User talk:JasonAQuest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

"Citation needed" for lack of evidence?[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)