| Revision as of 17:20, 23 October 2011 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →James I of England← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:13, 3 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,157 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot | ||
| 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 = |
||
| ⚫ | | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |counter = |
| counter = 252 | ||
| ⚫ | |minthreadsleft = |
||
| ⚫ | | maxarchivesize = 350K | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| | 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 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::: ?? ? "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 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Old edits to your user page retrieved, your very early edits, etc. == | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| Heated debate | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Such nerdy presents we give. Thanks, brother. ] (]) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (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. | |||
| ::No worries. My Christmas gifts are ], as I realised later. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 == | |||
| 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. | |||
| <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> | |||
| 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. | |||
| <!-- 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! == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Right, well I live part-time in England and I edit as an ordinary editor in this general area, so I probably don't fit the right mold for someone to intervene in any commanding way. But I can say a few words of calm and hope that is helpful to some extent. | |||
| :Given that the question of Scottish independence is increasingly in the news, and people may have strong feelings about it, it wouldn't surprise me to see claims of 'nationalism' coming up more often in Misplaced Pages around topics like this. I hope not, but such is the way of the world.--] (]) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:13, 3 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)
Category: