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 16:08, 18 September 2006 view sourceVanished user 19794758563875 (talk | contribs)17,339 edits →Expendable cogs: part of the reason, not only← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:01, 25 December 2024 view source MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →The Signpost: 24 December 2024: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<div style="color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all;"><div style="font-size:150%;">'''If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute:'''</div>Please first read about ], and try adding your request to the ] instead.<br>Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum. '''Complaints by editors who have not made an attempt to resolve their dispute may be summarily removed.'''</div>
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{Trollwarning}}
{{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Press
| subject = talkpage
| author = Matthew Gault
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
| org = ]
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
| date = 8 December 2021
| quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(10d)
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 252
| maxarchivesize = 350K
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__
{{-}}


== Nice article ==
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived
|-
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 11--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{shortcut|]}}
{| class="infobox"
|-
!align="center"|]<br>]
----


"''''" ] (]) 10:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
|-
|
*
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|}

== Utter Debacle ==

You may want to take a look at ], and the associated ] and ]. Quite frankly, the attitudes and actions of some of the editors and admins during this farce have been unbelievable. They've managed to drive away a user who attempted to contribute in good faith, and I've quit the project as I can't justify contributing to a project that treats people so shabbily. ] 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like this "user who attempted to contribute in good faith" was likely just trolling us. The "utter debacle" I see here is that good people were suckered into defending this nonsense. "Publicgirluk" should have been indef blocked and the images speedied without so much as a how do you do. --] 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear as to you object to. ] 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Nice to see good judgment prevail. Thanks Jimmy. -- ] ] 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling? How? If I was suckered I would like to know in what way? ] 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: If I offer a guess (& I hope Jimbo doesn't mind me speaking for him), I'd say that he doubts that the average woman -- or at least, a woman who would prove to be a constructive contributor -- would post the pictures in question. -- ] 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The block reason refers to ], so I would prefer to hear his reasoning. ] 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think Jimbo's original answer is pretty informative. ''"likely just trolling"'', ''"nonsense"'' and ''"should have been indef blocked/speedied"'' should tell you what you need to know without pressing an issue in which Jimbo describes those defending publicgirluk as having been ''"suckered"''... -- ] ] 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::No, that's not informative at all. It is a list of Jimbo's opinions; his opinions may well be based on good reasoning, but he has only provided the conclusions so far, not the process with which he arrived at them, so I can't tell. Jimbo has not described ''why'' Publicgirl_uk's edits constitute "trolling"; ie., what he has seen in those edits which I failed to see. And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan.

:::I understand that WP is not an experiment in democracy, but I also understand that this is a consensus-based project. I also respect the fact that as WP's founder, Jimbo's opinion deserves to be treated with respect. But so do those of the rest of the community here, which largely seemed to be supportive of Publicgirl_uk in terms of following the guidelines of ].

:::'''Jimbo''', ''please'' go back in the page history of the blocked user's talk page and read her reply to this entire debate. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with trolls here and this simply isn't one. Further, Publicgirl_uk had already posted a comment stating that rather than defend herself in this debate, she would rather her images be withdrawn and was leaving the project. ''That is not the action of a troll''. A troll, upon stirring up so much furor, would be having a '''great''' time; they would want to stick around and have more fun by stirring the pot some more. After all, what would it cost them? In addition, I'd like to point out that in this comment I mentioned, she also stated that she expected there would be a negative reaction to her withdrawal of the images, in her words the "no smoke without fire" argument; and here it is.

:::I think you've made a mistake, Jimbo. ''Your opinion is given great weight around here''. This puts a (probably unfair) burden upon you to be more careful with what you say. You can't just toss things like that off without giving a line of reasoning. Perhaps you believe that the images she uploaded weren't appropriate for the site . That's cool - we have a process for that, which was ignored in this case (images deleted without consensus). Publicgirl_uk was treated very poorly by WP and it makes me ashamed of this project. We already have ways of dealing with, reporting, and correcting inappropriate behavior at WP. ''None'' of these processes were used. In fact, quite a few procedures we have in place for dealing with "trolls" was ignored or broken here. Look at the user's talk page history and all the users who expressed their wish that Publicgirl_uk remain as a contributor. I don't mean any disrespect, but you can't just go calling all those editors, which includes myself, "suckers" and Publicgirl_uk a "troll" without providing reasons. I know I am not alone in wondering what that reason is. Cordially, ] 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::1. Please ]. Your comment "And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." was plainly uncivil. I don't expect an apology given your animosity, but I'd try to cool down if I were you. 2. Your assessment of the community being 'largely in support of' ] being the most important guideline for dealing with publicgirluk's uploads is plainly wrong.The community was not 'largely in support' of either view. 3. Your characterization of 'what a troll would do' is absolutely wrong - Just disrupting WP with this behavior is enough to retire the 'publicgirluk' sock. 4. Your continued haranguing about 'how she was treated' when it's clear that she has treated the community disrespectfully with her trolling is getting very very old.

::::I recommend you leave the issue alone (or at least drop some of your tired arguments as they have been rehashed to death) and try to conduct yourself civilly. Perhaps Theresa's advice on the you're pressing these same old issues is good advice to consider - "Actually doing something constructive, rather than the endless talk (which is happening on this page) feels good." Have a wonderful day. -- ] ] 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::1. I found your comment to HighInBC to be rather high-handed and insulting; I felt you were talking down to him and belittling his request for information. It was his place to dispute it if he wished, though, so perhaps I shouldn't have butted in. 2. I don't see how it's plainly wrong; important talk sections on this subject have been (I hope accidentally) deleted and others have been closed, making it rather difficult to even determine what consensus there was, if any. 3. I fail to see anything disruptive in Publicgirluk's actions, and her defense of herself was startlingly civil and polite, which is very rare for a new user under such circumstances. 4. I do not appreciate my remarks being described as "harangues", I do not feel Publicgirluk ever treated this community with anything but the utmost respect, and how can my questions be "getting old" when no one has given me the courtesy of a meaningful answer?

:::::I do feel that I have conducted myself civilly, though I will admit I have been sorely tried in that regard for probably the first time ever in my time at WP. You ask me to leave the issue alone, but how can I in good conscience? I am not in the slightest convinced that the editor in question was a troll. If you have some sort of evidence not available to me, or if there has been some establishment of proof to support your claim that PGUK was a sockpuppet, then I'd be very interested to see it. You imply my questioning is unproductive; nonsense. By questioning, I am attempting to find a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. WP has lost at least two editors that I know of over this, and possibly more who simply didn't announce their departure. ''That'' is unproductive. If the talk seems endless, communication and, ultimately, answers and solutions, will be the best way for us to solve it. Regards, ] 21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Suffice it to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with your views - both of my conduct and the original issue of the images and the behavior of the uploader. So have many. And like them I disagree with you for all the reasons that have (again) been discussed ad nauseam by what is now dozens of particpants.
::::::'''Claiming there's not been enough discussion is particularly ludicrous, when Jimbo captures it best with 'should have been indef blocked/speedied wihtout so much as a how do you do'.'''
::::::You're welcome to keep spinning on this, but I've said my peace enough, and done so civilly and directly. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. Peace. -- ] ] 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: "And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." is not uncivil. Please explain how denying your the ability to decide for others what they need to know is uncivil? Please stop trying to block this line of questioning. ] 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, it is uncivil. I'm not blocking anything - one cannot 'block' a conversation. You're welcome to keep pressing in defense of a troll if you'd like, but the reaction you get may not be what you (ostensibly) want, which is better policy and a better encyclopedia, right? -- ] ] 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please do not say I am defending a troll, I am asking why it is thought someone is a troll. If you wish to discuss this matter further ], please do so on my talk page, not here. I don't think seeking clarification is innapropraite in this case. I am not asking you your opinions as I am very aware of them from other pages. ] 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whooa! Calm it down people. Have a nice cuppa tea (or whatever floats your boat). We are all nice people here. Let's not let passion spill over into anger. ] | ] 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. I'm happy to leave it lay right here. -- ] ] 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::That would seem to be quite natural, as you are satisfied with the way things have turned out. Others are not, and thus are not happy. ] 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Because it was the right decision. Quite natural indeed. -- ] ] 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All this over some chick who uploaded naked photos of herself? Is there an archive somewhere? ;) --] 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the person is labeled a troll based simply on the pictures she uploaded, doesn't that mean no one would be allowed to upload pictures like that&mdash;anyone who did so would be trolling by definition? This is very worrying because there is no reason to think the pictures were trolling&mdash;they ''could'' have been trolling, but they could have been good faith, too, and my money's on the latter. Particularly so since no other behavior from the user was trollish in the least. Personally I think Jimbo should apologize for what he's said here. ] 21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:Ya, I might be blinded by the fact that I'm defending an attractive girl who uploaded naked pictures of herself, but Publicgirluk is definetely not a troll, as evidenced by her goodbye message. Matters of policy over what some see as pornographic material (and not copyright, as that's basically been settled at this point that these pics are hers) are important, and should be addressed, but it would seem that labeling this user a "troll" along with other instances of below-average conduct towards this user are not justified in any way whatsoever, especially given the coherence and conduct of her goodbye message and other posts. --] 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Needless to say, I disagree wholeheartedly. She appeared with little else of value having been contributed prior, posted extremely graphic photos of a young woman without verification of the model's identity or the image's license, and then took offense at the inevitable requests for validation (due to the increased risk and seriousness of such imagery). Her 'defenders' have decried describing her as a 'troll', and claiming she was 'mistreated', but it's WP and the exercise of good judgment that's been mistreated here. She was, as Jimbo suggested, 'very likely trolling' - at least in my eyes and, gathering from the other opinions posted, a goodly number of other users and admins. -- ] ] 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You would, liberal POV-warrior... ;) I just have a hard time labeling her a troll with such a lack of belligerance or a perceptible intent to cause annoyance, as her goodbye message seems annoyed but completely willing to abandon the matter. Regardless, it's over, she's gone, and i'll be desparately looking up google cache's for the deleted images. --] 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the being wrangled over here is the definition of an ]. For some people, this label can encompass a wide range of behaviours, while for others, it is a very narrow range of behaviours being described. I personally don't think the banned editor was a true troll, but possibly could have been one masquerading as a new editor. Or she could have been genuine. There is no way to decide. But I do agree most emphatically with the comment by Kasreyn: ''"You imply my questioning is unproductive; nonsense. By questioning, I am attempting to find a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. WP has lost at least two editors that I know of over this, and possibly more who simply didn't announce their departure. That is unproductive."'' That comment was entirely reasonable and not incivil, and RyanFreisling's accusation of incivility did not help. Of course, the real reason that "talk" over such subjects is endless is because no-one actually oversees a debate, summarises it, and moves it forward. So-called consensus building around here is often extremely anarchic, and the end result can be a bit hit-and-miss. A genuine attempt to build consensus will have someone (preferably neutral and not involved) summarising the debate and keeping the debate organised. ] 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:Just to be clear, my 'accusation of incivility' was not based on that comment by Kasreyn, but this one: ''"And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan."''. -- ] ] 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::Oh please! Ryan, you tried to enforce you viewpoint on somebody else and then when they objected with a mildly snarky comment you went off to hide behind Official Policy. While Kasreyn may have been condescending it was not worth mentioning or were you trying to change the subject? ] 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is one member who has uploaded naked pictures of himself. He is maybe 500lbs and he put them in all the articles related to obesity and nudity (I forget the exact articles). The images are very disgusting and clearly ]s. The images are more offensive than tubgirl. I won't name the person, but he was made an administrator. ] 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:Wow, that looks like a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. I guess only ugly people can upload nude photographs of themselves. ] 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My faith and respect for wikipedia has been rocked, due to the indefinite ban with the flimsiest of justifications. Sure it's Jimbo's baby and his will can do such things. I just thought, because of wikipedia, that he was better than this. And no I didn't get to see the pics.--] 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== Hello Jimbo ==

Hello Jimbo I want to know something why was Wikibreak and all of it's templates are deleted I MUST KNOW!! imagine a world without wikibreak I AM SOBBING AS WE SPEAK.
{{Template: Unsigned|False Prophet}}

== ] ==
I personally would have blocked the user for longer than one month, but with past copyvio uploaders; I did indef blocks before but they were downgraded to a month or less. This would be a good idea to where if we can just block someone from uploading images, but allow them to edit WP. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First: the only reason I personally did a 1 month block here is that I did not want this guy being listed as "indef banned by Jimbo" which is a sort of special status. I think he should be indef banned. Second: In general, I judge the person as a whole -- someone who is stupid/bad enough to repeatedly upload copyvio images can't be trusted to edit, either. He is probably plagiarizing as well, and/or at the very minimum we would have to watch him carefully, which is a lot of work. If someone has such a thick skull that they can't catch a clue after repeated warnings, why bother? We have no shortage of people to help.--] 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:Oh with that kinda attitude you won't for long. Not meaning to rain on your pep rally, but there has been an exodus of knowledgable, talented contributors this year. ]. Not all editors are expendable, replaceable cogs in this here machine of yours. Our community is increasingly at war with itself in case you hadnt noticed. Especially troubling is the unilateral actions by some of the B-ro-crats over on Rfa which goes against everything the project is supposed to stand for. Maybe you could have a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Carnildo.27s_re-promotion
] Maybe you can help...hmm I wonder. Your humble Wikipeon,--] 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

===Expendable cogs===
::Hmm, I think I should clarify. We *will* have no shortage of *good* contributors if we are not afraid to get rid of the ones who are wasting our time. This is exactly right: not all editors are expendable, indeed none of the *good* editors are expendable at all. But a guy who uploads copyvios repeatedly for months and months? He's wasting the time of good people.--] 12:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Ok, thanks for the clarification, now I owe you some of the same. I was not referring to the case of ] specifically, but to try and draw your attention to a dangerous trend in our community which seems to be only growing more acute. *Good* longtime editors are not only exiting the project in droves, but it seems are being actively discouraged and in some cases even driven away. The recent treatment of two of my colleagues in particular, ] and ], I find disheartening and ominous. Especially considering the timing of these acts came in the midst of a highly contentious and controversial Rfa in which both took a prominent, dissenting stand.
:::Meanwhile actions such as '''this one''' go largely ignored and unquestioned. Clearly some animals are more equal than others. If we must have a hierarchy, then let us have a ] based on ability and deeds instead of a ] based on politics or personality. I know our goal here, above all, is to create a great encyclopedia, but I don't think you want to accomplish it by allowing this project to decay into a '''Wikigulag''', where contributors are worked to the point of exhaustion then simply replaced by freshmeat. The end result will be a mediocre work at best with a notorious reputation for unreliability and plain poor writing. We have all invested far too much in this effort to allow such to happen without a fight.--] 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
::::That edit was questioned and Danny explained it was accidental. ] 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a bunch. I'll try and keep my eyes open as much as possible, as you mentioned in the email to the EN Misplaced Pages mailing list; we only know about major copyvio uploaders if someone mentions anything on one of the admin's noticeboards, so there are probably still a bunch around but we do not know about. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::You may not be aware that one of our ''least'' expendable cogs left on Friday last, ], who wrote almost entirely single-handedly such ] as ], ], ], ], ], ], and much of ]. Indeed, he had two articles, ] and ], featured on the ] just last week. I will not repeat the sordid details (although much of it comes from his understandably indignant response when someone who blocked him for alleged "hate speech" in the pedophile userbox altercation, and was desysopped as a result, was resysoped a couple of weeks ago with just over 6 in 10 of people participating on ] in favour). A flavour of the reasons for his departure may be gleaned from , which likens him to a "boil" filled with "malodorous filth". And this from a clerk to ArbCom.

::Of the "serious contributors" listed high up ], ], ], and ] are all away with no sign that they will return, and both I and ] have had serious thoughts about further participation, although we are both carrying on for now. For all the attention to improving the quality of Misplaced Pages, the project is in deep trouble if it cannot hold on to its serious contributors. -- ] ] 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I want to add my voice to this. Our best editors are leaving, contributing less, or talking about leaving in numbers that I think should be of concern. If we're serious about wanting to improve quality, these are the people we need to hang on to, but we're driving them away. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: One person on my RfA asked me to withdraw because ''he'' found it so stressful! I think people need to relax a bit and be a bit more flexible, particularly where experts and reputable editors are concerned. After all, they may not be interested in the latest twist and turn on some obscure policy page. It's too easy to win the battle and lose the war. ] 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I, too, want to add my voice. Others have put it more eloquently than I can, so I will not add anything. Related discussion can be found ], ], and ]. &mdash; ] ] 14:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that several of the departures have been due to super-powerful admins with messiah complexes. Giano left becuase of Tony Sidaway, Kim van der Linde (and many others) left because of SlimVirgin and Jayjg, and dozens have left because of Kelly Martin. You've created the worst of both worlds: an anti-elitist institution with a sub-par "elite". There is no room on Misplaced Pages for people with subject competence -- only for those with a lust for power in the tiny crucible which passes for "community" here.
:I left primarily because of the anti-expert atmosphere at Misplaced Pages and its incapability to maintain the quality of articles over time. The way people like SlimVirgin treated me contributed to me leaving, but was not the prime reason. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

==Repeated Administrator abuses==
Dear James / Jimbo Wales:
This has happened to me not once or twice but dozens of times...

I am blocked from editing by administrators citing that my user name
(i dont use any user name but have your computers cite my pc ID no.)
has engaged in vandalism and then cite some other user name
that is NOT ME as follows (I am not and have never been
Miscreat IV):

<<
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Shanel for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Miscreant IV". The reason given for Miscreant IV's block is: "vandalism only account".
Your IP address is 152.163.100.196.
>>

So that what is happening repeatedly is my being blocked from editing
ON PURPOSE with bogus reason being
I vandalize when I NEVER have vandalized...

ALL This is BLOCKING of my editing (and I am expert in dozens upon dozens of subjects ...)
so that when I add such expertise, the article author
almost 100 % of whom are NOT expert in any sense of the word ...
use that vandal claim/ ruse to block my expertise adding to the article...

This overall means your administrators , editors are truly BAD,
esp incompetent to PREVENT editing by universal expert as me...

DO something about it ...

Wette Willy with a na na ]/oo

Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits.

I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated.--] 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:This happens because you are using a shared AOL IP where others who share the IP have vandalized. Even if you get a username, you still may be blocked for others edits because you will still share the same underlying IP although admins can and often do choose to block only anon editors. In my experience, admins will usually unblock you if the block was due to another editor sharing you're IP and you explain that to them. There was a proposal to block only non-registered users who share IPs that I can't find easily at the moment. This may also be relevant . ] 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::I know how it feels! I'm an IP myself; actually, I'm one user of a school district's shared IP. I can never edit anonymously because some egghead at the high school or somewhere likes to vandalise articles constantly!

:::You really don't care about my complaint as currently stated
is a pitiful statement of neglect
to your own creation's being vandalized by administrators !!!!

Wette Willy with a na na na for Jimbo]

::::I had a similar problem when I first started - the solution for me was:- 1. Log on to AOL, 2. Open up Microsoft Windows explorer - or some browser other than AOL's own 3. create an account. One I'd done all that I could edit away to my hearts content without any problems. --] | ] 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

== A question for you! ==
Jimbo, I wanted to ask you, actually two questions.
:1) Who is your favorite admin?
and
:2) Who do you think is the most well-known admin?
Thanks for your time, Jimbo. ] 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Can't imagine Jimbo has the time nor the will to answer this. --] (]) 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
===Oh, dear, sorry, another question!===
Another question for you, Jimbo:

What would you do if someone put a goofy video of you swinging around a lightsaber on the Internet?

What if someone just put your head on the ]?

Rock on, Jimbo. ] 17:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:As as above. --] (]) 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

== Hello From Homestar Runner Wiki ==

Hello, Mr. Whales! My name is Brightstar Shiner and I would like to say hello on behalf of all of us at the Homestar Runner Wiki...for no particular reason at all, as it turns out. No I'm not a sysop or a beauracrat or anything, but I'm a nice plain user from over here. You should visit us sometime and talk to more important people like JoeyDay, the proprieter of our wiki. -], a.k.a. Brightstar Shiner

== DBIV ==

Jimbo, A chara, your attention is required.

Can you please review ]. I feel I am to blame for this user getting the article ban, and have asked for it to be removed (for Dbiv, not me). User:Dbiv is ] and pretty much created the article, he became involved in a content dispute with me, which became a revert war. I revert warred far too much on many articles and am now, correctly, on "revert patrol", and when this instance was used as an example of that, both of us came to an agreement which solved the dispute. Our agreement was ignored and David was given an article ban. Now, any edit by David to the article, or believed to be by David, despite clear recognition that the article is being improved by the edits, is being reverted. An appeal on this case was lodged but quickly rejected by the arb-com. This ruling, firstly, relates in actual fact to firstly a content dispute, which should be outside the realms of the Arb-coms remit, and secondly, effectively punishes the article because of a previously resolved dispute. As you your opinion on the matter is sought. --]\<sup>]</sup> 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

:Have only just noticed this on Sunday morning (17 September), and thank ] for making this plea. I'm currently ] so you may want to wait for that - though any word in the Arbs' ears would be most welcome. I would just like to say this, though, that if Arbitration means mediating between the parties, it is very strange that I am making pleas on behalf of Irishpunktom and he is making pleas on behalf of me, while the Arbitration Committee is putting in restrictions to stop us edit-warring. Would they prefer if we were fighting? ] | ] 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== Help with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ==

I have a conundrum. Every time anyone suggests a change to the PETA page that is not advantageous to the supporters of the organization, they bring you up saying "Well, Jimbo doesn't think Controversy and Criticism sections are good for Misplaced Pages!". Well, I for one think the page in question is sorely lacking structure because these fanatics will not allow for such a section to exist and tend to censor information that would reflect poorly on the organization (even if completely true). Please, can you shed some light on the subject. What is the policy on a "Controversies and Criticism" section in general as well as specitic to this article. I do see it often in other articles so I suppose it is a fine method for organizing information. I really want the answer from the horses' mouth as it were, so I can put this debate to rest. Thanks. ] 20:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:I'm going to suggest that you ] and take careful action rather than try for permission. Get some references that are of a very high standard (major press organisations, scholarly papers, etc). Then write a section that is fully and completely referenced, including counter-arguments. Then just insert it into the article. it's hard to argue with something written acording to ] that's fully referenced. ] 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== Policy on External Links which link to unauthorised copyright content ==

Is there an official policy on external links in articles leading to unauthorised copyright content which violates copyright laws? If not, could I have your official word on it, and official Misplaced Pages policy on the issue? Many song articles link to lyric sites and music video content sites such as Youtube which fail to gain copyright permission - I remove the links whenever I see them but they frequently reappear. The Song Wikiproject says that if the copyright holder hasn't requested the particular content removed then it's ok, but I disagree. It's like saying it's ok to flaunt the law, so long as the law doesn't catch up with you. What's your view? ] 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
: ] states ''"Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."'' ] 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
::I emailed the user, but IMHO, it should be a good idea, given how so many videos on YouTube are copyright violations and add little to no significance to the articles (unless, of course, a youtube video is the main reason why a person might have an article or was caught doing bad things, like some of the US politicians). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

== Ads against aids or for charities ==
Hi, Jimmy! I was wondering whether you would give your opinion and possibly support to my idea of puting ads on wikipedia and gaving the money to charities or starting our own charity that sponsors kids in poorer nations. The money could be used to fight AIDS, research against cancer, MS, heart disease. I am sure people won't mind ads on the side or even poping up if the money is going towards these places. If you fear donors will stop donating, we can make it clear the money is going towards charities. You can read more about this on the village pump . ] 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

:Well, contrary to your assumption, ''I'' would mind very much! I hope that Misplaced Pages never display advertisements. I rarely visit sites which do. But what about creating a "charity portal" or something like that? This would be equally effective, I think, in guiding Wikipedians in a giving mood toward articles giving information about specific charities they may be interested in donating to.---] 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Refusal to censor Chinese version ==

Hi,

I just read an article () where it details the refusal of Jimmy Wales and Misplaced Pages to censor the chinese version of Misplaced Pages, resulting in its being blocked by the Chinese Government.

I just wanted to congratulate you and Misplaced Pages for making this stand - I only wish that there were more like you. The way in which other organisations such as Google, Yahoo, News Corp etc have buckled to the Chinese demands in order to make a quick buck has been disgraceful, and a shame to all countries which give lip-service to the virtues and necessities of "freedom" and "liberty".

Kudos to you Misplaced Pages.

--] 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I too hold Jimmy Wales in very high esteem because of his taking a tough stance across from China! Congratulation to Mr. Wales!
f.waldenberger, Austria

:I agree... but he really had no other choice. Even if he had wanted to cooperate with the Chinese censorship regime, how would he have done so? Our wide-open structure doesn't afford any opportunity to impose the sort of heavyhanded censorship the Chinese government demands, which would probably extend to the English-language version as well as the Chinese. ] 17:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Don't ask that sort of question, or you may get an answer! It's good to know that with so many mirror sites, people in China will come across uncensored Misplaced Pages articles all over the place. ] 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

== Sources that are verifiable, but very hard to verify. ==

An interesting issue has been raised on ]. An editor has a family copy of a manuscript that contains the biographies of several historical figures. Coppies of this manuscript, some edited by recent scholars, are also held by a historical college.

Under the current policy, as I read it; this means that the manuscript is a verifiable source, since you could travel to the Randolph-Macon College, ask to see one of their coppies, and verify the contents.

I'm unsure over if this reading is both correct, and if it's a good or bad thing. There are good reasons to accept moderatly hard to verify sources, such as old newspaper articles and out of print books, but this is an extreem example of how hard it can be to verify something with it still beign verifiable.

Do you think it's something that will need to be discussed. I don't think it's something that editors can make a consensus to act on, since adding any requirment on the ease of verification would be altering the policy rather than clarifying it. --] 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

:Well sure, such a source is acceptable. While we obviously tend to prefer online and widely circulated print sources because they're ''easiest'' to verify, such sources don't exist for all information. If someone &ndash; an appropriately credentialled researcher, if necessary &ndash; can readily gain access to a physical copy of the document in the library to confirm that it says what is claimed, then it is verifiable.
:Note that an unpublished manuscript (of confirmed provenance) is a verifiable source, but not necessarily a ] for all purposes. That is, it can be taken to represent the opinions of the author (''In an 1884 manuscript, John Smith reported that he hated cats because he believed they would eat his brain<sup>link to citation</sup>.'') but not as a reliable source of factual statements (''Cats like to eat brains<sup>link to citation</sup>.''). ](]) 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. I think, as long as the source isn't classified (or sometimes even if it is restricted, but available) and can be accessed in a national library, or even some colleges, it may be used, as long as the claims are plausible. It's the way paper encyclopedias work, actually. For questionable claims such a hard to verify source probably would not fit, though. ]<sup> ]</sup> |]| 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

: Please keep comments discussing this on ], in interests of keeping discussion all in one place. Comment here was to draw Jimbo's attention to an issue that may need his or the foundation's intervention if it's felt that the policy should be changed. The current comments have been coppied over. --] 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

== Semi-protection ==
Jimbo, <br>
As an occasional user and occasional editor, I'd just like to add my name to whatever list there might be of people that are getting tired and tireder and tirederer of semi-protection of articles. I understand that it has its very valid uses, but everywhere I look, I am prevented from casually and anonymously editing articles that draw a lot of popular attention. It seems like administrators are enacting this failsafe device vociferously and unnecessarily, as though it was infallible. You are one of the most vehement proponents of the 'you can edit this' policy, so surely you can agree that this seems a bit disillusionary for users? --] 21:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

:Since you mention it, I'd like to add my name to those ]. I'd also very much like to see ''autosignatures'' of comments in all article talk pages, user talk pages, Misplaced Pages talk pages. Since Jimbo prefers gradual to sudden change (I can see that he has a certain point there), two possible first steps after the only already taken, banning article creation by anons, would be:
:#increasing the ease of getting frequently vandalized articles semiprotected,
:#implementing autosignatures for AfD votes (which would probably also be easier to implement).
:---] 02:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== The possible use of unfree images at no.wikipedia==

Dear Jimbo,

We are (again) discussing the use of unfree images at the ]. Some users argue that the projects themselves may decide if NC- and ND-licenses are allowed. Are they right?

Sincerely, --]] 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: If this is not the proper place to ask this question, feel free to move it.

== Line of Succesion of the Wikimedia Foundation ==

Just wondering, if you were to resign, become incapacated, or be deceased who would become the head of the Wikimedia Foundation? ] 22:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

==Ninja Master==

I seek your protection. This is Napoleon. Copy. Over. ] 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My IP has been stolen. I want it back from your Badmin Toms. Peas :D ] 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV again ==

Jimbo, perhaps you might be interested in my comments in ] uder the heading POV Considerations ] 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

== An article you might want to read ==

This was forwarded to me. http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/waam-20060913.html I'm sort of surprized that this guy's article would be deleted since he's extremely well known in contemporary music circles...but I think that perhaps his experience has something to say.

The main point is this (quote/unquote)

''In the "Article for Deletion" (AfD) discussion, I discovered a recurrent theme: the Misplaced Pages vigilantes wander around the virtual space randomly looking for articles to delete without making an effort to verify the content. As a regular though skeptical Misplaced Pages user, I was surprised at the extremity of this behavior.
''
:I thought that you should at least know that it was circulating. ] 23:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

== Commercial editing of Misplaced Pages ==

I'm certain that commercial editing of Misplaced Pages is going to happen, and it's going to increase. MyWikiBiz is just the first in what is certain to be a long line. What we need is transparency, something which MyWikiBiz's current translation of the "Jimbo Concordat" seems to obscure. The problem with the current system, where non-paid editors post MyWikiBiz articles into the mainspace is documented in part ], where I suggested using the Articles for Creation process or to post the article in their Userspace pending review. I want articles authored by commercial sources to be easily traced to their original author, in case of POV issues etc. And the current system does not allow this, as the paid-for articles are posted by editors who are not responsible for the information. - ]]] 00:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:Argh! I'm afraid you've came very late to this ballgame, and hence missed out all the interesting discussion at ] and on the mailing list. ] is the place to go for discussing this, not here. Sadly one post on the mailing list made a point that I was forced to agree with - that we actually only put ourselves in danger if we encourage this to be entirely in the open, allowing for real lawyer wikilawyering and the like. It is worth noting however that a lot of the community there appeared to agree with userspace articles, however the google rank problem would then come into play - which is the main reason against this. ] 00:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::I've commented on MyWikiBiz about the situation with Google. How is an open process going to put ourselves in danger? Rather, it would be much safer if the repsonibilities for the articles could be laid down at the user's door instead of having others transcribe your work for you. Yeah, I know this is a bit late, but ] seems kind of dead and mentions the talkpage idea which has been overruled. - ]]] 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::The email to read is . I still regret e-mailing the list before reading this, as after some consideration, I had to find it to be correct. ] 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::::NB: The last active work relating to this, which should probably be returned to, was a document for PR firms on editing wikipedia without shouting out about it. The idea was to follow the concept in said e-mail, but make sure anyone who wanted to do it could infact do it right and in a constructive and helpful manner (which would benifit everyone, really). ] 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== Fairuse clarification badly needed ==

Jimbo,

Some editors are ] to imply that you've forbidden the use of {{tl|promophoto}} fair-use images in biographies of living people, because hypothetically, it's possible that eventually a free image may be obtained. I started a row with ] at over 15 images of U.S. ], such as, e.g., ] for use in ]. Ed has orphaned all the images, and continues to refuse to allow the matter to go to an ] discussion, which would determine whether ] and ] require the deletion of those images (a question to which I answer with a resounding, No!). Or, you can tell us that all fair-use portraits should be deleted. But either way, clarification is badly needed. Awaiting your opinion on the subject,

- <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 07:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

: I would also like to direct interested parties to the proposals at ], given that we probably should be replacing these images, but an organised system done over time will minimise any damage to articles. ] 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think that the above is a very good description of recent fair use cleanup activities. As I noted at ], if you find an image that Ed g2s has orphaned that is irreplacable and has verifiable copyright holder information, please let me know. These two points are necessary (but not sufficient) under our existing policies. There's nothing to debate at IfD if we are not meeting the barest of our requirements for image use. All of that said, I think that a remdinder to admins not involved in image cleanup that these requirements exist and that there is an enormous amount of cleanup that needs doing, may well be helpful. ] 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

==Suicide methods==
Do you think there should be an article on ] (as opposed to ]) on Misplaced Pages? See also ]. ] 10:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

==Hi==
Hi. I am mentally retarded and I want a pat on the head by the wikipedia founder. ] 12:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== How to interpret NPOV of requirement for FPs ==

Hello Mr. Wales. Some of us over at the ] page would like your perspective on a question about NPOV in images. The debate has been over the ], and has been pretty involved, but civil at least. From my perspective, the question boils down to 1) Does the NPOV requirement of FPs refer to the image portraying the article subject in an NPOV way - or does the article itself have to not convey a biased POV, and 2) if an image is represents the article without POV, is there a point when the article to which the image would draw attention is too inflammatory for the image itself to be elevated to FP status. It seems to be a question with broad potential impact, such as on FP candidates showing atomic bomb clouds, or air force one flying over mount rushmore, to name a couple. Thanks for any thoughts! ] 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:NPOV for images only really applies to blatant problems, such as added text saying that something is amazing and other aspects that do not serve to document an occasion. by definition many good photographs of key historical events are by their nature ''not'' NPOV. What matters more is the context within which they are presented within the article. ] 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::One request -- please understand that the entirety of the debate cannot be summarized here -- the discussion on the page Debivort linked to is long, but shouldn't take more than 3-5 minutes to read. Thanks... -- ] 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Firstly, the above as it was presented seemed to be about the general issues. Secondly, I have just read the example in question, and quiete frankly, ''wikipedia is not censored''. I also saw people using the recient mushroom cloud FPC as an example of nenial because of non-NPOV, when infact it was down to poor quality and lack of historical context. ] 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::::The above commentary was sparked directly by the discussion Debivort linked to. The discussion has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Nobody suggested deleting the image or pulling it from articles. The entire discussion centers around whether that image violates featured picture criterion #9, which states that images must be neutral to be featured. I'm not sure why you brought up the mushroom cloud image, but I opposed it for reasons having nothing to do with criterion #9. -- ] 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== reporting people ==

stop doing that. ] 23:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

==Mr. Wales, blessings for us==
We are on the planning stage for a Wikifoundation in the Philippines. Mind if we have soem of your help? ] 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==

Did you really suggest, as ] claims , that WikiNews is acceptable for ] purposes? To me it looks like a wiki, which is explictly disallowed by ], and I have never heard of it having ''"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"'' to quote ]. I fail to see what has changed when the WikiNews article was created except that someone posted something on a wiki based on what someone else posted on another wiki. There seems to be a flagrant violation of the principle of "verifiability, not truth". Every time I say this I am told that this doesn't matter because the fact in question is true, which seems to me to miss the whole point of those three bolded words. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

: I concur. I've reverted the change for now because it seems like a clear violation of ] to me: we're an encyclopedia, not a place to publish first-party investigative reporting. If it really is OK by you, please let me know and I'll back off. ] 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:: FWIW, I generally agree. I suggest posting the unverified information on a talk page so people can keep an eye out for a report in a reliable source. Then it can be moved over. I have a friend at the BBC and she says it is really annoying that they need two independent sources before they can report something on BBC World Service, which means they are often not first with the "News". But then, the most newsworthy "events" often turn out to be fictitious. Having said that, Phil does seem to be saying the Wikinews is supposed to be used. Perhaps the sources for this information on Wikinews could be used instead. ] 12:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::: My impression is that the source on Wikinews is actually "Phil Sandifer's first-hand conversation." So this is still first-hand reporting. I'm constantly dealing with people inserting original research and reporting into articles, so it's fairly important to me to have a consistent story on this: that consistency helps convert people from thinking we are persecuting them into understanding and valuable contributors. I really don't want to have to explain something like "All material must be verifiable and from a reliable source, unless you have 6300 edits, at which point you are allowed to introduce 5 unverifiable facts per 7 week period." ] 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I think it shows poor judgement to add that a person was in "pursuit of a gender change in the last months of life" and add him to the '''Transgender and transsexual musicians''' category on the basis of comments on a wikipedia talk page or a wikinews article based on that wikipedia talk page. I think it shows even worse judgement to claim that wikipedia's policy on "Biographies of Living People" applies to a biography of a person who has been dead for years. And then for Phil to claim BLP justifies breaking the verifiability policy when it explicitly says it doesn't makes me question his judgement on determining who wrote what in that talk page. To top it all off, he now says on the mail something about ignoring the actual policies as written because he doesn't have the time or some such thing. ] 12:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: It might be worth reporting more accurately what he said on the mailing list for the benefit of those who did not see. This was along the lines that he was going back to fundamentals as there is so much small print now that keeping track of it all is hindering his work building an encyclopaedia. ] 12:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Misplaced Pages has a lot of small print. ] springs to mind. ] is not small print - as I have to point out on AfD and DRV time and time again, usually to new accounts, it is a non-negotiable pillar of the encyclopaedia. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Someone already suggested that ] must be added to his original list of core policies. ] 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Your picture ==
Hello Jimbo! I enlarged your picture on your userpage, but somebody reverted it. But I think, you like the larger one, or not? Greets, --] 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Education ==
Misplaced Pages has a lot of users. While many of them know a great deal about the subjects they write about, how many of them know a great deal about Misplaced Pages. I think Misplaced Pages should have an informal education system, where new users could come to learn more about Misplaced Pages and how to get more out of their edits. ] 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


== Seasonal greetings :) ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|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)
]]]
Hi Jumbo. I am an avid 14-year old Wikipedian. I am interested in creating a section of Wikimedia that regards to Idealogies and philosophies. Please contact me. bluebeans@gmail.com


```Xunex

== Pornography on Misplaced Pages ==

Dearest Mr. Wales,

I am a contributor here on Misplaced Pages though I do not have an account. I would just like to point out that some pages at Misplaced Pages are endorsing pornographic images such as the ] page and the pages for Porn actors like ]. I really wish you could look into this as I feel these images are really too unappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Thanks! ] 18:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)<br>
<small>User's first edit. ] 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)</small>
:I can't see the problem. Firstly, there are no images at ]. Secondly, what is the problem with the images at ], specifically? Your comment was a bit vague to really plan any course of action. You might also want to know that, ] censored for the protection of minors. Thanks for your time. --] (]) 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Per concerns of ], someone added her birhtday on July 2 . She subject of the article has not revealed her DOB and it does not appear in a reliable source. I requested revision deleting on WP:AN but an admin realized that deleting the birthday would require all revisions from 2 July to 6 September would have to be removed, so only a few revisions were removed. A ticket sent via email (ticket number 2006090910001839) also declined to remove the revisions, saying that the principle of BLP alone wasn't a "more compelling reason" to do the revisions.

So I'm making one last appeal to you. How far does BLP go? Is deleting half of the revision history under ] override the need to preserve all copies of the history? My only wish is that Emmalina herself had caught the revision and deleted it so the collatoral damage wasn't as huge as it is now. As for the subject herself, she's not very happy . ] 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:The solution as stated in the talk page by myself is to create a new clean revision, include the names of all editors of revisions to be removed, and remove them. This way the GFDL is still followed whilst ]. ] 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

::Unusual solution, but I like it. Done. Now could someone destroy the revisions? ] 01:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
== ] ==
|}<span id="Benison:1734890634947:User_talkFTTCLNJimbo_Wales" class="FTTCmt">&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>


== Old edits to your user page retrieved, your very early edits, etc. ==
I was meaning to hit the link to your user talk page, but I accidentally instead. This was completely unintentional. Sorry! ] 01:18, 17 September 2006 (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.
==]==
Hi, Jimbo. ] is claiming that you told him that he can use undocumented "news" from Wikinews as verifiable sources for his edits on the ] article. Did you indeed say such a thing, and if so, what's to stop anybody from posting to Wikinews without documentation and then claiming that Wikinews supports their accusations? ]|] 03:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:Wikinews counts as a wiki, and as such should generally not be used. If the statement on wikinews is properly referenced, then clearly it is the proper reference that is the reference for the change, not wikinews. ] 03:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::Except that http://en.wikinews.org/Folk_Musician_Tracy_Grammer_Corrects_Record_on_Dave_Carter doesn't have any proof for the claims. ]|] 04:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::It's also self-referencial to wikipedia on the claim that they want to add to wikipedia. So no, this is an entirely unacceptable source for such a statement. ] 04:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I already asked this a few sections up :-). I think we've hashed out the issue of whether this can be included for the moment - I'm still very interested to see Jimbo say publicly what he actually meant in his communication with Phil. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm sure he said something like, "I've learned not to try to micromanage the details of who gets banned and what sources are acceptable for what as I lack the time to properly inform myself of all the relevant details; but have you tried wikinews?" :) ] 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


It's a long story how I ended up doing this. So ] is celebrating a milestone of 20% of our biographical articles being about women. In the ], a ] about who was the first woman to get a biographical entry here]]. I was able to give a ] of ] on ]! I've been spending the last couple of days checking the very early edits of the first biographies created around that time, and came upon ] (or ThomasEdison as it was at first in CamelCase). In the process of consolidating the Thomas Edison page history, I moved your edit from "ThomasEdison" to "Thomas Edison"; your early edit to that page on 23 January (UTC) was previously listed as the first one but ].
== Smile ==


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)
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]


:Such nerdy presents we give. Thanks, brother. ] (]) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{{1|•'''<font color="SteelBlue"><big>]</span></big></font>'''• - <sup>(])</sup>}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{tls|smile}}, {{tls|smile2}} or {{tls|smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! {{{2|}}}
::No worries. My Christmas gifts are ], as I realised later. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
</div><!-- Template:smile2 -->
I'm gave these messages to everyone I know, and I decided, "Hey, why not give it to the founder of Misplaced Pages?" Bear in mind, '''it's not the wrong kind of WikiLove''' (lol)... Hope you're having a good day, cheers! •'''<font color="SteelBlue"><big>]</span></big></font>'''• - <sup>(])</sup> 19:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
== Honour of Jimbo Wales and Misplaced Pages at stake ==


<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 am inserting the following link because the honour of Jimbo Wales and his baby, Misplaced Pages, are at stake, in a matter which has included serious libel and defamation by a Wiki admin.{{unsigned|212.100.250.208}}
<!-- 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 00:01, 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.

    Nice article

    "“Misplaced Pages makes you feel like you get things more,” says James. When he comes out of a binge on Instagram Reels, he feels terrible. When he comes out of a Misplaced Pages binge, he has three or four cool facts he can tell his friends. Sammi feels the same. “It’s better for me to do this before I go to bed than doomscroll,” she says. “If I’ve had a stressful day and I need to do something calming, I can fall down a rabbit hole of my choosing.”" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    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: