| Revision as of 13:24, 28 November 2009 view sourceTheDJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Template editors46,204 edits →an international Supreme Content panel ?: advisory board ?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:00, 4 January 2025 view source FloridaArmy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users177,719 edits →Albert Percy Godber | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{usercomment}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| {{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 = 52 | |||
| | counter = 252 | |||
| |algo = old(1d) | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 350K | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Centralized discussion}} | |||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=1|target=./Archive 47|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|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|small=yes|collapsed=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| {| align="right" style="clear:both" | |||
| |] | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] is now Closed == | |||
| I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found ]. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows: | |||
| *The Arbitration Committee shall consist of '''18 Members''' elected to '''2 Year Terms'''. | |||
| *Arbitrators will be elected by '''Secret Ballot''' using the Securepoll extension. | |||
| *Ballots will invite editors to '''Support or Oppose''' candidates. | |||
| *Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo) | |||
| Questions or comments may be posted at ]. Thank you to all who participated. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 16:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I will follow these requests when I make my appointments. I may make some adjustments to existing terms, subject to prior community approval, so as to make a fair and calm transition to the shorter term structure.--] (]) 17:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am concerned about the forced notion of an 18-member committee should the support tallies for the 8 top candidates fall below 50 to 60%. The minimum support issue wasn't raised until -- well into the RFC and well after most editors had opined-- so the unintended consequences of a vote for an 18-member panel in the event support tallies are low might not have been apparent to voters. The RFC was flawed. ] (]) 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not that worried, personally, but I think you've just stated a fairly good argument why it remains important to keep a bit of flexibility when doing the actual appointments. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I am worried this year, because the candidate pool isn't particularly strong. Since this aspect of the RFC was flawed, I do hope Jimbo will retain the discretion to weigh all factors. ] (]) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it's not like the RfC overturned Jimbo's longstanding comment that he would "not appoint someone with less than 50% support" (I can't seem to find a diff, but he's said it often enough). — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: But plenty of editors are interpreting the RFC as a mandate for an 18-member committee, regardless. ] (]) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I will not accept an appointment with less than 50% support (I had ~40% last year when I dropped out). You should ask the other candidates what they think. Perhaps this is a matter that can be resolved with minimal fuss. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Cite this diff in agreement with the above: I too will not accept an appointment without at least 50% support. I think after the elections, another, calmer RfC should be constructed to put these issues to bed - doing it just before the election with the inherent time imperative was always going to be tricky ] (]) 19:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I'll be flexible, and attempt to implement the spirit of this RfC as best I can, given the results. Last year, when I made my appointments, they were very popular and the reasoning I gave for how I did it was quite detailed. I think we want to maintain flexibility but also reduce the flexibility over time. There's no particular reason why I should '''in the long run''' have anything other than a ceremonial role here, but in the meantime, I want to act as a 'constitutional safeguard' to ensure that any changes don't accidentally have bizarre and generally unwelcome unintended consequences. I won't appoint anyone with less than 50% support. If we end up with fewer members on ArbCom as a result, we will deal with it at the time by having a thoughtful discussion and either (a) stretch a few terms of experienced members if they are willing (b) call for a second round of candidates to run to fill vacancies or (c) suffer through with a smaller group.--] (]) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Whew; that's all I wanted to hear :) ] (]) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's very sensible, thank you. <font face="New York"><span style="background-color:black; color:gray;">], ]</span></font> 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Much appreciated. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Makes sense.--] (]) 00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Not meaning to sound argumentative or negative here, but it might be a good idea come the elections to stress that voters should cast opinions on all the candidates. Having been involved in a lot of votes over my <small>mumbledy-mumble</small> years on this planet, I have regularly seen it happen that at least some people only cast votes for the candidates they are most supportive of, and leave a lot of the other candidates without a pro or con vote. I don't know how many such votes to expect this time around, but if there is a large enough number of such voters that could seriously play hob with the 50% threshold. ] (]) 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does the voting work? In standing approval voting there is no difference between a "no" vote and an abstention. To get percentage support you just divide number of supporters by total participants in the election. --] (]) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''I strongly object.''' Jimbo said that he intends to play only a ceremonial role in this election. Now we see a huge stepping back from this, thanks to SandyGeorgia's subjective concerns. The community has just voted overwhelmingly ''against'' a role for Jimbo in determining the number of arbs (]), and term lengths (]). On this basis, I have to say that I will rally opposition to any Jimbo-imposed changes, including fiddling with existing terms. <small>This is not intended to give offence to Jimbo—far from it. This is a constitutional matter, and is also related to the fact that the community voted in the RfCs in the knowledge of Jimbo's pledge.</small> ] ] 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jimbo suggested fiddling with existing terms as a possible conclusions that could come out of a community discussion. I can't see anything in what he said to suggest he would unilaterally do it, unless I am seriously misunderstanding him. All that Jimbo has really said here is that he doesn't see a clear consensus for eliminating the 50% criterion, so he's going to stick with the status quo on that issue - I think that is entirely correct. --] (]) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Tony1, can you point me to the statement of mine that you're referring to? I want to be careful to do what I have said, and I am unsure about what you're referring to exactly.--] (]) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure Jimbo, and sorry to have been a little negative before. Here's the of your statement in October ("I want my 'appoint' role to be purely ceremonial this time around"). The implications of the 50% rule in combination with (1) the Support/Oppose voting system, and (2) a community-endorsed top-up of arbs to 18, were not explored by the recent set of RfCs, and probably should have been. Operating together, there's a chance they may not be mutually compatible. I think that next year the community needs to sort this out. ] ] 07:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok, to clarify. I was referring there to not having a desire to make appointments "out of order". Traditionally, I have the right to appoint anyone with 50% approval or more, but I have normally followed the order of the vote, with the exception of a few expansion seats which were used to maintain continuity on the committee. I still intend to be active in the process otherwise, particularly if there are conflicting issues in the RfC. I should also note for the record that I don't think using the Securepoll extension is a good idea, and that it is very likely to lead to a lower degree of consensus and more nasty politics than usual. But, I'm happy for us to try it, and I will be pleased if I am wrong.--] (]) 09:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And to add one more clarification. Let's move forward as per the outcome of this RfC, and I'll appoint accordingly. And I will also be flexible in case something strange happens, like if only 2 candidates achieve 50%, I'm not going to appoint people below that, and I'm not going to leave us with a tiny ArbCom, and we'll have a conversation about what happens next in that case. The point is, we don't have to design a perfect system a priori as long as we maintain the possibility of flexibility - and we can learn as we go along without risking an entire year of a totally broken setup.--] (]) 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::When President Lincoln violated the US Constitution he said something like "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" or maybe "Ignore all rules"; I never can remember which. :) ] (]) 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Most of us happy about how that turned out. <b>] ] </b> 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I had not remembered that Lincoln was a Constitution underminer. Thank you. (All I remembered was that he was a good wrestler 'cause ] taught him good, else he'd never have whipped those town bullies ... paving the way to political power -- which I now realize was all for evil purposes. ^^ But having never read of the founder having any particular maternal wrestling influence, I'd guess there's little danger on that score here. :-) ] (]) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Systems collapse when they become ossified or brittle. Flexibility is a virtue. None of us disagree that ArbCom members should have majority support. The point here isn't finding the perfect system - all we need is a system that's good enough to get the encyclopedia written. <b>] ] </b> 09:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ←Thanks for your response, Jimbo. I think the community will be pleased to hear that there will be consultation in the event that a top-up to 18 arbs and the 50% rule are incompatible. <br>When you say, "I was referring there to not having a desire to make appointments 'out of order' ", do 'out of order' appointments include the re-appointment of arbs whose terms have expired but who have either (a) not stood for re-election, or (b) failed to gain a seat through the relative strength of their vote? If you are not ruling out such appointments/extensions, can we presume that this would be done only with the agreement of the community? I note that your original statement was in response to my explicit question as to .] ] 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Tony, I shall do as I think best, and I think you should and will support me in that.--] <small>confirmed it's Jimbo's comment, though not his standard sig. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Jimbo, I hope I do see fit to support what you do; but it's now very different from your undertaking to play only a "ceremonial role". ] ] 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think it is different at all. I am confident you will be happy in the end, and I'm sorry that I'm not able to detail every possible happening and how I might handle it at this point. We are about to try a new election method, and we've identified a possible problem. I can assure you that any role I will play here will be as apolitical as possible and will be aimed at longterm stability and drama reduction. I don't think you'll be disappointed.--] (]) 09:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Adding the "Misplaced Pages principles" template to the bottom of policy pages == | |||
| I'm not taking a position, but I think we should ask first before invoking your name at the bottom of multiple policy pages. Please see the short discussion at ]. One option would be to swap ] in for "Jimbo's statement", and merge some of your content into the "Simplified ruleset", if that works for you. - Dank (]) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It reads: ''A quick note: you can "ignore all rules": any policy, guideline, or other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Misplaced Pages.'' That is rather vague. In every AFD you have people quoting the guidelines as absolute law. Perhaps alter the guidelines to read "these are only suggestions on how to determine if something is notable, not binding rules, or an excuse to delete something simply because it doesn't meet the current guidelines." The policy should be made clearer otherwise it becomes meaningless and unenforceable. ]''' 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Thanksgiving! == | |||
| ] | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to ], supportive enough to ], etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == http://wikimediafoundation.org/Support_Wikipedia2 == | |||
| Couldn't hurt to have a link to ] and ] on that page, so people can read about what they are donating to if they reached the page from somewhere else. ] (]) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == And another thing... == | |||
| Additionally, I really wish you/staff/someone would take the account restrictions off wikimediafoundation.org. Either by just quietly opening registrations or lowering the approval standards on the request page to near non-existent levels. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 08:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Please block and ban LKD == | |||
| A few days ago ] claimed Bertram to deny the genocide commited by Nazi Germany (verbatim: '"). That's not chicken feed and LKD was pressed to deliver suitable diff links to evidence this outrageous allegation but never furnished proof (and never ever will be able to provide a diff link for there simply are no diff links). | |||
| (Meanwile they actually bring forward the 'argument' he who doesn't deny the holocaust on wikipedia must be a holocaust denier because he avoids to deny the holocaust and therfore ist to bee expulsed from wikipedia. Bravos!) | |||
| == Old edits to your user page retrieved, your very early edits, etc. == | |||
| But back to topic. for such a defamatory statement is in my humble opinion not good enough by half. LKD is in a very tight corner. But nevertheless LKD's defamation is an undreamt scandal, LKD still isn't blocked and banned. Until now no admin on de.wikipedia.org screwed up his courage. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Well, I'm not here to have a heart-to-heart talk and I don't even say love me, love my dog. But Attention, please. invite you and the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to please block and ban LKD. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Yours sincerly | |||
| :Such nerdy presents we give. Thanks, brother. ] (]) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No worries. My Christmas gifts are ], as I realised later. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 == | |||
| :*Dear Bert, I'm afraid that this page here isn't the right place to air your grievances, perhaps you might want to go back to the '''''German Language Misplaced Pages''''' to file a proper complaint there as this here is the '''''English Language Misplaced Pages''''', please note that administrator(s) on either side generally has no cross-version sanctioning powers. Correct me I'm wrong, anyone else got any thoughts to add? --] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup> 08:56, 27 November 2009 (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> | |||
| ::Dear Dave, I guess Wikimedia Foundation Inc. as an operating company has got cross-version sanctioning powers in a severe case like this. --] (]) 09:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 --> | |||
| :::*I have to say that you are absolutely right about it but this place is '''''English Misplaced Pages''''', your complaint should thus be directed to '''Wikimedia''' instead, don't you think so? Or do you think I'm not trying to help you? There are proper channels and procedures to do thing(s), you don't go straight to the President of the United States to complain if someone in your town calls someone an idiot, right? --] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup> 09:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Dear Dave, thanx for trying to help me. I would appreciate it very much if I would volunteer to direct this complaint to Wikimedia. I must admit that I haven't got the faintest idea how and whereto address my complaint. Thanks a lot in advance. Sincerly --] (]) 10:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*Look no further than at the "A Wikimedia project" icon located at the left bottom of your browser's page, I'm sure you'll be slapping your forehead now for missing it all this while you had been searching high and low for it, eh? Go there and ask for help, have fun! --] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup> 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* Interesting point. You mean, wikipedia is the wrong address for placing such things? But the donors give their money mostly to create the encyclopedia '''wikipedia, not wikimedia'''. And who you think is the right address for complaints Regards Mutter Erde ] (]) 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! == | |||
| :Please note that Bertram has been following ] on de.wp. --] (]) 12:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is that perm? I hope it is. (Jew here)--] (]) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is. --] (]) 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good.--] (]) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == an international Supreme Content panel ? == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| You might want to read this by ]. He seems to propose an independent panel of philosophers, journalists, scientists and experts to deal with content issues such as those recently with the ] case. —] (] • ]) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team. | |||
| :Its an interesting piece, though less-than flattering to WP.The suggestion to have an independent panel might have its uses, but it would not address the Werle case. Is he advocating that this panel decide when WP should follow local laws and when it shouldn´t? If it follows some, such as Germany's privacy laws, wouldn't it then be open to arguments from other laws, including Thai laws about their king? If we were to have such a panel, I could see it for resolving content disputes in specialized fields, although we have arbitration committees for this purpose. If WP hasnt followed newspapers and periodicals in having a similar editorial board, it is because we are international and most traditional journal still follow a more local mindset.] (]) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it is a pretty offensive piece, actually. He acknowledges on the one hand that Wikipedians produced 60 pages of argument about this case, and boldly insults the participants of that debate by claiming that our process amounts to "the favorite basement project of anonymous 13-year-olds." He claims (correctly) that such decisions are too much and too important to be made unilaterally by one person (even if it is me :-) ), but fails to notice that I had absolutely nothing to do with the Wolfgang Werle decision - or hundreds of other decisions made thoughtfully here every day without me even knowing about it. (What does he suppose people were arguing about for 60 pages? It certainly wasn't about how to convince me of anything, since I don't think anyone would suggest that it is or should be up to me to make detailed content decisions of that type.) | |||
| ::None of that reflects well on his suggestion that we find a board of "experts" to overrule community consensus.--] (]) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is certainly overstated for effect, particularly the 13 year old bit. But I'd say the rest pretty much hits the mark of showing up the downside of Misplaced Pages's remarkable success. Thankfully he doesn't make the normal error that critics make when they try to combine the "wikipedia is chaotic, and irresponsible" line with "it's all a sinister ploy by control-freak Jimbo to distort knowledge to his favoured version". But beyond that there is a bit of a scattergun approach to it. I'd say the question of responsibility is at the heart of it. Misplaced Pages tends to work best on fairly popular subjects - there's enough knowledgeable people there to correct errors and enough of a cross-spectrum to eliminate the worst biases. On lower interest stuff, it is hit and miss. It may be written by an expert(of whatever age) or it may have been written or changed by a moron, or a fringe nutter (who may be 13, but may equally be 31). However, the other problem is accountability. Most publications are accountable - to the laws of their land - to the laws of libel - to the tastes of the reader/customer - to the desire of the writer to retain professional credibility - and to the ethics of the owner/editor/publisher. Misplaced Pages tends to be written by the anonymous/pseudonymous for whom their are no effective external consequences. Further, there are few internal ones either - sure we ban the worst BLP carefrees - but there is no editor-in-chief saying "I don't care if that's legal - we're not going there". Anti-censorship campaigners may think the German State's "clean start" doctrine is evil (I might even be persuaded to agree) but I'm a lot more comfortable with such decisions being made by a democratically accountable German legislature and judiciary rather than by "whoever turns up" on wikipedia. It is easy to pontificate when you face neither the consequences nor accountability for your decision. PS Jimmy, why do you put "experts" in scare quotes? If that betrays your contempt for expertise, then I am more than a little concerned.--] 18:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no contempt for expertise! I'm actually quite elitist in my outlook in that regard. I just don't think every invocation of the word 'expert' indicates a real desire for genuine expertise.--] (]) 10:27, 28 November 2009 (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. | |||
| I too think that the piece is not meant to be offensive, nor should be interpreted like that. The problem I have is that this panel is either gonna be a 24hour job for people, and help issues before they get to court, or can't stop things from reaching court. I also think that court is actually a good thing, because it is the only way any of these issues are ever gonna be settled in international law. Still, much as the Foundation has an Advisory Board, there might be something to be said for a Content Advisory Board. Perhaps we shouldn't dismiss suggestions people make too quickly ? —] (] • ]) 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Your user page == | |||
| (en-0) Why don't you protect your user page? There are a lot of vandalism. --] (]) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Lot of people watch this page and Jimbo is wayyy too trusting.. :) - ] (]) 20:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| . ] (]) 21:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *You mean ] (]) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Jimbo doesn't protect his user page because he actually believes in the wiki process, encourages others to edit his user page, and genuinely hopes and expects others will make positive contributions to his user page. He also recognizes that vandalism is easily reverted. —] 09:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, Jimbo has one essential role for the duration of his association with Misplaced Pages - one that no-one else can ever fulfill; he is a lightning conductor for vandalism, trolls and SPA's. They get drawn to this page, and vandalise it in the certainty that it will be seen by a large audience... Of course, being typical vandalising troll SPA's they don't realise that the large audience means the edits will be very quickly reverted and get them warned/blocked. Bless them, and copper sheathed Jimbo. ] (]) 09:49, 28 November 2009 (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 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. |
 | This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Centralized discussion
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
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
- From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
- Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
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: