User talk:The JPS/archive17

; Archives
	2005; Jan-10 May 2006; 10 May-4 June 2006; 4 June-27 July 2006; 27 July - 31 August 2006; September - 2 November 2006; 2 November - 31 December 2006; 1 Jan - 3 March 2007; March/April 2007; May/22 June 2007; June/19 Aug 2007; -end of 2007; 12; 13; up until Bush fucked off; Jan 09 - 4 Aug 09; 9 Aug 09 - 25 May 10; ;

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Alan Bradley killed by a Blackpool Tram.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Alan Bradley killed by a Blackpool Tram.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Challenge Anneka.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Challenge Anneka.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws (franchise)

Hi the JPS. I ahve noticed that you are the biggest contributor to Jaws (franchise). Do you think this should be a WP:GA nominee? Please respond on my talkpage. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RFA

Hello, thanks for the offer, but to be honest I think the standard has probably gone up quite a lot over the last few years, so it probably wouldn't go through. I don't really do many admin-type things much anymore, either, so I might as well stay how I am. Thanks anyway. Bob talk 08:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder final episode

Hello, I was wondering whether it might be possible to move the episode Goodbyeee... to Goodbyeee over the redirect, please? It only seems to be spelt like this on Wikipedia. I'm happy to do all the resulting page move cleanup. Bob talk 21:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you change your mind about RFA, let me know. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock

Next Thursday's Stage has an interview with Benedict Cumberbatch about playing Holmes if you're looking for more info. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We should be able to get this to GA pretty quickly once the series has broadcast and we have relevant info (reviews, figures). Any extra features on the inevitable DVD might help develop it further to FA. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully once it's being broadcast, press reviews will go a little deeper than "It dur man who doing Docter Who!" Bradley0110 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an overly optimistic view of the British press ;) The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know, I watched that Amish thing and then the MotoGP. Ho ho. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd might expect me to be biased, but current Twitter search reveals at least 20 to 1 are positive. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Cummerbund is trending. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article got 22.7k hits yesterday. It's probably good for Wikipedia's reputation that we've got it in pretty decent shape. In other news, I see someone's added Doctor Who to the template. How do you feel about this? I suppose if Sherlock is there, then so should DW. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might hit 40k+ today. I've moved DW to the "see also" section of the template. Having it with his other series is potentially misleading and the explanatory note seemed too complex for what is quite a small template. I did toy with adding it myself when I created the template but decided against it. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I doubt anyone will care about the article being in good shape; when articles are badly written, the press points it out; when they're well written, they're plastered everywhere without attribution. I've lost count of how many of "my" articles have appeared in newspapers. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll have the time to keep the flies off it all week but I'll have a go (I might get around to incorporating Caitlin Moran's detailed reviews too). Could you not semi it as well? Bradley0110 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I was thinking that the reception section is a little first-episode-heavy. Do you think there's been sufficient vandalism to justify a semi? I would probably get my knuckles rapped if I used semi to combat well-meaning edits. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surround (Atari 2600)

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the article Surround (Atari 2600) last year. I believe I can bring this article up to standards... would you be kind enough to either restore the article or send me its history so that I can work on it? Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've just looked at the deleted version, and I honestly believe that it's not worth restoring. It's an unreferenced stub, and practically useless. You will be able to work much more effectively from scratch. Good luck. The JPS ^{talk to me} 07:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner Cell Block H

You've deleted a table/list that I created a few weeks ago for recurring actors in the Australian soap. It seems you're determined to get rid of it and I can see an edit war developing between you and some editors. I created the list because all of the data contained was already in the main document. But it was becoming clumsy and not entirely pertinent to the chapters where it was contained. I appreciate that you may not approve of the list, but the number of editors who have contributed to it suggest that there is interest. Rather than simply deleting something you're not fond of, why not put the matter up for discussion? Gauge the reaction of other editors. I note that today you have said the list is unsourced. From what I can tell, almost nothing on this page is sourced at all, yet you have not deleted any other information. The "Top Dog" list (which I consider highly irrelevant personally) is not sourced. None of the plot detail is sourced. I think all of the videos for this show exist on YouTube, so it would be very easy to link in all of the relevant closing credits. I'll happily do that when I have the time. For now, I think a discussion is more appropriate than deleting. Do you agree? TVArchivistUK (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any of the article is up to Wikipedia's standards. The referencing is almost non existent. However, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we shouldn't be making the situation worse. Please see featured articles about television programmes to see how they should be written. Wikipedia is not a fan site, a scrapbook or a dumping ground for these lists. The article should be written in prose and references. It is a shame that a lot of effort has gone into the 'plot' section, but it will have to be re-reworked entirely to fit in with Wikipedia's standards. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that wiki should not be a fan site. I am not overly familiar with this show, so I can't really contribute to the rewriting of the article in general as I don't have enough information. But I don't think this particular list is either making it a fan site or a dumping ground. As I wrote, the data was already contained in the article, I simply wanted to clean it and make it more of a formal contribution. For such a short lived programme, it does seem of interest that so many actors returned in different roles, seemingly in some cases just weeks after their earlier character had appeared. I think it is better to rework the entire article to meet the necessary standards than to simply pick out individual sections. But I have no desire to enter an edit war. I value my contributions to wiki and I don't want to get embroiled in any dispute, let alone find myself banned, as seems to be the general modus operandus when minor disputes arise. TVArchivistUK (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the discussion that you started on the talk page -- a commendable way forward. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CAB - Franny and Colin.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CAB - Franny and Colin.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

I'm sorry you were "miffed", but I don't see what the point of bringing it up again is. Some improvements were made, but not enough for the article to keep its status. I'm not out to flatter or coo over anything, but be frank. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London's Burning S11-14

What is meant exactly by 'greater number of set pieces' in the S11-14 section? To me it doesn't read as well as before. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it means 'more set pieces than in earlier series'. I have not writtenm the article, I merely keep an administerial eye on it. You cannot describe things as "not very good" without a citation to a reliable source. [1] You can say that A. Critic from The Newspaper commented that... (link). You can't add your own commentary. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, I only added that bit because I thought it was easier to understand for those who have a passing interest in London's Burning. I am a diehard fan of the show and own all 14 series so I just thought that comment was relevant. I apologise. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:FAC

Thanks. Incidentally, do you think Blackadder Goes Forth might stand a chance as an FA candidate? Bob talk 16:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BGF is a well-developed article. It's probably worth going to FAC. Only issue I have is with the bullet points in the cast section. Perhaps this can be expanded into prose? The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that format is consistent with the other series. Couple of things I've spotted. Firstly, the "lions led by donkeys" phrase only appears in the lead -- perhaps it should be in the main article too? What about using cite episode rather than cite video? The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered about that - I think there was a Ben Elton quote with that phrase I noticed somewhere that could go in a later section. Thanks for the suggestion about the episode template as well. Bob talk 15:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of results on Google Books for the phrase + BGF. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great, one of those should fit the bill. I especially like the snippet quote from Bloody red tabs: "the equally reprehensible and more recent BBC production Blackadder Goes Forth!" Those historians certainly know how to enjoy satire. (Perhaps I'm taking the quote out of context, though, seeing as I've not read the book). Bob talk 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, to answer edits like this, I've made a little guide that might be useful. I'm particularly pleased with the shortcut: WP:TISWAS. Bob talk 18:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds! User:The JPS/tense! Almost identical. I used it in my edit summaries when I used AWB to change the tense in a lot of articles. Your link is easier to remember tho' The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it is essentially the same - I'll put yours as a see also! Bob talk 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I check/clarify something with you please?

Hi TheJPS.

I fully heed the message you left me about 'No original research' (meaning everything must be cited.) Is there a particular reason for this? I feel that if an editor is adding something to an article which his own research and he is telling the truth, not making it up, what is the issue? Im pretty sure no paper encyclopedia is 100% accurate or infalliable. Just look at how many times Microsoft Encarta was issued during its lifetime. I am aware it DOES become an issue if people are making things up for the fun of it, but to reiterate what I said I don't think original research is an issue as long as its TRUTHFUL.

Please don't think that I'm trying to insult your intelligence or show total disregard for Wiki rules, because I am not. I am only mentioning the above because I wanted clarification on it please. I have read some of your archives and some people have posted rather rude comments about you but im not like that. I do show respect for everyone on Wiki whether they are wrong or right. Regards. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(PS What does J.P.S. stand for in your name anyway? Just curious :-) )

Hi. The page Wikipedia:No original research will answer your questions. It is an official policy of Wikipedia, and not one that I have invented. It is part of the project's five pillars. I'd encourage you to read those two links as these document the core rules and style of the project.
Facts should be verifiable. A reader must be able to verify information. If you know something is true, then you should have no difficulty saying how you know it is true. i.e. which book and which page you got it from. How does the reader know that the person who added something is not making things up for the fun of it?
WP provides objective facts. A statement, for instance, about a series of London's Burning being better or worse than another is not a fact. It is a matter of opinion.
My user name refers to my real name, before I realised that Wikipedia attracts a minority of disturbed people. The "rude comments" to which you refer are mostly written by one person who began a series of worrying, personal activities against me. For that, forgive me for not making it too easy for such people by revealing my full name here. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my help ...

... then you have to at least meet me half-way. For instance, "The Daily Telegraph described the episode as displaying "an exhilarating flair for rapid change of comic gear" and made commented positively on the scene." Can you see the problem here? Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes I do ... but... erm... [2] ;) ("commented positively" is better, though.) The JPS ^{talk to me} 04:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Dont forget your toothbrush.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dont forget your toothbrush.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Families title.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Families title.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)

Hello. Re: Your comment: "but it is in existing reference". Could you point me to the exact minute (I presume you mean the Melbourne DVD?) that supports the reference to Dracula. And, if it does, it will need to be reworded to clarify whose interpretation it is (Meat Loaf's? the director's? "Meat Loaf says that some people have interpreted..."?). I own the DVD that you claim supoprts the statement and will be able to verify it immediately. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried about Dracula; I am looking at the four things he say he will never do. They are clearly in the existing references (currently #8): the middle of [3] and the bottom of [4]. Do what you like to Dracula. --Rumping (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Island Ink-Jet

Why was my description of "Island Ink-Jet" rejected? The page only stated facts about Island Ink-Jet which is a famous brand name in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslandInk (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see Wikipedia:Notability. Articles could be interpreted as promotion-only if they are not written using third-party sources. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't Agree. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not citation. There are over 100+ stores that have serviced over 10 million customers which makes the subject matter verifyable and notable in the same way that the topic "Cartridge World" is notable. The article was written in the third person without promoting it so it clearly cannot be confused as promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslandInk (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please include third-party references, including one to support your assertion about the number of customers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a document from the Canadian Government website (Industry Canada):Industy Canada

Here is From the Vancouver Sun Newspaper: Vancouver Sun

Here is one from the Wall Street Journal: Wall Street Journal

Here is one from CTV News: Ctv News

Here is from Island Ink-Jet (note locations on map view, contact information, photos, etc) :https://islandinkjet.com A google search will return many more third party references.

Added by —Soap— on behalf of AlSchulz (talk · contribs) who was stopped by an edit filter. —Soap— 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differences

Please stop. You have no consensus for these deletions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached numerous times; please see the archives at the film project. Many of the sections I am removing have been tagged as problematic by other editors. My removals are unambiguously supported by policy. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these deletions. You have been Bold, and are being Reverted. It's now time to Discuss, not to continue. You are an admin, you should know better. Stop,please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JPS here. I think he's doing a valuable cleanup job with regards to these articles. Wholesale reversion of his edits was most unhelpful. I suggest you go back and look at the articles that you have just reverted and ask yourself if the material you readded is totally compliant with our content policies. Most of the reversions just readded trivia and original research that shouldn't have been there to begin with. Them From Space 18:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please refer to WP:BRD. Your changes are not acceptable, and the very fact that so many articles have these sections is an indication that there is widespread consensus to have them. Now, please stop editing and discuss, in one centralized place. Beyond My Ken (talk)

@TFS: It's fine that you agree, I assume others will too. But other editors, myself included, disagree, and it is not OK for JPS to continue making these edits while a request for discussion has been brought to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JPS: Please post diffs to the centralized consensus discussion that permits these deletions. Your first reference was to a film article talk page which consisted of 3 comments, and the second is to an essay in your user space that you wrote. What are the diffs that establish a community consensus to delete these sections wholesale? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank BMY for encouraging me to develop the page that I have started. I have now added examples of discussions: User:The_JPS/Differences_from_the_novel#Discussions. I have not found any discussion by experienced editors (i.e. not anons or new users) that have advocated keeping these sections. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk page:

::Thank you for encouraging me to provide evidence of consensus. I would be interested to hear if you have a counter-argument. Otherwise, I wonder if you could self-undo your own reversions of my clean-up drive? The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at the discussions you cite, and if they show a consensus for the wholesale deletion of these sections, I will be glad to undo my reversion of your deletions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment on the Film Project talk page, the link for which you left on my talk page. Also, I have examined the discussions you cited in your essay, and I do not find that they establish a consensus for the general removal of "Difference" sections from film articles, so at this time I will not be reverting my edits undoing your deletions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your findings support your view? How convenient! I'd be interested to see how you support this with policy. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for snark. You asked me to revert my edits, I said I would if you could show consensus, the short discussions you cited did not show consensus, so I'm not reverting. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Open an RfC and get consensus, and all is well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that you are never going to get everyone to agree; it would be detrimental to claim that consensus has not been reached on such a basis. Would you not agree that the argument against these sections is fairly prevalent at the discussion at the film page (but then I would say that). Your co-supporter's argument about WP:V has just been dismissed using WP:SYNTH. So, would you accept a consensus based on the current discussion? If not, I'd be interested to know can WP:SYNTH can be ignored. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that "consensus" does not mean that everyone agrees, and the current discussion has certainly had more participation that any of the ones you cited, but I continue to think that you need to open an RfC, so that a wide cross-section of the community can make their views known. That was my advice at the beginning of the conversation, and it remains my opinion now. After all, there's no particular hurry here, we have the time to have a definitive discussion and decide this issue for good, no one's breathing down our neck to decide immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just how do you do it JPS!!

Hi TheJPS!

How is life treating you? Hope all is well. Just a thought when I was reading a little deeper into your archives as well as your current talk page, you must have an armour-like skin to shrug off all the insults and attacks! Also when you moderate articles, do some take priority over others, or do you moderate them randomly in no particular order?

Regards dude Diamondblade2008 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to shrug off insults from 14-year old keyboard warriors. I don't' know if it's armour-like skin; more that the bullets being fired are made of dust. Unless you're part of a clique on Wikipedia (using IRC, and the like), you will always get more criticism than congratulation. It's very easy not to care, once you've worked out how it works. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Supporting roles and Cameron's intentions in the lead

Hello, JPS. I'm not sure if you still watch this article, but since I saw/see that you are still very active on Wikipedia, I felt it couldn't hurt to see if you wouldn't mind weighing in on this. It's a long discussion, and is seemingly resolved, but the disagreements remain and more opinions could only help. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bat out of Hell - Todd Rundgren motorcycle.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bat out of Hell - Todd Rundgren motorcycle.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio people

Hello. Thanks for keeping an eye on John Myers (radio executive) and Scottie McClue. I suspect both articles attract editors affiliated with the subject from time to time. I can honestly declare that I have no affiliation with either, and I strive to be neutral.
I worked on the lead to Myers last night, which you removed this morning? I don't see much wrong with this version: it's a neutral summary of the article, which is what a lead should be! Is it OK to reinstate this? I think that its previous form was problematic, but my improvements made it acceptable.
However, we do need to keep an eye for genuine promotional language and COI. I noticed a lot of "Mr Lamont" creeping in to Scottie McClue. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'm concerned at your edit summary here. The WP:LEAD should summarise the article; content being in the article is not a valid reason for removing it from the lead. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask first for your relationship to the radio industry/Mr Myers? Like this anon editor, you seem to want to add an overly promotional intro, making it look more like an advert? This article seems prone to overtly promotional text. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the third party process seems to prefer discussion on the article's talk page, I am replying there. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JPS,

It would appear that you have a personal vendetta going on against radio personalities like John Myers, Scottie Mcclue and many others and have blocked edits from all other users on these subjects on a number of occasions over the last few years. Would you be willing to share your personal gripes with these people? or say why you pursue this strategy? as you are in danger of preventing any updating of these subjects and you are clearly abusing your administrators powers on Wikipedia by blocking, for no reason things you personally disagree with. The fact that you react almost instantly to any changes with an almost paranoid alacrity gives the impression that you have activated some sort of early warning of changes and that these people are in some way important in your life. Perhaps you could shed some light on your reactive stance.

Please see the discussion at Talk:Scottie_McClue#November_2011. The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you bonusballs and JPS for explaining the situation from your point of view. I have no direct connection with any of the subjects which appear to make you so anxious but do see them as important media figures and I find it suspicious when one party because of their administrator status and early warning system who has clearly 'vandalised' this piece in the past and attempted to 'do the subjects down' on a number of occasions with comments like 'is this Mr Lamont trying to edit his piece' show a sense of paranoia against at least one of the the subjects. I do not know whether this person reads Wikipedia or is aware that this piece exists but it is a clear example of JPS setting himself up as the gatekeeper when he has clearly been guilty of direct 'vandalism' in the past but is also using his administrative powers to block editing as he has done many times in the past well outwith the spirit of Wikipedia. I am sure you can well see why people's suspicions are aroused with regard to JPS's motives and his connections. If it makes JPS feel better then why not go for full protection and prevent any other parties from editing the articles at any time in the future leaving them stuck in time. Then at least JPS can sport a self-congratulatory tone that he is 'powerful' on Wiki and can stop anyone editing with a click of his 'autoprotect' button. It may make a mockery of Wikipedia but am sure it will not make one jot or scintilla of difference to any of the subjects which he so preciously guards from having any other input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to copy and paste your messages on to several talk pages. It is probably best to keep all of this discourse in one place, at Talk:Scottie_McClue. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr

Interesting that you see the title 'Mr' as 'promotional' and a 'COI' Is that in general or just applicable to the subjects you refer to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.100.209 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment bears no relation to what I wrote. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bonusballs, Thank you for your kind advice and assurance that JPS's behaviour towards these high profile articles is not in any way suspicious and that his previous 'vandalism' of the piece and refusal to accept others editorial over many years has no malicious intent. However only today has JPS's true identity been revealed to me which heavily contradicts your own good faith in JPS. I can assure you he is a 'foe' of many famous media people and on here edits with intent on many related subjects. I shall not be so base as to reveal his identity to you (suffice to say he is from the NE of England with connections to the radio industry, but rest assured if JPS continues his unsolicited vendetta against these often unsuspecting subjects his true identity will be revealed internet wide which would not be welcomed by many, particulary him in his present predicament.--Havengore (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs)

Jaws 3-D

About your deletion in Jaws 3-D, please discuss. Some people want this information: often one man's cruft is another man's important relevant matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary actually referred to 'plot bloat', not 'cruft'. Please don't confuse deletionism with editing. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film)#Plot (authored through consensus) recommends that plot summaries should be between 400-700 words. Your extraneous additions takes the word count to over 850, which is excessive for a film with such a simple narrative. Your paragraph beginning "A man in a wetsuit and a man in scuba gear unauthorizedly..." is rather unnecessary. The MOS says, "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail." Perhaps you'd like to revise the section so that it comes in (ideally significantly) below 700 words. The description of Fitzroyce's attempt to kill the shark is also excessive; the plot section is not a substitute for watching the film, nor it is a film treatment that requires a description of how a sequence happens. WP:PLOTSUM is an excellent guide to how write plot summaries. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some films' plots and story lines are more complicated than others. An adequate plot summary cannot always be shoehorned into a exact range of word count regardless. The intruding coral poachers are a relevant part of the story. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but... Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film)#Plot gives Pulp Fiction and Memento as examples of this. Jaws 3-D is not comparable to these. An adequate plot summary, by Wikipedia's standards, can be written more carefully and concisely. It's an overview of the main events, not a short story. The detail should be lost. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could maybe use your input

If you have time please check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scream_(film_series)#Contacting_Marco_Beltrami

I may be able to get in touch with Marco Beltrami himself for the article. Could use input. Thanks for reading Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject British TV channels

This is a message from Wikiproject British TV channels. Please visit the main project page to reconfirm if you are actively taking part in the project and update your details. Many thanks. Auntie Beeb (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EE Newsleter June 2011

Hi just asking if you want this newsletter. If not tell me, if yes tell me! Mayhem Mario 15:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EE June 2011 Newsletter


	The WikiProject EastEnders Newsletter Volume 1 - June 2011

Project news

Welcome to the new EE newsletter! This is a new thing that I am trying out, so make sure once it's out, give me feedback! If you want to recieve the newsletter, just tell me on my userpage.
We are looking for new editors for the newsletter for future issues. If you are interested in helping shape the newsletter to focus on new areas or submit individual stories, we can use your help! The newsletter can be edited by all members of the project, and we are always seeking new volunteers. Instructions will be provided on how to develop the newsletter each month. Any interest and/or questions can be submitted to Mayhem Mario.
One EE article is available for review at WP:GAN. This is Yusef Khan. As members of this project are more familiar with WP:EE guidelines for EE articles, input at these reviews can be helpful for determining if they meet all good criteria. Other articles can also be found at WP:PR looking for helpful comments.
Based on views, the top five most popular character articles from our project this month were: Mandy Salter, Syed Masood, Tanya Branning, Ronnie Mitchell, and Janine Butcher. For a list of our project's top 500 most popular articles, see here. Consider helping to improve one of these articles that is seen by thousands to millions of people each month.
Remember to always add the {{WikiProject EastEnders|class=}} template to a EE article's talk page so the project can get a better idea of what work still needs to be done. If you believe that an article should be assessed at a certain class assess the article yourself (it's not too difficult to determine the basic classes such as stubs, categories, or lists).
Spotlight Update: One EE article has reached GA status in June 2011.
- Dotty Cotton - Nominated by Mayhem Mario

Member news

The recipient of the WikiProject EE Award: was GunGagdin^Moan for adding sources to past EastEnders characters.
Remember that any editor can give the WikiProject EE Award to another WP:EE member. If you do present this award, please make mention of it here or tell one of the newsletter editors who will then include it in the next issue.
Please add your name to the member list if you have not already.

EastEnders Cast Changes

June's Departing Cast :

June's Returning Cast:

Mandy Salter

June's Future Cast:

Lola Pearce
Andrew

From the editors

If you've just joined, add your name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered to your userpage. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 7 – July 2011). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Newest Articles

Contributors to this issue

Mayhem Mario (Lead Editor, Distributor)

We couldn't do it without you!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please tell Mayhem Mario.

I know something you don't know!

Shhh! It's a secret. I'll tell you by PM once I've made an account =D 94.10.72.243 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI update

Hi JPS,

Just thought I should let you know that I've submitted an apology to Mr 49. Hopefully he'll get back to me soon! 2.120.16.161 (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne Tees Television

Hi JPS, Thanks for the message, all of the information in that section that was reverted was essentially a summary of some information posted in the North East Tonight page, Tyne Tees news programme. When i went to transfer the refences as well however, there were no specific refernces for that line, so i couldn't transfer across. I have since found refences and have readded to section with the new refences. I feel strongly that this section needed to be added, as it explains alot about Tyne Tees current state.

Thank You for bringing this to my attention. Rafmarham (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iknow what you mean about sources, but all sites that I reference like that often contain iresputable evidence such as videos or images of the subject I'm talking about. That is the case here, as the site contains video extracts from the news opt outs. Rafmarham (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello The JPS! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy query

Please ignore the request originally posted here. I was confusing an older delete with a recent posting. Sorry about this. If it isn’t already obvious enough, I’m not very polished at this…but am genuinely trying to comply with guidelines. Thank you. EJ Paolone (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK -- I thought it had been sorted when I clicked on the link you gave in your original message. The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Havengore

In response to a report at WP:ANI, I've removed talk page access from Havengore, who has been refactoring others' comments on his/her talk page while blocked. Since you've been conversing with Havengore since the original block was levied, I'd like to suggest that you restore the talk page access if you believe it warranted, without bothering to ask me. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]