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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:38, 21 February 2009 view sourceKittybrewster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,052 edits →Request civility block← Previous edit Revision as of 14:38, 21 February 2009 view source SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,950 edits →New Idea For Featured Articles: reNext edit →
Line 56: Line 56:


One idea for featured articles is to have a full protected policy on all featured articles. Since featured articles are already *perfect*, any more edits after featured status would just make the articles worse. ] (]) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC) One idea for featured articles is to have a full protected policy on all featured articles. Since featured articles are already *perfect*, any more edits after featured status would just make the articles worse. ] (]) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
: Featured articles are not "already perfect". ] (]) 14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


==Request civility block== ==Request civility block==

Revision as of 14:38, 21 February 2009

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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.
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: 2 days 

Archives
Index -index-
  1. September – December 2005
  2. January 2006
  3. January – February 2006
  4. February 2006
  5. February 2006, cont.
  6. March 2006
  7. April 2006 - late May 2006
  8. May 24 - July 2006
  9. July 2006 - August 2006
  10. August 2006
  11. Most of September 2006
  12. Late September 2006 - Early November 2006
  13. Most of November 2006
  14. Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006
  15. December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007
  16. From December 22, 2006 blanking
  17. Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007
  18. Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007
  19. From March 2, 2007 blanking
  20. March 2-5, 2007
  21. March 5-11, 2007
  22. March 11 - April 3, 2007
  23. April 2 - May 2, 2007
  24. May 3 - June 7, 2007
  25. June 9 - July 4, 2007
  26. July 13 - August 17, 2007
  27. August 17 - September 11, 2007
  28. September 14 - October 7, 2007
  29. October 28 - December 1, 2007
  30. December 2 - December 16, 2007
  31. December 15 - January 4, 2008
  32. January 4 - January 30, 2008
  33. January 30 - February 28, 2008
  34. February 28 - March 11, 2008
  35. March 9 - April 18, 2008
  36. April 18 - May 30, 2008
  37. May 30 - July 27, 2008
  38. July 26 - October 4, 2008
  39. October 4 - November 12, 2008
  40. November 10 - December 10, 2008
  41. December 5 - December 25, 2008
  42. December 25 - January 16, 2009
  43. January 15 - January 27, 2009
  44. January 26 - February 10, 2009
  45. February 8 - March 18, 2009
  46. March 18 - May 6, 2009
  47. May 5 - June 9, 2009
  48. June 10 - July 11, 2009
  49. July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Jimmy - another major BLP explosion, and a measure response proposal

As the Flagged Revs thing is still cooking, please take a look at, and weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal or WP:NOCACHE if you could? Not open for "polling" yet, and it's just a rough form, but the gist is pretty obvious. Thanks. You'll want to read the referenced article as well. rootology (C)(T) 07:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding King Kong defence

King Kong defence has gotten some media attentions, and the currently ongoing AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence) is pretty much a mess at the moment; perhaps you are intrested to make your voice heard in this matter. →AzaToth 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no very strong opinion, as I am not sufficiently familiar with the underlying facts. I will note, and I think this is something that nearly everyone can agree upon, that Misplaced Pages tends to track "geek" news like this much more intensely than other news, due to our demographics. This might be perfectly fine, or it might be problematic. Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't give the "in the news" block on the front page of en.wikipedia to wikinews, to encourage people to do news stories like this on wikinews rather than wikipedia. (I am not making any suggestion one way or the other as to the current deletion debate.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've thought similar things about news articles. I considered proposing a policy that nothing is allowed on Misplaced Pages until at least a week (or whatever - the full idea was a little more complicated that this) after it happens. That gives Wikinews a chance to do what they do best, means that there are actually some reliable secondary sources by the time we start writing and avoids that terrible style of article in which every paragraph starts "As of ...". I never actually proposed it because I don't think there's any chance of it getting implemented - people like our current events articles, even though they really belong on Wikinews. --Tango (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I also tend to agree with this, both the general point Tango makes and also that there is slim to no chance that anything will ever be codified by the community to implement it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't the fact that the article is somewhat "geek" newsy, but the problem in the particular issue is the creation of the article, the creator, and the references references; On 2009-02-18T12:03:35 Mkikta (talk · contribs) registers, and creates the article at 2009-02-18T12:21:55. The first blog (blog as reference?) was made not long before 2009-02-18T13:39:00, and it contains reference to this article in question, which most later references contains. So we have a question here which came first, and what points to what, and if the article creation was a stunt from a blogger. :/ →AzaToth 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikinews is quite slow atm and I think shoving things over to it would really help it develop. Go for it! Computerjoe's talk 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed that sounds like a problematic beginning, and the sort of thing we ought to discourage, but for me this doesn't definitely answer the question of whether or not the article should exist. I think it very likely that this is a short-lived "meme" that won't go anywhere and 2 years from now someone will 'prod' the article and it will go away. Or... perhaps this will become a common expression, and the article will survive. Hard to say just yet, which is a pretty good argument that it is not encyclopedic in the first place. (Note: I have thought about this some more since my comments up above, so I'm clearly coming to an opinion: merge. But this is just the opinion of one editor, not something I'd like to push very hard. Such decisions are not up to me. :) )--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hi User:Jimbo Wales,
Thank you for your help on the talk page for the Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love.
I was wondering if you could help me expand on the article.
Son-Rise, an Early childhood intervention therapy program that was created by two parents in the '70s that got their son to completely recover from Autism and the Autsim spectrum.
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love is a docudrama about the recovery and was adapted by the book, Son-Rise (now known as Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues).
Their is not to many references supporting the movie, the most reliable references for the film is not informative enough or 100% accurate (e.g. New York Times Film Synopsis said that (from All Media Guide) Raun Kaufman was high-functioning (a lot of other sources about the movie says that to), but it is wrong, he was severe and Mentally retarded, even in the movie.
Their is more info from the book, which adapted into the film.
Could I reference a lot from the book, and use it as a reliable source since it has the majority of the information from the movie and is more accurate.
Could you also help me with the book, Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues that I haven't created yet.
Thanx!
ATC 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I helped you on the talk page of that article, by the way. I don't remember it, at least. I'm afraid I don't have any knowledge that I could use to help with those articles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who I am?

I'm scared if you do. --62.240.86.108 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I know who your are - I've got a reasonable bet that you're the person who hides under the bridge, scaring small children and eating goats. Meantime I've blocked your IP for a week based on your harrasment here and this pointless thread. Please use the time to rethink why you might want to edit Misplaced Pages productively. Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Commemorative Coins Controversy

Jimbo. Your expertise is drastically needed at the above WP:ANI/Commemorative Coins Controversy. Policy issues need to be clearly defined, free of incumberment and in a way that is clear to all. Not all editors are being candid as to purpose and the truthfulness of interpretations as presented has to be called into question. This is an important issue and needs you guidance.--Buster7 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New Idea For Featured Articles

One idea for featured articles is to have a full protected policy on all featured articles. Since featured articles are already *perfect*, any more edits after featured status would just make the articles worse. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles are not "already perfect". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Request civility block

is unacceptable piling on surely. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)