User talk:Larry Sanger

Original Archive

Just watching your interview with Tucker Carlson, and it's really good! Stadt67 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks Larry Sanger (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! Larry Sanger (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Welcome back @Larry Sanger ! :) Vitorperrut555 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm new on editing and using Wiki 'actively', but I want to endorse my deepest respect for your proposals :3

Murielps (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I appreciate the warm "welcome back." Larry Sanger (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Awhile ago I'd recommended that you, Jimbo, and WMF could "heal" a bit if WMF set up a program to both teach and institutionalize teaching very young children to read, which seems an interest of yours. Since I've not mentioned it here thought this might be a good time. Would you be open to having such a program named for you or becoming active in it if it evolves? The concept is that Wikipedia is meant to be read, and that teaching very young children to read (flashcards, putting in the hours, etc.) provides a foundation for lifelong learning, mental adventure, and possible real-life accomplishments, such a program would be a good fit for the foundation to both fund and sustain. Thanks. Just an idea for now. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Did you know that I've already written one of the more prominent of such programs? See https://readingbear.org/ This digitizes the method I used with my boys when they were toddlers. The method works well, and I would like it to be open sourced. I would be interested in such a WMF program, if it had any chance of being of reasonably good quality. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Took a quick dive into Reading Bear (needs a Wikipedia page), interesting approach and will get back to it. By "program" I meant WMF funding and helping develop an entire structure of methods, uses, and real-world teaching on a large scale, as well as convincing parents that early reading gives a child much needed and important brain and mental-image development. This would be appropriate for a foundation devoted to, breaking it down to its initial component, reading. I think your essay helped in what I've seen as a necessary healing process, with some editors using its presentation to go after the editor and not the topic (venting anger), and, to go full circle, at least one more friendly societal-changing collabs between you, Jimbo Wales, and WMF may be needed - this young readers initiative being an attempt to fill that while benefiting overall humanity and individual children. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I never responded to this. The problem with the idea is that "the Reading Wars" are real. There are few issues in education theory more controversial than that of how (and when) to teach children to read. Wikipedia being at present what it is, it would be sure to use what certain "experts" (who have presided over generations of failure) would recommend, as opposed to what manifestly works most effectively (as shown by the work of other experts). So let's just say that I wouldn't expect the WMF to fund a program even remotely similar to Reading Bear. Of course, I could be surprised. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It might do a better job than Duolingo. I’m still annoyed about how I learned over 100 ways to congratulate someone on how nice their house looked, but not one way to ask for food. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Having actually made a very extensive reading curriculum, I can tell you that it's difficult and labor-intensive. It requires careful, fine-grained judgment on every aspect of the thing, and this sort of management is simply not how wikis work—there has to be an editor-in-chief with a clear vision, or the result will suck. WMF could pay experts to make something, who might work with a volunteer pool of some sort. That's probably the only way it could even so much as produce anything useful. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If I were to do it, I would create a list of the most important words, then integrate them with a list of the most common words.hard. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I learned a good deal of Spanish just from reading Wikipedia in Spanish, and my Spanish teacher allows me to do that in class when I’m done with my work. There’s some potential in that. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The redirect Wikipedia:THESIS1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2 § Wikipedia:THESIS1 until a consensus is reached. JMWt (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That didn't work out very well, did it, Sophisticatedevening? Larry Sanger (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please note that the following topic areas have also been designated as contentious topics:

• the Arab–Israeli conflict (WP:CT/A-I)
• articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles (WP:CT/BLP)
• complementary and alternative medicine (WP:CT/CAM)
• climate change (WP:CT/CC)
• COVID-19, broadly construed (WP:CT/COVID)
• pseudoscience and fringe science (WP:CT/CF)
• gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them (WP:CT/GG)
• the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups (WP:CT/SA)

Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Which pages do you mean? You don't say. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Larry Sanger, any edit that overlaps with a contentious topic on any Wikipedia page is covered under these procedures. Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics, "this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic". The above template is a standard message sent to editors to ensure that they are aware of these procedures. — Newslinger talk 20:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. You haven't answered my question. What is the relevance of your remarks to my work here? Also, should I take myself to be warned by you? Are you an administrator? Should I feel threatened and rebuked? Larry Sanger (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your recent edit at Special:Permalink/1314044675 added content that overlaps with the contentious topics listed in this discussion. While I am an administrator, this is not pertinent to contentious topic alerts, as any editor may post a contentious topic alert pursuant to the conditions in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics. Contentious topic alerts are not warnings, but informational messages; they are not intended to make you "feel threatened and rebuked". If you would like to opt out of receiving contentious topic alerts for other topic areas, you may apply the {{Contentious topics/aware }} template on your user talk page and specify the topic areas that you do not wish to receive alerts for, but please keep in mind that the template does not yet support community-authorized sanctions. — Newslinger talk 06:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is there a reason why you didn't simply say User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses? What is the purpose and use of being so indirect and bureaucratic? Do you see why this might come across as threatening and rebuking to someone without his wits about him? Larry Sanger (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I use diffs when discussing specific edits because diffs are immutable. Special:Permalink/1314044675 was the very first edit to User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, so I used a permanent link because Special:Diff/1314044675 does not show any content when viewed from the mobile website. Contentious topic alerts have been implemented since 2014 (when it was known as discretionary sanctions alerts), and retained when discretionary sanctions became contentious topics in 2022. Editors who participate in contentious topics receive contentious topic alerts on a regular basis, and very few of these editors complain, as "This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing" makes it clear that the alert is an informational message. If you feel that the alert is "threatening and rebuking" and have a constructive suggestion to improve it, then feel free to present your suggestion on a village pump page. — Newslinger talk 17:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They are an admin, as said on their user page. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Newslinger: I'm also confused. Do you consider some of the theses to be US politics related? This is a stretch IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bri: Content such as "In American politics, articles must not favor either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, or be written as if there were no third parties (such as the Libertarian Party, Green Party, or a new 'America Party')" in Special:Permalink/1314044675 is indeed related to American politics and covered by WP:CT/AP. — Newslinger talk 18:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Frankly, I find this policy to be puerile and insidious, and part of the policy creep that implementing Thesis 9 would reverse. Larry Sanger (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are welcome to make your case on a village pump page. There is already a discussion about User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses. — Newslinger talk 17:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Here's what I agree with:

• End IP editing.
• End blacklists of sources.
• Establish a simple reader feedback mechanism, although not necessarily a vapid thumbs up/thumbs down that you no doubt envision. The bit about an "open source AI rating system" is unintelligible.
• Embrace inclusionism.

Here's what I disagree with:

• Pretty much everything else.

I find it ironic that a person who has spent so much time banning perceived ideological enemies off of your Elon social network account is now putting themselves forward as the great adherent of intellectual pluralism. I also find the list of Wikipedians you "sure wouldn't want anyone to dox, nudge nudge wink wink" to be intentionally threatening and vicious and par for the course.

Very truly yours, Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, responding for "Wikipedia" //// Carrite (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Tim, I confess I'm a little surprised when you say you can support some of these proposals. I'm sincerely glad you have taken the time to say so.

I would say that you might want to read this short section about an open source AI rating system, which you might have skipped. I spent a month last December-January programming something very much like such a system, so I know it's not only intelligible, it's a good idea and quite feasible.

There is nothing remotely ironic about personally blocking the participants in digital struggle session. These are the enemies of pluralism, of course. Pluralism involves a desire to see many different views fairly represented, so that people are free to make up their own minds for themselves.

As to your accusation about doxxing, I find that to be an obvious violation of WP:AGF. I added that because I knew that people would accuse me of suggesting that the Power 62 be doxxed. I am quite sincerely saying I do not want them to be doxxed, and I will thank you to not make the mistake again.

But again, thanks for taking the time to express (very partial) support for some of the proposals. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, Larry. Thanks for responding. There are absolutely some things on your list that are reasonable. Please use ordinary WP processes to further change in that direction. I'd particularly like to see IP editing get the boot ("register to edit" instead) and to eliminate the entire notion of "inherently unreliable sources."

Feel free to file a complaint at either AN/I or AN against me for my "obvious violation" of AGF. I contend that as a leading internet spokesman for Team Trump and given their decade-long tradition of death threats and IRL harassment of their "enemies within" (quoting the cult leader), you knew exactly what you were doing when you constructed your "please please please do not dox these anonymous wikipedians!!!!" list. —Tim ///Carrite (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Tim, as co-founder, I have taken it upon myself to push Wikipedia in a direction where there are saner processes for change. If you will look at, for example, theses 1 and 9, you might notice that a central part of this project is to bring Wikipedia to its senses about just how dysfunctional it has been precisely in its "ordinary WP processes." I am mounting considered criticisms of the very "ordinary WP processes" that you are recommending I follow. You know and I know that there is very little chance of anything changing according to "ordinary WP processes": that is the point of the "problem" section of essay 9. Sometimes radical reform requires changes of process, such as an legislative assembly.

Also, I would appreciate it if you not insult me further by patronizingly instructing me about how to report you. Suffice to say I can figure it out if I want to go that route, and don't need your advice. As to your accusation about doxxing, that is speculation about my motives. This is not permitted. And calling me "a leading internet spokesman for Team Trump" accords me much much greater influence than I have, believe me. In any event, the fact that you think this is somehow relevant to thesis 6 is very telling indeed. It's almost as if you're saying that the Power 62 is, perhaps, uniformly aligned with the other side? Is that what you're assuming? Larry Sanger (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ahem, you're the one singing the praises of Ted Cruz and making threats to run to the Trumpist Congress for "carve outs" of the law expressly to punish WMF if your Too Long; Didn't Read essay isn't adopted. Please don't pretend that your sudden presence here after two decades in devoid of political intent.

Now, that said, if you're actually serious about reforming Wikipedia instead of engaging in a political performance for your pals like Tucker Carlson, I would suggest you focus upon the fundamental problem — the banning of sources outright by a clique of political gameplayers, rather than WP following the valid historical process of considering the veracity of edits on a case-by-case basis. THAT'S the big issue, is it not? Pick your battle, make your case, and see if the great inert object can be moved.

I personally would like to see IP editing go down the drain first; and there is actually arguably a better chance of getting that through, now that WMF is starting to understand that IPs help bad state actors track down and repress Wikipedians. They've been trying (with little success) to come up with a way of "anonymizing" IP addresses. The obvious solution, which bucks two decades of tradition, is to get rid of IP editing all together. No IPs in the edit history — problem solved.

I think the question of anonymity is a battle that can't be won. Given the terrorist tendencies of the ultra-nationalist American right, that's not even a battle that should be fought in the current political climate.

Like I say, if you're serious about reforming WP, focus and organize. You might be surprised to find allies in unexpected places if your motives are clean. But forgive me for doubting very much that's what's driving this particular effort. Carrite (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm afraid I can't read or respond to that, Tim, until you have edited it so that it is in line with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How could we end IP editing @Carrite? Where would that discussion start? Do you want to initiate it? 12.228.48.72 (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, as you can see, the page was speedily kept, Ahri Boy. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dr. Sanger, all free pictures of you are about 20 or more years old. I was wondering if you would be interested in uploading a more recent self portrait under a free license? 3df (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for asking. Eventually I'll get around to this. I'd be happy to work with a professional photographer. Larry Sanger (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My favorite pic in the Larry Sanger Commons category is File:Kate Upton and Harley Upton.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes yes, I'm very sure Kate Upton has a pic of me on her wall! Don't tell my wife! LOL Larry Sanger (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Remember you will have to ask the photographer to licence the picture under a suitable license. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC).[reply ]

Hello! Just checked out the article on you and noticed that the photo is a couple decades old. I agree that this would be great when you have time to get around to it. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, I hope I'll have time sometime soonish. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

always an option. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I disagree. Guylaen (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Firstly, welcome back. I'm glad someone finally brought up number eight, indefinite blocking was once a reality for me. I was one of few who stayed around, and indef blocking can scare off editors who can be very good if and when they came back. I also think WMF needs a more clear legislation. Our volunteers are very good, but we need people who can run the project as a job. I can't say anything positive about six. Crats and CUs don't deserve to be harassed off-site because they did something one user did not like. And what would they be held accountable for? Running a check on someone with a lot of evidence of socking? If Wikipedia were to implement this (which I myself very much oppose), I think it should be limited to the Arb Com. I hope you see this, and welcome back again. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 14:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you comment here? This list is meant to encourage editors to take the perhaps somewhat scary step of nominating an article to be a featured article. Many of the articles missing attributed nominators are from the brilliant prose days, and were nominated/added to that page by you at a time when there was not much of a review process. The bot that maintains the list notices FAs and FFAs that are missing nomination history. If I add you as the nominator for these articles you will suddenly have quite a few stars on this list (mostly FFAs at this point). I would very much appreciate hearing your opinion about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. Not sure what more to say there. Interesting from a historical standpoint perhaps, but I doubt it matters much. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) regarding revisiting indefinite blocking, which is related to your eighth thesis. The section is titled "Removing all active indefinite blocks older than 20 years." I am leaving a message here in case you didn't get the notification from my mention. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! Larry Sanger (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been thinking about the ultimate knowledge-based OSS platform for a long time, and I've come up with a concept that's both reproducible and universal. I'd like to discuss it with you to make it a reality. How can I contact you? I prefer emailIm siryang (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

THIS WAS SO DESPERATELY NEEDED!!!! 12.228.48.72 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. Yes, I like them a lot myself. They were carefully chosen for maximal plausibility. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please create an account then. This project of reform can't work if it is simply supported by IP editors. Wikipedia needs more people like you. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What? 185.163.26.18 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You’ll have to explain. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What do you mean? GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) Thanks again Larry for writing your 9-theses. I wanted to mention to you that I have been having a conversation with Jimbo Wales over at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Nine Theses, and it occurred to me that you BOTH need to agree to even talk. I do not know what the right venue might look like. I suggested that since he had gone on Lex Fridman in 2023, that maybe something like that would work, but I think ANY venue that you both agreed to would be fascinating and productive. He does not seem open to having a conversation unfortunately, but I wanted to ask you both, and ideally get a conversation started on this front about how to IMPROVE (not abolish!) Wikipedia. @Jimbo Wales does appear very open to the idea of improvements in his New York Times piece with Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and I think you should give him the respect and deference of having a "kind and thoughtful" conversation (as he likes to say, I see those words "kind and thoughtful" all over his interviews). Anyway, I really appreciate it and think that the whole world would benefit from the two of you speaking on this matter, no matter the venue or host. Maybe let him pick the host if that would be agreeable @Jimbo Wales? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC) (削除ここまで)— Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of PapaTakaro (talk · contribs). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I wouldn’t rule it out. I can’t issue a blanket "yes" (need to consider details), but generally it would be interesting and I’d probably be on board, depending on circumstances. Somebody like Lex might work as an interviewer/moderator. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Larry. If you are not going to provide any evidence, I'd ask you strike your aspersions in that thread (such as They can—and I think, do—take money under the table from people who want things "fixed." Doubtless, many work for Wikipedia PR firms), as they are considered personal attacks (see WP:CASTING). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I made no specific accusations. I was making a claim about general groups. Are you really saying you think some Wikipedia editors don't take money to "fix" things in articles? There is no shortage of evidence that this is a common practice. I didn't accuse anyone in particular. Therefore, I repudiate your accusation. Larry Sanger (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

if you think there's "no shortage of evidence that [undisclosed paid editing] is a common practice", i don't believe it would be hard to provide said evidence, so it'd be a good idea to stop using circular reasoning (in this case, "it is because i say it is, and i say it is because it is") to skirt around a request that you yourself say would be easy to fulfill. additionally, the fact that you're not naming any specific people (this specific time) doesn't magically make it not an aspersion or an attack against the groups you're very explicitly accusing

for example, i could say something like "some certain editors have been acting totally sus in [insert topic here]" with no evidence, and it would very clearly be an aspersion against a group, especially if the group was easily identifiable by just seeing whatever discussion(s) i point to, regardless of whether or not i directly named them. vague claims aren't a shield here, especially when they're not actually all that vague consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I gave evidence in Essay 6. Moreover, there are many Wikipedia pages documenting this. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

simply put, no you didn't. you provided evidence that editors (admins and stuff included) aren't all 100% serious about everything all the time (which is at best an argument that you're a party pooper, which i guess is just weird), that people use wikipedia as a tertiary source (nice-a), that llms use it for training (not-a nice) that admins involved in operation orangemoody took action... uh... against a paid editing ring (you know that's the literal exact opposite of what you're trying to prove, right?), that a journalist who reached out to you was bamboozled (sad case, but effectively a non-sequitur), that some editors put limits on the use of primary sources (nice-a), that people sometimes feel the "need" to hire others to "fix" stuff (if this is your chekhov's gun, specifically under the modern definition, i'll get back to it soon), that the wmf takes lawsuits seriously (nice-a), and that people do smear campaigns and stuff (ignore the part where action is taken against those, tee hee). none of those are what you're accusing admins (and those 62 guys) of, and the one that looks the most like it is the exact kind of thing admins exist to deal with as proven by the operation orangemoody article you provided

tripling down with the argument that "we can't conclusively prove that i'm right unless we dox a bunch of people, but i'm definitely right" over evidence that is unrelated, misinterpreted, or actively detrimental to your case isn't going to work. if you couldn't provide immutable evidence of administrators and wmf staff actively engaging in paid editing and getting away with it, we can start wrapping things up. an unfounded suspicion is as usable a reason to argue for that as "it'd be funny"

that is to say, since this won't go anywhere productive, with you actively defending aspersions and lying about their sources, i'm taking this to ani in a while consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Simply put, yes I did. The argument is simple, and I am not going to say it again. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

okay, what would be the source(s) in the essay that you feel prove(s) irrefutably that admins, bureaucrats, and other such people regularly do paid editing, not limited to taking bribes, and then get away with it? i'm willing to assume that i just somehow missed an entire paragraph showing a list of those events having undeniably happened or something of the sort consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And about the ANI thing: So it's your view that disagreements about what I have and have not accomplished in an essay on my user page, and my failure to admit something to you personally about such an essay, on my user talk page, are grounds to report me to the hall monitors? (When, just by the way, it is precisely the probable paid editing of the hall monitors that is the point in dispute?) How does this work? Do I need to satisfy you personally, or just anybody who happens to comment? Or only if I begin to reply, I have to follow through and respond in full to your satisfaction? I'm certainly confused about what the rules are here. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Regarding the questions, the rules referenced are to follow the conduct policies which include the Civility, Harassment, and No personal attacks policies. The content in the userspace can be reviewed for violations of this. As noted at the Resolving user conduct disputes portion of Dispute resolution, a conduct dispute can be taken to ANI, the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. The discussion created at ANI regarding yourself was closed without action regarding the above. Regarding the text in parathesis, if you do have specific evidence regarding an administrator based on what you have said, you can take it to Administrator recall provided that you have followed the requirements.

I believe that is everything that I can answer. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Larry, accusing a sub group of editors, in this case admins, of undisclosed paid editing without a single piece of evidence is a clear breach of our NPA policies. I appreciate your status of co-founder, so I won't push much further on this issue, but I ask you stop making such broad accusations in the future. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 16:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Isabelle, stop "accusing" me of lacking evidence. I presented evidence of a broad-based problem. The idea that the problem would not touch Administrators is a reasonable inference, which could only be disproven by...revealing their identities. Over and out. Drop this—you're in the wrong. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your claim was "many" if you're dropping down to only touching Administrators you should probably make that clear.©Geni (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! Larry Sanger (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh yeah, Alex Jones, a bastion of reasonableness and civility. David10244 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, Rafael! Larry Sanger (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

as previously stated, there's an administrators' noticeboard/incidents thread regarding issues you're involved in. the thread is "#larry sanger...". your input in it will be appreciated consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Knock yourself out. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A bit random, but I was curious and noticed that your account is user ID 216 and Jimbo's is 24. What happened to accounts up to 23, were those just throwaway dev and test accounts? Do you happen to know of a way of querying the list? Spent a little time looking through Wiki's tools and not seeing a way to find them. - Indefensible (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe @Graham87: is the resident expert on very early database items, which have a particular catacomb-like windiness all their own. jp ×ばつg 🗯️ 09:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Indefensible: There's actually a way to get the exact answer to your question: Special:Redirect/user/1, Special:Redirect/user/2, Special:Redirect/user/3, etc, where each number is a user ID number. The current Wikipedia database (including the user table) in fact dates to the installation of the Phase II software here in January 2002, which replaced UseModWiki, the site's original wiki engine, so the user ID numbers reflect when a username was registered either in the Phase II software or MediaWiki. All edits in the current database from before January 2002 were imported here later, either in a September 2002 mass-import or in subsequent imports from 2001 databases (mostly performed by myself). In the very early days of Wikipedia, the site used CamelCase capitalisation in both page titles and usernames, so Larry's earliest username is LarrySanger and Jimbo's is JimboWales. Because the LarrySanger username hadn't been properly registered, it got taken over by a vandal; per using Special:Export,on User:Larry Sanger/old User:Larry Sanger/old , I can figure out that its user ID number was 7800319, but Special:Redirect/user/7800319 doesn't work (something unusual happened to that account). That's probably enough for now. Thanks for the ping and kind words, JPxG. Larry or anyone else if you have anything to add, feel free. Graham87 (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Nah, I've thought of a few other things to add: (a) a link to the user page for User:office.bomis.com, which mentions some very old Wikipedia edits, (b) the bug T2323, which not only affects many edits recorded under hostnames like office.bomis.com but also affects edits that are still recorded in the database under the username "Larry_Sanger", and (c) User:Nemo bis/Bug 323 revisions, a list of all edits that have been affected by that bug on the English Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the info, very interesting. So if I understand correctly, the current user ID numbering is an artifact based on an imperfect migration process which basically randomized everyone in the original database at that point, right? I also realized there is probably an API call which can get the list, but again the results would have the same reordering from the migration.

Also why are there some accounts without a registration date? I'm guessing there has to be another good technical reason for this exception. - Indefensible (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Indefensible: Nope, people had to manually re-register after the database migration, so the modern user ID number order simply reflects the order in which people did so back then. The dates around this time are a bit murky though because of a database glitch in February 2002, which is also mentioned at the page User:Conversion script. Not everyone re-registered, of course, as discussed above, but over the years I've made sure that all accounts from the available 2001 databases have been accounted for. As for accounts without recorded registration dates, to find out more about those, follow the links in this technical village pump discussion archive. [[Graham87 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I see, that's even messier than I thought. Probably should visit the Village Pump more often. - Indefensible (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, the database had to be put into the Phase II format. In fact, I'm sure Jimbo would have made the first account (since he actually installed it), and the second would have been mine (since I asked him to set up the wiki for me to play with). Remember, from Jan. 2 until Jan. 15, 2001, it was the "Nupedia Wiki" and just an experimental side-project, running on UseModWiki. MediaWiki didn't exist. There were no namespaces. Those were invented later. I have no idea whatsoever why Jimbo's account # would be 23 and mine would be 216. Oh, I suppose I do: the migration process probably assigned IDs randomly.

Also, yes, my earliest username was LarrySanger (in the main namespace) and Jimbo's was JimboWales. A LOT of data from the UseModWiki install seems to have been lost. I always wondered why. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the reply, first time learning about this even though I've been on Wiki for more than a decade already. Sounds like there was a bit of data loss during the process which I suppose is reasonable for back then. Curious what else might have been lost back then. - Indefensible (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Much of the data loss can be blamed on the KeptPages system. However, the Nostalgia Wikipedia, being a snapshot of the database from 20 December 2001, has edits that we don't have (or didn't until they were imported); ditto for the August 2001 database dump re-discovered in 2010, which wasn't subject to the KeptPages regime so every edit has been saved there. See the Wikimedia database dump archive for links relating to the 2001 dumps and several more. Graham87 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

these thesis are cool dr. sanger. more thesis please. ~2025-33175-99 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@~2025-33175-99 I agree. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The redirect WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 30 § WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

thank you for your contribution on the improvement of general human knowledge corpus

Gatoparlante (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Larry, I totally support what You, Tucker, and Musk are doing. I totally agree that Wikipedia is more powerful and influential than CNN, Fox, and the rest of the mainstream media. I too have experienced censorship here on Wikipedia on both scientific and political issues. I like your idea of having conservatives and libertarians build reputation editing Wikipedia pages using sources that are allowed. My plan is potentially to edit on non controversial topics, which I have done to some degree. Of all your theses, the one I agree with the most is the one suggesting gatekeeping admins, who ultimately control what information is and isn't allowed, should not be anonymous so they can be held legally accountable if necessary, as they are in the mainstream media. I hope that soon, Wikipedia either becomes less dogmatic and open as it once was, or loses out to Grokipedia. Something definitely needs to be done. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Don't count the Nine Theses reforms out yet. Many Wikipedians are still thinking about them, and they've noticed that there has been a great deal of support outside of Wikipedia, and not a little within. Larry Sanger (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That is why I think more people need to start editing on non controversial topics they know something about. By doing so, they can gain status as regular editors and not activist editors, as they are contributing constructively. These people can then go on to influence policy if enough of them do this. The topic could be local geographic features, TV shows, movies, or anything that is not controversial. That is how real change will happen. I would like to see some of those people even become admins eventually. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Larry. I'm hesitant to post here because I find Wikipedia to be quite a hostile place. But I see that you very understandably have email turned off, so here's just a quick hello. I was unaware of your theses when I wrote this blogpost about an experience I had on Wikipedia earlier this year. I'm intrigued by your proposed governance changes; you clearly understand the foundational mechanisms of wikipedia's governance far better than I do. But I greatly appreciate your attention to the governance issues that clearly underlie Wikipedia's struggles. Selfishly, I'm curious what you think about my post, but I'm more curious if you think that a centralized Wikipedia is tenable or net beneficial long term in contrast to more fully embracing an encyclopedia network model -- e.g. scaling and refining your Encyclosphere concept, which I also had not heard of before I wrote my post. I presume your suggestions to be more practical (Wikipedia probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon so it can make refinements to improve), but in the abstract, it seems to me that stakeholder-curated decentralized knowledge nodes and some governing structure to connect them is a superior model to a perpetually conflictual monolith. As a designer, I do think that the primary barrier to such a thing is accessibility to organizing fluent information, and I'm interested in AI's capacity for potentially solving this. At any rate, much appreciation for your articulation and ongoing advocacy for the complex nature of truth. 3rdspace (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I read your blog post and can relate. I agree with you that the majority of Wikipedia's bias is toward mainstream science rather than a left wing bias, although they have both. I have edited about Alzheimer's disease and related topics and had my edits reverted. I also edited on climate change and physics, and the same thing happened. That said, their article about Trump is extremely biased against him due to their banning of many right wing sources. As I said above, I think the way to bring about change at Wikipedia is to edit pages on which you know something, but on which there is no controversy. It could be a TV show, a movie, a movie series, geographic features, a sports team, or anything else you know something about that either has information that is missing, or is incorrect. Just make sure your source what you say. In your blog post you said you think Grokipedia is a bad idea. You are correct that Grokipedia is horrible, as both the name and the writing style are terrible. In defense of Grokipedia though, it is actually more of a joke than anything else, as Musk's tweets imply he launched it as a joke. However, he intends for it to improve over time and be a genuine competitor to Wikipedia, complete with some form of human editing with an AI referee, and immune to censorship. As for the terrible name, that is temporary, and he intends to rename it "Encyclopedia Galactica" once it achieves significant quality. Encyclopedia Galactica may be the catalyst Wikipedia needs to allow the improvements Sanger wants. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also late to the party, but I agree with @Félix An. ~2026-63142 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks Larry Sanger (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics. You have not provided any sources at all, and seem to suggest that your edits are based on your personal knowledge; this is insufficient as we cannot verify your personal knowledge. Information must be published somewhere that readers can locate and verify the information.
— User:331dot

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm missing the context here. Where does tgeorgescu say this, and why? And is he correct? (People have fundamental disagreements about what reliable sources are, which is why we need a robust neutrality policy.) Larry Sanger (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I wrote User:SuperPianoMan9167/An academic bias is still a bias. I think you might be interested in reading it, as I make similar points to your fourth thesis.

I believe it is possible to alleviate systematic Western bias while still remaining credible among the mainstream, and I will use your own words to explain:

Now, when large groups (as, for example, astronomers talking about the Flat Earth theory) feel it is crucial to label something as "pseudoscience," then by all means, report this fact: "The common view among the academic and scientific research community in Astronomy is that the Flat Earth theory is nothing more than pseudoscience." But in that case, it is not Wikipedia that has made the claim, but astronomers.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This used to be obvious to Wikipedians, and it used to be official policy, not an "essay." Larry Sanger (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

An encyclopedia has to endorse mainstream science and mainstream history. If it does not do that, it is lost. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

An encyclopedia can still endorse mainstream science and history by explicitly stating that mainstream views are mainstream and that minority views are in the minority (instead of outright omitting minority views). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No—an encyclopedia does not have to endorse anything. It can be neutral, as WP was in its first five years or so. So, agreed with SPM. Also, there is mainstream and then there is mainstream. Sometimes WP favors one stream of legit science and history and disfavors another. It is just wrong to pick winners and losers; you make this into an organ of propaganda if you do. It is better to support independent thinkers in making up their own minds about controversial issues. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

"The age of the Earth is above 4.5 Ga" is a fact, not opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, and no one here is saying it isn't. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

SPM is correct again. Not only does that not respond to anything I said, it is irrelevant to all questions actually under dispute. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's possible to endorse mainstream science without having subtexts of moral judgement on those who do not accept the science.

For example, compare my reverted edit to Creation science (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=1302929068) to the current version.

I did not remove the part about the scientific consensus, because it still has to comply with WP:FRINGE, but I removed the WP:WEASEL wording by attributing the "dishonest and misguided sham" wording to its author in quotation marks, since the language is loaded and should be attributed to its author for WP:NPOV and should not be in WP's own voice. Needless to say, the other editors did not like it.

(This is not an endorsement of YEC. I just think that it's possible to not give undue weight to fringe theories without using such loaded language that implies moral judgement.) Félix An (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I put it back. Let's see if they are more welcoming of it now... Félix An (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Gone already! Félix An (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

1. End decision making by "consensus". I agree that the idea of consensus is problematic, but I think every editor should be able to have an input, though having a committee from both sides of the debate assess the evidence and decide for themselves the validity of the arguments does seem like a good idea, as it is basically consensus but downsized, which makes for much easier decision making.
2. Enable competing articles. I'm not sure what this would look like in practice. Would it basically be like in every article about an ongoing debate, first there is a completely neutral section of an overview about the debate, then links to each sides' arguments and their view of how the article works? Are articles where there is no actual competing view allowed to have a single article presenting it as fact? As for your idea of having different articles for different audiences, I think this would be better realised as seperate English Wikipedias for different audiences, similar to the modern distinction between Simple English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia.
3. Abolish source blacklists. I'm a bit on the edge with this one. On one hand I agree that no source should be completely rejected regardless of content. On the other hand some sources are known for promoting conspiracy theories and other patently false statements. But the problem could be solved by instead of making blacklisting completely reject sources of those altogether, any edits using them have to be reviewed by more experienced editors before publishing. This system is already implemented in some pages on Wikipedia.
4. Revive the original neutrality policy. Totally agree with this one. The current policy is very vague and has led to way too many long-winded discussions. It should probably be expanded to fit the new larger-scale Wikipedia, but articles should be completely neutral. However, doesn't this contradict your second thesis? Is this an alternative to the second thesis if that one doesn't get adopted?
5. Repeal "Ignore all rules". Again, totally agree. Way too vague, is used without context, and would be better replaced with Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed.
6. Reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are. YES. YES. YES. This prevents ArbCom and bureaucrat members from abusing their powers and evading accountability.
7. Let the public rate articles. Interesting idea, would definitely require a fundamental Wikipedia code change. I think this is a bit similar to the current class rating system, except open to the public instead of just Wikipedia editors. However, I think this could be exploited by people to make a bad article have a good review by spamming the review system, or make a good article have a bad review, just because they disagree or agree with it. This also ties back to your second thesis.
8. End indefinite blocking. Again, YES. YES. YES. No particular comment on this one, but in general a good idea. People should be allowed to learn from their mistakes.
9. Adopt a legislative process. No comment here, agree that Wikipedia's current system is surprisingly weak and cannot enforce effectively against disruptive editors, and that there are solutions other than indefinite blocking.

VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Larry Sanger, thank you for creating for the Wikipedia page, that the users can edit the page, create the page and so much more. Happy 25th birthday to your page Wikipedia! :D Ludo Games-T (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Belated thanks Larry Sanger (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! You of all people should know better. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Doug, you seem to be accusing me of treating others without respect and civility. I'm not aware of having done so.s But you do this without giving me any details. This behavior toward me is not welcome and has not gone unnoticed.

Also: welcome to Wikipedia. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What does "not gone unnoticed" mean? And the welcome to Wikipedia to a very experienced editor?

I was thinking of your comment " Oh, great. Then this arbitrary self-selected ruler is bound to recognize the superior merits of my arguments, and will certainly discount the objective demerits of those who disagree with me, according to arguments and policy! Sounds very fair. I was worried that the process might be biased and arbitrary. Larry Sange" Doug Weller talk 17:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, if that's all what you were commenting on—coming here to play the role of cop or prosecutor—then it was incumbent upon you to point out the problem clearly, which you did not. I still do not see what is wrong. That's sarcasm, you know. I was pointing out a feature of the Wikipedia system. I was not being disrespectful or uncivil to anyone. I was pointing out a sad feature of the broken system of Wikipedia.

What does your welcome to the co-founder of Wikipedia mean? And you are instructing me about civility? Do you think the same rules don't apply to you?

"Not gone unnoticed": that means I noticed it, and found it unjustified. I have done nothing wrong, and I know it, and you are quite simply in the wrong here. This sort of bullying tactic will not work here, Doug. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Using a template was bad form. And on reflection it is often inappropriate and I will avoid using it for any but very new editors.

I have never considered myself cop or prosecutor. As for bullying, I presume that’s sarcasm also as I don’t think anyone could bully you. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

🕊️ Larry Sanger (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, on the point I was making (sarcastically), see Wikipedia:THESIS1. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

London has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Larry Sanger, could you please explain why your comment Special:Diff/1345720484 contained a piped link to Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Articles to improve with the label "WP:CAN"? Your wikitext in question is [[Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Articles to improve|WP:CAN]], and WP:CAN actually redirects to Wikipedia:Canvassing. Did you use a large language model (e.g. an AI chatbot) to author that message? — Newslinger talk 19:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What a strange accusation. You noticed an incorrect link and you assume I used an LLM to respond? LOL. The explanation is that I typed WP:CAN, I highlighted the text, I pressed Ctrl-K, I noticed that the correct page was the first in the list, wrongly assumed that it would insert that link, and the tool instead inserted the link that my mouse happened to be hovered over at the time (which I didn't notice)—namely, that Canadian page.

Please do not waste my time with irrelevancies like this again.

You could choose to laugh at the absurdity of it, though, you know. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Note for future reference that the above is in relation to this comment. Also note that I could not have found "On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion" and "On the user talk pages of concerned editors" without actually visiting the page. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

All right, thank you for explaining. — Newslinger talk 20:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not even an apology. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Invalid or nonsensical link targets are a common sign of LLM use, common enough that there is a speedy deletion criterion for it. There was a nonsensical link in your comment, so I asked you for clarification on how that link entered your comment, which you provided, and I thanked you for. Since you are now soliciting an apology, I apologize for the inconvenience, but not for the due diligence. — Newslinger talk 20:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Whatever. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why did you prefer Nupedia's peer-review approach as opposed to Wikipedia's easier posting of articles? ~2026-19657-45 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. Interesting question. I actually introduced the idea of posting articles on a wiki to the Nupedia community, and thus Wikipedia came into being after the Nupedia community rejected it (against my own wishes). In short, Wikipedia was my idea, so your question rests on a false premise. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I asked this question because the Nupedia article states that "Wales preferred Wikipedia's easier posting of articles, while Sanger preferred the peer-reviewed approach used by Nupedia". ~2026-19657-45 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, that is ridiculously, factually incorrect. Larry Sanger (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

at first, did you intend Wikipedia to have more strictness in regards to unreliable sources?

also, i appreciate your decision to create Wikipedia. it’s one of my favorite websites to date despite the bias criticism. thank you for that :) — Tonkarooson • (📭|edits) 21:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It wasn't a decision that was exclusively mine to make. We did indeed have much broader, more open ideas about what could count as an acceptable source. Wikipedia's WP:RS policies are far too restrictive. Larry Sanger (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What is an example of a change you would make to a main space article if we changed RS? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

See User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, especially Thesis 3. The question is answered thoroughly there. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

i knew it was between you and Jimbo.

i’ve have some recent experiences that has given me more inspiration to work harder for this bias and see which part of it is. do you think more Wikipedians should try to eliminate the bias and the other criticisms? — Aurora :3 • (📭|edits) 21:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! Please do not use outside platforms to link and comment on an ongoing on-wiki RfC, as this can give the impression of canvassing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No. Please do not ask again. There is no rule against this; if there were, I would follow it. Many people comment on ongoing Wikipedia controversies off-wiki, and I did not invite people to take one side or even to vote. Larry Sanger (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Larry. That side discussion got out of hand quickly. I hope that collapsing it will be enough to end it. I appreciate your asking others to stand down. I think it would be helpful if you retracted your accusations of personal attacks. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Putting on my historian hat, note that the "side discussion" is a valuable document for anyone researching and writing about the history of Wikipedia and/or about Sanger, and I will link it, and the similarly notable entire discussion, to this section when it is closed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Note that the side discussion has been uncollapsed since the above was written. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What on earth is "valuable" about it? No new facts emerged, and many similar conversations have happened before. Larry Sanger (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This was just me telling future researchers that, as an amateur historian, I found your answers informative and interesting about your Wikipedia history in wording that you may not have used before. Like it or not, and you should like it, your talk page will be a subject of research for future writers, or historic holographs, or wherever the way of the world is going when it comes to relaying information, who are focusing on the history of Wikipedia. I'm just leaving them a time-capsule suggestion. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have two reactions to that. (1) The discussion was collapsed, so I am officially not allowed to comment. So where would I "retract" such "accusations"? (2) It's quite obvious that what happened was a series of personal attacks. I reserve the right to defend myself (of course), so I must decline. Frankly, I don't understand why you would even want me to "retract" them. If you are worried that I will press my case—well, don't. I have thick skin and have dealt with personal attacks a lot throughout my life. So they don't actually bother me, so long as they don't get in the way of polite debate. Larry Sanger (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your response.

...so I am officially... That's incorrect. I suggest you do as Iljhgtn did [1], and strike out comments that could be seen as inflaming the situation.

It's quite obvious... It's not obvious to me at all. Regardless, the proper way to address such situations is to deescalate, which you partially did when asking some of the editors to stand down.

...so long as they don't get in the way of polite debate. I agree. This is why I contacted you. Those comments, the accusations of personal attacks, are not polite debate and are disruptive what polite debate there is. --Hipal (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've said my piece on this. Let's move on. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The talk page discussion has stopped cold, so perhaps your not addressing your comments was helpful. However, I don't think we can put aside the conflict of interest concerns. Would you like to discuss this? --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Nope. Unless you have a specific reason to raise the question, I take that as a personal attack. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's not a personal attack, and treating it like one is inappropriate.

From my familiarity with WP:COI and how it is enforced, I think you have a clear conflict of interest with Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This isn't the venue for that discussion. If you believe I have a COI, raise it at WP:COIN. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for rewriting your response.

I asked if you would like to discuss it, hoping something could be worked out without going to COIN. I'll notify you when the COIN discussion is started. --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Go ahead. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have been under the impression that you had another accounts from early Wikipedia days. How can I find them? --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Your impression is entirely mistaken. I have only ever had exactly one account, this one: Larry Sanger (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for clearing that up. I'd thought you'd have many more than 3000 edits. --Hipal (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

With all due respect, your Nine Theses essay appears well written in style but has outrageous context. With that said, your challenge on status quo of notability is... well... I'll summarize: your illustration of "notability" as inclusion-ism → deletion-ism... seems more simplistic than realistic, IMO. In my personal experience, I had to challenge "notabilities" of especially reality TV winners, like ones winning Survivor (American TV series) and ones now listed at list of The Great British Bake Off finalists. Certain winners are considered notable; others rightfully aren't. I wonder whether you meant especially including individual articles about individual reality TV winners, so to speak. Well, I had to deal with the real Dan Gheesling, who contacted me about his own notability. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure what your position about noteworthiness is, or what you think mine is... Larry Sanger (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry for being vague and too broad. I was reading particularly WP:THESIS9—the one proposing some "legislative process"—and WP:THESIS2—one wanting more competing articles. I was reading what you said about "notability" becoming held to some deletion-ist standards and all.

Well, my stance on "noteworthiness" is rigid... hopefully somewhat. I often follow WP:notability and WP:reliable sources, like some dutiful and rigid editor. Nonetheless, my mind has been focused on mostly popular culture and barely have enough time and energy to edit other controversial topics, if not WP:contentious topics. Thus, no opinion on "noteworthiness" itself generally, but my stance on "noteworthiness" of popular culture is... well, more rigid... well, borderline between inclusion-ism in some way and deletion-ism in almost rigid way.

Hopefully, this matter won't devolve into " 'notability' should be renamed" matter; that's been done to death.

Honestly, you mentioned various "cultures" and all, not to mention religions. Nonetheless, all you wrote there is, IMHO, very political.

Let's narrow down to and exemplify "noteworthiness" by discussing popular culture... especially reality television.

Frankly, I've yet to see you discuss popular culture and noteworthiness of such and people involved in such, especially in the last twenty-five years since Wikipedia was established. To put this another way, I admittedly don't know your stance on (noteworthiness of anything and anyone related to) popular culture because I've seen you discuss especially politics religions, other cultures, etc.

BTW, I first asked the co-founder Jimmy Wales about this, and... Well, you can look at his user talk page (and I bet you're watch-listing it, huh?). George Ho (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

George, but I don't think we're close enough to a specific question for me to respond usefully. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

All right, here's my specific question: how familiar are you with (noteworthiness of topics related to) popular culture? Sorry again if I was too vague on my early posts to you. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Still not specific enough. I know plenty about parts of pop culture from my generation. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

...All right, that's a fresh start, hopefully. Your generation.... I'm thinking 1970s, 1980s, and/or 1990s, right? Any other parts of your generation I missed? Also, mostly US-specific, right?

Also, specifics of pop culture: television, technology, music, novels, movies, sports, media, brands, etc... Too many examples, unfortunately. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

George, I don't have time to engage in this sort of back-and-forth. Get to your point, please. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

All right: Here's my point... hopefully: Why have you felt the need to question longstanding notability rules? Those rules may have been discussed over and over and may have been somewhat altered, but I've yet to see how "notability" is a very, very huge problem (compared to what should and shouldn't belong in this project). (削除) Also, why question the WP:what Wikipedia is not policy? (削除ここまで) George Ho (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC); edited, 21:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply ]

Oh, I see. So you were saying that only somebody ignorant of the sheer extent of pop culture fandom could be in favor of including it?

Basically, I'm an inclusionist. If Wikipedia can maintain a good article on a topic, and there are persons available to keep it up to date, then nobody should stop them. This is because knowledge is good and there's no reason to prevent it from being shared, apart from, I suppose, sheer snobbery.

Also, I made WP:NOT so I'm not sure what you're going on about there. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh... didn't know that (you made WP:NOT). George Ho (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

And BTW, if I were you, I'd be careful of words describing implicitly(?) deletions and mergers before saying the phrase that I don't wanna repeat here (diff ). You don't wanna attract too much attention of deletion-ists and merger-ists, do you? George Ho (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we're done then, George? Have a nice day. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why do guidelines like Wikipedia:Civility exist? If someone is nice, they’ll be civil unless they have a good reason otherwise, and if someone isn’t, they won’t pay attention to the guideline. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, WP:CIVIL applies especially to noobs. It's an excuse to get rid of new accounts, if they're hotheaded and out of line. Occasionally, old accounts will be disciplines for lack of civility, but this happens much less frequently.

It's also important to note that people will rage-bait you here, if they find it useful. Then they'll use your violation of WP:CIVIL as grounds to have you blocked.

Wish the news were better. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Is there any rule that disallows this bias? Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Incivility is not bias. See WP:NPOV for rules on bias. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I experimented with a few follow up questions and forgot what was already said. Is there any rule that disallows bias towards being quicker to block newcomers? Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think Wikipedia:Teahouse is a better place for this sort of question. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It is a function of how long you have been building good faith. The more you have, the more people will give you slack. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, but in that case there should be slack given to the newcomers. They shouldn’t have to drag a taut rope, because that means that someone must be restricting the rope from movement. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I hate to ask, but how often have you visited WT:civility? I can't believe you're giving a "newb vs experienced" answer, especially to those who asked. Do you think what you've answered has been 100% correct? George Ho (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

...Who are you talking to? Sorry, it’s late for me, and I’m having a hard time with the indents. My guess is you’re talking to Larry, who appears to be reporting (exasperatedly) on certain aspects of Wikipedia. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yup, talking to Larry. Aware that he co-founded Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I just wonder whether you believe in everything he said about the "Civility" policy. I hate to see newbies get disillusioned enough into breaking civility just because experienced editors are perceived (wrongly, IMO) as exempt or untouchable or whatever... and just because of Larry's answers to you. Speaking of "policy", you might wanna check out WP:PAG, which explains what policies, guidelines, and essays are. George Ho (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. My question, which he answered well, was "what is the purpose of this rule" for the same obvious reason that we don’t have a rule that says "don’t break rules." While the latter is obviously applicable, it is tautological as someone who breaks another rule willingly will certainly break the blanket one. Why was this rule created? Wikipedian12512 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

To clarify, he answered as to what it does, not what it is supposed to do. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Wikipedian12512: Can you continue asking about WP:civility at either my talk page or, preferably, wikipedia talk:civility? My answers will be more complicated than Larry's, IMO, but I promise I'll try to make my answers as concise as I can, if not short. George Ho (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I know what it’s for, I’m trying to glean why it was made. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I’m trying to glean why it was made.

That I can try to answer to the best of my abilities. Do you wanna continue discussing this there, there, ... or just here? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

George, I am not just a co-founder of Wikipedia, I am also a critic of Wikipedia; call me the conscience of Wikipedia. I am aware that pages exist that describe the official self-concept of the Wikipedia community. Wouldn't it be nice if they worked as advertised?

I would actually direct User:Wikipedian12512 to this (brand new) essay: User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/Welcome to Wikipedia (with warnings). As you will see there, quite to the contrary, I advise new Wikipedians to go out of their way to be unfailingly civil, or else they will be blocked, especially if they are not on the right side of a controversy involving anyone sufficiently powerful to get the newbie blocked. I am not advising anybody to be uncivil because established accounts so often are. Indeed, I'm criticizing those accounts.

Larry Sanger (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. Also, have you gotten so used to essays that your response to some questions is to make a new one?

Also, nice job with that essay! Wikipedian12512 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, the essay wasn't a response to you. It just happened to have an answer. It's written to help those who want to join WPID. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

All right. Please be aware that Draft:Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was moved from the mainspace [Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)]. BTW, that draft is in a very, very bad and needs a huge reset from scratch, IMHO. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's ridiculous that that long article was left in the Draft: namespace. It should be put in the main namespace and fixed. In any event, this has little to do with the WikiProject. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

How about you do it Larry! It would be a good way to get back to creating main space content. Also, length is not a valid reason to take something out of the draft namespace. Be the change you want to see. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What Kingsmasher678 suggested... I'd (re)think twice before moving the twice-rejected draft back to mainspace if I were you, frankly. But... Well, the WP:AFC optional may be optional, but it might be good for someone who hasn't contributed to articles yet or for a very, very long time. Or... Alternatively, you can export that draft to Wikiversity via request at v:WV:Import and then make/create original thoughts there, though you've yet to make one contribution to Wikiversity (more about Wikiversity here). George Ho (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Contrary to what Larry says, Wikipedia admins don't block on sight. They usually indef vandalism-only accounts. But for accounts which have a plausible claim to improve Wikipedia, they try warnings, temporary blocks, page blocks, partial blocks, and even unblock indeffed users. So, yup, admins seek to reduce nuisance, but don't indef newbies for unpopular opinions (exceptions: racism, child grooming, outing). tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I mean, let's agree to disagree. I've encountered far too many examples of people blocking for completely trivial reasons, over the years. Larry Sanger (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree. I’ve gone out of my way to find blocked accounts, and here’s what I see:

A well meaning newbie doesn’t understand all the rules and makes 3-5 MOS mistakes.

An admin blocks them 1-5 days after they begin their account, for "vandalism." The block is usually for a short amount of time.

The newbie might then give enough unblock requests that they are unable to give another. All are declined.

The newbie makes a new account to try to learn policies. Both accounts get indef blocked by the next CU.

The newbie still has not read a single guideline, except maybe the vandalism one once they are accused of such. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have literally never seen this happen and not be the subject of an ANI post. Frankly @Wikipedian12512, you don't have the tenure here to make informed sweeping generalizations about the effects and consequences of our processes. I make MOS mistakes constantly, and have never been so much as poked on my talk page about it. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I should have made this more clear: I am using MOS mistakes as an example. I’ve seen that, and also usage of "unreliable" sources for trivial facts, and a few others which I don’t have enough time to explain. Also, maybe they are posted at ANI. I stop reading once I get to the sock puppetry block. Maybe they get unblocked and become a good editor! I don’t want to kill Shroedinger’s Cat. But the point is that there should be better explanations of things done wrong, not just generic templates.

Also, the "poking on the talk pages" affects mainly newbies. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Mr. Sanger. I'm curious if xtools is accurate for you, or if the tool perhaps doesn't work right for accounts as old as yours. Xtools says you've made a little over 3,000 edits and this is the list of articles you've edited. Is that correct? Thanks, Levivich (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Dunno, don't especially care Larry Sanger (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Does around 3000 sound right though? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not sure, to be honest. I don't know how many edits I made in the first year. Lots and lots. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why not? George Ho (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why would or should I know the number of edits? I think the important metrics are new information added; perhaps in kb; and, of course, whether it is really helpful and high-quality, which is harder to quantify. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That’s fascinating, as you have made less than 40 mainspace edits in the last 20 years! That’s not much new info. Maybe you should contribute a few more kbs of text in main space. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Have you yet browsed through list of categories seen in WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles? They have articles for you to read. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Actually, not email exactly, but new messages on Mattermost. It's about a lingering doxxing situation right on this very encyclopedia where unfortunately one functionary had stonewalled an attempt to resolve the situation. Therefore your help is needed. Thanks.~2026-28139-61 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

OK Larry Sanger (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! Are you planning to move User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity to projectspace soon? The guide on WikiProjects clarifies that they should reside in the project namespace, with user sandboxes being dedicated to draft proposals. Since the project seems quite well-organized already, I am wondering if you are planning to do so – if that is the case, don't hesitate to submit your WikiProject proposal this way!

While it may seem like a technicality, having our projects in projectspace (instead of userspace) is necessary for a few reasons. The greater latitude given to userspace material prevents them from involving the same level of community accountability, which directly conflicts with the influence that WikiProjects may have. This especially matters as WikiProjects don't have a single owner, while, by definition, material in userspace has one. Without that level of community oversight, delicate policy issues like the question of canvassing may be exacerbated in frustration, as users may feel like they can't have equal voices in how the project should operate. Also, listed projects are more easily discoverable: especially for a project focused on intellectual diversity, reaching to a wider range of editors from across the community is ideal if you want a thriving project.

To clarify, this isn't about you or your project's specific goals! I've already encountered a similar situation before (and, in fact, talked about it during my request for adminship), and it is really a matter of defusing tensions by making things more open whenever possible. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 09:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I haven't detected any tensions yet, for what it's worth. We're in start-up mode right now. I haven't been posting the PolicyScanner daily, but I intend to do so when we're launched (and when I'm working on it daily). I want to start doing that for at least a week before I make a proposal. It's not actually permitted to move a WikiProject to the project namespace until the WikiProject is approved, so that'll be the next step. So, as you can see, I am moving slowly and deliberately, proving that the WikiProject has legs, activity, and support. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to be notified when you make the proposal. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the way to do that is to add the relevant WikiProject page to your watchlist? Larry Sanger (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is too important for your dirty laundry. Your rightward turn is the exact opposite of what the rest of us here stand for. Someone who has so often demonstrated just how much he loathes all of us here—and our work—is hardly a credible champion of workers' rights. Let's not kid ourselves: once again, this is nothing more than petty sniping driven by purely personal motives. Please take this crap over to Tucker Carlson. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Marcus, dear Marcus, exactly how is this quote by LS dirty laundry: "Agreed with all those saying the WMF should spend its money to support editors in the most impactful ways. Giving them the technical tools they ask for is just such a way." Seems accurate and fresh to me. By the way Larry, today the 1,000th English Wikipedia editor reached the 100,000 edit level (and Marcus has his share of edits all across the board, thanks), an event which deserves a toast to you, Jimbo, and all Wikipedians. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Personal attacks and aspersions now? How helpful. toby ^{in solidarity} 14:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Marcus, this wasn't necessary, and accomplishes exactly nothing. I note that your comment is a violation of WP:NPA. I won't report this, but I will encourage you to do better. You can feel free to remove the whole thread from this page (my user talk page) if you agree with me that it was ill-judged and pointless. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You can feel free to remove the whole thread from this page (my user talk page) if you agree with me that it was ill-judged and pointless.

Marcus can't per WP:USERTALKSTOP and WP:TALKO, can he? Indeed, two other people (besides me) responded, and I'm uncertain whether they are okay with this. Why not you instead, Mr Sanger? George Ho (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

While the first doesn't apply (since I gave him permission), the second does seem right, so I withdraw what I said. Marcus would need Randy's and Toby's permission as well, I suppose. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Marcus could ask for Larry to take it down, and Larry could, but having to do that seems much too bureaucratic, considering Larry gave permission. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Of course, and I think it would be wise to remove a claim that has no basis in fact. The linked quote says the opposite of what Marcus Cyron claimed, so maybe Marcus read it wrong or let his personal opinion about the political climate affect his perception of what the quote said? In any case, it was an inaccurate description of the quote in question, and removing this section may make the most sense. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, I think I'll leave it all up. But I will ask you all to move on. Thanks Larry Sanger (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

How are you doing, Larry Sanger? ~2026-33778-68 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Great. Busy with many things... Larry Sanger (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Have you read this thread and the other page about the OP yet? George Ho (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No. But, considering how many admins need blocking themselves, I'm not caring that much, TBH. Moreover, considering how much other crap I let remain on my talk page, I can hardly make exceptions now can I. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage