Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:25, 30 August 2012 view sourceClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,146 editsm Archiving 4 discussions to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113. (BOT)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:01, 25 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 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}}
{{notice|<center>'''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''</center>}}
{{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}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{annual readership}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
{{Press
|counter = 99
| subject = talkpage
|minthreadsleft = 2
| author = Matthew Gault
|algo = old(1d)
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| org = ]
}}-->
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| date = 8 December 2021
|archiveprefix=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive
| 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.
|format= %%i
|age=24
|index=no
|minkeepthreads=2
|maxarchsize=250000
|numberstart=99
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{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}}
| algo = old(10d)
{{archives|age=1|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=ClueBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}}
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
{| align="right" style="clear:both"
| counter = 252
|]
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|}
| archiveheader = {{aan}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{-}}


== Seasonal greetings :) ==
== Misplaced Pages 's growing exclusivity ==
In the beginning Misplaced Pages was indeed a place where anyone could edit; now, alas, it is increasingly turning into a elitist country club where only those with access to university libraries and extensive (and expensive) prrivate book collections are permitted to contribute to the project. The Internet has long been the preferred place for us amateurs to extract reliable sources which would be used to create new articles. Yet there is a growing tendency here to deem many websites unreliable as regards WP. Let me use as an example the highly-informative ''Medieval Lands'' website with which I managed to create well over a hundrdd historical biographies. Now that it's reliability has been questioned and found wanting, a barrier has been erected effectively stopping me from creating new pages. For without this work, which draws from primary sources (difficult if not impossible to find on the 'Net), I cannot continue my work on medieval noblewomen. Moves such as these are merely counter-productive and will only serve to reduce the performance level of previously active editos such as myself. Misplaced Pages is repeatedly shooting itself in the foot and as a matter of course will lose momentum.--] (]) 07:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:It seems to me that its momentum was lost several years ago, and the whole project is now deeply and perhaps irrevocably stagnant and in decay. The basic problem is the ever-growing gulf between those editors who use their experience and knowledge of procedures to disparage and dissuade others, and newer, less experienced and less conscientious editors for whom, essentially, it is no longer fun. WP participation is a hobby, not a duty. If it is no longer a fun activity, no-one will do it. No-one has yet come up with an answer to this, and so the project is becoming fossilised, and will become increasingly irrelevant. Shame really. ] (]) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::What is ironic is that during the time Misplaced Pages '''was''' a fun place with much friendly interaction and banter on editors' talk pages, I was actually at the peak of my production as reagrds creating new articles. I am now pretty much restricted to editing in an area which is judged as highly polemic (Northern Ireland), yet I have discovered has netted me the most positive feedback. I was however, thinking of going back to creating and working on articles about noble heiresses but that option is no longer avaialble to me thanks to a few over-zealous Crusader types around here.--] (]) 08:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

:Local libraries would probably contain the necessary information and I there is a wikiproject which helps give access to academic resources ]. Building articles from unreliable sources just doesn't lead to a trustworthy encyclopaedia. There are still many topics which don't require access to academic sources (most likely even the majority of articles). ] (]) 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::I know that Jeanne lives in an area that does not have ready access to English-language offline sources - and has been accused by another experienced editor here of (quote) "tainting the project" by using online sources that some (not all) deem to be unreliable. So, there may be specific issues involved. But the basic point remains. How do we return WP to the (relatively) pleasant working environment of a few years ago, when there was a simple divide between good editors and vandals - as opposed to now, when there is conflict between those who seek to uphold the very highest standards of scholarship and devotion to rules and guidelines, and the rest of us who get pissed off by overbearing attitudes and are increasingly unlikely to contribute in any way? ] (]) 10:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with the way this is being framed. Two different issues are being lumped together. The first is the difficulty of contributing when articles are often already to a very high standard of quality. The second is "overbearing attitudes" and "devotion to rules and guidelines". The first is an inevitable problem that I'm not bothered by (and I will give an example). The second is worth examining.
:::Awhile back I started to tell someone in England about ]. A fascinating political animal who... augh I have to go now. Will try to finish this comment tonight!--] (]) 11:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

:The fundamental problem is that Misplaced Pages retains too much power over the ''presentation'' of content on a continuing basis, rather than merely facilitating its ''assembly'' by volunteers. The site has become one of the top ten websites, routinely topping Google searches, and a great many people, amateur and professional, want to control public perception of specific issues by controlling Misplaced Pages. The remarkable impact of Misplaced Pages on ] underscored this. Because content continually accumulates, and especially when continuing development of content simultaneously decreases, over time this aspect of control has grown more prominent relative to content production. The result is that the encyclopedia becomes increasingly unstable as there is more and more incentive for people to battle for control of it, relative to those who want to keep it on an even keel. The way most people encounter this battle is when they start editing and try to add something to an article they've just seen in a news report, and it disappears, often amid a flurry of semi-automated threats and policy invective.

:Some things that could, in theory, at least delay its decline:

* Harness POVs for good. When people scour the sources for additional information that supports their point of view, and add more and more good sources and facts to articles, this is not a bad thing. When they take out any obvious fact you add in minutes to keep people from seeing it, ''that's'' the problem. We could reduce the degree of tension by rolling back policies that favor "deletionism", such as overzealous interpretations of BLP that have been used to take obvious things out of articles (like that Breivik was a terrorist). We could be more inclusive and favor a lower standard for retention of articles in AfDs.

* Give POV content and arguments a place to go. Wikinews once had a "comment" tab to allow people a place to put in their two cents about a story. I think Misplaced Pages could benefit greatly if there were some sort of penumbra readily accessible for articles, where people could unabashedly soapbox on politics, give literary criticism about their interpretation of popular films and so forth. That's the kind of "social networking" you need, not automated gadgets to put a kitten on Jimbo's page every other day.

* Implement democratic protections. Beginning with some equivalent of a trial by jury, in which editors accused of various policy offenses can be evaluated by a pool of randomly chosen, uninvolved editors. This would reduce the usefulness of efforts to gain control over the admin pool and arbitration, and reduce the rancor of these processes.

* ''Back up the data''. When I say that, I mean ''ideologically independent'' mirrors, where the CC-licensed data is actually received and stored by independent agents who do not have to go along with the deletion of an article or image. We need more and better Misplaced Pages mirrors (including even some that are censored for the taste of various notions of propriety), especially for the vast collection of content on Commons, which is particularly vulnerable. This is not just useful to reduce the amount of pressure placed by those seeking to control Misplaced Pages, but also to prepare for its downfall, which I think it is actually too late to avoid. ] (]) 13:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of Jeanne's problem seems just to be with http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ being declared origio non gratus. There should be no reason not to use that as a source, particularly as the starting source for an article that others who do have access to the libraries at Cambridge etc could improve. I think the problem may be that some areas (medicine, current events) need very rigorous sources, but articles about mediaeval heiresses should be able to be at least started from a source like this. ] (]) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:Elen, you have hit the nail on the head. Collaboration is the issue here. When we create an article it henceforth belongs to Misplaced Pages, not ourselves. Anybody can and should edit it, particularly those with access to libraries, academic journals, etc. I find editing on Northern Ireland-related topics rewarding because I enjoy an excellent working relationship with editors who are willing to collaborate by adding info from their own books. This is sadly not the case on historical bios. It's easy for an editor to go around knocking up a template on a series of pages claiming that the sources used aren't good enough when there is nothing stopping that editor from finding the sources and adding them.--] (]) 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I for one agree with a lot of what Jeanne is saying but I think that there are so many flaws in the Misplaced Pages culture of the now its hard to pick just one or 2 things that would turn it around. When the few newcomers show up very few stay because the rules of the place are so hard to learn they make mistakes, those mistakes are deemed vandalism and they are blocked. I have seen this time and time again. Even seasoned editors have been blocked for what amounts to trivial errors by overzealous admins. I also agree with Elen that in some cases using a primary source could be a net positive. Even in some of the science and medical fields there is information that we know is out of date but we can't change because we don't have anything except a primary source. Same with many of the historical articles as mentioned above. What I consider the primary problems though are new user interaction, the immediate assumption that a new user making an edit in error is vandalism, the tendency for admins to block first and ask questions later and the general decreasing amount of civility in the place. ] (]) 14:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::::We are working on that, lots of us. ], ] and individuals on their own, plus I am seeing a change in admin attitude as well as in influx of new admins that appear to be more patient with new users. It is a slow and non-linear process, but there are a great many of us adopting, mentoring, welcoming and monitoring new editors with promise, as well as simply being outspoken on the issues. It takes time, but I sincerely think the boat is pointed in the right direction now. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::All I can say is good luck. I once had high hopes for improving the overall atmosphere and culture of the place to be more inviting and cordial so we would better cooperate to improve articles but I learned slowly and painfully that there are too many who would rather stay with the status quo, where they feel important and comfortable, rather than to make things better and that group of editors seems to control the consensus. Or at least have enough editors of equal interest to ensure there is no consensus to change. Unfortunately I now have a much more pessimistic view of things. Unfortunately unless someone from the foundation or the Wikia company steps in and does something to change some of things from an organization standpoint rather than let the mob decide, which we are clearly unable to do, things will only get worse as time goes on. The projects you point to are good endeavors but their like a rowboat in a hurricane. ] (]) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::By myself, I can do nothing here. By supporting the efforts of others, I can help a great deal get accomplished. I'm not the one with the great ideas, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and publicly support those that do have great ideas. Today, ArbCom is dealing with one more issue, btw. While I didn't elaborate at my RfA in April, these types of changes are precisely why I sought the bit. I already see some positive, tangible changes in several areas, but we have a long way to go. It probably helps that I'm a bit older and I have faced greater challenges in the real world, so the scope of the problems aren't particularly intimidating. And while I'm infinitely flexible in how I achieve these goals, I'm not easily dissuaded from pursuing them. I am actually quite optimistic that in the ''long run'', very good things are on the horizon. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::You are right that there are some significant changes that will be coming out in the next months. Some might be suprising while others will be welcomed and a relief to some of us (I have spies everywhere). Just remember this comment in a couple months. You'll know what I meant. SSShhhhh, Don't tell. :-) ] (]) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
* '''Perhaps most editors do not use talk-pages:''' When I was analyzing the strong participation in the monthly editor levels, I noticed that talk-page edits were rather low, as if people were editing many articles but rarely talking about them. So, discussions about "average editor" incivility should consider that most editors do not "talk" to anyone else. Perhaps a lot of the non-talk activity is with updating numerous sports-article statistics, team members, and lists. However, the rarity of talk-page editors should be understood, because "if one bad apple will spoil the whole bunch" then we have a lot of busy apples who are not talking about anything. I am also wondering about the talk-page edits made as trollish comments, to stir trouble, or outright invite conflicts. Perhaps check the edit-counts of some users, and see if the level of talk-page edits shows a high correlation with trollish types of interaction with other users. Review the monthly counts of talk-page edits, in the later tables of the edit-count statistics:<br>{{pad|5.0em}}&middot; http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm<br>The reality might be that troublemakers are talking more, while article editors have decided to "duck and cover" while quietly editing thousands of articles and switching subjects when people want to pick a fight. As I recall, the talk-page edit-levels have been fairly constant for several months, but the edit counts do not reflect if the messages have become more bitter, while the relative counts of talk-page messages have remained about the same. -] (]) 22:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::I would also add that between me and a couple other editors doing WikiProject Tagging and assessment a fair number of those talk page edits are likely just tagging so I would suggest if its possible to factor those out of the equation as well. I do between 5 and 10 thousand a month myself not counting others. ] (]) 00:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Many articles' talk pages have become nothing more than battle grounds where insults and put-downs are traded more frequently than useful information which could then be employed to improve the respective articles. As I have already mentioned, my most prolific period as a content editor took place when I was engaging in a lot of friendly banter on other editors' talk pages. When discussing civility it would probably be more conducive to pay more attention to the personal attacks rather than the odd curse word which typically has minimal effect on the receiver unlike the snide and derogatory comments.--] (]) 11:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

== Some more disappointments ==
] (]) 09:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)]

I return to air some disappointments I see- Jimbo defending Andy's comments basically because the person he was insulting and swearing at wasnt someone we want around. Jimbo, I always held you to the highest standard of someone who had high morals and absolute values. I see this way to much from others at AN/I and other places (is the wikittiquete board even still around?)- as long as the person you insult, bully, wiki-stalk, etc is someone who has done something wrong, you get away with it. That's why we have people openly stating in AN/I "I dont have to defend myself, I just have to bloody the witness" and referencing what defence attorneys in rape cases do... is that the type of mindset we want for our editors? If you're rude make sure you are consistent on it ("That's just the way Andy is, he's got grump in his name for a reason" was one remark in AN/I almost two years ago), you're a "good editor" or at least have a large enough following (usually of other like-minded bullies) who will say that, and you pick on someone who you have "dirt" on. Well that's deplorable. When will Misplaced Pages join the rest of the world in zero tolerance towards cyber bullying? Missouri, NY, and an increasing number of states have laws regarding cyber bullying and they do apply to Misplaced Pages. When the numerous number of editors who go around stalking certain users contributions, swearing at them, harrassing them, or taking the enjoyment of Misplaced Pages out of editing for an editor (which is in fact in the !rules as something that an editor is not to do to another editor and is supposed to be harrassment, if an admin ever enforced it) cause an editor to commit suicide and the news goes viral that "teen commits suicide due to Misplaced Pages bullying" and these conversations on noticeboards and AN/I are taken "out of context" as some here may call it. Call me morbid, but I look for that day and I hope in a wrongful death suit the Foundation is held liable for inaction to prevent what was a foreseeable consequence of editors actions towards other editors, any one of which may have underlying mental, emotional, or age predispositions to being pushed over the edge. This is real. And I fully expect to be personally attacked regarding this post and this post otherwise to be ignored because the topic will be about ME instead. It's what the bullies do, it works, and it is only more evidence that this is a problem.] (]) 17:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

:Cyberbullying laws do not prevent or prohibit disagreements and arguments on the internet, nor does it make it illegal for the participants in such an altercation to insult or even degrade each other. That wold be an extremely perverse and stifling extension of cyberbully laws, which are aimed at preventing ''legitimate'' abuse on the internet. ] (]) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::Is that like legitimate rape Tarc? Amazing you'd be the first to comment. The bullies themselves are the first to defend bullying. Cyber bullying laws, in Missouri, do in fact cover insults and degradation which leads to suicide or violence. Alot of what I see on Misplaced Pages, should the same things be said as on Facebook, Twitter, what-have-you, it would fall under Missouri's law, and Misplaced Pages is no different than social media. There will be a day when the news picks up on all of this that happens "behind the scenes" and the light of public scrutiny is held to Wikipedians actions towards their fellow editors.] (]) 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

:::" Call me morbid". All right, I will. Camelbinky, you are morbid. And incidentally, I suffer from clinical depression (hence 'Grump'). What would happen if your accusations of me being a 'cyberstalker' were to push ''me'' over the edge? Or are you somehow exempt from such considerations? If you want to accuse me of 'cyberstalking' then do it in the appropriate place, rather than posting personal attacks on Jimbo's page. ] (]) 17:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:There is ] at Misplaced Pages, only solutions. As to your comment "'' but I look for that day and I hope in a wrongful death suit the Foundation is held liable for inaction to prevent what was a foreseeable consequence of editors actions towards other editors''" You are basically hoping someone dies in order to prove your point, which demonstrates a disturbing lack of character. If being here causes this much distress and drives you to such thoughts, perhaps this isn't the proper environment for you to spend your free time. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:I think there have been on-wiki actions that could justify cyber bullying charges, take a look through ] for details--it's not terribly uncommon to get death threats when doing recent changes patrol. I don't think Andy's recent comments, though contrary to ], are in that neighborhood. ] (]) 19:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::'''"Is that like legitimate rape?"''' - That is quite possibly the worst strawman argument I have ever seen. Congrats. --]]] 19:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I think what User:Camelbinky means is that he ''anticipates'' a death under those circumstances might happen, and should it happen, he hopes the Foundation would be on receiving end of wrongful death lawsuit. (That if there wouldn't be followup lawsuit, the Foundation might not see the need to make changes Camelbinky would much prefer to see made today, as a preventative.) To accuse Camelbinky of "hoping someone dies" is offensive and the result of a shallow reading; you should apologize. ] (]) 19:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::::''"...and I hope in a wrongful death suit the Foundation is held liable"'' - You can't have a wrongful death suit without a wrongful death. If he's hoping for the case, he's hoping that someone dies. --]]] 20:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::That is indeed distasteful and fro mwhat I have seen of Camelbinky in the case, not surprising. This user is twisting and misrepresenting legitimate law into covering something that it does not; it might help if he actually read to see that it does not support his assertions made in this thread. ] (]) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::User:Camelbinky's hope is about a lawsuit following, in the event such a tragic death occurs. (His ''hope'' is conditional. You're not seeing that.) ] (]) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Before that he says ''Call me morbid, but I look for that day''; seems clear. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Clear as mud. (You're making a big conclusion, over careless ascription of what is "morbid". Shame.) Don't be ridiculous people ... Camelbinky wishes for no one's death. To assert that carelessly, is both ridiculous and beastly uncivil. ] (]) 20:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Either way, his assertion that such interactions could fall under cyberbullying laws are silly. If that were the case, there wouldn't be an internet forum left online. ]] 20:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

# "Jimbo defending Andy's comments" - I read Jimbo's comments as indicating that Andy's comments should have been unnecessary (and thus should not have been made). Maybe I'm thinking of different comments to the ones that you're thinking of?
# The Wikiquette board is indeed still around. Its usefulness, as ever, is in question.
# "I hope in a wrongful death suit the Foundation is held liable for inaction" - on the very rare occasions that I've been in contact with employees of the Foundation about potentially life-threatening situations regarding fellow editors, said employees have been helpful and extremely prompt in responding. Likewise, I've found 99% of Misplaced Pages administrators and other functionaries to be thoughtful and responsive about concerns related to that.
# There is no such thing as an "age predisposition to being pushed over the edge".
# Several of the people replying to you make rather good points.
# Please use more paragraph breaks. --] (]) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

::Regarding Demiurge1000's first point, I don't think Jimbo was defending my comments at all - he was saying the same thing that almost everyone that didn't propose I immediately be boiled in oil/banned for life + 100 years said: that I'd been a complete $%&*@#, and if I'd shown more sense we'd have been rid of the troll quicker. And of course Jimbo is entirely right. I had a bad case of mega-potty-mouth-syndrome, and it wasn't my first, and I should know better. Maybe I should have been banned for this, I'm not the best person to judge, obviously - but I'd sure as hell object to being banned for something I ''hadn't'' done. I'd not been cyberstalking the now- banned troll (or the 'entirely unrelated' newly-registered account who's just posted at the Breivik page saying exactly the same things), and unsubstantiated claims that I had been aren't exactly civil in themselves. So again, if anyone wants to make specific allegations in the proper place, feel free to do so. Just don't make vague ones here, and then leave it hanging when asked for specifics. ] (]) 21:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Interestingly, your sock is a sock, or rather lots of socks, but he's not Meowy, unless he's taken up an interest in Mixed Martial Arts.] (]) 22:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)



Jimbo says: "And we have to recognize that troll-enabling decisions, i.e. an excessive desire to treat every possible difficult person as though they can be reformed, is not helpful. An effective policy of banning trolls is the best way to prevent good users from going ballistic at them - we can say that even while saying that we should never go ballistic at them."

:That's only one side of the equation. Trolls on talk pages can be ignored, that's the way to maintain high standards of conduct and effectively deal with trolls. For articles, BRD the substantive edits to articles, state the case, why the edit does not belong, take them to DRN or RfC if they persist -- it's an open wiki, so it's bound to attract multiple POVs. Whoever thought or thinks maintaining NPOV or Civility or the other pillars would, should, or could be easy in such a project, is simply fooling themselves. As for users who persistently cannot keep from "fighting fire with fire", they should, like the trolls, also be banned -- they '''are''' trolls or troll feeders, themselves. ] (]) 12:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

== Meta does not allow fair but do not delete files uploaded as fair use ==
Hi. I do not know who to ask but I trust that you or one of the many talk page watchers here can help.

I nominated files uploaded on meta as fair use for deletion with this reason:

:"Per ] meta does not allow fair use. Also see - there is no exception for meta. Speedy deletion per ]."

The request was deleted and it was said it should be discussed somewhere. But I do not see what there is to discuss. Can a project refuse to follow the WMF resolution?

Could there perhaps be an exception for meta? --] (]) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
: Hi. I'm not sure where the idea of exceptions is coming from. ] seems to be completely non-authoritative and is probably simply inaccurate. Meta-Wiki in particular has long hosted non-free content in some form or another (project logos, for example, specifically ''can't'' be released under a free license usually). --] (]) 18:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Jimbo Wales, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
:: Yes Wiki logos seems to be an (unwritten?) exception - even on Wikimedia Commons that is not allowed to have an EDP. So I think we should keep all wiki logos separate from this discussion to keep it simple.
|}<span id="Benison:1734890634947:User_talkFTTCLNJimbo_Wales" class="FTTCmt">&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
:: So with the exceptions of logos are meta allowed to have non-free files without a formal EDP? I see nothing in the resolution that says that. --] (]) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


== Old edits to your user page retrieved, your very early edits, etc. ==
::: It looks like ] died due to inactivity, not due to any failed vote. (Is that correct?) It should presumably be resurrected and voted on properly. --] (]) 21:15, 29 August 2012 (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 ].
Seems the web (and Misplaced Pages in particular) are facing a new threat.... -- ] (]−]) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
:Would it affect Misplaced Pages? The articles only seem to mention search engines and aggregators. ] ] 10:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, but that would also have a significant negative effect on people in Germany using for example Google to research information to add to Misplaced Pages and might have a direct impact on the number of contributions from Germany. -- ] (]−]) 10:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I think people in Germany can use ], ]s or ] to enjoy internet freedom.--] (]) 10:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


As noted in various places like ], your first surviving edit under the username "JimboWales" was to the ThomasEdison (or Thomas Edison) page. I checked the August 2001 database dump for any earlier ones, found them, and imported to the English Misplaced Pages database. Of course you made earlier edits, but it's interesting to find early contributions attached to your username (in CamelCase form or otherwise). ] (]) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::See also Hedemann, F. which translates to ''"Leistungsschutzrecht: Misplaced Pages soon without links?"'' -- ] (]−]) 10:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
:::For those who do not read German, this article appears to be based on statements made by Wikimedia Deutschland and (as I understand it) suggests that, because the law prohibits quotations ''of any length'', though links are allowed, it might prohibit the use of the title, as is customary in external links and references, and (even if the legal situation is unclear) it could mean that Wikimedia would get a lot of cease and desist notices. As I understand it, specifically prohibiting quotes of any length would rule out "fair use" for citations (short quotes, titles, etc.). I suppose the main problem, if there is one, would be for editors subject to German law (I suppose the lawyers would have to assess if that that just means German residents or also other German nationals and, possibly, people inserting content that will be available to readers in Germany). --] (]) 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
::::This sounds like a very serious assault - worse than SOPA, affecting material more critical to normal article writing. Anything that would damage Google's ability to deliver search results would harm Misplaced Pages as well, because the two sites have similar purposes. It sounds like they want to enforce the ability of publishers to not have their articles indexed on Google - which is very close to them demanding that they not be mentioned let alone summarized on Misplaced Pages. Note that even ''English'' Misplaced Pages articles freely use German-language sources, so this is not something that can be fobbed off as de.'s problem! We ''need'' people who speak German and know German law to look over the draft () and see if this is in fact a consequence, in what ways it would actually threaten Misplaced Pages and contributors, to see if it is the intended purpose of the bill, and to advise on the probability that it can be stopped. We need the draft and ] translated to English, and we need WMF to support these German editors. ] (]) 15:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


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


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
Many book scanning projects, like ], ], and ], aims to build an searchable online library, which is a big step in human history. How about let them upload all their scanned, ] books to wikicommons, and submit ]ed text to Wikisource, where volunteers can proofread and link the texts, in order to make the step even bigger?


<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>
I think you may intersted in the idea of writing an article on a big newpaper to urge book scanning projects to join Wikisource.--] (]) 10:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->

Latest revision as of 17:01, 25 December 2024

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

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

    Seasonal greetings :)

    Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Signpost: 24 December 2024

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