User talk:Jvsett

california historical landmark

please try to do your research better before editing...especially deleting factual data. the moss beach distillery is indeed a california historical landmark, registered with the state of california. if you have ever been there you might notice the very large plaque on the front with the official presentation of this information. here is a link to a web site with a photo of the front of the building showing the plaque:http://www.mindreader.com/distillery/index.htm Anlace 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you do your research better before you accuse me of not doing my research. At best, Moss Beach Distillery is a California Point of Historical Interest. However, it is not a CHL

--Jvsett 00:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

california historical landmark

i think you are correct on this. im glad i had a close up photo of the plaque to show you are correct. the plaque is almost identical in size shape and color to the real thing :) there is a link to a web site with a photo of the front of the building showing the plaque:http://www.mindreader.com/distillery/index.htm Anlace 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I noticed your edit to the Best Picture page, removing Letters from Iwo Jima from the controversy section. Perhaps you would want to expand the reason for the deletion that you used in your edit summary, and add it to the article. If an editor made the mistake putting it in the article, surely other readers are also under the misapprehension it should/ could be nominated fro best foreign language film. Jeffpw 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2003937689.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2003937689.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2003937689.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2003937689.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Palm Dog Award

Hello! Your submission of Palm Dog Award at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jamie^☆S93 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

your apology

I had purposefully stepped away from the discussion this week, but will be posting something shortly. Not knowing if you are apologizing for something I have not seen yet or for something I have seen, I will accept with an asterisk; thank you in advance. I do not recall you making a personal attack towards me, but I do recall your tone being less than WP:CIVIL on occasion early on. By-gones by now, I'm sure. SpikeJones (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Combining Talk Discussions Re Disney Film Lists

(For Reference Only)

Dear SpikeJones, Kasper2006, Elikrotupos, SWatsi, Blitz Lutte, NealP, LtPowers, SofaKing381222, Collectionian, Cartoon Boy, Casey14, Chris1219, NuclearWarfare, SkinnyPrude, and Parker 1297:

Recently, it appears that you all have been interested in the various Disney discussions regarding the proper categorization of Disney animated films. There has been recent activity regarding the proper structure of the various Disney feature length film lists. Unfortunately the discussions regarding the lists / pages are taken place on a number of talk pages. Before we get further into a long discussion regarding the various structural issues with regards to List of Disney theatrical animated features, Template:Disney theatrical animated features, Walt Disney Animated Classics, Category:Disney animated features canon, List of Disney feature films‎ and what ever other lists are out there, I would suggest that we somehow combine the discussions (both past and present) into one place. This will allow easy review on single page for users interested in this matter. It will also allow future users an easy access to whatever rational is used to support the structure of the various lists (including keeping or merging certain lists.). I believe that in placing this discussion in one central location, it alleviates repetitive discussion, allows issues are not constantly revisited in different locations and hopefully sets the future standard in updating the various lists with the verifiable sources. I honestly do not know if there is Wikipedia policy on this, nor do I know what the proper way of creating such a place. But I do believe it would useful.

I have posted this suggestion on the all the User’s talk pages above and apologize if I have missed any person who may be interested in this matter. If you know of a user interested in this matter, please invite any that person to discuss these issues. .If I have included you and you have no interest in this matter, I sincerely apologize and please delete this message.

cc:
Flair Girls, creator of Template:Disney theatrical animated features
FuriousFreddy, creator of Category:Disney animated features canon
Plainsong, creator of List of Disney feature films‎

Sincerely yours, Jvsett (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and propose to discuss it in a subpage of this wikiproject, maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney/LISTS, or something like that. The discussion should continue without merging the past discussions... linking the past pages will be enough (and inserting a link from those pages to the new one). --Elikrotupos (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney or a subpage, rather than in project space. But I agree that the WikiProject is the place to go. Powers ^T 11:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the Disney wikiproject should be where said discussion should take place. Jvsett, thank you for taking the lead on organizing what is an oft-discussed topic and turning it into a true project as opposed to a series of willy-nilly edits. SpikeJones (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Page began, just because. See WP:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup. SpikeJones (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll go schizophrenic, but that's ok :P --Elikrotupos (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Barry Bonds

I do not appreciate the tone of your most recent edit summary on the Barry Bonds article. Per BLP, I was correct to undo your edit and request a citation. I was well aware, at the time of my edit, that the verdict had come in. All you had to do was provide that citation, which you could have done without adding the comment that you did. --Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Your comments are out-of-line. You could have just as easily put a cite in, as you were apparently aware of the verdict. Jvsett (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you and have explained why on the thread on my talk page that you started without (apparently) reading the guidelines that are posted at the top of my page, specifically "I prefer to keep all communication in one place. If I posted on your talk page, please feel free to leave a {{tb}} that directs me to your page, but please respond as you see fit on your page, rather than mine. The odds are pretty good, though, that if I have posted on your talk page, I have placed it on my watchlist, so if you have responded, I'll likely be around shortly", which is the second item listed. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree with you. Regarding my comment "read the news," since you acknowledge you had full awareness of the fact Barry Bonds had been convicted, the proper edit would have been to add cite, not to remove an undisputed fact which simply was “He was convicted on April 13, 2011 on the obstruction of justice charge”. This is nothing controversial nor editorializing about this statement. Your reverting did not increase the utility of Wikipedia, nor comply with policy you cite. I note that another use added additional citation approximately one hour after my citation, which should have been done in your edit. Your inappropriate umbrage and continued posting on this matter is bewildering. You accuse me of being uncivil and personally attacked me on two different pages. I was neither uncivil nor attacked you. I did not make any disparaging remarks about you, which you continue to do. This is inappropriate. You continue inflame this situation for no apparent reason. Jvsett (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fucking pussy. 174.253.0.250 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

From User_talk:Strikerforce's page:

Per BLP, the burden is on the editor wishing to add or reinsert information to an article. Nothing about this is inappropriate. You were, in my opinion, uncivil in your edit summary. Step back and read it from my point of view... do you not see how it could be interpreted as a snippy, insulting comment? I very calmly stated my opinion that I did not appreciate the summary. You've chosen to escalate this into accusing me of being "inappropriate" and "bewildering" and "inflaming this situation for no apparent reason". Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My original edit was appropriate with the recent verdict. My revert and justification were also appropriate. You demanded citations in your revert; yet, you had actual knowledge of the truth of the conviction and with numerous citations available. These facts undermine the purpose of your revert. Your original revert and continued justification violates the WP:Common principle. As to the claims of inflaming, it was you who first stated that my tone is inappropriate on my talk page. This means you took time out of your busy schedule to reprimand me. When I responded, you then accused me of not following YOUR rules on my talk page, while simultaneously stating I am "a bit uncivil (which, looking at a couple of other items on your talk page, appears to be a problem that you have had previously)" on your own talk page. These three comments would be considered personal and direct attacks on my character. I believe this violates many Wikipedia rules. In any event, I disagree with these accusations. Now, I find a comment from 174.253.0.250 (talk) at 03:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (apparently out of Chicago, Illinois based on the location of the IP address) stating that I am "Fucking pussy." Based on your previous comments that you are monitoring my user talk page, you knew this comment had been posted. After this comment was posted, you then you accuse me of escalating the situation. This is simply untrue. At every stage highly prejudicial and loaded terms have been thrown against me. Please stop this harassment. Jvsett (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Harassment? Seriously? Do you really want to go there? I'll tell you what, if you think that I'm harassing you, then feel free to report me. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm more disappointed by the fact that you failed to recognize that my issue has been with your edit summary, not your edit, and the tone that the summary took. Are you aware of some of the reasons why Wikipedia's active contributor numbers are down over the past couple of years? As part of the new Wiki Guides program, I've been enlightened by some interesting information from User:Philippe that will be revealed in further detail in the coming weeks, but I will share this bit with you; snippy edit summaries - like the one that you provided - have a role in newcomers feeling bitten, on occasion, among other reasons. Civility is a problem here on Wikipedia, whether perceived or in reality. My point all along was that you could have used a more tone-neutral edit summary. In regard to the IP edit, I didn't see it until you pointed it out here. I have over 200 pages in my watchlist and since the conversation between us had migrated to my page rather than yours, I'd removed your talk page from my list. Are you trying to imply that I am the IP or simply that I, for some magical reason, had ignored the posted comment? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Lack of civility on Wikipedia is an issue. Examples would probable include

• Reverting a good faith edit when that the person reverting knows it is both verifiable and truthful.
• Posting on another user’s page because a perceived slight.
• Making comments such as another user is “snippy, disrespectful, and patronizing,” along with being “uncivil”.
• Creating and/or sanctioning (through an action or inaction) an atmosphere where another user is forced to endure profane language being posting about him or her on his or her user page. The use of profane language in that situation would be clear violation of WP:PA.

All these would reasonably contribute to the problem of lack of civility on Wikipedia. All these actions could cause a person not to want to contribute to Wikipedia. As for the apparent graffiti, no, do I believe you posted it. This is especially true in light of your warning to anonymous user in question, as seen here. I thank you for that; however, as you state “[t]his user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers.” As I have been around for about five years on Wikipedia, and do not believe Ihave not had this occur before, it is quite alarming it was posted in the middle of our discussion. I do not beleive it was just a random occurrence. Finally, I do apologize for posting the profane language in question on your user talk page; however, I believe an accurate quote is better than not providing one. Sincerely Jvsett (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Lack of civility on Wikipedia is an issue. Examples would probable include:

• Reverting a good faith uncontentious edit when that the person reverting knows it is both verifiable and truthful.

My action was backed by BLP, as stated above. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Posting on another user’s page because a perceived slight.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this, considering that I did it in a calm manner that simply expressed my disappointment. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Making comments such as another user is “snippy, disrespectful, and patronizing,” along with being “uncivil”.

Please try putting yourself in my position and then try to tell me that you would not have felt the same way. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Creating and/or sanctioning (through an action or inaction) an atmosphere where another user is forced to endure profane language being posting about him or her on his or her user page. The use of profane language in that situation would be clear violation of WP:PA.

I have explained myself already. I had nothing to do with the profane post on your talk page, nor did I know anything about it until you brought it up on this page. Once our conversation had migrated here, I removed your talk page from my watchlist. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All these would reasonably contribute to the problem of lack of civility on Wikipedia. All these actions could cause a person not to want to contribute to Wikipedia. As for the apparent graffiti, no, do I believe you posted it. This sentence doesn't make sense... at first read, it seems like you are saying that you don't believe that I posted it, but your next statement presents the appearance that you do believe that I did? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC) This is especially true in light of your warning to anonymous user in question, as seen here. I thank you for that; however, as you state “[t]his user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers.” As I have been around for about five years on Wikipedia, and do not believe Ihave not had this occur before, it is quite alarming it was posted in the middle of our discussion. I do not beleive it was just a random occurrence. Finally, I do apologize for posting the profane language in question on your user talk page; however, I believe an accurate quote is better than not providing one. Sincerely Jvsett (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No apology is needed. You brought the comment here as a direct quote, not as a new comment. In the context of our conversation, it was necessary. Once I'd seen it and responded as needed, I removed it.Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. My sentence should have read, "I do not beleive you posted the grafitti". Sincerely Jvsett (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

From User talk:174.253.0.250:

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Jvsett, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 06:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Movieland Wax Museum Sign.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Movieland Wax Museum Sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2012 (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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)