User talk:JasonAQuest

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

Comics Barnstar[edit]

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

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

Thanks for creating Joe Johnson (cartoonist), JasonAQuest!

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

Nice little LGBTQ article!! Thanks for creating.

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

Learn more about page curation.

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


then-former in the Gerald Ford article[edit]

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

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

DRN case reminder[edit]

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer[edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg

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

Please confine comments and questions...[edit]

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

Drmies warned me that I should not expect a friendly reception at DRN. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you're confusing things a bit. But if all you wish to discuss is your opinion, I don't think "friendly" is a likely outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is what I suggest as a true friendly suggestion. First, if this is simply an issue with the name of the article, it may be more appropriate to relist as a move and make your case in that discussion. This may not have risen to the level of a content dispute as yet. But most importantly, DRN is not for re-evaluating a community decision or consensus. If it is two against one....is it more likely you are simply not happy with the outcome? If so, is there a better way to move forward?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It isn't just about the name, but also the scope, which is determined by the name: There would be no room for cheeseless hamburgers in an article named "cheeseburger".
Yes, it's possible I'm simply wrong, but I've been on WP long enough to know that it's also possible the other two editors just like fighting people who step onto their turf and say "I think you made a mistake". The fact that they neither objected to "banket" as the article name when the merge was proposed, and that each did a 180º on some key point after I showed up (Mies about whether "banket" is the name of a food, Banner about need to merge) leads me to that suspicion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer[edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg

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

Observation[edit]

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

Oh yes: Don't try to fix anything. It won't be appreciated. I'm learning. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And then I get an e-mail from another editor offering private support. Private because he doesn't dare confront an editor who has harassed and hounded him in the past. He essentially confirms what I suspected about this person: a bully too sure of his own correctness. I'm not surprised, because I've seen it before. And WP's systems have failed to stop him. And I'm not surprised by that either. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It occurs to me: An unfortunate side effect of the No Personal Attacks policy is that it removes the negative feedback that humans are used to receiving. So we have people who go thru their uncounted hours on WP without people telling them that they're being jerks here. That's gotta cause problems. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 14[edit]

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

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

"Citation needed" for lack of evidence?[edit]

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

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

Then maybe the claim needs to be removed. Read WP:OR; I don't have time to explain Wikipedia to you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not a "claim" in that sense. Saying that there's no evidence for an accusation is not a claim that should be "backed up". It's the ACCUSATION that needs a citation, not the opposite. Read about what the "burden of proof" is. The only "citation" that's even possible to include on a line like that is a reference to a historian who states that there is no evidence of it. That's how you seem to think it should work, so that's how I will do it. Dino10 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's how it works. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking over it again, I agree that this is the best way to do it. I wouldn't want to take a random editor's word for it. It is easy to find an acceptable citation for it, so I will do that later. It's generally funky to demand proof for lack of evidence, but if a historian's word is enough then I see no problem with this. Dino10 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Real thanks at last…[edit]

Hi Jason,

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

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

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

⚠

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

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

RFC notification[edit]

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

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

Jason,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please feel free to contact SSilvers about this matter.

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

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

Also .....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typo correction![edit]

In my previous message to you I wrote:

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

Actually what I meant to write was:

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

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

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

Reply[edit]

You wrote:

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

Thank you very much for getting back to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to make two requsts:

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Erotic animation[edit]

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

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

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

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

Gay[edit]

Hi,

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

Maybe you're trying to make some kind of statement for Pride Month, and having been openly queer since long before you were born, I think that's sweet. But as the opening sentence, the infobox, and just plain reading the article indicates, it is about the modern sense of the word, not the archaic one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with pride month. The article is about the word in general: all uses (past and present), not just the current predominant meaning. I think it would be wrong not to categorise it under Happiness. Adam9007 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so it isn't misplaced good intentions, just a case of missing the point. Read The First Sentence Of The Article. Then go find something useful to contribute to WP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BikeBoy-Zack.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OhBoy-BradParker.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Student[edit]

Thanks for the super helpful comments and positive reinforcement. I'm sure it will go a long way to encouraging new people to learn how to edit. It is always nice to know that there are editors out there who are willing to help, rather than jump down your throat and make to whole experience unpleasant, when the students and their teacher are trying to do the right thing. -Susan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive sarcasm will get you really far in life, I'm sure. You set a great example for your students, and are clearly well qualified to teach. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
But seriously: I'm pretty patient with new editors who show they're ready to learn. You didn't do that. Instead you played the excuse-me-but-I'm-a-teacher card, and reverted a veteran editor's repair of the damage your tutee did. If I walked into your Biology classroom and started acting like an authority because I've done a little gardening, you'd slap me down, and rightly so. But that's essentially what you did with that stunt. And now you're trying to have it both ways, by playing the don't-bite-the-newbie card. Either you're an experienced editor who can effectively guide new editors in how to properly edit and document Wikipedia articles, or you're an inexperienced editor who has a lot of learning to do about Wikipedia process and policies. [Hint: I think it's the latter.] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, JasonAQuest. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland, Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror[edit]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 01:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Roland Caillaux) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Roland Caillaux, JasonAQuest!

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

If possible kindly add banners of appropriate wikiprojects on the talkpage of the article. Thanks :)

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

Learn more about page curation.

usernamekiran(talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your help bringing the article on Aaron Traywick up to spec. Neverpedia looks great as well!
Mahalo, ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  16:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Traywick[edit]

Hi Jason, I don't dispute that Traywick was subject to widespread criticism for his irresponsible showmanship, but he was also looked up to as a pioneer and admired by an orthogonal subset of followers. Examples include effusive praise from couples thanking him for allowing them to conceive a child when otherwise impossible [his role at Inovium Rejuventation]. The current wording of the article doesn't reflect that angle. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  17:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Then add that. But it would be misleading to suggest that the stunts described in the article spawned "controversy" (one of the most overrused weaselwords on WP) when the reaction was consistently critical. (BTW, this sort of discussion about the content of the article belongs on the Talk page of the article.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Controversial is the most oft-used descriptor in the widespread press coverage, e.g. "In Aaron Traywick's Alabama past, hints at the controversial biohacker's career" [Alabama.com], "Aaron Traywick lived life as a spectacle with all cameras rolling, so for those who knew him, it wasn’t surprising that his death was shrouded in spectacle and controversy, too" [The Atlantic] or "The controversial biohacker Aaron Traywick, who was found dead in a sensory deprivation tank in Washington, DC, on April 29, appears to have been planning human tests of a CRISPR therapy for lung cancer, MIT Technology Review has learned." [MIT Technology Review].
ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Weaselwords in the media further infect WP with them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how controversial is a weasel word; it simply signifies disagreement. To replace criticism with controversy would be weaseling, but to state both criticism and controversy existed together encompasses a wider spectrum. Criticism of his reckless showmanship tactics was widespread, but a vocal subset of biohackers were of the mindset that the FDA is holding back research in this area, and that granting access to potential cures or new treatments takes precedence over licensing and regulations. For them, the ends justified the means. His actions attracted both widespread criticism and sustained controversy. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  04:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no general disagreement about whether this unqualified crackpot was an unqualified crackpot. This article is about him, not the FDA and whether some other crackpots think that the end justifies the means. Leave that agenda out of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mandela effect[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mandela effect requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Mandela-effect. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This was supposed to be a redirect, and I've restored that. When someone replaces the content of an article (or redirect) with copyright-violating content, the appropriate response is to undo that edit, not to nominate the whole the article itself for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Indiana Jones[edit]

Sorry, didn't see that discussion. Will reply there. Trivialist (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Pink Triangle talk page[edit]

I think you deleted my comments by mistake on Talk:Pink_triangle. Is it ok if I re-add the comments I made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talkcontribs) 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, because you are doing a remarkable job of messing it up. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Queer on pink triangle[edit]

I saw you reverted my addition which clarified that the prisoners were queer. I want to avoid an edit war, but I think this improved the content. What can we do here. Strand (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You can stop editing.
You asked to be blocked. If you can't exercise that level of self-control on your own for even one minute, you have serious problems that I am not qualified to help you with. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Queerer-than-thou[edit]

Queer erasure with a quiltbag

If Mr. Queerer-than-thou gets back on his high horse about "cistemic erasure" and other such hipsterism after his block expires, please let me know. Perhaps you've heard that I don't suffer fools gladly, and this particular fool has earned a double dose in my book. EEng 23:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted.
Queer Erasure did a show here a month ago, but I couldn't afford tickets. I haven't seen them since the I Say I Say I Say tour. :( -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear. I hope that didn't trigger you. Here, crawl into this quiltbag and pull the covers over you. EEng 00:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You go, girl! EEng 00:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)