User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:16, 5 October 2008 view sourceRenamed user ixgysjijel (talk \| contribs)27,236 edits →process & precedent for explicit image type: Thank you for the clarification← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:01, 22 January 2025 view source MimirIsSmart (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers6,761 edits →A cheeseburger for one of the greatest on Misplaced Pages!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLove
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	{{Calm talk}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{usercomment}}
			{{noindex}}

			{{Stb}}
	</div>
			{{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		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(10d)
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = 38
			\| counter = 252
	\|algo = old(2d)
			\| maxarchivesize = 350K
	\|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
			\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}
			{{Centralized discussion}}
	{{AutoArchivingNotice\|small=yes\|age=2\|target=./Archive 38\|dounreplied=yes\|index=./Archive index\|bot=MiszaBot III}}
			__TOC__
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index\|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>\|indexhere=nein\|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
			{{-}}
	{{archives\|small=yes}}

			== ] ==
	== An idea in which you might be interested: ==

			Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on ] about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	I posted a proposal that would dramatically reduce vandalism and earn the foundation money, all by costing users practically nothing here . Tell me what you think. Regards, ] (]) 04:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

			== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
	I think there is a lot of value to thinking about "costs" but I don't think actual money is a good way to do this. The way this works in Misplaced Pages is that users build up "reputational capital" over time and this encourages good behavior because you don't want to squander it. A good reputation in a community like this is worth a lot more than 10 bucks to most sensible people. Still, other than the introduction of cash, I think that your thinking is generally in the right direction: how can we make it slightly more costly for people to engage in vandalism? That's a tough question.--] (]) 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

			<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
	I believe once you seriously start thinking about the money on interest with the funds in trust that the foundation can earn, you might, and I wholeheartedly appreciate you saying that I have the right idea about this, even more strongly feel that this trust fund idea can only redound to not only your benefit, but to the benefit of all wikipedians. Thank you. ] (]) 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->

			== A brownie for you! ==
	== ] on ] and notability ==

			{\| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
	{\| width=100% align=center style="background:none; text-align:right; white-space:nowrap;"
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\| align=left\|{{User:Dispenser/Link checker/config
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| brownie :D ] 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	\| name = WikiProject_The_Simpsons/rightpanel
	\| interval = weekly
	\| generate = all
	\| title = Featured Episodes of ''The Simpsons''
	}}
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\|  ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] '']''
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] ]
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] ]
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] '']''
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ]]
	\|-
	\|align=left\|] "]"
	\| ] ]
	\|-
	\|}		\|}

			== ] ==
	Jimbo, in an ] in a discussion about ] you said '''' I am curious to hear your response to ]'s subsequent - which of those articles would you "vote to delete" ? ''']''' (]) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
	::Oh, either all of them or, possibly, all but a few. For me, were I voting today, I would look for much stronger verifiability as evidenced by reliable third-party sourcing rather than original research. In particular, I would be looking for something to suggest that the episode achieved some wider and significant specific cultural impact. (For example, the last episode of Seinfeld, or of Mary Tyler Moore.) It bears repeating: I am not trying to make policy here, just indicating my current thinking on these matters.--] (]) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm a bit puzzled why you'd mentioned original research. The articles may not be perfect, but OR is not an issue with any of them. Are you referring to the plot sections? It's generally accepted that editors can use primary sources for the plot section, so long as they stick to the basic details. ]''']''' 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
	: I think Jimbo's response to this would be interesting to ]. I'm also curious as a main contributor to '']'' articles. There is only one article about an episode of that show at the moment. I'm not sure if I understand you, Jimbo, when you said, "My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done". Did you mean on a episode-by-episode basis, as in not much harm is done to the episode by having an article about it, or not much harm is done to Misplaced Pages and its reputation WRT episode articles in general? (Don't worry, whichever way you answer I'm not about to create 146 articles on Degrassi episodes!)
	: Personally, I'm a little surprised by some of the earlier articles that were given FA status. "]", for example. If you take away the references from the BBC (just a summary as part of their episode guide from when they aired the show) and the DVD commentaries, we're left with 10 references for the entire article, eight of which are used in the Reception section. One of those, ref 8 is the opinion of 1 fan that happened to appear in ''USA Today'', the rest all say the same thing: "this episode was one of the good ones" (paraphrasing). Same with "]". Twelve references, eight ] sources, only four secondary. Three of them discuss a character and say "he is good", the fourth discusses the episode and says "it is good" (again, paraphrasing). I'm not sure if notability has really been established for those two articles. The others are better, increasing as you get towards the bottom of the list, which only goes to show how the FA process is improving over time. ] (] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> ]) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
	]
	Jimbo, so you'd seriously delete articles that the community has decided to feature? Now I don't call myself an inclusionist, but there are five volunteers who worked very hard for many months to earn a spot ]. I look at this thread and shake my head; to them your post has got to be a punch in the gut. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
	:My comment is not a comment on the quality of their work. One could write a beautiful poem that changes the history of English literature forever, and I would vote to delete it from Misplaced Pages. There are many factors beyond just the amount of quality effort that someone puts into something that determine whether or not it is right for Misplaced Pages. In any event, I am not suggesting that I would delete anything. I am just giving some context on my current thinking in these areas. Primary research can be great. It just doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages for a variety of reasons that we understand better today than we did some years ago.--] (]) 08:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
	::Writing ] using research from ''secondary'' sources from newspaper articles, books, and ]s in an article about a notable topic in popular culture is not "primary research". ''']''' (]) 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
	On a related issue, there is a discussion and straw poll at ] on whether there should be a minimum length in words for FAs of say 1,000 or 1,500 woords, and other issues. At the moment there seems no majority on this, so we are likely to continue to get increasingly short FAs - the shortest candidate I have seen was 329 words - many on small tropical storms (one reached 40mph for 1 minute) and American state roads (one a 1/4 mile long, outside a military base). ]. ] (]) 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

			You're the subject on a delist FPC. Please, give us your feedback. ] (]) 01:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Wikimedia and Wikipe-tan ==

			== A cheeseburger for one of the greatest on Misplaced Pages! ==
	I think the wikimedia foundation should create a 30-minute bi-monthly anime webcast show available on wikimedia commons. It should feature the Wikipe-tan with the power to master syntax, which she uses against her enemy, the wiki-troll. She would scower the globe for information to put in articles and be given barnstars by administrators for thwarting the efforts of vandals and spammers. --] (]) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

			{\| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
	Good concept. Make it multiple trolls to make it more exciting. Try using more of the wikiFauna. Work on a couple of good story lines. Take care! ] (]) 09:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]

			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| A visionary with an enduring legacy! <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:There are better uses of voluntary donations. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 09:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
			\|}

	== Redirect ==

	Can i redirect from ] to ] or ] to ] ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Uh..no. One is an article in the mainspace. The other is a userpage.--]</font><sup> (] • ])</sup> 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
	::In fact, ] is a GA! :-) –] ] ] 16:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
	:::Really? I can just hear the media now insisting that WP is corrupt for saying an article on its founder is "Good". ] (] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> ]) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well, what would they say if this was an FA and put on the main page for his 40th birthday? lol. There is always 45 and 50 to shoot for. :) ] (]) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

	:IP editor Welcome to Misplaced Pages.If you want to test please test using the ].Please go through the welcome message I gave in your talk page. ] (]) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Hi Jimbo ==

	Just wondering here, but seeing as you are the almighty-final say in everything power on wikipedia, what do you think of something like ] where the guy gets ] for the answer to a question, opposed for being a wrestling fan, and told off for not answering an optional qustion about his age evn though the oft agreed lower limit is 12? (I was 13 when I first had an RFA and noone pulled me up for it (I phailed anyway)) <font face= xirod>] ]] 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

	== process & precedent for explicit image type ==

	This relates to ], recently placed on ] after being used for vandalism. A couple years back, you deleted ], used in ], with the edit summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements." (It appears that the image and log has since been oversighted, but I wrote down the incident at ].) Given how similar the images are, I wonder if you could clarify whether your previous deletion was a one-off and the stance of the higher ups have changed in the meantime, if you reserve summary deletion of these types of images for yourself, if admins have authority to do out of process deletion for these types of images as well, or if you wish this image to go through normal deletion discussions? Thanks, ]] 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

	All images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements should be deleted on sight, and the uploader blocked for simple vandalism. If anything has changed about my stance on this in recent years, it is a significantly lower tolerance for trolling us. I do not think it is out-of-process to delete such stuff on sight, and if it is, then the process needs to be changed to make sure it happens.--] (]) 14:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you for the clarification. - ]] 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Consensus or verifiability? ==

	Dear Jim, First, please check out the history of the ] page.

	You are perhaps already more aware than I am that there are abusive users on Misplaced Pages. There is no doubt about it. What is sad is that even admins abuse their special privileges regularly without any "checks and balances". All this just to go with "consensus" instead of basing decisions on "verifiable" facts. This is violation of the very mandate of what admins are for and waste of time for good faith editors. In the long run, this will keep poor contributors in and sway away good faith editors. While I was a target of abusive editing practices by others, I was blocked by ] from arbitration (as a punishment for my notifying an abusive admin to arb)!!! All this instead of ] issuing some sort of warning to an abusive admin ] or asking him to refrain from abusive practices in the future. The disputed content was discussed at ]. Anyway, while watching the history of the ] page today (as it is I'm blocked), I noticed that another person ] also seems to have run into the same issue i.e. continued forced edit reversals even after that good faith editor added links so others can verify the corrections he (or she) had made. The edit reversal again in this case done by admin ]~! Doug's last rv note says "it is clear there is no consensus for this edit" and nothing about "verifiability" of facts discussed on the ] page. All this goes totally against Misplaced Pages ] guidelines. I am wondering why Misplaced Pages would make such people as admins! Even long-timers like ] also seem to playing the edit reversal game just to go with the flow of whatever the admin likes. With the current approach, this great project is bound to fail, especially if nothing changes. The content will most certainly not be high grade if "consensus" instead of "verifiability" is used as the yardstick. The smart people of Misplaced Pages need to figure out and fix this "bandit ring game" for good. What's really disturbing is even long-timers dabble in mindlessly just to look good within the circle of favor (especially to admins), and admins can't seem to separate wheat from shaff, while also ruthlessly pushing their own POV!!! This again goes totally against the ] principle. At minimum, a neutral hidden committee (arbitration not comprising of admins) should monitor all admins and keep score of their actions secretly. Misplaced Pages needs to look closely at their stats and seriously at rules on admin monitoring. If admins themselves engage in ], this goes totally against the very foundation of building a great encyclopedia. Better still if admin monitoring can be done programatically instead of this current affinity-based approach. Where we are today, further degradation of content and even more POV content is almost guaranteed. I'd love to hear back from you if Misplaced Pages is already working along these lines or what your planned next steps are. Be well. ] (]) 09:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
	*VedicScience, this is stupid. And you don't strike me as a stupid person, so I don't know why you're doing this. Keep it up and you'll be banned soon, which would be a shame, because you can make good edits. You have absolutely no case here, and you need to let it drop. I think a part of you knows this. Please let go of the vanity. ] (]) 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:01, 22 January 2025

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
you can leave a message here

This 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.

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.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit". Vice Media. 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.

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image?

Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image? about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. Barnt Toust 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)