Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 2 January 2015

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 1 day

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.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

For your New Year's resolution a simple suggestion on how to use some of that $60 million

Hello, I recognize that this has been raised time and time again, but might I suggest that some of the money the WMF currently has in its possession be directed towards some form of image filter? As it stands right now, any individual who looks for images of Queen Victoria's consort is liable to find themselves with a face full of penis and little Billy looking for images of an electric toothbrush may have to have a serious discussion with mommy and daddy about female masturbation. Surely this is not desirable.

People often go on about the implementation, but there are relatively simple methods to go about it. For instance, there is already a "bad image" filter for some explicit content that prevents them from being used for vandalism. Anyone attempting to add a tagged image to an article that is not pre-approved will find the image is hidden from view. I am sure it would be simple enough to create a "safe search" function akin to that used by Google, which prevents images with such a tag from being displayed in search results and can be toggled on and off with ease.

Other methods that could be employed include the use of administrative categories on articles and other content that would display a "NSFW"-style warning requiring the reader to approve viewing of the content as is common on countless sites with explicit content. Such tags and categories could be added manually or be added automatically by a bot when prompted by certain key words or based on image information, which would naturally be subject to review by a human admin to determine whether the tag or category is valid. I believe that would be a fine way to use some of the money currently being held by the Wikimedia Foundation. What do you say?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Geez dude, you're a reverse Queen Victoria's consort for making me curious enough to view that. What the heck is up with people. Dave Dial (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of any form is antithetical to the mission of Misplaced Pages.

It is impossible to choose what to censor. If Misplaced Pages makes any attempt to do so, it becomes responsible for times when it fails to do so adequately.

No matter what argument you put forward, people will find cases which compel us to continue to make no censorial decisions (other than, perhaps, those caused by the legality of the country where the servers are hosted). Igor the bunny (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

TDA did not say anything about censorship. Giving readers some measure of of control over what they see is not censorship. It is common courtesy and common sense, and it is completely consistent with the educational mission of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia. Neutron (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Igor. Enabling readers to choose to view or not view images they find offensive is not censorship. It is empowerment. Some here think we should oblige everyone to look at an image of a woman masturbating when they search for "electric toothbrush", even those who would prefer not to. These folk are authoritarian ideologues. Try to raise yourself above that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutron: Almost all computers have an 'off' button. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Igor, readers already have control over what they see and it is called off button. -sarvajna (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? looks clean to me, yeah that toothbrush one probably needs a fix of some kind. I once had an idea of adding a hidden cat to images on commons which were "NSFW" and it won't appear in any searches unless the user explicitly requests it by enabling an option....might be a pain in the a** to do and though our policies are against censorship, this might not be something most of us would be against ...Just think of the little kids Santa!..uhm..I mean Jimmy --Stemoc 07:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something - the result of looking for 'Prince Albert' by name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You're also missing that some people are offended by ladies in swimsuits. Or naked feet. Or images of Mohammed. Or excrement. Or bananas. Who decides? Igor the bunny (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Who decided that a charitable organisation supposedly set up to create an online encyclopaedia (not an anti-censorship campaign) should instead dedicate much of its image storage space to low-grade pornography, catalogued in such a way that searches for other material entirely will risk offending a significant proportion of its readership? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think nobody decided; it just happened. But what you might call "low-grade porn", another person might call "useful material for medical studies". Or banana studies. Igor the bunny (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing 'just happens' on Misplaced Pages/Commons. The porn (which is what it is - medical studies aren't based on images trawled from Flikr) is there because Commons has been subverted for purposes beyond the stated remit of the WMF. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, well...this is an old debate, but I'm game.

Define 'Porn'. Igor the bunny (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll say it again, bunny. No one is suggesting we remove images of penises from Commons or Misplaced Pages. All the images of penises you may want will still be there, and all our medical articles will be illustrated with graphic penis pictures where helpful to the reader. The filter proposal is that we give you and all other readers the choice to not see them if that is your/their want. Should you go to Human penis with an intelligently-designed nudity filter enabled you can choose to see a penis illustration by simply clicking the blank rectangle where the image should be.

Again. All relevant (educationally useful) images will be on Commons and in our articles, as now. All readers who have opted-in to one or more of the image filtering options will be able to view a blanked image in an article or in a Commons search result by just clicking the blank rectangle.

As for how do we decide what images are filtered by a given filter option: there are multiple possible answers and all worth discussing, but there is no point discussing that question with someone who equates a filter with censorship and so won't be discussing that question in good faith. I'd be happy to discuss the question with anyone who recognises that filtering isn't censorship and that, rather than restrict our readers' freedom, it offers them more options. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Filtering should and can happen at the users end. Moreover, I've been on the internet since ca. 1987, I've been on Misplaced Pages since 2003, and the only time I've ever even had the idea of searching Commons for images was in reply to one of these threads. I stipulate that people who actually do perform image searches there know what they are doing and what to expect. Filtering is a problem in search of a solution. It also opens yet another secondary front (well, several, actually) for user conflicts, namely about how to classify which pictures. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So, you don't need it or want it. Cool. Don't work on it. Don't use it. Simple. Why would you stop those that do want it from offering/having it as an option? It is an option. "I don't want it, so I don't want you to have it" seems a little ... I don't know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So you don't want a big military? Well, don't use it. You don't want a gun? Well, don't use it. So you don't want large scale government surveillance? Well, don't use it. "I don't want it, so I don't want you to have it" seems a little ... I don't know." I hope it's clear that there are at least two points hidden in this analogy. One, you are proposing to use community funding (and other community resources, including volunteer time and good will) to implement image filtering. I may think that it's better to spend those resources on competing projects, or keep a nest egg for bad times. Secondly, once the infrastructure is in place, who knows what it will be used for? And thirdly, maybe I'm of the opinion that seeing the occasional surprising picture is actually good for humanity in general. I have the impression that you want to decide for others what they should or should not see. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would you have that impression, since I've made it clear that I want readers to decide for themselves what they see. You are the one saying they shouldn't have that choice. You are projecting some censorship/big government hidden agenda onto me that isn't there. If this initially benign, choice-enhancing measure should in some future version of Misplaced Pages be perverted to impose filtering or actual censorship on readers, it won't be because it's a part of my evil plan now.

But let's address that possibility. Let's say there is a button at the top of Misplaced Pages pages called "image filter", and readers can select "filter nudity" or "filter images of Muhammad" or "filter images of Mormon temple garments". Only those offended by such images will select those filters, and if they want to look at a blanked image they'll just click it. Under what circumstances can you see that changing, where people will have the filter forced on them or where they'll be prevented from seeing a filtered image by clicking its blank place-holder? Do you seriously expect this community to !vote for such a change? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "You're also missing that some people are offended by ladies in swimsuits. Or naked feet. Or images of Mohammed. Or excrement. Or bananas. Who decides?". They decide, the people doing the searches. People should be able to decide for themselves what kind of things show up in image searches, and if images were tagged appropriately and the search modified to optionally use those tags, people would be able to choose what to see without anyone forcing anything on anyone else. Squinge (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As an example, most image libraries make extensive use of tagging and you can search for whatever tags you want. So if you're not looking for images of Mohammed wearing a swimsuit and eating a banana, but only want images of cock rings, it's relatively easy to find what you want. It's not censorship, it's just making it easier for people to find what they're actually looking for. Squinge (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a multimedia search of en.Misplaced Pages for "electric toothbrush" will deliver up the same result under your proposed system as the current system. NSFW. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not if the images were appropriately tagged and you could include or exclude the tags you wanted or didn't want. So if images could be, for example, tagged as sexually explicit, featuring genitals, showing Mohammed, illustrating bananas or whatever, they could be filtered. It would open up questions of what constitutes categories of images, of course, and who decides - but I don't think that would be an insurmountable problem. What I do think is wrong is the apparent mindset that because Misplaced Pages is not censored, anyone who wants to find images of toothbrushes has no option but to see them being shoved up vaginas. Squinge (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, and my old response is at User:Wnt/Personal image blocking. Misplaced Pages offers a very sophisticated system of user-controlled Javascript extensions that permit individual users a tremendous amount of flexibility, which can be used for image blocking. With a limited knowledge of the language and a few minutes I was able to come up with an example at the time of a script that successfully blocks all the Muhammad images in Muhammad.

Yet so far, it appears that censorware is the better answer to the old riddle "He who makes it doesn't want it. He who buys it doesn't need it. He who uses it doesn't know it." There's just not an iota of user interest expressed by anyone, to my knowledge, so far in making any script like this one to allow people to block images they personally object to. (Some other schemes have been demoed, but the interest is in coding them, not using them, so far as I know) The only "sex appeal" in Wikimedia image blocking is in being the one who gets to make the site-wide value judgment of what images are good and what images are bad, then imposing it on someone like an IP user who is deemed incapable of deciding for himself. Until that changes, no good can come of building a stairway to heaven that cannot conceivably reach its goal. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've read User:Wnt/Personal image blocking, and it's very interesting. However, I don't think a system based on filenames would be sufficient (and neither would a system that required users to do any coding whatsoever). In the toothbrush search example above, you'd need to know in advance to exclude files with some combination of the words "Woman masturbating with improvised vibrator", but you'd have no idea that's what you'd need to exclude until after you'd seen the search results. But if images like that were tagged as "sexually explicit" they would be much easier to exclude from a search or from viewing in an article. I also don't see any need for anyone to judge what's good or bad for others - there are plenty of tags that could be applied to images that are objectively factual, and then individuals could decide for themselves what they want and don't want. And if there's dispute over what fits in which tag, we could decide and build guidelines by consensus, like we do with the rest of the project. Squinge (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The "programming" involved can be as simple as copying a page like and pasting it to User:Squinge/common.js; that ought to block the Muhammad images, but I have the list written into the script rather than retrieving them from somewhere. The scheme I describe at the Personal image blocking page involves setting up a text file User:Squinge/image-blacklist, which might contain something as simple as

{{User:Jimbo Wales/image-blacklist/sexually-explicit}}

using transclusion to copy his entries; or it might transclude from multiple categories or blacklists. The key is not to rely on "objectively factual" decisions like whether that famous statue of David is sexually explicit or not. Forming consensus on NPOV is at least difficult --- forming consensus on the right POV ought to be impossible. Wnt (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That example is not remotely close to being a general solution. However simple, *any* specific programming is too much for users to be expected to do, and your suggestion does not address that and does not address the need to know in advance precisely what filenames you would need to filter - unless I'm missing something? Squinge (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not actually necessary to cut-and-paste a whole program; you can import scripts also (but then there are some security issues that apply to ensure no one corrupts the master). It amounts to a few lines' change that could be automated with a widget if someone really cared; the time to approach the Foundation would be then, after you've shown interest in doing the hard part. The hard part, of course, is that in any rating scheme, someone needs to look at every picture. You can't make that go away no matter how you do it. The thing is, the work could be divided out among a group of like-minded individuals - you could transclude Jimbo's list of unwanted pictures, he could transclude those from five other people he trusts, who each transclude from several more... etc. Every once in a while a WP:bot, programmed by any user, could compile the lists into single flat files to remove duplicates and thereby speed execution, while messaging competitors who desire it the list of files that others object to but they haven't, in case they want to look. All of this can be volunteer effort by the people who care about it that affects no one but those who choose to trust those particular volunteers' decisions, either directly or by proxy. And the thing is, free speech advocates such as myself aren't going to criticize you for voluntarily changing your user experience, since we recognize that is your right. It's the part where you try to make that an objective standard for others who don't choose that causes us trouble. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A better idea

I don't know what this $60 million budget exactly refers to, but I propose some of it being used for countering government surveillance and initiatives by racketeering organizations that try to make the Internet less secure for everybody, and for countering attempts to censor Misplaced Pages itself. That would be more lofty goal than producing more filters for people offended by porn. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Charities aren't allowed to spend donors' money on projects that don't clearly fit their mission statement. The first part of your proposal may fall a bit wide of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While I like the direction of your mind, I don't think it's the NSA but GCHQ which is responsible for infiltrating Misplaced Pages. Under the ECHELON/Five Eyes scheme, foreign intelligence agencies are prohibited from acting in their own country so collaborate by doing in one another's jurisdiction what they cannot do at home. My perception is that strange aberrations like the David Cawthorne Haines oversight affair on Misplaced Pages seem to occur most often in regard to British nationals. Also, with Wikimedia servers now firmly established in a high-security area of Northern Virginia, I see the trend as decidedly in the opposite direction. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Re @Anthony I'm not thinking any drastic difference to our mission policy, just to make Misplaced Pages itself and, by extension, its users more resilient for surveillance. For example, why is Misplaced Pages hostile towards ToR? Misplaced Pages:IP_block_exemption says editing anonymously is allowed for "highly exceptional circumstances" only (and is not specifying what those circumstances might be. I opened a query about this in a help desk for new users). Template:Torblock goes even further: it has instructions for ToR exit node admins to prevent people from using their node to edit Misplaced Pages. It looks like we are embracing the censorship and surveillance state if we are telling people, how to configure their software to disallow editing Misplaced Pages! I was told that my user account needs to be "confirmed" and someone "patrolled" my userpage so I'm feeling somewhat surveilled already :( (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Re @Wnt You have a point with GCHQ (and other Five Eyes) likely being used as cat's pawn to circumvent 4th Amendment protection of citizens. However as Misplaced Pages servers reside in jurisdiction where spying with PRISM is the norm, what assurance there is that NSA and its allies does not collect data like IP addresses and text of deleted articles in bulk directly from our servers? WikiMedia staff and Jimbo could have been silenced with a national security letter forbidding them to acknowledge such surveillance. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What $60 million?

The WMF had $60 million before that recent and rather annoying campaign. Now it probably has 80 million or more. Even Mr. Wales says: "I’m happy to inform you that our current fundraiser is the most successful in our entire history." 103.41.176.1 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, go to heck, IP editor, for bitching and moaning and linking to some ridiculous GamerGate article, which is certainly the most repellent and repulsive Internet meme of 2014. Every year, those who wallow in negativity criticize Wikimedia fundraising, and the people of planet Earth ignore that narrowmindedness, and support this wonderful project more and more. It seems we can do without your pennies; thank you very much. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is if "this wonderful project" would you my pennies to get rid of its annoying penis. 103.41.176.1 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jimbo Wales!

Jimbo Wales,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. NorthAmerica 10:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already

Just squeezing in amongst all the noise, Jimbo, to wish you the very best for 2015. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Jimbo Wales,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

A pie for you!

For your contributions! Huhu9001 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

A very happy new year to you and your family. I am writing to request unblock of my account, Vote (X) for Change. You have said that an initial ban should be for not more than one year but this account has been blocked for five. 78.149.198.202 (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As explained on your talk page, the standard route for ban appeals is to contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The linked page contains details on how to lodge an appeal and what it would ideally contain. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This comes under the category "Non - controversial housekeeping". My IP was unblocked four years ago. 78.149.198.202 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no it doesn't, User:Vote (X) for Change - see WP:UNBAN and, in your case, follow the procedures at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee#Procedure. That an IP you used was unblocked does not mean you've been unbanned - IPs aren't blocked indefinitely. Further WP:EVADE on your part at best only complicates matters, particularly as you had a history of WP:SOCK. Please follow the procedure. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The unblock was followed by a discussion and the consensus was unban. 78.149.198.202 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Great! Can you please provide a diff of that unban decision? I am skeptical, however, about such a discussion, as your ban clearly indicates it is a matter for the Ban Appeals SubCommittee (BASC). JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This IP has been blocked for block evasion. It is possible the editor is confused about the terms of their ban. Barring any diffs of a successful (albeit, apparently misplaced) unban discussion, this thread should probably be closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no confusion, Joe, and I don't think you're an expert on this. A community ban can be undone by the community at any time - it doesn't require BASC to do it. The discussion was right on this page and elsewhere - DoRD supported unban on his talk page. 81.178.199.75 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)