User talk:Jusses2

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)

If you might take a look at the work performed on Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) and revist the AFD discussion, I believe a redirect and partial (and now sourcable) merge be done to the Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations... the one place where film adaptations of this children's tale have a reason to be mentioned in context. I also suggest a redirect of the film title to A) prevent a premature recreation and B) save the history so the redirect might be reverted and the article sourced if RS DVD reviews are found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Misread

My fault there, I read Regionals, not rehersal. I was in the midst of rearranging the section and adding more content in any case, but I left that bit in this time around heading a paragraph in my rewrite. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It was partly my fault as well. I used the wrong preposition, "at rehearsal" should be "in rehearsal". I added a plot summary to the lead and wikified the plot some more. Jusses2 (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Jusses2, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 09:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jusses2 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Whisper back

Hello. You have a new message at Crakkerjakk's talk page.

Pot 'O Gold? Really?

If Fox is actually using that as a title for the fourth episode, it makes no sense at all. An apostrophe is used in English to replace a missing letter, and the only missing letter there is the "f" in "Of", which is *after* the "O", not before it. Hence, "Pot O' Gold" makes the most sense. Even with the Fox info, renaming the article here seems premature.

On the other hand, this is Fox, and it could be that the incorrect usage is due to Brittany not knowing where the apostrophe belongs. For now, however, I'm betting on a typo by the folks at Fox. Their press releases are notoriously bad (e.g., "Principle Figgins"), so a misplaced apostrophe is tame by comparison. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree with you about the misuse of apostrophe. However, the question is which source is more reliable: Ausiello or Fox? Until there are enough sources available to form a consensus on the episode title, I would say the Fox website is the best we have. Jusses2 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Russian article has already been renamed, ru:Pot ’O Gold, and the Russian Wikipedia is peer reviewed. Jusses2 (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's the Gonzalez Entertainment Weekly from yesterday, which gives "Pot O' Gold" when showing the photo of Rory being shoved against the locker; it agrees with the Ausiello orthography. It looked like we were getting consensus until Fox chimed in. As for the Russian Wikipedia, I don't doubt they're using the same source as you are. I rather suspect we're going to have to wait until Monday or Tuesday and the Fox press release before we get a parallax "official" view; if the apostrophe is placed correctly there, I'd say it'll be time for another rename. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll have noticed that the Fox press release, as displayed by The Futon Critic, calls the episode "Pot of Gold", and the episode title here has been moved/renamed again. Since the "Pot of Gold" article is currently a "Did You Know?" entry on the Wikipedia main page, if another source turns up in the next 11 hours, please hold off further renaming until the next batch of DYKs are moved to the main page; we don't want to have the article become unavailable, even temporarily, while it's being featured there. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, all that confusion about where the apostrophe goes, and now it turns out that there's no apostrophe at all! I wish Fox would make up their mind. Jusses2 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says they've made up their mind? By the time they put the press release out onto FoxFlash, it may have changed again! Or even after that. For me the good news about the next episode is that Carole Hudson (now Carole Hudson-Hummel, according to the release) is appearing in the episode. It's about time! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Justification of Revert in C. K. McClatchy High School

Thank you for your work in patrolling recent changes, but I have to inquiry about why you reverted my removal of these former students from the famous alumni section? These students (low ranking soldiers who are/were in the army for a few years) have no notability that would warrant listing them along with people such as Anthony Kennedy. Moreover, there is no way to easily verify that these individuals actually attended the school, hold their mentioned occupations, or even are real people. The entry for Abran Yates is clearly worded that though he added his own name to the list! There is a very high probability that these students just added their names to the list.

While it is true that edit summaries can be useful, they should not outweigh notability and verifiability. I suggest you thoroughly reviewing these policies. The more appropriate action for you to have done would not have been to automatically revert my edit without reading it, but rather to keep the edit and just send me a message encouraging me to use an edit summary next time. I have reverted your revert under the assumption that you were using automatic tools and didn't take the time to review it. If you truly think that these students are worth listing in the famous alumni section then let's have a reasoned discussion on the article's talk page. Have a nice day! 98.248.194.130 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an edit summary would have helped as I am not an expert on the topic. In the future, when removing entire sections from an article, please indicate WP:N and/or WP:V violation in the edit summary. I will remove the user warning from your talk page. Thanks for catching my error! Jusses2 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Golden I.T. Corridor, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Nilgiri (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

it is a stupid article

really, it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.121.9 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions about an article should go on the article's talk page, not in the article itself. Start a discussion here: Talk:Padiddle. Jusses2 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam McKay page

I appreciate your admonition to cite sources. This information has been added to the page a number of times WITH proper citations proving it's 100% true and it's definitely historically relevant, but Adam or his minions always edit it back out. It's very frustrating. Wikipedia is not a resume, and Adam or his minions seems to think that's its function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.119.22 (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The last one before this that was properly cited and subsequently erased was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_McKay&oldid=367555498 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.119.22 (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at the sidebar of the howard Stern recap page here: http://www.howardstern.com/rundown.hs?j=n&d=1275019200

The "head writer" it's talking about is Adam, as is completely clear from the audio of the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.119.22 (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about the citation. I didn't check that far back in the edit history so I didn't know. However, there is still an issue of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Can you rewrite [1] in a more neutral tone? If you include citation(s) and simply state the facts without referring to it as "a real-world ugly side", the edit should pass. Jusses2 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2010 edit with citation was pretty neutral, I thought. Can't I just copy that (along with the citation) and re-insert it? But even if I do that, what's to prevent it from being scrubbed off again? 75.140.119.22 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored the 2010 edit that had the citation to the Howard Stern Show recap where Jim related the story first-hand.75.140.119.22 (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no guaranteed way to prevent edits from being scrubbed off. The best you can do is to abide by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If your edits are being reverted repeatedly, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain why the edits should stay. Edit warring only makes things worse.

Looking back at [2], the reverting editor felt that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was violated. My guess is that the wording was probably a little too strong. For a more neutral tone, perhaps try something like this:

During his time as head writer for SNL, McKay had disagreements with actor Jim Breuer over the contents of some of the sketches. Breuer later claimed that his strained relationship with McKay was a contributing factor leading to his dismissal from SNL.

I couldn't find the audio of the interview, so I'm a little confused: was Jim fired or did Jim quit? Jusses2 (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He blew up in the Godzilla thing, then over the summer an NBC executive called him to warn him that Adam was doing everything in his power to get him fired. Lorne Michaels encouraged Jim to have dinner with Adam to work it out, but when Jim confronted Adam he denied he was trying to get him fired but was actually trying to get Rob fired. Jim decided to just quit rather than go through the whole mess with a head writer who could block his output on the show being so passive aggressive and duplicitous. So it was a "I quit before fires me" kind of situation. That's much more complicated than the wiki really needed, so I boiled it to the essence. BTW, you can catch the hugely entertaining replay this weekend on Stern. They're running the whole 2010 interview as part of their SNL on Stern special. It's been running all week, and they're re-running everything this weekend again, including the Breuer interview with this in it.75.140.119.22 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Jusses2, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow vandal fighter/Wikipedian. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yum, I love cookies! Thanks :) Jusses2 (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for this. Macedonian (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help :) Jusses2 (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Hello !!! ok thanks for guiding me...sory for that ...BrowneyesPercy 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuecyKeith (talk • contribs)

User talk:Bigorangefish

I would suggest you to rethink /remove the suggestion you made. there is no need the send plague of weird editors from wikipedia (which is relatively well watched after all) to less active projects, where it will only create an embarrassment for the project. His article was nothing but an unreadable machine translation (probably copyvio, too) of a rather useless recipe. His another contributuion is just as well of dubious merit. I would suggest to make such proposals only to creators of reasonably well, but misplaced texts. Of course, this is my opinion only and you may quietly disagree. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Happy New Year 2013

		File:Happy New Year graphic.gif
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you a very happy and prosperous 2013 and another year's worth of Wikipedia editing. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be a close friend, someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, just some random person, or a newbie. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Makankosappo

Thank you for marking Makankosappo as possibly notable. It's in the same league as planking, methinks. kencf0618 (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jusses2. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jusses2. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jusses2. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 32nd Young Artist Awards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 32nd Young Artist Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/38th Young Artist Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)