User talk:The JPS/archive16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives

Psycho (1960 film) GAR notification[edit]

Psycho (1960 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On to it -- cheers. The JPStalk to me 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, just noticed this. I'm trimming the section right now and that was literally the first thing I removed. :-) Steve T • C 21:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WGA Notice[edit]

Dispute resolved. HM211980 (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst redux[edit]

I just read your email. Both Mirror sources (first-hand interviews with him) openly refer to her as a physiotherapist. Both are easily accessible by any member of the public. Like you said, it's hardly a violation of family privacy (not like publishing addresses). User:Wereon has restored the information now anyway (I don't have the article on my watchlist). Bradley0110 (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Spotlight Kid (band)[edit]

Hello The JPS, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Spotlight Kid (band) has been removed. It was removed by Michig with the following edit summary '(deprod - article already links to a BBC interview, and a band with members of Six By Seven, Bent, Spiritualized, and Echoboy is almost certainly going to pass muster re notability. AFD if not convinced)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Michig before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Cantr II Article[edit]

The wikipedia article "Cantr II" was deleted, but has been edited at User:Junesun/Cantr II. I'd like to know if this page is ready to be reposted on wikipedia, or if it is still missing something. Joshuamonkey (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madhouse on Castle Street[edit]

Not a criticism, just a genuine query - is it still right to change it to present tense even though the play doesn't exist any more? Angmering (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess on occasions like that, yes, present tense would be appropriate. The JPStalk to me 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews article reviewed[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I reviewed your WN article and you can find more about that on Wikinews, but I thought that you might see this before you saw the comment I made on your WN talk page. Calebrw (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheBeatles420[edit]

This person is back and once again adding totally unreferenced information about nonexistent films (possible hoaxes) to Wikipedia. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've taken appropriate action. The JPStalk to me 22:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho plot[edit]

Hello, The JPS. You have new messages at Steve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gallery Images[edit]

Instead of just removing them, why not try adding that "critical commentary" you are asking for. It is easier to delete something, but better to try and fix it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You expect me to research 50+ articles? The JPStalk to me 17:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It would be better than deleting a ton of images, which is what you are doing now. Deletion is easy, research and fixing the problem, not as easy, but makes things better in the long run. Try it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By deleting the images I am fixing the problem. The problem is that these hundreds of images violate Wikipedia's core principle of being a free encyclopedia. The expectation is that those who want non-free images retained to do the work an justify their inclusion in a free encyclopedia. The JPStalk to me 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typical admin answer. You do the work. Right. Anyway, you should read this discussion and this discussion, where we have established consensus these images are within the rules of Wikipedia and we have a nice little posting from Mike Godwin....

Mike Godwin wrote: 

Use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use. I think
it's unlikely that the local stations will even complain about the use
of the logos.

--Mike

On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:54 PM, C J wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I realize you are an incredibly busy individual but am writing to
> you in hopes of getting some clarification that no one else seems to
> have the particular expertise to provide. Specifically a user within
> the project has begun deleting historical logos formally used by
> local television stations within the United States. The logos are
> sourced and tagged with fair use rationale for their historical
> significance but it was argued because they appeared next to each
> other they needed to be deleted as they constituted a gallery of non-
> free images. The other side to the argument has remained that the
> historical logos uniquely illustrate how it identified itself to
> the public during a particular era as well as how that identity
> evolved over time.
>
> We are all hoping to reach further clarification from a definitive
> source to resolve this somewhat contentious issue so any feedback
> you might be able to provide in regards to this would be deeply
> appreciated.
  • Legal says they are OK, they are OK. Consensus says they are OK, they are OK. I say hit that pretty little revert button. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mike is probably correct in that the radio and TV stations are unlikely to object. That does not make it open-season for non-free media. I don't see a consensus in those links. The JPStalk to me 17:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is there, just buried under a whole bunch of talking. I am not saying let's go "open season" on images, but deleting them outright shouldn't be the way. There should be a way that the images can be included into the articles that makes the Non-Free people happy and the image-inclusionists happy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am a geek and I do enjoy looking through old images (TV Ark, for instance, is a great website). Logos can tell a lot about the evolution of a station of changes of ownership. But, we need sufficient prose to justify their inclusion. Quality over quantity. Can you point to a concrete guideline that supports your assertion. Have the discussions to which you point led to anything that supersedes Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries? The JPStalk to me 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I have is the two discussions and the note from Godwin....I don't think that overrides Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries....though in most cases users are not using galleries, they are putting the images in "thumbs" with a little blurb of information like "Logo used until October 2009" or something like that, though some of the blurbs are longer than that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not only a question of the galleries, it's the critical commentary aspect; dispersing the images as thumbnails throughout the article doesn't work either, I'm afraid. I've seen a few articles through the WP:FAC process, so know what standards we are aiming for. For instance, I was forced to remove one screenshot showing two characters next to a description of those characters, because the image provided no more information. The JPStalk to me 22:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JPS, I stumbled on your current project because you were notifying other editors[1] How many other editors you have contacted? I am very troubled by the non-neutral words you use. "fair use = open-season for polluting our free encyclopedia with this." I would strongly suggest you get wider consensus before you dictate what should or should not be on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will second that. JeremyWJ (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been reached. This is clear. Guidelines are established, worded and updated after extended discussion. A couple of discussions, such as those to which Neutralhomer helpfully linked, cannot override guidelines. There is no harm in notifying other editors; this is not RfC, AFD, RFA, etc. The JPStalk to me 22:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy, why did you remove my note from your talk page? In an edit summary you request it to be discussed, yet you have only contributed four words and a few reversions. The JPStalk to me 22:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JPS, just letting you know A Man In Black is no longer active on Wikipedia. Cheers. -sesuPRIME 05:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with every word The JPS has to say on this subject. He's 100% in the right about this. ↪REDVERS I dreamt about stew last night 14:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not protect pages where you are involved in legitimate disputes over policy interpretation, as you have done here and here. Regardless of whether the pictures should or shouldn't be in the articles, an admin who is not involved in the conflict should protect the articles, and not you. --Aqwis (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Eartunes[edit]

Hello The JPS, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Eartunes has been removed. It was removed by 92.11.136.195 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 92.11.136.195 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WOMC-FM.JPG[edit]

You don't delete images because they "Violates non-free use policy", you don't get to decide what violates what and what doesn't. There are plenty of pages of images that are perfectly OK. If you have a problem with these images (because you were reverting) you don't use your admin tools to delete the image (out of sight, out of mind). That is using your admin tools in a VERY bad way and a clear COI. I request your restore any and all images you have deleted this way and explain exactly why you think they are "violating non-free use policy" when we had a discussion about where there is consensus they don't and Godwin backs that up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor experienced in writings and researching articles to comply with Wikipedia policy has agreed that usage of these images in this way is a breach of our non-free policy. You must understand that this is not I disliking these images: I am merely carrying out my administrative, janitorial duties by removing non-free media that harms out goal of being a free encyclopedia. Policy, the pillars, and the guidelines are absolutely clear.
In the meantime, most of those articles are an embarrassment; filled with crufty lists of current and past presenters, and rarely an inline citation to support the station histories, never mind justify the use of non-free media. The JPStalk to me 22:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Elektra_Records.23Company_logos The JPStalk to me 11:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Edit summaries?[edit]

Why are you continually hounding me on my talk page? If you've got an issue, bring it up to an administrator. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hounding you. It's called communication. I am an administrator, but could happily ask someone else to try to discuss this with you. Edit summaries are a part of Wikipedia's editing conventions, a courtesy to editors with articles on their watchlist. The JPStalk to me 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edits I made following your second message on my talk page included edit summaries, which was then followed by your message accusing me of making it "difficult" for editors to see what changes I make. Would you prefer me to run the summary by you next time I make an edit to ensure the content meets your personal satisfaction based on the type of edit made? Sottolacqua (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, being an administrator I'm sure that you're aware that providing edit summaries is not a policy or guideline, as stated in the header of the Edit Summary help article. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some sort or political problem with the summaries? They are so much a convention that they are used to judge candidates at WP:RFA. With respect, your comment about running every summary by me is rather silly. The reason I posted a second message was because you removed my first, without comment, and then proceeded to edit further without summaries. The JPStalk to me 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Removal of comments, warnings section of the WP:User Page article which states "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages...Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users..." I'm free to remove whatever messages I want from my own talk page. As previously stated, after I removed your second message and began using an edit summary (which is again not required) you posted a third message on my talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm losing interest in this. However, I am glad to see that you are learning to communicate. The JPStalk to me 19:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nightmare on Elm Street[edit]

This made me laugh. ς ح д r خ є 14:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a truce...[edit]

...let's discuss this like responsible adults. 79.79.93.120 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unhand thy lad! I beseech ye be seated yonder thus might we discusseth thine issue... 79.71.50.68 (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try...[edit]

...to act like you weren't being a rouge admin! I KNOW YOU FOR WHAT YOU REALLY ARE! --Izno (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and total sarcasm in an attempt at humor, indeed. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) --Izno (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF![edit]

Seriously what are you on! Disrespectful??? Hard not to be when morons on this site re-edit thing to sound soooooooo shite when you try your best to imporve them - and when you do, sap someone comes along and ruins it all!!! 92.20.196.215 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Please re-read my message about civility, and WP:MOS. The JPStalk to me 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And i dont think you understand that people TRY to! Only for fools to come along and mess them up again. And as ive said time and time and time and time again before - its all very well you lot saying edit this properlly edit that properlly - whats wrong with a little help instead of passing the buck?? You so bothered about how they look etc - bloody help! And dont give me all this nonsence about there a waste of time - there not at all in the slightest. Waterloo Road content has just as much a right on wikipedia as any other televison show. But no matter how much you try to improve articles, theres always somebody who comes along and tears it all to shreds and its rubbish. I more than prepared to improve EVERY SINGLE article involved with Waterloo Road on here so that it will meet criteria standards and such - problem is the number of morons who come along and re-write them with such irrelevant crap - there just no structure. If only it was part of a wikiproject, pages could be protected and the members who want to improve them ( and i know im not alone ) can do so without the interferrance of small minded posters who think that Tom Clarksons new car is of more bloody importance than that of the characters real plotlines!! -rant over-

And i apologise if im coming across as digging at you, believe me im not at all meaning to - but its sooooo frustrating!!! 92.20.196.215 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that it is frustrating when people add material that you know to be wrong. Sometimes they are being malicious, sometimes genuinely mistaken. You can report vandals at WP:AIV. However, there is a lot of articles on Wikipedia that simply shouldn't be here, and there are many, many about WR amongst that. At the moment they do not demonstrate notability by integrating a real-world perspective, with references t0o independent reliable sources. Could you address that? Concentrating upon plot details with be fruitless, as I will merge the articles soon if I don't see improvement. The JPStalk to me 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing about the WR atricles is that they CAN be referenced to independent and reliable sources and yes i could most certainly do that. However i am in agreement with you about merging articles, the character ones at least as it would be a heck of a lot easier to improve them and get them upto standard, sources, notablility and correct perspective in written text etc. It is something i have wanted for a long LONG time so the sooner that happens the better. 92.20.196.215 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look babes, You are just stalking me. Waterloo Road, and now Thatcherism! David Cameron is a follower of the sexy Margaret Thatcher. WO HO! Ultraconservative means very conservative and she was against the idea of society, she was nationalist (not fascist!) nationalist! She loved social conservative. These are factors of Thatcherism! As a member of the Tory party donating a million pounds back then to my great friend, Baroness Thatcher. Look I started watching Waterloo Road because my partner was a housemistress at a posh school and we like watching shows about stupid, empty-headed workers who know jackshit about the British squirearchy and I remember seeing Rachel Mson BSc MSc! Look The JPS! You are stalking me! Stalker, stalker, stalker! Listen to me please, sugarlumps, do not be impertinent! I think your a hot, feisty little babe and I love the heat killing me but listen to me! I worship my Margaret Thatcher and I cannot stand watching Wikipedia write bullshit about my mistress!

Okay darling!

Bye, bye Mwaah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Paddock (talk • contribs) 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:62.31.38.42[edit]

Despite being banned by you personal attacks and vandalising the Max Tyler article, it seems this user is still not getting the message - i've just had to revert it again! He isn't learning 92.9.156.170 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive (2nd nomination)[edit]

I hope this doesn't break WP:CANVASS, but I have nominated the article for deletion after you suggested so here. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logos[edit]

It would be a little easier to add that "critical commentary" than to just outright delete the images from the page. Try moving them to "thumbs" and adding some information, it keeps the image and adds information to the page. - Neutralhomer (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not. With respect, I don't think you appreciate what 'critical commentary' is, and how long it takes to research and write properly. The JPStalk to me 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have waited for a moment, you would have seen I was reverting to add the "critical commentary". Reverting makes things easier. Also, don't threaten. - Neutralhomer (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bust in but a lot of articles I have edited showed up in my watchlist removing logos. Is there a reason behind deleting these or a precedent? If not, deleting them for no particular reason sounds fishy to me. --milonica (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Critical commentary can be a few things. For instance, it could be a discussion of how a logo fits in with the parent company's branding; the design of the logo, etc. Vitally, there should be references to reliable sources. Note, it is insufficient to merely describe the image. I suggest that you read some of the peer reviews at WP:GAC and WP:FAC to become more proficient with our standards. The JPStalk to me 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, I like seeing old logos and have a fond interest in radio. What is wrong with keeping them? When all of the sudden did it become bad policy to have more information/pictures on Wikipedia? --milonica (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also some of the logos you and Neutralhomer are edit warring over (File:Wgh-am.png and File:WBQK-FM.png) are Public domain as they are in typeface, so they don't go by the WP:Non-free content criteria as they are free logos. Powergate92Talk 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be at an impasse as JPS continues to remove historic logos as they are added back. This coupled with the protection of pages involved by an administrator involved in this dispute make it necessary for a fresh point of view to assist in resolving the issue. I've opened Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK.--RadioFan (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RadioFan, I don't feel I am involved in this dispute. I unprotected WFFT-TV because The JPS protected the page while being involved in a conflict on the same page, a blatant conflict of interest, and not necessarily because I disagreed that the images should be removed. --Aqwis (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll remove you as an involved editor but would like to retain mention of the page protection incident if you dont have any objection.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. --Aqwis (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opened case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK[edit]

Hello. The Mediaction Cabal case created by User:RadioFan has been opened by me. Please comments at the case page if you of whether accept mediation or not. Note, unlike arbitration, mediation is non-binding. Regards, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho[edit]

Hello, I see that you are the primary editor for Psycho (1960 film). I am interested in giving it the Featured Article treatment in time for the film's 50th anniversary on June 16, 2010. I have a sandbox here: User:Erik/Psycho (1960 film). It appears that you've given the article a great start. As you can see in my sandbox, there are additional publications about Psycho, and I would like to explore these. What do you think about a referencing system like at American Beauty (film)#References (where the author/year links to the full resource)? Or including a video clip of the shower scene in Psycho like there is a clip at American Beauty (film)#Music & temporality? If you are interested in this project, we should talk more on the film article's talk page. Erik (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm probably the primary editor statistically, but I don't consider myself to be the primary author. I've done a lot of leg work on this over the years (formatting, restoring references, reverting vandalism, etc.). I'll keep an eye on it and help out when I can, but I can't commit to anything just yet. I think I've exhausted my patience with the references on this, so if you would like to change the format, feel free... :) I've always thought that the academic side of the film of film should be considered more... The JPStalk to me 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb[edit]

Thanks for your edit to Coupling. Unfortunately, the IMDb is not considered by Wikipedia to be reliable as it relies on user-submitted content. Also, YouTube cannot usually be used as a reference because of copyright issues. Can you provide a more authoritative reference? The JPStalk to me 12:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. After some digging, besides finding some Greek episodes online, I found [2], [3] and [4]. But are those authoritative enough for you? --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnos' article [5] seems to be a reliable source. --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 14:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. The JPStalk to me 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAR notification[edit]

Letting you know that I've started a good article reassessment for I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That). You can read my concerns at Talk:I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Nikolay Bliznakov[edit]

You just speedy deleted Nikolay Bliznakov per A7. While it is correct that no proof of significance is given, it is not correct that no indication of importance were given:
1. He is an author whose works have been translated to at least three other languages.
2. The Bulgarian Wikipedia includes an article on him.
3. His article was wikilinked by another article.
Certainly this doesn't imply notability, but it indicates a possible notability which would then need be shown in an AfD discussion or in the article itself. This means that the article has been incorrectly speedily deleted.
Please undelete the article and then I'm certainly okay with an AfD.
Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Nikolay Bliznakov[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nikolay Bliznakov. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PanchoS (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Jarrad Paul[edit]

Hello The JPS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jarrad Paul, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The infobox gives enough context, if not a claim of importance or notability. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American television sitcoms[edit]

I have nominated Category:American television sitcoms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:American situation comedies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London's Burning Quotes.[edit]

Hi The JPS

How do I move my London's Burning quotes to the Wikiquote project section? Sorry for the earlier confusion, hope you accept my apology. Many thanks. (Diamondblade2008 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello there! Wikiquote is at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page . The JPStalk to me 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that!!!! I wouldn't mind being a moderator on Wiki myself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondblade2008 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are selected through the WP:RFA process. Candidates need to prove to the community that they are responsible, will not abuse the tools, and have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and philosophies. The JPStalk to me 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:I'd do anything for love - MSO - True and thats a fact.ogg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:I'd do anything for love - MSO - True and thats a fact.ogg. 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 received 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) 04:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jaws The Revenge - Jake attack.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jaws The Revenge - Jake attack.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 received 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) 17:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Bohemian vid.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bohemian vid.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Dream (song)[edit]

Hi, JPS. Can I ask you to undelete Golden Dream (song) so that I can merge its content into The American Adventure? Thanks! Powers T 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:QueenBohemianRhapsodySolo.ogg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:QueenBohemianRhapsodySolo.ogg. 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 not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive 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 your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws[edit]

Just looking over the article, it looks pretty good. I would probably just get a copy edit done from someone you know does good copy editing. A few things caught my eye. First, I would probably call JAWS a franchise. It has video games, Universal rides, multiple films, and an iconic figure (the shark). The fact that it has games and rides that are extensions of the original film, and not simply adaptations of said film, I'd say you are probably more Jaws (franchise) than Jaws (film series). Second, I think you go into too much detail about what the first film has spawned in that first lead paragraph. I think the first paragraph should focus--although a brief mentioning of other items--what the franchise is based on. It's based on a film (yes, the film and not the book, because it if wasn't for the film no one would even know what the book was) from 1975. Give a little more detail about the film series there. For instance, the films are more than just a shark attacking a particular area, but really how one family (The Brodys) are basically haunted (my personal observation of "haunted", so don't quote me) by a string of shark attacks everywhere they go (Amity, SeaWorld Florida, and the Bahamas). Third, the "overview" is part of the films, so it probably shouldn't be separate from them. The way it is set up, it makes it seem like you're going to give an overview of the franchise, and not just a rundown of the plot of each film. Last, the Rotten Tomatoes scores are kind of deceptive. It makes it seem like these were the critic impressions when the films were released, and RT wasn't around back then and most of the reviews on RT are within the past 10 years. Also, I not sure if 19 reviews is a large enough sample size to be representative of most critics. That's just me. Overall, it's a pretty thorough article on the franchise/film series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You could probably get away with an audio clip of the Jaws theme, since I'm sure there's enough critical commentary both in the article and still out there to be found to support a short clip of the theme.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Donae'o[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Donae'o requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 article (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. UtherSRG (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?? This article has nothing to do with me. Are you asking me to delete it? The JPStalk to me 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jekyll (TV series)[edit]

I've conducted a GAN review of Jekyll (TV series), and left some comments. None are insurmountable, and I'm sure you can address them and get this article to GA status in no time. Let me know once they've been addressed. Good luck, and nice work so far! — Hunter Kahn 03:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Moffat's comments on a second series in the Jekyll entry - I can only go by what I saw him type on the (now deleted) Outpost Gallifrey forum where he used to be a member. He specifically stated (more than once I think) that he had written a second series. Sadly there is no 'proof' of this, unless you can perhaps contact him via Hartswood Films to confirm?
Thanks for your reply to my comment. All information of Wikipedia should be verifiable by reliable sources. I'm sure that after reading those policies you will agree that the inclusion on that information currently breaches our standards. Additionally, your suggestion of contacting Moffat would breach WP:OR. The JPStalk to me 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Moffat's proposed sequel, he has mentioned it in another interview besides the one with the Star-Ledger. It might have been in a magazine, which I'm sure is archived on that popular Moffat fansite, which I can't link to here because of the oodles of copyright violations it makes. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the one that ends in .net? If a specific link appeared on this page, and then removed because whoever added it immediately realised it was a copyvio, I can see what we can salvage? The JPStalk to me 18:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, my mistake, it's not on there. I was sure that I'd read it somewhere else reliable besides in the original article. Oh, well. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, found it now. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen WikiProject[edit]

Hello, I've seen you around editing some of Queen's articles. Would you consider becoming a member of Queen WikiProject, a collaborative effort which works to improve the coverage of Queen related articles on Wikipedia? If you're interested, join us!

jaws vs dvorak[edit]

i will find a quote from a source... it will take some time. however this policy if applied literally to all of wikipedia as strictly as you have applied it here, would wipe out virtually ever user-created map, chart, etc in the project. if one says that 'braeburn apples closely resemble pink lady apples' and post a picture of each type of apple, it is debatable whether that is 'original research' to the extent that is intended to be banned by wikipedia. Decora (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a comparison between the two kinds of apple is indeed down to the interpretation of the editor, and, as such, would be a breach of OR. The JPStalk to me 09:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

If content is relevant, its sources intentions are irrelevant. Perhaps time may be better spent improving articles rather than flexing administrative powers? Madelinepalg (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Boon series 1 title.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Boon series 1 title.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_JPS/archive16&oldid=1191115979"