Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:24, 31 January 2008 view sourceMitrebox (talk | contribs)1,350 edits →Controversial topic X!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:01, 25 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{usercomment}}
{{noindex}}
</div>
{{Stb}}
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Press
| subject = talkpage
| author = Matthew Gault
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
| org = ]
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
| date = 8 December 2021
| quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(10d)
|maxarchivesize = 250K
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 32
| counter = 252
|algo = old(2d)
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=2|target=./Archive 32|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}}
__TOC__
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
{{-}}
{{archives|small=yes}}

== ] ==

For posterity:
*
*]



== Scientology article ==

Scientology definition page is constantly being vandalized and manipulated by the cult followers. Any time a word "cult" shows up there, it gets erased, Same with simple facts about the workings of this organization. I hope the founder of Misplaced Pages can somehow protect this article so that it is not misleading or manipulative. If Scientology is not a cult, than what is? Or should we get rid of that word entirely...
Any educated person with information about Scientology - it's practices, its workings, manipulations etc know what this cult is about. Let's not kid ourselves here. And the encyclopedia should be about information, knowledge, transparency - not manipulation, deletion of certain facts and informations.
Misplaced Pages is a very well known and popular online encyclopedia, lots of kids read it, it should be informative, not misleading and luring into some cults like Scientology. All the info on this cult is online, all the historical info on religions and cults as well, and in spite of that this particular entry here is constantly evolving into a nice little promo for this brainwashing racket. Some fact should be placed under the definition of Scientology - after all the encyclopedia is about informing, educating people not withholding information, isn't it? Just as this nice sentence on Jimmy's homepage states: "Free knowledge for free minds". Scientology is certainly not free, it keeps it's papers and procedures secretive and the same is going on on its definition page on Misplaced Pages. Gradually crucial info is being erased by some very active individuals. Kind regards --] (]) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:As pretty much the only Scientologist currently editing, I have to laugh. The only "very active individual" in the Scientology articles is a prolific critic that is interested in "constantly evolving" the series "into a nice" exposition of his POV and evolving WikiNews "into a nice little promo" for a bunch of Anon cyberterrorists (see ]). --] (]) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Dear JustaHulk :) since you are obviously biased here, and as we all know the cults main point is to manipulate the minds of its members, I do not think you should be able to edit the article or being taken seriously. And do not meddle with the facts, you are pretending not to know what has been going on with this particular entry for years on end or you are very new to Misplaced Pages. Either way you seem to be kinda oblivious to some simple facts. I hope you can educate yourself a little bit, read about this organisation and stop being manipulated by the cult. I wish you the best. --] (]) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Pitdog, the self-imposed mind control of ill-informed bigotry is much more likely, more prevalent, and more damaging than any shifts in point-of-view that a Scientologist may experience by virtue of studying Scientology. --] (]) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Please tell my why you are mentioning some ill-informed bigotry. What do you know about me and my knowledge, my experiences? You are biased, if you have an some sense of fair play and justice, you should see that you shouldn't take part in editing an article about something in which you participate, especially a cult which manipulates its members. Read some info I provided above, then discuss. From me: over and out. I am not fair game, I will not further waste time talking to someone, who perhaps is manipulating the public forum. Just have some respect for the readers here and admit: as someone involved in the cult you are not able to make clear judgments about the organization. Your views are certainly not neutral, because you are a Scientologist. Scientology through its primitive mind controlling practices is a very dangerous organization. The "lessons", or auditing those are very old, simple and potentially very harming exercises for a victims psyche. Repetitions, prolonged monotonous sessions, hatred towards sciences like psychiatry, medicine in general - now we an start talking about bigotry ad doing harm to societies, to individuals... Cheers --] (]) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I will not waste space here attempting to disabuse you of your ill-informed and bigoted (not to mention banal) misconceptions. Yes, people that know a subject may have a different opinion of it than those that do not and I guess you could call that "bias". --] (]) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::You are being offensive, throwing names around. Another typical cult tactic (this particular cult) - attack, fair game. Please explain what is ill informed about simple very well known facts, pick one - secrecy of the cult, money grabbing, all the L,R.Hubbard "teachings" which are basically drunk man' blabberings (or am I mistaken, correct me and show the wisdom of that con man lol). And again lets get back to the main point - where is NPOV if an active member of the cult is editing the page?? Be fair, have some dignity and respect for the readers and do not involve yourself in creating a biased, misinforming Misplaced Pages entry on Scientology. Have you read the sources I provided? A simple question. Read and understood I mean. --] (]) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Trust me, I am extremely familiar with ALL sides of this issue. And it is your ill-informed, one-sided blatherings that are truly offensive. And readers here will be glad to hear that I am done rising to your trolling. --] (]) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology should be ridiculed in accordance with ], because virtually everyone agrees it's ridiculous. <font size="--] (]) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please don't say things that are unnnecessarily inflammatory, and may offend other editors. --] <small>]</small> 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

* ''as Cult is the total cultural aspects of a religion, as they are distinguished from others.'' In theory its can be applied to all religions equally, what the problem is that "cult" is perceived in the negative when added to a religion as such the use of "cult" should be exercised with caution where the term is used it use should be clearly inline with ]. In general respect should be given to the wording of all religious articles and terms that have such extreme negative perceptions should be avoided in the general writing of articles and left to the quotes of experts on the subject. ]] 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not difficult to find operative definition of cults by those who have studied the cult phenomenon. In general, they focus on absolutism, deceptive recruiting practices, exorbitant charges, discouragement of thinking for oneself, demonization of critics and those who leave the cult, etc. This is the way the word "cult" is actually used by literate people. By these criteria, Scientology is a cult. All that would be necessary to satisfy the "neutral point of view" criterion would be to say that Scientology has been described by experts in new religious movements (who could be quoted)as a cult. ] (]) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::So can I put some expert quotes on the subject of this cult there? So that the article is not misleading and becomes a bit more informative? Cult implies manipulation, mind control- yes, it is a negative term, that is precisely why it applies to Scientology. If this is not a cult, than what is I ask? Kind regards --] (]) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Cult doesnt mean "manipulation" "mind control" to use the term to imply such violates ]. Scientology is a religion if you have issues with it then editing an article to push your POV is doing exactly what you are complaining about. Something about "let he who is free of sin cast the stone"... ]] 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: We must be talking about a different word with different definition. So what a cult means in your opinion? The saying about the stone and sin - what it has to do with facts? Being neutral means no manipulation, no withholding information. Pretending that Scientology is not a cult is like pretending that right now theres peace and democracy in Iraq. I see no point in further discussion on this level. Scientology is a cult if you have issues with it that its your right to be misinformed, but why misinform the general public? You mention being objective, and yet the page is being actively edited by a member or members of the cult. Where is objectivity in that? Please do not twist the facts, it is pointless. ". By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." a quote form NPOV article. Regards --] (]) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: You're talking about a very loaded word, with multiple definitions and connotations. Cult can mean any religious sect you don't like. And it doesn't even need to be religious. You could all benefit by reading the Misplaced Pages article on ]s, which is really quite excellent. And by the way, the proposed psychological definition fits the Navy SEALS or the Marine Corps a lot better than it does Scientology. Take people who are young or otherwise mentally vulnerable, then break-em-down, then build-em-up, and the finally use them for whatever purpose you like, is an old, old human process. ]]]] 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The world cult can be used to mean "any religious sect you don't like." However, that's not the neutral or objective definition of ], and ] ''is'' a cult that it is ridiculed by virtually all '''''neutral''''' parties. Supporting the treatment of Scientology as a potential "religion" that faces "prejudice" or "persecution" by "anti-Scientologist bigots" is a violation of ], ], and ]. The claim that the neutral definition of cult applies to religions and the Navy SEALS or USMC may be a perfectly logical inference, which may be true. However, it is also ]. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 08:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully submit that this is not the proper place to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of Scientology? Nor is the proper place anywhere on Misplaced Pages, or any of its sister projects. ''All'' users with strong points of view about a subject, be they approval or disapproval, are advised to be ], lest they unknowingly introduce bias. - ] (]) 08:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you think that an article on the Flat Earth Society should make no mention of the fact that it's a scientific consensus that they're completely wrong? ] (]) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:This is actually very very simple. Chardish is 100% correct. And anyone who says that NPOV demands that we call Scientology a cult has really completely, utterly and totally missed the point of NPOV as dramatically as possible. On any controversial issue, Misplaced Pages must not take a stand. It is certainly fine (and necessary for NPOV) to discuss that reputable sources have raised the question of whether Scientology is a cult. It may also be fine, depending on what the source says, to say that the source has "alleged" or "claimed" that it is. Or that many commentators have. Or whatever might be the case. But Misplaced Pages itself can have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.--] (]) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not so black-and-white as it may appear. Is O.J. Simpson a murderer? Common sense says he is. Are we not to be allowed to draw obvious conclusions? Clearly, the Scientology article needs to be protected from self-serving edits by Scientologists. ] (]) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:''Every'' article needs to be protected from self-serving edits by ''every and anyone''. "Common sense" can only be included if it is referenced by a reliable third party source. ] (]) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim agreed with Chardish's remarks above, which are pretty reasonable. The way Jim phrased it was a bit odd, but since he agreed with Chardish, I wouldn't try to read into it. Also, to clarify: My original comment above was facetious, lol. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:Not oddly phrased at all. At the risk of, etc. Jimbo is agreeing with Chardish regarding the responsibilities of editors, esp. editors with strong POVs and Jimbo is also commenting on a different though related point of what Misplaced Pages articles should look like as regards appearing to take a position themselves as opposed to clearly setting out the positions of the various sides based on reputable sources. Now ''that'' is oddly worded! --] (]) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Native Son ==

Since you are the second most famous native son of Alabama, ] being the first, are there any streets (buildings? state constitutional amendments?) named after you? Huntsville(Madison)? , Tuscaloosa?, ''that other school''? --] (]) 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:Is this a joke? You're joking, right? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::Name somebody from Alabama more famous than Jimmy? There are no presidents. So that only leaves ]? He was born in Germany --] (]) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Possible candidates are ], ], ], ], ], and ], for a start. And that's just off the top of my head. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::And there's also George Wallace.--] (]) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:Oh and I'm more alarmed that you list ''Forest Gump'' as being the most famous than I am at your assertion that Jimmy is the second-most. At least Jimmy is real, and justly famous. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::People KNOW Forrest Gump. Helen Keller? "Oh the blind chick on the quarter", Rosa Parks? You mean the OutKast song?, Hank Aaron? that dude whose record was broken by steroid BB, and people are more likely to know Attaicus Finch than Harper Lee.--] (]) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:Forest Gump isn't even a native son of Alabama any more than ] is a native son of Mississippi, and I find it extraordinary that anyone would think otherwise. Thanks, ] 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::Tom sawyer is from Missouri. (hey whats this? why I think its some of that '''Extraordinary''' that going around)--] (]) 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::La la la. --] (]) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:I, being born in Alabama, find the Forrest Gump sentiment prevalent. I usually tell such people about our "law" keeping women barefoot until they are 15, and am frequently met with, "really?" :-) ] (]) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::When I travel I always get the "but you don't have an accent" statement. I retort with "Well we only do that for the tourists..." Then breaking into the most exaggerated drawl ".. not so much for their entertainment, but to keep them from sticking around too long."--] (]) 01:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Mitrebox, is that joke CC licensed? ...cause I shore do wanna use it... ;-)--] (]) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Jimbo, I think thats one of very few jokes I ever came up with on my own. And I tell you what... I'd sure be mighty proud if anyone ever used it to get a laugh.--] (]) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Well when I heard Jimbo on the radio he certainly sounded like he had a strong accent, but perhaps that is merely my British ears. Thanks, ] 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::::My Midwestern ears hear no accent after listening to him speak for an hour. ] (]) 08:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:], most influential Alabamian of the 20th century. ] 05:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Request to Wikimedia Foundation ==

Recently, Korean Misplaced Pages comunity decide upon Fair use.

Korea Misplaced Pages approve to use "Fair use works".

According to Wikimedia Licensing policy Resolution Article 6,

"The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it." (http://wikimediafoundation.org/Resolution:Licensing_policy)

On the basis of Wikimedia Licensing policy Resolution Article 6, the Korean Misplaced Pages Comunity request Wikimedia Foundation to assist to make Korean Wikipedian EDP. -- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:It's wrong. Korean Misplaced Pages didn't approve fair use. It was polling without consensus. --] (]) 11:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I write other opinion at following. (See: '''Today, I am blocked''') -- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== NPOV, Objectivity, and Objectivism. ==

According to ], ] says nothing of objectivity. "Rather, the policy is simply that we should ''describe'' disputes, not ''engage'' in them."

Yes, but shouldn't we ''describe'' disputes ''objectively''? See here.

You're an ] and the idea of ] and ] seems to be implied by Misplaced Pages policy, but it's hidden behind the euphemisms, "fair and equal assessment", "fairly and without bias" and "fair, analytical description." (See ])

Is Misplaced Pages policy or philosophy compatible with either ] or ]?

I can't help but think that a lack of regard for ] and ] in policy encourages ]. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:I've never thought of it as Misplaced Pages's job to prefer either ] or ], ] or ]. My understanding is that the job is just to try to describe and explain, reliably, the different philosophies and the arguments that have been made for each, and let people decide for themselves what's best for them. Best, --] (]) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tthere is no such thing as "Misplaced Pages" apart from ''individual'' editors. See ].

When you say "reliably," this again seems like a euphemism and begs the question Is it ''reliable'' to have a conscious disregard for individual critical thinking, reason, and objectivity when verifying neutral sources? Is ] compatible with ]? <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a problem with a specific article? Best, --] (]) 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No. That seems like an accusation of bad-faith, so I was about to say, "]." But for the moment I will ] and simply say, "Thank you for offering to help me." Since you're a helpful person, you could start by helping the person above with the problems they're facing on ]. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I started developing a full-fledged toolbar for Misplaced Pages. I don't normally go for toolbars since they're so invasive, but this one isn't, and with all the time I spend on Misplaced Pages it's a nice convenience. I think this has the potential to be a good promotional arm of Misplaced Pages, if it's developed right -- the same way as the Yahoo and Google toolbars promote use of those sites. I was wondering about possibly getting the developers involved. I'm only a beginner at this and can't develop it to its full potential on my own. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''01:40, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

== Today, I am blocked. ==

I am korean wikipedian. I use it 4 years.

Today, I am recommaned to admin by other user. and I am bolcked permenatly.

I don't agree it. I don't break the rule.

How to solve this problem?

I've said to the Korean wiki admins dictatorship.

They recommand thier people to admin.

And, someone who said to admin's mistake is blocked. they have many supporters. all attack one user. one user fight soly. And finally, admin blocked him because major users want.

I am the MOST famous fair-use suppoter in kowiki.

All admins disagree fair use. All.

Recently, fair-use policy is passed. this is 3rd poll.

before 1st poll, many people discussed it.

I request 1st poll at 2006 year. disapprove.

I collact fiar use agree users. Finally, agree users are more than disgree users.

I request 2st poll at 2007 year. disapprove. agree number=disagree number. According to the korean constitutional spirit, yes=no is dissapproved.

other user request 3rd poll at 2007 year Dec. Finally, approved, recently.

And they disagree the 3rd poll's result.

And today, fianlly I am blocked permenatly. :(

I think that all korean admins are blocked. Their power miss use are too much.

But, I think that this opinion is not approved. no admins? oops. They have many fans.

I understand. :(

GOODBYE. -- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please don't be trolling anymore. you never can be helped out of ko.wp. i am really sorry to owner of this talk page but '''Jimbo Wales is your god but not wikimedia's''' --]] 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== WikiNews is a crack "harlot" (someone didn't like ]) ==

]
] is for sale to any POV-pusher with a dime and the time. The admins and editors over there pimp her out for the lulz. They have allowed our own ] (not my words) Anti-Scientologist ] to turn her into the “official voice of Anonymous”; our own little ''Anti-Scientology News''. We get an article a day, usually a “Featured Story”, on the ] and the ] of this barely notable effort.<br><br>You know, I could really care less if some group of /l/osers ''(i.e. Anonymous)'' wants to go after the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology is a big boy and can take care of itself. I don’t even really care much about what degree of success they may have in making trouble for the Church of Scientology. Scientology is just a bunch of people doing something they believe in to better themselves and others and no amount of DDoS attacks or “Honk If You Hate Scientology” signs is going to change that or even impact it one whit.<br><br>Nah, what frosts my ass is that this group, this one right here; a group that I respect, a group that really really should know better, allows a propagandist (and, at 5000-6000 edits per month, likely a full-time paid propagandist) to take over one of their projects. Now you know how I really feel. Oh, and if someone would be so kind as to inform Cirt that he is mentioned here, it would be nice. He has expressly asked me to not post to his page. --] (]) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:For Sale! I'm going to search my couch cushions for change, gotta outbid that one Ron Paul supporter out there.--] (]) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::'''Jimbo''': This has been discussed at length. Please see multiple comments from Admins and editors that weighed in on this and found no fault with my editing/article writing, both , and . I think no matter if 100 Admins weigh in and say that my actions are appropriate, {{user|JustaHulk}} may simply continue to disruptively push the issue in any location that he can. Thanks, ] (]) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Jimbo, please also note that I did ''not'' write the second ''Wikinews'' article cited above by ]/]. That was actually started by a new user to ''Wikinews'', and then worked on by {{user|DragonFire1024}}, an Admin on ''Wikinews''. ] (]) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
"First of all, let's get one thing straight, crack is cheap. I make too much money to ever smoke crack." - ] to ]. Also ] to ]. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::We're talkin' cheap here. --] (]) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Getting back to the ] statement, as long as we're going to be using coarse language, might I ask if Wikinews is a recreational drug user? My question is: does wikinews use drugs specifically to enable certain sex acts, namely anal sex ? Is there a godwins law for crack whores?--] (]) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so ''that's'' what ] looks like in our little wikiworld. Thanks for the demonstration! >;-o) ] (]) 17:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Nah. This is what a fair-minded but pissed-off editor looks like in our little wikiworld. Thanks for the bigotry. --] (]) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
<center>
{| class="noprint" border="0" style=" text-align:left; padding: 0; margin: 0; background-color:transparent"
|<div style="float:left;margin-right:1em">]
</div>''When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.''</div>
<div style="text-align:right; margin-right:10px"> —''']'''</div>
|}
</center>
::] (]) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, if you think this is "Fair Game", then you can waddle over and join the "woefully ignorant of the subject area". --] (]) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm getting angry... You don't want to see what I look like... when I'm angry."<br>
-]

See ]. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, well. I was for a reason. But I am fine now, thank you. --] (]) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Colorful but on a serious note, there was a AN/I thread about a known pov pusher migrating to WikiNews a few days ago, so there is some basis to the argument. - ] 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I cannot tell a lie. T'was I started that thread. It has gotten worse. --] (]) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::In fairness, ] has contributed 5 ], 4 ], 17 ], and 17 ] entries. I would be glad to pitch in by creating a new article on a subject where Scientologists take pride, and submitting it for DYK. Please contact me at my user talk to provide sources. Let's keep this a positive atmosphere: if an editor is making outstanding contributions that earn community accolades as neutral and balanced, then please make that an incentive to raise the bar on your own contributions. With respect, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, we shouldn't react to anti-Scientology POV pushing by supporting pro-Scientology POV pushing to "balance" it. That's ''not'' ]. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Except that, whatever else I may have been accused of, rightly or wrongly, "pro-Scientology POV pushing" is generally not one of them. I am one fair-minded S.O.B. --] (]) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Zenwhat, it isn't appropriate to cast aspersions upon the neutrality of work that consistently passes FAC and GAC. Nor is it appropriate to characterize my offer as POV-pushing. Please ] and bear in mind that every religion has strong points and weak points. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By flaming and shouting expletives about a rampant anti-Scientology cabal that secretly controls Wikinews behind the scenes, I think JustaHulk has pretty firmly established his own bad faith. In response to his remarks, you suggested that we publish and feature an article on Wikinews on "a subject where Scientologists take pride" in order to "keep this a positive atmosphere". <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 23:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:If JustaHulk wants to create a WikiNews article, he's entirely free to do so, and Durova is free to help him - that is the point of WikiNews, after all. As long as the resulting article complies with WikiNews' policies, then it could be used. I personally don't agree with JustaHulk's accusations (I don't see anything wrong with Cirt's editing in this area), but if he thinks there's some systemic imbalance that he can correct by creating an article for WikiNews, well, more power to him. ] (]) 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::At about the same time Zenwhat posted this here I posted to Zenwhat's user talk. To summarize, someday an editor may become active who consistently writes featured articles and good articles about Catholic sex scandals. If each of those articles meets community approval as treating its subject with fair and neutral balance, then the editor really can't be labeled a POV-pusher. The effect I hope that would have would be to inspire other editors to improve material on topics where fair and balanced coverage would shed a better light on the organization. There's a wikiproject for saints' biographies, for instance, and I don't see anything inherently objectionable about that. The difference from a netural editing perspective is that one religion is older and more established than the other. The spirit of my offer is to focus on content, not the contributor. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone that claims that anti-Scientology sentiment is not rampant on the 'net, on Misplaced Pages, and on WikiNews, is either unbelievably misinformed or delusional. I make the same point over and over again but it continues to be misunderstood. The point is that, on Misplaced Pages, despite rampant anti-Scientology sentiment, we also have a vast number of influential and fair-minded editors that can hold someone like the editor I mention in check. And let me make this very clear. This editor is by no means your run-of-the-mill POV-pusher. This is a very professional effort, averaging at least 5000-6000 edits per month, paying his dues, and trying like mad to stay out of the spotlight - the spotlight I have a tendency to wield. Yes, Durova, he pays his dues, and I have no problem with his efforts in FAC and GAC where everything he does is scrutinized and he toes the line. I can point at plenty of examples in less-travelled articles where his "freedom of expression" is more evident. But you know, I can take care of those myself when I find them. So he and I had a there for quite a while. What blew that peace out of the water was this WikiNews thing. The problem there is, to put it in the kindest terms, simply not enough eyes, not enough editors, and no-one that seems able to say. "err Cirt, we have had an article a day on this for almost a week now, I think we may be overdoing it just a bit." Let's take a look at :<blockquote>Wilhelm (i.e. Cirt) will most happily write you a new article every time the "group" makes another YouTube announcement and/or every time another two or three media outlets make a brief mention, ignoring the fact that the media outlets are different each time and are not each one overplaying this and ignoring the fact that each media outlet is pretty much repeating the same info you have already covered. Let's see if Xenu is guiding my ]. --JustaHulk 12:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)</blockquote>Yup, that looks about right. Am I really the only one that thinks that WikiNews might want to exert some editorial '''self'''-control??? That maybe it is not in the best interests of anyone but critics of Scientology to give so much coverage, in what would like to be an influential medium, to a bunch of troublemakers? Am I really the only one? Or is it just because it is Scientology that the trouble-makers are targeting and who really likes Scientology anyway. Is that it? --] (]) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:No. NPOV reporting on a controversial topic is ''not'' POV pushing. It's reporting. What I find objectionable is your systematic attempts to stifle freedom of the press. Does '''''anyone''''' else here concur with JustaHulk's accusations and tactics? I haven't noticed any support for this diatribe. ] (]) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::99% of all human existence doesn't care about Scientology or anti-Scientology. Looking at the Anymouse vs Regime game it looks like the same guy is playing everybody. Reminiscent of an old 2000 video game Deus Ex Invisible war, some of the language I saw is identical to ingame propaganda videos. Hilarious really--] (]) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
99%? What you mean there are 60 million followers? Methinks not. Thanks, ] 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::JustaHulk, twice now you've proposed that Cirt is a "paid propagandist". Do you have anything more than an edit count to support that very serious accusation? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cirt is a brilliant contributer on Wikinews. And because of his help, Wikinews saw the biggest ratings ''ever''. He follows policy and as stated before, anyone can write anything, if it follows policy. More than one article one a subject or whatever is not POV. Its called reporting. And whatever someone sees as news, and again, follows policy, then its published. So whether you like Scientology or not makes no difference to me, but its not going to stop articles unless you can prove to us your accusations. You have harassed me, Wikinews, Misplaced Pages, and now Mr. Wales. If you have no proof, then stop the harassment. period. ] (]) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::DragonFire1024, you sure "harass" easy. I would wager that Jimbo is made of sterner stuff and I sure as hell don't think my posting my concerns could possibly "harass" Misplaced Pages or WikiNews - that would take, IDK, maybe ]s? Anywho, I am done tilting at this particular windmill and have posted my final comment on the matter (not a ], though that would be in keeping with the topic). Cheers. --] (]) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Why is it so difficult to remain anonymous on Misplaced Pages? ==

It just seems contradictory to me, considering how this site's users are supposed to be held to standards like "assuming good faith," and "maintaining neutral point-of-view." I <i>don't want</i> to be a bootlicker, and I don't want to accrue bootlickers of my own, but I don't know how to contribute successfully and avoid that, when every Tom, Dick, and Harry can see my IP address. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The biggest flaw of Misplaced Pages is that it's too easy to be anonymous (or at least to have the feeling of anonymity). If Misplaced Pages required people to register with verifiable e-mail addresses (i.e. non-free) and edit using their real names the user experience would be greatly improved. Sunlight, after all, is the best disinfectant. ] (]) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::I won't argue with you whether or not the illusion of anonymity on Misplaced Pages is a flaw. But I think your suggestion is a poor one. What's a verifiable e-mail address? Gmail? My e-mail through my ISP (assuming I'm technical enough to set it up)? Mypersonalwebdomain.com? If you're truly interested in discarding anonymity, simply use ] with the IP address as a hash.

You could try registering. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:What I'm saying is that maintaining anonymity is close to impossible, and I want to know why.
::If you ] your IP address is no longer public. It has many other benefits too. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you, but I perused the list of benefits to registered users, and none of them really appeal to me.
:You may remain anonymous (i.e. with your ] identity hidden) but you cannot remain unknown (i.e. with your edit history hidden). That is the question you might want to ask, "why can I not edit without revealing my edit history?" No-one ever said you could. --] (]) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::Fine, new question: "Why is my edit history available to non-administrators?"

:::All you have to do is create an account and no one will see your IP unless you vandalize or get in an edit fight either of which could cause a checkuser to check up on you. To avoid an edit history, create a new account as often as you wish. So in summary, only make edits you believe are useful, never fight with anyone about your edits, only edit while logged in, and get a new usename as often as you like. Easy as pie. Except most people who want zero accountability want it to use in situations where they fight with people about their edits, so for them it is useless as they will be checkusered, identified and told they are no longer welcome here. '''You can be absolutely unaccountable or you can fight about your edits. You don't get to do both.''' ] (]) 18:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::"...never fight with anyone about your edits..." I appreciate your frankness, but from what I understand of Misplaced Pages heated arguments over edits are nearly inevitable. I'm not concerned about checkuser though; enough users with the privilege have abused it that I wouldn't trust claims about its results unless they came from within the Foundation itself.

:::Short answer: Because wikipedias licence dictates that all editors who contributed should be known for reproduction. ] (]) 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of most users, your IP address tells others almost nothing about you. It will give your ISP and depending on which ISP you have, it may give the general area you live in. Many ISPs use dynamic IPs that change periodically. Its not like I can just click a couple links and pull up a map to your house given your IP address. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The real question is what benefit is there in anonymity for Misplaced Pages? The answer is none. Anonymity bring out the worst aspect of human behavior. The most dangerous and corrupt abuses of power go hand-in-hand with a lack of accountability and transparency. One needs only to reference Misplaced Pages's problems with admin and secret mailing lists to understand the problems that anonymity bring to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:It may seem paradoxical, but , as little as there has been, contradicts that. And if you are so critical of anonymity, why didn't you log in before answering? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:68.117 is (anonymously) showing interesting flashes of the particular axe they wish to hold to the grindstone. Benefit or not, a fundamental tenet of Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - there's nothing in there about "any user who wishes to register their real-life identity". Raising the issue of "problem with admin and secret mail lists" is a fallacy, those people are known to each other through ''pseudonyms'' which have an investment in accountability by their very persistence. Which "anonymous" identity joined which "secret" mail list without anyone catching on?

:The great benefit of Misplaced Pages is that any person, anytime, can make an edit; anyone else can revert that edit; those who wish to participate on an ongoing basis can do so through a pseudonym which has a history; and everyone can drop out and reappear later. Non-registered editors are identified by their IP address, just like every site on the internet knows the IP address of the user making the connection. The only caveat is that we all have to get along. What's so hard about that? ] (]) 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== POV article about Jehovah's Witnesses ==

Hello, Jimbo. I run my eyes through the articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, but some articles report as biased manner of critics. Especially ] is taken over biased opinions of critics and Watchtower publications is quated conviniently by critcs. I think this article was formed to smare JW. How do you think of this? ] (]) 09:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


== Wikipediaholic `Userbox == == Seasonal greetings :) ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
I tried to but a userbox on that displays
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
{{User Wikipediholic|1,000,000 (You are Jimbo Wales)}}
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
<nowiki>{{User Wikipediholic|1,000,000 (You are Jimbo Wales)}}</nowiki>
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Jimbo Wales, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}<span id="Benison:1734890634947:User_talkFTTCLNJimbo_Wales" class="FTTCmt">&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>


== Old edits to your user page retrieved, your very early edits, etc. ==
In good humor because the Wikipediaholic test really says that if you get a 1000000 on the test then "You are Jimbo Wales! We love you!"
Users are reverting my edit, can you tell me why? It seems to be an appopiate edit?
::IDK, seems like a good edit to me. What is possible is that this topic has already been visited. That is a recurrent problem on Misplaced Pages, poor memory. I mean, of course, as a system, not the memory of the individuals. This comes up all the time in my area of interest. The same discussions are held over and over and over again with new editors. I had proposed a template a while back to go on talk pages to act as a sort of "memory" of past discussions that tended to recur and got some agreement on it but I must admit that I never followed up on that idea. --] (]) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:Because he hasn't taken the test and if he did that wouldn't be his score, that is the answer to one question. Would you answer one question and then say that was your score? It also implies he has taken the test, and you have no evidence for that either. Thanks, ] 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::I, for one, don't care whether he took the test. I think it is a decent edit and there is no reason to chop it. --] (]) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::It is a questionable edit. While on the one hand ] applies, on the other hand it does read as an obvious joke to me at least. But suppose someone put a joke on ''your'' user page while you were too busy to deal with it. Would you want it left on or removed? I'm sure you have heard jokes you would not want on your user page. Do we want to be guessing which jokes to leave and which to revert? I suggest that while Jimbo is not actively editing, he isn't reviwing jokes put on his page and should be removed until he gets the time to decide for himself if he wants the joke there or not. Leave it here on his talk page for him to decide. ''There was a priest a rabbi and a pastor who walked into a bar; the bartender said "What is this, some kind of joke?"'' ] (]) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, but (big BUT) my page does not say ''"I trust that you'll add something here that makes me smile."'' You see, Jimbo is inviting this sort of innocuous edit and who are you (or I) to say what will or will not make him smile. What makes our assessment of that any more accurate than Assasin Joe's. Jimbo trusts Assasin Joe and I see no reason that he should not. So the edit should stand. --] (]) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I did read some of the wikiholic very recently (and indeed added my own question) and reading the if you are Jimbo you get a million points did make me laugh, I think for me the issue though is it looked like Jimbo had taken the test which, presumably, he hasn't, I would be much happier if such humour could be worked in in a way that made it clear it was someone else's joke. Thanks, ] 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::JustaHulk - while you have a point, he wrote that there many years ago when the word "you" referred to hundreds, not millions of people. Things change. All in all, I agree more with SqueakBox's concerns. ] (]) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You can't cite "things change" as a reason to invalidate Jimbo's invitation to "add something here that makes me smile." If Jimbo wants to rescind that invitation, he is free to. Until then, it stands. ] (]) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with Mike R, and I think that the Userbox is fine, but if people take it this seriously then I suppose it could use Jimbo's confirmation before it could be taken off.] <sup> ] </sup> 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Sure until then Jimbo's invitation stands but you cant decide alone that this particular edit will stand, Mike. Thanks, ] 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Jimmy, I've moved your user page edits from their previous location at "Jimbo Wales" to {{noredirect|User:Jimbo Wales/old2}} with ], so they're no longer in the main namespace; the title "{{noredirect|User:Jimbo Wales/old}}" was ]. I then imported edits to your user page from some 2001 database dumps, most notably the one from August 2001, so we can now see ]! I hope this is all OK with you.
== Controversial topic X! ==


It's a long story how I ended up doing this. So ] is celebrating a milestone of 20% of our biographical articles being about women. In the ], a ] about who was the first woman to get a biographical entry here]]. I was able to give a ] of ] on ]! I've been spending the last couple of days checking the very early edits of the first biographies created around that time, and came upon ] (or ThomasEdison as it was at first in CamelCase). In the process of consolidating the Thomas Edison page history, I moved your edit from "ThomasEdison" to "Thomas Edison"; your early edit to that page on 23 January (UTC) was previously listed as the first one but ].
I'm frustrated because I've been having a messy dispute over '''controversial topic ]!'''


As noted in various places like ], your first surviving edit under the username "JimboWales" was to the ThomasEdison (or Thomas Edison) page. I checked the August 2001 database dump for any earlier ones, found them, and imported to the English Misplaced Pages database. Of course you made earlier edits, but it's interesting to find early contributions attached to your username (in CamelCase form or otherwise). ] (]) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like you to risk your credibility as Chief Emeritus, infuriate a vast number of users, and run ] into ] by being a rogue dictator for once instead of being so benevolent -- strictly for my sake, of course, because I'm a nice guy.


:Such nerdy presents we give. Thanks, brother. ] (]) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you help me?? ]
::No worries. My Christmas gifts are ], as I realised later. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
If you refuse or outright ignore me, I will have to therefore ] Misplaced Pages has been compromised by a ''conspiratorial ]'' intended to distort the truth about '''controversial topic ]'''. I will then have to follow up by letting my account go down in flames, like the ], by engaging in a downward spiral of flamewars that inevitably lead to my account being permanently blocked.


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
Thanks! Your help would be appreciated! <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->
:Jimbo please note that Zenwhat is completely wrong about '''controversial topic ].''' '''Controversial topic ]''' is a balanced article that gives NPOV account of all of the ]ionist enitites evil schemes to dominate from the culturally managanomus ] people. ]slam is a religion of peace whereas ]istantiy is responsible for all the worlds wars and flatulence. They even have the gaul to call us ]errorists. I mean come on how can we be ]errorists? ]slam is a religion of peace. Except for that one attack by ]ohammed ]ttbar and that other one by ]amzi ]usef. Oh and that attack on the ]]] ]ole, and that time we blew up two of their embassies, and all those ]irplanes we hijacked over the last 4 decades, and ]obari Towers attack, but other than that ]slam is a religion of peace. ]error be with you. --] (]) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:01, 25 December 2024

    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
    The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.
    This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
    you can leave a message here
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
    This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
    Media mentionThis talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Seasonal greetings :)

    Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

    Hello Jimbo Wales, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
    Happy editing,
    — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

    — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Old edits to your user page retrieved, your very early edits, etc.

    Hi Jimmy, I've moved your user page edits from their previous location at "Jimbo Wales" to User:Jimbo Wales/old2 with a little assistance, so they're no longer in the main namespace; the title "User:Jimbo Wales/old" was already taken. I then imported edits to your user page from some 2001 database dumps, most notably the one from August 2001, so we can now see the first version of your user page on 19 January 2001 (UTC)! I hope this is all OK with you.

    It's a long story how I ended up doing this. So WikiProject Women in Red is celebrating a milestone of 20% of our biographical articles being about women. In the draft press release about this event, a question was raised about who was the first woman to get a biographical entry here]]. I was able to give a definitive answer of Rosa Parks on 21 January 2001 (UTC)! I've been spending the last couple of days checking the very early edits of the first biographies created around that time, and came upon Thomas Edison (or ThomasEdison as it was at first in CamelCase). In the process of consolidating the Thomas Edison page history, I moved your edit from "ThomasEdison" to "Thomas Edison"; your early edit to that page on 23 January (UTC) was previously listed as the first one but not any more.

    As noted in various places like this discussion, your first surviving edit under the username "JimboWales" was to the ThomasEdison (or Thomas Edison) page. I checked the August 2001 database dump for any earlier ones, found them, and imported all of them to the English Misplaced Pages database. Of course you made earlier edits, but it's interesting to find early contributions attached to your username (in CamelCase form or otherwise). Graham87 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Such nerdy presents we give. Thanks, brother. BusterD (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    No worries. My Christmas gifts are so predictable, as I realised later. Graham87 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    The Signpost: 24 December 2024

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Category: