Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tenebrae (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 7 February 2008 (→WikiProject Comics Manual of Style: thanks, and addl). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Obina (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I may disagree with you on merging a few articles, but I award you a cookie for your edits to Peter Pan. You have really made it better! I hope you stay around now that you have a user name! Obina (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I've around here for nearly four years, the "stay around" invitation is a little misplaced, but I appreciate the attempt at being welcoming. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Pan

Total Disagree with renaming. Couldn't we discuss and reach consensus first? Obina (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up for discussion at Talk:Peter Pan (disambiguation) (with pointers in the directly affected articles) several days ago. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't describe my behavior (or anyone's) as snide. That is a personal comment. Particularly followed be a request to keep comments to the article. In any case, as the caterpillar (almost) said, my words mean what they mean and nothing more. If I was disrespectful it was unintentional and I am very sorry. You made an (almost) un revertable name change to an article, and discussed it on a page I was not watching. Not sure if you knew this or not - I shall assume not- , that once you changed the Peter Pan page to point elsewhere, the name change to the old Peter Pan page was un revertable. This for me is as permanant as an AFD, but with less time to reach consensus. What's done is done. I'll share my other comments on the name change elsewhere.Obina (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your parting "Hmmm" after your skeptical mischaracterization of whether there was prior support for my action certainly came across as a negative shot directed at me personally; what "meaning" I'm supposed to get from it is unclear at best. Whatever. Yes, my half-finished move was (rather obviously) a mistake; I didn't anticipate that one rename would be allowed, but the second would not. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since my opinions in discussion are totally ignored, I have decided to boldly edit instead.Obina (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chat

Yet you still felt the need to click "History" on Talk:Terry Pratchett, scroll down to deleted edits to check what I wrote on that talk page, then come to my page to continue a chat that you felt was out of place? You have spent a LOT of time talking about and perusing a chat that you claimed you felt was pointless to begin with. You are the one that has gone well out of your way for a pointless chat to make your pointless edits. JayKeaton (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your pot calling the kettle black thing does not apply here, you were the one who had the problem with the talk page, not me. And you are the one that is STILL rattling on about it. JayKeaton (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And you're doing... what, exactly? You got spanked; stop whining about it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh woah ho ho, I didn't notice this one here because I assumed I dealt with you a week ago. I did not get spanked, you do not have the power to "spank" me. You tried to take up an issue, you got called on it, YOU lost face. Don't post comments to try and make people think I was punished, when I never was and you never will have the power to punish people. JayKeaton (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The irony would be painful if it weren't so amusing. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You were lied to if you were told I was spanked or reprimanded in any way. JayKeaton (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that I "spanked" you, by admonishing you for using a Talk page for chit-chat. I never claimed to be in a position of authority over you, if that's the notion that has you so freaked out about this. Kindly take your esteem issues elsewhere and stop harrassing me. - 17:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Marc Andreyko

A tag has been placed on Marc Andreyko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Actually, it might be. You need to have the references there when creating a biographical article or stub. There's too much potential for people randomly creating overly positive or negative articles, or posting their own autobiographies (which is a conflict of interest) for that rule to be bent. If you think your article shouldn't be deleted, don't complain to the person who put the speedy deletion tag on it. Put the 'hang on' tag on the article, and explain why on the talk page, and put references up in the meantime. The admin who comes along will look on the talkpage for your rationale, and will consider that in the decision to delete it. Kannie | talk 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I know and acknowlodge that you are getting very frustrated right now. You think I haven't assumed good faith, and I haven't. The speedy deletion tag was a neutral faith assumption. Pretty soon, an adminstater, who more than likely knows nothing of our exchange, will come along and make a decision. Please save your time, breath, and energy for that admin, who is more important to the longevity of the article than I will ever be. I encourage you to talk about my 'hair trigger' decision making skills on the article talk page--and yes, such a decision seems to be slightly encouraged by the Kannie | talk 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Please try and use a neutral tone and avoid original research when editing. Thank you kindly. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I used a neutral tone. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetable characters

deleting "meetable characters"

JasonAQuest WROTE

Before you go any further in your apparent campaign against providing information about the Disney parks, please stop and discuss it.

One of the things that Misplaced Pages articles about fictional characters do - and are supposed to do - is provide information about the lasting impact they have. The fact that a character is popular enough to have been kept "alive" by Disney in the form of a "meetable character" at their parks is relevant. Saying that Mowgli is such a character is hardly a come-on trying to get people to come to Disneyland to meet him. That's not why the information was added, and that's not the effect it has.

By the way, I have no idea what your "Much like your company's efforts here" comment was about. What company do you imagine that I work for? I certainly don't work for Disney. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY Disney parks are a multinational commercial venture aimed at children that have nothing to with literature. They aim, and have sadly managed, to turn globally famous fictional characters like Mogwli or Pinocchio (which are handily past their copyright expiry date) into expensive products aimed at those who are still shaping their imaginations and creative potential, with the aim of turning them into consumers, not original creators or discerning, free-thinking audiences or cultural participants.

The fact that a poor re-enactment of Pinocchio is advertised as Disney park attraction does not make it worthwhile information. It is irrelevant trivia, in no manner comparable to the rest of film references (as you claim in your "undos"), who may help a researcher understand and comment on the impact in popular culture of the literary work.

You may not work for Disney, but you surely have made an effort to publicize their parks. I have not got much time to count, but you have inserted over ten references to "meetable characters" in every page where you have had a chance. In many cases you have managed to put it within the first twenty lines. You truly must believe that the most important thing about Pinocchio or Peter Pan's impact in popular culture are your extraordinary "meetable characters".

"Meetable" is not even a word in the English language, although I will admit that maybe it should be. In any case, they are not "meetable". They are real people, vastly underpaid and without the United Nations-sanctioned right to join a trade union. They could not even be considered to be actors without insulting that honourable profession. They often make children cry, as children usually know when they are being fooled.

As to my "apparent campaign against providing information about the Disney parks", that would be an excellent idea, because children deserve better than limiting their imaginations to only dwelling with what their parents may afford. However, that is no my intention. Unlike you, I am simply volunteering an opinion about what I consider to be relevant information, and doing my little bit against crass commercialism directed at children.

It is your turn to explain why do you believe that a disagreement over what constitutes relevant information (remember we are dealing with universal literature) should be a "campaign against Disney parks". Misplaced Pages is littered with references to those unimaginative supermarkets for children. I have not deleted them, for discerning parents should be able to learn what to avoid if they want their offspring's imagination to flourish. Many Disney films, sadly mostly in the distant past, are truly enjoyable and imaginative works of art. Product placement at Misplaced Pages goes against everything the creators of those films intended to do, and the writer of Pinocchio is no longer here to fight Disney Corporation in court. He would not be able to afford it anyway. That does not mean that his important heritage should not be respected.

(responded on User talk:62.48.98.196)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield

Hey, you're probably right, the language needs to be cleaned up. It was kind of hard to write out what they were trying to say. I understood the studio's intent, but I was trying to use layman's terms. Do you want me to copy and paste the relevant passage from that print source about the "cited rarity"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to quote it verbatim, but without a citation, we can't very well call it a "cited rarity" :) - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Austin American-Statesman citation covers the whole paragraph, though. Here's the passage: With the "1-18-08" movie, "the studio basically pulled a fast one on the online community, which really hasn't been done before," said Chad Hartigan, a box office analyst with Exhibitor Relations Co. He said the studio beat online scoopers at their own game by taking a new approach. Perhaps the "cited rarity" can be re-worded? It's fairly unusual. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zapruder-375.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zapruder-375.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Scrooge McDuck has a lot of nice third-party sources, and all the articles could use a mix of sources like him. Some of the Disney characters could really use some proof that they are noteworthy. Vanilla Subpoena (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:HUG.

I use a program called huggle; it's easy to use, but also easy to make mistakes. Around 1% of the edits I've made with huggle have probably been mistakes, but given that I've made around 5 thousand edits... Anyway, if you find a revert of mine that you think was a mistake, please tell me. · AndonicO 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

Hi, it seems from above comments you've been around a while so I'm surprised that you removed sourced content. If you feel something is in the lede that shouldn't be then I suggest you next time consider moving it to where it could go or at least placing it on the talk page for others to do the same. Benjiboi 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1976 Act changes

Hi, Jason, please see the discussion at Talk:United States copyright law#1976 Act changes. -- TJRC (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

Hi, Jason. Just a collegial note that per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/exemplars#Comics creators, we have a top-level header "Biography," with "Early life and career" etc. under that. Thanks! Cheers!--Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for communicating your thoughts. We don't believe the subhead is superflouous. Every article is a work in progress, and as the exemplar linked above notes, the Project has separate sections for such things as "Inspirations" and — as the Sim article already contains, actually — "Awards". Thank you for understanding the Project consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)