User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:16, 23 October 2011 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,541 editsm →BLP gossip ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:05, 17 January 2025 view source Sir Macaw (talk \| contribs)102 edits →A brownie for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLove
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	{{NOINDEX}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{usercomment}}
			{{noindex}}
	{{same page other wikis\|commons\|meta\|message=Please choose the most relevant.}}
			{{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}}		{{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 = 86
			\| counter = 252
	\|minthreadsleft = 2
			\| maxarchivesize = 350K
	\|algo = old(1d)
			\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}
			{{Centralized discussion}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index\|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>\|indexhere=no\|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
			__TOC__
	{{archives\|age=1\|target=./Archive 69\|dounreplied=yes\|index=./Archive index\|bot=MiszaBot III\|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual\|collapsed=yes\|search=yes}}
			{{-}}
	{\| align="right" style="clear:both"
	\|]
	\|}

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

			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.
	Are these edits appropriate ? This editor is removing information sources to reliable sources and claiming "unnecessary gossip". Surely its relevant to mention that somebody was with somebody for 4 years? Would you fail to mention ] in the Ben Affleck and J-Lo articles for instance?I mean the ] article mentions relationships he had for just 2 years and says things like "Despite a wedding planned for September 14, the couple broke up in 2004, both blaming the media attention - including an alleged incident in which Affleck partied with Christian Slater and some lap dancers in Vancouver." It is a Good Article and if anything that is far more "gossipy" than the articles he's removing stuff from every day. I think its very relevant to mention long term relationships if covered in multiple reliable sources. Its different if it is a brief fling. Any thoughts because this editor removes information from every actor article even if well-sourced and encyclopedic.♦ ] 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Related discussions have been going on for months (see or for recent examples), and there's a strong trend, probably amounting to consensus, that Misplaced Pages is not a repository for celebrity "dating" histories, and that a greater level of significance other than "reported in the press" is required. No one's trying to write "Bennifer"-class relationships out of Misplaced Pages. What we object to is treating every "celebrity relationship" as though it was (nearly) as noteworthy as "Bennifer". As ], which is policy, says, "''merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia''"; ], part of the same policy, says "''routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, '''or celebrities''' is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.''"<br/>
	::And many of these dating "histories" are quite dreadfully sourced. The very first article where Dr. Blofeld objects above to my edits, ] is a useful test case. There are four sources cited. The first, supporting a claim that Barbieri dated actor ], is from a book about convicted felon ], states that "Abramoff also claims that Lundgren's girlfriend at the time was not Grace Jones, but model Paula Barbieri, O. J. Simpson's future girlfriend." The book presents this only as an unconfirmed allegation, no better than gossip, and it is exactly the sort of thing that ] and ] call on us not to present as fact. The second source is a book by ], and when one tracks down the actual text beyond the GBooks snippet , it again proves to be not a statement of fact, but Dunne presenting examples of gossip he's heard about Barbieri. The third source is NNDB, by consensus not reliable enough for BLP use. The fourth source is the worst of all, the gossip column in ''New York'' magazine, and it is nothing but anonymous and quite vague innuendo, followed by an on-the-record denial from an attorney for one of those involved. If the actual title of the piece, "When the Homicidal Maniac's Away", had been cited in the reference, its unreliability might have been a shade more evident.<br/>
	::There's no exception in WP:BLP for celebrity sex lives. ] (]) 22:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

			], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
	::: ?? ? "Celebrity sex lives" are often very important to that particular individual if it is several years. You cannot even begin to have a comprehensive "personal life" section which ignores the main components of their personal life. The ] article mentions his early relationships and who he dated. Its also an FA. Its perfectly appropriate.♦ ] 09:29, 23 October 2011 (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)
	:I have seen this editor decimate such info in articles that I follow too. It seems to be his mission on WP, but he goes to far in my opinion. ] <span style="color:green">\|\|</span> ] 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
	:~~This~~ is an ~~encyclopedia~~, ~~not~~ a ~~TMZ~~ ~~ragsheet.~~ ~~If all you can~~ say ~~about a person's biography is, "she dated X"~~, then ~~she~~ ~~dated Y", then IMO a very poor job is being done with~~ ~~said~~ ~~biography~~. ] (]) 20:14, 22 ~~October~~ ~~2011~~ (UTC)		:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Bennifer, Brangelina, or even Posh and Becks, of course, should be mentioned. In general, non-marital and childless celebrity relationships tend to be firmly in the gossip pages. We must remember that reliable doesn't mean infallible, for example, Fox News is reliable, but we wouldn't use it as a source for party affiliations, and even in reputable sources there can be a lot of gossip and speculation about celebrities in the celebrity pages. Unless relevant to other content (such as Ryan Giggs and his affair with Imogen Thomas) or relevant as a social phenomenon (such as, for example, Brangelina), I'd personally not write about it. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
			:::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::But if the section is named "Personal life" and the person she/he dates for five years and spent a great deal of time with and most most important to their personal life for so long then how is it not appropriate to mention it? Its different if it was a brief fling or one night stand but a long term relationship for several years in my view is appropriate if covered in multiple sources. And the "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" argument is ridiculous given that wikipedia is so many different things on so many different levels and way off being a formal encyclopedia in the traditional sense of the word. We have thousands of pages which violate "we are an encyclopedia not a sports almanac", "we an encyclopedia not a cartoon fansite", "we an encyclopedia not a news source". Could have fooled me. Featured article ] says "Holmes dated her Dawson's Creek co-star Joshua Jackson early in the show's run. After the relationship ended peacefully, she told Rolling Stone, "I fell in love, I had my first love, and it was something so incredible and indescribable that I will treasure it always. And that I feel so fortunate because he's now one of my best friends." And how exactly Tarc is this any different, and it passed FAC.♦ ] 20:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
			]
	::::You're misrepresenting me: if it's outside the gossip pages, then it'd be fine under Misplaced Pages policy (as, for obvious reasons, gossip pages aren't reliable even if it's in an otherwise reputable source), but I would personally not write about the private lifes of people unless it was relevant to content, because I see such coverage, especially in a "personal life" section, as unencyclopedic unless limited. For example, the article ] talks a lot about his sexuality (as it's damn important to his career) but only mentions his partner (of at least ten years) twice, the same amount of times it mentions his ex-girlfriend (who appeared in one of his shows). The article about ] only mentions her husband Jay-Z where it's relevant to her career.
			::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::As to the matter of FAs, you couldn't have picked a worse one to defend your point; the article has two issue boxes, has issues with sourcing, accuracy, and completeness, and was promoted in 2006. It wouldn't pass FA today, and would probably not pass GA. Indeed, looking at several arts BLP FAs, personal life sections tend to be rather quiet and reserved, and some articles (e.g. ]) don't even ''have'' one despite her being in music solely because she was married to a record label executive. I would personally advise against such sections in FACs, and I think most FA writers would too. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
			*Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I think Hullaballoo should be commended for convincing so many former contributors to go elsewhere to add actual information to projects. Some of my own experiences with Mr. Wolfowitz' trademark article-stalking and edit-warring can be glimpsed in such edits as , , and -- in which he repeatedly mass-removed neutral, sourced descriptions of videos, claiming they described the subject's life-- or in which he repeatedly edit-warred out a sourced claim that he simply didn't like (an "adult" performer known for her breasts). Behavior such as this from Misplaced Pages's most-admired Admins and editors (as opposed to hard-working contributors) convinced me that I had a choice to make: 1) Play the "Misplaced Pages game" or 2) go somewhere else to work on contributing sourced information-- which was my reason for coming here in the first place. Thank you again for showing me how admired game-players are, and how despised contributors are here, Mr. Wolfowitz. ] (]) 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
			*It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Hi: you seem to be confused about the purpose of ]: it states that all information about a living person and/or in an article about a living person '''must''' adhere to the policies of ], ], and ]. In those cases, I note that the sources in question are most likely '''not''' reliable sources, and it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to include information, '''especially''' that under the aegis of BLP, to certify that the content does meet all of our content policies. In the context of living people, any edits to remove material that violates policy are not classed as ]. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
			:: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Dekkappai, those articles...particularly your versions of them...are quite horrid, actually. If you can't figure out why making claims such as ''"she has been called indispensable to any discussion of the AV"'' or ''"well-known for her large breasts"'' do not belong in Misplaced Pages articles, then perhaps the project can benefit by your reduced contributions. I especially like the ''"Hara reportedly went through a nervous breakdown following 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and decided to retire from show business"'' that is present in the current revision of ]. Quality work, that. ] (]) 01:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
	::For what it's worth, the ] article has an entire paragraph devoted to the public perception of her breasts. If it's well-sourced and relevant to her notability / useful for an encyclopedic standard of the subject, or something like that... - ] (]) 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

			== ==
	::You're going to have to explain, Tarc, exactly what is wrong with that statement in the Saori Hara article. It's a statement that is referenced and appears to be true and I think her retiring is a fairly important part of her life, why wouldn't we cover it and explain the reason for her retirement? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

			That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Relevant to a mature understanding of this topic is ] - a term from the world of professional wrestling, but which applies in a wider context. Individual cases require thoughtful judgment, but one thing we should be clear on: not everything in tabloids is true. A fair amount of it is staged PR fluff. Another portion of it is simply bad reporting that the stars don't complain about because it is harmless. There are often good reasons to take it all with a grain of salt.--] (]) 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

			:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u\|Tryptofish}}?
	Heated debate
			:... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u\|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was.
			:Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
			:As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	There are several attempts at the article discussion page and elsewhere as to changing the name of this article. It is, I think, quite unique in that that well-meaning editors in both England and Scotland who are usually very cooperative, have, in this case become quite contentious and unyielding in their views based on their individual countries' viewpoints.

			Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on ] about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is no doubt that James VI was King of Scotland for many years before he became also King of England and united the two countries. Yet, the article title remains James I of England with no compromise as to even a "joint title". So far, attempts at compromise of any kind are going completely unheard with the English on one side but also, to a lessor degree by the Scots editors. The worst and most distressing thing is that claims and accusations of nationalism have come up against the Scots as well as similar accusations going the other way to the English and it is and has become ugly. I think this is going to need some big time intervention to keep editors from leaving Wiki when it is all over and decided unless someone who is greatly respected steps in.

			== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
	One of the most provacative comments I heard was that, since King James had done much work for the English Queen before he took over, that ''his sympathies" must have been with the English". Can you imagine a medieval Scot being sympathetic to the English over the Scots? It is absurd. I am not criticizing the individual editors as much as showing you where the obvious problem is, i.e., they cannot think "clearly" on this issue.

			<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
	We need some other English speaking countries, and, I believe "The Big Gun" to weigh in on this. Unfortunately, the evidence, from an American point of view, is not being heard or completely ignored and a discussion is being quickly closed every time it is re-opened.
			<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->

			== A brownie for you! ==
	One of the places of the discussion is on the ] talk pages, but there are other sites, also http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/James_I_of_England/archive2 . Emotions are so high that I fear we will lose some well-meaning European editors if there is not some intervention. As stated and emphasized here, that intervention, in my viewpoint, must be made outside of the two countries involved and by someone commanding great respect. That, of course, would be you. Would you take some of your valuable time and look at this? Thank you either way. ] (]) 15:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

			{\| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| brownie :D ] 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			\|}

Latest revision as of 19:05, 17 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit". Vice Media. 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.

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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)

If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors

That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?

... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.

Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.

As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image?

Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image? about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. Barnt Toust 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)