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 19:06, 13 October 2008 view sourceJ.smith (talk | contribs)12,359 edits →On wikipedia's parodies← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:00, 4 January 2025 view source FloridaArmy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users177,705 edits →Albert Percy Godber 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{usercomment}}
{{noindex}}

{{Stb}}
</div>
{{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 = 39
| 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 39|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}}

== ] on ] and notability ==

{| width=100% align=center style="background:none; text-align:right; white-space:nowrap;"
| align=left|{{User:Dispenser/Link checker/config
| name = WikiProject_The_Simpsons/rightpanel
| interval = weekly
| generate = all
| title = Featured Episodes of ''The Simpsons''
}}
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp; ]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;'']''
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;]
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;]
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;'']''
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;]]
|-
|align=left|]&nbsp;"]"
|&nbsp;] ]
|-
|}

Jimbo, in an ] in a discussion about ] you said '''' I am curious to hear your response to ]'s subsequent - which of those articles would you "vote to delete" ? ''']''' (]) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, either all of them or, possibly, all but a few. For me, were I voting today, I would look for much stronger verifiability as evidenced by reliable third-party sourcing rather than original research. In particular, I would be looking for something to suggest that the episode achieved some wider and significant specific cultural impact. (For example, the last episode of Seinfeld, or of Mary Tyler Moore.) It bears repeating: I am not trying to make policy here, just indicating my current thinking on these matters.--] (]) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm a bit puzzled why you'd mentioned original research. The articles may not be perfect, but OR is not an issue with any of them. Are you referring to the plot sections? It's generally accepted that editors can use primary sources for the plot section, so long as they stick to the basic details. ]''']''' 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
: I think Jimbo's response to this would be interesting to ]. I'm also curious as a main contributor to '']'' articles. There is only one article about an episode of that show at the moment. I'm not sure if I understand you, Jimbo, when you said, "My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done". Did you mean on a episode-by-episode basis, as in not much harm is done to the episode by having an article about it, or not much harm is done to Misplaced Pages and its reputation WRT episode articles in general? (Don't worry, whichever way you answer I'm not about to create 146 articles on Degrassi episodes!)
: Personally, I'm a little surprised by some of the earlier articles that were given FA status. "]", for example. If you take away the references from the BBC (just a summary as part of their episode guide from when they aired the show) and the DVD commentaries, we're left with 10 references for the entire article, eight of which are used in the Reception section. One of those, ref 8 is the opinion of 1 fan that happened to appear in ''USA Today'', the rest all say the same thing: "this episode was one of the good ones" (paraphrasing). Same with "]". Twelve references, eight ] sources, only four secondary. Three of them discuss a character and say "he is good", the fourth discusses the episode and says "it is good" (again, paraphrasing). I'm not sure if notability has really been established for those two articles. The others are better, increasing as you get towards the bottom of the list, which only goes to show how the FA process is improving over time. ]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ]&nbsp;<small>•</small> ]) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
]
Jimbo, so you'd seriously delete articles that the community has decided to feature? Now I don't call myself an inclusionist, but there are five volunteers who worked very hard for many months to earn a spot ]. I look at this thread and shake my head; to them your post has got to be a punch in the gut. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:My comment is not a comment on the quality of their work. One could write a beautiful poem that changes the history of English literature forever, and I would vote to delete it from Misplaced Pages. There are many factors beyond just the amount of quality effort that someone puts into something that determine whether or not it is right for Misplaced Pages. In any event, I am not suggesting that I would delete anything. I am just giving some context on my current thinking in these areas. Primary research can be great. It just doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages for a variety of reasons that we understand better today than we did some years ago.--] (]) 08:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::Writing ] using research from ''secondary'' sources from newspaper articles, books, and ]s in an article about a notable topic in popular culture is not "primary research". ''']''' (]) 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, if that it what these articles were, I would agree completely. But let's face it, they are not. They are primarily original research.--] (]) 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::How so? Taking ] at random, aside from the five-paragraph plot summary (which is cited not only to the original primary source, but also to an episode guide, which although not completely "independent of the subject" is nonetheless a secondary source), the rest of the article is thoroughly referenced to reliable secondary sources like the ''New York Times'' and an ] on the subject of ''The Simpsons''. I don't see any original research to speak of there. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with {{user|Josiah Rowe}}. These articles are in fact not primarily original research, but instead rely heavily on secondary sources. ''']''' (]) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Wow, the creator of wikipedia thinks all of my FAs (and thus most likely a lot of the other articles I have spent a lot of time working on) are just original research and should probably be deleted. Way to motivate your volunteers there Jimbo. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Jimbo, I'm curious, what are you basing your "they're primarily original research" claim on? Which of the articles contain huge amounts of primary sourced material? Or original research? Because if it's there, we need to fix it, right? But I can't find it. Could you give us some specifics please? ]<sup>]</sup> 08:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What has changed since your original proclamation to make you reconsider? The cynical side of me says it's the for profit Wikia you launched which would love said articles and their traffic... but I hope it's wrong. ] ] 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===Minimum length for FAs?===
{{dablink|This discussion has been moved ] by ] (])}}

== process & precedent for explicit image type ==

This relates to ], recently placed on ] after being used for vandalism. A couple years back, you deleted ], used in ], with the edit summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements." (It appears that the image and log has since been oversighted, but I wrote down the incident at ].) Given how similar the images are, I wonder if you could clarify whether your previous deletion was a one-off and the stance of the higher ups have changed in the meantime, if you reserve summary deletion of these types of images for yourself, if admins have authority to do out of process deletion for these types of images as well, or if you wish this image to go through normal deletion discussions? Thanks, ]] 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements should be deleted on sight, and the uploader blocked for simple vandalism. If anything has changed about my stance on this in recent years, it is a significantly lower tolerance for trolling us. I do not think it is out-of-process to delete such stuff on sight, and if it is, then the process needs to be changed to make sure it happens.--] (]) 14:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for the clarification. - ]] 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Having had time now to review the particular case, it seems clear to me that the user in question was trolling.--] (]) 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:: And to all, out of interest, the relevant section of Code that covers this - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Also probably of interest to anyone reading this, according to Misplaced Pages "On 23 October 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech." (]) Jimmy, when you said "all images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements", did you mean to include all images that would have triggered such requirements had the law not been deemed unconstitutional? If so, I believe this would represent a significant policy change. ] (]) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It has always been policy to block users who are simply vandalizing Misplaced Pages and trolling others. These kinds of images have zero encyclopedic value. I recommend that we continue to take a hard line against them.--] (]) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I guess I've got to wade through this crap to figure out what you're saying. So you would recommend blocking the uploader of , , and ? Should be deleted as having zero encyclopedic value? At least two of these images are of topics explicitly mentioned by 2557 (via 2556). These types of images have been listed on deletion pages time and time again, and each time they are kept, not deleted, and certainly not deleted with a block of the uploader. Maybe you recommend taking a hard line against them, but this would be a departure from current practice, not a continuation of it. ] (]) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Jimbo, in light of these comments, how would you view ] ? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It should obviously be speedy deleted and the uploader blocked.--] (]) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::In contrast to the above, from a PR point of view, these images are detrimental. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, but it wasn't. As you see, a majority of commenters in fact recommended keeping the image. I don't have the bit to enact your recommendation of the obvious. Maybe you'd be willing to speedy delete it yourself, along with those 4 I mentioned above, and block all the uploaders. I don't actually recommend this, because I think it'd cause quite an uproar, though I do agree with your sentiment. ] (]) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Jimbo does not own Wikimedia nor Misplaced Pages and he both knows this and acts accordingly. Thus I read his above comment as indicating that he believes consensus should be that the image is deleted, not that he believes he should violate consensus and delete it himself. Since consensus did not agree with Jimbo's statement above, there are several possibilities: Jimbo could try to change consensus, Jimbo could decide maybe he was wrong, Jimbo could believe that his saying what he said usefully provides him with deniability, Jimbo could take an eventualist approach and accept that sooner or later the right thing will happen, and other possibilities as well. ] (]) 19:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I fail to see the point of this comment. Could you please explain your reasons for posting it?— ''']]<sup> ]</sup> /<sub>]</sub>''' 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::WAS, he said that he does "not think it is out-of-process to delete such stuff on sight". Then, after presumably looking at that deletion discussion, he said the image "should obviously be speedy deleted and the uploader blocked". Speedy deletion candidates aren't subject to vote, so I assumed he meant the image "should obviously be speedy deleted and the uploader blocked" despite a majority vote against it. Actually, I really can't explain his comment. It's almost like he didn't even look at the link or examine the details before commenting. But I'm trying to assume good faith here. So I'm trying to clarify. ] (]) 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Since Jimbo is no more of a deletion process wonk than me (neither of us are spending lots of time doing deletion "work" here at Misplaced Pages), I interpreted "speedy deletion" as an English language term rather than a Misplaced Pages process term of art. But maybe he did mean it the way you thought. But even if he did, I doubt he had in mind the specific details of that process as identified by you. People are always picking up terms of art and using them in non-exact ways. ] (]) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::That's why I asked a followup question, so he can clarify what he meant. (As an aside, though, the phrase "speedy deleted" is not a common English language phrase. Google the phrase. It's almost exclusively people using it to mean "deleting an article without going through a discussion".) ] (]) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::''Most'' pornography ''is'' uploaded by those with nefarious intent. Jimbo doesn't interfer much in day-to-day operations, and can't be expected to know the climate or practices. How much of an investigation did you really expect him to undertake? Videous Omnia and David Shakebone are fairly obviously not trolls, but this requires a more substantial investigation that you can reasonable demand of Jimbo for a question settled so long ago. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Jimbo often says things like "I don't know, I have not looked into it." He could have done that here. Perhaps he will do so in the future more often. I am hopeful. ] (]) 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Really? ]? An editor with over 30,000 edits on English Misplaced Pages and over 2000 edits on Commons? It's a moot point since Videmus Omnia has left anyway, but it still seems a little off to say he should have been blocked. Also note that the picture actually went through OTRS, presumably someone who dealt with it there should be blocked too... ] ] 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Above Jimbo says: "These kinds of images have zero encyclopedic value." Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. It is not limited to images with encyclopedic value. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Welcome. See http://libres.curtin.edu.au/LIBRE11N2/crook.htm for what erotic media that professional librarians consider appropriate for public libraries. I do not believe Jimbo is a professional librarian nor does he sometimes appear to understand that Wikia is not "the rest of the library"; the rest of WikiMedia is. But perhaps he does realize this and his comment was merely a regrettable error. We all make mistakes. With Jimbo's high visibility and people's constant efforts to have him tell them what to do, his off the cuff remarks sometimes carry more weight than they should. I guess this is just a case of an off the cuff remark, sensibly ignored. ] (]) 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:This entire conversation stinks of "Oh, lets catch Jimbo in a doozie!" This isn't a newspaper interview and Jimbo isn't running for public office... so lets just move along, please? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::There's some lovely irony in you telling people to move along, over three days after the last comment :) ] ] 20:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, there is. I... ummm... plead stupidity. :) <small>(there was some discussion about this on anouther page that lead me to false conclusion that this was still an active issue... doh!)</small> ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 02:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

== Hello ==

You have made a very good website, but please don't allow random IPs to edit. Registration should be mandatory. ] (]) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Would you mind expounding on your logic a bit? I'm interested to hear your reasons, especially since you did not choose to make an account to post your message. ]''']''' 07:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I have an account but I was just lazy to login :O Most vandalism is done by school IPs and<br /> other unregistered users {{fact}}, so why not just make registration mandatory! ] (]) 07:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Because most of our good edits are also made by IP's as well. The gain of preventing (quickly reverted) vandalism is outweighed by the loss of quality edits, often made off hand by unregistered users reading our articles and fixing errors. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 07:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Please don't use templates like that in other editors talk page comments. Either way the link is now provided for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that is the same guy (]) who posted message in my talk page? --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]<small>]</small></span> 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:lol you're right Googlean ] (]) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Note: Is it all shared networks? ], ], all of them are kept on adding/reverting/edit warring in ] article. I see that they know our policies well as can be seen from their comments at others talk page. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]<small>]</small></span> 09:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I've semi protected the article <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 10:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Both Googlean and the IP have a history of sockpuppeting. ''']''' ('']'') 05:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:Additionally, see and threads too. I explained my rationale also over there on ''too old history'' of sockpuppeting. Please note that I came to this (Jimbo's) talk page only when I that the ip posted a message in my talk page and later moved to Jimbo Wales page . --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]<small>]</small></span> 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::I don't have a "history" of sock puppetry, please. What I did on ] was JUST FOR FUN because I don't like Bajrang Dal so I decided to mock them. and I never used multiple accounts to do this either, just my ip and only recently. I have now been punished for my deeds by the block. I apologize for this and won't do it again. I apologies to Googlean, Soman, Shyam and others whom I caused trouble. please forgive me and close this thread. ] (]) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Ip's ==

There has been a lot of discussion concerning the use of ip's on Misplaced Pages. The amount of vandalism by ip's must take up 90% of the reverts that good editors have to deal with. The question
I ask is, is there somewhere the community can discuss this, will it make a difference discussing it, and if there is a majority of editors who agree that everyone should create an account can it be implemented? ] (]) 01:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:This does keep coming up. See ] if you have not already done so. If there were a consensus for change, then perhaps a change might occur. So far, there has been no consensus. ] (]) 01:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::When was this last discussed? And I don't mean by admins. I mean by the everyday user. ] (]) 01:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:::See ] where the last comment by an "everyday user" is dated August 30, 2008. The one prior to that was sometime in 2007. ] (]) 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


== Old edits to your user page retrieved, your very early edits, etc. ==
::What I'm really asking is, can there be a discussion within the community concerning ip's and there refusal to register? And if so, where can it take place within wikipedia? ] (]) 01:46, 11 October 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.
:::I am no expert. Others may comment further. As far as I know, proposals to change the basic parameters of Misplaced Pages are always aired at ]. If you bring this one up, a proposal that someone seems to raise on about a thice-yearly basis, you are not likely to draw a crowd, except of those who point you to ]. There is no other place, open to all, for such proposals, as far as I know. And there is nothing to stop you trying. ] (]) 01:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


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 ].
::::Thank you for the advise. Perhaps the only way to draw a crowd is to let every user know there is a discussion on this, how can we do this? ] (]) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


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 do not think there is any way to do such a thing aside from the types of banners that are used to announce elections and the like. I doubt this proposal, which has been turned down so many times already, or any such proposal for that matter, would be deemed by the developers to be worthy of such advertising. Any other attempts to reach large numbers of users would likely be deemed ] or ], which are forms of vandalism, and be deleted. If you put up a proposal on the Village Pump, those who are interested will comment. Those who do not know about it are, more than likely, those who do not know enough (or care at all) about, the inner workings of Misplaced Pages or are too new to have the Village Pump on their watchlist. Without knowledge, concern or experience, there is not likely to be informed opinion. ] (]) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not a fan of IP accounts either. But yes, ''mandatory registration'' (which I support), seems beyond my grasp. PS- Thanks for creating Misplaced Pages, JW. If I ever meet you? I (an a buddy or two of mine) shall give you the Wayne's World salute ''We're not worthy, we're not worthy..''. Cheers. ] (]) 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


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


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
Dear Misplaced Pages Administrator,
I tried to move Srebrenica Massacre article to Srebrenica Genocide.
However, I got automatically generated message that the name already exist. True, it does exist, but the main article is located at ] page, and I wanted it to appear at ]. The system message said that administrator can do it. As you know, Srebrenica genocide was not merely a ]. It was a genocide. This was confirmed by the highest UN Courts, namely the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at the Hague and the International Court of Justice, known as the World Court. Dear Administrator, would you please be so kind to move the page to Srebrenica Genocide, so the content and discussion page appears at ] location? Please respond, and thank you.] (]) 06:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


<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>
:Misplaced Pages articles names are chosen by the subjects most common name. In the english speaking world the event in question is most commonly known as the "Srebrenica Massacre".] 08:57, 12 October 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 -->


== Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! ==
::And for the future, this would be better handeled at ]. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> • <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Jealous ==
So you met Stephen Fry a while ago? Did you know who he was or did you Google him?! ] (]) 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


==]==
:I did! He was touring America. He interviewed me, it was sweet!--] (]) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
::Shame it was such a short segment, and his treatment of five US states in an hour is more travelogue than analysis, but Sunday evenings on British television tend to be like that- mostly harmless. I've added the encounter to ] on the basis that as far as Stephen Fry is concerned, as a national treasure, it's notable. Feel free to remove. --]] 23:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I saw the interview last night and, although it ''was'' short, it was a good interview. It was obvious that Stephen Fry likes, and uses, Misplaced Pages. It made me feel proud. ] ] 16:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, funny that, me too. I've been harping on about us "volunteers" to my colleagues at work in a vague attempt to get more decent editors! ] (]) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Is it online anywhere for those of us not in the UK? ]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ]&nbsp;<small>•</small> ]) 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's only visible in the UK from , because the BBC do not yet have "On Demand" licenses for the rest of the world. Shame. --]] 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Given the UK public paid for it...! A UK-based proxy would work around it, though ] (]) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
== On wikipedia's parodies ==


I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There are two well known parodies to Misplaced Pages: Uncylopedia and Dramitca. My question is how to they get the MediaWiki engine? And, why if you type <nowiki>], the link works? Does it have to do with their use of the MediaWiki engine? Or is this something the developers did that they thought would be funny? --] (]) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:Anyone can get the software from http://www.mediawiki.org, the links between different sites (that work on Misplaced Pages and other Wikimedia sites) are configured centrally at ]. ].] (] ]) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::Uncyclopedia is a ] project, so there are some unofficial ties between here and there. Not to mention a significant overlap of communities. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:00, 4 January 2025

    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.

    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)

    Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder!

    Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Albert Percy Godber

    Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

    Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.

    I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Category: