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 19:21, 28 April 2014 view sourceJoeSperrazza (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,945 edits →"Jews and Communism" article: My two cents← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:29, 9 January 2025 view source FloridaArmy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users178,502 edits →Albert Percy Godber 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{stb}}
{{usercomment}} {{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
{{notice|<center>'''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br/>
{{Usercomment}}
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s ].<br/>The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are ], ], and ].<br/>The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is ].'''</center>}}
{{#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}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
|imaxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 99
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(1d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}-->
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{Press
|archiveprefix=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive
| subject = talkpage
|format= %%i
| author = Matthew Gault
|age=24
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
|index=no
| org = ]
|minkeepthreads=2
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
|maxarchsize=250000
| date = 8 December 2021
|numberstart=99
| 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.
|header={{aan}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{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}}
| algo = old(10d)
{{archives|age=1|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=ClueBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}}
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
{| align="right" style="clear:both"
| counter = 252
|]
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|}
| archiveheader = {{aan}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{-}}


== Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! ==
=="Jews and Communism" article==
I've never done this before, but I guess there's always a first time: Jimbo, if you're back from vacation, I'd be curious to get your reaction to ]. I just became aware of its existence because of an ANI thread. I am deeply disturbed by this article, as it has an all-encompassing title and yet deals only very skimpily with the main intersection between Jews and Communism, which is one of hostility, persecution, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and conflict. Instead the point of the article is a simple-minded "hey, look at all the commie Jews." To my knowledge, there is no article on ] or ], so I can understand the outrage that some people feel concerning this article. It doesn't help that there is an opening illustration that could have come from the pages of '']''. Anyway, I'm curious how you feel about it, and whether the discomfort some editors feel about this is well-warranted or not. ] (]) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

: You are conflating the Soviet Union with "Communism" when you characterize "the main intersection between Jews and Communism" as "one of hostility, persecution, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and conflict." Actually, the subject of the relationship between Jewish radicalism and emergence of the communist movement is well documented in the scholarly literature. I urge you to haul this piece to AfD if you think this is not the case. I'm sure there is an article somewhere entitled ] or some such, which is an entirely different, also encyclopedic, topic. ] (]) 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

::"You are conflating.." Uh yes I am, you betcha, just as I would "conflate" "Nazism" and "Nazi Germany." "Actually, the subject of the relationship between Jewish radicalism...." Such an article deserves to exist. But this is not it. This one is about "Jews and Communism." ] (]) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

::: There's this little country called China... Another place called Cuba. And so on... Just saying. You may have a legitimate gripe about the current article title, I'm not saying you don't. But, really, are we going to argue content here? Like I say, this ''topic'' is a 100% drop-dead certain GNG pass, in my view, but you are free to differ and challenge the piece. ] (]) 21:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::The topic ] is just as notable, but there's no article about that. Wonder why? ] (]) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::: Other stuff does not exist... What's your point? Like I say, take it to AfD, see what happens. "Other stuff does not exist" will not work for you as an argument there though... ] (]) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::It's actually been to AfD and then to Deletion Review, "no consensus" on both occasions. I'm kind of disappointment that Jimbo hasn't weighed in on this. I hope he does. ] (]) 13:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Wow, that's scary. The main reason I participate at AfD is so that encyclopedic-but-uncomfortable-for-some-people topics like this are never thrown under the bus... ] (]) 16:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

:::OK, look, here's the thing. I wasn't trying to whip up a discussion here, believe it or not. I've tagged the article for neutrality (my only edit to the article) and it can be discussed there. However, I did react in a strongly negative way to the article, it repelled me in a way I've never experienced before, and I just wanted to appeal way on up to the top man to see how he felt. That's all. If possible, that is, if he'd be so kind. ] (]) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: I think a neutrality tag is the way to approach it, as long as that's just not a drive-by tagging, followed by no discussion. And I think there is a legitimate case to be made that the title is bad and needs to be fixed. ] (]) 00:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::Heh, I started a discussion, but so far no takers. Operators are standing by. ] (]) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::: I'm coming up on 10 days with very little time for WP, if this is still simmering then I will play with it a little. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::That would be welcome. This needs to be hashed out in a thoughtful manner on the talk page, but I sense that people are a bit worn down there, as well as gotten caught up in conduct issues (which, as you know, tend to be a highway to nowhere). ] (]) 13:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::::: ]? That might work. Here's one off my shelf, by the way: Melech Epstein, ''The Jew and communism: The story of early Communist victories and ultimate defeats in the Jewish community, U.S.A., 1919-1941.'' It's actually a reasonably big literature, it would probably Speedy Keep at AfD, definitely Keep. ] (]) 00:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::: ]? ] (]) 00:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) <small>Last edit: ] (]) 00:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)</small>
::::::: Just because a topic makes someone uncomfortable is no reason to delete. It may be that the article could better be addressed with a split, e.g. into one about Communist attitudes toward Jews and a second about Jewish attitudes toward Communism - I certainly don't know that's a good idea. This isn't a matter for AfD, just content organization. We should be glad we have an article on the topic, though given that it doesn't use the word "]" except in the refs it seems like it could use some expansion. ] (]) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: Thank you for bringing this issue here Coretheapple, I considered doing so myself. I will only say that I hope there will be lots of editors, including Jimbo, who see this, go on to look at the article, and decide to help to improve it, or change the title, or delete it, or whatever, but it definitely needs participation from a wide part of the community.] (]) 01:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, my purpose was not to argue for deletion, which I actually don't advocate, but to get Jimbo's input. True, if I were him, I wouldn't touch the subject with a ten-foot pole. There's an old Jewish saying, "silence is also an answer," though I am not sure what it means in this instance, Jimbowise. ] (]) 03:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm at the Wikimedia Board meeting and therefore unable to comment at the moment on what looks like an issue worthy of serious study.--] (]) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::OK, I gotcha. I would really love to get your view on that when you get a chance. Thanks. <small> oh, and while you're at that board meeting, remember to ban paid editing.... just sayin....</small>] (]) 17:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Working on that. :-)--] (]) 19:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Both, I hope! tx. ] (]) 13:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:I too am very keen to hear any comments from you about this article, Jimbo.] (]) 23:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:While not binding, I think that it would have a very positive impact on the talk page discussion, no matter what. The talk page, as you can imagine, is not exactly the ]. ] (]) 14:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Carrite, there are no reliable sources that discuss "Jews and Communism." There are of course sources about Jews and Communism in one country in one period. Hence your source ''The Jew and communism: The story of early Communist victories and ultimate defeats in the Jewish community, U.S.A., 1919-1941'' is about Jews and Communism in the U.S. from 1919, when the Communist Party was founded, to 1941, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union became allies. There is no source that ties that together with Jews in the Soviet Union, or the role of Jews in the Chinese or Cuban revolutions. So we have no sources that summarize the relationship between Jews and Communism or identify the literature. As a result the article is just a collection of mentions of people of Jewish background who became Communists. ] (]) 01:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Why don't we have an article ] or ]? This article ] looks like ], a polite veneer installed over ugly bigotry. Perhaps there could be an article about ] if it is notable as such. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::There is an article "]" also known as "Jewish Communism", which is about the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. ] (]) 01:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::True, but I think that ] hits the nail on the head. That gets to the heart of the problem with this article, that it is phrased so broadly that it could say practically everything. As it happens -- purely a coincidence of course! -- it winds up reading like a Stormfront article. (see below). ] (]) 12:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
*Yes, I saw the article mentioned somewhere too. I will admit I tried to avoid looking directly at it, for fear to see what I thought. Nonetheless, I looked and saw. To describe this article as merely 'uncomfortable' is a vast understatement. I and the first page was.....disgusting. Just look at the February 27, 2014. Absolutely disgusting. WTF? Something definitely needs to be done here. ] (]) 02:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::Some of us are trying to do something about it Dave Dial, can others please come and help us at the article and on the talk page.] (]) 03:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::There is nothing to do there. The page should be deleted. The obvious result for ] should have been "Delete". Now, there just needs to be an admin to go there and delete the page, and start issuing blocks to editors who want to recreate the page. It looks like a straight forward ] that has no reliable sources that equate being Jewish with communism. As I pointed out, if you search the title of the page, you get . The AfD and search results should be enough for anyone to just do what needs to be done. ] (]) 04:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::It's all very well saying that Dave Dial, and I completely agree with you, but admins are not going to do that, Coretheapple and I are trying to ring alarms about that article all over the place, but admins etc are just ignoring us. For instance a current AN/I I started - - about an editor who in my opinion controls that article in combination with one or two others, has not seen a single comment from an admin, it seems they just don't want to get involved. So once again I ask you, or Jimbo, or anyone who sees this, to try to help us, maybe you can think of some way to get an admin to do what you suggest that I don't know about. In the meantime, that dreadful, dreadful article is sitting there on this site and I feel we have to try to do what we can to alleviate its poison.] (]) 05:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Well I sure can't do anything about it. Jimbo, maybe. Probably. Admins definitely can. Look, Jimbo is well aware of White Nationalist trying to get their POVs inside Misplaced Pages. Here are some threads from ] calling for editing Misplaced Pages and inserting their POV on WWII and Jewish articles.
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::And you have the White Nationalist/Stromfront recent tirades about "Jews and Communism", many of which are almost word for word mirroring of the article in question.
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::So yea, in any case there are hundreds upon hundreds of threads on White Nationalist websites talking about "Jews and Communism", and Misplaced Pages. The article should have been deleted. There were way more editors who stated the article should be deleted as a POV content fork. ] (]) 05:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::An admin already voiced their opinion in the AfD and DELREV yet you wish to find some other admin, since you don't agree with the outcome, and have him/her flat out delete the article and block any and all dissenters. Reiterating knee jerk emotional outbursts that you are "disturbed", "disgusted", "disgraced", or whatever is not helping your case ''nor'' is suggesting that other users are covert "neo-Nazis" of some kind and digging up threads on this "Stormfront" forum as a pathetic attempt to discredit users by tying them to a conspiracy of some sort. Coretheapple has compared this article's title to absurd ones like "African-American rapists" (communism is inherently as evil as rape apparently) when its title is derived from Oxford University Press's "Jews and Communism", claimed it has illustrative propaganda from "Der Sturmer" when it's actually a Soviet creation (spin it as anti-semitic regardless, who cares about reality right?), and even projected onto other users as having employed derogatory terminology like "commie" (apparent anti-communist feelings of Coretheapple). You now also have Smeat bluntly '''canvassing''' by asking like-minded users to "help" at the talkpage. The incessant and false claims of TFD that there are no reliable sources that discuss "Jews and Communism" is flat out nonsense. There are a litany of reliable scholarly sources in the references section with the most prominent being "Jews and Communism" by Oxford University Press which alone includes the works and opinions of at least 14 different scholars on the subject yet he's quick to deem the topic non-notable. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 08:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Dave Dial raises an alarming point. It underlines the concern that I expressed originally that this article is fodder for bigots and has no place on Misplaced Pages. Jimbo, you've been silent. I posted this here to get your input. I know your busy, but I think that this is a content issue that could really use some help from you. So, when you have a chance.... ] (]) 12:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:Oh please. You're citing a user who had a "fear" of even taking a look at the article due to an apparent personal taboo. All articles are subject to possible abuse especially, for example, ones under ARBMAC and ARBPIA, but that does not mean we should allow that nor what some extremist forums parrot dictate what articles should and should not exist. This is ] wrapped in a cloak of moral superiority. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::No, I didn't want to look at the article from personal experience. Not some taboo. I know what these types of canards are for. I have a lot of experience in working with the ADL and SPLC bringing light to these attempts to promote antisemitic conspiracies. And yes, having an article titled "Jews and Communism" is definitely an attempt to promote that same conspiracy theory in an article we already have, ]. The fact that , with "A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions." The article went to AfD and the majority of editors wanted to delete the article or merge it with the conspiracy ] article, ]. In which the closer starts out his reasoning with an "". As if it's a joke or funny that antisemites have been pushing this conspiracy and there is no reason for concern of a ]. Either the closer is ignorant of the "Jews and Communism" canard or thinks it's funny. And no, your line of "what's wrong with communism" isn't going to work with me. I've heard all of the end round justifications before. It's not the communism that's the problem, it's the promoting that somehow the Joos! controlled it and lead us into WWII. There are no neutral sources called "Jews and Communism". None. And there is a reason for that. It's an antisemitic canard. Period. ] (]) 14:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Is the book "Jews and Communism" by ] also immediately an "attempt to promote that same conspiracy theory"? What anti-intellectual nonsense. The article did indeed go to AfD and DELREV, but they both have results you apparently can't come to terms with. One should know that Misplaced Pages's ] so it doesn't matter how many emotional outbursts are mustered: it's about arguments. For your information (I doubt you bothered to read past the lede) that line is directly from American-Jewish historian ] so feel free to "report" him to ADL, SPLC, and whatever else organizations you may be connected with. The only users I see that are throwing around this nonsensical "Joos!" and "commies" rhetoric and absurd theories are coming from those who want to delete it. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 15:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::What does Albert Lindemann's religious background got to do with anything? ] (]) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Who said he was religious? This is how reliable sources describe him. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 15:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::What's your point in bringing it up? ] (]) 15:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Do you take offense? What's your point of dragging it out? --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:*Yes, it's very important for you to identify a source from a Jew, right? Can I ask you something? Where did you get the material to create your article from? I ask this because it's strikingly similar to the article on ](for those who don't know, Metapedia is a White Nationalist Wiki) titled "Jewish Bolshevism" http://en.meta pedia.org/Jewish_Bolshevism. So similar in fact, that I looked at your original article and the references you used and compared them with the Metapedia article http://en.meta pedia.org/Jewish_Bolshevism.
]
:*Strange that the references are almost identical, eh? Down to the exact page number. So, did you just look at the Metapedia article and decide to make one in Misplaced Pages, and just pretty it up a bit? Or did you create the Metapedia article too? '''Note, We are not even allowed to link to Metapedia articles. So you have to take out the space between Meta and pedia to go to the link.''' ] (]) 16:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

* Somebody should figure out what to do with ]. Perhaps it could be redirected to ], deleted, or edited. I'm not getting into that issue. The AFD and DRV discussions were seriously disrupted by a few bad actors. Any editor can try those processes again. What I've done to help resolve the matter is to block ] and ] who seem to be tag team POV pushing. Their behaviors individually are blockable, but there's a pretty strong suggestion that they might be working together given the obvious connection between their usernames. I don't doubt that a bunch of single purpose accounts will show up to POV push at future discussions of the topic. Please label them with {{tlx|SPA}} and make judicious use of checkuser. Also, request that an exerpienced admin close the discussion, somebody who is familiar with these sorts of ethnic battlezones who would not so easily be confused to say "no consensus" when there is a clear consensus among reasonable editors being disrupted by a few loud, bad actors. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:*I've always found it fascinating how one side gets the ban-hammer for editing in tandem, while one of the ones from got to remain a bureaucrat and admin for years afterwards. ] (]) 16:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::*There is a reason why antisemitism is regarded as political death. There is a reason Markos purged DailyKos of all ] and antisemitism. It's unacceptable. There are no "sides" to compare with. Most rational people much rather stand next to some person who thinks God talks to him than the filth associated with Neo-Nazi/White Nationalism. To even state that the people who produce such filth as a "side" is far too much. I for one, totally support the move to ban these two. As for anyone else, I can see people not realizing what was going on. ] (]) 16:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::*An encyclopedia can cover an antisemitic topic without itself promoting or proselytizing the antisemitism though. We have an article on ] that discusses the matter of the state of Israel being accused of apartheid-like actions against the Palestinian population under its control. The article dos not take a side, nor advocate that the analogy is true or untrue; it tells what it is, the history behind it, who says it, and who rebuts it. The article has survived at least 9(!) AfD attempts by the pro-Israeli/Jewish editors here because they claim it does indeed advertise and push antisemitism. It doesn't, and nether should this article, if written properly. ] (]) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::'' I for one, totally support the move to ban these two.'' - so do I. Many thanks Jehochman.] (]) 16:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::*You don't seem to get the point. The canard of "Jews and Communism" is already covered in the ] article. All this article does is prove to the rest of us that the pro-Israeli/Jewish editors may have a point. Those who want Israel to stop the settlements and occupation of the territories are taken aback by the blatant antisemitism that still exists, and in fact seems to thrive in certain parts of the world(Easter Europe). These types of articles do nothing to help people who want a fair solution in Israel, it '''HURTS''' them. It just shows that we are still not ready. ] (]) 17:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::*To respond to Tarc, what makes this article problematic and, in my view, irredeemable, is the was it is titled and focused (albeit by now-blocked editors with an obvious agenda <s>and oozing-out-of-pores prejudice</s>). This would be like an article on ], and for it to be exploited by Klan-leaning editors as a laundry list of African-American hoods over the years, rather than ], which is neutral, specific and focused. ] (]) 17:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::*I "get the point" entirely, I'm afraid, and this is why I have very little to do with the I-P topic area these days; the complete inability of the Israeli/Jewish side to see criticism of their state/ideology/religion/everything in any manner save through the lens of "OMG ANTISEMITISM!"...and the few occasions when the other side points out "OMG ISLAMOPHOBIA!", they are usually pooh-pooh'ed aside and ignored. A notable exception being the ] affair, something that was too big to fit under a rug. We even see it here right now, with you two freely slinging around comparisons to the KKK and to "oozing-out-of-pores prejudice". If Direktor or Producer hurled a similar comment to one of you, the block would be swift. Will Hochman or another admin be swift to block you for such severe ] transgressions? I won't hold my breath. This isn't a Misplaced Pages-exclusive problem, out entire Western culture walks on eggshells every time ] gets their hackles up. They harassed ] last month for having the gall, the audacity to refer to the territory occupied by Israel as...gasp, . It's systemic, endemic, whatever-demic bias, from the top of society on down. ] (]) 17:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::*As a matter of fact this is really the first time I've blundered into the subject matter. It was raised on ANI at the same time that I was following another thread. I read the article and was disgusted by it to the point that I decided to raise the issue with Jimbo. First time I've ever raised a content issue here, and boy am I glad I did. This is the kind of article that gets Misplaced Pages in extremely deep doo-doo. You seem to be conflating with some kind of "Israel-Palestine" set-to that has no bearing on this article and still gets your dander up, evidently, big time. ] (]) 17:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::*None of what you said had a singe thing to do with what I said, actually. Yes, I am well-aware that you're a Jimbo's page and ANI dweller, not an I-P regular. One point missed is that you think it's A-OK to denigrate two editors as racist pigs on a highly-trafficked and public page such as this, and suffer no repercussion whatsoever. Yet they get no chance to offer a defense, no "let's bring this to ANI for community input", just a single "off-with-their-heads" by one administrator. ] (]) 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::* No, you're right there. I've struck it, and can delete if you think that's better. But that was by no means your only point. Your principal one was to place this article in some kind of universe of Israel-Palestine bickering. I think that's totally off base. ] (]) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Wait a minute, did you say "ANI dweller"? God forbid. ] (]) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:: Point of order: Jewish <> Israeli. These are two different, but overlapping, groups. You should not assume this is an I-P dispute. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the recent blocks of ] and ] as being perhaps overly bold. Do see ] for a prior review of a similar concern. I don't see ], personally - each pushes the envelope, but, sadly, so do others on this article. I have no opinion on the quality of the article - it clearly irritates some, and I don't understand the topic well enough to offer a fair assessment. However, the information brought up today about the apparent origin of the article in Meta Pedia is disturbing. ] (]) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

== Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) ==

Yep. Really. ]. (And the same crew are challenging the close of the failed ] → ] discussion.) --] (] · ] · ]) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:Has she stated a preference? Would it be useful for me to inquire?--] (]) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::IMHO, no. The only consequence of doing that on the proposed Clinton move was to promote a divisive and distracting debate on whether it was proper to do so. More importantly, it did not figure in the closers' decision. And Anthonyhcole, when you say "same crew" I only see one user in common. ] (]) 21:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Regardless, eight move requests is getting silly. There is no ambiguity, and the request to move to "wife of Gordon Brown" seems to me to be calculated to belittle the subject. Up to the early 20th Century she'd have been referred to as "Mrs. Gordon Brown" in official correspondence, we have (thankfully) moved on from that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::Not that I'm aware of. The discussion, opened by a very slick IP (as was the Clinton move proposal) has been closed down by Guy (Jzg). Personally, I oppose that - I'd like to confirm where the project stands on this question. It was moved away from "wife of" 10 months ago. (A recent proposal to move to "Sarah Brown" was defeated largely on the basis that Ms Brown is not the clear ] topic for that name. Though it should be taken into account if known, the subject's preference would in my estimation normally be subordinate to the principle that defining a woman as a man's wife is inappropriate. --] (] · ] · ]) 21:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I am the user who made the current move request. I have played absolutely no part in what is currently happening at ]. Move request 6 (which was actually a request for comments) took place nearly one year ago. Move request 7 was made at the beginning of the week, and editors there suggested an alternative name. Since there was consensus against move request 7, yet the calls for an alternative suggestion, I followed ] and closed move request 7 early and began move request 8. The current title violates ], ], ] and ]. Because of this, and also the suggestions of other users, I think it is unfair and fundamentally untrue to describe it as 'calculated to belittle the subject': it is a genuine suggestion after carefully considering Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies and considering the subject too. I have explained all of this properly at the move request. I suggest, instead of causing unnecessary discussion elsewhere, that users look at the move request, consider Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and come to their own opinions whilst following ]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::I don't see any implications for NPOV here. What is non-neutral about it?--] (]) 21:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for asking and assuming good faith instead of just assuming something negative, Jimbo (and I apologise for forgetting to sign my contribution). Instead of repeating the same arguments here, I recommend you read the move request, or at least the part of it that relates to ]. I have taken the time there to think carefully about all of the possible issues and have addressed them individually. ] (]) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I find the argument unpersuasive. 'Sarah Jane Brown' is neutral. It may not be the best title, but the problem with it is not about neutrality. 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)' is highly non-neutral - a desire to avoid a possible BLP problem like that doesn't make 'Sarah Jane Brown' non-neutral.--] (]) 22:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Also, just so I have made this clear, my suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with sexism on my part. I would have made precisely the same suggestion if this were a non-notable husband marrying a woman Prime Minister. ] (]) 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Non-notable"? If it hangs on that then the answer is easy: AfD. ] (]) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::This is where all of the confusion and contention lies, DeCausa. ] explicitly states that people such as Mrs Brown are entitled to their own articles simply because of the position (the page mentions 'First Lady'). This means that the page cannot simply be deleted or merged. ] (]) 22:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It is clear that were there no disambiguation issue, we would choose "Sarah Brown". Given that there are other notable people with that title such that we need a disambiguation page, the question becomes: how best to do that. There will be minor problems with all approaches. 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)' is viewed by some (most?) as sexist, particularly since she's clearly notable in her own right for her own work. But names like 'Sarah Brown (philanthropist)' or similar strike me as odd, since she is '''most''' famous for being spouse of the Prime Minister. So 'Sarah Jane Brown' is a neutral and uncontroversial option to deal with the disambiguation problem without implying anything about the reasons for her notability, which is best left to the full text of the article to explain.--] (]) 22:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That sounds like an entirely commonsense approach which ''should'' be difficult to disagree with. ] (]) 22:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::One point (not the only point) is that a person with a disambiguation should receive it based on their notable position, not how they obtained the position. For example, if we needed to, ], not ]. If someone has a position which confers notability, the position ought to have some neutral name. ] (]) 00:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::How about ]? All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>07:11,&nbsp;25&nbsp;April&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
{{od}}
I was asked by the IP to post this, as they have been blocked (nb: more eyes on that block justification would be welcome):
:Thank you for your reply, Jimbo. I am sorry I was not able to reply sooner. It turned out that a reasonable discussion was not possible and the request has turned out horribly. I have ended up being blocked by an administrator and I can only edit my user page.
:My whole argument on the page was that, even if 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)' is considered by some to be sexist, because it is how she is best described by common sources, then I think policy means that it is still the best option. My concern with 'Sarah Jane Brown' is that she is never called Jane: in a discussion one year ago, only one reliable source was found for Jane, and that was an article written in The Guardian on her wedding day (which also used her maiden name). I would be more supportive of something like 'Sarah Brown (philanthropist)', because she has actually been described as this by reliable sources on multiple occasions.
:Whatever I think, though, it seems as if the issue is too problematic for users to consider calmly. I made the request in good faith and considered the policies carefully, yet the request has caused multiple arguments spread throughout various pages. The actions made by various users last night, by both administrators and non-administrators, have destroyed my confidence in Misplaced Pages. I no longer feel that I can trust administrators as a regular editor should do. Because of this, I have decided I shall withdraw from editing completely, even after the block has expired. This is a shame, but it is what I feel is most appropriate for myself. I genuinely, however, wish you and your project the best of luck in the future. ] (]) 10:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(posted by --] (]) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
: More eyes than the admin noticeboard and the unambiguous support for the block on that page? Frankly, I find your behaviour bizarre. We closed the move request with an embargo on further discussion for a month (as you'd expect having reached move request number EIGHT, which is, bluntly, farcical), and you obdurately insist ion continuing a debate speculating as to what title you might all ask for next time you request a move, which is basically the same thing. Jimbo's statement above is unambiguous and accurate: there is no NPOV problem to fix. Every single one of the suggestions made to date introduces either a BLP problem or a WTF problem. That's why there was no consensus for the last request. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::Jimbo has said of that discussion "I think this is a very reasonable discussion. I like discussions like this." Anyway, you are welcome to join and suggest alternatives, I think brainstorming while not under the gun of a move request may prove fruitful. Best regards, --] (]) 11:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


*Sooner or later, we're going to have to hold a larger discussion on the apparent anti-woman agenda carried out by obi-wan, born2cycle, timrollpickering, and others who have frequented the Hillary Clinton move, the Sarah Brown move. Several times a year these Move Requests are filed by mysterious "new" IP editors, soon followed by endless Walls o' Text and badgering of everyone who dares to oppose their point-of-view. At some point this behavior must be seen as disruptive and detrimental to the project, the inability to accept that one's opinion, even after repeated deliberation, falls into the minority. Jimbo, if you'd like specific diffs to review;

;Hillary Rodham Clinton
*05-18 June 13, Obi-wan ] on a contentious name move review. This user did not vote in this RM, but participated alongside many of the rename supporters in the Sarah Brown discussion, which was ongoing at this time.
*This n.a.c. was overturned by admin Good Olfactory, Obi-wan badgers him into overturning it, and Move Review eventually ].
*01 April 13 - present, It was decided that for ] a panel of 3 admins would be solicited to put a hopefully firmer hand onto this and stop the repeated noms. They again found no consensus to move.
*].
*Born2cycle drafts yet another ].
*Another mysterious IP files ], quickly squashed.

;Sarah Brown
*05-23 June 13, ]
*Obi-wan and others browbeat (see a pattern?) the closing admin over his close to the point of frustratingly later re-reversed thankfully.
*Also the subject of an ].
*] opens to move to "Sarah Brown". I opposed this procedurally, and (apologies in advance for language, it was a frustrating day) , which led to...
*], which many admins from NYB to Guy, tried to nip as a pointless waste of time only to be repeatedly reverted by Obi-wan and associates. See ] for a breakdown of the parties involved in the edit-warring and such, it's too much to diff out.

*And people wonder why the number of active admins is dwindling? Who wants to be a volunteer to make decisions on anything but the most mundane, non-controversial discussions? There's a line between admins being held accountable for their actions and outright harassment by the losing side. This whole affair has been far, far over the line for awhile now. ] (]) 13:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

== COI editors - "use the Talk page" ==

Jimbo, you have repeatedly said that editors with a financial conflict of interest with a Misplaced Pages subject who spot an error in the article should not edit the article directly, but rather solicit assistance on the Talk page. What happens if the request made on the Talk page is simply quickly deleted by the administrator who introduced the error into the article? What would be the next step, then? - ] (]) 15:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:Why on earth would the administrator do that? --] (]) (Please comment on ].) 16:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:One next step would be to move from hypothetical to actual. What talk page are you talking about and what requested edit?--] (]) 16:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::So, there is not an overall policy regarding this scenario? It should be a case-by-case basis? Okay, . - ] (]) 16:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::There is overall policy but application of policy depends on the actual facts. In this case you omitted a rather important fact, Mr. 2001. Having said that, BLP considerations apply here and I hope people will review the situation to determine if there is merit in the concerns expressed.--] (]) 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Thank you for that considerate response, and I look forward to what the good Misplaced Pages community will do to restore factual and sourced information to the article in question. Still, I am honestly curious what "the next step" should really be. Surely, you don't want it to be "come running to Jimbo_Talk"? In this case, my next step was to ask a friend if they would restore the deleted request (upon their own neutral judgment), which they did. - ] (]) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Things will always be difficult for long term banned users.--] (]) 17:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::Is the intention that things be made ''this'' , though? - ] (]) 18:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Yes. In your specific case, which is unique as far as I know, you'd be better off working through OTRS than attempting to edit Misplaced Pages. It is only under my umbrella and excessive tolerance that you're allowed to post here on my user talk page.--] (]) 18:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I bow deeply to your generosity, Jimbo. - ] (]) 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
: I bet I can guess which article. The answer is: ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:: While accepting the RBI policy, the concerns expressed were IMO, valid. As Jimbo noted, the right way to address them is through OTRS. I picked up and handled the OTRS ticket (and had not seen this discussion at that time.)--]] 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::: In what way is the fact that Kohs is permanently banned after being blocked by Jimbo, a BLP issue? Kohs' online presence is dominated by his vendetta against Misplaced Pages, after all. Not that I care much, but the fact is that anybody paying someone to edit Misplaced Pages for them is risking thier reputation - not just via Kohs' former services, it applies to everyone, and that's the obvious context of Jimbo's advice to avoid his services. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: I don't believe anyone asserted that the permanent ban is a BLP issue. The issue is that he identified what be believed to be a BLP issue in an article, and raised it on a talk page. Per RBI, the issue wasn't reviewed, but simply removed. We desire that if someone feels there is a BLP issue, that they should raise it onwiki by posting to a talk page of a notice board. If we automatically remove any such posts, it could result in a process problem with no way for the affected person to report it, but as Jimbo noted, there is an alternative–writing to OTRS. Which he did, and which I reviewed and which I felt deserved action.--]] 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: Also, JzG is fudging some facts above. Saying "that Kohs is permanently banned after being blocked by Jimbo" is a bit like saying "that the Japanese Imperial Navy lost the Battle of Leyte Gulf after attacking Pearl Harbor". Yes, it is technically true, but it certainly leaves out quite a bit of activity in the interim. If facts be told, Kohs was actually community banned after Jimbo unblocked his account, and then JzG rallied a campaign to have Kohs banned. If anything, JzG fiddling with the ] article to place misleading information into Misplaced Pages is just an extension of JzG's campaign to antagonize Kohs. But no harm shall come JzG's way, because he is an historically whom Wikipedians are afraid to confront, for fear of being "shut the fuck up you whining twat". - ] (]) 11:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::But he was banned, right? The precise timing is important in what way?--] 11:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, removing the material is necessary because of the policy about primary sources and undue weight, rather than because as claimed it's not a reliable source. Under ] a Misplaced Pages reference is indeed a reliable source when Misplaced Pages is being discussed. However it is considered primary and may not be important enough to include in the article if there are no secondary sources. ] (]) 04:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:Also, WP:RBI is an essay. WP:BLP is a policy. Essays can't override policies. ] (])
::]. --''']''' (] &#124; ]) 16:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

== Latest BBC website piece on Hillsborough incidents. For info ==

:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-27165844 Note the screenshots of some diffs and the reference to 34 IP addresses, obviously linked to govt depts revealed to the public domain by Angela Eagle. There is a short video piece accompaning it. ] (]) 18:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:: The image in the BBC story showing IP 81.100. 90.5 does not match the edit on Misplaced Pages which is the following . The image edit shown in the story is from this by {{ip|195.92.40.49}}. Regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Of interest is that the IP was blocked for 3 months for vandalism the same day as the above edit. See . Regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

== Jimbo, curious as to whether the following was an endorsed action or a third party acting independently? ==

], I'm curious as to whether was an action explicitly endorsed by you? Or was it instead a third party acting independently and unilaterally upon your talkpage? Or ... ?

I find it odd to have come across a third party removing another user's question on yet another person's talkpage two minutes after the inquiry was posted. The user's question seems fairly straightforward to me—though Wiki-politics loaded—and doesn't appear, to me, to harbor any signs of blatant vandalism.

Wassup' wi' dat'?

--] (]) 22:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

:''p.s.—'' In addition to being concerned about 'what' was done, I also find the 'how' to be questionable. i.e. Reversion with no explanation in the edit summary and flagged as a 'minor' edit. --] (]) 23:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::I was unaware of it but very strongly endorse it. The question is pure trolling, and there is no way I, or any other Misplaced Pages volunteer, should be expected to put up with that kind of abuse.--] (]) 23:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

::*Is this then to be interpreted as precedent that anyone is welcome to arbitrarily delete threads they deem unpleasant from your talkpage—without even an explanation in the edit summary—and then flag such as 'minor'? And would this then be endorsed as a comportment example for the community regarding talkpages in general? --] (]) 03:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::''p.s.—'' BTW, I can see how the question that had been posted, while not vandalism ''per se'', could be seen as rhetorical and baited; i.e. trolling. And understand if you are disinclined to engage with it. For the most part, it's that someone else appears to have made this decision for you, sight unseen, without explanation, and tagged such as 'minor' that is attracting my attention. --] (]) 03:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::See ]. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 13:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::See what Dennis has posted for more understanding, also you could have asked the editor why they did what they did. ] (]) 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::There comes a point where WP:DENY simply loses its effectiveness in the face of dogged persistence, though. There can't be an expectation that every question posed will be done in a nice, good-faith manner. Wouldn't it be better to just answer it, even if it is with a "this question is inappropriate" hatting? We'd at least have a record of it without having to delve into reversions. ] (]) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::There is a very strong expectation that every question should be made in a nice, good-faith manner. If we don't have that expectation then we encourage the bad behavior of baiting/trolling and give ourselves an incredibly unpleasant environment. It is very well known that I will try in good faith to answer all kinds of questions, even pointed ones, but even I have limits. In this case, the editor was asking me to compare two completely unrelated things, bringing up a person I consider to be a danger to myself and my family, for reasons that I am not entirely able to share based on professional advice, as a way of (apparently) attacking another user, without even posting diffs or explanations of who they were talking about (and I have no idea). If this were a good faith question, it might be of the form: "Are you aware of a user saying things like this(link) and that(link) and who hasn't been blocked or even warned? What do you think of this and related situations?"--] (]) 14:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that it's like an endless game of whack-a-mole, and WP:DENY'ing them does not seem to act as a deterrent. We all have limits, even those of us who (apologizes for language) hit a short fuse once in awhile. I just wonder if the reversions may do more harm than good in that they feed the monster and just make them keep coming back. I've said before that if there was some feasible way to be more accommodating of critics...even the atrocious ones...there would be less of a need for Wikipediocracy/Review types of sites to exist. ] (]) 15:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Accommodating critics is one thing. There is no reason why those engaged in trolling and harassment should be given the same leeway. ]] 16:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::*You can't appease someone whose only goal is to cause trouble. Ask ]. WP:DENY, if done properly, is more effective than anything else. That it is not 100% effective is irrelevant. Of course, if others war over it or discuss it, it just undermines the effort. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 16:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


=== Further clarification as to what I'm attempting to address ===
], you may be missing my emphasis. I'm not particularly concerned with the content of the removed question. I came across it—in a kinda' round-a-bout way—while looking into and presume that the first part of User:50.146.163.252's post refers to the same. As to the second part, which mentions a scenario involving Facebook, I as well have no idea—and am not really curious enough at this point to dig into it.

Again, it's the procedural specifics of how User:50.146.163.252's question was dealt with that I'm asking about. To use your phrasing:
<blockquote>'Are you aware of a user things like and who hasn't been even warned? What do you think of this and related situations?'</blockquote>
Seeing someone censor—apparently arbitrarily, as it was unexplained and veiled as 'minor'—what gets viewed by the ']' (i.e. ''you'') is something I find concerning. If someone had presumed to do the same on my talkpage I certainly would have addressed it. At least in a "I appreciate the sentiment, '''''but''''' ..." manner. However, as this is your talkpage, I'm not really in a position to judge whether the action was presumptuous in this case as it's unknown to me as to whether (or not) you may have explicitly delegated such privileges to others. Is this to be taken as precedent? And if so, is it a general precedent or is there a select subset of the community who are privileged to do so? And is 'unexplained and veiled as 'minor<nowiki>''</nowiki> the recommended way to implement such?

--] (]) 21:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

*People do it here all the time, and Jimmy knows this. I've probably reverted a half dozen times on Jimmy's page, and it isn't usually on my watch list. I've even semi-protected this page once (see the ), which is when admin shut out '''all''' new and IP users from making '''any''' edits. People revert stuff off my page all the time, I do for other people all the time. Being an admin, I get a fair amount of IP vandalism from blocked editors, etc. Jimmy, being more high profile, gets more. All one has to do is look at the history of the page to see what was removed, surely Jimmy knows how. You seems shocked at this, but this is common practice. It isn't censorship, it is cleaning up. If someone trolled on your page and I saw it, I would naturally revert it without even thinking about it. If you see vandalism or trolling on my talk page and revert it, you will probably get a "thank you" notification. I wouldn't assume you were censoring, I would ]. If someone '''does''' reverts good faith edits by an IP, then someone else would have reverted them back in. People aren't shy about that either. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
*The fact is that trolls and troublemakers do exist, and given that anyone can posts on this page, a significant number of trolls and troublemakers have discovered that they can pose "questions" designed to spread ]. Removing such posts is not censorship—it's just part of the cost of running an open house. Responding or hatting just provides encouragement, and that would drown out legitimate criticism and discussion. Re the question posed above: of course Jimbo has not "delegated such privileges", but of course he is aware of what happens here, and is fully capable of addressing unwanted actions. ] (]) 01:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

*I'd like everyone here on both sides of the argument to consider that this is Jimbo's user talk page and not a noticeboard, and act accordingly. Jimbo has the last say on what belongs, and can easily revert removals or remove things himself as he sees fit. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 17:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

== Wikinews or Wikiwoos? ==

]

"One speaker, who produced a bottle of cannabis oil he had received through the post, explained this cured his prostate cancer. Others highlighted the current use of ] by the National Health Service, with a cost in-excess of £150 for a single bottle of GW Pharmaceuticals patented spray — as-compared to the oil shown to the crowd, with a manufacturing cost of approximately £10."

There is no evidence for the claim that marijuana can literally cure cancer, and a concentrated spray of a specific chemical is not the same as a random mix of chemicals vaguely related to it. This is pure advocacy of fringe views.

How long must English Wikinews drag the brand down before it's put out of its misery? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:Good news though. Reading the main page of the Africa news portal, I have just discovered that Nelson Mandella's health is improving! Unfortunately, thousands of people from Burkina Faso remain displaced following a flood that hit five years ago. Wikinews is a complete joke, but it isn't going away though anything on this page. I can't remember when shutting down the project was last discussed at Meta, however. ]] 04:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::The problem is that, if you attempt to discuss it on meta, English Wikinews puts a banner up, and the entire group of editors run over there to shout people down before any sort of coherent front against them can form. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 10:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::If you want to get the thing fixed, you read what I mentioned at your talk page — ]:
::::When something needs done, ''make steps, reasonably small and balanced, to get it done''.
:::...and please '''''continue discussion in the right place, ''at Wikinews itself'', without ] your ] ]'''''. If you want more people to participate in that discussion, give them a neutral summary, not an exciting breath-taking op-ed with a flashy headline.
:::A cry for attention is incompatible with neutral intercourse. . --] (]) 10:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

* I see Adam considers your talk page an appropriate place to ], Jimmy. Sorry about that. However, the stretch he's had to make in claiming reporting that an individual stated something, to being ''Wikinews'' stated something, is quite remarkable.
: Is this going to be a tolerated ] "]"? --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::Actually, Jimbo has specifically stated in the past that posting to his talk page is not forum shopping - I don't necessarily agree with that view, but c'est la vie. You gotta take the good with the bad. ]] 14:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

: The utter baseness of the efforts to suppress the medical use of marijuana cannot be exaggerated. Spiritually rooted in the witch hunts of the Middle Ages and the open racism of the 1920s, they cast aside the work of three millennia of physicians to put forward a faith-based theory that "herbs cannot work", which can be enforced only by open violence against millions of people. Based on an outright lie (not out of character) by Nixon, they ] medical use of marijuana, then doggedly ensured that ] refused to study the mechanism for two decades, insisting that a drug with specific and reproducible effects on the brain ''literally had no receptor'', then used bureaucracy to hold back all practical research for ''another'' decade. We don't have any idea of all we have suffered because of this - we don't know what drugs against pain, obesity, inflammatory diseases, sea-sickness or any other nausea, and other common maladies have been lost. There definitely ''is'' use of cannabis against prostate cancer, though it isn't the first herb I would have thought of for the purpose. While I would not accept an anecdotal account as scientific evidence, I cannot blame a patient who tries using cannabis and sees remission from drawing the personal conclusion that it worked. To assert that ], based on the two most prevalent active chemicals in cannabis, should have effects that cannabis does not, when it was created solely as a method to placate the bureaucracy while extorting a patent toll from ancient medicine... contemptible! But to insist, like a Putin or an Erdogan, that an ''entire method of distributing news'' be abolished because they allegedly made a <u>single word error</u>, (though perhaps not visible via the magic of "Pending Changes") that is worse. ] (]) 15:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::It's cute that you think anyone is arguing that Wikinews should be shut down because of a "single word error". Would you like to try again, but without the logical and argumentative fallacies? ]] 16:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Oh yes, I see you also investigated and found out that they have ''old news articles in their archives''. But I was responding to the OP (one colon) so as to avoid getting into that. ] (]) 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::The entire paragraph quoted is advocating for fringe claims, but I like how you decide I'm objecting to a single word, despite explicitly discussing the next section as well. And I don't think merely changing one word to "asserts" is enough to atone for '''repeating claims that something will cure your cancer'''. The claim is downright dangerous, and would be deleted on sight if it was on Misplaced Pages and unbalanced, but Wikinews apparently is happy to be the worst kind of irresponsible tabloid. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 18:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::I don't think it's reasonable to take from that sentence that Wikinews was signing on to it curing prostate cancer. In any case, guesses about serious medical conditions are the mainstream media's bread and butter. How often were people told that partially hydrogenated vegetable oil was ''better'' than animal fat? Anything about fat, salt, "complex" carbohydrates, whatever, sheerest guesswork pervades the news. They are so bad about this that Misplaced Pages pushes a special policy 'MEDRS' about it (though that goes too far). The difference is, any statement Wikinews appeared to make was at most parenthetical and accidental, whereas the mass media actively pushes fad ideas based on popularity or other forms of profit. I'm not keelhauling them over a word choice. ] (]) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

:For what it is worth, I don't have a major problem with the passage outlined above if there is a single word change. One of the most important concepts in writing about what others have said is the concept of a "success verb", and the nuances around different word choices. Compare: "John explained that 2+2=4" -> implies that I agree that 2+2=4. "John said that 2+2=4" -> mostly neutral on the question. "John claimed that 2+2=4" -> expresses that the matter is not proven at all. Other choices that are unlikely to be right for Misplaced Pages/Wikinews also exist: "John made the surprising claim that 2+2=4" -> I don't really believe him. "John lied that 2+2=4" -> I don't believe him, plus he said it maliciously rather than through simple error.

:Often we should avoid "success verbs" and stick to the more neutral formulations. Not everywhere, though. "John Doe, an astronomer, explained that planets in this size class and this distance from the sun are less rare than previously thought." That's perfectly valid if that's an uncontroversial claim, because using a neutral term like "said" or a questioning term like "claimed" will mislead the reader.


:All of this is quite separate from the question of what should be done about Wikinews.--] (]) 06:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Butting in here, it seems to me part of the problem with many of the sister projects is lack of editors. I recently raised a question elsewhere about maybe creating a WF "community portal," a link to which could, maybe appear below the extant c.p. in the standard skin, discussing active efforts in those entities. Maybe one of the first things that could be done might be a survey of what editors would like to see those entities do, and establish lines of demarkation between them.


==]==
::It might also help if we could some of our topical WikiProjects in some way more actively involved in the other WF entities.
]
]
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.
::Specifically regarding WikiNews,maybe expanding its scope a little to include some "this month in (music, film, football, etc.)” columns might help a little, along with "feature stories" on topics like food and fashion which could present dubiously encyclopedic content, like, for instance, the various kinds of meat loaf.


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
::If something like periodic columns could get started soon, they might be useful forthe upcoming US congressional elections. ] (]) 15:03, 28 April 2014 (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)
::: Definitely a good idea. It would also improve participation if there were a mechanism so that "stale" and archived Wikinews would be flagged for incorporation into relevant Misplaced Pages articles as appropriate, so that there would be less of a sense that rejected/deleted articles are wasted effort. ] (]) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
: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)
]
::::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)
*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)
*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)


== Just wanted to say ==
::::{{edit conflict}}What if there's some sort of a partnership set up between the folks who do the "In the news" section here and Wikinews with a little link about it? Getting some admins here and there to work together to promote Wikinews shouldn't be too hard, I wouldn't think, and it'd be a nice start. '''<font style="text-shadow:0em 0em 0.75em #B87333;">] <font color="9F000F">:D</font> ] <font color="9F000F">^_^</font> ]</font>''' 15:35, 28 April 2014 (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.
::::: Re those other kinds of articles, there are things Wikinews doesn't do on principle and things Wikinews don't do because nobody chooses to write them &mdash; but this page is not, sadly, a viable forum for in-depth constructive discussions about Wikinews. Constructive discussion is of course welcome at the Wikinews ].
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)


== ==
::::: Regarding the non-Wikipedian sisters in general, local shortages of editors are symptoms of non-local problems, flowing both from the Foundation central authority downward, and from Misplaced Pages outward. (The foundation's neglect and dissing of non-Wikipedian sisters hardly seems relevant here; the problems of Misplaced Pages, though they pain me deeply as Misplaced Pages was my first love amongst the Wikimedian projects, I would not expect to go into here without being accused of trolling and Misplaced Pages bashing.) --] (]) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
===Derogatory word 'woo'===
I, for one, am unimpressed by those who use the neologism "woo" to designate pseudoscientific concepts. Certainly pseudoscientific concepts should be subject to critical and even scathing review where appropriate, but the users of the word ''woo'' tend to lump possibly useful concepts into the term, tarring the good along with the bad if there is any remote connection. The term is derogatory and dismissive, setting up a no-win barrier to discussion. I think Misplaced Pages talk pages ought to be free of this particularly offensive neologism. ] (]) 19:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
: It is a standard umbrella term used by science advocates and skeptics, I don't know of any other term encompassing the full gamut of pseudoscience, non-science, nonsense, unproven medical claims, paranormal claims and so on. Feel free to suggest an alternative term of equivalent breadth. No, potentially useful things are not included in the general term "woo". There are, for example, specific medicinal uses of cannabinoids, the term woo refers to the inflated claims made by those who believe it can be smoked without risk (false) and it cures cancer (which it doesn't). The problem was that Wikinews published a completely uncritical presentation of claims that fall into the "woo" bracket, according to the judgment of at least a few readers. Sticking only to the factually supportable claims for ] would have been fine, the problem was precisely that they didn't. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I don't find the term very helpful myself. It is a standard bit of jargon in skeptical circles, very fashionable recently, but I think it is not widely enough known to engage people outside of those narrow groups. Even as advocacy, I don't think it's a very helpful term of mockery for the same reason: it doesn't mean anything in the mind of someone in the general public, whereas "pseudoscience" or "quackery" are perfectly serviceable words.--] (]) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Looks like woo to me. ] (]) 23:05, 27 April 2014 (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)
:::Used to be called "woowoo" could we try that instead? -] (]) 23:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


== Happy new year ==
::::I wonder if you regard ]'s story about ]<sup></sup> to be "woo". If I see a child like that I want to stand with the people trying to grasp at some hope, not the heartless marching morons who would smash her medicine and condemn her to a life of endless seizures. P.S. I just looked it up and she's down to ''one seizure a month''.<sup></sup> God bless "woo"! ] (]) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


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)
:::::To quote from the wiki article to which you linked - ''"there is insufficient medical evidence to draw conclusions about their safety or efficacy."'' -] (]) 00:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


== ==
::::::And what do you do in those circumstances? Do you dismiss the observations as "woo" or accept that unproven does not mean ''dis''proven? It is a scientist's job to take speculative action based on inconclusive results - that is how we ''get'' conclusive results. The same is true of the journalist. This means, quite simply, that it is appropriate for Wikinews to give serious attention to anecdotes, reporting them faithfully, neither exaggerating nor ignoring them. It is the duty of politicians to refrain from cruelly attacking families who also need to make decisions based on a balance of risks and benefits, not just what is ''known''.] (]) 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::"Random thing some unqualified guy said while probably high" (seriously, this was a pro-marijuana rally) might be reportable ''if and only if'' research was done to see if there's any accuracy, and to make clear what the objective facts are. Just because some random person says something doesn't mean that the journalist should simply report they said it, then not bother to check the claims. '''Checking claims is the heart of good journalism''', reporting whatever crap you're told uncritcically is the heart of garbage journalism. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think I've seen this standard of journalism. By and large, in those rare cases where reporters go to a public protest, it's enough of a miracle that their paper covered the protest - they don't follow people home and ask for copies of their X-rays and prescriptions and interview their doctors to see if the remission had some other explanation. True, on occasion this goes , badly, but I don't see Wikinews doing anything worse than other news outlets. ] (]) 03:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::So if Wikinews doesn't provide anything the MSM doesn't, what purpose does it serve? Hell, even Misplaced Pages itself does a far better job of reporting news than Wikinews (albeit partly because of greater editing mass). ]] 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::I feel like you've forgotten why Misplaced Pages was first started -- as a free-as-in-freedom ''alternative'' to the Britannica. Nobody imagined it would be ''better'', not at first. Wikinews may not be in a position to routinely surpass MSM - not in general, though any single editor is free to go all out, drive that extra mile - but the point is, it's ''free''. ] (]) 16:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::You're trying to apply the "notability" concept to news. Don't. If a yellow dingo said that sky is red during a FIFA world cup, it will be reported as such, as insignificant as it was. ] (]) 07:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Why exactly would it be? and why would the readers care? Notability certainly applies to news, just not in the way it applies to articles on Misplaced Pages. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 17:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Christ is risen ==


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Did you know that on Easter Sunday this hook appeared on enWikipedia's main page:<br>'''Did you know that "]"?''' Being discussed at ANI ].<br>--] (] · ] · ]) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) <small>Added link to ANI discussion 18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)</small>
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Point being? ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 17:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's nice to see us getting the Good News out there. --] (] · ] · ]) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Heh heh! If memory serves correct, we have {{U|The C of E}} to thank for the hook (and the article?). Best, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:29, 9 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

    Albert Percy Godber at his brass finishing lathe in the Petone railway workshops. A sign before him reads: `This is my busy day'
    "Looking down over a settlement with houses set amongst trees. The arm of a lake or harbour lies beyond, with a mountainous range on the far side. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber. Probably taken at Queenstown, Godber having visited Lake Wakatipu and Queenstown in 1926"

    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.

    "Phyllis Mary Godber wearing a Maori cloak, holding a taiaha, standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber

    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)
    "Godber family outside their house 'Railway Whare' at 23 Bay Street, Petone, circa 1906. From left to right: Albert Percy Godber, Mary Ann Godber, Laura Godber, Phyllis and William. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber"
    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)

    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)
    Category: