User talk:Jacobw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Jacobw, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
• You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
• Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 05:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 VfD Self-Nomination 2 You write for The Onion? 3 VfD 2.0 4 VfD for Chu Wing Kit 5 GRider 6 Oh! Mr. Porter! VFD 7 Patrick Flynn 8 re Patrick Flynn VfD 9 Not Spamming 10 WGA 11 I Know You!! 12 Mangal Pandey

[edit] VfD Self-Nomination

Again I wanted to echo the voice of others before me by saying both welcome to Wikipedia and secondly, thank you for your honesty and initiative in nominating your vanity page for deletion. I'm curious to see where this may lead and will be closely monitoring its progress.  :-) [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You write for The Onion?

That's so cool. Maybe we should chat some time. (I've written a bit of comedy, and other stuff, myself.) Could you give me a point-of-contact? EventHorizon 06:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD 2.0

Thanks for fixing the date typo. No harm, no foul. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD for Chu Wing Kit

Your arguements convinced me to change my vote to Keep. I voted to keep Jacob Sager Weinstein as well. Good luck with that screenplay. Johntex 21:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GRider

Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 10:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh! Mr. Porter! VFD

Hi there--

Another user and I have done a rewrite of the Oh! Mr Porter! article in the hopes of making it worthy of keeping. I'm wondering if you'd take a look at the new article, and reconsider your vote to delete it . Thanks!

Best wishes, Jacobw 18:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me now. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I second that. I also changed my vote to a "strong keep." Excellent job. - Lucky 6.9 23:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Flynn

Good work. Should be a keeper now. I added a disambiguation template. Grutness...wha? 13:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re Patrick Flynn VfD

Greetings! I'm wondering if you'd take a look at the detective work and the disambiguation that I did on the Patrick Flynn page, and perhaps reconsider your vote for deletion. Best wishes, Jacobw 12:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Done! I'm impressed. It's always a good idea to tell voters when a page has changed beyond recognition (as this one certainly has).

However, you should have actually put the comment on my Talk page, not my User page. It doesn't matter to me, but it means I don't see the little orange "new messages" box like I do when the Talk page changes. It might have taken me months to notice that note!

Anyway, thanks for the heads-up! --Master Thief Garrett^Talk 13:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm wondering if you'd take a look at the detective work and the disambiguation that I did on the Patrick Flynn page, and perhaps reconsider your vote for deletion. Best wishes, Jacobw 12:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed my delete vote a few days ago. It's a landslide keep vote now, no point in stating the obvious. Good work. Megan1967 03:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Spamming

Hi. Thank you for visiting me about your concern for spamming. I have been doing some additions about American Film Foundation, a non-profit production company run by Academy and Emmy award-winning filmmakers Terry Sanders and Freida Lee Mock. My understanding, and that of my wife (Designmotif), is that because their work is considerably valuable we have created the appropriate internal pages about them and their remarkable films because much of Wikipedia is lacking in information about them. We begun adding the articles in the hope that other users will contribute. And we've added specific external links where appropriate, linking directly to the films, many of which are difficult to find. The question of spamming is a good one, given that Amazon.com (IMDB site), Sony and other major commercial websites have been allowed to add their external links with no real reference to the pages they are added to either I might add. I'm getting very annoyed by the accusations of spamming. We are going by guidelines here. So I will return the page to it's previous condition, as it's not spamming. Please don't target American Film Foundation and their vast body of work as spam.

Thanks, JaimeyWB 06:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jacobw. Sorry I took so long to get back to you—I was snowed under for a bit at work, and I just plain forgot to reply to your message.

I would say that external links to the AFF web site would be appropriate if they provide useful additional detail about the article subjects. From what I have seen, however, those external pages contain–at most–very short blurbs, some selected gushing quotes, and an exhortation to purchase a film. Internal wikilinks to the AFF article are probably appropriate, though I leave that up to the more expert editors at each page. The American Film Foundation article, meanwhile, probably only needs one external link: the AFF web site. Any more would be linkspam. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WGA

Hi,

Thanks for your help with the info about the WGA. Actually it now seems less likely that she didn't ever join. Specifically the project I am working on is about American soap opera writer Agnes Nixon. She started in radio soaps under Irna Phillips in 1944 and made the move to TV as the first headwriter of Search for Tomorrow in 1951, then co-created and wrote As the World Turns, then headwroter Guiding Light for a decade, at the end simultaniously working as headwriter of Another World, then creating, writing & producing her own show One Life to Live and All My Children - where she still is credited on the writing staff today. By my count she has therefore worked for all the "big three" American networks at some point...althought perhaps Daytime Television wasn't covered back in the 50's & 60's...it most certainly is now.....Oh well...I will try telephoning the WGA and see if I can get to the bottom of this - Thanks again Dowew 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I spoke with someone at the WGA EAST and she said that Agnes Nixon refused to join the Union back in the 70's & 80's because she was also producing her shows (she owned the rights to the shows and produced them via her company creative horizons inc until 1974) and continued as executive producer of One Life to Live until the mid 80's. This would have put her in an awkward position during WGA strikes since she would have be require to stop writting her shows but would have to keep producing them. They also said that although it is uncommon to give WGA awards to non union members but it can happen (she has won 5). Thanks for your helpDowew 16:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Know You!!

Another Wiki addict, eh? David Hoag 06:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mangal Pandey

Hi, I just noticed that you removed the sentence "In fact it was this stubborn attitude on the side of the British administrators which worsened the matter, as the later incidences proved." from Mangal Pandey premuably considering it an unsubstantiated POV of a probably biased Indian. I would however contend that it is not a personal POV but just a logical and objective analysis. We can be reasonably sure that the Sepoy Mutiny would not have broken out, at least not to the extent it did, had the British administrators not remained adamant on the use of the greased cartirdges. That the criticism is not personally motivated can be seen from the fact that it is rather Malleson, a contemporary British military officer, who analyses the causes of the rebellion in this manner, see e.g. (Malleson 2005, p. 31): "How the Adjutant-General managed to mislead the Government, and how the Government permitted themselves to be misled on this occasion, seems extraordinary." In fact, Malleson, who published his book "The Indian Mutiny of 1857" in year 1890 and edited before that 6 volumes on the Mutiny narrates many incidences of stubbornness displayed by some British officers and how it contributed to the disaffection that was displayed by the public in general and sepoys in particular later during the Mutiny. I hope you would refrain from directly deleting portions that you consider biased. Please post them on the discussion page first so as the writer and/or other editors can express their opinion. Thank you. --Raj 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 : Hi Jacobw, Thanks for the quick response and sorry if I created an impression of being offended. I do appreciate your point about opinions and will re-formulate the sentence in a more factual/narrative way. I am somewhat new at Wikipedia and feel/felt one should first discuss such issues. But may be you have a point - one should take it sportively and make changes and rechanges in a bit lighter vein. ;-) Thanks once more. --Raj 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)