Wikipedia talk:Centijimbos

1. Reply to all your talk page messages on YOUR own talk page! Not only does this help keep conversations coherant, it ensures that users keep your page watched... at least until they receive their reply, so... -- œ^™ 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Don't reply right away! Wait a while, if you always answer your talk page messages immediately users won't bother to watchlist your page. But sometimes they'll still unwatch your page after you do reply, so... -- œ^™ 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Only give them half-answers! Keep them waiting for more: Tell them you will research the subject and you'll "get back to them on that" ... But then they may assume that you'll be contacting them on their talk page, so... -- œ^™ 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Place {{Usertalkback|me=watched|you=other}} on your talk page! With the parameters set as shown this handy lil notice will actually command all users to place your page on their watchlist and to always respond on your talk page! -- œ^™ 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Never edit your userpage, and try never to edit your talk page either except to archive once every month or so! By responding on their talk page instead of your own, your userpage will only show up once in watchlists, making it less likely to be seen and removed from watchlists. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Spam Jimbo's talk page daily with frequent comments in lengthy discussions...and the value of a cJ will fall! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   thats evil Aschoolaccount (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any more tips feel free to add them to the list. -- œ^™ 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're an evil man, OE. —

^~talk~ 14:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I would assume that this reply as well as the recommendations above hold a certain amount of humour, however, I still think that the recommendations are inappropriate, particularly that replies should be delayed intentionally and that incomplete answers should be given. lmaxmai 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if Phaedriel could be included into the list. She is not active any more, but not suprisingly for her case, she is still watched by several hundred editors till now. She would hit some 7 centijimbos :) I think. I do not know, if anyone is required to add only himself, and/or he must create some monobook edit, to make the tool include some centijimbo counts (othewise it seems it just counts watcher not centijimbos). If you would see my comment not un-substantiated, should we include Phaedriel as well :) ? She cannot addherself obviously (wonder whther she's OK?), I do not know, whether it preclude her inclusion. --Reo ⁺ 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair, but if she requests to be taken off... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page should link to a definition, as most things do. Hyacinth (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move to "active watchers" since Jimbo's watcher list is now more than one-half "inactive"? 1127/2626.

Can the measuring tool be changed to reflect "active watchers" so we can all move up a bit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question, but where did you get the "active watchers" from? Worm^TT · (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New tool at "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/watcher.py?page=" gives total watchers and active watchers (presumably those who have logged in during the prior month)Collect (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that

I'm afraid I don't see the point. We don't update their "I have x edits" boxes, so why update this one? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the centiJimbo's a

Je vous invite à me parler) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I still don't see the point, but I doubt anyone'll object too strongly. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list had to be manually updated, apparently. It is a pain in the ass to do this. Can some bot wizard not create the single-minded Centijimbobot? If not: why not? Doc talk 11:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me, but would recommend it gets requested

where the bot wizards hang out Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I just wanted to express my deep disappointment that no user or page is anywhere close to having even one kiloJimbo. This is even more disheartening than the fact my personal talk page is likely in the nanoJimbo range. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is due to inflation. We need to create "the new centiJimbo", like with pesos. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged as historical as it hasn't been updated in a year or so, so the data is totally useless. I didn't want anyone to think the information was current or useful as it currently stands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, you may have your dates wrong. It was last updated in March by the bot, and quite a few times since... transcluded from elsewhere Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The totals can't be verified by MZMcBride's tool anymore. Click any total and you get this.[1] Annoying. Fixable? Doc talk 09:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a discussion elsewhere, I had though the last update was in 2014 and it wasn't getting fixed, but if you have better info, by all means, revert. No offense will be taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great concept, but you have the sign of the exponent wrong. 'centi' should be 'hecto', 'mili' should be 'mega', etc. See Metric_prefix. DavidRideout (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, a centiJimbo is correctly 1/100th. A hectojimbo would be very large indeed, and almost completely useless. IntegralPython (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a centralized template {{Wikipedia:Centijimbos/counter}} to keep number of watchers of Jimbo's user page. This should will simplify updating calculations by avoiding updating Jimbo's watch counters in ten places separately: five at Wikipedia:Centijimbos, two at userbox {{User Centijimbo calculator}}, and three at userbox {{User:Audacity/centijimbo}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the current calculations are not working right. For example, Muboshgu has more centijimbos than I (he has 364 watchers, I have 207), but he is listed below me on this list. I know this is far from important or useful but still, it seems broken. Andre🚐 17:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to User:Theo's Little Bot/centijimbo, then yes it's off. Does it need to be manually updated? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, it turns out that Theo's Little Bot was deactivated. I wonder if Lua or the template wikitext module engine thingy has a sort function. Andre🚐 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]