The mob is taunting Jimbo on Wikinews. Terrible thing to do when a man's trying to see to the successful delivery of his second child, don't you think?
(I like the part where someone is actually "surprised" by Jimmy's leverage of "moral blackmail". They don't know him very well, do they?)
Full Version: Taunting Jimbo on Wikinews
QUOTE
* Comment - It's up to you all. What you have to ask yourselves is what kind of project do you want to be? Exclusionary, hostile and petty? Or open, welcoming, and seeking support from people who care a lot about the project and can do a lot for it? It's purely symbolic, so make your choice accordingly. I will do the same.
--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That's unfair, Jimbo, and you know it. It is good security practice to remove those privileges which are not required - not that in your case it would be a risk but it is better to not have exceptions to the general practice. To turn your response around, seeking support from people who care a lot about the project would probably not include seeking support from you, personally, as you have limited time to invest and have invested that time with projects you really care about - not en.Wikinews. I respect that, but don't try to threaten withdrawal of support that hasn't been present for rather a long while.
(Incidentally for the community, I'm opposed to this RfP remove because it's not based in policy.) - Amgine | t 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
* Keep unless you're willing to also dereviewer the other users who did not obtain reviewer rights through RFP. There has been no abuse of rights, so I see no case for removal. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
* It is fair to call the right symbolic, and to note that Jimbo is trustworthy; which made me not really give a damn either way. I'm weighing up wether the above attempt at moral blackmail changes my stance; it surprises me from someone like him. As far as within policy or not goes, that's a grey area; the policy assumes users have gone through WN:FRRFP (above) but was written after a number of users had the rights. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)That's unfair, Jimbo, and you know it. It is good security practice to remove those privileges which are not required - not that in your case it would be a risk but it is better to not have exceptions to the general practice. To turn your response around, seeking support from people who care a lot about the project would probably not include seeking support from you, personally, as you have limited time to invest and have invested that time with projects you really care about - not en.Wikinews. I respect that, but don't try to threaten withdrawal of support that hasn't been present for rather a long while.
(Incidentally for the community, I'm opposed to this RfP remove because it's not based in policy.) - Amgine | t 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
* Keep unless you're willing to also dereviewer the other users who did not obtain reviewer rights through RFP. There has been no abuse of rights, so I see no case for removal. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
* It is fair to call the right symbolic, and to note that Jimbo is trustworthy; which made me not really give a damn either way. I'm weighing up wether the above attempt at moral blackmail changes my stance; it surprises me from someone like him. As far as within policy or not goes, that's a grey area; the policy assumes users have gone through WN:FRRFP (above) but was written after a number of users had the rights. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Policy policy policy. Always this same crap about policy.
"Moral blackmail". Heh. Yeah, that's what he does.
And look who's talking: Blood Red Sandman, one of Wikinews's biggest assholes.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st March 2011, 4:02pm) 
The mob is taunting Jimbo on Wikinews. Terrible thing to do when a man's trying to see to the successful delivery of his second child, don't you think?
(I like the part where someone is actually "surprised" by Jimmy's leverage of "moral blackmail". They don't know him very well, do they?)
What does his kid have anything to do with removal of permissions on Wikinews Greg?
QUOTE
What you have to ask yourselves is what kind of project do you want to be? Exclusionary, hostile and petty? Or open, welcoming, and seeking support from people who care a lot about the project and can do a lot for it?
If your projects are open, welcoming, and seeking support from people who care a lot, then why have Awbrey and Damian been kicked out? They cared about the subjects they know in their professional lives.
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Wed 2nd March 2011, 9:28am)
What does his kid have anything to do with removal of permissions on Wikinews Greg?
The birth of a child is a magical moment in a proud father's (and <usually> husband's) life. It just seems like an especially inappropriate time to be bugging Jimbo about his tool.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 2nd March 2011, 11:42am)
The birth of a child is a magical moment in a proud father's (and <usually> husband's) life.
You're showing your age, bro.
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Wed 2nd March 2011, 7:28am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st March 2011, 4:02pm)
The mob is taunting Jimbo on Wikinews. Terrible thing to do when a man's trying to see to the successful delivery of his second child, don't you think?
(I like the part where someone is actually "surprised" by Jimmy's leverage of "moral blackmail". They don't know him very well, do they?)
What does his kid have anything to do with removal of permissions on Wikinews Greg?
I believe Jimbo is anxious about controlling the news and spin about the birth of his next-expected. How do you expect him to do that without the button? He'd just be stuck down with all other peons trying to modify news that is about THEM, on Wikinews. And we know he couldn't do THAT, since he himself is special.
He is a special person. Not like you and me, and the other rabble-type persons who are not internet rock stars. What is it about this, that you don't understand?
SPECIAL.
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Wed 2nd March 2011, 7:28am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st March 2011, 4:02pm)
The mob is taunting Jimbo on Wikinews. Terrible thing to do when a man's trying to see to the successful delivery of his second child, don't you think?
(I like the part where someone is actually "surprised" by Jimmy's leverage of "moral blackmail". They don't know him very well, do they?)
What does his kid have anything to do with removal of permissions on Wikinews Greg?
I believe Jimbo is anxious about controlling the news and spin about the birth of his next-expected. How do you expect him to do that without the button? He'd just be stuck down with all other peons trying to modify news that is about THEM, on Wikinews. And we know he couldn't do THAT, since he himself is special.
He is a special person. Not like you and me, and the other rabble-type persons who are not internet rock stars. What is it about this, that you don't understand?
SPECIAL.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 2nd March 2011, 11:55am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 2nd March 2011, 11:42am)
The birth of a child is a magical moment in a proud father's (and <usually> husband's) life.
You're showing your age, bro.
No, I'm not. Out-of-wedlock births are still a minority in the United States.
Oh, snap -- but you're right... this momma's in the UK, where the problem is worse. (And statistics do show it's a problem.)
Jeez, Johnny, you can be a real bastard sometimes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.