Jump to content

Talk:Jeph Jacques

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

Deathmøle

[edit]

There is an interesting quote on Jeph's tumblr about the origins of Deathmøle:

"The style of music I write for Deathmøle actually started out as a joke- I wanted to write and record a really stupid metal song, so I did, and it turned out to be really fun. So fun, in fact, that I started writing more 'serious' metal tracks, and that’s basically how the music evolved."

While I think the quote is illuminating, the Deathmøle section is getting large. I'd prefer to avoid the section getting too bloated. Should the quote be included? Include a slightly shorter version with ellipses like

Deathmøle's style "...started out as a joke- I wanted to write and record a really stupid metal song ... and it turned out to be really fun. So fun, in fact, that I started writing more 'serious' metal tracks, and that’s ... how the music evolved."

in between the two existing paragraphs, or just leave it out? 50.39.112.109 (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the condensed quote was worth the space and added it. 50.39.112.109 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Car crash again

[edit]

I see the rumor about him dying in a car crash is back. I suspect that, once again, it's faked (as it is completely unsourced and he's been posting on twitter as recently as 8 hours ago as of the writing of this.) Consequently, I'm removing mention of him being dead from the article. If someone has a source for him dying, feel free to re-add the claim, along with source. 121.73.172.126 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Automobile accident

[edit]

Was Jeph Jacques killed in an automobile accident? The sources I have found all seem to cite this wikipedia article, which doesn't seem to have any sources.

I can't find any information either, but I have no idea who this person is anyway. Based ont he information in the article, I did clean up the tenses. Holford 2 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)
I've been in the questionable content IRC channel and it turns out that it is a prank perpetuated by some people who shall remain nameless. The person who started the rumor on the QC forums has the same IP address as the editor on wikipedia who inserted the information about Jeph's death. Toba 2 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
Yes, it is clearly a quite bad-taste prank but I'd like to know if it was by Jacques himself or not (notice his last post on July 1 in the QC index page about his "eventually final" strip). I don't think he did it; he would've post it somewhere else and not Wikipedia. It created hell of tears in the QC forums earlier, I'll check now again since you say the matter is clearing up... dalegrett 2 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)
Cool - I was gonna clean this page of prankiness myself, but it looks like others got there first (like, in the minute between when I opened the page and when I logged in and tried to edit it).
OK. The Identity of the prankster has been stablished: User:24.167... etc. It seems his identity in the QC forum has also been stablished (wears glasses in his avatar, right?). Naughty Boy! Hope Jacques finds it funny. We didn't. The deaths list from July 2005 need to be cleared, also the QC article. Check also Indie Tits. dalegrett 2 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
Wow, angsty hipster nerds out for revenge! Whatever next?
...Hamburgers?

Uh... shouldn't the information on his death be removed?

That is just bizarre. The actual article is still wrong, showing the death information, but the data on the edit page is correct. Even a full reload won't get it right. Could this be some kind of database hiccup?

Fixed now, never mind. Or is it...?

Well, it says he died again, and I can say he definitely didn't, because I talked to him on the forums after his death. I think I shall remove such information. 69.138.183.115 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave note about rumour?

[edit]

Should the note about the (death) rumour be kept ? I think it would be a good idea because im sure some people will goto this page looking for more infomation abou the "death" --2005-07-04 10:10:28 (UTC)

Not if Wikipedia was the primary venue of the hoax, no. That would be enshrining a prank pulled on Wikipedia, and be self-referential to boot.  — Saxifrage | ☎ July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
I think it'd be better to leave it. I understand the concern about Wikipedia's reputation, but I think vandalism and pranks in articles like the such of the Pope's are worse in that sense (or even actual articles -no joke intended, although it'd seem they are pranks- about Reptilian humanoids invading the Earth or any occultist or gnostic or pseudoscientific article). Also, if we were to hold that view of protecting all institutions reputations, they'd be no science nor religion nor nor family (just as examples) anything. Science and religion and family are still beating and kicking despite all the hoaxes, pranks and evildoings. So, I don't find it damaging to the Wikipedia, and I think it speaks well of Jeph Jacques and also it is a notable event about him (making him more notable) that his death was hoaxed. That's why some (including me) had suspected Jacques himself was behind all of it (but he was not, I think) dalegrett 4 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
It was also mentioned by word of mouth and on Jeph's forums ( and IIRC another web comic ). --2005-07-04 21:57:37 (UTC)
I'm not worried about Wikipedia's reputation when I say self-reference is bad, it's just a general policy here to avoid talking about Wikipedia in articles—it's amateurish and smacks of self-importance. Rule of thumb to avoid self-reference: if Jeph Jacques got an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica, would that article mention the Wikipedia hoax? I think likely not. From what another editor mentioned above, it sounds like this was the work of a single person who didn't actually put much work into it except by saying "he's dead" on IRC and on Wikipedia. Above all, Wikipedia is not for stroking the ego of some prankster. Thus, I still think it should be left out.  — Saxifrage | ☎ July 5, 2005 09:30 (UTC)
The hoax originated on Wikipedia. The prankster edited the wiki first and then created an account on the Questionable Content message board saying something to the effect of "hey guys have you looked at the wiki entry for Jeph lately, it says he's dead." The moderators assumed at the time that it was probably Jeph's doing as he was spending the afternoon with another webcomic artist who had previously faked his own death so the mods played along a little although they referenced a fictional location from the comic Wigu as the scene of the accident. Jeph happened to not check the internet before he went to bed that night and things started to mushroom since he had no knowledge of the hoax and didn't find out until the next afternoon. It was a pretty minor event and not worthy of notation. --209.6.13.99 7 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Move to Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense? -- 81.79.114.138

Definitely not. Even if it hadn't originated on Wikipedia (which evidence strongly indicates it did), it's not notable. I would urge people to watch to prevent similar vandalism, rather than endorsing it. Superm401 - Talk 04:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Really a Stub

[edit]

I love Questionable Content, but how long does this article have to be? The article seems perfectly informative and the length seems perfectly adequate, not sure why it's marked as a stub.

AfD result

[edit]

— JIP | Talk 10:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Indie Tits

[edit]

A recent deletion review resulted in undeleting IndieTits, which has since been redirected to this article. I leave it to discussion here whether any content should be merge, the article should stand alone, or the redirect should remain in place without merge. GRBerry 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest comics

[edit]

Is it really necessary to have links to all of the guest comics that he has done?Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Logan

[edit]

Should we mention that Jeph often refers to Sam Logan as his rival/adversary/nemesis?65.95.112.163 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add something to that effect, but I am teh n00bzorz at Wikipedia, and I didn't want it to explode or something. Also, I don't technically exist since I don't sign my posts or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessary, although we could merely point out that they have a close professional relationship...if you can demonstrate that in a verifiable way (such as by giving links to several guest comics they have done for one another, and links to the QC newsposts in which Jacques mentions Sam Logan). None of that stuff should be put in the article, though, until someone finds enough sources (like the stuff I mentioned above) to make it valid. --Politizer (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the quotes: "Apparently a quote of mine made Google's Quote of the Day thingy on Wednesday. I plan on using my newfound internet fame to cure cancer, forge peace in the Middle East, and finally crush Sam Logan once and for all." from the accompanying text of 508. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NemFX (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The new image on this article could be better; it doesn't give a clear view at all of Jaques' face. (Not to mention the fact that it just isn't a very flattering picture--there are much better ones of him out there!) I'm working on trying to get a better picture--right now I'm waiting for an e-mail response to see if I can get permission to use this picture. This article also has a good image, but I haven't been able to get in touch yet with the writer and photographer to ask about permission.

If anyone else has a fair use image already on Wikipedia that we might be able to use, please let us know on this talk page! Thanks, --Politizer (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't access the second image I linked to above (sometimes the boston globe website asks you to register or log in), you can also see the copyrighted image itself here. Politizer (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

periodicity of Deathmøle songs

[edit]
Since its inception, Jacques has periodically released individual Deathmøle songs through his LiveJournal or his Tumblr ....

"Periodically" means with a consistent length of time between such releases. Is that the case? If not, make it "occasionally". —Tamfang (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/periodically - not the section "Recurring or reappearing from time to time; intermittent." which is by far and away the most common definition of this word in modern English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.171.73 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New portrait photo

[edit]

I took a new portrait photo of Jeph today (right) and thought it might be useful for this article. I have no strong preference for either the current photo or this one, but would be interested in your opinions. I also took many more pics of him drawing sketches for fans, but haven't uploaded this quite yet. Thanks! Dcoetzee 08:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is beter than the current one, it's more recent and it's a better angle. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice Derrick, wish I could have been at the meetup. Definitely a better pic. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken photo

[edit]

The new photo from earlier today was removed with the reasoning being that there was no evidence of it having been released under a free license. Would these two tweets by Jeph Jacques be considered sufficient evidence of the same? https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/608318546389692416 https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/608319949669593089. 73.16.62.26 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No because he only released it under a non-commercial(NC) licence. He's been told which licence to use so he probably doesn't want it on Wikipedia that much. -- haminoon (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeph Jacques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeph Jacques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter & Musk Parodying

[edit]

Hey all - wondering if Jacques's participation in the recent group of verified twitter users parodying Musk should be noted on his Wikipedia page as his tweets & screenshots of them went fairly viral, and caused Jacques to lose his account.

Here is an article discussing the topic in general that mentions Jacques as a participant (https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/elon-musk-twitter-impersonators-suspended-manu-saadia-trekonomics.html) - thoughts?

AngryIrene (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we should have something about the Twitter thing, since there were a number of news articles (i.e. reliable sources) covering it. Speaking of which, one nice thing about this whole... situation... is that many of those sources also gave biographical information about Jacques, which means we can use them as citations for the sections that currently rely on primary sources. I know that's an issue right now. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeph_Jacques&oldid=1203048808"