User talk:JasonAQuest/Archive 1

Obina (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I may disagree with you on merging a few articles, but I award you a cookie for your edits to Peter Pan. You have really made it better! I hope you stay around now that you have a user name! Obina (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I've around here for nearly four years, the "stay around" invitation is a little misplaced, but I appreciate the attempt at being welcoming. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this dusting...

Check my discussions page, you've got yoru answer... Undead Herle King (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan

Total Disagree with renaming. Couldn't we discuss and reach consensus first? Obina (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up for discussion at Talk:Peter Pan (disambiguation) (with pointers in the directly affected articles) several days ago. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't describe my behavior (or anyone's) as snide. That is a personal comment. Particularly followed be a request to keep comments to the article. In any case, as the caterpillar (almost) said, my words mean what they mean and nothing more. If I was disrespectful it was unintentional and I am very sorry. You made an (almost) un revertable name change to an article, and discussed it on a page I was not watching. Not sure if you knew this or not - I shall assume not- , that once you changed the Peter Pan page to point elsewhere, the name change to the old Peter Pan page was un revertable. This for me is as permanant as an AFD, but with less time to reach consensus. What's done is done. I'll share my other comments on the name change elsewhere.Obina (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your parting "Hmmm" after your skeptical mischaracterization of whether there was prior support for my action certainly came across as a negative shot directed at me personally; what "meaning" I'm supposed to get from it is unclear at best. Whatever. Yes, my half-finished move was (rather obviously) a mistake; I didn't anticipate that one rename would be allowed, but the second would not. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since my opinions in discussion are totally ignored, I have decided to boldly edit instead.Obina (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chat

Yet you still felt the need to click "History" on Talk:Terry Pratchett, scroll down to deleted edits to check what I wrote on that talk page, then come to my page to continue a chat that you felt was out of place? You have spent a LOT of time talking about and perusing a chat that you claimed you felt was pointless to begin with. You are the one that has gone well out of your way for a pointless chat to make your pointless edits. JayKeaton (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your pot calling the kettle black thing does not apply here, you were the one who had the problem with the talk page, not me. And you are the one that is STILL rattling on about it. JayKeaton (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're doing... what, exactly? You got spanked; stop whining about it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh woah ho ho, I didn't notice this one here because I assumed I dealt with you a week ago. I did not get spanked, you do not have the power to "spank" me. You tried to take up an issue, you got called on it, YOU lost face. Don't post comments to try and make people think I was punished, when I never was and you never will have the power to punish people. JayKeaton (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony would be painful if it weren't so amusing. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were lied to if you were told I was spanked or reprimanded in any way. JayKeaton (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that I "spanked" you, by admonishing you for using a Talk page for chit-chat. I never claimed to be in a position of authority over you, if that's the notion that has you so freaked out about this. Kindly take your esteem issues elsewhere and stop harrassing me. - 17:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Marc Andreyko

A tag has been placed on Marc Andreyko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Actually, it might be. You need to have the references there when creating a biographical article or stub. There's too much potential for people randomly creating overly positive or negative articles, or posting their own autobiographies (which is a conflict of interest) for that rule to be bent. If you think your article shouldn't be deleted, don't complain to the person who put the speedy deletion tag on it. Put the 'hang on' tag on the article, and explain why on the talk page, and put references up in the meantime. The admin who comes along will look on the talkpage for your rationale, and will consider that in the decision to delete it. Kannie | talk 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know and acknowlodge that you are getting very frustrated right now. You think I haven't assumed good faith, and I haven't. The speedy deletion tag was a neutral faith assumption. Pretty soon, an adminstater, who more than likely knows nothing of our exchange, will come along and make a decision. Please save your time, breath, and energy for that admin, who is more important to the longevity of the article than I will ever be. I encourage you to talk about my 'hair trigger' decision making skills on the article talk page--and yes, such a decision seems to be slightly encouraged by the [page log] Kannie | talk 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Please try and use a neutral tone and avoid original research when editing. Thank you kindly. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used a neutral tone. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meetable characters

deleting "meetable characters"

JasonAQuest WROTE

Before you go any further in your apparent campaign against providing information about the Disney parks, please stop and discuss it.

One of the things that Wikipedia articles about fictional characters do - and are supposed to do - is provide information about the lasting impact they have. The fact that a character is popular enough to have been kept "alive" by Disney in the form of a "meetable character" at their parks is relevant. Saying that Mowgli is such a character is hardly a come-on trying to get people to come to Disneyland to meet him. That's not why the information was added, and that's not the effect it has.

By the way, I have no idea what your "Much like your company's efforts here" comment was about. What company do you imagine that I work for? I certainly don't work for Disney. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY Disney parks are a multinational commercial venture aimed at children that have nothing to with literature. They aim, and have sadly managed, to turn globally famous fictional characters like Mogwli or Pinocchio (which are handily past their copyright expiry date) into expensive products aimed at those who are still shaping their imaginations and creative potential, with the aim of turning them into consumers, not original creators or discerning, free-thinking audiences or cultural participants.

The fact that a poor re-enactment of Pinocchio is advertised as Disney park attraction does not make it worthwhile information. It is irrelevant trivia, in no manner comparable to the rest of film references (as you claim in your "undos"), who may help a researcher understand and comment on the impact in popular culture of the literary work.

You may not work for Disney, but you surely have made an effort to publicize their parks. I have not got much time to count, but you have inserted over ten references to "meetable characters" in every page where you have had a chance. In many cases you have managed to put it within the first twenty lines. You truly must believe that the most important thing about Pinocchio or Peter Pan's impact in popular culture are your extraordinary "meetable characters".

"Meetable" is not even a word in the English language, although I will admit that maybe it should be. In any case, they are not "meetable". They are real people, vastly underpaid and without the United Nations-sanctioned right to join a trade union. They could not even be considered to be actors without insulting that honourable profession. They often make children cry, as children usually know when they are being fooled.

As to my "apparent campaign against providing information about the Disney parks", that would be an excellent idea, because children deserve better than limiting their imaginations to only dwelling with what their parents may afford. However, that is no my intention. Unlike you, I am simply volunteering an opinion about what I consider to be relevant information, and doing my little bit against crass commercialism directed at children.

It is your turn to explain why do you believe that a disagreement over what constitutes relevant information (remember we are dealing with universal literature) should be a "campaign against Disney parks". Wikipedia is littered with references to those unimaginative supermarkets for children. I have not deleted them, for discerning parents should be able to learn what to avoid if they want their offspring's imagination to flourish. Many Disney films, sadly mostly in the distant past, are truly enjoyable and imaginative works of art. Product placement at Wikipedia goes against everything the creators of those films intended to do, and the writer of Pinocchio is no longer here to fight Disney Corporation in court. He would not be able to afford it anyway. That does not mean that his important heritage should not be respected.

(responded on User talk:62.48.98.196)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield

Hey, you're probably right, the language needs to be cleaned up. It was kind of hard to write out what they were trying to say. I understood the studio's intent, but I was trying to use layman's terms. Do you want me to copy and paste the relevant passage from that print source about the "cited rarity"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to quote it verbatim, but without a citation, we can't very well call it a "cited rarity" :) - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Austin American-Statesman citation covers the whole paragraph, though. Here's the passage: With the "1-18-08" movie, "the studio basically pulled a fast one on the online community, which really hasn't been done before," said Chad Hartigan, a box office analyst with Exhibitor Relations Co. He said the studio beat online scoopers at their own game by taking a new approach. Perhaps the "cited rarity" can be re-worded? It's fairly unusual. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zapruder-375.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zapruder-375.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Scrooge McDuck has a lot of nice third-party sources, and all the articles could use a mix of sources like him. Some of the Disney characters could really use some proof that they are noteworthy. Vanilla Subpoena (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HUG.

I use a program called huggle; it's easy to use, but also easy to make mistakes. Around 1% of the edits I've made with huggle have probably been mistakes, but given that I've made around 5 thousand edits... Anyway, if you find a revert of mine that you think was a mistake, please tell me. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content

Hi, it seems from above comments you've been around a while so I'm surprised that you removed sourced content. If you feel something is in the lede that shouldn't be then I suggest you next time consider moving it to where it could go or at least placing it on the talk page for others to do the same. Benjiboi 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Act changes

Hi, Jason, please see the discussion at Talk:United States copyright law#1976 Act changes. -- TJRC (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

Hi, Jason. Just a collegial note that per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars#Comics creators, we have a top-level header "Biography," with "Early life and career" etc. under that. Thanks! Cheers!--Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for communicating your thoughts. We don't believe the subhead is superflouous. Every article is a work in progress, and as the exemplar linked above notes, the Project has separate sections for such things as "Inspirations" and — as the Sim article already contains, actually — "Awards". Thank you for understanding the Project consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you react the way you have toward my efforts at good will and politeness. Longtime Wikipedians generally do not point to other articles to advance an argument since many Wikipedia articles are works-in-progress that may or may not follow the myriad Wikipedia policies and formatting guidelines. I'm unsure why outlining an article in a less-than-monolithic way is creating such personal acrimony; all I can say is that Wikipedia works by consensus, and I simply ask again, collegially, that you respect an established policy.

By your reasoning, the WPC exemplar for comics-creator articles would apply to no comics-creator article. I'm sure you can see that this isn't acceptable.

c

If you wish to call for an WP:RfC, I would be glad to join you as a party in this. However, if you continue to revert in opposition to WPC MOS, I would have to seek intervention.

I hope that if we continue this discussion we can do so without the acrimony of your previous post on my talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I can only see that your precious "exemplar" contains inappropriate demands. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)"

I think it shows unfortunate disrespect for the members of WikiProject Comics, who arrived at our policies and guidelines by collegial consensus, for you to insult it as containing "inappropriate demands". The editors who contributed much time and effort to codify a policy and create consistency throughout the project deserve better. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it remarkable that someone who flames your talk page with needlessly personal invective and unsupported claims that amount to slander can make accusations about a person's character. I feel badly that someone, for whatever personal reasons, finds it necessary to answer politeness with vicious acrimony. When people cannot debate on the merits of their cases, they insult the other party and put up smokescreens. I would like to suggest a compromise, but given what I have seen from your words and actions, I don't know that it would accepted in the spirit in which it is genuinely offered.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out that I never called you childish names. That behavior would be your shortcoming. And perhaps it is possible, and worth considering, that you misinterpreted simple politesse? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but in college my reading comprehension skills tested in the 99th percentile, so I doubt it. Nor do I get the same impression from the rather simple courtesy that most Wikipedians extend; I only get it from you (and a few others here and there). I'm a writer by trade, and as such I consider it my responsibility to make sure that my meaning is clear; blaming the reader for misunderstanding is an amateur's excuse. Now, I know what your words and phrases denote (even the ostentatious ones), and I know what they typically connote. It's not respect. What I can't infer is your intent: either you treat people this way because you really think their feelings and opinions are of no value, or you do so because you don't realize that's how it comes across. That's something only you can know, but your reactions whenever I have the audacity to question the correctness of your views give me a pretty strong hunch. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "in college my reading comprehension skills tested in the 99th percentile"

Congratulations. And you say you're a writer? My kudos to you; it's not an easy way to make a living. I know this because I, too, am a writer. For over 30 years. For Marvel, DC, and other comics companies. Across several books, by real publishers. And major magazines. And some of the biggest newspapers in the country. Would you believe, I've even had several newspaper articles and a couple of magazine pieces written about me.

So, yes, I do know a few things about words and their uses and impact, and about people. And not once in my nearly three years on Wikipedia have I felt the need to detail my credentials. But judging from some other editors' comments on this very page, about your lack of diplomacy, tact and politesse, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that you've said the things you've said and made the naive accusations you've made.

Believe it or don't, but I was being tactful and polite at first contact. And you responded with nothing more than unoriginal youthful arrogance, which I've seen a million times by my age. I did try to persevere, but even a longtime professional can only take so much naivete and abuse. You are off-base in your personal comments to me. But time will wear away your hubris.

We can keep this up if you want; I'd rather not. So, please don't lecture me about writing and the use of words. You don't have that right. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't say more; that last line sums up your attitude with perfect grandiloquence. "Hubris" indeed. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette Alert

Hi Jason! Just wanted to bring to your notice that your recent arguments with User:Tenebrae have been brought to the attention of WP:WQA board here by him. On the face of it, from the diffs he has provided, you do seem to be using some harsh words. Although you may feel justified in doing that, perhaps it would still be better if you keep the discussion focussed on the content, don't you think? You are welcome to post any thoughts on this at the WQA entry. With regards, ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List of public domain characters. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RJC ^Talk Contribs 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain my deletions in the edit history, and they were based on prior discussion. -JasonAQuest (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI Thread

Dear JasonAQuest, I notice that you have participated in this discussion. Anyway, please see here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding T. E. Lawrence

Why are the birth and death date parameters invalid in the "military person" infoboxes? This seems like a very strange oversight. Certainly, just as with any other biography infobox, the dates of a person's birth and death are relevant, yes? I have pondered this for some time, and am interested in hearing your thoughts. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have anything to do with the creation of that template, so I have no idea. (It does have a field for combined "when he lived" information.) You should bring this question up at Template talk:Infobox Military Person, or somewhere at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Biography to see why there's so little standardization of this kind of thing. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll do just that. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:PeterAndWendy.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:PeterAndWendy.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shinerunner (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PeterPan2.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:PeterPan2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nameoftheroseposter.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Nameoftheroseposter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NM

Hello, JasonAQuest. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox Writer#Works.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

added notableworks parameter --_pete 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Neverland

From your contribution history it doesn't appear you specialize in film articles. I replaced the narrative form of cast information with a principal cast list and you reverted it. The format I used is the acceptable one generally used in film articles. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addison's disease?

I agree with your suggestion "Most scholars believe she was ill with Addison's disease, though tuberculosis, an autoimmune disease, and Hodgkin's lymphoma have also been suggested." Plus footnotes. Thanks for getting involved with this one. As a relative newbie to serious editing here, I was impressed by the quality and good faith of the talk on it. Pointillist (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked more deeply at the medical evidence, it seems medics think the Addison's hypothesis has been overtaken by the arguments for Hodgkin's lymphoma, but literary scholars may not have considered this yet. So it is very much an open issue. Pointillist (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AlfredENeumanMad30.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:AlfredENeumanMad30.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your reply

Thanks for your reply at Template talk:Infobox Writer#Contents of Influences, influence fields no longer displayed; I answered your question there. 67.100.45.72 (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T. E. Lawrence

The anonymous editor is also trying to add his book to many other wikipedias. I am checking it and I protected the French page. Best. Poppy (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Film(s) directed by Herbert Brenon

Oops - well spotted! Leave it with me. Lugnuts (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much

Dear Jason, Thank you for editing and adding rationale to Brother William of Baskerville image. Cheers, --Cyril Thomas (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:JasonAQuest

A tag has been placed on User:JasonAQuest, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User:JasonAQuest|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. flaminglawyer^c 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently this was the result of a clicking on the wrong button or something, as the editor promptly removed the speedy-deletion tag with "sorry" in the edit summary. It's a relief to know that I'm not actually in danger of being deleted... speedily or not. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Stearns

Yeah. My personal analysis which was published in CNN Money[1] and Yahoo! Finance[2], as well as in the Financial Times[3] and others. I am a guru! You just create more work for me to restore. Yodaki (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Neverland

Hi Jason. I've reinstated the movie as I believe the citations are sufficient to include hte work under 'overtones'. If you'd like to start a debate, could you open one on the article's talk page. Thanks,Tony (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

I have no interest in "starting a debate"; however, I have already contributed to a discussion on the Talk page, which you ignored before making your revert. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pederastic filmography

Hi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pederastic filmography, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedrastic filmography. Thank you.

I hope you agree on this.Tony (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Powers Cameo

Makes sense to trim down the mention of Ms. Schutz in Powers, but since it needed a couple of extra words (which I'd missed out in the first place!), I took the opportunity to re-reference it, but tried to keep it short(er) and (more) useful. ntnon (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen

You'll be happy to know that the Jane Austen dispute has been resolved - the previously uploaded image was reversed (the one you uploaded is not, although tagged as such). We have now moved the image over to the right side of the article - all of that debate could have been avoided if any of us had bothered to look up the portrait in a reliable source. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Llewelyn Davies boys

By an odd coincidence, we meet again. I've just checked the Llewelyn Davies boys page, and found that my biography "J M Barrie and the Lost Boys" is cited as the source for the fact that the boys "did not inherit [Barrie's] estate upon his death in 1937, which angered Peter." I never wrote any such thing! On my Barrie website (www.jmbarrie.co.uk) there are numerous clips of interviews I made in 1976 with Nico and others, and in one of them Nico talks about Cynthia Asquith persuading Barrie to change his will, leaving his money to her rather than the Llewelyn Davies boys. He also wrote about it in a letter to me (5 December 1975, also on the website):

"When Uncle Jim got really ill, and was not expected to last the night, Peter made the Greatest Mistake of his Life and telephoned [Cynthia Asquith] down in Devon or Cornwall. She hired a car and motored through the night. Meanwhile Peter, I and General Freyberg went on watch — 8 to 12, 12 to 4, 4 to 8 am — each of us expecting to see JMB die. Cynthia arrived towards the end of Bernard Freyberg's watch ... still alive ... got hold of surgeon Horder and solicitor Poole with the will ... Horder gave an injection, and sufficient energy was pumped into Uncle Jim so that he could put his name to the will that Poole laid before him.

When Peter and I heard what had happened, and that we were cut out from the will, we talked and thought and eventually went to consult a leading solicitor, Theodore Goddard. What did he advise? If, he said, we would get 1. Freyberg to state in court how unconscious JMB was etc etc, and 2. Frank Thurston to agree with the repeated manoeuvres of Cynthia (which I mentioned in D above) then we couldn't fail — in his opinion — to win the case.

We did get Bernard and Frank to say they would back us up; but then we each thought how horrid the whole thing was going to be, and we decided not to sue.

I told the above one day to Janet Dunbar [when she was writing "J M Barrie: The Man Behind the Image"], who listened politely but told me later she hadn't believed me. Later she called on Simon Asquith and his wife. Simon apparently fairly sozzled and sprawling, his wife extra charming and delightful. Suddenly Simon lurched to his feet, went out of the room and returned with wads of written material which he more or less flung on Janet's lap — "Here you are, take it away." This was Cynthia's diary or diaries (her first such book was published after her death — a great mistake so far as any admirer of hers (myself included!) is concerned as Cynthia would have edited 75% out) — which could never be published as they were so full of libel etc. Janet took it away and THERE was all my story word for word EXCEPT that Cynthia added that I was in the room when Horder injected JMB — presumably thereby implying that I approved. I made/asked Janet to remove this line from her book (that I was there) and she did."

In actual fact all the surviving Llewelyn Davies boys received various lump sums, so it's not true to say that they got nothing. But the source for all this should either be Janet Dunbar's book, or else my website... which, given that all the photos have been lifted from the site's database, seems only fair! In fact all the photos on my site belong to the Great Ormond Street Hospital. I bought them from Nico in 1979 and gave my reproduction rights to GOSH, along with the book, in 1993*. I later gave them all the originals (several thousand) so that they could be sold to raise loot for the hospital, but not before scanning them all and making them available free online, so long as they are not used for commercial purposes. The hospital has raised a fair amount of money over the years licensing individual photos to commercial companies (e.g. one of Michael dressed as Peter Pan to Fuji), and I make it very clear on my website that the hospital now owns all commercial reproduction rights... but this is not mentioned on Wiki. Would it not be possible to state it in the copyright note? Many thanks. Laurenticwave (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I misattributed or misconstrued anything in the articles I've worked on. This is why the Wikipedia policy about independent verifiability is so important. :)

I've been careful to only upload photos which are in the public domain under US law (which is what Wikipedia operates under), and this status is noted along with the immediate source of the image in the licensing info for each one. If you'd like further info included about their ownership in the UK, I encourage you to add it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and in the main I think all the Barrie/Llewelyn Davies articles are excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenticwave (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Moore title

Thanks for pointing out to me my mistake about the book title. Believe it or not, this was not misuse of AWB. I actually have the book in question and really thought it was spelled Complete. Obviously I didn't take the time to check the book itself. I will try to be more careful about such things in the future. Cheers. --AnnaFrance (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you read my message above a bit more carefully, you will see that your correction of my appreciation was not necessary. But still, I'm impressed with your investing so much time in me. Thank you. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Peter Pan 1924.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Pan 1924.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Papa November (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TheLostBoysBBC-DVD.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheLostBoysBBC-DVD.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double

Speedy deletion of Peter Pan (musical)

A tag has been placed on Peter Pan (musical), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Peter Pan (disambiguation) double

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Weissmann (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Neverland

Angie Y. is under the impression that her word is law in television/movie articles only because she's seen it, even though 99% of the time it's unsourced opinion derived solely from her point of view, so stick to your guns. I've been having the same problem with her in several Mortal Kombat articles. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anthropomophic

What is your definition of anthropomorphic? Bandit clearly acts more human than he does canine! Just because he does not walk on two legs and does not wear Levi slacks does not make him not anthropomorphic.Agent204.15 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandit acts like a dog. Knowing whom to bark at, and understanding human commands are doglike characteristics. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pter Pan, or The Boy That etc.etc.

The article needs to be focused on either the play or the novel. Since the play was the original it should probably go that way. Trying to discuss both play and novel in one article is confusing to the reader. It's like trying to combine a Star Wars movie and a novelization of the movie in one article. Doesn't work. While the novel should certainly be mentioned, the focus should be upon the play with passing reference to its adaptations as novel, film, ballet, etc. Peter Pan (play) would be an appropriate title for the article if you're bent on "fixing" the title. Hope this helps! IndianCaverns (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time in WQA...

...I would recommend you not do follow-up posting unless truly necessary. Your last couple of posts did not do you any favours towards your case, and in fact I saw them as "baiting" the other editor to a degree. BMW(drive) 16:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to put up with it. Try and deal on their page first, then come back to WQA if you have to. If you mention that you already did WQA, you may get ref'd to RfC or AN/I. Make sure it's uncivil enough that other editors will agree. Check with me if you need to ɃMW(drive) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Lily

"What Disney character would you be and why?
Tiger Lily because she like to make other girls jealous and she's old enough to be married but refuses suitors, according to Wikipedia. That's how I roll." [1]

Now look here.

As you can see, even a seemingly insignificant edit might be a significant influence to someone somewhere in the world. Like a pretty college girl in Franklin, TN. Cheers, Face 17:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Ormond Street Hospital

Nicely done - thanks. I wasn't quite happy with the wording. Millstream3 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of Public Domain Materials

(reply)Please see the talk page for Public Domain for a reply to your statement there. Thank you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) Thanks a lot. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Give me a break

Here's how I see it, "The" is only emphasized when the subject is chiefly about its media franchise, which includes the character, other adaptations and such. Take a gander at The Shadow and Phantom (comics). You'll find that these types of articles stress more on the work as a whole than anything else. Hope that helps, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps confirm that I don't want to waste my time dealing with an obsessive set of rules-for-their-own-sake. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Little Sark

Hi JasonAQuest - you made comments at Talk:Sark#Merge Little Sark about merging the article on Little Sark into the main one on Sark. I've made a few changes to the Little Sark article - could I ask you to have a look at it now, to see whether you still think it should be merged? Thank you, Grutness...wha? 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Flipper

Hi just browsing through the Desert war articles and noticed you had deleted the entire article, bar the info box, for Operation Flipper. I have just reverted it assuming it was vandalism until i properly read your comment were you state it is all copyright violation of a website the author had used. Shouldnt the issue be taken up with an admin or something?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an obvious case of copyright violation - and this was - the best thing to do is to simply remove the offending material. No administrator intervention is required. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right oh :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: edits reverted

Hello Jason,

Thank you for your message and the heads-up. I must admit that although I've read through the documentation pages prior to making edits, I might have missed the fine print.

So that we know what we're talking about, I enclose part of your original message:

"I've reverted all of your edits because they violate Wikipedia's policy against link spam. Please read this policy before adding further external links"

I've read the policy against SPAM, and the only reason i could find for reverting my edits is: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."

Also: "Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another."

Fine, no problem.

However, I would like to know how my links differ from those already approved on these pages, since a rule should be the same for everyone. Also, I do not want to make the same mistake twice.

Let's take an example:

on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_prejudice#External_links one can find links to:

http://pdfreebooks.org/0-austen.htm http://www.oddparts.com/oddparts_press/texts/Pride_and_Prejudice/0.html http://girlebooks.com/ebook-catalog/jane-austen/pride-and-prejudice/

These are either NOT PROMOTING A WEBSITE OR PRODUCT, they're link spam as well or they benefit from the "circumstances" mentioned in the policy against SPAM.

If they're not promoting, in all likelihood the link I've submitted DOES NOT PROMOTE any web page or product, since it serves the exact same purpose as the others: providing a resource for Wikipedia visitors. If they're SPAM, they should be deleted as well, I guess, otherwise we're talking about "an endorsement of the spam link" (see above). If they benefit from the "circumstances", I'd like to know which exactly ARE the circumstances.

I'm looking forward to your reply.

Confectus (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Jason,

Please see my talk page for details, section "Review of links".

Cheers,

Confectus (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Confectus

Hi Jason. User:Confectus has asked a bunch of editors including me to "objectively evaluate" the external links he has added (and which you reverted). I checked his edit history and saw that all he has been doing is adding links to a particular website to the articles, obviously trying to promote that website. However his argument is that the links are as good as any other links that are already there, so which links should be kept should be examined in its entirety, instead of just deleting the new ones. Can you please make my job easier by describing what arguments do we have against that? Regards --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his argument that "my link should be treated equally to that link" demonstrates his motives. He's looking for traffic to his sites. That's spam. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. What motives does this demonstrate: "my link should be treated UNequally to that link"? Confectus (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caring about the integrity of Wikipedia rather than caring about who gets the most visitors from it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll have to agree with Jason here. Even though Confectus's links may be as good as the others, he is just adding them to a bunch of articles which indicates he has some motive to popularize that site. If the links are good, it's better that someone else adds those links than Confectus himself. Confectus can suggest the addition of those links on the article's talk page to initiate that process. Or you can consult third opinion. Hope this helped. Regards -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm not sure this is how one goes about replying, but I'm sure I'll be corrected here, too.

Re: Your deletion of my addition to the Wizard of Oz & Wicked Witch of the West pages...

I'll grant you that I used my own adjectives describing the quality of the screenplay writing. And if the consensus of the unwashed public generally is that it's a Wonderful Work Of Art, regardless of the facts, I'm uncertain how to proceed in presenting a factual response. Surely facts trump popular opinion, and the guts of my observation was factual: In fact, at the movie's end, Toto is a dead dog walking. To pretend otherwise in the article is simply too Stephen Colbert....

Now, I'm sure I wasn't deleted in deference to MGM's cover-their-butts police. Too long after the fact. Clearly I've violated some sort of entry protocol. I'll read the recommendations and have another go. Toto has fans, too, and this is an issue the World Must Know About....Pseudooracle (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks directed at Freddie Highmore IP editor

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. - kollision (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a newcomer, and he's not "making a mistake". - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not excuse you from making personal attacks. Kindly explain and discuss the problem with the editor. - kollision (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep your assumptions in check. I tried to engage him civilly, and it had no effect. Rather than pursuing an administrative solution that would be disruptively broad (e.g. blocking all anon edits from AOL, or semiprotecting every child-actor article this vandal might turn to next)... and probably ineffective, I figured that a brief confrontation was worth a try first. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as "just cut it out, asshole" and "Seriously, kid. Find a hobby. Make a friend. Stop wasting oxygen." are personal attacks and unacceptable. I would like to see where you discuss the problem with the editor. - kollision (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion because he ignored me. Try it yourself. Or are you more concerned about the civility of my response than the deliberate and persistent vandalism I've been fighting? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against you reverting. Just keep in mind, not to attack editors in the future. Thank you. - kollision (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lakes

Sorry, but Baffin Island is continental. Hawaii and Iceland are non-continental islands; Baffin and Britain are continental islands. That's not the same as saying they're continents. kwami (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Ormond Street Hospital

The hospital is probably the most famous children's hospital in the world; and is a member of the largest academic health science centre in Europe. Let's compromise on "world-famous". But really, amending this article probably isn't the best use of time for either of us. Millstream3 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wasting time editing it to conform to Wikipedia policies, and you're wasting time editing it to ignore them, so who's being the less productive here? How about you "waste" a little time reading the policies? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that policy, thank you. I assume you're also familiar with WP:CIVIL, WP:COMMON and WP:GOODFAITH. There is a convention that genuinely world-famous organisations are identified as such. It's just a matter of finding neutral words to do that. Do you have any constructive suggestions? Millstream3 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming good faith in that the best explanation for ignoring the guideline was that you hadn't read it. It's a very good guideline, in part because observing it sidesteps discussions about just how to phrase subjective praise of this sort. But if we must, here goes: I don't believe GOSH is "world famous". I live in the US, where I'd never even heard of it until I started researching Peter Pan's copyright status. Any time I've mentioned it by name without explaining what it is, I've received puzzled looks in return. I don't doubt that it's well known in the UK and among Barrie scholars, and pediatricians in many countries are familiar with it, but that's well short of being "world famous". (To even apply "famous" as an encyclopedic description of a hospital seems rather peculiar to me as well.) I don't have any alternative terms to suggest because I don't think they add value to the article, and tend to demean Wikipedia with their fannishness. There may be instances where "world famous" or some synonym is appropriate in a Wikipedia article, but The Beatles and Michael Jackson get by without them, and when they do appear they generally require citations to establish that they are appropriate. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced retort

Jason,

Please be careful of your message accusations to people regarding additions to Wikipedia. We refer to a comment you added to the profile of the Cambridge Rower, Stanley Muttlebury. Much of the investigation behind the article was made by a distant member of the family now living in Canada and is accurate. The sources are from family records as well as academic and sporting records and have been corroborated. Whether those comments are 'personal' or not is something you cannot judge as you frankly don't know and never will. We take it you are an Oxonian sympathiser then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.57.105 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited that page; my request to refrain from personal comments was placed on a talk page, and it was regarding this. The accusation of collegiate bias is utterly unfounded. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues

Wikipedia:Respect privacy says: "If you find personal details of someone being given out without their permission: Remove the material or link from the article immediately." I was merely removing a personal detail that I do not give permission to display. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no big deal; but where someone has been 'outed' with their real life identity; and have done their best to maintain their anomity - as is their right within wikipedia. Please don't revert their good faith attempts to maintain the status quo - or, indeed draw attention to it. It might be regarded as an attempt to WP:OUTING. This is a blocking offence, even when done in good faith. People are entitled to retain their 'lack of identity' within wikipedia. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional universe

It's nothing to do with me. It's that what the article currently describes is no different from a setting. If the two terms are identical, then either fictional universe should be merged with setting, or setting should be merged with fictional universe. According to Wiki rules, the most common term, setting, would take precedence, and this article would be merged with setting. Serendi^podous 13:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the changes you want to make have everything to do with you. They're all your rules for what qualifies something as a good fictional universe. Try stepping back and looking at how fictional universes are handled (hint: sometimes carelessly, but those count too), rather than how you think they should be handled. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the point. If the changes aren't allowed, then this article has no reason to exist. Either some factor has to be found to differentiate a fictional universe from a fictional setting, or the articles are describing the same thing under different names and should be merged. I can't find any literary sources on the topic that go into the distinction; most seem to make no distinction at all, and whatever distinctions are made appear solely in pop culture. So, either I make those distinctions, and hope some future editor finds a source that backs them up, or I merge this article with setting. Unless you can find some factor that makes a fictional universe different from a setting, then this article is pointless. Serendi^podous 14:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

You show me where i have not put capitals where they should be and i will fix them. Because if you look at my edits you will see that i have put a lot of time researching getting facts on the ships and other war information to put on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsie100 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the problem and fixed it. It was the Curate's Egg sorry for the mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsie100 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You put capital letters at the start of two sentences, but left six proper names uncapitalized. Also, I removed that example from the article about curate's egg for a reason: it doesn't make it any clearer what the expression means. It's just a piece of trivia. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you took the time to read the page you will see that the section was written examples of where the term has been used in the media you should stick to comics because you know nothing about history and facts so stick to comic book wiki pages --Carsie100 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Penelope

That was fact it happened and for you to take that of was wrong it is about what that ship went through you are a disgrace to wikipedia and i will be putting it back on the page dont you take anything of a page that you know nothing about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsie100 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) i undid the penelope but if you give me a chance i will change it to be just the facts[reply]

Im sorry if i sound cheeky but the HMS Pepperpot nickname is fact that article not a rambling story as you put it. People have the right to know where the nickname comes from. It was one of the most famous actions the ship took part in and if it gives the people a better view on the ships nickname the ship does mean alot to me and other family members as our family risked there lives in World War 2 i just hope you understand the meaning to the name Pepperpot --Carsie100 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Driscoll

Hi, - what a great author you are; - really! WOW!

You are about slashing an extensive (and expensive) 2 1/2 year research into pieces. But carry on! - Go ahead!

Your so-called "edits" are able to revert tediously confirmed and verified facts, telling the true story of Bobby Driscoll in contrary to all those myths, rumors and want-to-believe-trash, risen in more than four decades and still haunting many forums and blog-sites.

Just the facts??? - What facts??? I delivered most of them and often created the references on my website, but what you are leaving now is a mess of incoherent sentences - of a particluar order, indeed - but without the important corresponding background info.

Why don't you simply write a schedular headword-list; - just like:

He was born ... made a number of movies ... became famous as Walt Disney's most popular boy actor ... played Jim Hawkins in Treasure Island and voiced Peter Pan ... even won an Oscar ... got the pimples and was officially dropped because of that ... was afterwards reduced to the early television ... got addicted ... married ... fathered three children ... was booked several times and eventually jailed ... divorced ... tried desperately to restart his career as an actor after his release ... fled to New York City ... failed ... and finally died home- and penniless.

Oh, sorry, I forgot! - ... and was buried a bum in a pauper's grave.

That's the story folks like you want to read; - isn't it? But what happened between the lines? - and most important: why did all that happen? Who cares: as long as it's brief and encyclopedic. I don't give a damn about being encyclopedic or not, as long as it's true.

Many people out there, still (and again) interested in Bobby, want to read his true story and not just an encyclopedic entry on him! And who's the next "editor", only wanting to read his own version of "The Bobby Driscoll Story"?

I'm presently about creating a new version of my Tribute website on Bobby and I will distance myself and the new site in plain terms from this crap here, now officially provided as his "biography".

I rather believe, you guys are only interested in improving your own author's credits here in this ...???...

Regards bylot --Bylot (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly know where to begin in responding to your comments, because they seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's purpose is. This statement in particular gets to the core of the problem: "Many people out there, still (and again) interested in Bobby, want to read his true story and not just an encyclopedic entry on him!" I'm sure that's true, but this is an encyclopedia article about him. It is not an article about the various movies he's made or about what else was going on at the Walt Disney company at the time. It is an encyclopedia article about Bobby Driscoll. That's all. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires that any commentary about the subject be left out. Possibly some of the information about the movies would be appropriate in the articles about them, but not in this article. Obviously you've put a lot of work into it, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but by trying to write a dramatic tribute to him, you've been working on something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The good news is that Wikipedia is openly licensed, so if you want to go back in the history to an earlier version and use that as the basis for an article in which you can say whatever you want, all you have to do is abide by the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike license, and you can use the whole thing, including the parts that others wrote. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your user page, I see that you already have a web site about Driscoll, which apparently is where most of the reference material you cited is located. That's a much more appropriate place to put an in-depth behind-the-scenes biography/tribute than in an encyclopedia whose first rule is objectivity. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films of actor Michael Jackson

Please remember, when you watched The Wiz (in 1978) & Captain EO during 1986-1994, that guy was Michael Jackson ("King of Pop"), not a body-double, acting in those roles. If you wish to say that he was not an "actor" then I think that would be considered a WP:NPOV issue, as a personal criticism of his acting skills. Otherwise, just let me assure you: Michael Jackson was a film actor for over 30 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that Mister Jackson did some acting. (Yeah, he did a good job, but that's not the point so please don't try to make it about that.) As I pointed out in the edit history, the acting was only a small part of his career, and subsequently it's not what he is known for. It does not define him in the public eye any more than "businessman" or "father" or "piano player" does. Hell, I did some acting once upon a time, but that doesn't make me an "actor"; it makes me a "graphic designer" who did some acting once upon a time. I also referred you to the article about Michael Jackson, where it also does not refer to him as an "actor". If you want to launch some Michael Jackson Was An Actor Campaign, start there. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drug diversion

I did not agree 100 % with the merger, but you were WP:BOLD and did a good job. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habitability (Human) & Habitability (Extremophile) vs "Planetary Habitability"

(Some peoples point of view is only of themselves.)
Something tells me you might miss this and may actually not what to. If I am mistaken, sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planetary_habitability#SURVEY
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in the public domain in the United States

While I found these edits [2] [3] [4] to List of films in the public domain in the United States somewhat humorous, that is getting into WP:POINT territory. I've got some ideas how to clean some of this up but over tagging an article such as you've done here is not very constructive. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not overtagged. Every single one of those citations is needed. The alternative is to empty the list. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is overtagging and the other editors I've asked for a 2nd opinion largely agree with my assessment. The appropriate thing to use would be {{Refimprove}}, which the article already includes as part of {{Article issues}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that is that it doesn't work. I tried something different, because that makes more sense than hoping that something that has not worked in the past will suddenly start working. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would work are examples. What I had planned to do way back when this article first went up for AfD was convert the thing to use a wikitable format that included the production date/year, country where the film was produced, and the copyright holder or producer's name. That information would make it much easier to verify the status of a film. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Quest/Family Guy punctuation

Concerning whether the placement of the period at the end of the quotation from Family Guy should be in or outside the closing quotation mark:

1. There was not the slightest indication that the situation involved the quotation not going to the end of the sentence being quoted. Not one little hint. One had to know the scene to so much as suspect that, and such assumptions are against Wiki policy.
2. There is no situation in proper American English usage that it is allowed to place a single period outside a closing quotation mark. In the situation you claim that this one is, the proper punctuation would be: Hadji responds with "Sim, sim, salabim" to which Stewie tells him that he "should probably cut back on that...." Just check any USA English/Composition textbook. If Wikipedia administration consensus is otherwise, they are WRONG. It is simply not open to debate or negotiation. Which demands the question, where are you from and/or where did you go to school that you did not know that the way you interpreted the regs' unintended ambiguity was pure "D" wrong?

Come to think of it, there should be a comma after "salabim," and "...to which Stewie tells him..." would be better as "...to which Stewie responds...." --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't adhere to standard American English usage. It may be WRONG, but it is true: an important distinction. I'm not about to divulge personal information to someone who is so hostile to me, but I assure you that I do know standard American English usage; I know it quite well. I'm rather fluent in standard British English usage as well. I also have my own personal preferences, which include some dislikes for elements of each style. However, I set all of that aside here, and I abide by what Wikipedia policy says. I encourage you to do likewise, and to make peace with the fact that linguistic rules - especially those governing punctuation - are arbitrary and based on consensus. When in Wikipedia, you may need to get over the above-revealed impulse to control and to dictate, and go with the local customs. Either that, or spend the rest of your life as spitefully unhappy as you appear to be right now. I wish you peace. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reading something into the regs that just isn't there is NOT consensus, and that is precisely what you described in your posting on my talk page. Besides, I deny that Wikipedia has the right to rewrite the rules of grammar, etc., or anything else. They are what they are, and that's all that they are. It is administrative consensus here that pointing out misconduct detrimental to the encyclopedia is itself misconduct, and the only thing admin is readily willing to recognize as misconduct (they have even had to have their noses rubbed into several acts of vandalism before they would admit that that was what they were), a position that is absolutely and literally irrational. I have pointed this out directly to administrators in my defense on a number of occasions, which resulted in the administrator involved shutting up and walking away, unable to defend his/her position against that and unwilling to admit that it was wrong. It also resulted, obviously, in the other editor's misconduct and the consequences thereof being left completely untouched. This is worse than the ancient kings who would execute a messenger for bringing bad news, because those kings would still deal with the bad news on its own terms. So the fact that something is consensus here doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. And as long as that remains policy, it won't. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Bhikha

Acting as if comparing the timbre of Zain's voice to that of Michael Jackson, a western pop singer, is perfectly acceptable within wiki guidelines. To place who? after the name converts to saying that the comment contained weasel words. Better to say the comment is not referenced. Nearly every single Wikipedia in other languages contain articles on Jackson, and a rumour which is yet to be resolved, is that he reverted to Islam also brings other Muslims to be interested in the news about Jackson. In addition, a true Wikipedian would not show their POV by placing the word, "Brother" before Zain's name. Please keep these factors in consideration when editing. I am happy that others are finally taking an interest in his page, as for some time it seemed I was the only person willing to edit it and provide a photograph of the singer. Just, please be careful with your editing decisions. Thanks for helping here. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've confused me with a different editor. I haven't made any edits related to these issues; the only edit I made to that article was to remove the words "the late", as that is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to refer to people who are no longer living. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor's Barnstar awarded! Congrats :)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		You've been recognized for your fine copyediting work and I think it's about time you received one of these shiny little things. ;) —œ^™ 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please go to [5] and vote again. Thank you. LargoLarry (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral third party

Concerning our disagreement on Talk:Jonny Quest, your words were, "..the involvement of a neutral third party." My past experience is that one person responds to a request for a "third party opinion," hence my assumption. And I certainly did not mean to imply that you would have any choice in the matter, although I can now see how it could come across that way. Sorry about my poor phrasing there. That was meant as nothing but a heads up to the handful of administrators with whom I DO have a history, so they would understand that if one of them was the respondent, our history indicating a lack of objectivity with me would immediately be cited and linked-in. What you have set up here is absolutely a revelation to me. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Legion Barnstar I hereby award this Barnstar to JasonAQuest for his conspicuous effort editing and improving articles related to The Legion of Super-Heroes, specifically Lar Gand. Long live the Legion! Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you did a fantastic job cleaning up and improving the character history in the article on Lar, and felt that you deserved a little recognition for it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot in It's a Wonderful Life

Jason, despite your contentions, the article is not anyone's. If you choose to make a contribution, please go ahead. The issue was not content based, it was procedure. If a major change was proposed that turned out to be contested, the talk page is the place to resolve the content concerns prior to setting the way forward. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Reflexively reverting changes on the principle of "procedure" (or whatever you imagine that procedure to be) in the absence of an actual content dispute... I'm sorry, but WP:CIVIL doesn't allow me to comment further. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revision is still found in the edit history, if you reconsider, I will assist in editing the piece, as I can see some minor problem areas, mainly in semantics and context. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You're the only one who need to reconsider; I've made my contribution and washed my hands of your problems. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I do not know how to ask what I am doing wrong!

Is this what you mean by writing at the bottom of your talk page? I do not understand the complex instructions full of codes. Why is there not just a simple Help button to click and ask a simple question without a lot of other conversations from other people. This is very frustrating.

Instead of telling me I am wrong, please tell me what I am specifically doing wrong.

I am trying to make by additions to Wikipedia pages match what the other entries are. I no longer have a website link. I simply describe a new play, just like the other new plays on the same page.

Is the problem that I am writing about my own play? Does that matter? It is a new play, and the listing is of new plays. It is fact. It is history.

Please talk to me in a way that I can respond back.Jnet-jquish (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, JasonAQuest. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil

Edit summaries such as this one are not appropriate, even when reverting obvious vandalism. Please try to retain a collegial, or at least professional, tone. Thank you. Powers ^T 14:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Peter Pan 1924.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Peter Pan 1924.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. NW (Talk) 18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Gelders Sterne

Thanks for this article; could you please reference it? Thanks. Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT comics creators category

Wow, good to see that someone else is using this newly-created category and finding some people I'd overlooked. I thought it best to make the category fairly broad to include both writers and artists and also for the time being not broken down by gender/sexuality.--Larrybob (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Donelan

The article Donelan has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my "clean sweep"

I read all of them thoroughly. If you're pissed about the Donelan deletion, I'd point out that you didn't actually stick the 15-year claim to notability in the article. Ironholds (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point: you didn't read the article. And you just as obviously didn't evaluate the sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I indeed missed the lead sentence there. Ironholds (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility reminder

This observation isn't helpful. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor. --NeilN ^talk to me 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't helfpul, either, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone. Taking a machine gun to a list of new articles and letting the people who created them deal with the aftermath shouldn't be congratulated; it should be questioned. But that's the video game mentality that infests the "patrol" crowd, who trick out their rigs with semiautomatic weapons and give each other barnstarjobs for high-scoring runs. Wikipedia is just a first-person-shooter to some of these people, and they drive away good editors. I prefer dealing with vandals; at least they don't suffer from the delusion of their own righteousness. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article is on the edge of notability. Where are the third party sources that show Donelan meets WP:AUTHOR? --NeilN ^talk to me 14:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Donelan was active during the period before the web, most of the sources that would mention him are print, not online. I would think that 15 years of being published in the most influential gay publication of the late 20th century, along with his other publication credits, would establish notability. There are countless unchallenged articles about people with less on their resumes... which underscores my belief that tagging it for deletion was less about the content of the article than it was about bragging rights over clearing the board on his favorite game. But you apparently don't want to talk about that. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Discussion?

Please read WP:NFCC#1. After doing a quick background check and a check on the artist, I can confirm that he is still alive and that it is possible to obtain a free photograph. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how does a photograph of him illustrate his style of art? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Darling

Whoops! My mistake - quite right about the kindergarten. I had forgotten the name of the actual school.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelmaris (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lorson

The user continues to make rapid AWB deletions. Did you determine if that is OK? I reverted him at one site, but there are too many. Should all his edits be rolled back? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His edit summaries are untrue, and there's clearly not a consensus in favor of his deletionfest. That's grounds for rollback IMHO. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes reverting spam back in to articles, great idea.--Lorson (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know rollback is for clear cut vandalism only, don't you?--Lorson (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is probably going to remove your rollback privelage for abusing it. An you don't need consensus to revert spammers.--Lorson (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need consensus that it is spam, and you do not have that. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links that are added a 1000 at a time are spam, links that are added on a case by case basis are not. I removed the former.--Lorson (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First an admission that I erred: I didn't look back far enough; the editor you cited did in fact add the link. In 2005. I apologize for suggesting that your edit summaries were lies. However: Links that have been in articles for years – without challenge – should be given the benefit of some doubt. Do you imagine that you are the first person to have noticed them in all these articles? It seems to me that they have been judged on a case-by-case basis – over the course of half a decade, by countless other editors of these articles – as not-spam. Wholesale deletion of material that has withstood that much scrutiny is irresponsible. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spammed links don't 'grow' in to legitimate links, and there is no record that any link or any page has been 'verified' either. You don't spam 1,000 articles and expect someone else to check if they are all appropriate.--Lorson (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no record that they've been verified because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. External links are held to the same standard as any other addition to an article: they are sitting there on the page for anyone to look at and delete if inappropriate. That's how a wiki works. But you seem to believe that every other editor of these articles over the past five years is never noticed them or thought to evaluate them? That's insulting. An external link which has stood the test of time merits individual, case-by-case evaluation before deletion. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Please read Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Misuse may result in loosing this right. Instead of mass rollbacking Lorson you should have reported the incident. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I never thought of WP as a place were "don't fix it yourself, report it to the authorities" would be the rule, but if so... {shrug} - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, some people think that are fixing something and they don't. If someone makes 2,000 edits in a few hours, making 2,000 rollbacks doesn't make things better. I am not quote sure you understand the use of rollback. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor using hacked AWB code. Thanks. something lame from CBW 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Arthur and the Invisibles Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arthur and the Invisibles Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Azkadellia into Tin Man

Hi! (Please bear with me, I just typed out about a page of discussion and lost it due to accidentally closing a tab.)

I created the Azkadellia page a little over two years ago, and noticed that you have started merging it into Tin Man. I know that such a merger was proposed and discussed over a year ago, but at the time, no consensus was reached and we just left it tagged. While I have no objection in principle to another editor coming in now and proceeding with a merge, I have a few concerns:

1. There is a second merger proposal that I see you initiated today, but there hasn't been much discussion (nor an AfD/speedy delete), and I feel that half a day isn't a sufficient open discussion period before unilateral action is taken.

2. In a thread I just saw tonight, IllaZilla followed up last fall. She mentioned that Jupiter Optimus Maximus (who created the other Tin Man character threads besides Azkadellia - DG, Glitch, and Cain, IIRC) had been banned as a sockpuppet of YourLord, but she didn't mention that the 2007 AfD of Azkadellia occurred long before the other three articles. Azkedellia survived the original AfD by what I would characterize as WP:HEY. At the time, I and several other editors worked to source various reviews of the character in the context of the overall aesthetic of the miniseries, critical reception of the actress's performance, etc. Right now none of their opinions are represented in any discussion; correct me if I'm wrong.

3. The other thing that I would have liked to see discussed before merging commenced was merging into a "Characters of Tin Man" page rather than a cast and characters section. I understand your concern about fancruft and I agree that in-story material should be transwikied to a wiki devoted to (say) The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and its derivatives, or reimaginings of SF franchises. However, I don't see any reason to drop the core synopsis of the character, a representative image, or material about critical reception of Azkadellia. Right now Tin Man is tagged as being overly long in parts; I would maintain that this is a good reason to have a single character page. As you might gather from the AfD and merger discussions, I and others who worked on the article have read and understand the WP:MOS and the dicta of WP:NOTPLOT, but several editors (including IllaZilla) noted in the discussion threads that there are good examples to follow where character pages provide some balance.

In any case, I would like to see more relevant, sourced material retained, after which I will be glad to follow up with trans-wiki. If you are in the process of migrating more material from Azkadellia to complete the merger, I will hold off on proposing that we fork Tin Man (though this is my personal preference) or roll back any changes in order to have a full quorum for the second merge discussion. I'd just like to know your intentions in the matter if I may, and offer my own take.

Thanks, Banazir (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Llewelyn Davies

Hi Jason, I regret your edits to this article. Clearly two editors feel the circumstances of Michael's death were relevant, I don't think you're the sole arbiter of that. Also you've restored a dead link by reinserting "Edwards, David (October 28, 2004). The Tragic True Story Behind Peter Pan. Mirror" at External links. It leads nowhere. Much more importantly can I direct you to WP:RS which states Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. so your Neverpedia is not considered a reliable source and should not be relied upon. I think you should remove these references. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why theories about the death of his brother – a topic covered quite well in the article about his brother – need to be repeated in an article about him (Does Ted Kennedy discuss the theories about his brother's death?), but I'm more than happy to discuss it on the article's talk page if you really want to make that argument. Also, please note that I did not use Neverpedia as a reference; the only references I added were to Reliable Sources. The policy regarding Reliable Sources is there to ensure that citations for statements included in Wikipedia are sound; it is not intended to prevent linking for further information to external sites that cover subjects that Wikipedia does not have articles about (such as Mr Buxton or Ms Willoughby, neither of whom is independently notable). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the dead link you previously restored. WP:CS says Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full citations, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not recommended as a method of best practice and is not found in featured articles. By using the article to promote your own wiki, you introduce unreliable sources and also prevent other editors from improving its status.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Despite your apparent assumption of bad faith, my restoration of that link was accidental.) Again: please note that these are not citations, and Neverpedia is not a source; they are links to additional information. Despite your assumption about my motives, I am simply trying to make it easier for readers to find information beyond that found in Wikipedia (which should always be a person's first stop for information, not their last). Wikipedia doesn't have – nor should it have – an article about Rupert Buxton; as a longtime WP editor, I know that he isn't notable enough, and it would be deleted. But for someone who wants to learn more about him, a link to an an article on another site is useful. Shouldn't that be the ultimate question? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECITE is explicit that the right place for links to additional information is the External links section, This style of external link should only be used as a citation for a specific section or fact. Other external links should go in an External links section as described at Wikipedia:External links. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so bureaucracy trumps utility. Hope this helps you sleep tonight. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/21/commentary/bear_bailout/
2. http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080321/032108_bear_bailout.html?.v=2
3. http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/03/rescuing-the-bear-why-and-why-this-way/