- 1 Place-name songs
- 2 Baen Free Library
- 3 Reduced activity
- 4 History of Russia
- 5 Jeffq - cool photo
- 6 More on VfD
- 7 Ammolite vandalism
- 8 Re "completely useless" - NOT!
- 9 Secret plan
- 10 Spelling Standardization
- 11 Monk
- 12 Semicolon in Crow T. Robot
- 13 Serial comma
- 14 Thanks for the notice
- 15 Apologies
- 16 Sadness
- 17 Your "hard cider" entry in the retronym article
- 18 Transwiki
- 19 Just a note...
- 20 On copyediting
- 21 Curious category
- 22 Saffron (disambiguation)
- 23 Firefly → Outlaw Star
- 24 Ooops
- 25 Quotes
- 26 Willow's "Wizard of Oz" quote
- 27 Dawn's hair
- 28 OMWF
- 29 Welcome to WikiProject Buffy
- 30 Hey JeffQ
- 31 Godzilla Cleanup
- 32 Mateusc
- 33 Snow globe
- 34 AfD inbalance
- 35 Robert Perloff
- 36 Firefly
- 37 Off the Net notice
- 38 Reavers
Hi Jeff - I've got a suggestion about the List of songs whose title includes geographical names - thought I'd ask you what you think before suggesting it to everyone on that page, since you're a leading organiser of that page. Would it be worthwhile linking not only the name of the group, but also the place? So, for instance, the first exact A is listed as "Abergavenny" by Marty Wilde. It's currently linked to Marty Wilde, but could also be linked to the article on Abergavenny. Worth doing? [[User:Grutness|Grutness hello? ]] 06:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This has been discussed on the various song-list talk pages in the past. The general consensus has typically been to create links for songs only when the song itself has an article, for three basic reasons:
- Hyperlinks should link to the most specific thing described by the link. This would favor linking to articles on the songs themselves. (This is the strongest reason, since an increasing number of songs do have pages, and it would be confusing not to know whether the link would take you to a song or a place until you followed it.)
- Creating links for each geographical name, when each line has a geographical name, would be massive overkill, and maintaining a subset (say, only the first occurrence) would be a significant effort. (On the other hand, most of the discussions occurred before the lists were grouped by names rather than titles, so first-only is more logical and easier to maintain than it once was.)
- Some believe that all these links would make the pages looks rather messy.
- That said, there is still merit to the idea. I would suggest that you give everyone a few days to get used to the new organization (which I hope to have finished within a day or two), then go ahead and make your proposal. It doesn't seem to have been discussed yet on the geo names page, and it's worth considering. — Jeff Q 07:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, please don't insert your comments into my long postings, as it can lead to lengthy, confusing context interruptions. (Consider what would happen if we started several discussions inside each of the various points you raise in the above long section, with successive responses to each other. ☺) — Jeff Q 15:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC).
my apologies for doing this. I've done a lot of rearanging and reformating for the new talk page (User talk:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs) so it hopefully shouldn't be a problem there. It also means this comment would be out of place, but as I think it would be rude to just delete it I've moved it here. Thryduulf 17:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Geoname songs reorganisation project
I understand fully. Personal matters are far more important than wikipedia. Thryduulf 18:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Baen Free Library
- The Baen Free Library isn't violating copywrite. All the books are there with the permission of their copywrite-holders.
- "Baen Books is now making available ? for free ? a number of its titles in electronic format. We're calling it the Baen Free Library. Anyone who wishes can read these titles online ? no conditions, no strings attached. ... Or, if you prefer, you can download the books in one of several formats. ...
- This will be a place where any author can, at their own personal discretion, put up online for free any book published by Baen that they so desire. There is absolutely no "pressure" involved." www.baen.com/library/
- —wwoods 22
- 39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize for the error. I confused this link with one from the Wikiquote David Weber page that had posted Honor Harrington CD images online. Sloppy of me. I've restored the BFL link to the Honor Harrington article. — Jeff Q 00:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll probably be doing only minor corrections and edits for the foreseeable future, until the severe response problems with the Wikipedia and Wikiquote servers is fixed. — Jeff Q 14:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty much back now, although I'm only contributing sporadically, more due to time issues than Wiki issues. — Jeff Q 03:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jeffq - cool photo
I like your user photo - very cool Brookie 18:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
More on VfD
Concerning the cartoon character list VfD, isn't 9 of 15 votes for deletion (60%) less than the required 70% for consensus? I'm not especially concerned about this list (even though I voted to keep it), and won't miss it now that it's gone, but this strikes me as encouraging the "simple majority consensus" argument that I've seen misused elsewhere. — Jeff Q 07:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My judgement calls are based on how far apart the delete and keep votes are. If they are even, one vote apart, I tend to call it no consensus. If it is 2 votes apart, it depends on the situation. If it is 3 or more, then I consider it as consensus to whatever is leading. The deletion process doesn't mention any set percentage of how much a vote is necessary in order to delete it. If there were a percentage, we might have a lot of junk articles around... because then a strong consensus would be required to delete any article... -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for the quick reply! I'm not sure I agree with such slim margins, but I'm certain I don't have your experience with such judgment calls, and I'm a believer in not being straitjacketed by numbers and immutable policies. I bow to your greater wisdom. ☺ — Jeff Q 07:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You'd also have to consider, if we didn't have slim margins, a lot of articles would have to go through renomination process, especially when you can clearly see a need for deletion. Although I disagree with your particular list, I didn't vote on it, therefore I have to be non-biased when going through these deletions. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're doing a great job fending off vandalism to this page. I was about to revert User:Tma 88 when you did, and so I posted the standard warning on his or her talk page anyway. I'll keep an eye on them for the next little while.-gadfium 01:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't the only one reverting, either. Paxsimius, Michael Hardy, and Spencer195 got their shots in as well. I had more difficulty not interfering with their reversions than actually undoing the damage. Guess the Wiki model works pretty well. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As a general rule, "Act like an administrator, so long as you don't claim falsely to be one."-gadfium 04:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re "completely useless" - NOT!
I disagree with your comment "I'm a completely useless member of society."
Plus I'm sure many of us Wiko's might form some kind of "completely useless" community, so... opportunity for usefulness? ;')
Well, I'm waiting for the Commons to implement their Big Plan for merging articles and categories. (Read over this and/or this for the relevant debate, and what I say next will make more sense.) Currently we have a clear consensus that it should be done, but we have no assurance from developers that it actually will be done. If Wikimedia can't (or won't) make the requested changes on Commons, then there's no point in me requesting changes on Wiktionary. And if they will, I'd prefer to wait until it happens before I fully announce my secret plan, so people will be able to see parts of it working and won't argue that it could never work.
So I'm thinking about proposing something like that on Wiktionary, only more so. I'm hoping to allow a single quote to be listed in several groups (e.g. quotes by Shakespeare, quotes by Hamlet, quotes about suicide, and quotes that are cliche for "To be or not to be - that is the question") without having to type in the same quote in all four pages. I'm also hoping that other projects could link to, or include, a single quote (not just all quotes by or about someone or something), and that quote could be modified in a single place, like a template. But I'll withhold the details for now. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I was a bit confused about your references to Wiktionary, as I was asking about your "Crazy idea" as shown on Wikiquote. (I can't help wondering if it's related to your cool but disconcerting cross-linking of your Talk page(s) between Wikis.) On Wikiquote, I had wondered if you were thinking along the lines that I have — that it would be useful to be able to treat each individual quote as a data unit. I was thinking more in terms of providing a quote-serving capability (as has been asked about, and which issue has also come up in the context of handling Wikipedia song-list elements), but like you, I've also fretted about the excessive effort needed to maintain quotes that appear in multiple articles.
- Thanks for the pointers to the Commons discussions. I found the vote rather confusing, as it assumes a considerable amount of previous experience on this issue, but your introduction in your proposal made it much clearer. I'm a bit concerned about the tail wagging the dog there. Commons pages do seem more logically suited as Categories, but that's only true because of the nature of the Commons, and isn't true for every other Wiki I've worked on. Changing the software to accomodate a single project seems outrageous to this relatively inexperienced Wikian. (E.g., wouldn't it be more reasonable to provide a capability for Commons' Search to automatically prefix "Category:" for Commons?) But intuitively, it also seems to me that making Category pages just like article pages might be akin to object-oriented languages treating their own innards as objects, which conceptually strikes me as a Good Thing. I must resign myself to being too ignorant for now to join the discussion.
- I don't think it's so much elitism as it is impatience with rehashing old controversies with no likely conclusion. People tend to get vituperous and preachy (as even I must confess to) when they have to reiterate arguments they've made dozens of times before. It doesn't help when people use words calculated to get a rise out of opponents, like cultural imperalism, egocentric, and caste. We're all human, after all. Just today, I read an amusing Dilbert, in which the prototypical geek has something relevant to say:
- Dilbert: People are so conditioned to take sides that a balanced analysis looks to them like hatred.
- I would add to that that, in this age of attack journalism, a calm argument for one side can look like mincing resignation. I mourn the loss of rational debate. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Semicolon in Crow T. Robot
The semicolon was inserted by the anon into the Crow T. Robot article because in HTML/XML/SGML, an ampersand and a semicolon delimit the code for a special character. For example typing é makes a "é" character. Typing cliché makes "cliché" appear. If you just type cliché without the semicolon then it will appear as "cliché" in the document. That's how it looked before the semicolon was added to the Crow article, and how it looks now that you've reverted it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 13:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize for my foolish oversight. I only looked at the difference between the two (without HTML rendering) and failed to notice that the é was not terminated properly. Considering the effort I put into ensuring that I was on solid grammatical grounds, my error is even more embarrassing. I've restored the semicolon. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:05, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
- Your comments are well done. Maurreen 07:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Maurreen. I thought they might have been somewhat overcooked myself. But I find useful discussion on this subject quite rare, and I long for a happy medium. ☺ I admire your patience and persistence in working on this meal prepared by far too many cooks. Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Jeff, you are kind. My attitude is similar to yours. Between some problems with the social aspects of Wikipedia and other factors, I've been spending less time on Wikipedia and more time on a Wikicity about journalism. You're invited to drop by if you ever feel like it. Maurreen 08:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice
Darn, I thought I registered my name on all the projects :).
- I've now gotten access to wikiquote:User:Netoholic, so please unblock it. Thanks for the heads up. -- Netoholic @ 19:49, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
- Done by me. jni 08:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reading the information you linked to me, I apologize for the additional work I created. I will take better care in the future. LordBleen 00:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with your statement in your vote that a template for spoilers is useful, just not that we need a specific one for the Whedonverse. RoboAction created a bunch of genre-specific stub templates for Wikiquote, which makes sense because people might want to monitor only certain genres to focus their editing work. But I just can't see any purpose to collecting a list of Joss Whedon pages that include spoilers. Dragons flight's argument that it does no harm but provides an opportunity for navigation (which is redundant, given standard navigational elements that make sense, like Categories and ordinary internal links) strikes me as using a screwdriver as a hammer and seems more likely to be an ex post facto justification of something that is "cute". (I agree that it is cute.) The standard spoiler templates suffice and don't add complexity where none is needed. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your "hard cider" entry in the retronym article
I am not sure that your description of why "hard cider" is a retronym is correct. I am not sure if it is a retronym. It is true that in some jurisdictions it is legal to sell apple juice, or even apple flavoured drinks as "cider". A big disappointment if you are a tourist and expected real cider. But you are incorrect to say cider was always fermented. The fermentation is a side-effect of how traditional cider was prepared. Cider, was pressed, and contained a lot of particulate matter, with natural yeasts on it,and so it naturally started to ferment, in the days before pasteurization. But freshly pressed cider -- "soft cider", hadn't had time to ferment, but was still cider. Individuals who swore a temperance pledge used to swear to refrain from particular activities, including swearing that they would not drink cider that was more than N days old, where N was something like 3 or 5.
Was I convincing enough for you to agree this entry should be struck? And, if so, do you want to do it, or should I? -- Geo Swan 08:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- My addition of "hard cider" to Retronym was not based on any evaluation of how the term should be used; it is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that, in some places, what was commonly known as "cider" later acquired a qualifier of "hard" to distinguish it from other ciders. That is what a retronym is. To quote the article on Cider:
- In North America, cider was traditionally fermented, but that alcoholic apple drink… is now referred to as hard cider.
- and the introduction to Retronym:
- A retronym is a new word or phrase coined for an old object or concept whose original name has become used for something else or is no longer unique.
- I am satisfied that, based on our own data in Wikipedia, "hard cider" is a retronym. If you aren't, you can, of course, remove it yourself. But might I suggest you post your concern on Talk:Retronym, or, better yet, Talk:Cider, and explain your case? You might get more informed commentary and/or sources than I can provide. (I'm certainly no expert on the term's etymology.) And if not, you can feel more sure about removing it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
What appears to have happened is that I forgot to complete the process by adding the entry for the page to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old/Transwiki and tagging the page; an unfortunate oversight, but one that can easily happen in the midst of a large batch of VfD closings. (When closing VfDs I do not transwiki the pages myself -- I don't actually even know what the process involves -- but only list them on the log as needing to be.) I did not delete this page and am not sure if the admin who did took any further steps. However, I have undeleted the history of Tributes by world leaders on the death of Ronald Reagan so that the transwiki process can be done correctly; feel free either to notify me or to tag it for redeletion once this has been done.
Should this come up in the future, a simple reminder of the error to the person at fault would suffice; such things are usually oversights rather than deliberate breach of policy. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a note...
Regarding the origin of the term "lobbyist": Prompted by your post, I added some info to the discussion section of the Lobbying talk page (though not to the article). -- 126.96.36.199 15:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Jeff: I see that you have copyediting some of my copyedits. In future, you should be aware that I charge a small fee for my copyediting services to Wikipedia. That fee is that I get to put commas where I think they should go. :-) I use the Chicago Manual of Style which does not countenance commas outside of quotes. I think that the Wikipedia MoS is misguided to follow British, Australian and New Zealand usage on this. After all, North America constitutes about 70% of the English-speaking world. I suppose it is a reasonable trade-off to get some sanity with apostrophes, though. And of course, I won't fight over it. I will just ask that you please leave my commas alone so I don't have to try change Wikipedia's MoS (engendering endless discussion about which is fly spec and which pepper).
I'm more puzzled about your removal of my em dashes. You've got some technology that I don't believe I have. It would be handy to have, though, as the written "—" often confuses other editors.Sunray 23:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Before I rant about Wikipedia:Manual of Style, let me address your second point, about em-dashes. With the installation of MediaWiki 1.5 software, Wikipedia converted from ISO 8859-1 page encoding to UTF-8 (Unicode). I'm no expert on this topic, but it's my understanding that changing HTML special characters to Unicode characters avoids some problems, and as you say, it helps editing readability. For easy input, a large selection of clickable characters is provided below page-edit boxes for those of us who don't have nice keys for these and who haven't finger-memorized the Unicode numbers. Em-dash, en-dash, and h-ellipsis are included in that set.
- Now about Wikipedia style… If you wish to use CMoS style, I recommend you submit your résumé to the University of Chicago Press. Every publication and publisher in existence has a formal or informal set of style practices, and they are completely justified in enforcing it within their domain. Wikipedia's is Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and it is determine by its editors (i.e., the entire Wikipedia community). Many people who go to work at UCP or other publishers find themselves having to adopt style practices that are in variance with what they learned in school (and what they often believe, incorrectly, is "the" right way). This is true in both the U.S. and UK, with each having a mass of conflicting style practices even within their own borders. (It is only extreme parochialism, down to the specific schools in which they were taught, that causes people to think there is a single "right" way.) The only way to make a worldwide publication like Wikipedia work is to accept that your practices (and my practices) are not the "right" way for WP; only WP can decide what is right, in exactly the same fashion it establishes solid articles — through community revision and compromise. In all likelihood, any practice you cite can be traced to similar historical compromises made among earlier editing groups.
- Like so many others, you assume that any style change in variance with your understanding is some kind of foreign conspiracy, while ignoring the fact that much of the style practices follow U.S. guidelines. That's what we call "compromise". (By the way, I'm American, so I learned many of the same practices you did, including the comma and period stuff.) One particular point which is always missed by folks on either side of the "pond" is that WP specifies American quote marks ("double quotes", with "single quotes" inside when needed), but specifies British exclusion of commas and periods in quotations except when forming a complete sentence. To quote the very first line of WP:MOS#Quotation marks: "With quotation marks we split the difference between American and British usage." (Note the inclusion in that last sentence of the period for a complete sentence. Wiki wars have been fought over this kind of detail.) Invariably, Yanks will whine about the comma placement, and Brits will whinge about the quote marks. Both will disingenously ignore the compromises made in their favor.
- You cite a SWAG about how much of the English-speaking world is in North America without documentation. I've seen this all before. The folks that do provide such documentation frequently quote contradicting studies, so even sourced statistics cannot be trusted. Worse, you imply that North America has some kind of homogeneous writing style, which is absolutely absurd. If you'd take the trouble to read the virtual reams of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and its archives (which I have), you'd find that not only do the U.S. and Canada vary considerably in details, but regions within the U.S. also have conflicting practices, to say nothing of the clear contradictions visible in any quick reading of the many competing U.S. authorities like CMoS, AP, NY Times, Strunk & White, U.S. Government, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
- You threaten to change WP:MOS? I dare you to try! At any given time, you'll find dozens of vicious editors who will rip you to shreds for moving commas, changing spellings, altering cases, and even tweaking adjectives that describe how one should approach any topic. I know; I've participated in those battles. To quote John Lennon, "You tell me it's the institution / Well you know / You better free your mind instead". (Note the unpunctuated lyrical style, with period outside quotes. As far as I know, even WP:MOS hasn't addressed this topic yet.)
- I know I've rambled for quite a bit, but this is nothing compared to the essays you'll find if you get involved in even the tiniest aspects of WP:MOS. To paraphrase Dante, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter there." It's better just to accept that hundreds (thousands?) of people have worked for many years on WP:MOS, and have come to a fairly stable compromise. Don't try to rock that boat unless you wish to make style revision a second career! ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. As a Canadian editor, I am somewhat sensitive to the vagaries of English writing style, buffeted as we are between two, shall we say, "expansive" English-speaking nations. You assume that I believe that there is a "right" way to place commas and other punctuation. Well, yes and no. I rather like the admonition on the introduction page of the MoS (ironically from the Chicago Manual of Style):
Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.
- The MoS is a guideline, not a policy. Yet it is remarkably resistant to change, as you point out. However, it is often not as authoritative as a good manual of style, like CMS. Here's an interesting commentary on the problem of wayward commas from CMS Online:
- Q. Apparently Americans enclose periods commas inside quotation marks, but do the British do it that way too?
- A. In what is sometimes called the British style (see paragraph 6.10), only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.)  (Emphasis mine.)
- From looking over your work, I note that you are a conscientious editor. If you've seen mine you will note that I also work hard at it. I think that we who seek to improve Wikipedia should be able to do so for the most part without conflict with others on the same path. So, I wish to reiterate my earlier request that you keep you hands off my commas. I use it as a teaching tool for young folk who quote me the Wikipedia MoS. We agree on many things, could we agree on that? Sunray 00:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Not my categorization; Kuralyov added that tag. But I'll chime in there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
After reviewing WP:MOS(dab), restoring 3 links seemed appropriate.
"Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place."
- Continuing your quote at the very next word of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):
- The examples make clear that a reasonable link to a directly relevant topic (i.e., Republica, etc., here) is appropriate (although not required), whereas the former link "given (first) name" and links for any other less directly relevant phrases like "lead singer" or "sitcom" would be inappropriate. Per your urging in the edit summary, I actually read that whole section of WP:MOS(dab) (in fact, the entire policy page), and reviewed the page's contents before your edit to see what you'd changed, before making my update.
- My words in my own edit summary, as you have quoted above, were just as carefully chosen as the links themselves. Please read them again and compare them to the cited examples. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I too have read the WP:MOS(dab) page front and back, but don't do so daily. That
or — "Dark Star", a song by The Grateful Deadclause was added only recently (August 15) and I wasn't aware it existed. Personally I don't agree with it — linking to The Grateful Dead is not essential to direct someone to the specific place Dark Star, just as Pokémon is not essential to direct someone to Saffron City. It is my belief that when someone enters "Saffron" in the search box, they have a specific article in mind and care about little else. That clause was only added to satiate the few who dispute the one-wikilink-per-line guideline; there is a long and winding debate over that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Unfortunately, the discussion is dominated by only one or two dissenters. Since you seem to support multiple-wikilinks-per-line, I suggest you explain your reasoning there, if you wish.
- In any case, thank you for reading the MoS page. Not many people even know it exists, they simply revert the page to suite their own standards (hence my bustling edit summary). I'm sorry for the confusion. —jiy (talk) 07:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I was afraid that might be the case. One can get used to a policy only to find it thwarted later by other strong opinions. (I spent several months participating in MoS wars last year and found it rather pointless, because the strident types fail to realize that their stridency rarely accomplishes anything in the long run, unless they make a life commitment to a topic.) I've exceeded my interest level on this particular style issue, so I'll take Saffron(dab) off my watchlist, let things proceed as they may, and exercise restraint in the future. Thank you for the illumination. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I too have read the WP:MOS(dab) page front and back, but don't do so daily. That
Firefly → Outlaw Star
Ah, now I understand your point. It's true that Hilda sought Melfina for reasons of profit, while Simon sought River out of love, but those weren't the forces I meant. I was referring to both the Space Forces (for Outlaw Star) and the Alliance (for Firefly) who both sought to reclaim their stolen creation. -- Staxringold (Talk)
- Yes, that achieves the first part of the parallel in the Firefly article, "that causes forces to pursue them", but I was looking for the second half, "encourages others to aid their flight". Is there any parallel to the underground movement, or is it just Hilda and the Outlaw Star crew? Am I just reaching too far? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ahhhhh, nonono, that is where the XGP/Serenity come into it. I'll reword the section to be clearer, what I meant was:
- Both 'built' into what they are by government
- Both stolen by people seeking profit (The underground group got Simon's help, Hilda get's whatever she thinks the Galactic Leyline is)
- Both are pursued by the forces that 'built' them (The Alliance and The Space Forces)
- Both inadvertantly end up in the ship of someone other than the person who stole them who end up aided their flight for tertiary reasons (Gene falls in love with Melfina and feels a need to solve the mysteries behind Hilda and her death, Simon proves himself useful and so Reynolds protects him and his sister) Staxringold 02:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, no the editing is fine (it was pretty late for me to be adding major portions), I have just one note. Meria is not a speculative first name, it is the released name for the character, it's on IMDB, and confirmed by the early screenings of the film back in May. Staxringold 15:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
re: Category link text labels — Ahh sorry about that. I realised what mistake I'd done but then didn't leave myself much time to fix it. Yeah, daft idea I know. I think my original intention was to get rid of the "(Firefly)" from the Category page. Cheers for that though — CuaHL 09:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I just want to say that I enjoyed your quotes very much, they're simply great. I'm going to take some of your quotes to my Quote of the week page ond the Serbian Wikipedia, so you'll find yourself in (not so) chosen company of Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, and my showinist-male-hating-feminist proffesor of Statistics :) -- Obradović Goran (talk 00:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why, thank you. I'm quite honored to be considered quoteworthy (by someone other than myself, that is ☺). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Willow's "Wizard of Oz" quote
Hi, JeffQ! Thanks for the clarification and correction. I truly do appreciate it. When I started disambig'ing The Wizard of Oz I thought--wow, this one should be really straightforward. Boy, was I wrong. The articles directly related to Baum's book were obvious. Several others, such as the Buffy article, were troublesome and I hoped that a keen observer would quickly jump in for an assist. I defer to your obvious mastery of quotations ;-)!!!! There were a couple of other articles related to Dorothy's infamous "Kansas" quote that I attributed to the 1939 film--which I believe is in line with what you have stated. If not, please let me know :-). Have a great weekend!! -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 12:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Boy, are you a quick reverter! But come on, it's Dawn and deep down you know :) It's generally agreed on the fan-forums, but if you are waiting for a written statement by Michelle, forget about it. Now more seriously, I have contributed a lot to project Buffy and I believe I deserve some more leeway. It's annoying to have changes reverted so fast and furiously.
Abaraibar 21:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, Abaraibar. My "unsourced" reversions aren't based on edit times, personalities, or reputations. Fan speculation, no matter how substantial, isn't a reputable source. You're right that I want it to be Dawn, but without the face, the willowy girl with the long hair could be any of a million California girls (or, more accurately, a thousand aspiring young actresses). I'll take a statement from Michelle, Joss, any of the crew, or a credit buried somewhere in the DVD ?— even an outtake where the girl accidentally revealed her face and it was cut for being too obvious (or obviously not) — but it's gotta be sourced or it's speculative original research. If you're so anxious to help Buffy work on Wikipedia, why don't you help me clean up the 144 existing articles to provide some common structure that follows Wikipedia style guidelines? Besides the Pretentious Capitalization of Headers, I can't tell you how many erroneous "episode X of season Y", previous and next episode links, and other simple problems I've fixed when all I was trying to do was add Wikiquote links for each specific episode. There's plenty of work left even on this basic stuff. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I wish I had more time to dedicate to it, but I can only log in every now and then to write plot outlines, mostly right after watching some eps for the umpteenth time. I know I ought to add links, but there's plenty of people willing to do that and I prefer to focus on the plot itself. It's amazing how many of them write about what should be done and then just chip in to make small changes such as these (don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you, you seem to have done some good work :) Oh and it is Dawn. Abaraibar 08:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
(There is no objective criterion for adding quotes.) Yes, there is. Quotes ought to be ilustrative of the topic in question. "What else would I pump you for" is neither relevant to the episode, nor particularly specific to Buffy. The two you've added, however, are much more appropriate: a small joke refering to the state of things, and a (rare, if not the only, in the show...?) instance of fourth-wall-breaking that refers to the series' schedule. So, as I see it at least: putting up random jokes and fan favourites = t3h suck; putting up quotes that either reveal something of significance about the characters, story archs, or are simply distinguishable for one trait or other = t3h gr34t. Am I very wrong? Cheers, Zeppocity 19:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's still subjective — you yourself say "as I see it". But I happen to agree with your criteria for Wikipedia use. (That's why I didn't restore the "pump you" quote.) Perhaps we can encourage fans to add other quotes to Wikiquote, where fan favorites are welcomed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I feel strongly enough about it to reckon it should be made into a semi-official policy to have that sort of care. But anyway, yes. What you say makes sense, and I for one have been making the effort of adding the sort of quotes I think are more appropriate to some Buffystuff. Anyway, Zeppocity 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Buffy
Sorry about deleting that user's comments. I thought I read somewhere that any comments involving "personal attack" were grounds to delete. No big though. Sorry if I offended anyone. I did try several times to reply in a calm and logical manner to this user and very recently an unspoken compromise as HE calls it. I just feel that this site should be where all viewpoints are respected (his, mione, anyone's) and should not be met with namecalling and put-downs. I was forced at the very end to respond back with some jabs because of the other users provocation. I just hope that the next person this user gets into a "debate" with (and I hardly call it a debate as it was childish and pointless) has as much patience as I used with this user. Thanks. -UltimateBuffyfan (chris) 15:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I took another look at the Godzilla, King Of The Monsters article, about which you sent me a message. I’m not sure what I intended when I put the cleanup tag on it. It might have been just because the article has no references, sources, and external links. Anyway, I removed the cleanup tag. Thanks for the update. ♠DanMS 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I want know why you calls me "fraudulent" and "vandal" in other places of the Internet. When I created Reirom article I looked to inform of a neutral form and mature about a nickname with 7.410 entries on Google. I sincerely find that people as you they only delay the Wikipedia and becomes it still more monotonous - fighting against facts that bother you and your sence of right things.
- Not, I don't go create article again - but now I am certain that cowards as you they do not hinder a phenomenon to exist - only reveal bothered for that they would like to be.
Thanks. --Mateusc 16:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mateusc, I find it quite incomprehensible how you can call me a "coward" and then thank me for my attention. Does anyone else even bother to respond to this Jekyll/Hyde approach? If you wish to discuss a Wikiquote issue, please bring it up on Wikiquote. I will not dignify your illiterate rant, which misrepresents my role in that discussion and completely omits the reasons for Reirom's poor reception (some of which are alluded to in your citation), with a comprehensive response. I will remove any further attempts to reargue this non-Wikipedia issue on my Wikipedia talk page, but I'll leave this note (as well as your original posting) here as a brief explanation of why. (I also changed the heading to a more topical "Mateusc", because "Me" is as breathtakingly egotistical as it is ambiguous in a table of contents.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not make the artcle, but merged it from another that was under "snowglobes" --Nalos6 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't noticed your merger from Snow globes. I'll have to repeat my request to the anonymous user who wrote it. One suggestion: it's good practice (and a supposed requirement, I believe) to add a note about the contributing editor(s) for material merged into a new article. When there's just one author, you can simply give their name (or IP address, for anons) in the edit summary for your merger. If the article has a significant history, standard practice is to add a section to the talk page of the destination article, like the one I just added to Talk:Snow globe, that lists the edit history of the article up to the merger. That provides two important things:
- Someone researching the provenance of information in an article can easily spot outside influences.
- Per GFDL requirements, contributing authors get credit for their material.
- — Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- "I just realized there's an institutional imbalance in the tension between Keepers and Deleters of Wikipedia articles. Someone can renominate an article for deletion over and over again, as long as there's some unspecified minimal delay between nominations, but if one time, the interested parties miss the vote window, the article is deleted and can never be recreated without being speedy-deletion bait. This means that anyone on a crusade to rid WP of controversial articles need only be persistent, and they're likely to win, whereas someone fighting to keep such an article loses forever with one negative vote. This troubles me"
You put into words very well something I've been thinking about ever since I saw the article up for deletion a third time from an anonymous nominator. I think you should raise this somewhere (AfD talk? Village pump?), it is a very important point. Turnstep 21:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I hope you'll vote to keep. Seems as if some stubsorter is a little trigger-happy with the vanity tag. PS: like the shirt! Jokestress 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm jumping on a plane shortly, so I'll let the fate of Perloff and that book rest in the hands of others. I agree that book article is pretty weak, though I'd argue that the writers examined are almost all notable. I've not had dealings with AFD on an article I started before, but my tendency is to be extremely inclusionist in comparison to the average Wikipedian. Jokestress 11:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Off the Net notice
My trusty laptop has finally bit the dust, so I'm off the Net until further notice. I may drop in here and there, but I don't expect to be back up full-time for 2-7 days. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm still not back up completely, and won't be for probably another week at least. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
My appologies, I was attempting to revert an anonymous change to 10%, but somehow messed up and changed it to 10%--SirNuke 18:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)