Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 23 March 2021

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 Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 2 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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Jimbo, let's talk about equality.

1. Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses:Sensitive due to public relations implications
   If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee. These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations and blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications that must be managed by the Foundation's press relations team.
2. Misplaced Pages:Equality:Treatment of an editor must be based on the behavior of the editor, without any regard to the editor's status. On the English Misplaced Pages project, all users, from the IP user to admins and others with advanced tools are afforded the benefit and respect of our fundamental policies of governance. All users should be accountable to these policies and guidelines, and no users should ever be exempt from them. Policies apply equally to registered or non-registered users, regular or occasional editors, administrators and bureaucrats regardless of tenure, and regardless of 'rank'. Should a situation ever arise where the question comes up: "Is this user exempt from the community-established and accepted policy in question?" the answer will be simply "No."

What is your take on such conflicting information? Thanks. Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly there is no conflict. The top one isn't a get out of jail free card. It just says the those ip's must be dealt with by a specific department and not that they are exempt from sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Two separate issues. The first one just stops admins from issuing blocks and defers it to the foundation. AntoineHound (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent any admin from blocking those ranges if appropriate. It just says you should give a heads up to the comms team if you do, as there may well be press interest that they have to deal with. the wub "?!" 11:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to the question that was asked (perhaps), but that's a very narrow list of "major governmental organizations", it's not a policy page and I don't recall seeing any other Wikimedia projects with a similar statement. Are we sure it is actually a requirement from the WMF and not just a request?QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is just common sense. If one of these ip's is misbehaving, block them exactly as usual, but then immediately notify the WMF because such blocks often result in press attention (most of which is usually confused about what is going on). I don't know if this is a requirement from the WMF (unlikely) or something put into place wisely by the community (very likely).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view! I think that before I post my reply, I would like to ask first Can I share my dissent here in response to this is just common sense.? Jimbo, can we have a free and open debate on this issue? Thanks. --Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have felt so inspired by the remark I support freedom of expression. A lot of people I disagree with also support freedom of expression. If that's controversial, then someone will have to explain to me why.. In addition, I have found that we are of the same mind on the ultimate goal that every Wikipedian strives to achieve when I saw Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a 💕 of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal. as well as The primary issue is how seriously we take our chosen obligations to people in the developing world...Misplaced Pages as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so.... It is these beautiful dreams that we as Wikipedian all share that makes me feel that there is nothing we cannot do and there is no mountain we cannot move. So please? Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to confess that I'm unclear what you are asking me now? You would like to tell me your reasons for disagreeing with the custom of notifying the WMF Communications Committee in case of a block which might have PR implications? Please do, but as it is obviously the right thing to do with no major downsides, you'll have a hard time convincing me - or anyone - I imagine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

How resilient is Misplaced Pages to paradigm shifts on policy questions?

Hi Jimbo! I hope you agree the 2003 version of Misplaced Pages was more malleable in at least some respects on policy questions and related topics than the more developed (and improved in essentially every other way) Misplaced Pages of today. I would like to understand the difficulty of correcting flaws associated with relatively infrequent paradigm shifts. Can you entertain the possibility that , , and , for example, have caused or may soon cause something of a paradigm shift in economic policy, shifting strict austerity (and related ideals with which your pre-Misplaced Pages career may have overlapped, by the way) from the mainstream towards the fringe? Whether you agree that is the case or not, how equipped is Misplaced Pages to address the plethora of economics articles, and economics sections and topics in vital and popular articles, which treat the idea of strict austerity as a top-one or -two mainstream idea, as opposed to more of the fringe it may soon become if it isn't already? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:D527:C9CE:C43A:A41A (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE sources. Misplaced Pages will reflect what the reliable academic sources say. Heiro 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the ideal for which I hope all editors strive. But as a practical matter, if the academic literature shifted from pro- to anti-austerity, how long would the English Misplaced Pages take to catch up? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:B4BE:6882:BEC6:3E57 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That is almost impossible to assess in advance; and the how-long-until question not only varies among, but also within topics. How long does it take for a paradigm shift to be recognized as such within the academic literature, broadly speaking? And when has that point been reached? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There are inertia effects, but I do not understand them. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:B4BE:6882:BEC6:3E57 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick clarification question, is "strict austerity" different in any important ways from the general economic concept of austerity (which I agree is obsolete and a challenge for economics article editors)? 107.242.121.53 (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Does "strict" mean a balanced budget amendment as in, for example, https://sites.google.com/site/amendmentact/ section 8? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:15DB:6094:61B5:CB40 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I see it a little differently. I don't know WP in 2003, but WP in 2006 when I joined was astonishingly naïve about reliable sourcing, and would often accept anything that sounded good even from a poor quality academic source quoted out of context. It has the amateur traditional worship of Those who Ought to Know, despite being officially hostile to experts. Part of what I and other librarians have tried to do since then is to raise awareness of the variations that need to be taken into consideration. We've improved to the extent that sometimes people will actually analyze carefully. But very often people generally use whatever sources they can quickly find on the that seem to support their positions. (I can't discuss the economics issues per se--there seem to be reputable academic publications in support of almost any position) ) . The first instance of true censorship in WP was the scientology case in 2008/9 , and it was affected by the general distaste most of the community felt towards Scientology--as well as their proponent's transparent attempts at forcing content and their reputation for ongoing attempts to control what was published about them. However justified here, it has proven an unfortunate precedent. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not as dramatic as a paradigm shift, but we have something maybe somewhat comparable with name changes. Meaning, a Misplaced Pages article on a certain subject exists (the article title being the name of the subject), and, so to say, "overnight" the name of the subject changes – how long does it then take the Misplaced Pages article to change to the new name? There's some guidance about this at the WP:NAMECHANGES policy, but I'd like to cite here two examples given at the WP:NCP guideline (copied here as currently written):

• Although several decades have passed by since his adoption and consistent use of a new name, Cat Stevens has not been moved to Yusuf Islam, as it seems impossible to predict whether his new name will ever become as popular as his former stage name.
• Minutes after the announcement of his new name, the biography of Jorge Bergoglio was renamed to Pope Francis, as it seemed unavoidable that the former cardinal would immediately become primarily known by his papal name.

So, speaking in general for paradigm shifts, which also come in different shapes for different domains, it is fair to say that a preliminary assessment (without particulars about the one we're talking about) is that such a shift will be implemented in Misplaced Pages in a period that varies between a few minutes and never.

Having said nothing about the economic theory, I think what you present as a (new) paradigm shift in that domain, is, in fact, a pendulum movement that's been going on for at least a century, compare e.g. Keynesianism, which was the pendulum's farthest point away from "strict austerity" in recent history, afaik. So, as they say, nothing new under the sun. What you're talking about is not so much a paradigm shift, as the continuing battle between several visions on economics, now one coming out somewhat more on top, and then another (other ones having lost nothing of their vigor, and ready to take over the next minute ...or decade ...or century). For clarity, I don't think what you talk about is all that ready to come out on top in the near future, and even if it does, all Misplaced Pages economics related articles still have to report about the "austerity" period before it: nothing of that is up for removal, as if Misplaced Pages would blot out history. You present it as if Misplaced Pages would delete a WP:BLP when the subject of an article dies: we don't, we change "is" to "was" (and similar for other verbs) and that's about it. It's not because in the current world planned economy is not a leading paradigm in English-language societies that English Misplaced Pages would not have an article about it, explaining its pros and cons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the battle metaphor, but the rest of your argument seems sound. 107.242.121.23 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the Cold War was a "war", the strife over economic models was surely one of its "battle"grounds. Less metaphorically, and in a less distant past: a few days ago, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 came into effect (which is a step towards what in the OP is indicated as "paradigm shift"). Some two months earlier a real battle, with casualties and all, tried to prevent such step – or did you think the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol had nothing to do with disagreement over economical models? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the original questioner is a banned user who deceived many people for a long period of time through sock puppeting. I'd suggest that the question is not necessarily a question about paradigm shifts in general, but that's just a coatrack to advance certain economic pet theories.

So rather than address the economics question, which is outside my expertise and not something I'm interested in, I think it is safe to say that Misplaced Pages will deal with paradigm shifts about as well as quality sources do, which is to say: pretty well, eventually, but obviously there is often a situation in the advance of human knowledge where a major shift in thinking begins and is met with strong skepticism from established authorities which is gradually lessened as further evidence comes to light, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What would drive someone to do that, to willingly destroy their reputation among you and your peers, to ask about pet economic theories? 107.209.157.145 (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I was shocked and disappointed to learn of the sockpuppeting case that I'm referencing, in which the person had clearly presented themselves to me as two different persons for a long period of time. Why would someone do that? I don't really understand it, but there it is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy, I'm not familiar with the SPI case to which you refer, but creating socks and meat puppets appears to be, well...in vogue on WP. At WikiCon Boston, we were entertained by a very creative sockpuppet show. I think it's safe to say in general that established editors are well aware that socks can and do alter the landscape at RfCs, and edit war without detection, and also create battlegrounds on article talk pages. Socks have an advantage, not only in their anonymity but in their sheer numbers, and can easily WP:POV railroad other established editors with whom they disagree or bait their opposition into making behavioral missteps. In this section of my UTP, I cited two articles that have surely raised some brows; one of which is titled The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta published by MIT Press, wherein author Robert Fernandez speaks to our consensus building process: It's more serious when you realize this is the basic dynamic for Misplaced Pages decision making and control. The logical, sane response to disagreeing with Giraffedata is to shrug and move on. Since decisions are by those who participate in a localized discussion, leaving cedes the decision-making power to those willing to engage in the least logical and sane response. This incentivizes not just obsessive but also belligerent behavior and even harassment, and empowers those privileged with the time and resources to engage in this behavior. Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” I understand the emphasis on privacy, but I sometimes wonder if it is worth the cost paid by honest editors, or perhaps even more importantly, fracturing the very backbone of the project; i.e., NPOV? Worse yet, when we seek resolution to help eliminate some of the 🧦🧦🧦 issues, we are again dealing with consensus, and in all likelihood, are overwhelmed by the very issue we are trying to resolve; ouroboros comes to mind. Atsme 💬 📧 12:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Enterprise timeline

• Misplaced Pages Is Finally Asking Big Tech to Pay Up --Wired
• Report: Wikimedia Foundation is Announcing the Launch of a Commerical Product, Wikimedia Enterprise --Library Journal
• Wikimedia will launch a paid service for big tech companies --The Verge
• Big tech companies may soon have to pay for Misplaced Pages content --TechRadar
• Apple might soon pay for Misplaced Pages content --Apple Insider
• Misplaced Pages wants to charge Google, Amazon, and Apple for using its content --Mashable
• Wikimedia Enterprise Seeks to Turn Big Tech Into Paying Customers --WebProNews
• Misplaced Pages will not be free for tech-giants anymore, launches Wikimedia Enterprise --TechStory
• Wikimedia Enterprise Seeks to Turn Big Tech Into Paying Customers --Tech Investor News
• Wikimedia Enterprise on Meta Wiki
• Wikimedia Enterprise on Meta Wiki
• Wikimedia Enterprise on Wikimedia Dfff
• Wikimedia Enterprise/FAQ
• Wikimedia Enterprise/Essay
• Wikimedia Enterprise sign up page
• Wikimedia Enterprise API
• Discussion on Wikimedia Forum
• Hacker News thread
• Reddit thread

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

WMF's response to media paywalls? Atsme 💬 📧 15:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with media paywalls.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So, on a scale from "Money is shiny, let's run and grab it!" to "We are handling the equivalent of a live bomb, and must take extreme care to avoid risks coming from those absurdly powerful groups with dangerous financial incentives which we're now establishing as a formal part of our income stream", how seriously do you think the relevant people in the WMF board and staff are looking at the possible dangers in this? I haven't been very impressed so far what with the development outsourcing, AWS use, resource decisions, and opaque process, though the principles list looks decent, assuming they intend to follow it. --Yair rand (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "Money is shiny, let's run and grab it!" is an accurate description of anyone or any discussion that's happened. In terms of the paranoia of the alleged other option on some mysterious scale of your own devising, I don't even know where to begin. Assume good faith, and we can perhaps have a more productive discussion.

"Giant companies are benefitting to the tune of unknown hundreds of millions to billions from our charitable work as volunteers, is there a way that's consistent with our values and principles to extract some reasonable revenue from them" is an accurate way to look at this. If you start from that point, then reasonably testing questions about potential risks is totally valid. Using absurd and inflammatory language is - not helpful, and just as importantly - not interesting.

To answer your specific question: How seriously do I think board and staff are thinking about the risks? More seriously than you, to be honest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Good, good. Overboard paranoia would have been my preferred option, but serious consideration works well too. :) --Yair rand (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Great! :-) Thanks for this, I am happy to read it. Please, though, don't take this as discouragement for specific suggestions and questioning (in good faith of course) because I think there are is a real eagerness from the team to have more minds thinking about how to optimize and be careful! Here's an example that I think is borderline and worth some discussion: suppose a small commercial competitor that is privacy-focussed or whatever (I'm at this moment thinking hypothetically of duckduckgo search engine) wanted access to the commercial feed: should the WMF consider the values of a competitive marketplace as a part of the pricing decision? I don't have a really strong view but I think it's a powerfully interesting question and potential point of beneficial leverage for the open internet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what question you're asking - are you saying that you'd consider giving them cheaper or free access given their goals, then you would to Google or Amazon? Elli (talk | contribs) 22:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

None of this is a decision that's in any way up to me, so what I want isn't really important. But yes, that's what I'm asking - just curious as to what people think. What I wonder is whether it would make sense to have some kind of beneficial "small business pricing" so that smaller competitors in the for-profit tech space could also benefit from the upgrade if they have a use case for it. I think there are some benefits to that, but I can see some potential downsides as well. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I see "'roundtable' conversations with the community" in Oct-Dec 2020 in the timeline above. Can anyone tell me if those happened and where I can see summaries of those community consultations? Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? Mo Billings (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, I personally like the idea as a former business woman and NPO founder who understands taking proper measures to ensure the future. I don't see an issue with branching out as long as it doesn't negatively interfere with established operations. Perhaps the concern among some editors is that the technical advancements that we need to help reduce our work load as volunteer editors may be put on a back-burner. For example, as an Otrs volunteer, I presented a proposal at Commons that will substantially reduce the work load at Otrs permissions but it has not been addressed. No one seems to know how to get these changes made, or even discussed. Concern over other aspects of our projects being moved to a back-burner is a legitimate concern, perhaps, in the end, not justified because if successful, the new project will be able to fund itself with their own staff, and free-up more technical staff to work on our projects...or maybe even become financial contributors to the encyclopedia. Atsme 💬 📧 14:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally hear you and agree completely. I'd love to see community-tech stuff ramped up substantially. Everywhere things are hard for humans, and a tech solution could do it better (i.e. not involving editorial judgment, just technical work) it is a shame that people have to waste time doing those things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont know if I agree with an "all tech" option. I have been reading Hacking Diversity, which points to the fact that OSS communities are ladden with the urge to find DIY tech solutions and not questioning the utility and general vision behind "technology", with a very poor diversity outcome (in fact private companies do better than Open Source which is disturbing). see 1. It seems that our projects, by driving out the economy of emotions are obliterating what can be the main inclusivity factor. Also the wikipedia projects, with virtually non existing moderation of micro aggressions have been modelled in a liberal (in the economic sense) world of competion : let everybody fight and the best solution will arrise with minimal intervention for the whole society (ie community). This being an application, so it is said in "Hacking diversity" of Ann Rand's philosophy. But it lacks a crucial component : the recognition that not all actors have the same starting privileges, and that when you kick out the weakest by lettin them be aggressed in a world of competition by the strongest, you put aside their potential for future growth, therefore you cut out future potential for the whole system. So I am not sure bringing "ramping up" of community tech stuff will help unless the economy of emotions, the regulation of micro agressions leading to what you have termed "incivilities" and that I as a feminist LGBTIQ person term as "harrassement" would be solved unless it is carefully assessed and brought up as a priority before growing the projects in a kind of "expansionist" imperialism. With the proliferation of unmoderated pages, grows the potential for spaces of unchecked "incivilities". Should we not question the tech drive first? Nattes à chat (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have not presented myself: I am mostly active on the francophone wikipedia, founder of les sans pagEsNattes à chat (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Intersting-looking book, wiyj a free download! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mobile app and mobile web notification issues

Hi again. Various groups of mobile and app editors do not receive notifications at all, including talk page or block messages and other communication bugs. I left you a message about this last month. Some editors have been blocked for WP:Communication is required when the issue is actually the official WMF app they're using. It's quite urgent to fix this: it's essential that editors can communicate with mobile editors. All the relevant phab tickets and issues are well summarised up at User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs. There's also this thread at VPWMF: . Could you perhaps escalate these issues internally for prompt resolution, and have a WMF staffer update at VPWMF? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It is both shocking and sad that the various WMF mobile sites and apps impede collaborative editing after many years of coding and who knows how many dollars spent. Adding insult to injury is that the "desktop" site works just fine on contemporary smartphones and mobile devices. Here's the irony: The "desktop" site works much better on current mobile devices than any of the WMF mobile apps or sites do. We are actively harming mobile editors by encouraging them to use mediocre and poorly functioning sites and apps that do not allow effective guidance and friendly instruction to new editors making commonplace newbie mistakes. How can a new editor develop if they cannot easily interact with their colleagues on talk pages, help desks and noticeboards? Sometimes, they get blocked for failure to communicate when the fault is with the WMF. I speak as an active editor and administrator who has done 99% of my editing on Android smart phones for quite a few yesrs. I know what works and what doesn't. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

So if I ping or write on the talkpage of "these people", they don't get a notification? That's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, the WMF has acted, but not in the manner I'd hoped. The priority of some of the relevant phab tasks has been lowered? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mail

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Too cool - Eulats (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Is a public apology due?

Jimbo, in light of this recent decision by ArbCom, do you think it would be appropriate for Misplaced Pages to issue a public apology to those contributors who have previously been sanctioned and/or banned for drawing attention to the persistent violations of Misplaced Pages policy which led to ArbCom's decision? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

How much is Jimbo's first edit worth?

Jimbo's Hello, World! edit should surely be worth more than Jack Dorsey's first tweet! Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)