Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 24 October 2011 (→Your article has been moved to AfC space: - ok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

BLP gossip

Are these edits appropriate ? This editor is removing information sources to reliable sources and claiming "unnecessary gossip". Surely its relevant to mention that somebody was with somebody for 4 years? Would you fail to mention Bennifer in the Ben Affleck and J-Lo articles for instance?I mean the Ben Affleck article mentions relationships he had for just 2 years and says things like "Despite a wedding planned for September 14, the couple broke up in 2004, both blaming the media attention - including an alleged incident in which Affleck partied with Christian Slater and some lap dancers in Vancouver." It is a Good Article and if anything that is far more "gossipy" than the articles he's removing stuff from every day. I think its very relevant to mention long term relationships if covered in multiple reliable sources. Its different if it is a brief fling. Any thoughts because this editor removes information from every actor article even if well-sourced and encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Related discussions have been going on for months (see or for recent examples), and there's a strong trend, probably amounting to consensus, that Misplaced Pages is not a repository for celebrity "dating" histories, and that a greater level of significance other than "reported in the press" is required. No one's trying to write "Bennifer"-class relationships out of Misplaced Pages. What we object to is treating every "celebrity relationship" as though it was (nearly) as noteworthy as "Bennifer". As WP:IINFO, which is policy, says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"; WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, part of the same policy, says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

And many of these dating "histories" are quite dreadfully sourced. The very first article where Dr. Blofeld objects above to my edits, Paula Barbieri is a useful test case. There are four sources cited. The first, supporting a claim that Barbieri dated actor Dolph Lundgren, is from a book about convicted felon Jack Abramoff, states that "Abramoff also claims that Lundgren's girlfriend at the time was not Grace Jones, but model Paula Barbieri, O. J. Simpson's future girlfriend." The book presents this only as an unconfirmed allegation, no better than gossip, and it is exactly the sort of thing that WP:BLP and WP:RS call on us not to present as fact. The second source is a book by Dominick Dunne, and when one tracks down the actual text beyond the GBooks snippet , it again proves to be not a statement of fact, but Dunne presenting examples of gossip he's heard about Barbieri. The third source is NNDB, by consensus not reliable enough for BLP use. The fourth source is the worst of all, the gossip column in New York magazine, and it is nothing but anonymous and quite vague innuendo, followed by an on-the-record denial from an attorney for one of those involved. If the actual title of the piece, "When the Homicidal Maniac's Away", had been cited in the reference, its unreliability might have been a shade more evident.

There's no exception in WP:BLP for celebrity sex lives. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A rumour?? "my girlfriend" according to Dolph? "Celebrity sex lives" are often very important to that particular individual if it is several years. You cannot even begin to have a comprehensive "personal life" section which ignores the main components of their personal life. The Brad Pitt article mentions his early relationships and who he dated. Its also an FA. Its perfectly appropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen this editor decimate such info in articles that I follow too. It seems to be his mission on WP, but he goes to far in my opinion. BollyJeff || talk 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a TMZ ragsheet. If all you can say about a person's biography is, "she dated X", then she dated Y", then IMO a very poor job is being done with said biography. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bennifer, Brangelina, or even Posh and Becks, of course, should be mentioned. In general, non-marital and childless celebrity relationships tend to be firmly in the gossip pages. We must remember that reliable doesn't mean infallible, for example, Fox News is reliable, but we wouldn't use it as a source for party affiliations, and even in reputable sources there can be a lot of gossip and speculation about celebrities in the celebrity pages. Unless relevant to other content (such as Ryan Giggs and his affair with Imogen Thomas) or relevant as a social phenomenon (such as, for example, Brangelina), I'd personally not write about it. Sceptre 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But if the section is named "Personal life" and the person she/he dates for five years and spent a great deal of time with and most most important to their personal life for so long then how is it not appropriate to mention it? Its different if it was a brief fling or one night stand but a long term relationship for several years in my view is appropriate if covered in multiple sources. And the "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" argument is ridiculous given that wikipedia is so many different things on so many different levels and way off being a formal encyclopedia in the traditional sense of the word. We have thousands of pages which violate "we are an encyclopedia not a sports almanac", "we an encyclopedia not a cartoon fansite", "we an encyclopedia not a news source". Could have fooled me. Featured article Katie Holmes says "Holmes dated her Dawson's Creek co-star Joshua Jackson early in the show's run. After the relationship ended peacefully, she told Rolling Stone, "I fell in love, I had my first love, and it was something so incredible and indescribable that I will treasure it always. And that I feel so fortunate because he's now one of my best friends." And how exactly Tarc is this any different, and it passed FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting me: if it's outside the gossip pages, then it'd be fine under Misplaced Pages policy (as, for obvious reasons, gossip pages aren't reliable even if it's in an otherwise reputable source), but I would personally not write about the private lifes of people unless it was relevant to content, because I see such coverage, especially in a "personal life" section, as unencyclopedic unless limited. For example, the article Russell T Davies talks a lot about his sexuality (as it's damn important to his career) but only mentions his partner (of at least ten years) twice, the same amount of times it mentions his ex-girlfriend (who appeared in one of his shows). The article about Beyoncé Knowles only mentions her husband Jay-Z where it's relevant to her career.

As to the matter of FAs, you couldn't have picked a worse one to defend your point; the article has two issue boxes, has issues with sourcing, accuracy, and completeness, and was promoted in 2006. It wouldn't pass FA today, and would probably not pass GA. Indeed, looking at several arts BLP FAs, personal life sections tend to be rather quiet and reserved, and some articles (e.g. Mariah Carey) don't even have one despite her being in music solely because she was married to a record label executive. I would personally advise against such sections in FACs, and I think most FA writers would too. Sceptre 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Hullaballoo should be commended for convincing so many former contributors to go elsewhere to add actual information to projects. Some of my own experiences with Mr. Wolfowitz' trademark article-stalking and edit-warring can be glimpsed in such edits as , , and -- in which he repeatedly mass-removed neutral, sourced descriptions of videos, claiming they described the subject's life-- or in which he repeatedly edit-warred out a sourced claim that he simply didn't like (an "adult" performer known for her breasts). Behavior such as this from Misplaced Pages's most-admired Admins and editors (as opposed to hard-working contributors) convinced me that I had a choice to make: 1) Play the "Misplaced Pages game" or 2) go somewhere else to work on contributing sourced information-- which was my reason for coming here in the first place. Thank you again for showing me how admired game-players are, and how despised contributors are here, Mr. Wolfowitz. Dekkappai (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi: you seem to be confused about the purpose of the Biographies of Living People policy: it states that all information about a living person and/or in an article about a living person must adhere to the policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. In those cases, I note that the sources in question are most likely not reliable sources, and it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to include information, especially that under the aegis of BLP, to certify that the content does meet all of our content policies. In the context of living people, any edits to remove material that violates policy are not classed as edit warring. Sceptre 00:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dekkappai, those articles...particularly your versions of them...are quite horrid, actually. If you can't figure out why making claims such as "she has been called indispensable to any discussion of the AV" or "well-known for her large breasts" do not belong in Misplaced Pages articles, then perhaps the project can benefit by your reduced contributions. I especially like the "Hara reportedly went through a nervous breakdown following 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and decided to retire from show business" that is present in the current revision of Saori Hara. Quality work, that. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Dolly Parton article has an entire paragraph devoted to the public perception of her breasts. If it's well-sourced and relevant to her notability / useful for an encyclopedic standard of the subject, or something like that... - Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

So what you are saying you would think is unnecessary to mention Bennifer in those articles because the papers may have got it wrong that they actually dated? Is there not a difference between a tabloid reporting a one night stand/brief fling and those who report on a relationship practically every day in every news outlet for five years? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not saying we shouldn't mention Bennifer. And I don't see any reason to think the papers got it wrong - they publicly announced their engagement, for example. That's not the same as thinking that we should chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances, and that we should use thoughtful judgment to avoid simply repeating random nonsense trumped up by publicists. There is a difference, as you say, between a tabloid reporting something briefly and things for which there are reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would consider a relationship over two years to be considered notable enough for mentioning in an article if it is covered in scores of reliable sources. I feel that it is different to the tabloid story of the day xxx was seen leaving xxxx hotel with xxxx type of thing. I have though seen Hullaballoo delete information about long -term relationships which were widely covered in reliable sources like The Guardian etc and were very well known, it just seems a bit odd to remove anything but a marriage and label it "tabloid drivel". That's what I disagree with. I'll agree that Hullabaloo is right to remove unsourced content of brief flings and that but not relationships which people were in for 4 years and is well documented in multiple reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

James I of England

Heated debate

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

There is no doubt that James VI was King of Scotland for many years before he became also King of England and united the two countries. Yet, the article title remains James I of England with no compromise as to even a "joint title". So far, attempts at compromise by the Scottish and other editors have gone completely unheard by many English editors. The worst and most distressing thing is that claims and accusations of nationalism have come up against the Scots as well as similar accusations going the other way to the English and it has become ugly. Unless someone who is greatly respected weighs in; I think some good editors may leave Wiki.

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

We need some other English speaking countries, and, I believe "The Big Gun" to weigh in on this. Unfortunately, the evidence, from an American point of view, is not being heard or completely ignored and a discussion is being quickly closed every time it is re-opened.

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

Right, well I live part-time in England and I edit as an ordinary editor in this general area, so I probably don't fit the right mold for someone to intervene in any commanding way. But I can say a few words of calm and hope that is helpful to some extent.

Given that the question of Scottish independence is increasingly in the news, and people may have strong feelings about it, it wouldn't surprise me to see claims of 'nationalism' coming up more often in Misplaced Pages around topics like this. I hope not, but such is the way of the world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comment. Unfortunately, I believe this is a unique situation and I cannot find a precedent in the monarchy series of articles. Mugginsx (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to simply name the article James VI of Scotland / James I of England? It won't harm the accessibility of the article as we will have various redirects which will get the reader there just fine. Yes that is contra our "rules", but come on: a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin, and would we rather lose editors???

(Lots of people have used two names, but in most cases there's one main one. One example where this is not true us Sean Combs. Should his article be named "Puff Daddy" or "P. Diddy" or "Diddy"? Apparently there the compromise was to use his birth name. If we followed that precedent here we could name the article "James Stuart" I suppose, and that would be another solution.) Herostratus (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See, therein lies the problem - the "main one" is neither or both (in this case). There is no "main king of any European country" taught in America and other English-speaking countries. While we may love to read about them and learn about them, I assure you I have never heard of any king of either country given preference in any U.S. High School or College that I have attended. I think if lots of people have used two names as you state - that is the answer. I do not believe there can be any resolution of the type that Mr. Wales suggests, i.e., except in this way. Mugginsx (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Following up on Touré

Following up on your comment at Talk:Touré#Request for respectful delay and the previous discussion on your talk page, has there been any progress on this issue? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

image filter

I want to ask you why you think that it would be a good idea.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I will find the feature personally very useful, as I often work in public places and in conservative countries (I am not talking about the United States, but rather more conservative places in the developing world). I think many others will find it useful too. If you don't find it useful, don't use it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I find it harmful for Misplaced Pages. Good arguments against it can be found here; but in german; I don´t have the time to translate them all, so I will pick only three: 1.Which images someone doesn´t want to see/be seen is greatly different.2. People could be advised to use the image filter when using wikipedia.3. Misplaced Pages should be neutral. Censoring images isn´t neutral, can hide important information, exspecially in articles about medicine or art; which can effect the neutrality of the article.--Müdigkeit (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 2: What's wrong with advising people to use an image filter while reading or editing Misplaced Pages in a public place in Saudi Arabia? Do you prefer it when people don't read or edit Misplaced Pages in such circumstances, or do you think we have an obligation to create martyrs of anti-censorship? Hans Adler 06:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I find none of those arguments persuasive nor particularly to the point.

1. While it is true that which images someone doesn't want to see can be greatly different, there is broad agreement and industry standards reflect this. Google, yahoo, and many others have offered this functionality successfully to users for many years without any particular drama or problems. Additionally, we can and should make it customizable by the user for special cases. So, I have answered point one.

2. People could be advised to use it? Yes, those same people could be advised not to visit those pages at all, or advised not to use Misplaced Pages. Allowing the end user control over what they see will allow greater freedom to the end user, not less. Additionally, the only thing the image filter should do is enable javascript 'hide' functionality, so that with a single click, I can view the images that I have hidden. (Usually this will be after looking around the room to see if the circumstances are appropriate/private.) So I have answered point 2.

3. Allowing the end user control over their experience at Misplaced Pages is never censorship. I can explain further if you want, but that is my basic answer to point 3.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should be encrypted

Why isn't Misplaced Pages encrypted?Because,there are lots of fake Misplaced Pages websites on the net.Please look over this issue if you can.I,myself,detected a phishing Misplaced Pages website claiming it is the original,and encouraging people to log-in on their website.Nearly 45% of Misplaced Pages accounts are compromised every year for these fake websites.If you can,can you please reply on my talk page?Dipankan001 (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

...Misplaced Pages is free...--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-10-10/Technology report#Improved https support comes to Wikimedia wikis for current information on accessing Misplaced Pages using encrypted connections. --Allen3  12:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dipankan001, do you have any evidence for the claim that "nearly 45% of Misplaced Pages accounts are compromised every year"?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dipankan001, I think you are actually referring to sites which mirror our content. These websites aren't "fakes", but rather they re-use our content. This is perfectly normal, and as long as they are respecting the GFDL/CC licensing, completely legal. Resolute 13:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)