User talk:JasonAQuest

• User talk:JasonAQuest/Archive 1
• User talk:JasonAQuest/Archive 2

Comics Barnstar

		The Comics Star
		For long-term effort to maintain quality and accuracy in comics-related articles. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Joe Johnson (cartoonist)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Joe Johnson (cartoonist), JasonAQuest!

Wikipedia editor Mabalu just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice little LGBTQ article!! Thanks for creating.

To reply, leave a comment on Mabalu's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mabalu (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

then-former in the Gerald Ford article

Then-former and former have two different meanings. Former is more ambiguous. For example, Reagan is now one of California's former governors. Then-former governor of California means that he was not the current governor during the time frame in question as opposed to at the time of writing the article. On the other hand, do we really need to provide a mini-biography when introducing Reagan (or any other article-linked person)? After all, if the reader wants to know more about the tangential subject, they can just click the link. If that's the case, then we can skip the mini-biography and just use Ronald Reagan and let the reader explore more if desired. The advantage here is that it keeps the Gerald Ford article less cluttered. Personally, I favor clear, concise writing that lends itself to quick reading with the option to dive into more detail as needed with a click. However, I'm not married to that preference. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

They were former governors at the time and they're former governors now: their status hasn't changed, so there's no need to qualify it by saying "then". "Then-former" is superfluous and overwrought. I don't have strong feelings about whether we identify them by those former offices or not: it isn't essential, but it gives some context. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please confine comments and questions...

...about your dispute to the dispute itself or the DRN talk page. I have removed your question from my talk page. Please familiarize yourself with DRN guidelines. If you wish to ask questions at the proper venue, we will respond however, to answer your question now, yes. Volunteers that are recused may still make comment and participate in the discussion but they cannot mediate.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies warned me that I should not expect a friendly reception at DRN. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're confusing things a bit. But if all you wish to discuss is your opinion, I don't think "friendly" is a likely outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest as a true friendly suggestion. First, if this is simply an issue with the name of the article, it may be more appropriate to relist as a move and make your case in that discussion. This may not have risen to the level of a content dispute as yet. But most importantly, DRN is not for re-evaluating a community decision or consensus. If it is two against one....is it more likely you are simply not happy with the outcome? If so, is there a better way to move forward?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't just about the name, but also the scope, which is determined by the name: There would be no room for cheeseless hamburgers in an article named "cheeseburger".

Yes, it's possible I'm simply wrong, but I've been on WP long enough to know that it's also possible the other two editors just like fighting people who step onto their turf and say "I think you made a mistake". The fact that they neither objected to "banket" as the article name when the merge was proposed, and that each did a 180º on some key point after I showed up (Mies about whether "banket" is the name of a food, Banner about need to merge) leads me to that suspicion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Observation

Don't challenge zealots or authorities. Don't ask for help from the courts. Don't expect equal treatment. These are lessons for how to get by. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes: Don't try to fix anything. It won't be appreciated. I'm learning. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

And then I get an e-mail from another editor offering private support. Private because he doesn't dare confront an editor who has harassed and hounded him in the past. He essentially confirms what I suspected about this person: a bully too sure of his own correctness. I'm not surprised, because I've seen it before. And WP's systems have failed to stop him. And I'm not surprised by that either. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It occurs to me: An unfortunate side effect of the No Personal Attacks policy is that it removes the negative feedback that humans are used to receiving. So we have people who go thru their uncounted hours on WP without people telling them that they're being jerks here. That's gotta cause problems. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Dutch letter#Banket". The case is now closed: no party objects to resolution If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comments by volunteer: a new move request has been made by original filer as recommended.

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soup to nuts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for lack of evidence?

In the article about Alice Liddell you say that a citation is needed for the line "The evidence for any given interpretation is small." What kind of "citation" do you suggest that someone could even put here? It's impossible to show proof of *lack* of evidence.

Dino10 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe the claim needs to be removed. Read WP:OR; I don't have time to explain Wikipedia to you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "claim" in that sense. Saying that there's no evidence for an accusation is not a claim that should be "backed up". It's the ACCUSATION that needs a citation, not the opposite. Read about what the "burden of proof" is. The only "citation" that's even possible to include on a line like that is a reference to a historian who states that there is no evidence of it. That's how you seem to think it should work, so that's how I will do it. Dino10 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking over it again, I agree that this is the best way to do it. I wouldn't want to take a random editor's word for it. It is easy to find an acceptable citation for it, so I will do that later. It's generally funky to demand proof for lack of evidence, but if a historian's word is enough then I see no problem with this. Dino10 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Real thanks at last…

Hi Jason,

I just ran across The Real Thing at Last, that you created back in 2008. I had no idea this film existed, and found the concept hilarious. So thank you for making my day, after a 9 year delay! :) --Xover (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skybound.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skybound.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC notification

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Little_Mermaid}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Due to your editorial involvement in {{Peter_Pan}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

My recent changes to the "Peter Pan (musical) article ..... which you reverted .....

Jason,

I am Ronnie Alle,m the person who made the modifications to the Wikipedia article about the Peter Man musical.

I recently interviewed Sandy Stewart, who is the widow of Moose Charlap, the composer of several of the "Peter Pan" songs.

She told me yesterday, May 26, that the Wikipedia page containing the credits of the songs was INCORRECT.

Specifically, "Hook's Tango" and "Hook's Tarantella" and "Pirate Song" and "Indians" were NOT written by her ex-husband Moose Charlap and Carolyn Leigh but were in fact written by Jule Styne (music) and Comden and Green (lyrics).

Sandy asked me to modify the Wikipedia article with the correct information and I did.

Initially SSilvers reverted it (canceled my changes) but eventually told me that he believes my information. As of this morning my correct changes were intact.

Please feel free to contact SSilvers about this matter.

I am very disappointed that you chose to revert them (without any explanation). The information is now, once again, INCORRECT.

Yesterday Sandy placed a call to Adolph Green's widow, Phyllis Newman, who CONFIRMED that Styne, Comden and Green did indeed write those four songs and that Charlap and Leigh did NOT.

Also .....

The correct title to the song written by Moose Charlap and Carolyn Leigh is "I Gotta Crow" and NOT "I've Gotta Crow" as listed. If you look at the article you will note that at the bottom it says "Reprise: I Gotta Crow" which is the CORRECT title.

I am requesting that you re-instate my CORRECT changes.

Or, if you are not willing to do so, please let me know what I need to do (beyond what I have done here) to convince you that the changes that I made are in fact CORRECT.

You can email me directly if you'd like: RonnieOldiesGuy@aol.com

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I have spent a lot of time trying to "do the right thing" and I hope that you will realize that when you address the situation.

Ronnie Ronnieallen (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)ronnieallen

Typo correction!

In my previous message to you I wrote:

I am Ronnie Alle,m the person who made the modifications to the Wikipedia article about the Peter Man musical.

Actually what I meant to write was:

I am Ronnie Allen, the person who made the modifications to the Wikipedia article about the Peter Pan musical.

I assume that "Peter Man" was a Freudian slip!

In my edit summary, I asked you to read Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. This isn't about whether I believe you or SSilvers believes you, but about Wikipedia policy. WP editors aren't journalists, historians, or academics. We can't be the judges of what's factual or not; we leave that up to verifiable, independent sources to determine. The key word (which SSilvers used twice in his edit summary) is "published". Because without that, someone could come along next year or five years from now, and change it back to the (incorrect?) information that is published. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply

You wrote:

In my edit summary, I asked you to read Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. This isn't about whether I believe you or SSilvers believes you, but about Wikipedia policy. WP editors aren't journalists, historians, or academics. We can't be the judges of what's factual or not; we leave that up to verifiable, independent sources to determine. The key word (which SSilvers used twice in his edit summary) is "published". Because without that, someone could come along next year or five years from now, and change it back to the (incorrect?) information that is published. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting back to me.

I hardly know what to say. Moose Charlap's widow and Adolph Green's widow both confirming that the information (as it stands once again) is INCORRECT is not enough to warrant a change to the correct information.

To me this whole thing about "published" is ludicrous. So much of what is published is incorrect. And even reliable sources post erroneous information.

Sandy gave me the email address address of an important person that she knows works for ASCAP (the licensor of the songs) who would be able to possibly provide the "slam-dunk" necessary. I may write to him. But I am asking myself, will it even do any good?

This is the question that I am asking myself. What good would it do if the correct information gets posted and then someone reverts it?

Is there anything that I can do beyond what I have already done to get the correct information to be posted and to STICK? Probably not, and that is sad. Even if the ASCAP guy were to get directly involved, I am not sure that he could do any better from me.

You wrote about your site: Much of the "foundation" information on which the site is built is gratefully derived from Wikipedia, and I feed information and materials back to Wikipedia from it, as appropriate. That is all well and good. But what if some of the information that you gratefully derive from Wikipedia is INCORRECT?

I am following SSilvers's advice and will not get into an "edit war" with anyone!

I would like to make two requsts:

(1) Please consider UNDOing your reversion based upon the two source very close to those songs confirming that my corrections were correct.

(2) Either way, please let me know if there is anything that I can do to get the correct information to be up and stay up.

Thanks!

Ronnie Ronnieallen (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)ronnieallen

I'm sympathetic, I really am. But badgering me like this isn't helping anything. I've explained Wikipedia's rules, and I'm sorry if you think they're "ludicrous", but those are the rules it operates under. You can beg me to ignore them and you can beg SSilvers to ignore them, but you can't beg everyone to ignore them, forever. As for what you can do.... I think I've answered that question: get the correct information published by a verifiable, reliable source. I'm not being difficult just to be difficult; I'm being difficult to help you. If you get a reliable source to publish your research, there's a chance of it being kept in Wikipedia, because there will be a citation to back it up. But without it, it's at the mercy of anyone who believes the published sources instead. You're putting the cart before the horse: Wikipedia doesn't correct published sources; published sources correct Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Erotic animation

A tag has been placed on Erotic animation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

duplicate work. there are articles that discuss this subject including Cartoon pornography, erotic comics and few others.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Gay

Hi,

That article is about the word, not the concept of homosexuality. Happiness has everything to do with the word, so I think the category should be included. Adam9007 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're trying to make some kind of statement for Pride Month, and having been openly queer since long before you were born, I think that's sweet. But as the opening sentence, the infobox, and just plain reading the article indicates, it is about the modern sense of the word, not the archaic one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with pride month. The article is about the word in general: all uses (past and present), not just the current predominant meaning. I think it would be wrong not to categorise it under Happiness. Adam9007 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so it isn't misplaced good intentions, just a case of missing the point. Read The First Sentence Of The Article. Then go find something useful to contribute to WP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)