| Revision as of 14:54, 25 March 2010 view sourceUkexpat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers115,269 edits →Sidney Crosby← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:32, 14 January 2025 view source BarntToust (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,507 edits →Talk:Jimmy Wales#Newer 2024 image?: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{usercomment}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{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 | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(10d) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 56 | |||
| | counter = 252 | |||
| |algo = old(1d) | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 350K | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Centralized discussion}} | |||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=1|target=./Archive 53|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|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|small=yes|collapsed=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| {| align="right" style="clear:both" | |||
| |] | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] ] we discussed == | |||
| I noticed while you recognized that the Carrie Prejean attack page was a coatrack, you didn't accept straight off that it was an attack page. The "encyclopedia article" was created when Miss Prejean, then 21, said that marriage was a man-woman thing. I quote the gay/ same-sex marriage advocate <s>]</s> editors: | |||
| * "Hilton's words and Prejean's answer to the marriage question are the only reason Prejean has an article today." | |||
| * "Prejean's fame beyond yet-another-state-pagaent-winner lies in the interactions with Hilton and the public reactions thereto." | |||
| Per ], "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." -- ] 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It isn't helpful to insult people by calling them a 'mob'. | |||
| :As to the content issue, I don't know the case well enough to have a strong opinion on whether this is a BLP1E situation, but I will say that there is at least very good reason to consider it, and my initial inclination would be to agree with you. As it currently stands, I re-iterate my opinion from before: the article is a fiasco and embarrassment. I'm dealing with several different issues at once these days, and so I'm not going to have time to personally get involved in this one, but I do hope I will be kept informed over time as to how it progresses.--] (]) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :*Hey Rico, since I am the first quote above, I will note that I not a mob member. Even mice don't scurry from me. I followed the Prejean "controversy" closely at first and have cleaned up vandal edits on wikipedia to her article (as I have also done to ] more recently). I also know that state pageant winners often do not get to have articles on wikipedia because they get deleted (not by me, but I'm more of an inclusionist if articles are verifiable). There is no question that Prejean's notability stems from her answer given in the pageant and Perez's subsequent baiting to increase the controversy. Since then she has had a very rocky road, and the article necessarily reflects what has been reported, and we need to avoid being too gratuitous--Jimbo's comment is not surprising because unless you've followed the controversy closely, you would be surprised to know the overall tenor of her coverage was exceedingly negative. But she's way too famous now not to have an article, imho. Its always fair to debate whether and how certain things should be worded, but those who may not agree with you aren't necessarily some cabal of gay marriage aficianados.--] (]) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Milowent, I did look into this a couple of weeks ago when it was first brought to my attention, and I think the article is quite unfair as it stands. (And I agree with you that turning this into a "pro gay marriage cabal" argument is not likely to be useful.) | |||
| :::I think the things that disturbs me most right now is the close of the article - the article closes with an obvious enemy of hers (remember, she sued them for terminating her contract) calling her a liar, delusional, etc. The "hook" for that quote is that she apparently performed quite poorly on Larry King, storming off the set or whatever - is that incident actually worth including in the article? (Maybe it is, I'm just raising the question.) Surely she's done dozens of other interviews that went perfectly well - but we don't talk about those, we only talk about her failed interview with King. | |||
| :::What do you think of the BLP1E question? It does seem pretty much right that she wouldn't have an article had Perez Hilton not behaved as he did. (Seriously, I think were it not for his behavior, no one in the press would have even noted her answer - it is, as many have noted - not a completely outrageous answer even if you don't agree with it... it's the same answer that is fairly standard for a lot of people. Had she said "I think gay people should burn in hell" then that would have likely been notable in and of itself. But this only became notable because of something that someone else did.) Even the subsequent lawsuit might not have generated any particular notice - people sue people all the time, it's not that big a deal in most cases.)--] (]) 19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think this is just a BLP1E, but the article desperately needs to be rewritten. I edited it for awhile, but got fed up with partisans on either side of the issue and took it off my watchlist. Starting with the Miss USA 2009 controversy pretty much gets undue weight. I'm going to take a crack at it and see if I can get rid of some of the bias. ] 19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Milowent wrote, "the article necessarily reflects what has been reported the overall tenor of her coverage was exceedingly negative." | |||
| :::I have to disagree that: | |||
| :::(1) It is "necessary" that a Misplaced Pages article "reflects what has been reported." | |||
| :::(2) A biography of a living person should "necessarily reflect" an "exceedingly negative" "overall tenor" of ]. | |||
| :::(1) BLP1E states, "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." | |||
| :::(2) BLP Criticism and praise states, "Criticism ''needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, '''encyclopedic tone'''''. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view," and there are a ''lot'' of motivated someones, give up. Misplaced Pages policies will prove to be not worth the media they're stored on. | |||
| :::This "encyclopedia article" has always been a smear file, and content was cherrypicked to use Misplaced Pages to establish that this college student was a s__t. | |||
| :::It has always been an attack page, a repository for all the dirt that was drudged up against her in gay/liberal media attacks, and it always will be. | |||
| :::What one editor wrote about one section applies to the entire attack page, and to Misplaced Pages: "I am not a fan of rightist 'Christian' Ms Carrie Prejean - I am rather quite the opposite," but the section/article "is all through biased and considers only Anti-Prejean statements, what makes this article sad and also make sometimes the state of wikipedia sad." -- ] 03:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know if it was that you wrote, "I think Carrie is an idiot," or that you put in the article that "some reports have noted that teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for sending such tapes," or that you ] -- ] that it should be in the BLP that an openly gay gossip blogger called her a "dumb bitch." (You can't just write in the article that Miss Prejean is a "dumb bitch," but you can report that someone else said it, if enough Wikipedians want that?) | |||
| :::You argued, "'Prejean admitted that making the video of herself and sending it — an act that other teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for doing'). I suppose that last one supports a mention of it in the article." Luitgard thanked you for your "great objective research," and bought into your idea of "creat a ] article." | |||
| :::So please excuse me if I assumed you were just another one of the dozens of editors and admins that have ], but to create an ] ] ]. | |||
| :::And Milowent, I struck out the word <s>mob</s> before you wrote this. -- ] 05:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::When I wrote "mob", I only meant an overwhelming number of people -- that ''mobs'' you, with '']'' (or "mob rule"). I wasn't thinking about an angry mob that goes after someone with pitchforks and torches, even though they ''have'' come after us many times -- with SLAPP suit-style abuses of process, Star Chamber activity and WP:Harassment -- with the predictable chilling effects. Lumping the two editors I quoted, above, into that group was a mistake -- and not essential to my point. | |||
| ::I have already objectively '''''proven''''' the interest in homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage of the editors that wanted an attack page, (skip down to the bullet points). It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest, given the time of their arrival at the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack, that they were editing the article ''because'' Miss Prejean had stated that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. It's hard to apologize for stating the obvious, especially after I've proven it, but lumping individuals into this group may have been painting with overly broad strokes, and it was unnecessary. For that, I'm sorry. | |||
| ::Since Dictionary.com recognizes that one definition of a , is simply "any group or collection of persons or things," I hope we can focus on the (now ]) attack coatrack. -- ] 04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Jimbo- I personally think the Larry King coverage is too much (ETA: and i said so at the time, ]), though it was covered widely at the time. What you can see is that the California pageant people were ''really'' vicious in this public drama - it would likely be fairer to say both sides made contentious public statements about other side. The lawsuit also didn't get major coverage until the sex tape claim came out. As for the BLP1E issue, I can't imagine consensus would favor her deletion, and we can't ignore the massive coverage she has received. Its a "famous for being famous" dilemma, and we are reflecting what the media has made notable. Thus, for John Edwards we have a massive ] article.--] (]) 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is becoming more and more of a problem that probably deserves some sort of RfC or other centralized discussion. Articles that should fail by BLP1E standards get legions of supporters at their AfDs because they cite "the massive coverage" out there. With the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and the tabloidish/sensationalist nature of even major media outlets these days, IMO the threshold for being "in the news" is far, far, far lower now than it was even 3-4 years ago. ] (]) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've removed much of the contentious material. Like Milowent, there was far too much on the Larry King interview. People give weird interviews all the time, so I removed it. I also condensed everything about the post-Miss USA into a couple of paragraphs. I think the worst part of the article was a sly attempt to say that Prejean ''could'' have been convicted for distributing child pornography for her tape if she was underage when it was taken. She wasn't, but the statement was still in there with multiple sources. ] 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Discussions, that were just between anti Carrie Prejean editors, took the form of: 'how can we include this new slag in the article.' Justifications ranged from simple opinions to a predilection for disparagement (veiled, of course, in ]) -- but the direction was always the same (tarnish Miss Prejean's reputation). | |||
| When people like me tried to suggest following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, throngs of Most Interested Persons swamped us with arguments that were often ridiculously unpersuasive. Arguing with people that had no interest in building consensus was like trying to reverse the direction of a swarm of locusts with one's bare hands. | |||
| Naturally, we gave up, withdrew, and left the ] ] ] to those that were running Google News searches for "Carrie Prejean," and copying whatever dirt was published by ] into her BLP. InaMaka wrote, "You got your way. You and your associates jammed completely inappropriate comments into the article which violate NPOV and BLP." Caden wrote, "I see no point. That hateful mob owns and controls that attack page. Personally, I feel the article should be deleted." | |||
| Baseball Bugs, who didn't hide disdain for Miss Prejean, brought up deleting the attack coatrack. | |||
| AniMate, who once wrote, "I don't think anyone would confuse me with a Prejean fan," was the principal opponent. | |||
| Frederick Douglass stated, "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." | |||
| I suspect that the limits of what people will submit to, will be the exact amount of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon this "encyclopedia article." And the endurance of editors that want Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines complied with, will again prove to be far short of what would be necessary. | |||
| What's happened now, is that AniMate -- and who has "<span style="font-family:Segoe Print;">DOWN WITH ]!</span>," in a big box at the top of his/her user page, with <span style="font-family:Segoe Print;">]</span> pointing to California Proposition 8 (2008) -- has deleted ''some'' of the most egregious content and ]. | |||
| But Miss Prejean's not notable for having gotten engaged to a football player, nor for having written a book. Lots of people write books these days, that don't sell. It would not make sense to report on the fallout, without putting why it occurred. Lots of women get engaged to football players. The BLP1E's still primarily about Miss Prejean's answer and the resulting fallout, and there is another article for that, entitled, "]," classified as "within the scope of ... WikiProject LGBT studies." -- ] 21:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Rico, "people like you" aren't the only ones who follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I dare say that most of, if not all, of the main principals in this discussion follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and endeavor to edit according to those precepts. The problem is that part of the difference is in ''interpretation'' and ''application'' of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The discussion at the talk page should be a discussion of the differing interpretations and how article proposals fit with one or the other, and attempts to persuade editors and gain consensus. Unfortunately, what the discussion is and what it should be are two different things -- far too often at the talk page, the "discussion" was nothing but repetitions of "That's censorship!", "Hilton's evil!", "Prejean's evil!", "You're all pro/anti gay marriage, why should I listen to you?", and repeated postings of quotes from policy pages with any arguments, even pathetic ones, at all. (Heck, to a large extent, many talk pages look like that.) (And, yeah, I've been guilty of that too.) Can we, at least, please discuss the ARTICLE rather than the EDITORS? Maybe the paras in the Prejean article dealing with the controversy can be shortened given the existence of the "Controversy" article - but can we talk about it over on the talk page, instead of at ANI, the BLP noticeboard, and Jimbo's talk page? -- ] (]) 21:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps I'm dense, but I'm still trying to figure out how this is a BLP1E and what exactly Jimbo is supposed to do about it. Is the one event winning ]? Is it the ] she gave in the ] pageant? Is it the fact that she is one of the few women in the Miss USA organization that had the title taken away? Is it the book she wrote for ] that was endorsed by a number of high profile conservative commentators? So confusing. Even more confusing is why Rico has chosen to complain about this here. Is Jimbo supposed to use his special "Jimbo powers" to make the article disappear? If it is such an obvious BLP1E coatrack attack article, why not just ]? It's also quite confusing that Rico has now declared me not-neutral enough to edit the article because I have a banner showing my disdain for ], when in a post he , it shows him quoting me in support of his position. ] 05:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why complain here???? Are you serious??? Rico's attempts to improve the article have been consistently removed and deleted. My attempts to improve the article have been removed and deleted. It is wrong for you to even question why he came here. Is there a Wikipedian rule that I am not aware of that states that no one should go to Jimbo's talk page with an important issue unless AniMate or ArgleBargleIV decide it is ok?? No there isn't. Arglebargle states above to to discuss the article and not the editors but you and bargle seem to think is it ok to discuss Rico. That is hypocritical. I have made a consistent argument from day one that as editors of Misplaced Pages we could get across Hilton's clear hatred of Prejean without having to quote him word for word, thus not repeating his hate speech of the phrase "db". I have stated over and over again on the talk page that if some blogger had called Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton a "db" there is NO way that any Wikipedian editor would have allowed that to be repeated in the article. NOR should we stoop to the level of childish comments such as Hilton's. I have not reviewed the edit history so at this time I don't know if you (AniMate) or Bargle were editors who kept quoting the highly offensive and unnecessary "db" comment of Hilton, but I do know that I was repeatedly overturned each and every time I attempted to remove the exact wording but keep the general gist of Hilton's rant. Not only were my edits reverted immediately I had to read over and over again that my attempt were nothing by "censorship" which is also flat out wrong. I will complain here about that article because it is nothing more than a hit piece on a living person. It is joke now, but it was a worse joke when the "db" wording could not be removed. I believe that the ONLY reason that the "db" wording has not reappear BECAUSE Rico and I are still right here at Jimbo's talk page. As soon as this talk page discussion gets archived I believe the editors who feel the need to repeat Hilton's hatred will return and bring the article back to it POV and BLP violating state. And one last thing, I will bring whatever reasonable discussion of an article to Jimbo's page and I will NOT ask either AniMate or Bargle for permission because I do not have to have it.--] (]) 18:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, since this is continuing here, I will respond here. Warning, a tl/dr block of text is ahead. | |||
| :::::First, I prefer "Argle", if you don't mind. :-) (Although if you look in the history of ] for reverted revisions, I'm sure you'll find something both more "creative" and more worthy of Mr. Hilton.) | |||
| :::::Second, neither Animate nor I have been talking about "rules". You, Rico, Animate, anybody have a perfect right to come to ] and present your case (unless Jimbo kicks us all off of here) -- and nowhere did I say you couldn't. NOWHERE. You don't have to ask me for permission for anything, and I wouldn't dream of either giving or denying permission. I just wonder why you're here instead of taking policy- and guideline-suggested actions such as a ] or ]. I don't know how you jumped from my questioning Rico's reasons to half of your rant above. It's far too common these days to assume immunity from questioning or criticism -- sorry, but freedom of speech (even Misplaced Pages's version) doesn't guarantee that. Reasonable responses to suggestions or questions as to why are usually of the forms "Here's why or why not" or "That's ridiculous", not "You're not MY boss!" | |||
| :::::Third, earlier here, I presented some examples of suboptimal and disagreeable behavior, with the intent that I've seen it on BOTH sides of this debate, including in myself, but not specifying any editor in particular. My only specific discussion towards Rico was to ask him why. I haven't said anything about his editing style or his Misplaced Pages habits, nor have I accused him of trying to censor and shut down a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. BTW, when an editor throws around accusations of cabal-like behavior, shouldn't he or she be called on it? If you're going to call responding to personal attacks a personal attack in itself, you're effectively arguing for disarmament. | |||
| :::::Fourth, I'm not going to discuss the "db" comment here -- there's a ] already, except to note that I have moved to the position that the "db" quote probably doesn't need to be quoted. | |||
| :::::If you and Rico are constantly being reverted, maybe it's because you don't have consensus for your edits? If you believe that there is a policy violation occurring that trumps consensus, there are roads to take that are likely to be more fruitful and more likely to give you the results you want than coming here -- although, as I said before, what you do is up to you, because I don't and won't give orders. -- ] (]) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Rico, since you're spreading your answers all over the place here, I'm just going to respond down here. If you think the article should be deleted, why are you complaining here (and spending more of your time complaining about editors than discussing the article)? Why haven't you tried an ] on the article? Jimbo isn't likely to wave his magic wand and make it go away on your command. -- ] (]) 05:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear ArglebargleIV: Your comments above do not in anyway focus on how to make the Prejean article better. As a matter of fact, all your comments above are just an attempt to dictate to Rico what he actions as an editor should be. That is not helpful. Reading your comments you give the impression that taking an issue to Jimbo is a waste of time. Since you have decided to use this forum as an opportunity to dictate actions to Rico instead of fixing the obviously seriously faulted Prejean article and if it is a waste of time, which I do not believe it is, then why aren't you writing on each and every comment made on Jimbo's site concerning each and every article that is brought to Jimbo for his attention. We both know the answer to that question. You believe the Prejean article to be a mastery of insight and NPOV balance. But you are wrong. The Prejean article has been coatrack for over a year. It is just a place to go to bash Prejean by people who obviously do not agree with her position on gay marriage. It is not a fair article. I agree with all of Rico's comments concerning the article and I have attempted to edit the article myself and there are editors who simply overturned edit after edit moving the article back to its BLP violating state. I'm going to express my opinion right here whether you like it or not. Your attempts to question Rico's motives is an example of how badly written the article is. I will comment here and and Rico will comment here and that is just the way that it is going to be. Why don't you focus on improving the article which is what Rico and I have attempted to do. We are attempting to tone down article make it less of a BLP violating coatrack that it is. You comments just seem to designed to shut us up. That doesn't seem to be a very good use of time.--] (]) 18:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dear Bargle: I reviewed the edit history of the Prejean article. An editor named TharsHammar kept placing the "db" quote in the article over and over again and he would state that the removal of the phrase "db" was '"censorship"'. You can see an example of that unhelpful editing here: . At one point Hilton's use of the words "db" was re-stated four and five times in the article--which is clearly unencyclopedic and unnecessary, not to mention that it violates various goals and requirements of Misplaced Pages such as NPOV and BLP. You can see in the following edit that the hate-filled phrase of Hilton's "db" quote was in the article several times: . Now, you, Mr. Bargle did believe incorrectly that jamming the "db" quote in the article was absolutely necessary. You can see an example of repeating Hilton's quote by ABargle here: . Yes, the editors of the article were dead set on quoting Hilton's hate speech and I will give one more example of the overbearing nature of their desire to see of the phrase "db" in the article. Please review this particular edit by TharsHammar: . This is the extent of the debate. It was a my way or the highway type of debate. Once again, there is NO WAY under God's green earth would Wikipedian editors (and admin's at that) allow a low life blogger like Hilton to call ], ], ], etc. a "db" and then re-quote the low life blogger on Misplaced Pages. Now, I attempted to make a compromise and move the direct quote of Hilton's hate speech (which of course is completely inappropriate) to a footnote so that the exact wording would remain in article to stop the bogus screams of "censorship" from TharsHammar. Then, Mr. ArgleBargle reverted me and stated that moving the direct quote to the footnote was inappropriate. You can review Mr. ABargle unhelpful reversion of my compromise here: . Mr. Bargle is upset that Rico and I are here on Jimbo's talk page commenting in his particular attempts to violate NPOV and BLP policies by jamming Hilton's hate-filled speech into the Carrie Prejean article. Now I see why you are questioning why we are here. You don't want your work to be reviewed by folks you can't push around. You know that if Rico and I just stay on the Carrie Prejean talk page then you can with the assistance of like minded editors and admins jam those NPOV and BLP edits right there into the article without much work. I pointed that ArgleBargle was edit warring here: . I attempted to put something in the article that was NOT a direct attack on Carrie Prejean and something that was notable. I added information about her guest hosting ] and of course that was removed by the anti-Prejean editors. The anti-Prejean editors were NOT going to allow any positive information about Prejean in the article. You can review that unhelpful edit here: . I do not believe in censorship so I put the Fox & Friends material back in the article and AniMate--who is upset that Rico and I are commenting here--reverted the Fox & Friends material and removed it, but AniMate did not seem to be worried about censorship issues at that point. You can review AniMate's inappropriate removal of positive, on point, notable information about Carrie Prejean here: . The edit history goes on and on. The article needs to be cleaned up. And Bargle and AniMate have a direct conflict.--] (]) 20:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Suggest does not equal dictate. | |||
| :::"I'm going to express my opinion right here whether you like it or not." Fine, I wouldn't stop you. I don't see what you're getting out of it, but go ahead. | |||
| :::Please cite where I questioned Rico's motives. (Note, there is a difference between asking for his motives and questioning his motives (an idiom). I don't care about his motives, I just don't think he's taking actions that will result in what he wants. And I can comment on that, and make suggestions, and you can't tell me not to! Nyah nyah to you! (See how childish that sounds?) | |||
| :::I do think taking things to Jimbo, unless they are truly large matters, is a waste of time. This isn't a slight on Jimbo by any means, I just think that he's got better things he'd rather do, and there are paths one could take that are more likely to give results. | |||
| :::I don't care about 99.99% of the articles or issues raised on Jimbo's page, nor should I. I'm not trying to clean up his talk page. The only reason I'm here at all (and it is a visit of mine that, without a very good reason, is going to end right after this post), is because an article I was warking on earlier was brought up here, and I wouldn't have known that a discussion has taken place here at all if it had nopt been mentioned at Prejean's talk page. (I hasn't watchlisted Jimbo's page until this came up, and I'm de-watchlisting it shortly.) | |||
| :::The Prejean article is not a "mastery of insight and NPOV balance" -- it still desperately needs work -- and I would prefer that you not ascribe such an over-the-top opinion to me. I haven't made any recent non-wikignome changes to it because I was waiting until AniMate finished his slicing and dicing on the article (and until I had an evening free to study it a bit) before possibly making changes. -- ] (]) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wrote the above in between compiles and test runs -- and yet another block by InaMaka addressed to me has appeared. To respond quickly, I thought back then the quote should be used exactly instead of paraphrased, and although I ''still don't think the quote is a NPOV or BLP violation'', I've come to the conclusion that editorially, it isn't needed. If there was a national furor over a blogger calling Ms. Obama, Ms. Clinton, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Bachmann, or Ms. Palin a "db", and I thought that the text of the quote was needed rather than a paraphrase, I would want it included (and, btw, why just include liberals in your rant at me, unless you're trying to insinuate something about my politics?). Furthermore, I am not upset about anything here (nor is there any indication of that), so save the over-the-top rhetoric for somebody else. Hilton's calling Prejean a "db" was distasteful, but to call it "hate speech" diminishes the phrase when needed to describe real hate speech. If you think that you need to put in positive things in and article to make it NPOV (and similarly for those who think that negative things must be added to any article to provide balance and NPOV), then you misunderstand NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean balanced positive/negative -- sometimes there are more positive notable things than negative, and vice versa. Note the word "notable" -- if something isn't sufficently notable, putting it in just for balance is a bad editorial decision and is against NPOV itself. | |||
| ::::This is important -- please explain what you mean by "Bargle and AniMate have a direct conflict." | |||
| ::::If you have anything further you wish for me to respond to, you can try ] or ] -- unless Jimbo asks me a question directly, I won't be responding further here, and I'm already deeply regretful that I've been here as long as I have. | |||
| ::::I will agree with you in part though -- I'm coming to see that arguing with you ''here'' is a waste of time. Unless something changes, g'bye. -- ] (]) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I understand exactly where you are coming from. On the Carrie Prejean talk page and in the Carrie Prejean edit summary comments it is clear that you have to have the "db" comments quoted word for word. The use of the quote word for word is inappropriate and it violates NPOV and BLP, as I have been stating for about one year. It is also what Rico has been saying. Why is it ok for Rico and I to comment on the Prejean talk page, but not here? The answer is simple. We get over-run over there by editors and admins who believe wrongly that it is ok for Misplaced Pages to quote word for word from the critics of living people. Hilton's speech is hate speech. It is offensive and as you say "over-the-top." It is NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia. We can simply point out the essence of Hilton's hatred and move on. Misplaced Pages does NOT have to stoop to the level of a distasteful, hate-filled blogger--who is looking to libel Ms. Prejean. So Hilton hates Prejean. We get it. We don't need to quote him word for word and as I pointed out above and you chose to ignore, the article quoted the phrase, at one point in time, "db" five times. That is the epitome of a coatrack. Now, the anti-Prejean editors, which you were part of at that time, felt the need to railroad the two or three editors that were attempting to enforce the BLP and NPOV rules. It was and has been a horrible article dedicated to bringing up everything negative about Ms. Prejean--rumours, lies, falsehoods and everything else. Misplaced Pages is supposed to treat living people with intelligence and respect. Simply removing the phrase "db" from the article was NOT censorship and Rico and I have been accused of censorship over and over again by the editors who only seemed intent on looking over for the viewpoint of Hilton. Is Hilton the only person in the world who has an opinion on Carrie Prejean? No. Why do Hilton's comments about Prejean dominate the article? I suggest that you don't understand NPOV. Carrie Prejean is a young woman who is many things and it is insulting and not encyclopedic to argue that the whole life history of Ms. Prejean has to be summed up according to the viewpoint of Hilton. That is like having ] story presented on Misplaced Pages from the viewpoint of ] or ] story presented from the viewpoint of ]. Hilton obviously do not like Prejean and his comments have dominated the article for about a year and each and every time that Rico or I have attempted to edit the comments to tone them down (I tried the words "derogatory" "prejorative") or move them (I attempted to the exact quote--even though I did not agree upon its use at all--to the footnote section) you and the other anti-Prejean editors reverted us--in a highly argumentative and rude manner I might add. Only now, while we are on Jimbo's talk page are we getting anywhere with a reasonable compromises to tone the language and bring in in compliance with NPOV and BLP--hopefully your newfound desire to compromise will continue long after we leave Jimbo's talk page. However, I did notice that while we were having this discussion there has been an anon editor who has attempted to re-instate the inappropriate "db" language.--] (]) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == So, anything new on Flagged Revisions? == | |||
| Since you announced the conclusion of ] two weeks ago, I have not heard anything new about flagged revisions. Meanwhile, just today, I had to apologize to a distraught family that one of our articles called their son a pedophile and a rapist and tell them that as a result of our privacy policy, we are not at liberty to give them the IP information of the vandal who added that bit of damaging content unless they went through formal and expensive legal processes. Unfortunately, this situation is not unique. Every other OTRS ticket in the Quality subqueue in info-en seems to be a similar story. So...anything new? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I plan to post a new poll in a few days - possibly tomorrow morning if I can manage to write up my analysis in the morning. I intend to keep seeking consensus for doing something useful with the existing software while we wait for the improved software to be finished.--] (]) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :] --] (]) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :That edit was made to an article about a village, and flagged revisions can't do much about this type of incidents... except if it is applied to all articles. But since we don't want this, what can be done ? That's quite simple, but needs to be done: improving our monitoring tools; watchlists and recent changes are completely outdated, they can't keep up with the volume of editing over the vast number of articles. The only reason we can deal with most obvious ] is thanks to ] and a few other tools developed by users. But we need real software enhancements for more efficient, coordinated and in-depth monitoring and reviewing. There's been plenty of requests to improve watchlists (such as adding a visit functionality for more efficiency), to enable anything that could help us to better monitor articles, such as extension ] ( because unmaintained/not sufficiently developed), and of course patrolled revisions as part of ]. But all those requests are not implemented or the features not developed. As a result of the deficiency in our monitoring capability, BLP issues propagate and people tend to protect more; so I guess that if the Foundation wants to keep Misplaced Pages open, it will have to do more in this domain. ] (]) 12:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Following that poll, I analyzed the flagged revision policy very closely and couldn't help but scratch my head at the drastic nature of it. It made me wonder what happened to the seemingly far simpler step of requiring folks to register an account before editing. It doesn't prohibit ''anyone'' from contributing and adds a bit more accountability (or, at least, a bit more ''illusion'' of accountability) without redistributing power among the 'anonymous' and 'established' userbases. It just seemed like that would be a more measured 'first step' in addressing the problem, as it would do far less to defy wikipedia's core values. I have no doubt the possibility has been discussed at length throughout the annals of the project and I even did a cursory search for such a conversation, but in the end...I dunno, I guess I got distracted by something shiny.<br /> | |||
| Of course, it's entirely possible flagged revisions aren't nearly as ominous as I perceived them to be from the explanation I was trying to decipher.<br />--] (]) 18:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It wouldn't prohibit anyone from editing, but it would prevent a lot of people editing. A lot of people wouldn't both making their first edit to fix a typo if they had to register first. If people don't make their first edits, they aren't going to make subsequent ones. --] (]) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That reasoning occurred to me but two solutions came to mind immediately:<br /> | |||
| :::* Simply restrict IP edits in the article namespace while allowing their contributions on Talk Pages and the various portals of discussion. In the instance an IP user went to edit an article for a simple typo, it could redirect them to the talk page with a notice along the lines of:<blockquote> | |||
| ::::'' "If you've spotted a minor error, please describe it here and the registered userbase will be notified and the correction made (if necessary). If you would like to make the correction yourself, simply register 'here' to promptly receive full editing privilege across the entire encyclopedia." '' (This message could even explain how registering will fill the user's life with sunshine and rainbows and somewhere in a distant land, breathe life into a dying forest critter<sup>***</sup>)</blockquote> | |||
| :::* Keep everything as it is but limit the size of article edits by IP users to 1kb (or less if necessary). Any edit exceeding the established threshold would be redirected to the talk page and notified in a similar manner to the above option (with an explanation that the edit they're attempting to make exceeds the threshold for unregistered users). This option would be a relatively silent limitation, as in cases like that which you put forth, IP editors would have no idea it even existed if their only contributions were minor ones.<br /> | |||
| ::: Anyhow, I figured if these two solutions became apparent to me with such immediacy, who knows what awesomeness we could come up with if we stormed our brains and thunk on it a bit?<br />--] (]) 20:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::<sup>***''Sunshine, rainbows, and distance of distant land may vary. Dying forest critter not gauranteed to receive more life than one breath provides.''</sup> | |||
| I am glad that you make a poll, when the flagged revisions have no demonstrable beneficial effect on the German Misplaced Pages, nor do they have any theoretical foundations, but coincided with the decline of new users. But why not make the same mistake here, it must hurt to learn from others. <font color="#ff9900">]</font><tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Vulva == | |||
| Don't you think, the today's opening page of the will damage the image of wikipedia (showing a vulva)? Sincerely yours ] (]) 12:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : It seems to be an illustration related to an article about the ], which is quoted on the main page. --] 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it is, but it will inevitably be controversial. Was it really necessary? A balance must be struck between ideology and practicality. I think it is likely to do more harm than good. More schools blocking the site, for example. --] (]) 13:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :That is so full of awesome. It tops our ] FA a few months back by far. ] (]) 13:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Taking it to en:wp allows me to for once be the first to say ''Will someone please think of the children?'' Looking forward to see y'all at de:wp, discussion was about to dry out and could use some revitalization --] (]) 13:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) Honestly? I think it fails the test of the Principle of Least Astonishment. I see no reason to object to the image being placed (prominently, even) within the article ] — the reader who types ''vulva'' into the search box or who clicks the wikilink certainly should realize what he's getting into. I do wonder, however, if Misplaced Pages projects shouldn't exercise a bit more restraint with their Main Pages, however — the reader who comes to our front page planning to look up ] doesn't anticipate full-on, close-up, legs-splayed, vagina and anus. There is a certain amount of editorial restraint practiced in this regard; consider the sensibilities of what goes on the cover of, say, ''National Geographic'' or ''The Lancet'' versus the illustrations and photographs you might reasonably expect to find inside or 'below the fold'. | |||
| :Incidentally, for those who are about to jump up and down shouting ], I would urge you to go and read that policy first, and then go and look at my track record on responding to the perennial silly proposals to add content rating systems and the like to Misplaced Pages articles. ](]) 13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I am with TenOfAllTrades here all the way. I'm astonished it is there, and not in a good way.--] (]) 13:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. We recently had a whether or not to restrict featured articles on the main page based on their content. The result was 233 votes against any restrictions vs. 13 votes for restrictions. In addition there was a quite on which picture to use for illustration purposes. Regards--] (]) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's right. It fails the test of Principle of Least Astonishment. Well, I was so surprised that I spat out parts of my bagel. Something like that should never happen! ] (]) 14:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the Vulva Picture is not a suprise in the meaning of the principle (if i want to go to mainpage, an get another page, this is a surprice by using user-interface, but get the mainpage and see a not wanted article-of-the-day is not a surpice in this meaning, in my opinion. Sorry for my bad english.--] (]) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it's beautiful. I'm even considering making it my new wallpaper. If I do, though, I'm not yet sure where the shortcut to Misplaced Pages will go;)--] (]) 15:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ''I'' was astonished. As in "Wow! Sanity!" astonished. Are we to try to impose our insane Victorian standards of propriety even on ''other'' projects now? Or perhaps we should use some other standard? Make sure we don't have images of unveiled women either, say? That anyone could argue that a picture of a human organ is, somehow, offensive is a symptom of an ill society. That one could argue that it is somehow "harmful" to children is downright batshit insane. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::How many children would even exist without it! Unless, of course, you believe that whole nonsense about the ''Stork''(which not surprisingly was also created by Victorian sexual repressions).--] (]) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Anybody here who refers to the rule: ] should see, that this rule '''does not exist''' in de:WP . On the other hand there is the obove mentioned poll. To remove the picture now would case damage for the existing rules in german wp. regards --] (]) 15:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Jimbo, please do not enforce your wish on this issue at deWP. While I can understand your perception, please accept that German society is different. | |||
| # The article of the day and the picture are on the German front page for 17 hours by now. Not a single German news medium picked this up as a story: . OK, it is Sunday, but someone would have picked it up by now, if Germans would see a story there. | |||
| # The article was mainly written by the single most prolific author of deWP. You will probably know him personally. Achim is a 40 year old biologist and father of three children, his wife is in the last days or maybe hours of pregnancy with their fourth right now (I'm not violating his privacy here as he put this in the discussion himself earlier today). He knows what he is doing, he suggested the image and still supports it. | |||
| # The article got approved as "exzellent" (~featured), the promotion to article of the day was never seriously contested. | |||
| # The picture to go on the front page with the teaser was discussed extensively in the longest discussion ever on such an issue for about three weeks and until late yesterday. There was no consensus, but strong support for this very image. No other can illustrate the article better. --] ] 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *What's wrong with the Vulva? Okay, so they aren't the classiest kind of car, but they're perfectly good nonetheless. | |||
| :... | |||
| :... | |||
| :... | |||
| Oh wait, that's ''Volvo''. ]] 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Please keep in mind that German society is rather more open about sexuality than either the US or Britain. Sex shops in Germany have window displays for example, visible to all passers-by, and the covers of mainstream popular magazines often feature nudity. Cultural standards are different. As for children, a vulva is where they all came from. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, sex shops, yes, there are some ones :-)... But the point is, that the sexuality has been discussed here in Germany very profoundly after the so called sexual revolution at the end of the 60's, also in the connections with the childrens education in schools etc. Regards ] (]) 17:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::How hypocritical... seems EN:WP has no problem with the LP cover in ] which would be a no go in the German WP even if fair use was allowed in the German WP. --] (]) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That comment makes no sense. That LP cover is ''illegal'' in Germany. If it wasn't, I guess most people would have no problem with it, as it is not sexual in any way, you can see children at some nude beaches in Germany, and the LP is a relatively recent part of German mainstream culture anyway. It was always in bad taste, but I think it's still not far from the acceptable range. ] ] 20:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Jimbo, I lived 6 Month in the US and I agree that German people are more liberal in the context of sexuality than the people in the US, but I think the picture of a open vulva goes way too far. I think some people, that haven't finished their puberty, have taken over the control of the German Misplaced Pages. I am neither prudisch nor anything simular to that. --] (]) 18:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| There is only one possible solution. I am going to Berlin in a few weeks time, and I will attempt to reason with the members of the German community whom I meet there. If this fails, I am going to have to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to gain an advantage. You all may think this goes too far, but as far as I can see, only en, cs, and ru have a policy against it. :-) --] (]) 19:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I'd be pretty surprised if this picture caused much of a ripple outside the American bible belt if it appeared on the main page of English Misplaced Pages. That it was selected by the German Misplaced Pages first is just the luck of the draw. It isn't the 1950s any more. --] 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Germany is not at all like the US in this respect. (See ] for context: "Apart from urban areas and official baths, nude bathing is usual in Germany: unofficial nudist areas exist at most lakes and rivers, and other sites, such as abandoned rock quarries.") According to our article ], there doesn't even seem to be much of a sauna culture in the US, and mixed gender saunas require some clothing. That seems very odd to me. | |||
| :I was a bit surprised to see the picture, but I don't think it's the kind of provocation that gives Misplaced Pages in Germany a bad reputation. So far there seems to be nothing in the press, and German blogs are mostly amused. As far as I can tell this could still turn out to be a highly successful publicity stunt – or maybe not even sufficiently noticed for that. | |||
| :Jimbo, if this has any repercussions for Misplaced Pages in the US or elsewhere, you will probably have to communicate very clearly that that's your concern, rather than imposing American values on Europeans. ] ] 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Quite a few of us English speakers are also Europeans. We're not all Holy Joes you know. --] 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, this was a response to Jimbo, with an edit conflict that I didn't mark as such. | |||
| :::By the way, it appears to me that the German Misplaced Pages manages to enforce a more uniform standard for such things that permits them to put basically every article on the main page. I don't think something like the photos for ] or the screenshot at ] would survive there for anything like the same length of time as it does here. Here you can occasionally get the impression that some illustrations exist only for their shock value. ] ] 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :given that it is almost certianly a copyvio (uploaded by a user with no undeleted edits, no metadata on the image and images of this type without very solid backgrounds do tend to be copyvios) I think there would be a fuss outside the bible belt.©] 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't follow you. I have gone through all the user's uploads, and as far as I can see (I am not an admin) no copyright problems were found (except possibly in one case, a photo of an old piece of art). The photos also look like amateur photos to me. (Two of his photos survive under their old name, another still exists on Commons but was renamed. The others were deleted because they were orphaned.) ] ] 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::All those images had metadata saying that they were taken by a Konica Minolta Digital Camera. The vulva image does not.©] 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I were to upload such a photo of my girlfriend to Misplaced Pages you can bet that I would also crop it first so nobody can identify her. (Not that I take such photos in the first place...) ] ] 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::the other pics appear cropped but they have at least some of their metadata intact.©] 23:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| "Hi Jimbo, I lived 6 Month in the US and I agree that '''German people are more liberal in the context of sexuality...'''" that is only half the truth. Incest is forbidden even if two parties comply with it. I still remember the case were a man went to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (corresponds to the US Supreme Court) because of that anti-incest law and the BVerfG argumented in national-socialist manner (]). Also in German society there are restrictions. About the statement again, Germans were more liberal in context of sexuality: Of course there are also places which are much more prude like the Emsland and the Bayerische Wald (staunchly Catholic areas). ] (]) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I find it astonishing that it might even be considered that persons from English speaking (and thus cultural) nations should be in a position to say what should be considered appropriate for another language encyclopedia. I would remind readers of the ] debate, and the decision <u>not</u> to remove them from the article for the sake of offending Muslim sensibilities - and correctly, IMO, because this is the English language encyclopedia. As the saying is, "When in Rome..." or Berlin, as the case may be. ] (]) 23:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, why are ''we'' even discussing this? Isn't this a question for editors of the German Misplaced Pages to decide? ] (]) 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::The photo is on commons where some of us have some involvement.©] 23:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are images of the subject within the En-WP article, but the discussion was (initially) whether the Germnan language wikipedia should include it on the front page as the featured article - or indeed whether the subject was suitable for the front page. So, per AQFK, why are '''''we''''' discussing it? ] (]) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I guess we are discussing it because Jimbo is interested (he mentioned the principle of least astonishment at the German Misplaced Pages, but wasn't received very enthusiastically) and this is his talk page. And we are also discussing it because we are also not so sure how ''we'' deal with these things. Would we put such a photo on the main page? A picture of Muhammad? A severed head? A machine gun? Holocaust victims? Adolf Hitler on his birthday? (A standard example at the German Misplaced Pages for demonstrating that censorship doesn't need an explicit rule. Apparently some people keep proposing Hitler's article for the main page on his birthday, and simply never get anything close to the necessary support.) Ossama bin Laden on his birthday? George W. Bush on his birthday? Who are we prepared to offend and who don't we want to offend? Why are there no less than six pictures of Muhammad on ]? Aren't most of them purely decorative? Is Prodego going to get into trouble for deleting the ] screen shot out of process? Will it be restored? Does the photo at ] really have to be in the most prominent position so that even a hypothetical user who just googled the word to find out what it means would see it under all circumstances? ] ] 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Jimbo, my english is as poor as your german, so excuse me. Do not visit Germany! You are very astonisht in Munich. There is a Place in the middle of the city, greater then the Central Park in New York, called the ''English Garden''. Yes, the name is right. If you will see thousends of ''Naked in public'', go ]. This is Germany, so what? Greetings --] (]) 23:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Why we discuss this?: | |||
| *The internet doesn't know territorial limits: Also other nations can see, what is going on in the German wiki. | |||
| *Jimbo Wales is also responsible for this project, thus, it is also his business. | |||
| Anyway, at least this discussion clarified the position of wikipedia once again and I think this is the EOD. (The day is over anyway) PS: Seems that the German society isn't that liberal as some want to suggest. (see the hefty reactions in the German wikipedia) ] (]) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::<Edit conflict>Indeed. Actually I would propose not to climb at the Reichstag due all that homeland security crap all the time ;-) I also didn't see anyone in the board of the German <s>WP</s>Wikimedia chapter endorsing a removal of the picture today. It was a decision made by the community to make that article AotD of today and it was decided by consensus to use that picture. I don't see the need for a further discussion on that issue. At least we are used not to have articles on persons like Mike Handel on the German WP main page. BTW, the issue so far at all. So a tempest in a teacup. Actually, the German blogosphere mainly praised the decision of the admins, the picture not to take down- --] (]) 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC), corrected by --] (]) 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::"I also didn't see anyone in the board of the German WP chapter endorsing a removal of the picture today. " Nice try, but how stupid do you think are the users? Your statement was the biggest lie so far. ] (]) 01:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm impressed. Do you know what a ] is? If so, you are capable of knowing what Matthiasb was seeing? If not, have you heard of ]? <font color="#ff9900">]</font><tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 01:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You call that already a PA? :/ I am impressed from my side, too. Are Germans that sensitive? The user said, nobody opposed that picture, which is not true. In a Vote more than 50% wanted the picture to be banned. I am telling facts, not PAs. Truth hurts. ] (]) 07:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yep. If you call a wikipedian in the German WP a liar it depends on the admin which block you get. One day is the minimum but I already saw indefinite. However, I mistyped. It should read German Wikimedia chapter not Misplaced Pages chapter but it also should have been clear since I wrote ''board of the...'', the Misplaced Pages does not have a board. --] (]) 07:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then sorry for this PA. But, about the policy there: If he (any he) denied the Shoa and I called him a liar or she (any she) stated Helmut Kohl was never chancellor of Germany and I called her a liar, I will be blocked? Very logical policy of German wikipedia. (I understand that in that way.) But you knew you were not saying the truth (is this a PA, too?). Many endorsed the removal of that picture and you knew that. Don't change facts. ] (]) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What I intended to say (and would have been clear if I hadn't messed up that in my croppy English) was that I didn't see anyone from the board of ] the German chapter of the WMF see endorsing a removal. However if anyone denied the Shoa than actualle he's not a liar but a denier, a disclaimer, a gainsayer or a repudiator, according to my dictionary. And he would be put on a trial since against to many states ] is a criminal offense in Germany, it's not covered by free speech. If one would say that Kohl was never chancellor of Germany it depends on the intention and the context, assuming good faith could suggest that the person was simply messing up chancellor and president. | |||
| ::::::Yes, I saw many endorsements of removal, many by IPs, open proxies amongst them, many sockpuppets certainly as well but as well some well known and well reputated wikipedians. So what you saw? I didn't count the number of users involved into the discussion, but clearly most users which saw the main page yesterday didn't take part in the discussion. Pitifully doesn't seem to work today but in average the German WP main page is seen by about one and a half million users a day, the article of the day is read about 70-150.000 times a day. So let it be one hundred who endorsed a removal (it surely weren't that much) that's diminishingly little it's like Deutsche Bank's former CEO Hilmar Kopper claiming that the loss of some 50 million Deutschmarks in a bancrupt cause was ''peanuts''. According to the traffic in the German WP and the number of users and the number of active users that controversy was peanuts. --] (]) 08:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Then everything is clarified. Möge die Wiki-Macht mit dir sein. --] (]) 08:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW see ]. Mentioned are number of edits, IP or user name, first and last edit. --] (]) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just want to add another number here: 44. That's the number of emails the german language OTRS team had to answer (up to now) regarding the choice of the picture on the mainpage or the choice of the article at all, though the latter were a minority - only 2 mails (I think) were complaining about the topic as inapropriate, all others just found the picture offending, or were afraid about their kids seeing it. --] (]) 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, next time, I will choose my words more wisely. Is it fine, now? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Excusion accepted. --] (]) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Sex sells. It would not have been a good strategic decision to delete the picture from the main page. I expect the conflict to filter from the blogosphere slowly (probably through ]) into the mainstream media. Probably not on page 1 of the ]s, but maybe in the ] pages. A good moment to advertise Misplaced Pages to older knowledgable people, who might not read the blogs and twitter, but who have kept up the habit of reading old-fashioned newspapers. Also a good moment to advertise the on the main page, which will be put up for auction over the next couple of days. <font color="#ff9900">]</font><tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It looks as if it's finally reaching the media. As someone predicted further up, we now have a piece about it in ]: The title is a clever allusion to the book ]. It may or may not spread further from this. ] ] 12:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The media coverage of the discussion got documented ] --] (]) 12:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good point. So the online presence of ] has already noted it, but hid its coverage in an internet news round-up whose title only referred to Google and China: ] ] 13:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=translated Spiegel News Ticker coverage}} | |||
| ;Jim Wales participates in discussion about vulva article on German Misplaced Pages | |||
| Apparently overwhelmed by spring fever were also the operators of the German Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Exactly on 21 March they put an article about the female vulva on the main page as "Article of the Day", presumably as a congenial contribution. | |||
| With it a photo that left nothing to be desired in terms of anatomical detail smiled at the surfers. | |||
| Some visitors of the page considered the explicit pic overkill, and soon an intense and voluminous discussion ensued about sense and nonsense of the sexual organ's presentation. | |||
| In the end even Misplaced Pages godfather Jim Wales interfered in the debate. | |||
| The founder of online encyclopaedia asked those responsible for the German web presence to take the photo out immediately. Furthermore, they should revise their decision-making processes to avoid repetition of similar incidents. "This is not a question of censorship, but the 'principle of least surprise'." | |||
| Meanwhile the smoke cleared, the weekend is over, and today Misplaced Pages on its main page today deepens our knowledge about the "Water supply in Hamburg". By the way, Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia whose articles are "created by a global community of authors collectively and without charge" (quoted from Misplaced Pages). Originally it was published by Wales and Larry Sanger as an enhancement of the Nupedia project on the servers on the servers of the online sex provider Bomis, also founded by Wales. Vulva topics are less surprising there . | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *hee hee, they said "mingled"... oh, wait..! ] (]) 13:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == May I draw your attention to.... == | |||
| ] like this are a great reason for ARBCOM process overhaul. I think that it is funny that you ask for a review on Brews Ohare and while a step forward to progress is made, it makes two steps back. Part of the reason that Brews has this appeal is because of advocacy, not perfect advocacy but people raising a clamor saying there is a problem here. Now with this motion, Arbcom not only admits to a problem but then promptly desysops a admin, you order a review of Brews case and they try to take away his supporters. They say this is for the "good" of Brews. Brews has never been their concern, this is merely a political ploy to make people think their process is not in error. My case is in the point that if this was a case that could be solved easily and wasn't controversial it would be done. The fact that there is still support within the community for both lifting and expanding current sanctions. How do you get a consensus? Make sure the people who disagree can't be there, under threat of blocks. ] (]) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I've fixed that link for you. --] (]) 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Every time Brews is discussed somewhere, his fan club shows up to try to re-litigate the speed of light arbitration decision, destroying any chance he has of getting a fair hearing. Banning these guys from commenting on Brews strikes me as the best thing that could happen. --] (]) 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes it would indeed make sense, get a perfect consesus by removing those who disagree. What a great concept. ] (]) 05:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::]: You repeat the continually repeated statement about "relitigating the SoL debate". Actually, though, this has not happened. What is argued about is the basis for various blocks, for example, which are about the Tznkai namespace restrictions, and why these restrictions should be removed. And the desysopping of Trusilver because he thought blocks based upon pretext were wrong. These events are not SoL matters. They are additional actions based upon namespace restrictions tacked on by Tznkai. It is these administrative actions all post SoL that have been discussed, despite what you might surmise by taking the clamor of admins for the unvarnished facts. ] (]) 09:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Sidney Crosby == | |||
| I was reading the Sidney Crosby bio. It reads in one part below 2008-2009 "At 21 years, 10 months, and 5 days, Crosby became the youngest NHL captain to hoist the Cup. (The youngest captain to lead his team to the Stanley Cup in the history of the trophy is Mike Grant of the 1895 Montreal Victorias, who was 21 years and 2 months at the time".)Did they not hoist it? In 2007-2008 Crosby was captain from october 5 of 2007. The Pens went to the cup final in 2007- 2008. His age by my math would have be Younger by a year. Making him the youngest player ever to lead his team to the cup? Did grant win the cup? ] (]) 10:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The article's talk page is ]. – ] (]) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Visit to Germany == | |||
| Hi, you mentioned that you will visit Germany. Depending on the date, I would be willing to travel to Berlin (?), but only, if there is reasonable time to discuss some things with you in a larger circle. So, please, could you give some details of your visit? Many thanks, <font color="#ff9900">]</font><tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Pure wiki deletion == | |||
| Hello Jimbo, | |||
| I have developed ] to implement ]. Although it will need a few more tweaks and to go through more code review, I think it is a promising extension. In my opinion, this proposed reform will greatly improve Misplaced Pages's deletion processes. There are many scenarios in which pure wiki deletion would come in handy; consider, for instance, the article on the ]. This article will be deleted in a few days, but if the Xbox 360 slim actually becomes a reality, someone will probably create a new article from scratch, perhaps without incorporating the historical information about the early speculation and motherboard leaks described in the current article, because that deleted article will be unviewable by non-sysops. Since it contains no copyvios, libel, confidential personal information, or other suppressible content, It would be better to blank it and let it remain in the history as a easily-accessible source of information for those considering creating a new article in the future. | |||
| Presently there is ] ongoing at ], and the point has been raised that a change of this magnitude should really be advertised more widely. What do you think of the idea of posting a central notice to watchlists, as we did for the BLP discussion? Or do you think the goodness of this idea is clear enough that it can be implemented without the need for more advertising? Thanks, ] (]) 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Brief Misplaced Pages outage = end of civilization?!?!? == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hey Jimbo (and talk page watchers), obviously Misplaced Pages ran into a bit of server trouble today, but it seems that things are up and running again (or at least they are for me) which is good. I was googling for info on the outage and came across a couple of live feeds with up-to-the-minute comments from Twitter users and the like. Since the comments were pretty interesting when taken collectively I copied a bunch of these and stuck them on a page in my userspace which you can find ]. They might prove amusing and/or somewhat edifying to you and to other Wikipedians who lurk at your talk page. Personally I like, "All accumulated knowledge has been lost. I'm off to invent fire now." Best, ] <small>| ] | ]</small> 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team. | |||
| Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites. | |||
| == Misplaced Pages giving incorrect medical information - Should health related articles be held to higher standards like BLP== | |||
| ], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]] | |||
| I think that is quite dangerous, given Wiki's popularity. Please see: ] ''']]''' 05:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a talk page discussion happening on this issue, and some other editors seem to disagree with you and your argument. That's not really a good reason to come over to Jimbo's talk page, rather you should continue to discuss with the other editors. It's very unlikely that Jimbo will weigh in on this. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this is different than regular content disputes. That is why Jimbo might be interested. Accuracy of health related articles should be more important than accuracy of tv show episodes (an eg). ''']]''' 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are a lot of health articles with a lot of disputes about accuracy. Jimbo is not a doctor (I don't think, it would be weird if he'd kept that a secret) or expert on these matters and is likely less qualified to address these issues than those discussing the matter on the talk page. You claim there is inaccuracy, others seem to disagree with you. If you want to get additional opinions, you might try setting up a ]. That should bring in some interested editors and will do you more good than bugging Jimbo about it. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This speculation of ours about what Jimbo might think or not is getting a bit silly but I'll respond. He is not a doctor but he might appreciate that '''incorrect medical information might be dangerous''' in wikipedia, given that wikipedia is very popular and it is open to minors. This is not only about the article in question (]). '''Its about all healthy related articles'''. We have higher standards for BLP articles. Why not health related articles? ''']]''' 07:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::::''You'' believe that the information is incorrect, others disagree with you. Personally I have no idea, and I doubt Jimbo will either. You are in a dispute about content, it may be important content, but you are in a content disagreement. Obviously you are convinced that you are right, but others apparently think you are wrong. Jimbo is not going to jump in and arbitrate the dispute for you or say, "yes, Phoenix is right" so that things get fixed your way, and he certainly is not going to make some sort of grand statement about all health related articles. Really, start a request for comment. Maybe you'll get consensus for your viewpoint. I strongly, strongly suggest you drop this matter now, at least here. Note that I'm not trying to make your concerns go away, I'm trying to direct them in the appropriate direction, which is not this talk page. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 08:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'''] articles are held to higher standards, why not health related articles?'''. That is my point. You dont understand it obviously so please stop giving advice to me. ''']]''' 08:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}On that analogy why not law related articles too? Or ] articles? Where do you draw the line?--] (]) 14:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Just wanted to say == | |||
| == What is the procedure to follow with openly homophobic administrators in English Misplaced Pages == | |||
| {{hat|Boldly hatting this discussion, it's been moved to ] anyway and absolutely nothing good is going to come of this. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 08:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. | |||
| What is the procedure here? ]? ''']]''' 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : LOL, why does this even belong on this talk page? (It doesn't) <font color="#BA181F">]</font> (<font color="#BA181F">]</font>) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a good example of why the ] policy is so important. The page (and edit) to which you are referring is a Frequently Asked Questions page about HIV. The point of any FAQ is to answer questions that people might ask on article talk pages, even ridiculous ones, and even ones that exhibit intolerance in one form or another. For example on the ] talk page one of the FAQ questions is "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?" It's there because many people have showed up on the talk page in the past shouting, "how come you're hiding the fact that Obama is a Muslim?" These individuals can quickly be referred to the FAQ which saves time. With respect to the HIV FAQ, my assumption would be that the talk page has received a lot of "how come you don't discuss the fact that the disease is always spread by homosexual sinners?" type comments. So the administrator to whom you refer almost certainly was not endorsing those kind of comments/questions (which are indeed very homophobic to my mind), but rather creating an FAQ to that would preempt them and hopefully keep some of them ''off the talk page'', or at least not force people to answer them for the hundredth time. It would have been helpful for you to read more closely, or at least to wait for a reply from the admin in question before running over to Jimbo's talk page. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Phoenix, you could have asked him nicely about what he meant in that diff. Instead you make severe accusations on his talk page then immediately bring it up here on Jimbo's page. Do you honestly think that this is the best way to handle it when you have a disagreement with another editor? ] (]) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you. <br>It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the <s>cabal of editors</s> <b>thriving community</b> that is Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::That the FAQ should reflect commonly asked questions is a good thing - that FAQ question would have been equally well served by the stating 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. That would have answered any question on the subject. Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article. Many people will come to the article who have heard that homosexuality causes AIDS. A smaller portion of those will identify with the 'immoral' statement. People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic. ] (]) 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| ::::Given that this person is an admin, I honestly dont see anything wrong in bringing that here. Do you really think we need a FAQ in ] about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in ] about if Jews are really ]?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections '''while retaining their offensive wording'''? ''']]''' 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Come on. Even so, there's no evidence that this person is ''openly homophobic.'' Honestly, I don't understand these people who need to find Fred Phelps around every corner and behind every bush. ] (]) 07:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Maybe in USA, these things are more common. Being in Canada, I am honestly surprised. ''']]''' 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I happen to be Canadian as well so please don't automatically assume I'm American, thank you. ] (]) 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why didn't you give 2/0 some time to respond before coming here? And why did you automatically assume some foul agenda was at play without waiting for a response first? ] (]) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How can I not assume "some foul agenda" was not "at play"? The wording and comparison is pretty clear. ''']]''' 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] The first steps of the procedure to follow when you notice that an administrator is openly homophobic are as follows: | |||
| :* Make sure not to check the facts. Homophobia is one of those crimes that are so egregious that the presumed perpetrator is not worthy of a presumption of innocence. | |||
| :* Leave a message on the admin's talk page. This is required for purely formal reasons, but this step should not be left out as it will give you an advantage later on in case other homophobes try to defend the criminal. | |||
| :* To avoid giving the culprit any chance of defending themselves, start the escalation immediately afterwards by posting an inflammatory message to a high-profile page. Don't risk that the admin comes up with twisted arguments that somehow convince the secretly homophobic majority of editors that the crime was a mere misunderstanding. | |||
| : is a good example of how it works in practice. <nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki> ] ] 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] ''']]''' 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) Cla68's questions are valid ones, but probably it's best if this gets taken away from Jimbo's talk page, because it never belonged here in the first place. There's already a discussion happening at 2over0's talk page (though ironically that editor has not even had the chance to say anything), so probably this should continue there. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Moving to ]. All comments have been copied over. ] (]) 07:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Summary: {{tq|This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.}} –] <small>(])</small> 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy new year == | |||
| If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (]), he might be interested at: | |||
| Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? ] 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at ], this question could be relevant.<br/> | |||
| 2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.''']]''' 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : We should not be mincing FAQ questions just because we don't like how they are usually worded by the people asking. Real people are often nasty my friend. ] (]) 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| ::Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. ''']]''' 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Considering that I'm openly gay myself, I doubt that I'm defending homophobia. And I suppose that could work, but the specific wording really isn't the issue more than your aggressive manner of handling it. ] (]) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know you are gay, thats why I said your defense is disappointing. '''Given that this person is an admin''', I'm much more concerned about this than I would be if it was written by a regular editor. ''']]''' 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Nothing has happened. It's phrased the way the average homophobe would word it, and is refuted in nearly the same breath. ] (]) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Phoenix, maybe you might want to sleep on it - then if you feel the same in the morning, take it from there. If youre really Canadian like us, What are you doing up? I'm going to bed. Have fun Zazaban. ] (]) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Ugh, I should be writing a book right now, but now my focus has been pulled, and it's after one in the morning. Maybe I should go to bed too. I can see this isn't going anywhere anyway. ] (]) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Outback the koala, given that you have an anti-gay userbox in your page, I dont think you are neutral here. ''']]''' 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You've got to be kidding me.. Note to others; Don't feed the trolls. Good night. ] (]) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: All he said was that we should go to bed; I don't see what being pro or anti gay has to do with it, that's good advice at this early in the morning. Incidentally, I don't approve of the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation. ] (]) 08:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| : '''Everybody, let's please leave this hatted and settle down; nothing good is going to come of this; really.''' -- ] (]) 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: My apologies for commenting on a closed thread and for careless wording, but I find homophobia personally offensive and would like to address the issue briefly. I am openly ], and did not intend the reading that that question has been given. Discussion continues in link above and possibly at ]. Regards, - ] <small>(])</small> 13:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}? | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| :... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was. | |||
| :Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. | |||
| ] has been started, obviously without informing you (*sigh*). Best regards, --] <small>]</small> 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Opinionated editor == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hi Jimbo, I don't know if you read reports about yourself but is amusing, you seem to have hit a soft spot with your comment about op-editors. ] (]) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:32, 14 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 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:
|
Centralized discussion
- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
Albert Percy Godber
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to say
You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you.
It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the cabal of editors thriving community that is Misplaced Pages.
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Summary:
This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.
–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Happy new year
Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? -Lemonaka 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors
That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?
- ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
- Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
- As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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. BarntToust 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: