Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:40, 21 September 2011 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →further thinking on vandalism, revision review etc← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:11, 8 January 2025 view source Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers57,824 edits →Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{usercomment}}
{{noindex}}
{{same page other wikis|commons|meta|message=Please choose the most relevant.}}
{{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}} {{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 = 84
| counter = 252
|minthreadsleft = 2
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|algo = old(1d)
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=no|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
__TOC__
{{archives|age=1|target=./Archive 69|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}}
{{-}}
{| align="right" style="clear:both"
|]
|}

== Arbcom slates? ==

Honestly, for these ArbCom elections, I kind of wish we had ]. I have trouble keeping track of who's who here. I just don't have a memory for names. Beyond that, how do I know if they're any good or not? I can't keep track of all these people's work and have limited interest in doing so. I have enough trouble keeping track of my own work.

Same deal in real life, which is why we have slates and parties in real life. I have little knowledge of down-ticket candidates, but I figure whoever my party puts up is OK, absent evidence of corruption, incompetence, or revisionism coming to my attention. There's nothing wrong with this -- I'm busy, let my party's selection committee (whom I trust) do the detailed vetting work.

There's a couple-few editors who I know and trust and if they said "I'm voting for X Y and Z" that would constitute a de facto slate and be good enough for me, maybe. One such editor is you, Jimbo. Beyond being the founder of the project (and the ArbCom), you obviously care about the project and probably know who all these people are. And I happen to generally agree with you about a lot of things, and so do a lot of other people I suppose. So how about it? If you create the Jimbo Slate -- all you'd need to do is say who you're voting for -- I'd likely get on board. Not mindlessly, but as a basis for approaching the election.


== Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! ==
Or some candidates could run together. X, Y, and Z could announce that they're running as a slate and implore editors to vote for them all as a bloc (obviously editors could vote for ''none'' of them as a bloc or split their ticket, or course). No new policies or procedures would have to be put in place -- it's a wiki, candidates can run as a slate if they want to, right now. (I suppose the next step would be parties -- the Strong ArbCom Party, the Traditionalists, etc.)


Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Madison didn't want parties, but we have them. They're a natural development in electoral systems, and there's a lot to be said for them. Let's do it. ] (]) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


==]==
:I think something like this may emerge spontaneously, although it hasn't yet. One model is that candidates get together and form a bloc. Another is that some people with particular interests (BLP hardliners, let's say) decide to research the candidates and to vote as a bloc.
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
:Given my unique position, and where I want to go with it in the long term, which is increasingly ceremonial over the years, I don't vote in elections nor am I likely to get involved in routine elections by endorsing candidates or anything like that.--] (]) 17:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


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.
:Every year, there are a number of editors who put up "voting guides" that look a great deal like what you are discussing. They are either "in the loop", or close to it, and either know the candidates fairly well or do a non-trivial amount of research on them before the election. Even if you don't agree with their selection, they tend to summarize the candidates in an informative manner. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
:I really like the idea, not just for Jimbo, but for, say, ] and ], to name a few. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
::I agree with Coren, if you read the voting guides last year, and especially if you then went on to read the talk pages of some of the guide-writers as well as the talk pages of some of the people who posted on those talk pages, you would reach two conclusions, (1) I definitely had too much time on my hands one weekend afternoon when I most likely should have been doing something else, and (2) there was definitely some "bloc" behavior going on. This was also confirmed by some of the post-election comments. I'm sure it's all there in the archives somewhere, if you (Herostratus) want to try to figure out who the bloc(s) is/are, as I did last year (at least partially.) Or you can just wait for this year's election and see who's saying what about who. On the other hand, Herostratus, I am a little disappointed. When I read (on the RfC talk page) about your intention to ask Jimbo to endorse candidates, I was hoping to get here before he answered, so I could bet you $100 that Jimbo was going to courteously decline any "endorser" role in the elections. I was going to donate my winnings to the WMF. It looks like I was too late to win the bet though. ] (]) 22:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, that's true. I suppose it doesn't matter. I think we all know which party ], in her heart of hearts, prefers, and it doesn't help much usually. ] (]) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (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)
== Schools ==
:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (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)


== Just wanted to say ==
Why does your encyclopedia want to have pages on schools that are just wrong like http://en.wikipedia.org/Kesgrave_Hall_School was ? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:If by "what," you mean "want," it has yet to be determined what "Jimbo's encyclopedia" "wants" in this case. You started an AfD on this article less than 24 hours ago. Right now the "vote" seems to be 2-2. Sometime in about 6 days, when more editors have weighed in and an administrator closes the AfD, then we will all know what Misplaced Pages "wants." (Which, if the article is kept, may not be what Jimbo "wants" based on his recent school-related comments, but time will tell on that as well.) ] (]) 23:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo it was late and did not check it corrected now. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::If you can look in the history and point out a version that you think was particularly wrong, that'd be helpful. One topic that people are interested in is how maintainable articles on schools are, and how badly wrong they are, and for how long. Some people (though not many) may have an inherent bias in one way or the other that schools should almost *all* have an article or that almost *no* schools should have one. But for most people, the question of where to draw the line is based on evidence of quality (or lack of quality) on average, and examples are helpful in shaping our understanding of that.--] (]) 12:59, 20 September 2011 (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.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, the version was http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kesgrave_Hall_School&oldid=450147754 Wlmmcf ] (]) 21:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) &#124; (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ==
== Article creation advises to make Special:Mypage first ==


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
When creating a new article, I am finally seeing a message to suggest making the page a user-space version, first. The creation banner now suggests:
::{| class=wikitable width=500px
|
* You can also start your new article at . There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion; ask other editors to help work on it; and ] it into "]" when it is ready.
|}
I think that is great for new users who "hear" of articles being deleted, so the above message might sway more articles into becoming user-space drafts. Users are guided into making their own draft pages. Also, the workload must be frustrating for many admins to keep speedy-deleting the non-notable draft articles (hundreds per day?). It will be interesting to see if this affects the current enwiki count of new-articles-per-day, as ~930 per day. -] (]) 05:49, 20 September 2011 (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)
:Oh no. This makes it even more necessary to have pages moved from user space to mainspace in the "new pages" log. New page patrolling is useless without these. Please get some programming time off from the edit content filter and on to this long requested feature. ] (]) 06:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


== Happy new year ==
== Self identified 13 year old joins ] ==


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)
Hi Jimbo. Long time reader - first time commenter. There is ] on WP:ANI about an editor who has self identified on his userpage that he is 13 years old and that he participates in ]. Other editors have noticed that he hasn't actually made any contributions yet to the Porn wikiproject. However, there is concern that a 13 year old shouldn't be contributing to an area of Misplaced Pages that is dedicated to porn. Some have presented arguments that because the topic is educational and not sexually explicit that it should be allowed while others have said that although it is educational there is still some sexually explicit content or pictures. Some have said that we wouldn't have known the user is 13 and there are many 13 year olds reading the material so it shouldn't be a problem, while others have said that because we know he is 13 and we know he is interested and focused in the Porn Wikiproject that we are now knowingly contributing sexually explicit content to a minor in violation of US law. What are you takes on the issue? Is this somewhere the foundation should step in and give a legal opinion?--v/r - ]] 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:This isn't just about WikiProject Porn. The true question here is if minors should be disallowed from editing porn-related articles on an educational website? (I think Dr. Blofeld misunderstands the point. Implementing a restriction at the WikiProject won't actually ''do anything''.) <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>] / ]</sup> 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::Anything with Porn and 13 year old next to each other should send alarm bells to anybody. Even if his editing is harmless it could ignite into a nasty media report that wikipedia supports a 13 year old editing pornography articles, and do you realise how many parents would ban wikipedia from their kids if they read that in a newspaper? They would be missing out on learning from thousands of articles because of it which is contrary to our goals. Jimbo very likely would be purely against it for media/legal safety sake even if he thinks the editor's contributions are not involving explicit material as it is a risk we can't afford to take but I will be interested to see what he has to say. Obviously we don't know the age of most of our contributors but should somebody disclose they are 13 then in my view they should be prohibited from editing pornography articles or taking part in that wikiproject but are fully welcome to edit anything else. Perhaps this is time to impose an age minimum for that project as its rocky ground.♦ ] 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Although Misplaced Pages is not censored I do agree that it is reasonable at the least to put a banner at the top of that project page with some sort of disclaimer that editors should be over X years old to edit. The tricky thing here is, depending on where they are that age differs. Some states are less than others and some countries don't care at all. --] (]) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Would an 18+ restriction to WikiProject Porn be enough, or would we have to accept it as a general rule covering all porn articles? Or should we handle it on a case by case basis for individual minors? <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>] / ]</sup> 18:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::I believe we should keep in mind that there are at least two separate issues here. The first is what our policies should be, and we have a right to set those policies. The second is whether we are doing anything "illegal", either by policy or the absence of policy, and that is a broader question as it involves not just editing articles about porn but opens up a legal can of worms on age limits and Misplaced Pages more generally.--] (]) 18:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::There's another related issue unmentioned above. If we merely slap a tag or warning on such pages, there's every reason to suspect that a 13 year-old user won't want to so self-identify. ] (]) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Well I don't beleive we are doing anything "illegal" because even in the porn project there is very little explicit content. Lots of movie titles and Biographies but not much media. I do think that the public image could be a factor though and could be presented in a negative light by the media. I think if we start by adding a disclaimer to the project and to the Projects template that is posted on the articles thats a good start. We "could" also create a page disclaimer that could be presented at the top of some articles (like the ones in the porn project) so that it would notify anyone looking at the article that there is content that might be offensive or unsuitable. Maybe something like the Maintenance banner but maybe in a different color. Now I'm not talking censoring anything, just a message notifying the reader of '''their''' obligation to look away. --] (]) 18:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}} Which brings up the thorny issue of enforcement.--] (]) 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I believe the essential issue is priority. Is it more important for us to protect 13 year-old eyes from editing and/or viewing content, or is it more important a user feels free to self-identify and/or act on self-interest? IMHO, a youngster might not consider the consequences of any self-identification. Another issue to be ranked would include public perception of how we address such priorities through policy and common practice, as described above. This isn't about this issue at all, but about our responsiveness. ] (]) 18:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Buster, I agree with you and Kumioko that public perception is an issue, but even that will be difficult to resolve. At the same time, the legal issues are complex, and because it has been raised publicly here and at ANI, I think Wikimedia lawyers should at least be alerted to it.--] (]) 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
*On Wikipdia (or elsewhere) 13-year-olds should not be permitted to edit anything connected with porn. For their own good and the good of the project. Children are children and adults are adults, and while most 13/14-year-old boys disagree, especially about porn: adults are bigger, older and know what's best - so tough - little 13-year old will have to get his kicks playing outside in the fresh air. ] ] 18:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::I can't disagree with your position, but none of the issues discussed above provide a method of addressing your proper concern... ] (]) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Well frankly I am more worried about WP's reputation than protecting the 13 year old eyes of an editor who clearly has access to the internet anyway. A controversial statement perhaps I admit. As I stated above I think leaving a warning banner will help for a start. Then if we know that an underage editor is contributing to areas that they ought not too then we should stop that as best we can. If we don't know then there's not too much we can do which also enforces the problem Buster mentions of driving the editor deeper underground. We could also require underage users to self identify as being under 18 and if they don't they could be blocked. With that said we have a lot of under 18 year old editors and I would hate to drive them away, some are in college and participating in the Unversities and other projects. --] (]) 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}We have the option of community topic bans, so I am raising an RfC at ] to try to gauge community views on this. --]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my ] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 19:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:"We could also require underage users to self identify as being under 18 and if they don't they could be blocked." This is impractical, or at least meaningless, since the only way to learn that an editor ''is'' under 18 is if they self identify as such. Therefore it would usually be impossible for administrators to discover that an editor had failed to self identify as under 18. In addition, since we generally advise minors not to disclose their age anyway, it's not clear why this would be a good idea. --] (]) 19:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::{{ec}}I agree, but having it doesn't hurt either. It establishes that the community addresses this issue seriously. We already have nearly unenforceable policy, like ], that exists as a principle. Even ] is hard to "enforce" but its existence allows editors to at least direct discussion rather than "ramble on" on a topic. The enforceability of a principle is secondary, in my view, to the principle itself. --]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my ] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::The word "minor", as a legal term, is defined differently in different jurisdictions and in different statutes. Thus, it is not safe to say that the magical age is 18.--] (]) 19:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Florida law applies to all Wikimedia hosted projects as per ToS - so this issue is moot.--]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my ] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm astonished at the legal opinions expressed at Misplaced Pages. I wasn't aware that choice of law or forum clauses had any impact on criminal laws. And to the extent we're talking about civil suits, are you familiar with all the laws in Florida?--] (]) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::I am saying, that the question of what "adult age" is in wikipedia is moot and not subject to consensus because Office already said: adults in wikipedia are those under Florida law. I am stating a fact, not giving an opinion.--]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my ] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::You said the issue I raised was moot because of the ToS. Whatever the ToS says is fact, although an interpretation of what it means would be opinion. Your conclusion that the issue is moot is an opinion. I never said anything about consensus, which, in my view, has nothing to do with the legal issues.--] (]) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You are correct, actually. My apologies. The only meta-policy that the Foundation has that addresses age is ], which says that "place of residence" is the criteria. THat does still makes the question moot, as "place of residence" makes the editor responsible for proving this. --]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my ] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I like the apology part (smile), but I honestly don't understand any of the rest. I don't understand what the CheckUser policy has to with what I originally said, and I'm not sure what question you now think is still moot. In any event, you don't have to respond to this if you don't wish to as I think it's become too much of a detour anyway.--] (]) 21:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:This is the latest in a series of WikiProject-associated controversies - others being whether you can put a WikiProject LGBT tag on the talk page of an article about a BLP who isn't widely known as such, and the disclaimer I added during the seal controversy (which, though moved, persists to this day, and yes, I know that it violates ]) that WikiProject FBI is "open to all editors and is not approved, endorsed, nor authorized by the FBI in any way". I think that the recurrent problem we have here is that people confuse WikiProjects, which are about ''improving articles in some way related'' to various topics, as somehow ''representing'' or ''advocating'' these viewpoints. It may be time to think up a good line to add to the general disclaimer. IANAL, but I propose something like: ''"Misplaced Pages users may voluntarily band together to form WikiProjects to improve our coverage of some topics. The association of a user or an article with a WikiProject does '''not''' indicate any link with or opinion regarding the topic of the WikiProject, nor any endorsement or authorization by or association with any outside organization. WikiProject tags and user participation are merely internal notes to facilitate the upgrading of our encyclopedic coverage."'' ] (]) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


== ==
===RfC===
]--]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my ] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== further thinking on vandalism, revision review etc ==


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking this morning, when I did this , that perhaps a flagged revision system could exist in an optional form, just like semi-protect and protect exist today. This particular article has been under severe BLP attack, with a lot of attention given to it by BLP patrollers because of this, but this is not always the case, and this particular BLP vio existed for 9.5 hours. So for example, what if a flagged revision system existed that could be turned on by sysops using the same or similar criteria as what is used to semi or proc articles, including the ability to request approval in the talk page? Also, this system could be used as part of the current talk page "edit requested" process for semi and proc articles, allowing the request to be inputed for approval (it would still have to be explained in talk) rather than the awkward and less directly attributed process of copy and paste we have now. I have no idea if this has been discussed before. Just a thought.--]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my ] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:BLP-vio? It looks like ] applies.<sup></sup> The impression I get is that a deletionist deletes, period, no matter whether by blocking young editors from imaginary theories of harm or in preventing them from learning about what the police have presented as a real and relevant danger. Sometimes in the same day.<sup></sup> The children are nothing but pawns. ] (]) 01:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
::Wnt, I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting to my talk page if you can't be more thoughtful in your analysis. "A deletionist deletes, period, no matter what" sounds to me like you just aren't listening to what people are saying. That's an insulting, divisive, and frankly unnecessary and unwelcome comment.--] (]) 01:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:11, 8 January 2025

    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
    The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.
    This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
    you can leave a message here
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
    This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
    Media mentionThis talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder!

    Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    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)
    Category: