User talk:JasonAQuest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

Contents

[edit] Peter Pan

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

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

[edit] 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)

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)
And you're doing... what, exactly? You got spanked; stop whining about it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
The irony would be painful if it weren't so amusing. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You were lied to if you were told I was spanked or reprimanded in any way. JayKeaton (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Notice of ANI Thread

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

[edit] 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! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
Thanks! I'll do just that. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] re:Film(s) directed by Herbert Brenon

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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. flaminglawyerc 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)