User talk:JasonAQuest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Sources vs. External links[edit]

Thanks for posting to my talk page about this. To indicate that there are no inline citations in an article (which indeed are preferred), use {{nofootnotes}}. If there's one or two already, but more are needed, please use {{morefootnotes}}. But, "BLP unreferenced" indicates that there are no sources in an article, in any form. It does not apply for an article having an External link or two that provide the source(s) used in constructing an article. Please note that wp:CITE and/or some other basic guideline/policy pages in Wikipedia give directions on how to use External link as a general reference. It comes across as wp:BITEY or pedantic or something, to say that there is not a source when what you mean is that the sourcing given is not formatted as you wish it to be, IMHO.

And, the reason for my focus is that I and others are working to try to meet the June 1 deadline for Wikipedia's big public relations problem about completely unsourced BLP articles. An article put into the BLP unreferenced category inflates the apparent issue. I'm adding the "nofootnotes" tag now to the Gilbert Adair article. Does this help? --doncram (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Your observation is correct as a potential reason for misunderstanding the sequence, and might be cause to change it if the progression is viewed out of context. However, the considerations for the present arrangement rely on a more intuitive understanding that the entire article is about an expanding or growing Earth, not a shrinking one. In weighing the pros and cons for one order over the other, a primary consideration is that the viewer be familiar and identify with the progression. As such, the smallest image of the Earth without the oceanic surfaces is not as familiar to most viewers as the present day sized planet. Beginning with this image risks instilling a feeling of immediate alienation, as if one's first impression is that of not understanding what they're looking at. The reverse order is thus chosen so that the viewer more immediately understands what they're looking at. And though this creates a remote risk that some might interpret it as shrinking, the reasoning relies on the context of the article to dissuade such a mistaken first impression. Because everyone looking at it understands that the image refers to a growing Earth. The initial familiarity and identification of the viewer achieved by beginning with a present sized Earth thus seems worth the more remote risk that the image will be misunderstood. I believe this is why many other visualizers of this subject (see Neal Adams and James Maxwell videos and images) also chose this reverse order as a preferred opening sequence for their presentations. Your comment, however, is very thoughtful. It helps clarify an important aspect of visual communications with regards to this somewhat surreal depiction, and is much appreciated. Michael Netzer (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

iPhone split[edit]

Hi - good to see I'm not the only one who doesn't like the idea of splitting the iPhone article into articles by model. I think it's a case of mob idiocracy, where Apple fanboys think we must paraphrase Apple's marketing information, rather than build a comprehensive and orderly encyclopedia. For starters, once you realize that the prototype information is at History of the iPhone and technical specifications are at List of iOS devices, iPhone 4 collapses to this. Furthermore, everyone is interested in hyping the new model, but they've only copied and pasted to iPhone (original) and haven't touched iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS (still redirects). So what do we do? I have an idea, but I want to hear your uncontaminated opinion first. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Francesc Capdevila[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Francesc Capdevila has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, December 2009

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the prod because although a translation it seems like a good article. I've added the easiest couple of sources to find and I'll add more as I find them. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rain Man1.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Rain Man1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A short Peter Pan play[edit]

Hi Jason. Are you aware of the following?

  • Bache, Louise Franklin. 1924. “Peter Pan’s Spring Housecleaning”, in Junior Red Cross News, Volume 5, No. 5, January 1924. pp. 75–77. Illustrated by Henry C. Pitz.

I have a copy. -- Evertype· 08:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Gender and sex aren't interchangeable. You can't just up and change your gender identity, the only thing would be changing is the physical sex (which isn't gender). In the movie he would still be a "man" regardless if his sex was female or male. But it's obviously useless trying to fix this on that page because you'll just revert it every time I do. -- (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

- Also: "This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories." "According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender ) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex ) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels."


Basically all that. -- (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the movie, the protagonist is not still a "man" after the first transformation takes place. There is definitely a change of gender (as a social construct). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect interwiki[edit]

Hello there! You put back this interwiki. Article on Croatian wikipedia is about the play and a novel, not about the character. This novel in Croatian is translated as "Petar Pan", the same name as the character and this created confusion. I've already added the correct one to the article Peter and Wendy. Therefore we should remove one from the Peter Pan. Hope it's clearer now.

Best regards.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


If you have an issue with three separate elements in an article, instead of putting up three different requests for moving three different sections, please discuss your allegation on the Talk page, and refrain from accusing level-headed editors of Ownership. Thanks. -- Evertype· 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Level-headed editors refrain from reverting good-faith proposals. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You proposed having the discussion on a different page and in three different places without making a case beyond that in an edit summary. That's hardly sufficient. Then you attacked me for suggesting that it ought to be discussed on the Talk page. I do not see the reason for your anxiousness. -- Evertype· 08:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I followed protocol. I placed a "merge section" tag on each of the sections I felt should be merged, each of which indicated the same place for discussion. Removing them all as you did was contrary to protocol. I did not "attack" you; I merely pointed out the inappropriateness of your unilateral action. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Politicalfolkmusic block[edit]

It was also a username block. The links might indeed meet WP:EL, but adding them with a username very similar to that of the website in question is not permitted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of explaining to him the problem with his username and suggesting that he use a different one, he was instead indef-blocked without any discussion, using a message that tells him that he'll probably never be permitted to contribute to Wikipedia even with a different username. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that is consistent with... oh, let's start with WP:AGF and WP:BITE. To a reasonable person unfamiliar with WP's less-widely-known policies such as this one, using the name of his web site as his username would be a form of disclosure, acknowledging that he is the operator of that site. In effect you are damning him for that honesty. WP:BADNAME makes it very clear that the first step to take when there's a username problem is "Talk to the user", and that was not done. The username policy was not clearly explained, and he was not offered an opportunity to comply with it and other policies. Instead he was effectively banned, for the "crime" of wanting to add information to Wikipedia, with no ulterior motive. I strongly disagree with that decision. So does another editor, neither of which has any personal ties to this new editor, just a concern that he has not been treated properly. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I might consider unblocking him if he agrees to change his username. I mean, that rule generally exists to stop genuine spammers, and 99.9% of the time it works to that effect. This is one of the rare examples where someone isn't trying to make money off it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have posted that offer on his talk page.

To address some of your other concerns, the username policy is referenced and linked from the account creation page. It's a new user's responsibility to read in this section that "Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted".

That said, I wouldn't have blocked for that alone ... it sat on WP:UAA for hours. Had he not edited at all, I would have posted a notice to wait until he did. But our practice there, per the above-quoted sentence, is almost always to block on sight any editor using a name with clear connection to the subject his or her editing highlights (And I'm actually one of the more lenient UAA admins ... some people would block without waiting for edits if they can see some apparent connection to something they can Google. I have regularly insisted, to some people's dismay, that you can't block (save for names like "Consolidated Amalgamated Marketing Department" that not indicate clear promotional intent but suggest group use, which is again against policy)).

I also saw that the edits seemed a little combative, suggesting the user was not interested in understanding why the added links were being removed (Upon reading the fuller discussion on the talk page, I can see that no one really sat down and explained our spamming policy to him, pointing out that we regard even putting a link in as promotional regardless of whether someone profits from the site or not. That would have helped).

It has been argued, as you do, that we should allow such usernames for the disclosure. That assumes that a) we could possibly be assured that one person, and only one person, is using the account as policy dictates, and b) that the account was actually created by the concern in question (After all, we don't allow the use of real names of notable living or recently deceased people, save by those individuals themselves if they're in the former category and can prove they really are those people, because of the damage impersonators could do. Why would we allow someone to damage a corporate reputation, then?). We addressed some of these issues when we decided to allow User:Mark at Alcoa to edit with that name (See the talk page). Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase political folk music isn't the name of a "company, group or product"; it's a topic description, which he also applied to his (noncommercial) web site. Why would he interpret that policy as prohibiting him from using that name, without knowing the whole history and rationale behind it? I'm not necessarily arguing that the policy should change, only that by looking at the situation with an assumption of good faith, he appears to be guilty of nothing worse than (easily correctable) misunderstanding, not the sort of bad intentions which warrant a block without any warning. My fear is that he won't appeal, instead dismissing Wikipedia as a bunch of closed-minded control freaks. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
When used as the name of a website to which you are adding links, it comes under that section (If he had been writing an article about political folk music without adding links, I wouldn't have blocked (Some people have made similar UAA reports, which I've declined).

I do regret not being totally informed about this one ... if you or Richard had been aware of the UAA report and commented as you have, I don't think I nor any of the other UAA admins would have done anything. As it is, it is one of those instances where following procedure and using what you thought was good judgement at the time did not produce the ideal result. Does he have email enabled? Perhaps I should send him my offer to unblock for a username change. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the letter of policy; I'm just pointing out that it's very reasonable that he did not understand it. I wish I could have commented about the case before it was decided, but obviously I could not because I was unaware that it was a case. And as far as I can tell there isn't even a place to comment, even if I'd known about it and wanted to. In fact, I'm surprised to see that there's no notification or discussion process for an action like this, as there is for damn near everything else that happens on WP. There's a whole standardized process including notification of interested parties for deleting pages, one for interpersonal dispute resolution, even a series of steps to take when dealing with overt vandals (who get greetings, then lectures, then warnings). But the first notification that this user got that his username violated a policy was when he'd already been blocked indefinitely for it?! The system shouldn't assume that any person who makes a UAA report has exercised competent due diligence in trying to resolve it through education and discussion before reporting it (as User:5 albert square clearly did not). If nothing else, the accused should at least be made aware that they're on trial. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I generally trust, but verify. You can make comments at UAA; it just doesn't happen that often (and long discussions typically get removed to the talk page). Since there are a number of username situations in which we block on sight, there's no notification template (although there is one for discussions at WP:RFCUN (however, I personally believe those should be undertaken only if the user is willing to take part and explains and defend their username choice, in which case the notification template is superfluous). {{Uw-username}}, it is true, often serves as the notification template although it isn't meant for that purpose. This is a clear deficiency that merits discussion at the UAA talk page.

Reviewing the talk page again, it does seem as if 5as's understanding of the username policy and how it is enforced was a little nebulous. (It was a sin of insufficient understanding, however, not a bad-faith report meant to silence an adversary during a content dispute (and we've had those)). Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tuck Everlasting[edit]

Tuck Everlasting seems to attract a good bit of vandalism for some reason. Do you think there's anything else that could be done to quash that? Justinkrivers (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's because of the age group the book was written for. It's possible to semi-protect an article so that only logged-in users can edit it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I dub thee[edit]

Since I don't consider it worthy of contention, I won't rv, but I do disagree. You may not use it as such, but my dictionary says titular means "denoting a person or thing from whom or which the name of an artistic work or similar is taken". Thus, while "title character" may be more common (& I accept it is, "titular character" is correct. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand how the word is meant to be used. It is not a slightly longer but smarter-sounding drop-in substitute for "title". That would be pointless. A correct usage would be to say that Dustin Hoffman plays the "titular graduate" in The Graduate, or the "titular rain man" in Rain Man; it further describes the actual name or phrase used in the title. You can stretch it to say "the titular pirate in Hook" because the title character is a pirate. But unless you're talking about a TV show called The Character or a character named Character, "titular character" is both redundant of the better-established phrase "title character" and not quite the word you were looking for. Granted, eventually the throngs of people who are learning English from poorly edited stuff on the internet will win out and "titular" will be also be used to refer to "the titular credits" and "the titular name of the show", but until then I'd like the articles I read to reflect a better understanding of the nuances of language than that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Boy Comics[edit]

Hi, Jason. I've reverted a couple of your edits in which you wikify "Boy Comics" even though the link does not reach an article about Boy Comics but was redirecting to an article about a single character in Boy Comics, Crimebuster. This is an "Easter egg", meaning an unexpected redirect. It would be like having Action Comics redirect to a single character in Action Comics, Superman. Please discuss this before proceeding. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It was an attempt to direct it to a somewhat relevant article instead of uselessly not providing any information whatsoever. If there were no article about Action Comics a redirect to Superman – which includes some information about the series – would be better than nothing. It's not actually an Easter Egg, and it's common practice throughout WP (though perhaps not allowed in your fiefdom). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
And just having seen your user page now, I'm disappointed that an obviously experienced, intelligent and articulate editor like yourself would resort to such name-calling as "sadly typical comics-nerd-with-OCD tendencies." That's uncivil and not conducive to constructive discourse, as well as tarring with an excessively large brush. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I figured it was more civil than naming names. I'm disappointed that you continue to pick fights with me, despite my clearly stated wish to stay out of them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Syren Sexton[edit]

Blatant IDON'TLIKEIT prod at Syren Sexton. Your input might be required, one way or the other. -- (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Now AfD'd as PROD nominator's teddy comes hurtling out of the pram. Your input may be required one way or the other. -- (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The WITF wants you[edit]

The World Intelligence Task Force would like to recruit you as an agent. If you accept, comment under the pending section on the project page. It is a relatively new task force and we need new members right away so if you are interested please don't be shy. At this moment in time we only have three members. If you want more information, please go to the project page.
While I'm all in favor of intelligence, I have no interest in intel. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Barrie bios[edit]

Have you read Neverland by Dudgeon? Would you recommend that one or J. M. Barrie and the Lost Boys by Birkin for someone who wants as unbiased a view (with as little wild speculation) as possible? You seem to be the resident expert on Barrie so I thought I'd ask. --DanielCD (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read Dudgeon's book, so I can't comment on it first hand, but the reactions I've heard range from amusement to disgust at what he imagines took place. I'd place it in the same category as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. :) Birkin's book is definitely the best reflection of what's currently known about JMB, with its biggest shortcoming being that it stops after Michael LD's death (even though JMB lived another 16 years).
Thanks for that response. --DanielCD (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Cerebus the Aardvark[edit]

Hi, my response to you on the talk page of Cerebus the Aardvark was really long-winded, and I rally that that'll probably come across as pushy or unfriendly. I just wanted to let you know that wasn't my intention, and I hope we can reach a consensus. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week and a half and I haven't gotten a response on this. Are you formulating one or should I assume it's okay to go ahead with the Cerebus pages I'd planned? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. Force of habit, I guess. :-)
Are you a professional illustrator, or an aspiring one? Where might I have seen your work? Nightscream (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
?? Was this message supposed to be here? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Joe Hill article[edit]

Could you please point me to a policy page that defines an advance copy of a book from a legitimate book publisher as an unpublished book? thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Here it is. Clearly, a book that hasn't yet been published is utterly unverifiable. Anybody could assert anything on the basis of an "advance copy" Exok (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's what "unpublished" means. The book has not yet been published – "To issue something (usually printed work) for sale and distribution" – which makes it (currently) unverifiable. Also, the tone of your addition, asserting "the real story" is inappropriate for Wikipedia. We report what sources say; we don't declare which one's analysis is correct. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Your characterization of verifiability may be correct, i'm not going to dispute it unless i happen to come across a different interpretation. On the other hand, your characterization of this book (as not necessarily "the real story") is simply erroneous. Please understand, i know this history fairly well, and have been involved with different aspects for 25 years.
This isn't an account which is merely at variance with other accounts, because of differing opinions on what the record shows. The author of this book dedicated five years to writing this biography, and even traveled to Sweden to research Joe Hill's family history, and the history of the community in which he grew up. This is a biography which introduces a considerable amount of new, previously undocumented information. For example, there are three individuals key to the murder charges and the alibi in this history who have been speculated about, but have never even been identified in any other account, by any other biographer. (The article as written clearly reflects such speculation in the sentences just before my edit.) This book not only confirms some of the speculation, it identifies all three individuals by name, and it follows much of their life histories as well as that of the main subject.
In my view, this new biography will be recognized as the definitive account of Joe Hill's life, death, and court case. One other person who has read an advance copy has asserted that its publication should be sufficient to have Joe Hill's conviction reversed, similar to what happened to other members of the IWW in Montana in 2006 after publication of Darkest Before Dawn. The publication of that book led directly to pardons for 79 individuals, all nearly ninety years after their convictions:
I'm not sure about that in the case of Joe Hill, but only because of circumstances unique to the locale of the Joe Hill murder trial. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please understand: I am not arguing about the validity of the information you wish to add, nor am I questioning your expertise. I am concerned (in addition to the verifiability issue) about the way you presented it, in a tone more appropriate for a lecture, or for a Snopes article, as if setting the record straight based on your own authority.
Regardless of your expertise on the subject or your opinion of a particular source, it is not appropriate for any Wikipedia editor to declare whose version of history is "the real story". WP:NPOV directs us: "[T]hese opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc." So if your expectation is correct, and this book is accepted as the definitive work on Hill's life, we can say something like "It is generally believed that..." or "According to the latest research..." or "Historian William M. Adler has concluded..." Those would be appropriate ways of presenting the information in Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Richard Myers (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RadioFan (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


When you nominate an article for deletion by prod, you need to give the reason in the prod template, not just the edit summary. When we admins review them, the article is what we see first, and in going through a list of proposed deletion to check them, we need to know what are best checked by ourselves, and what are better left for others who know the field better. I'm just explaining a technical matter, not criticising you.

However, I am deprodding most of the comics characters you prodded, because the material can generally be merged, or, if the material is already in the main article, the name of the character is always a useful redirect. Please consider the solutions first--deletion is the last resort. I'm not doing the merge/redirect myself, because I think you know the area better and can more easily check whether to merge or redirect, and how to merge if that's what's needed. Any for which you really think not even a redirect is warranted, take of course to AfD. I have great respect for your work in this area. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole set of articles is a bunch of inside-joke metafiction that barely qualifies as trivia and could never pass WP:NOTABILITY; I figured WP would be better off without them sitting around waiting for some fan who thinks that "it exists" is reason enough to revert them back into articles. But so be it; I'll redirect them to List of Amalgam Comics characters... even though that's borderline trivia itself. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
if you redirect without merging, it might get reverted. If you merge, it will probably stick. . I suspect a short paragraph each is enough--not necessarily about the specific traits and the "plot", but where they appear in the series. But just a bare list is not encyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That's my point: it's unencyclopedic. Amalgam Comics is certainly notable, has the WP:RS coverage to demonstrate that, and the article alone covers the subject in nearly sufficient detail (and a little too much in some areas). The rest of these Amalgam articles are just catalogs of trivia, and are all unencyclopedic. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You will be need more help...[edit]

wrote previously...

Wikipedia List of superpowers article, need more superpowers[edit]

I have a real article that i work any moment and everyday with any pals... you have rights for use it for your convenence (except erase it or modify it) to show how many super powers exist in your article. Super Power List behind Wikipedia from Spanish Leanguage to english leanguage I work so much, and any pals too, dont destroy own article but almost try to add more super powers to your super power list. If my wikipedia in Spanish article is not without faults of orthography, you could read it without so much problems, Greetings. (This for your List of Superpowers). --Georgy (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Qatar economic citation[edit]

Hi, you might want to check the url you added in this revision. Long parameters like that sometimes embed details that compromise your privacy. - Pointillist (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I copied the reference verbatim from another article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Time travel urban legends[edit]

I see your point about the "talking," but I think our hands our tied by policy. However, I welcome your input into the article and hope you continue to keep your eye on it. There has been a lot of trouble in the past at this article and the related article on the Chaplin movie The Circus. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree emphatically that policy requires us to leave an article badly written. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
My point was that I hope you're right. I don't like this kind of "time traveler" silliness in the first place. Let's see what others say. If they agree with you, will happily support your proposed language. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You know, you may be right after all. Note my recent edit. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


I'm slightly confused by your edit on the Peanuts page (August 8, 2011) when you removed the info about the Peanuts desktop theme (for Windows 98) in the page's main info. Your edit's synopsis was saying "trivia." Now that you mentioned that in the edit synopsis, you didn't even know what you were talking about. (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's trivia, so I removed it. I don't know what you are talking about. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean that I was not supposed to put it in the page's main info while there was no need to mention it in the same section? Then, I have it in the "other merchandising" section on the same page. Can't you just guess what trivia equals? (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You are not making sense. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Reign of the Super-Man[edit]

Take a closer look at the enlarged page. Super-Man does have a hyphen after the r. It looks smaller than it really is because of the curvature of that page at that part. It's EASY to see here: Doczilla STOMP! 12:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(responded on article talk page)

File permission problem with File:Sim.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sim.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Serjeant-at-Arms of the British House of Commons”[edit]


A tag has been placed on Talk:Serjeant-at-Arms of the British House of Commons”, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Waltham, The Duke of 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your editorial philosophy[edit]

Just wanted to say, after "co-editing" the entry on Curate's Egg with you, that I completely share your views and concerns re trigger-happy editors. I have started doing more editing again recently, adding references mostly, but have run into precisely the syndrome you describe, having had perfectly reasonable (in my view) edits repeatedly reverted by editors who clearly regard certain entries as "theirs". Anyhow, nice to know you're out there....Robma (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

regarding me removing links.[edit]

Hi, I have uploaded some pictures to the articles but it also seems to automatically remove the reference links as well. Can you help me fixed it?

Mmstfc69 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lake Michigan–Huron[edit]

In case you're interested, there's a POV warrior disrupting the article with spurious tags, since he hasn't been able to get it deleted. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Hello, JasonAQuest.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Brandon Lee.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Brandon Lee.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader responds to your recent comments[edit]

As usual, you completely miss my point. When it comes to true grass roots black movements in America, it may take years before the white controlled media and academic community catches up with what has been accomplished. Use a little wisdom when the historic leader of a black grass roots movement tells the story about the movement.

The U.S. Congress is a case in point. The following recent resolutions document everything you deleted about the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" that I put on the Juneteenth Wikepedia page:

As the Chairman of the Bosrd of the NAJL. I worked hand in hand with the late Lula Briggs Galloway that is well documented by Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins:

So, I'm not surprised about your deletions about the information posted on the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" ( on the Juneteenth wikipedia page. I guess you consider the U.S. Congress documentation needs deleting. Delete, delete and delete! The "Modern Juneteenth Movement" is taking the word of a person "too close to the subject matter", etc.

Delete, delete and delete!

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple corrections: 1) I didn't delete that material. As a matter of fact, I am the person who recovered the deleted history section, after being horrified that the article didn't have one. 2) Wikipedia does not depend on "the white controlled media and academic community" for citations. Just independent sources. It's 2013, not 1963; there are respected black-controlled media and academics which are routinely cited.
Frankly, you are your own worst enemy here, Mr. Myers. Surely there are people you're acquainted with who are familiar with Wikipedia and its standards (or at least are willing to learn) and are respectful enough of other people to cooperate with other editors instead of just lashing out at them hatefully. Perhaps you should enlist them to help. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Who deleted the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" section from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page?[edit]

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate your comments.

However, yopu still are missing my point about black "grass roots" movements that even established black academic writers and historians ignore for years. Case in point, Dr. Henry Louis Gates wrote a recent 2013 article for Roots and did not mention the "Modern Juneteenth Movement", the 42 states that recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday or state holiday obervance, or the legislation passed by the U.S. Congress since 1997. The 2013 U.S. Senate legislation documents everything that has been deleted about the "Modern Juneteenth Movemenbt" from the Juneteenth Wikepedia page.

Why delete historic information upheld by the U.S. Senate?

I guess the "white controlled and dominated media" and the "established black academics (like Professor Dr. Henry Louis Gates - Harvard University) don't write about or confirm our historic black "grass roots" movement, just delete, delete and delete it from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page!

BTW, what editor deleted the information on the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" and the "Juneteenth Flag" on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page? Why don't you, as a fellow Wikipedia editor, forward my messages instead telling me, the historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, that "I am my own worse enemy"?

I suppose, like you suggested, I need to find someone from our "Modern Juneteenth Movement" that knows all about Wikipedia. I checked and found no one! I suppose our "grass root" black movement folks are just not respected black academics.

So, how is it we are changing American history through the recognition of Juneteenth Independence Day by the U.S. Congress and 42 states? I guess we need permission from established black academic folks to be real and not be deleted from thw Wikipedia Juneteenth page.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The most important part of using Wikipedia is civility. Start there. Assuming good faith will get you a long way. Certainly longer than you've gotten by being accusatory and insulting.
If you seriously can't find anyone in your movement who understands how to contribute to Wikipedia properly, then you have three options: 1) recruit someone who does (there are tens of thousands in the US alone), 2) take a little time to figure it out (it's really not that difficult), or 3) continue to sabotage your own efforts by lashing out in arrogant anger at people (which is what you're doing now). I can't help you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern Juneteenth Movement[edit]

Thank you for reading the legislation passed by the U.S. Congress (properly referenved). The U.S. Congress is a "third party", is it not? Is the U.S. Congress to "close to the subject matter"? I think not.

Anyone who knows about the historic checks for accuracy from any legislation passed by the U.S. Congress would never place a warning like the one you posted on the top of the Juneteenth Wikipedia page.

What is your problem with the phrase "Modern Juneteenth Movement"? You did not delete the Civil Rights Movement. Why not?

Just like the Civil Rights Movement began at a meeting in a church in New Orleans, so did the Modern Juneteenth Movement in 1994. BTW, you allow reference to the Civil Rights Movement and Juneteenth history, but the Civil Rights Movement had nothing to do with the establishment of 42 states, the District of Columbia and at least 1o pieces of legislation passed by congress since 1996 recognizing "Juneteenth Independence Day" in America.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the care and feeding of your ego is not Wikipedia's responsibility. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

National Juneteenth Leader responds to insult of being accused of "feeding of your ego" by Wikipedia editor Jason A. Quest[edit]

Feeding of my Ego? Are you serious Wikipedia editor Jason A. Quest?

When a historic African American figure, the Founder, Director and leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America (confirmed by legislatiopn in the U.S. Congress); the person who experienced first hand the true grass roots advocacy history of black people working to commemorate the celebration of going from enslavement to freedom; a person who has dedicated over 25 years of time, energy and contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the effort, etc.; works hard with all sincerity and honesty to accurately document the history of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" on Wlkipedia; not at all happy about the deletion of that true history on more than one ocassion (called "too cflose to the subject matter" and not having "citations", etc.); finally, after many honest, putting his heart on his sleeves posting on the talk pages, makes some progress by getting most of the history of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" and the Juneteenth Flag placed back on Wikipedia (trying to understand and adhere to Wikipedia policy and standards on the posting of information on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page with the bullying assistance of Wikipedia editor Jason A. Quest); only to be insulted with the posting, "Sorry, but the care and feeding of your ego is not Wikipedia's responsibility."

What is your problem Wikipedia editor Jason A. Quest? As white folks say, "Do you need a hug?"

I'm sorry you don't know any real grass roots, fromn the hood, African American historic leaders that make you uncomfortable with a Frederick Dopuglass, Malcolm X & Mr. T style of, "in your face" blunt honesty about the seriousness of gettiung our black grass roots history on Juneteenth on Wikipedia accurate and correct without your unjustified deletions.

It appears that you are the one with the ego problem. Your prejudicial deletions, after deletions, after deletions, etc., on the Juneteenth Wkipedia page speaks for itself.

I'm just trying to work within the Wikipedia guidelines for posting (that you claim I have violated on more than one ocassion) only to be insulted because of your arrogence and obvious disrespect.

Man, Wikipedia editor Jason A. Quest, as we say back home, YOU ARE A TRIP!

You must admit that we are making progess with the postings on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page. Why add insult to injury? Like you told me, "You are your own worse enemy."

So, do your volunteer job of editing without the insults. I also believe an apology is in order.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an issue with not understanding Wikipedia WP:LISTEN. I think we might have to take action. Even I got a "official response from the leader". Here is Wikipedia process COI report not to mention a needed overdue ANI report--Inayity (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Myers, your comments here serve as an excellent example of what I'm talking about. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Miss America and Hyderabad[edit]

As i read somewhere in WP:MOS we should not write the article in a way to insist the editors to go through the wiki-links, wikilinks are kept for the convinent if readers want to go research or in depth details. Currently almost all the readers will quickly and curiously like to know her family roots, its necessary if we mention the nearst located metropoolitan/state capital city for instant understanding to the general readers. Hope i am clear. Any way the discussion is open on article talk page. So further discussion we can continue there and create a concensus before restoring it. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Frasier Crane[edit]

You must explain the recent edit you made in the talk page. I brought up the issue in one section. --George Ho (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The flag is self-explanatory. That section is a heaping pile of excessive anal-obsessive detail. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I managed to skim down details and leave relevant details in. I'll find something else irrelevant at another time. --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It really needs a rewrite, not just a slimming edit. Treating the events of an episodic ongoing series as if it was a novel whose every chapter is relevant to a larger story ... is a misunderstanding of the medium. We don't even cover the biographies of real people in this kind of detail. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You're not suggesting that I must revert format back into the chronological fiction way, do you? No way for me. I treat Frasier from Cheers as different from Frasier from Frasier because not doing so serves injustice to the real-world timeline and to viewers who wathced both shows for years. I'm not using fiction chronology to just cover up or explain inconsistencies in an original research way. Perhaps you are suggesting that I must eliminate detail about his relationship with other members, right? Or write them in the Rachel Green/Ross Gellar way? Tell me, which part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television does the current version violate? --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

More skimming and restructuring. More thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It "violates" maintaining a real-world perspective and understanding that Wikipedia is not a fan site for people who like to pretend that the characters are real people. Frasier Crane (or two Frasier Cranes from different universes, if you prefer) does not have a life to be chronicled; he is a construct that writers, directors, and an actor used to entertain people. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Examples of a character article not written this way? Look, if you are implying notability of a fiction, look at past logs of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). People argued over criteria of fiction notability, but that led to downgrading the guideline into an essay. No one knows how to make an absolute criteria besides real-world notability. Per WP:GUIDELINE, a guideline can be normally followed, but well-ignored sometimes in favor of common sense. I tried finding secondary or third-party sources concerning this character, and I found casting and development and popularity. However, this character achieved impact by just reception. I can't find real-life comparisons of this character or anything else concerning the character. By the way, I'll move polls to the Reception section from Frasier one. Also, I wonder if you think I managed Sam and Diane article well. --George Ho (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Further skimming and eliminating. Well? Should I add "Writing development" perhaps? --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The character is notable. I'm not questioning whether there should be an article about him. But it should be short, talking about the character's importance to the real world, not his imaginary existence. Wikipedia articles should not indulge fannish nonsense such as extensive biographies for characters in unplotted written-for-hire episodic fiction. I don't have the time or patience to try to fight the hordes cluttering Wikipedia with it, I just called out one particularly bad example that I came across. I can't help you any further; I'm a writer, not a social worker. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what the problem was with File:Ron Myers plays the pocket trumpet.jpg?[edit]

I am interested as to why File:Ron Myers plays the pocket trumpet.jpg was problematic? I definitely own this photograph, taken by my wife. I placed it after learning that the owner of File:Ron Myers plays the flugelhorn.jpg had copyright problems. Why was the photograph removed? There certainly was not a copyright problem involved with the new photograph.

JuneteenthDOC (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC) JuneteenthDOC

I wasn't involved in any way, but according to the info on File:Ron Myers plays the flugelhorn.jpg, it was deleted due to "No evidence of permission". I would suggest contacting the person who deleted it for clarification. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prime Directive may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • In the ''TOS'' episode "[[A Private Little War]]"), two different factions on a planet are at war with each other, but it is found that [[Klingon]]s

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Yes, I know. The Holocaust is not a standard subject.Hoops gza (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, though.Hoops gza (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The rules only apply to standard subjects. Not subjects that you have a special interest in. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion notice[edit]

I asked at WP:AN/I#User:Hoops gza and Nazi topics. for an admin to keep an eye on User:Hoops gza and his contributions to Landmesser and other Nazi topics. You might want to add your account of the issue there for clarification and describe the nature of his disruptive editing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


The file description says that it is a copyrighted image that the authors have let us use on Wikipedia. AFAIK it's not actually possible for someone to do that; they can only agree to release their image under a free license, thereby allowing it to be uploaded to Commons (see here). Could you please contact the owners via OTRS to get them to clarify? It Is Me Here t / c 11:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not the source of their statement of "permission". Their claim of copyright is not at all credible, so I'm not going to dignify it by asking them to clarify. It's indisputably public domain in the US, and the only way it'd be under copyright in the EU would be for the unknown creator to live another 40-50 years after taking it; if that isn't enough to allow it in Commons, then put it back in EN. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to CarPlay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • to their newer vehicles, and that CarPlay will work with all Lightning-enabled iPhones (currently the [[iPhone 5|5]], [[iPhone 5C|5C]], [[iPhone 5S|5S]], [[iPhone 6|6 / 6 Plus]].<ref name=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

2003 Boeing 727-223 disappearance[edit]

Must respectfully disagree about the need for sub-headings in an article as short as this. The three topics are the obvious ones in the case of any disappeared plane, and nobody is likely to want to read one of them, but not the others. Valetude (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sally Kern[edit]

"Just because somebody said that this fucktard is a bigot doesn't mean we can put that into an article as a statement of fact." How could making a section with quotes from reputable publications be confused as a statement of fact when it is clearly labeled Quotes about Sally Kern? It provides perspective of the publics opinion of a public figure.

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User McQueen.30[edit]

I made a report at WP:ANI#User McQueen.30. Sundayclose (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock notifications[edit]

Hi Jason, a quick unsolicited note from someone with a ton of experience in the SPI arena: We are not required to notify suspected socks that we suspect them. In my experience this tends just to tip them off and inflame them, which can result in more disruption because hey, what do they got to lose at that point? You can, of course, notify them. I'm just sayin' that I've never seen the point of it. Regards and good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Noted. At least if he goes ballistic, that'll make it a simpler decision to block him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's a possibility... :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I often opt not to notify socks myself for the reasons Cyphoidbomb gave, though it could potentially lead to quicker blocks. I'm not sure how closely you've been following these, but I feel as suspicious as you do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suspicious. It's him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think our friend Atomic Meltdown is back[edit]

Could you give User:Señor Schultz a look? Seems to fit the profile. I'd like to hope I'm wrong. BusterD (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time for a thorough analysis, but at a glance... It's him. The user page is contrived (unspecified improbable combination of ethnic/racial identities) He's previously tried the reverse-psychology "trick" of making edits contrary to his agenda (removing occupations) either trying to discredit the idea or imagining that it disguises him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Although I don't think you intended for your comments to be prejudiced or racist in nature, I am going to caution you on using terminology and tone that suggests such in the future ("a Black Jew who calls himself "Señor"?"). It could be interpreted by others as a violation of WP:WIAPA. Just a friendly reminder. -- WV 17:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
In the future when referring to users' racist "humor" I'll be careful to be more unclear what I'm talking about. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel it is definitely him. If you didn't see, there is an SPI case on him right now with this editor. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
JasonAQuest, regardless of whether or not the editor is a sock of AM or not, your choice of questioning who he is was less than advisable. If he is or isn't AM, for all you know the individual behind the name is Jewish and African American living in the American Southwest. ~
I'm rather good at perceiving deception; it's part of my type. I know that he is not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Seth MacFarlane. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Just warning you so you don't violate 3RR. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

From time to time I forget just how dysfunctional Wikipedia is. I'll be more careful not to try to help in the future. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits were not constructive[edit]

Simply removing sourced content that is relevant to the topic cannot be construed as constructive by any stretch of the term. Serendipodous 12:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And your behavior is a textbook example of ownership syndrome, which is not only unconstructive it is harmful to Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be a lot easier to understand what you were doing if we were having this discussion on the talk page instead of in the edit history. Serendipodous 13:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Already done. Try to participate cooperatively. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Talk page removals"[edit]

Hi Jason,

After reading your objection to my removal of a spoiler from an anonymous commenter's statement on the talk page of "Mysterious Skin", I carefully reviewed the guidelines at issue, and I have the following response:

1. Claim: "Wikipedia is not edited to remove spoilers"

[a] The guideline against disclaimers applies to Wikipedia articles, not comments on talk pages.
[b] There is no justification for such a "no spoiler alert" policy on Wikipedia articles.
(I) The purported justification for the general "no disclaimer" policy is that all disclaimers are supposedly already covered by a general disclaimer found in small print at the bottom of every article. However, in addition to the fact that it's in small text and that it's in a useless location (a disclaimer located AFTER the objectionable content is useless), the general disclaimer does not apply to spoilers. It simply says that Wikipedia makes no guarantee of reliability of the information found herein, and that you rely on it and use it at your own risk. Fair enough -- I have no problem with that. But it has nothing to do with spoilers.
(II) Ah, but what about the supposed content disclaimer? Nope. First, the content disclaimer does not appear on any Wikipedia pages -- only the general disclaimer which as noted above, doesn't apply to spoiler alerts. Second, even the content disclaimer doesn't apply to spoiler alerts. It applies to things like profanity, potentially offensive images (e.g., images of parts of the human body), "frank discussion of controversial topics", etc. (Yes it does say, rather lamely, "Wikipedia contains spoilers", but offers no reason why spoiler alerts should not be allowed.) In fact, despite extensive searching, I can find absolutely no justification for a "no spoiler alert" policy. It should be noted that a spoiler is fundamentally different from content that may merely offend delicate sensibilities. A spoiler permanently ruins a moviegoer's experience. Once read, a spoiler cannot be "unread". Again, this issue is not addressed anywhere in Wikipedia's project pages.

2. Claim: "It is rarely appropriate to edit or remove others' comments on Talk pages."

Agreed. In fact, I've only ever done it once before, about 9 or 10 years ago when I was a newbie, and then only to correct some heinous grammatical errors. Haven't done it since -- until last week. But in this case, I believe it's justified for two reasons:

[a] I removed material that I believe was truly harmful, in that it contain an unwarned spoiler that, once read, cannot be deleted from one's brain. (Please note that I am a strong supporter of free speech, so when I say that a particular item of speech is "truly harmful", I don't say it lightly. Most non-defamatory speech is not harmful. I only say it here because, as I noted above, spoilers have the potential to permanently ruin a moviegoer's experience and cannot be undone.)
[b] Whoever wrote the spoiler clearly wasn't heavily invested in his comment -- he didn't even bother to sign or date it. It's the equivalent of an anonymous "hit and run". Indeed, if he had signed his comment, I could've contacted him directly. Whatever "rights" he may have had to avoid his inconsiderate spoiler being removed were waived by his failing to sign and date his comment, which users are supposed to do. (Indeed, I have to question your standing to complain about the partial removal of another person's spoiler when that person didn't even bother to sign it.)

On further reflection, I must concede that in this particular case, the anonymous writer didn't really say much beyond that the movie didn't have a happy ending. Not really a devastating revelation as spoilers go. So all this palaver is probably like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. (I do that sometimes. And this appears to be one of those times!) But what if he had said something like "[so-and-so] died at the end"? As is so often the case, it's the principle.  :-)


Captain Quirk (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I hope you find the help you need somewhere. SPOILER: You're going to be unhappy a lot. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comedian infobox[edit]

We're still waiting for formal closure, but it's been 30 days and the RfC to deprecate the influences/influenced infobox field achieved virtually unanimous support. So I reinstated your edit at Trevor Noah that moved influences/influenced to the article body, and I thought you'd want to hear that a large number of fellow editors support this alongside you. With regards, Tenebrae (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Inkpot Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Alan Campbell, Michael Davis, Mark Brooks, Katherine Morrison and Drew Friedman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:HarryChess.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:HarryChess.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Josh Duggar[edit]

Please do not restore this information without discussing the reliability on the talk page. Please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for relevant BLP policy. Nyth63 15:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lostgirls cover.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lostgirls cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —f3ndot (TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 23:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel Article[edit]

Could you please explain your edit on Rudolf Abel on the talkpage of the Rudolf Abel talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, my edit summary is sufficient explanation. Do you perhaps have me confused with another editor, or are you harassing me for editing without your permission? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have some kind of problem...[edit]

...with sourcing a claim, I suggest you try to mount a campaign to get rid of our requirement for verifiability -- good luck with that. If what you added to the article Bir Tawil is true, it should be easy to find a citation from a reliable source to back it up. BMK (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And the way to get what you want is not to remove sourced material that you happen to disagree with. Number 1, discuss tyour concerns on the article's talk page, Number 2, find a source that counters the current source. Number 3., kep up this style of editing, and you're bound to be blocked for disruption. BMK (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
...said the pot to the kettle. Reverting a good-faith constructive edit because you didn't like the transliteration, is disruptive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Bullshit, it had nothing to do with the transliteration. As any intelligent editor would see, it was about the name of our article. Keep it up, you're 0-for-2. BMK (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet, all you did was revert and WP:BITE a new editor. You did the wrong thing there, and I think you know that on some level. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, if you still want to make a Federal case, I've opened a discussion on the talk page, as you should have done instead of deleting a sourced statement in its entirety. BMK (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope you find peace somewhere. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
<irony>You want dominion over Bir Tawil? You can have it.</irony> -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Sarcasm and irony are generally more effective when wielded with intelligence, just as a knife cuts better when the edge is sharp. This stuff: meh, like being sliced with a banana. You'd best return to playing with Peter Pan and friends. BMK (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop it, right now[edit]

This kind of thing is entirely unacceptable. Utterly inappropriate. You may think you can "help" but you really aren't able to do so. So don't ever do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I can't help him. He needs someone who can. If you consider him a friend, please try. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I have and I am. Your intervention is not needed nor appropriate. Stop it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that someone is heeding his cry for help. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Hypothetically speaking, suppose I know of someone who has a problem. Let's use alcoholism as an example. Maybe an analogy. He knows he's got the problem. He admits that he's powerless over it, that it's messing up his life, etc. He states his intention to quit. Suppose I encourage him to just take a break from drinking, then come back to the bar when he feels better... but he says that no, that won't make a difference: he'll still be an alcoholic. Should I then encourage him to only avoid some drinks, and stick to the ones that don't make him quite so out-of-control? I mean, surely when he said he wanted to quit – when he announced to the world that he was sober now, that he'd retired from drinking – he didn't really mean that, did he? Because look: after that, he didn't actually quit. He kept coming back to the bar for his regular nightcap. And sure enough: he ended up drunk again. Would it be a good idea to confront him about that contradiction? To point out that he was doing the exact thing that he – in a more sober state of mind – had confirmed that he really shouldn't be doing, for his own good? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Boning the fish listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boning the fish. Since you had some involvement with the Boning the fish redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


For the kind words. I apologize if I've been hard to collaborate with at times; I do hold you in high regard, even back in what looks like our only disagreement in years, in 2011. And I appreciate your watching Superman; I agree with the other editor's philosophy in general, and I tried hard in the beginning to work constructively with him, though he turned out to be less than collegial. The overall goal of bringing the article to GA is a good one, and I'm going to try to be more reconciliatory with this editor. Help keep us on that path!    : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trumbo (2015 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Brave One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Your revert at Sandy Duncan[edit]

Your revert at Sandy Duncan doesn't appear to make sense. Can you explain why you did that? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Accidental. Apologies. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. No problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Is this your website? A Jason Quest is in the whois info. Family Guy Guy (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes[edit]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History[edit]


Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

--Ipigott (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Well, from our recent conversation, it would appear - as far as I can see - your feeling are still all bent outta shape because you didn't like how I told you that your revert wasn't acceptable. I've already apologized twice now, and yet you bellyached about it instead of fixing the problem. Stelmaris fixed the problem.
Be more like Stelmaris.
Until then, you don't need to make any sort of text block dumps on my talk page. I get your point: you fail to get mine. We're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your apologies showed no sincerity. And if you think you've done nothing wrong, then you haven't gotten my point at all. Which makes your I'm-better-smarter-better-and-oh-yes-better-than-you act all the more tragic. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So, now you're a mind reader? I mean, you must be, if you can divine that my apology wasn't sincere. And dropping the Dunning-Kruger bit isn't at all uncivil. Thanks for making my point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Did I hurt your feelings? I apologize. You know, Stelmaris and I have edited many of the same articles for years. He's never insulted me, like you did so very quickly. You could be more like Stelmaris, maybe? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hahahahahaha. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd welcome third-party review of this conduct. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)