User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:18, 23 March 2023

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

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 2 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.

Daily pageviews of User:Jimbo Wales

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

Holocaust denialism at Romanian Wikipedia

Holocaust denialists are whitewashing ro:Radu Theodoru. Time for the ban hammer? What happened at Croatian Wikipedia for ten years should not be repeated.

I support indeffing for everyone who denies that the Final Report of the Wiesel Commission is WP:RS. I'm not saying that it is absolutely true and accurate, bereft of any possible mistake, I'm just saying that it is WP:RS. Denying that it is WP:RS is antisemitic hate speech.

The admins of ro.wiki are not opposed to me, but their possibility of blocking that editor according to the policies and guidelines of ro.wiki is rather limited. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't read Romanian but the Google translate of the page at this moment looks pretty ok. To speak to the general question, yes, I would say that in most cases, editing to support Holocaust denialism is sufficient for an immediate ban.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not apart of this, but what did happen in the Croatian Wikipedia circa 2013? - MountainKemono (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the hands of far-right propagandists for a long time. See meta:Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdrianPetcu2023/Radu Theodoru—see? No mention of Theodoru's antisemitism, no mention that Theodoru is a Holocaust denialist. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's of course a stub, but Mr. Petcu did follow our discussion. Evidence: [1]. He understands perfectly that his own behavior is under scrutiny, but chose to call me a troll for reporting it here, instead of taking Jimbo's advice to the heart.

Let me be very clear: it there is ever going to be a Radu Theodoru article at English Wikipedia, it will surely mention his antisemitism and that he is a denialist of the Holocaust. I am not prepared to make peace with those who whitewash the biographies of such people. I will never compromise to omit these two facts about Theodoru.

If Mr. Theodoru decides to sue me: the Anti-Defamation League and nl:Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël have deep pockets, enough to pay for my lawyers, and he knows that too overtly propagating his views, and making a fuss about it will attract the attention of the Romanian public prosecutors (since it is technically a felony in Romania). Mr. Theodoru isn't a Wikipedian, so I'm not threatening any Wikipedian with juridical prosecution. ADL/CIDI don't pay me, but they could pay some lawyers to cream him. All I am saying is that if he claims that my views are juridically problematic, his own views are much more juridically problematic than mine. And there is absolutely no crime of libel in Romanian law. Libel is neither a felony, nor a misdemeanor. And in Dutch law libel gets never prosecuted. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I am happy to give you a little cutesie kitten so you can adopt it. Here's how to take care of your kitten:

To pet it, please do 1 edit.
To play with it, make your own WikiLove thing and send it to me.
To feed it, please do 5 edits.
To hug it, please do 8 edits.
To take it somewhere, please give me a WikiLove cheeseburger and say where you are going to take it.

SonicIn2022 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate

Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians

In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences

Featured content: Way too many featured articles

Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA

Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Greeting Jimbo. Happy Spring.

I'm curious if you think subjects like the following are notable. Do you think it's too difficuot to have them included in Wikipedia?

FloridaArmy (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo of course can speak for himself, but I think that the GNG language is very clear: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, if you have identified several sources that meet that three part standard, then write the draft. If not, don't bother writing a draft because that is a waste of time in my opinion. I suggest that you leave such topics on your long term "to do" list. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this entry substantial coverage in a reliable independent source? Or this one? How about this one User:Cullen328? Those are among the cited sources for John Lewis Peyton. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, the first is a specialist encyclopedia article, which I think that most editors would accept but consider a tertiary source. The second is a database entry. In my opinion, most editors do not consider such entries to constitute significant coverage. The third is a book published in 1868, shortly after the Civil War that it discusses. We have a strong preference for much more recent sources, especially when trying to establish notability. I have used book of that era for direct quotes or for uncontroversial biographical details, but not for trying to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes something a specialist encyclopedia User:Cullen328? I would think substantial coverage from William S. Powell, one of the premier historians of North Carolina (written in the 1990/ more than 100 years after Peyton's death) would be solid. What type of coverage are you lookong for and from whom? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to do the huge job of analyzing 12 topics. But at first glance IMHO the majority would probably meet the defacto standard (e.g. survive AFD) for existence of an article in Wikipedia but the AFC standard is higher which does not pass edge cases. This is due to the structure combined with human nature. An AFC reviewer is not going to want to gamble their stamp of approval on an edge case. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Eek's assessment follows:[reply]

Fleta, Alabama (Draft:Fleta, Alabama): If you want places approved, I highly suggest that you learn how to use infoboxes and specifically the GPS function. If an editor can't easily tell where the town is, that really complicates things. Further, it is unclear whether this is a ghost town or not. If its just some long gone ghost town, its rather unlikely to be notable.
Jack Clifford (actor) (Draft:Jack Clifford (actor)): its just a list of films. He looks like the 1920's equivalent of a direct-to-video star. What makes him stand out? If you can't say, he's probably not notable.
Capitol Park (Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Draft:Capitol Park (Tuscaloosa, Alabama)): probably notable, though I note it hasn't been reviewed yet. Jimbo's talk is not a review accelerator.
Post-Newsweek Production (Draft:Post-Newsweek Productions): not notable. Just one of millions of defunt companies that never achieved much.
Tachira Railway (Draft:Tachira Railway): not declined for notability reasons, but rather because your grammar was bad. Unfortunately, that seems to be a trend I'm noticing. I note that a sentence like "a map was sold of it" is...pretty bad writing, and also WP:TRIVIA. FA, you've been here at Jimbo talk repeatedly, and I understand your frustration. But if you're going to continue to focus on quantity over quality, you're gonna keep having the same issues. Consciously or not, when a draft is poorly written, reviewers are going to assume you don't know what you're doing, and it makes it that much harder to get approved. Focus on the details more.
Wendell Peters (Draft:Wendell Peters): You don't even have his birthday or death date. Beyond that, you have basically only primary sources: court cases that he was on. From what has been provided, this guy is no more important than every lawyer who has ever lived. In fact, it seems a bit unfair to him to create an article on him: his life seems to have gone kind of sour. Would you want your life memorialized like that for all time?
Henry Kernot (Draft:Henry Kernot): this guy is mildly interesting. But it looks like nobody has breathed a word of him in more than a century. If you could find some modern sources about him, maybe.
Don Noble (Draft:Don Noble): well from the sources you've provided, he's not notable. Its not the job of the reviewer to look for more sources. Perhaps he fits into one of the professor SNGs? Beyond that, I'm seeing a continued disconnect between you and GNG. I'm not sure what your hangup is. You need at least two, in-depth, quality sources that mention the subject at length, that are not written by the source or someone related. A short biography by the guy's employer does not and cannot fill that requirement.
Minnie T. Wright (Draft:Minnie T. Wright): wait for it to get reviewed.
Albert Henderson Wade Ross (Draft:Albert Henderson Wade Ross): this isn't even your draft, and also, wait for it to get reviewed.
William E. Shay (Draft:William E. Shay): having a picture is good. Having exactly one sentence about him, with no citations, is bad.
John Lewis Peyton (Draft:John Lewis Peyton): he might actually be notable. But the way you have written the article is exactly the reason you keep failing at AFC. You have an entire source (Yelton, 1989) discussing an amusing exploit from this guy's life. And you have pulled nothing from it. So a reviewer, at a glance, only sees an article about...a different dude, and assumes that you mistook him for someone else. Instead of an interesting sentence like "John Lewis Peyton was the source of numerous 19th century misconceptions about the mound builders, a group of indigenous peoples in the Americas.", and so on, you have nothing. Yelton 1989 gives you a goldmine! There is so much info about John Lewis Peyton's life in there: where he went to school, that he was a fellow of the Royal Geographical society no less! Plus, the article gives a very amusing story that would make an excellent DYK hook. But you have pulled out none of that, leaving not even the barebones of an article, and are then upset when a reviewer declines it.You can't expect the reviewers to do all the work for you.

In conclusion, yes I know I was a bit sassy, but please pay attention to the details. You can succeed, but its about quality over quantity. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 ::::What makes something a specialist encyclopedia [[User:Cullen328]]? I would think substantial coverage from [[William S. Powell]], one of the premier historians of North Carolina (written in the 1990/ more than 100 years after Peyton's death) would be solid. What type of coverage are you lookong for and from whom? [[User:FloridaArmy|FloridaArmy]] ([[User talk:FloridaArmy|talk]]) 02:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 Not going to do the huge job of analyzing 12 topics.   But at first glance IMHO the majority would probably meet the defacto standard (e.g. survive AFD) for existence of an article in Wikipedia but the AFC standard is higher which does not pass edge cases.  This is due to the structure combined with human nature.  An AFC reviewer is not going to want to gamble their stamp of approval on an edge case. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
+Eek's assessment follows:
+*[[Fleta, Alabama]] ([[Draft:Fleta, Alabama]]): If you want places approved, I highly suggest that you learn how to use infoboxes and specifically the GPS function. If an editor can't easily tell where the town is, that really complicates things. Further, it is unclear whether this is a ghost town or not. If its just some long gone ghost town, its rather unlikely to be notable.
+*[[Jack Clifford (actor)]] ([[Draft:Jack Clifford (actor)]]): its just a list of films. He looks like the 1920's equivalent of a direct-to-video star. What makes him stand out? If you can't say, he's probably not notable.
+*[[Capitol Park (Tuscaloosa, Alabama]] ([[Draft:Capitol Park (Tuscaloosa, Alabama)]]): probably notable, though I note it hasn't been reviewed yet. Jimbo's talk is not a review accelerator.
+*[[Post-Newsweek Production]] ([[Draft:Post-Newsweek Productions]]): not notable. Just one of millions of defunt companies that never achieved much.
+*[[Tachira Railway]] ([[Draft:Tachira Railway]]): not declined for notability reasons, but rather because your grammar was bad. Unfortunately, that seems to be a trend I'm noticing. I note that a sentence like "a map was sold of it" is...pretty bad writing, and also [[WP:TRIVIA]]. FA, you've been here at Jimbo talk repeatedly, and I understand your frustration. But if you're going to continue to focus on quantity over quality, you're gonna keep having the same issues. Consciously or not, when a draft is poorly written, reviewers are going to assume you don't know what you're doing, and it makes it that much harder to get approved. Focus on the details more.
+*[[Wendell Peters]] ([[Draft:Wendell Peters]]): You don't even have his birthday or death date. Beyond that, you have basically only primary sources: court cases that he was on. From what has been provided, this guy is no more important than every lawyer who has ever lived. In fact, it seems a bit unfair to him to create an article on him: his life seems to have gone kind of sour. Would you want your life memorialized like that for all time?
+*[[Henry Kernot]] ([[Draft:Henry Kernot]]): this guy is mildly interesting. But it looks like nobody has breathed a word of him in more than a century. If you could find some modern sources about him, maybe.
+*[[Don Noble]] ([[Draft:Don Noble]]): well from the sources you've provided, he's not notable. Its not the job of the reviewer to look for more sources. Perhaps he fits into one of the professor SNGs? Beyond that, I'm seeing a continued disconnect between you and GNG. I'm not sure what your hangup is. You need at least two, in-depth, quality sources that mention the subject at length, that are not written by the source or someone related. A short biography by the guy's employer does not and cannot fill that requirement.
+*[[Minnie T. Wright]] ([[Draft:Minnie T. Wright]]): wait for it to get reviewed.
+*[[Albert Henderson Wade Ross]] ([[Draft:Albert Henderson Wade Ross]]): this isn't even your draft, and also, wait for it to get reviewed.
+*[[William E. Shay]] ([[Draft:William E. Shay]]): having a picture is good. Having exactly one sentence about him, with no citations, is bad.
+*[[John Lewis Peyton]] ([[Draft:John Lewis Peyton]]): he might actually be notable. But the way you have written the article is exactly the reason you keep failing at AFC. You have an entire source (Yelton, 1989) discussing an amusing exploit from this guy's life. And you have pulled nothing from it. So a reviewer, at a glance, only sees an article about...a different dude, and assumes that you mistook him for someone else. Instead of an interesting sentence like "John Lewis Peyton was the source of numerous 19th century misconceptions about the [[mound builders]], a group of indigenous peoples in the Americas.", and so on, you have nothing. Yelton 1989 gives you a goldmine! There is so much info about John Lewis Peyton's life in there: where he went to school, that he was a fellow of the Royal Geographical society no less! Plus, the article gives a very amusing story that would make an excellent DYK hook. But you have pulled out none of that, leaving not even the barebones of an article, and are then upset when a reviewer declines it.You can't expect the reviewers to do all the work for you.
+In conclusion, yes I know I was a bit sassy, but please pay attention to the details. You can succeed, but its about quality over quantity. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 03:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)