheartened and leave, self-interested hucksterism and revenge will prevail. "Paid editing" services like Wikipedia Review might have actually helped in that regard by introducing an element of real professionalism into the community, sort of a rising tide that raises all boats perhaps - but of course they couldn't have that. (And to be fair, it would probably only help for articles that were directly acted upon by professionals.)

In situations like this I've always had a tendency of my own - to say things like, "you can hardly blame Jimbo for wanting to protect Wendy Diamond's article, since after all Wendy Diamond is very attractive and likes cats," and the old chestnut, "there wouldn't be anything objectionable about these obviously promotional articles if they'd also allow people who are being needlessly defamed to opt out of having articles about them," and so on.

But this "Goyband" page is the more serious offender, IMO... The film is better known as "Falling Star," though they used the other title on WP to avoid drawing attention to the article from WP'ers by their having to change the existing redirect (to Meteoroid). Clever! On Netflix there have been zero reviews - almost unheard of for a modern release, even a straight-to-DVD flop like this one. It even gets an "N/A" on Rotten Tomatoes, which you almost never see either. Both of those are subject to change of course, but regardless, if you're looking for a recent good example of a "non-notable motion picture," this is probably it. But the Wikipedia article quite literally reads like it came straight from the movie's publicity materials.

Anyhoo, it looks like a movie I would go way out of my way to miss, if you know what I'm sayin'.

Thanks to the article's creation by User:Goyband, in April 2007, the description of the film has entered the computer monitors of many thousands of individuals... thanks to Wikipedia, the self-promotion engine.

As usual, Jimbo swaggered into his Talk page forum and laid down the law about the nationally-televised argument between his gal-pal Wendy Diamond and her co-judge Victoria Stilwell.



Rising to the challenge, User:Any old someone took some time to find 3rd party reliable sources in the form of "Entertainment Weekly" and "True/Slant" (a Forbes news agency), and returned the disputed (or, as Jimbo would say, "staged") argument to the encyclopedia.



I suspect that this question posed to Jimbo will remain unanswered. Jimbo has historical trouble explaining to the public when pretty brunettes he knows personally get directly involved with their Wikipedia biographies.

Gee willikers, Jimbo just refuses to admit when he's been punked. If he thinks multi-sentence mentions in two independent news outlets are insufficient to add content to BLPs, how out of touch is he with his project that does far worse with far less independent confirmation or verification?



So, is the new standard that only "a major incident" or something "in any way relevant to one's overall career" should be included in BLPs?

How would we explain that not only does Noam Chomsky's biography have a completely undocumented section on criticism, but links to an entire article dedicated to criticism of the man, complete with such "major incidents" that were "relevant to Chomsky's overall career" as:

• Alleged misrepresentation of statement by Ambassador Moynihan
• Description of the Motives of US Policy-makers Deemed Incorrect
• Criticism of Views on Lebanon (with one source, "Ya Libnan")

I wonder, what would be the most effective way to get Jimmy to understand that he is a two-faced idiot?

I think we tried to get him to look in a mirror once, but perhaps unsurprisingly, it failed to reflect his image.

In case anyone still needed yet another example of how the "indefinite block" is used as a means to manipulate content in a Wikipedia article, here you go.



Are there any dedicated inclusionists around who could rescue this sub-section, supported by two independent 3rd-party reliable sources? Or does WP:JIMBO'S-GAL-PAL govern this situation?

Here is Jimbo admitting he is unabashedly partial to attractive brunettes with a COI.

Seriously, this is a fertile opportunity to take the piss to Jimbo. Let's see some assistance. Meatpuppets unite!

Good job, meatpuppet #1! Keep it up!

Here is Jimbo establishing "consensus" on the article, though there was none.

Here is one of Jimbo's bottom-wipers having a personal chat with him on the Talk page of an article. (Isn't that against policy?)

Here is Jimbo demonstrating once again that he would like to spend next week with Wendy Diamond's article.

http://www.worldeshipday.com/wed-welcome-wendydiamond/

Scary looking lady... eyes like a Thriller extra...

Just Jimbo's luck to wind up with another mad axe lady.

Wendy tells me that neither she nor any of her staff at Animal Fair had anything to do with the editorial activity of User:Animalfair or User:Luckyanimalfair.