User talk:Jeffq

Transwikying

Please do not transfer material from Wikipedia to Wikiquote or other projects, as you did for Premiere (Farscape episode) (to q:Farscape), without following the destination projects' guidelines (usually found under Help:Transwiki on the project). Simply copying and pasting material violates GFDL, as the editors who actually contributed the material are not given credit for its presence in the Wikimedia projects. I can say that for English Wikiquote only, we have adopted an informal shortcut of citing the source Wikipedia article (with link) in the edit summary, like so:

moved quotes from [[w:Premiere (Farscape episode)]]

You should also notify Wikipedians exactly where it's going by including a similar WQ link in the WP edit summary, like so:

moved quotes to [[q:Farscape]]

Not only does this avoid problems with articles that have different titles, but it makes it much easier for editors to trace the move and follows the GFDL expectation of an link back to the originating Wikimedia project. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me here or on my Wikiquote talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what you suggest in the future, but I'm curious why including the source URL in the target pages edit summary [1] isn't just as good as an internal link? - Peregrine Fisher 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. One problem is that we're not even sure a clickable link back to the article whose edit history provides the required contributor credit is sufficient for GFDL purposes, let alone acceptable as a form of transwiki. Following existing expectations of non-Wikimedia sites using Wikimedia material would suggest a clickable link at the bottom of the using page (i.e., the target article). en:WQ is trying this compromise because it seems better than the total disregard for transwiki policy, specifically Wikiquote's, that many quote-transferring Wikipedians have been showing lately. (Believe me, I'm happy you gave us something useful!) Technically, both the source and the destrination project are supposed to have a record at Transwiki of the move, though editors in many projects routinely ignore this requirement. The wiki link provides a substitute for the expected links in the transwiki log on both projects, and is arguably more useful, as there is no intermediate page to reference between the origin and destination. It is also is less likely to be cut off by the limitations of edit summary length. But it's admittedly an act of desparation in the face of widespread failure to follow policy. I appreciate your willingness to work with us to reduce this problem! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Like Me

Hello, I noticed you placed a copyright tag on Dead Like Me in wikiquote some time ago. I don't have an account on wikiquote but would like to edit it down so the tag can be removed. Am I allowed to do that? Stormin' Foreman 02:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Most of our editing is done by anonymous editors. But why not register your Wikipedia username there, too? One day in the foreseeable future, we'll have single cross-project usernames anyway, so why not get credit for your work? As for the check-copyright tag, our practice has been to accept removal if the user reduces the quoting to our informal guidelines of 3-5 per episode max (for each episode, not on average). See q:Talk:Dead Like Me#Copyvio problem for more information. I encourage you to join the discussion there, whatever your ID may be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Desist" in Editing?

K. Scott Bailey, in the matter of Carter Albrecht's death, you have made it clear at Talk:Edie Brickell & New Bohemians#Carter Albrecht ([2]) that you have a conflict of interest in this matter, and your repeated attempts to treat opinions of people involved in this matter as unquestionable facts violates the Wikipedia principle of neutral point of view. Please desist in this editing. Let's wait for further developments on all fronts to be reported properly before imputing motivations and describing details. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have no authority to request that ANYONE "desist" in editing. There is no "conflict" here, other than the fact that Carter was a friend of a guy I know. This does NOT disqualify me from editing the article.K. Scott Bailey 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the same authority that anyone else at Wikipedia has on this subject — a fellow editor observing an apparent violation of Wikipedia policies. Please read the policies I have cited to see why this is a valid concern. If you continue to attempt to draw conclusions based not on the sources but on your personal experiences, connections, and interpretations (the last also being a violation of Wikipedia:No original research), you risk someone asking for a request for comment on your editing. Please review the policies first and reconsider my request above. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you threaten me with an RfC? Good show. I did no OR, rather I found articles in the paper that at least mentioned what kind of man Carter was, and what an anomaly his behavior that evening was. Why do you have such a problem with this? And please refrain from using WP policy as a club to threaten me when I challenge your authority to order me to "desist" from editing an article where I have done nothing wrong.K. Scott Bailey 21:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dean and Trixie

Thanks for disputing the tagging on Image:Trixie_and_Dean_Koontz.jpg. I agree with your argument and hope it can stay.CindyBo^talk 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion

Hi JeffQ, thanks for trying to help with the fair-use image betacommand thing. My patience with this new policy has expired. I have downloaded about 100 film images (DVD and VHS covers), all of them from imdb or amg. If the friendly police wants to strip Wikipedia from such images, they can do so. I will not lift a finger to fill up red tape. It's the old story of the one group doing and the other undoing. Take a look at Image:Gonewiththewind1.jpg. Whoever uploaded it gave a lot less info than I have in my uploads. Will it go too? I will sit back and enjoy to see all such efforts gone with the wind. Thanks again for trying to help. Hoverfish Talk 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

… I'm more interested in your edit summary, "ce, no idea". What does this mean? I ask because I'm am a fanatic about meaningful edit summaries. I often research article and page histories for anti-vandalism work, to fix messed-up pages, and many other reasons, so I find clear edit summaries incredibly important. Since I cannot connect your terse words with your action, I'd like to know what you meant, in case I'm missing some arcane Wikipedia shorthand (much of which I'm afraid I don't know, despite my experience here). Thank you for any insight you can provide. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jeffq. "ce" means "copyedit". It is a shorthand I learned from a member of WikiProject Biography. "No idea" is pretty straightforward. Hope this helps. ce is very useful when making quick edits, along the lines of "rm", "mv" and "rvv". Does this answer your question? By the way apologies I accidently posted this to your user page (gone now I hope). -Susanlesch 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A-ha! That is WP shorthand I hadn't known (or at least noticed before). I'm still not clear on what "no idea" means — "no idea" why an editor used that punctuation; editor has "no idea" of correct grammar here; "no idea" why one changed the text; or something else I can't imagine — and the range of possibilities not only makes the purpose unclear but also invites misinterpretation of the tone or intent. Frankly, I'd prefer to see something specific like "copyedit per [fill in policy]" or "repl erroneous comma w/ semi-colon", but like I said, I'm fanatical about meaningful summaries. They really do save a lot of sifting through versions! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK deal. I will edit Michael Bloomberg again. I don't know a thing about the use of the word "however" but it appeared to me to be ungrammatical because of some random thing I remembered from Fowler's (which I don't have time to research today so I really do appreciate your correction). -Susanlesch 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MST3K to Mystery Science Hour

First, let me say that I did indeed see your notice of real-world matters reducing your Wiki activity. I noticed on the Talk page for Mystery Science Theater 3000 that you are responsible for the section on the "Mystery Science Hour" version. I have to ask where your claimed run of these episodes from "November 1993 to July 1994" occurred. Your text (I haven't checked to see if someone has changed your original version, come to think of it) correctly admits that broadcast syndication was in the 1995-96 season, and I can assure you from first hand observation that then only 11 shows halved into 22 hour-long segments were seen. It makes no sense to me that Comedy Central would run these re-edits (I had no access to that channel until 2005, too late for MST3K, obviously) as they were home for the originals. So where? And if 60-from-30 were prepared, why were only 22-from-11 released to broadcast syndication? Ted Watson (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Drats, this must have been before I started getting serious about proper sourcing. Apparently, I got this from TV.com's page on MST3K Hour. Here's a full citation for the episode guide, which includes first-aired dates for all 60 hour-long episodes, from 29 November 1993 to 18 July 1994:

• ""The Mystery Science Theater Hour: Episode Guide"". TV.com. Retrieved 2007-11-18.

A simple list of titles and dates can be found from their parallel episode list:

• ""The Mystery Science Theater Hour: Episode List"". TV.com. Retrieved 2007-11-18.

Some other useful sources for MST3K60m are:

• ""Syndication"". The Satellite News. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
• Nelson, Michael J. (1996). "The Mystery Science Theater Hour". The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide. Bantam Books. pp. pp. 111-113. 0-553-37783-3. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• ""Alternate versions for Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988)"". Internet Movie Database. Retrieved 2007-11-18.

I don't know why IMDb and TV.com disagree. ACEG talks only of the making, not the airing, of the shows. I myself only saw a few episodes of these, not even the 11/22 that others mention. But although IMDb says both "1995-1996" and 22 episodes, Satellite News's "Syndication" suggests the earlier dates are accurate. (It doesn't include airdates, but it does agree with ACEG that the shows were made in 1993 [Summer '93, according to ACEG] under pressure from Comedy Central, which hardly would have sat on them for 2 years if so, and it says the shows were cancelled by 1995. That year would make sense if they ran the first-airings through July 1994, with re-runs thereafter.)

We could use some better sources on this. Our personal recollections are irrelevant ("verifiability, not truth"), as are deductions like mine ("no original research"). TV.com is much more detailed and specific than the quick blurb in IMDb, but both have been known to err. Frankly, after fixing so much junk in IMDb, I'm inclined to trust an exhaustive, dated episode list from TV.com more than a simple paragraph from IMDb, especially since the errors I've seen thus far in the former are from the trivial stuff (like quotes and trivia), not the basic data.

I recommend you edit this discussion to copy the templated references if you'd like to paste any of them into ref tags for relevant articles. Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A confession--the IMDb paragraph is my work; it had said otherwise before me. But I absolutely guarantee that "11 cut from 22" aired in effective first run syndication during the 1995-96 season. I moved to Dallas, TX, in April of the year, and saw them on WFAA-TV, channel 8, the ABC affiliate there, beginning that fall and ending the next fall; I watched every single one of them, several twice. By definition, it could not have happened earlier. I can tell you exactly which movies were shown, if not quite in their order (the first was Pod People, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians was around Thanksgiving--segments already run were seen throughout December). They were also shown on a station in the Waco/Temple, TX, market then--caught one while visiting relatives, and it proved to be the same one shown in Dallas that very weekend--two-parters, remember; I caught half of one out of Waco, its other half in Dallas. TV Guide magazine and newspaper back issues will confirm the dates, though probably not identify specific episodes. Neither the years nor the quantity of this release is open to debate, as far as I'm concerned. It is just a matter of determining if those 22 and 38 others previously aired on some venue that I had no access to and whose schedules did not routinely come my way. That's it. Ted Watson (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is the reason why Wikipedia:Verifiability boldly states in its very first sentence that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in the original). I can tell you for sure that I saw only a few episodes on A&E, so it's clear to me that Comedy Central was not the network that aired MST3K60m. Except that the truth is probably that it did indeed air originally on CC as TV.com describes, but was later syndicated to other cable channels (like A&E) and local stations (like WFAA-TV). After all, to quote "Syndication" above:

Both CC and BBI had good reasons for wanting to create The Hour. CC programmers claimed it was easier to find slots in its schedule for a one-hour show. And it gave BBI's syndicator an alternative product to sell to stations who did not want the two-hour series. (emphasis mine)

It seems rather likely that your local station did not pay to air the full run of episodes. Anyone watching syndicated runs of any TV series should know that it is rather unusual for a station to make the effort to air even immensely popular shows like M*A*S*H or Friends in their entire sequential runs. (I don't know this for sure, but I believe typical pricing schemes for syndicated episodes tend to favor limited sets of episodes with options to show them multiple times, making single, ordered runs rather more expensive than the usual "whatever we can get" effort.)

Anyway, the details of our experiences are not important here. Neither you nor I are considered a reliable source. In fact, if Mike Nelson or Kevin Murphy (not Joel Hodgson, as he was already gone by then) were to call Jimbo Wales and say "this is the way it was", it wouldn't make a bit of difference. We must provide published sources for our claims, however obvious they may seem to us, especially if they contradict other published sources. The fact that you edited IMDb (as have I in the past) merely calls into question the reliability of the source. It's IMDb's failures to catch problems in user submissions that make it somewhat suspect. As with TV.com, IMDb is typically more accurate with basic data like its formal airing schedules (i.e., the ones listed under "episode list" for TV shows), but even those have considerable problems for many shows. (Hardly a week goes by that I don't see some basic data like regular cast appearances or air dates missing from IMDb. Perhaps the most relevant example of this is its failure to list the correct episode numbers for MST3K — they call them seasons 1-11 instead of 0-10 or K-10. And it doesn't appear to be a problem with their software; they list the first episode of The Prisoner as "Episode 0".)

In short, we need solid, published sources for any information in Wikipedia that is not inherently obvious to any reader. Although this is a perpetual problem with many WP articles, it remains the goal for each, and any editor may challenge and ultimately remove claims that are not backed up by proper sources. (Of course, they should say why they're doing it in their edit summaries, because the ultimate goal is accuracy through cooperative editing.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: Any one watching syndicated runs of any TV series should know that it is rather unusual for any station to make the effort to air even immensely popular shows like "M*A*S*H" or "Friends" in their entire sequential runs.[emphasis yours] Bull. Limited packages are made available, and sometimes isolated, indivdual episodes are held back, but that is what's unusual. I've never encountered any outlet that didn't have the entire run---save the special, 2 & a half hour finale--of MASH. I know that my personal memory is not allowed as a source under Wikipedia rules for article editing, but what I want to do is get the facts as straight as possible between me and you as a starting point toward fixing the article. Thus, almost everything in the above is irrelevant. There was no talk in TV Guide magazine, newspaper entertainment sections (these include schedules for various channels, which I examined carefully, even for those I didn't have access to), or such magazines as Starlog and Film Fax, about the hour versions until the occasion of the 1995-96 run. None of these indicated any run on A&E (just when did you see a few there?). (Syndication, BTW, is not merely reruns separate from the original run, but sales on a market-by-market basis to broadcast outlets.) I saw these first-hand, as I said, from more than one market during that season. The credibility of the book on MST3K, attributed to much of the show's creative talent, is called into question by "their" statement that there were two cable channels, The Comedy Channel and Ha!, and that while the one they were on evolved into Comedy Central the other failed. The reality, as indicated in Wiki's article on Comedy Central and by many other outside sources is that they were both foundering and merged. As many of the book's attributed authors were there at the time, their not knowing better is not credible, and strongly suggests that the book was "ghosted" and not properly checked for accuracy, leaving its account of the "Hour" untrustworthy. There is absolutely no question of the fact--regardless of Wiki's guidelines for submission--that 22 one-hour shows cut from 11 movies ran in what was effectively first-run syndication (as I said before and you so blatantly ignored, I saw it in another market one week, and the two-part nature of the series proved that it was the same episode that aired the same weekend in Dallas/Ft. Worth) during the 1995-1996 season ("verifiable" from TVG and newspaper back issues, which I also said--the general run during that time frame, I mean, not the specifically same episode in two different cities more-or-less simultaneously), not before or since. If 60-from-30 (or any numbers) ran earlier, it was on local or regional broadcast TV (somewhere), or on a very secondary cable channel, presumably on a trial basis, which garnered absolutely no national media coverage, and then the general, national release did so poorly ratings-wise that going beyond the one 22-episode season was deemed financially unfeasible by the business executives. This scenario, however, leaves coverage in after-the-fact references indefensibly incomplete, but I can come up with nothing else that deals with all the real-world facts and allows some justification to those sources. I repeat, it is my intention for you and I to figure out the truth of the matter to get the article as accurate as possible, rather than leave it containing highly dubious statements due to somewhat arbitrary regulations (the express acknowledgement in your quote therefrom that truth is not all that important may justify Wiki's terrible reputation among the general populace). If you are going to insist on dismissing my statements out of hand on the grounds that I don't have those TVG and/or newspaper back issues handy to cite specific listings, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Ted Watson (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I just pulled the name out of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. Please amend as you see fit, I figured someone somewhere would have a better target and idea on it. I openly want people to be bold on this to get to a consensus. Hiding T 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Another way to go is List of major characters in Firefly, of course. Hiding T 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote block

Hi, I just found out I was blocked from Wikiquote, although I don't understand why. Do you think you could explain it to me? I would have asked you there, but I couldn't edit your talk page. Shmooshkums (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There must be some confusion here. q:User:Shmooshkums is not blocked on English Wikiquote. Please explain why you believe you are blocked there, or if you are talking about something else. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to be fixed now. Thank you anyways. Shmooshkums (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Date wiki-linking

Hi Jeffq: I'm working with the main article editors to bring the article up to FA standards; they've asked me to help out with copy-editing. The automated review generated by the bot which examines peer review articles for MOS problems specifically recommended removing those links. If that isn't correct, then someone needs to bring that to the bot author's attention—we're only doing what we've been asked to do! :) MeegsC | Talk 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the review that recommends we remove them. MeegsC | Talk 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The problem is that you're misinterpreting what the bot is recommending. The policy per MOS:DATE is that solitary days of the week (e.g., Saturday), solitary months (e.g., January), solitary years (1970), and solitary month-year combinations (January 1970) should not be linked unless they provided needed context. (Same thing with decades and centuries, I guess; I never bother to link or unlink them, so I don't recall the exact policy.) But month-date (January 3) and full-date (3 January 1970) should be linked, not for hyperlink purposes but really to properly format them per user preferences. Please read the full MOS:DATE policy to see the detailed explanation of the difference.

A quick examination of the version of the article before the bot's recommendation was posted indicates at least one linked solitary year (1972, in the "The Carpenters (1969-1983)" paragraph that starts with '"Top of the World" was the group's…'). I imagine that was enough to trigger the recommendation.

I would agree that the bot's message could be clearer, but I'd bet these bot writers just assume that anyone working on these recommendations knows all the subtle distinctions, which IMHO is a bad assumption. (I doubt there's a single human being who can say they know the state of the entire WP:MOS, which means the more comprehensive the bot is in its recommendations, the more important it is that it's precise about those recommendations.) Meanwhile, this is how we learn about these subtleties — having fellow editors post annoying messages about them. (Believe me, I know. ☺) Please forgive the nudgery. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic' In light of this is it appropriate for every mention of a date in an article to be wikilinked ? I'm looking at your edit of 'Torchwood' and can't see how the links add to the understanding of the article (forgive me if I'm just being thick). Also by linkking to each day and year seperateley doesn't that break the date auto-formatting ? Trying to understand rather than just revert johnmark† 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkh (talk • contribs)

Please read MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking; it describes the policy and basic rationale. Unfortunately, it doesn't give the history for it (not practical in a policy page). The reason for using the linking syntax for full dates is not to provide links to the separate articles, although this is obviously a side effect (and one that many Wikipedians wish wasn't the case). The reason is that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia whose readers use many different date formats. Somewhere in its history (I don't recall when), as the community made an effort to get away from its early American style biases, the developers made it possible for the rendering engine to display dates in one of several common styles by using the link syntax.

The autoformatting works in two different ways. Dates like "2002-04-03" need only a single link. But dates in which the months are spelled out require separate month-date and year links, which signals the rendering engine to combine these consecutive links (with or without an intervening comma) into a fully formatted three-part date. Some people use the "YYYY-MM-DD" notation for just this reason. But I'm sure you'll find in MOS:DATE (and probably in WP:MOS as well) that spelled-out months are highly desirable in article prose, both for easier editing and avoidance of error and confusion. (There's nothing "obvious" about what "04-03" means globally, and Wikipedia aims to be editable by anyone, not just technologists and bureaucrats who know standards.) The result is that most of the time, one must use the odd two-link system.

In summary, date linking really doesn't add anything significant to the context of the article. The tiny utility of such links, while inadequate to justify linking all date text, is (grudgingly) accepted in the specific situations set in "Autoformatting and linking" because it globalizes the encyclopedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OUTCOMES

Discussing on the talk page hasn't done anything. It's still unsourced and people still think that "Keep per OUTCOMES" is acceptable in AFD's (and some admins are stupid enough to count that). Maybe I will add a notice at the top of the page that it is just an essay and should NOT be used in deletion debates. TJ Spyke 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JoelRobinson.SleepyEyed.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JoelRobinson.SleepyEyed.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) 04:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This image was recently replaced by another image that (A) was just uploaded; (B) does not have a {{Non-free use rationale}} tag as recommended by WP:NFURG; and (C) does not provide the illustration of Robinson's trademark "sleepy-eyed" look as mentioned in the caption (that wasn't updated) and described in the article. I have therefore restored my image. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

This is a bit beyond the policy proposal, so I hope you do not mind my asking here. You have sparked my curiosity. What do the entries in my logs and user rights changes have to do with anything there? That is to ask, how did you come to that conclusion? :) Best, Mercury at 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I mind? I brought it up in the discussion. I was checking your user rights log to see if you had been a checkuser (forgetting that the CU flag doesn't seem to appear there) when I saw that you seemed to have some problems with another "Mercury", along with a number of strange actions taken on your account (a 5-second block, a sysopping after a voluntary resignation, blocking yourself for vandalism, an OTRS deletion, etc.). I still don't understand what all that is about, but it had made me suspect that you've been the target of vandals. I thought it might explain why you seem so anxious to get this draft policy approved in such a hurry, even though almost none of the people to be charged to execute it had commented. (I haven't been back yet to see the current state.) I was trying to express my understanding toward someone I thought might have a personal need for the policy, but in retrospect my comment sounds more like some vague insinuation. For that, I apologize. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looney Tunes: Back in Action

I'm currently trying to cleanup this article and add citations, but I think the cultural references list may be a little too long, if not, at the very least, vastly uncited. I realize that you're the one who really expanded this article back in its early stub days, so I thought that you might be able to provide some assistance concerning this matter. Best wishes! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I created that list (actually, the article itself) back when I was young and foolish, and had not realized the critical need for reliable sourcing of article material. It's occasionally eaten at me that I should hit the libraries and drum up sources for this data. I'm sure some of this has been independently documented. But I've currently cut way back on my Wikipedia work, and do not want to stand in the way of conscientious efforts to fix such problems. I recommend you remove everything you or someone else can't readily find a citation for, and will support you on the talk page if anyone complains. (After all, we can always add it back — if desirable — if we find sources later.)

I now believe that unsourced cultural references are a plague, allowing us Wikipedians to inject our own personal opinions, comparisons, and other original research into articles that often overwhelm the sourced, verifiable material that we strive for here. I'm rather embarrassed that I'd done such a lopsided job in creating this article. Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to fix this mess. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind, I'll do my best to cite some of this information, and remove what else looks personal opinion and original research. Thanks for answering my posting and giving me your support. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found mention of much, if not all, of these cultural references in the many reviews of the film that I've read at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic; as time goes by, I'll do a massive rewrite of both the "Reception" section and the "Cultural references" section. I congratulate you for being able to catalogue all of this information, as it must have been a truly daunting task. I must admit, when I first saw the film about a year after its release—I bought the DVD—I can recall thinking, from the first few minutes till the end of the film, "Hey, I remember that!", but then losing it almost immediately when I tried to remember the next one that popped up just seconds later. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing more than combining a mind preoccupied with cultural riffing (à la Mystery Science Theater 3000), a DVD player with pause and slow-motion controls, and too much free time. You're doing the real work of getting reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While certain scenes like that Psycho "shower scene" spoof and the opening Rabbit Fire-like sequence are rather obvious, other riffs like the momentary reprisal of the Gremlins theme are not so obvious. And every critic has rightly praised the Louvre scene as a stylistically zany and original endeavor. In any case, the citations are coming together. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While I believe I added most of what's there, to be fair, someone else contributed the Gremlins reference. But I appreciate the compliment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry—a lot of critics have admitted that they let a lot of the riffs slip by them, and I certainly didn't catch all of 'em. This film really makes you have to keep your eye out for them, although others have stated that it's all just a big blur. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote user Netsnipe

I am an admin on English Wikiquote, where there is a username Netsnipe whose user and user talk pages soft-redirect to the equivalent pages here. Could you let me know (A) if you are indeed the same person who registered this Wikiquote username; and (B) if you know why anon user 71.254.132.141 posted to your WQ talk page (invisibly, since it's a redirected page) about "Svogman" and referencing his own Wikipedia talk page? I am looking into some possible vandalism connections involving this IP address. You can reply to me either here or on Wikiquote. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffq (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is my Wikiquote username. Comparing Special:Contributions/Svramon and Special:Contributions/71.254.132.141, it was quite apparent to me at the time that they were the same vandal and since I protected his talk page to prevent further unblock trolling, he/she probably decided to try and reach me via my other Wikimedia project user talk page. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:B5.Clark.Ceremony.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B5.Clark.Ceremony.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) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This image's non-free-use rationale was disupted on the basis of violating WP:NFCC#10c, specifically:

Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

• (a) Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
• (b) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
• (c) The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

I believe I have established, with the addition of a detailed {{Non-free use rationale}} template, that:

• (a) This image's source and original copyright holders have been adequately identified.
• (b) The required copyright tag is in place (and in fact was already in place when the dispute tag was added).
• (c) The name of and link to the article using this image has now been correctly identified, and the rationale for that use has been supplied within the detailed NFUR template. (The image had originally been used for another article, but had long ago been added as a key image for Morgan Clark, and now serves as the latter article's primary image.)

Therefore, per the instructions given in the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template, I have now removed the dispute tag. If any other questions or issues remain concerning this image, I will be happy to address them. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Chrono-sorted edit combined edit history tool

I was just reading your page User talk:Bulldog123/sandbox for its data on last year's Newport/Taxwoman/Poetlister situation, and I wanted to know what tool you used to generate this. I've had to do this manually for some sockpuppet checks in the past, and I'd like to try it out, as well as understand its capabilities and limitations. Thank you for any help you can provide. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry for the delay, I haven't been on wikipedia for a long time. I made a C++ program to do it. You simply copy and paste the contributions by hand into a file and it sorts it. Not anything very professional. I can probably get it to you but the server that I currently stored it on is down for a few days. Tell me if you're still interested. Bulldog123 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to get a copy when you get a chance to pull it. No rush. Thanks! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference style

Jeff, can you give me a hint on reference styles you used in editing this article? I've never seen referencing the way you do it. --Peter Eisenburger (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It comes from Wikipedia:Footnotes, which is the recommended standard now for reference citations. I'm on my way out the door, but if have any questions after reading that, I'd be happy to answer them when I get back. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that page but the way you cite web sources is not there. It is on Template:Cite_web as I found out. As most the times on Wikipedia the guidelines are distributed (and not consistent) over several pages. - Regarding your edits the vertical format, which I didn't know before, is more clear and easier to edit though it makes the page very long. However, I think you made some redundant parameters like in reference (4).--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about not being more specific; some of the supporting material for the footnoting guidelines are indeed found in other pages which I hope are still included in links in that main page. (There are quite a few citation templates for use with different media. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, especially the section on "Citations of generic sources", for details.) I didn't come up with the vertical alignment, but I try to push it because the in-line format makes the prose hard to distinguish from the citations. That practically guarantees syntax errors, not so much from the creating editors as the others who have to work around all that program-code-like material. (So many editors seem to forget that not everyone is as fluent in technical stuff as they are, and are just trying to add some useful text to articles.)

I don't believe there are any duplicate parameters in the "Clement Mok: Career" citation. Perhaps you're referring to the "work" and "publisher" being very similiar? The distinction between "work" and "publisher" can be problematic, and the varieties of modern media can add to the confusion. "Work" should show the title of the publication that incorporates the specific reference, while "publisher" should indicate what organization is behind the publication of that work. Sometimes it's hard to fit the important data into these two elements.

For instance, I still am not sure how best to represent Associated Press articles whose only web-accessible publication is through another publishing entity, like a newspaper's website. Associated Press and the newspaper are joint publishers in this case, and it would be more appropriate (but also more confusing) to list them both under "publisher"; e.g., work=The Washington Post, publisher=Associated Press (via The Washington Post Company), which seems redundant but isn't, although it's probably unnecessarily pedantic. (In that case, I'd usually omit The Washington Post Company as being obvious from "work", but include AP because they should get some credit (besides their staff writer) for originating the cited piece.)

Anyway, because of this and other oddities, many people just throw whatever they know into either the "work" or the "publisher" parameter. However, it's important to make the distinction where possible, especially when either parameter is not a well-known entity. In the case of the Mok website, I saw no clear author credit for the material on that site, and we shouldn't assume that just because it's named after him that he is the author. (Most corporate executives don't take the time to write their own press materials.) But perhaps it's reaching to claim that Mok is the publisher, so I wouldn't object to have that credit removed. The website is the work, which may also seem redundant because the URL includes the name. But remember that these elements are supposed to be read by readers examining the citations, and URLs are deliberately not displayed because they're there not to be read but to be clicked on. It's more useful, of course, if the website has a non-URL-like name, like The Guardian Online. But in this infancy of web publishing, I've found that many professional publishers don't think to take the time for important elements like titles and dates for their websites that they would fire people for failing to do with their printed materials. (The absence of dates on much web material from professional publishing entities is one of my pet peeves.)

Thanks for taking the time for going over all of this. I'm glad to see another person concerned about robust sourcing of Wikipedia material! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Jeff, thank you for that very extensive answer. I agree to most of your explanations wholeheartedly. And BTW it's the very same ends I have to fight for in my classes - referencing URL sources right. And I always say: that's the way Wikipedia does it also. Students have high respect for Wikipedia. Maybe me myself didn't cite all sources the way it should be in the NetObjects article. It was one of my first.

But just one question and one remark. I tend to check how things are set in AfD and not read too much of the scattered guidelines. I rarely saw vertical layout of references there. Do you think they will be the new standard? As I said before source code gets very long though the code is much better laid out this way.

With web sites like Clement Mok's I really see no use in quoting the same name three times - as author, publisher and work.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

DC

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, what is this about? I realize it's probably old news, but was just wondering. You can reply here, I'll revisit to see if anyone replied. Thanks... 2legit2quit2 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. No need to reply, disregard. I thought it was about something else. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

SD-card 4GB

Read the SD-card specification if you don't belive me. It's quite simple: 1) 2^32 bit byte addressing => 4GB 2) Card use 4096 buffer size (according to spec) Then it does work.

Spring in the Air!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm too tired right now. Maybe after some sleep, I'll do a little hop. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hollensbury Spite House photo request

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. Please photograph the Hollensbury Spite House at 523 Queen St, Alexandria, VA 22314 for spite house. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I haven't had a request for ages. I have plans to head out that way on April 1 or 2 already, but if you would like it sooner, I should be able to go next Tuesday or Wednesday. (It's going to be a bit soggy and cloudy for the next few days, so it'd be best to wait until then.) Let me know how quickly you'd like it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking forward to it. Have you seen the photos of the house on the Internet? GregManninLB (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen those. It looks like there are four main contributors:

• MarieMcC of Alexandria Daily Photo (copyrighted under a Creative Commons license that doesn't allow commercial or derivative works, so it's not usable for us)
• John Kelly, Washington Post (no specific licensing, but surely requiring fee-based licensing)
• Michael Temchine, commissioned by New York Times, actual interview & inside photo shoot (surely requiring fee-based licensing)
• "Stella" of Paint Floats blog on Blogspot (implicit copyright and no licensing terms)

I still plan to try for some outside shots tomorrow morning, which currently looks like good weather. If it makes sense for the article (which I haven't read recently), I might be able to see if the residents/owners wouldn't mind a few inside and backyard shots like from the NYT article for our article. (But that would have to come later, of course, not something I could set up immediately.) Let me know. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Reaver (Firefly).percent.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Reaver (Firefly).percent.ogg. 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) 12:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clay and Lar's Flesh Barn.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Clay and Lar's Flesh Barn.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. Polly (Parrot) 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a fully completed {{Non-free use rationale}} form for both articles this image is used in, and removed the {{di-no fair use rationale}}}} template per its instructions. Thank you for notifying me about the problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Book's Ident Card

You were involved with the recent edits on this (ident or identification) and because people keep changing it back and forth, I started a discussion on the talk page so that will hopefully stop. Zybthranger (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Jeffq, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to help you revert vandalism more easily? Acalamari 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I would appreciate that. I try to be very careful about distinguishing between "vandalism" and anything that appears to be at least arguably good-faith, so I would plan to use it much as I do as a Wikiquote admin — sparingly and only for edits that are obviously malicious or pranks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) Good luck. Acalamari 21:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4

Please note that there is a DC Meetup planned for May 17th at 5:00 p.m., though a place has not yet been set. You're receiving this notice because you posted to the page for the prior meetup - Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 - but haven't indicated whether or not you're interested in attending this one. (Apologies if in fact you have.) BetacommandBot (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:927 / User 927

Do you think the soft redirect might be a better idea? If someone made the mistake once it's possible it could happen again. xenocidic (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The problem is that it's not like a regular misspelled-subject redirect. This is a redirection from a page reserved for a user. It's complicated by the fact (that I learned only after my work) that Wikipedia user "927" was the person who created the article, and who only edited for a couple of weeks before disappearing. We have no way to know whether this person was the "User 927" spoken of, or (much more likely in my opinion) just a new Wikipedian who was trying to write an article on the subject, didn't understand the basics of MediaWiki (suggested by the partial, erratic use of wiki markup) and the Wikimedia project structure, and accidentally created a user page where an article was intended.

Having a user page point to an article page causes all kinds of peculiarities with the MediaWiki software. For instance, one can go to User:927 and check "User contributions" in an attempt to see what the infamous "User 927" has contributed to Wikipedia, and the fact that the actual Wikipedia user "927" wrote this original article would lend support to this idea. But it's almost certainly wrong and therefore very misleading.

After trying to convey this point in writing and finding these distinctions between subject and editor difficult to make clear, I think my original idea is reinforced. If we don't delete the redirect, we'll just encourage people to make an unsubstantiated leap of illogic. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird, this morning when I checked it out I thought there was no user named 927. too early in the morning I guess =). xenocidic (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of User 927

A tag has been placed on User 927 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), 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 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. 72.75.123.82 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not invested in this article; my involvement started out only as a drive-by edit. I've registered my basic "keep" opinion in the AfD, but I'm satisfied to go with whatever the community decides. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving images to commons

Not sure if you still care, but you finally got a reply: Wikipedia_talk:Transwiki_log#Transwiki_for_Commons. Vicarious (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's never too late for this kind of information on a never-ending project. Thanks! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the next DC Meetup

Greetings! You are receiving this message because you said you wanted to be reminded about future DC meetups on Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_4. We are planning the next DC meetup in late August/early September at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_5, and would love to have your input. Staeiou (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert people based on the Manual of Style

The Manual of Style is not the consensus of Wikipedians. Most of it is what has managed to get revert warred in by a handful of editors, most of them with a project to reform the English language, which few of them are qualified to do. This is particularly true of logical punctuation, which is largely supported by Commonwealth editors who don't know any better, and by one American editor who has admitted that he is paying off his grievances with his liberal arts professors who marked him down for using it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a novel interpretation of WP:MOS. Right up front, it says:

Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.

What I said to Felicity4711 after reverting her changes to Satellite of Love (Mystery Science Theater 3000) was a carefully considered description of the quotation marks guidelines that long ago reached a consensus that has not changed in many years, despite nearly continuous efforts to do so. When I participated in style policy discussions a few years ago, I spent six months researching both the archived discussions back to the beginnings of Wikipedia and a dozen or so of the most prominent U.S. and British professional style guides. (I admit I had little success getting my hands on Canadian, Australian, or Indian English guides.) When I revert style changes as I did, I typically check the current WP:MOS and/or related pages to see what if anything has changed. If it's the same as the consensus I recall, I stand by my effort, as I do here.

I assume you came here because of the current Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Quotation marks discussion, which doesn't say anything (right or wrong) that hasn't been said a hundred times before. You've got twice my edit count for almost as long a time as I've been here, so I don't really understand your perception that these style arguments are merely bickering coming from "Commonwealth editors who don't know any better, and by one American editor who has admitted that he is paying off his grievances with his liberal arts professors who marked him down for using it". Whoever the current people at WPt:MOS who argue against long-standing guidelines may be, the true community support for these hard-won compromises goes back many years and is available for anyone willing to do the research. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the handful of editors making arguments at any given time represent the masses of historical or current-but-silent editors watching the proceedings. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been nearly continuous efforts to change it because it is not the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, nor ever has been. If there has been one objector every two months for the last five years (and that estimate is certainly low) then the discontents outnumber the contents; which is more than enough to dispell the claims of consensus. (Silence does not imply consent here, as usual on Wikipedia; it implies not knowing the point is at issue, or not caring.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be dismissing the thousands of people who aren't foolish enough to get involved in such acrimonious debates. ☺ Not every person has, or is willing to commit, the time to argue about style issues. But these pages are much more widely read than the copious talk-page material would suggest. Whether these silent observers are deliriously happy or just grudgingly accepting of the status quo, they vastly outnumber the people participating in the discussions. And there is considerably more than one different person every 2 months who tries to explain to the objectors that their arguments have been gone over a hundred times before, that they should review the reams of material that cover all the good reasons for change and for stasis, and that they should learn why some of these basic compromises have been made. Only then can they be expected to be taken seriously, and only as yet one more person to tally why they believe style issue X that they dutifully learned in their parochial education (as all English-speaking education necessarily must be) should take precedence in a global encyclopedia that, like many other prominent educational publications, has a right to have its own style guidelines. You're welcome to keep hammering at me on this, but I've got other things I'd rather be doing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I merely don't assume, like the language-reformers, that the silent masses are all on any side. I have observed these debates for some time now; and the advocacy of logical punctuation only is confined to perhaps a dozen editors, themselves of dubious competence.

The expectation that any editor should familiarize themselves with the hundred pages of WT:MOS archives before questioning something it says is obviously unreasonable. (That it does not give reasons for its edicts is another problem, but that will not be fixed any time soon either.) For the rest, I can only refer you to David Gerard's essay on practical process: amending MOS is one of the those broken processes. It ought to be deleted and restarted from scratch at about a tenth of its present scale; until then it should be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I amy have exaggerated my feelings in the last bit; but, having said everything I can and perahps more, I am perfectly willing to let this lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Abomination

you are one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.146.186 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Minä en usko että minä olen inhottavuus, mutta te olette varmasti oikeutettu teidän omaan mielipiteeseenne. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

DCEETA

Hi Jeffq. Can you take some photos (signs, buildings, etc.) for User:Dogue/DCEETA (draft)? Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Google Maps' satellite imagery suggests there's only one useful line-of-sight to the main building that isn't on Fort Belvoir property, and that doesn't seem likely to show very much, especially not a sign. More importantly, these folks don't sound like they want a photographer taking snaps of their facility, even from the road. It may seem silly, given that they don't seem to have restricted (or even blurred much) the satellite images available through Google, which are probably more revealing. But defense agencies are professionally paranoid. I think I'd at least want to call them first. And these days, it's generally not a good idea to make national-security organizations curious about you, however innocent your activities. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The draft article mentioned some signage, I assumed that was on public property. -- Suntag ☼ 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

well the sign is visible from Telegraph road at the entrance, there are no 'no photographs' signs, it is on the Ft Belvoir base, but yeah they are paranoid, might get you detained if they caught up with you, there are video poles about so they could get your licence plate . Dogue (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!

I'm still in the middle of my marathon of rewriting Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. I aim to have it done by New Year's. I also aim to submit it for WP:FA when I'm done. Any other inputs than MOS stuff? Foofighter20x (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just doing quicky, "drive-by" edits right now; I'm not very available for significant editing or advice. But one thing I noticed that I was too much in a hurry to fix is that many dates in the article still use link-based formatting, like [[March 9]], [[1937]] or [[February 6]]. This used to be part of the MOS:DATE standard, but has been repealed in favor of recommending, in order:

• Same formatting style throughout the article.
• No links around dates in prose.
• Country-based style for country-specific articles.

Since this is about a U.S. bill, all dates in the prose should have their links removed and made to conform to the U.S. standard of "January 1, 2000" (or "January 1" for partial dates). I haven't reviewed the relevant MOS pages on dates within footnoted citations, but you probably don't need to tweak those. (Some are required to be in particular formats by the citation templates used.) Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible DC Meetup

Some editors are planning a possible DC Wiki-meetup in mid to late February. If interested, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 5#Another date? (If you’re no longer interested in getting these notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 5#Nope, but let me know about future events.) Thanks. — Satori Son 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!

Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27) The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station. DC 6th Meetup (March 7) The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.

This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

An article you worked on maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you worked on: Honorverse_concepts_and_terminology may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse_concepts_and_terminology.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you worked on can be saved.

There are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If the page you worked on is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? kilbad (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No – I was just sifting through foot-disease articles (inspired by a sentence from a Kathy Lee Gifford article), and wound up wandering all over the place as I often do. Most of my Wikipedia editing is just cleaning up articles I'm reading for other purposes. (Earlier yesterday, I edited some astronomy and law articles. The day before, it was state highways. Right now, I'm working on a movie article. I'm rather eclectic.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The 7th DC Meetup

Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. We need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image (disambiguation)

Jeff, I think you're going nuts there. Executable and Film seem extremely unlikely items for this disambig, and there's not reason I can see for another disambig called image (computing); did you propose this strange organization anywhere? Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't propose it anywhere, but there was a method to my madness. I was looking for the "image" that is an executable program file. I started with Image and found a complex mix of general and specific dab hat notes (using {{about}}, aka {{otheruses4}}) that IMHO didn't represent the four most important dabs to cite. I planned to clean that up after I did a little more research.

Next, I tried Image (computing), as many ambiguous computing terms use this qualification. That page didn't even exist, so I decided to create it. I found two more fairly obvious uses in my efforts to hunt down what I was originally trying to find (which I ultimately found at Executable). Once I'd done that, I popped that urgent item off the queue and went over to examine Image (disambiguation).

There, I found two more computing meanings I'd missed (which I eventually added to Image (computing)). But much worse, I found a somewhat malformatted and only semi-organized dab page. I spent quite a while reorganizing it, then fixing links and formatting.

I was just about to make the final fixes to Image itself when you pinged me. My observations:

1. Now that I've reorganized and expanded Image (disambiguation), I admit Image (computing) isn't particularly useful anymore. I thought it might be worth keeping because it was obvious to me to go there, but the computing terms are easy to find on the main dab page, and it's best not to have a synchronization issue. So I'll tag it for speedy deletion.
2. If Executable doesn't have the word "image" in it, it needs to be added, and I'll do it shortly. This is an older computing use of the word "image" than some of the newer concepts like "single-system image", but it is still in use. (I realize many WP editors weren't yet born when some of these terms were bandied about in large, air-conditioned computer rooms, but there was computing before 1980, contrary to what many modern system clocks imply. ☺)
3. I'd agree with you on Film, except that, for whatever reason, someone editing Image thought that was one of the 4 most important concepts to point directly to in the article's dab hat note. The fact that I'm about to revise Image to include only dab notes for the terms "image", "images", and "imagery" is the only reason I included "film" in Image (disambiguation). Because of that, I plan to restore it.

Let me know what you think about all this. Thanks! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my page before I noticed you also replied here. You can usually assume it's adequate to just reply where the conversation starts. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The reorg looks good. It doesn't hurt to also have image (computing), but it's not really needed and shouldn't have a "see also" from image (disambiguation). I don't understand the logic on linking film. As for executable, the thing to do is first add a sourced statement there that's also known as an image, then you can add it to the disambig. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick scan of book sources shows no particularly consistent use of the term image with respect to executables. It's a pretty generic term for a copy of data, e.g. from memory into a file or vice versa. When I search for "executable program image" I mostly find "executable's program image", which is a phrase that's not really a term per se. Lots of stuff about executable image and binary image and image executable, in all combinations; what's most consistent seems to be that an executable file includes an image to be loaded and executed, but also includes more than just that image (e.g. metadata to say what is or where to load it or how to relocate it or whatever). So, whatever you add about image into executable, make sure it's not just your own interpretation, and make sure it's back up by good sources. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(Above two paragraphs copied from User talk:Dicklyon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I expect most references to "image" in the above sense will only say "image", with the context making its meaning clear. That's how I remember using it back in the day. But you're right, of course – I should find some solid published references for any material I add to Executable on this basis, which would then justify its inclusion on the Image dab page. Since I'm such a stickler for reliable sourcing, I'll certainly put my money where my mouth is – or shut up. Thanks again for your help and comments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

	Thank you
	Thanks for all your WikiGnoming! Your contributions are appreciated, and we need more Wikipedians like you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for copyediting

Hello there — I have been working on the article Ralph Bakshi since 2005 in order to get it up to FA quality, and I am almost ready to nominate it again. Do you have the time to look the article over and work on any writing problems that may exist within the article? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Any idea of who or how the term "donut hole," AKA Medicare D coverage gap, was coined? Drkaty (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for copyedit

My friend User:Tezkag72 and I are going to nominate an article we've worked hard on for FAC soon. It's Tragic Kingdom, the album by No Doubt. I noticed your name at the Guild of Copy Editors. Could you have a quick look over the article? In return, a barnstar. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jeffq! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 727 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Daniel Bernhardt - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Propsoal To Promote wp:quote

Hello, this is a friendly notification.

In the past, you supported promoting wp:quote into protocol. Currently, there is a discussion in an attempt to gather consensus to this ratification.

If you are interested, you can show your support there.

Thank you.174.3.110.108 (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)