User talk:JasonAQuest

• User talk:JasonAQuest/Archive 1
• User talk:JasonAQuest/Archive 2

		The Comics Star
		For long-term effort to maintain quality and accuracy in comics-related articles. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello 136.158.29.96 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Joe Johnson (cartoonist), JasonAQuest!

Wikipedia editor Mabalu just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice little LGBTQ article!! Thanks for creating.

To reply, leave a comment on Mabalu's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mabalu (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then-former and former have two different meanings. Former is more ambiguous. For example, Reagan is now one of California's former governors. Then-former governor of California means that he was not the current governor during the time frame in question as opposed to at the time of writing the article. On the other hand, do we really need to provide a mini-biography when introducing Reagan (or any other article-linked person)? After all, if the reader wants to know more about the tangential subject, they can just click the link. If that's the case, then we can skip the mini-biography and just use Ronald Reagan and let the reader explore more if desired. The advantage here is that it keeps the Gerald Ford article less cluttered. Personally, I favor clear, concise writing that lends itself to quick reading with the option to dive into more detail as needed with a click. However, I'm not married to that preference. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were former governors at the time and they're former governors now: their status hasn't changed, so there's no need to qualify it by saying "then". "Then-former" is superfluous and overwrought. I don't have strong feelings about whether we identify them by those former offices or not: it isn't essential, but it gives some context. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...about your dispute to the dispute itself or the DRN talk page. I have removed your question from my talk page. Please familiarize yourself with DRN guidelines. If you wish to ask questions at the proper venue, we will respond however, to answer your question now, yes. Volunteers that are recused may still make comment and participate in the discussion but they cannot mediate.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies warned me that I should not expect a friendly reception at DRN. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing things a bit. But if all you wish to discuss is your opinion, I don't think "friendly" is a likely outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I suggest as a true friendly suggestion. First, if this is simply an issue with the name of the article, it may be more appropriate to relist as a move and make your case in that discussion. This may not have risen to the level of a content dispute as yet. But most importantly, DRN is not for re-evaluating a community decision or consensus. If it is two against one....is it more likely you are simply not happy with the outcome? If so, is there a better way to move forward?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just about the name, but also the scope, which is determined by the name: There would be no room for cheeseless hamburgers in an article named "cheeseburger".

Yes, it's possible I'm simply wrong, but I've been on WP long enough to know that it's also possible the other two editors just like fighting people who step onto their turf and say "I think you made a mistake". The fact that they neither objected to "banket" as the article name when the merge was proposed, and that each did a 180º on some key point after I showed up (Mies about whether "banket" is the name of a food, Banner about need to merge) leads me to that suspicion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't challenge zealots or authorities. Don't ask for help from the courts. Don't expect equal treatment. These are lessons for how to get by. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes: Don't try to fix anything. It won't be appreciated. I'm learning. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And then I get an e-mail from another editor offering private support. Private because he doesn't dare confront an editor who has harassed and hounded him in the past. He essentially confirms what I suspected about this person: a bully too sure of his own correctness. I'm not surprised, because I've seen it before. And WP's systems have failed to stop him. And I'm not surprised by that either. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me: An unfortunate side effect of the No Personal Attacks policy is that it removes the negative feedback that humans are used to receiving. So we have people who go thru their uncounted hours on WP without people telling them that they're being jerks here. That's gotta cause problems. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Dutch letter#Banket". The case is now closed: no party objects to resolution If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comments by volunteer: a new move request has been made by original filer as recommended.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soup to nuts. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us 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) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article about Alice Liddell you say that a citation is needed for the line "The evidence for any given interpretation is small." What kind of "citation" do you suggest that someone could even put here? It's impossible to show proof of *lack* of evidence.

Dino10 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe the claim needs to be removed. Read WP:OR; I don't have time to explain Wikipedia to you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "claim" in that sense. Saying that there's no evidence for an accusation is not a claim that should be "backed up". It's the ACCUSATION that needs a citation, not the opposite. Read about what the "burden of proof" is. The only "citation" that's even possible to include on a line like that is a reference to a historian who states that there is no evidence of it. That's how you seem to think it should work, so that's how I will do it. Dino10 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it works. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over it again, I agree that this is the best way to do it. I wouldn't want to take a random editor's word for it. It is easy to find an acceptable citation for it, so I will do that later. It's generally funky to demand proof for lack of evidence, but if a historian's word is enough then I see no problem with this. Dino10 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason,

I just ran across The Real Thing at Last, that you created back in 2008. I had no idea this film existed, and found the concept hilarious. So thank you for making my day, after a 9 year delay! :) --Xover (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. :) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Skybound.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Little_Mermaid}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Due to your editorial involvement in {{Peter_Pan}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason,

I am Ronnie Alle,m the person who made the modifications to the Wikipedia article about the Peter Man musical.

I recently interviewed Sandy Stewart, who is the widow of Moose Charlap, the composer of several of the "Peter Pan" songs.

She told me yesterday, May 26, that the Wikipedia page containing the credits of the songs was INCORRECT.

Specifically, "Hook's Tango" and "Hook's Tarantella" and "Pirate Song" and "Indians" were NOT written by her ex-husband Moose Charlap and Carolyn Leigh but were in fact written by Jule Styne (music) and Comden and Green (lyrics).

Sandy asked me to modify the Wikipedia article with the correct information and I did.

Initially SSilvers reverted it (canceled my changes) but eventually told me that he believes my information. As of this morning my correct changes were intact.

Please feel free to contact SSilvers about this matter.

I am very disappointed that you chose to revert them (without any explanation). The information is now, once again, INCORRECT.

Yesterday Sandy placed a call to Adolph Green's widow, Phyllis Newman, who CONFIRMED that Styne, Comden and Green did indeed write those four songs and that Charlap and Leigh did NOT.

Also .....

The correct title to the song written by Moose Charlap and Carolyn Leigh is "I Gotta Crow" and NOT "I've Gotta Crow" as listed. If you look at the article you will note that at the bottom it says "Reprise: I Gotta Crow" which is the CORRECT title.

I am requesting that you re-instate my CORRECT changes.

Or, if you are not willing to do so, please let me know what I need to do (beyond what I have done here) to convince you that the changes that I made are in fact CORRECT.

You can email me directly if you'd like: RonnieOldiesGuy@aol.com

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I have spent a lot of time trying to "do the right thing" and I hope that you will realize that when you address the situation.

Ronnie Ronnieallen (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)ronnieallen[reply]

In my previous message to you I wrote:

I am Ronnie Alle,m the person who made the modifications to the Wikipedia article about the Peter Man musical.

Actually what I meant to write was:

I am Ronnie Allen, the person who made the modifications to the Wikipedia article about the Peter Pan musical.

I assume that "Peter Man" was a Freudian slip!

In my edit summary, I asked you to read Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. This isn't about whether I believe you or SSilvers believes you, but about Wikipedia policy. WP editors aren't journalists, historians, or academics. We can't be the judges of what's factual or not; we leave that up to verifiable, independent sources to determine. The key word (which SSilvers used twice in his edit summary) is "published". Because without that, someone could come along next year or five years from now, and change it back to the (incorrect?) information that is published. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

In my edit summary, I asked you to read Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. This isn't about whether I believe you or SSilvers believes you, but about Wikipedia policy. WP editors aren't journalists, historians, or academics. We can't be the judges of what's factual or not; we leave that up to verifiable, independent sources to determine. The key word (which SSilvers used twice in his edit summary) is "published". Because without that, someone could come along next year or five years from now, and change it back to the (incorrect?) information that is published. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting back to me.

I hardly know what to say. Moose Charlap's widow and Adolph Green's widow both confirming that the information (as it stands once again) is INCORRECT is not enough to warrant a change to the correct information.

To me this whole thing about "published" is ludicrous. So much of what is published is incorrect. And even reliable sources post erroneous information.

Sandy gave me the email address address of an important person that she knows works for ASCAP (the licensor of the songs) who would be able to possibly provide the "slam-dunk" necessary. I may write to him. But I am asking myself, will it even do any good?

This is the question that I am asking myself. What good would it do if the correct information gets posted and then someone reverts it?

Is there anything that I can do beyond what I have already done to get the correct information to be posted and to STICK? Probably not, and that is sad. Even if the ASCAP guy were to get directly involved, I am not sure that he could do any better from me.

You wrote about your site: Much of the "foundation" information on which the site is built is gratefully derived from Wikipedia, and I feed information and materials back to Wikipedia from it, as appropriate. That is all well and good. But what if some of the information that you gratefully derive from Wikipedia is INCORRECT?

I am following SSilvers's advice and will not get into an "edit war" with anyone!

I would like to make two requsts:

(1) Please consider UNDOing your reversion based upon the two source very close to those songs confirming that my corrections were correct.

(2) Either way, please let me know if there is anything that I can do to get the correct information to be up and stay up.

Thanks!

Ronnie Ronnieallen (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)ronnieallen[reply]

I'm sympathetic, I really am. But badgering me like this isn't helping anything. I've explained Wikipedia's rules, and I'm sorry if you think they're "ludicrous", but those are the rules it operates under. You can beg me to ignore them and you can beg SSilvers to ignore them, but you can't beg everyone to ignore them, forever. As for what you can do.... I think I've answered that question: get the correct information published by a verifiable, reliable source. I'm not being difficult just to be difficult; I'm being difficult to help you. If you get a reliable source to publish your research, there's a chance of it being kept in Wikipedia, because there will be a citation to back it up. But without it, it's at the mercy of anyone who believes the published sources instead. You're putting the cart before the horse: Wikipedia doesn't correct published sources; published sources correct Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Erotic animation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

That article is about the word, not the concept of homosexuality. Happiness has everything to do with the word, so I think the category should be included. Adam9007 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're trying to make some kind of statement for Pride Month, and having been openly queer since long before you were born, I think that's sweet. But as the opening sentence, the infobox, and just plain reading the article indicates, it is about the modern sense of the word, not the archaic one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with pride month. The article is about the word in general: all uses (past and present), not just the current predominant meaning. I think it would be wrong not to categorise it under Happiness. Adam9007 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it isn't misplaced good intentions, just a case of missing the point. Read The First Sentence Of The Article. Then go find something useful to contribute to WP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BikeBoy-Zack.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OhBoy-BradParker.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the super helpful comments and positive reinforcement. I'm sure it will go a long way to encouraging new people to learn how to edit. It is always nice to know that there are editors out there who are willing to help, rather than jump down your throat and make to whole experience unpleasant, when the students and their teacher are trying to do the right thing. -Susan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passive-aggressive sarcasm will get you really far in life, I'm sure. You set a great example for your students, and are clearly well qualified to teach. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously: I'm pretty patient with new editors who show they're ready to learn. You didn't do that. Instead you played the excuse-me-but-I'm-a-teacher card, and reverted a veteran editor's repair of the damage your tutee did. If I walked into your Biology classroom and started acting like an authority because I've done a little gardening, you'd slap me down, and rightly so. But that's essentially what you did with that stunt. And now you're trying to have it both ways, by playing the don't-bite-the-newbie card. Either you're an experienced editor who can effectively guide new editors in how to properly edit and document Wikipedia articles, or you're an inexperienced editor who has a lot of learning to do about Wikipedia process and policies. [Hint: I think it's the latter.] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland, Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us 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) 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 01:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Roland Caillaux, JasonAQuest!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

If possible kindly add banners of appropriate wikiprojects on the talkpage of the article. Thanks :)

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—usernamekiran(talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help bringing the article on Aaron Traywick up to spec. Neverpedia looks great as well! Mahalo, ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  16:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason, I don't dispute that Traywick was subject to widespread criticism for his irresponsible showmanship, but he was also looked up to as a pioneer and admired by an orthogonal subset of followers. Examples include effusive praise from couples thanking him for allowing them to conceive a child when otherwise impossible [his role at Inovium Rejuventation]. The current wording of the article doesn't reflect that angle. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  17:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then add that. But it would be misleading to suggest that the stunts described in the article spawned "controversy" (one of the most overrused weaselwords on WP) when the reaction was consistently critical. (BTW, this sort of discussion about the content of the article belongs on the Talk page of the article.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial is the most oft-used descriptor in the widespread press coverage, e.g. "In Aaron Traywick's Alabama past, hints at the controversial biohacker's career" [Alabama.com], "Aaron Traywick lived life as a spectacle with all cameras rolling, so for those who knew him, it wasn’t surprising that his death was shrouded in spectacle and controversy, too" [The Atlantic] or "The controversial biohacker Aaron Traywick, who was found dead in a sensory deprivation tank in Washington, DC, on April 29, appears to have been planning human tests of a CRISPR therapy for lung cancer, MIT Technology Review has learned." [MIT Technology Review].

ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weaselwords in the media further infect WP with them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how controversial is a weasel word; it simply signifies disagreement. To replace criticism with controversy would be weaseling, but to state both criticism and controversy existed together encompasses a wider spectrum. Criticism of his reckless showmanship tactics was widespread, but a vocal subset of biohackers were of the mindset that the FDA is holding back research in this area, and that granting access to potential cures or new treatments takes precedence over licensing and regulations. For them, the ends justified the means. His actions attracted both widespread criticism and sustained controversy. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  04:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general disagreement about whether this unqualified crackpot was an unqualified crackpot. This article is about him, not the FDA and whether some other crackpots think that the end justifies the means. Leave that agenda out of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mandela effect requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Mandela-effect. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was supposed to be a redirect, and I've restored that. When someone replaces the content of an article (or redirect) with copyright-violating content, the appropriate response is to undo that edit, not to nominate the whole the article itself for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see that discussion. Will reply there. Trivialist (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deleted my comments by mistake on Talk:Pink_triangle. Is it ok if I re-add the comments I made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, because you are doing a remarkable job of messing it up. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted my addition which clarified that the prisoners were queer. I want to avoid an edit war, but I think this improved the content. What can we do here. Strand (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop editing.

You asked to be blocked. If you can't exercise that level of self-control on your own for even one minute, you have serious problems that I am not qualified to help you with. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr. Queerer-than-thou gets back on his high horse about "cistemic erasure" and other such hipsterism after his block expires, please let me know. Perhaps you've heard that I don't suffer fools gladly, and this particular fool has earned a double dose in my book. EEng 23:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.

Queer Erasure did a show here a month ago, but I couldn't afford tickets. I haven't seen them since the I Say I Say I Say tour. :( -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I hope that didn't trigger you. Here, crawl into this quiltbag and pull the covers over you. EEng 00:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You go, girl! EEng 00:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the past you've offered your opinion in choosing photos for the Infobox. Can you offer your neutral opinion in this discussion on a related topic? It may go toward a precedent regarding captions. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your good faith and even-tempered attempts to help those who refuse to see past their own prejudices. MPS1992 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello JasonAQuest, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 01:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Penguin7812. I need your help for something, if you want to of course. There is this new editor called User:Sterling Skywalker and I think that he might be a sock of User:Pinky Rhino or User:Atomic Meltdown. Recently he had made edits on Carnage (comics) which was very similar to the ones done by Pinky Rhino. Me and User:Emadjshah were involved in an edit warring with Pinky Rhino, especially with me. His joining to Wikipedia matches to the block of Pinky Rhino and seems that already knows how Wikipedia works. I need your help about this case. I directly asked him about being a sock and after a day he simply responded no. Thank you for spending your time in reading this. I hope I hear from you very soon. Penguin7812 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to think he's a sockpuppet of Atomic Meltdown. If you think he's Pinky Rhino (which seems likely), I'd suggest contacting the administrator who blocked that account. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, it seems like Pinky Rhino is still removing stuff which shouldn't be removed? Emadjshah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason A. Quest: yeah I think I should have went to the administrator who had him, thank you so much. Penguin7812 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Richard Gere's film American Giglio To th list. Georgeina (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do a page for her? Georgeina (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Georgeina (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well JAQ. MarnetteD|Talk 05:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello JasonAQuest, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove 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. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Please see Talk:Metric prefix/Archive 1#Italics for discussing prefixes? 16:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JasonAQuest, I just wanted to ask if you received my response to your last message on my talk page that explained the removal of an edit, just to be sure. Giorgio Il Saggio (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... i dropped here to ask why you reverted my edits on the comics article. What i applied was a true fact and i believe it was kind of rude of you to remove my edits like that- the juiceboxraider

NOTE: after taking 7 edits to put together his response, 7&6 deleted the exchange quoted below from his Talk page [1] with the edit summary "take out the trash", in an apparent attempt to shut down any criticism of his conduct. Since he is allowed to do that, I will instead respond here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to have your inappropriate behavior and my response to it evaluated by a neutral third party. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:JasonAQuestou are wrong. I did nothing wrong. I have nothing to hide or regret. Your WP:harassment and WP:Stalking ought to stop. WP:Boomerang could happen. Give it a rest (I've asked that many times, but you continue the charge); or go for it. Do what you have to do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So that readers won't be flummoxed by this odd exchange, I assume it is rooted here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your response here is typical of what the problem is. An attitude that boils down to "I didn't do anything wrong and you know that because I said so, and how dare you mention it again? I already told you I didn't do it! Also you're guilty of everything you accuse me of and more, and I don't have to prove that." Add to that some incoherent rambling and braggadocio, and we have a summary of your conduct in that "discussion". If you wish to elaborate on your accusations of harassment and stalking, feel free to go ahead. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You get to have what you want on your talk page. And you are entitled to your misinformed opinion. I could recriminate against your behavior, or threaten comeuppance, but this is still pointless. And getting you to reform and back down from your obdurate behavior seems unlikely. So stay off my talk page. I will stay off yours. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the pot calling the kettle black again. It's sad, really. It looks like you make a lot of valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but you either can't or won't admit your mistakes. Three other editors challenge a bad argument you make... you just tell them they're wrong, accuse them of playing games, deny that you did that, and insist the discussion is over. Someone comments critically on your Talk page... you sloppily rage-post replies for 15 minutes, then blank the discussion. You falsely accuse me of stalking you, and... you won't even try to justify it, because that would show it's untrue. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now canvassing for votes, it seems. That explains what the strange note to "readers" on your talk page was for, earlier. As for your second vote that you reverted, I sure hope you didn't think you were logged in to a different account when you did that. I have some experience with sock-puppet investigations, and that sort of thing is a red flag. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A vote you have to rig is a hollow victory. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One man's blameless, tremendous gift from God is another man's self-important, un-self-aware, rage-filled troll. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such serious allegations will need to have extraordinary sourcing. Here, it does not. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Robbierist.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reverting that edit on that British politician, I thought everyone who was mobilised and/or trained for the war 1 was part of that. I guess I'm going to take a closer look at those categories. Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not write on my talk page. Thank you. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone has a serious problem with authoritarianism. Feel free to respond, though: I am not afraid of criticism. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank"ing me for walking away from a discussion you've mishandled? Classy. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit odd about being lectured on someone else's talk page (especially one I've been forbidden to use, for violating a blanket how-dare-you-lecture-me policy). And despite your wish stated there, I do feel unwelcome to participate in discussion on the Wendy Carlos page. Having one editor go off on denigrating rants about other editors, blatantly putting his goal of controling his idol's legacy above all else... another editor declares themself judge and jury, and responds to gentle criticism over that[2] as if I'd called them Hitler... and an admin who doesn't rebuke these abusive personalities (except belatedly in an "all sides" manner), and makes the same declaration of consensus without waiting for more input... That's nowhere I want to be. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that you had been asked not to post on that user's talk page. I apologize for pinging you there. My reason for notifying everyone (except for the editors who have already been notified in the last year) about discretionary sanctions is so if this comes to examining editor behavior (for example, personal attacks and casting aspersions), everyone knows what to expect. I'm expressing not acting in an administrative capacity here because I've stated an opinion in the dispute. I only mention it in passing because I have worked WP:DR and WP:AE in the past and I know that the results there are often to no-one's liking—things like revert restrictions, page-level restrictions, and even topic bans. --Laser brain (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you are an admin, and you are definitely operating with that privilege, whether you think you're using it or not. I've had disagreements with admins a few times over the past dozen years and I've always come out on the losing end of the argument once they characterized me as a troublemaker, and I'm not naive enough to think this would end any differently. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem? Rayman Eggplant (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srey Sros^talk 20:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Chuck Tingle bibliography, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just wanted to say thanks for this. I noticed you put ban revert in the edit summary so I looked into the talk page history. I've range blocked the IP so hopefully that'll be an end to it for a while. Thanks again.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU! -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Kansas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Skybound.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I see you think my edits don’t work like, anything fine?

Abigblueworld (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He, for no reason, removed an edit I made. He said it violated Wikipedia policies when my edit did not. I'm not sure if yours violated any policies but as long as you only inserted facts and not your opinions into any article and accurately cited those facts, then you did nothing wrong. This administrator lacks good judgment skills. Wguskind (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JasonAQuest. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chuck Tingle bibliography, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JasonAQuest. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chuck Tingle bibliography".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to be rid of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange you're reverting without any explanation as to why on Don't Look Up (2021 film). It's a streaming film. And you've been here for 14 years. I would have expected that you wouldn't revert to restore your edits after you've been reverted.

The film was meant for streaming and was only in theatres for a week or so. I don't know why you're clubbing the streaming viewership with Release section when it deeerves its own separate section. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain: "move info to standard section of article". How a movie does in its debut at the box office and how a movie does in its debut streaming are fundamentally the same topic. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The movie did not have a debut. It was in theatres for just one week if I'm correct. Limited release is far more different than being available on a streaming service. Also why can't you avoid reverting? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the movie didn't have a debut, that would mean it's never been shown to the public, and it rather obviously has. This line of semantic nitpicking doesn't even make sense. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the unintelligible edit summary. I accidentally submitted too soon. Just to clarify, in Gelbart’s book, which was cited at the end of the paragraph, he wrote that Alda was the only cast member who knew ahead of time that Blake was being killed off. The script was given to the other actors just before the scene was shot, so Burghoff never had advance knowledge that the others didn’t. I’m fine with removing the whole statement, though. JTRH (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed what was clearly a lack of judgment on your behalf when removing latest edit in the 2018 Michigan Senate race. You removed the post because I "injected my own political analysis and thoughts" into it. If you actually were to have read what I wrote, you would have realized that this was not the case. I simply stated the political trends of the state and cited the information from a reputable source that other people have used as a source in many election pages. I mentioned nothing of my thoughts or feelings about either candidate. Stating that most counties shifted heavily towards one party isn't the same as stating support for the party. I recommend that you use better judgment by actually reading what it is you are removing and seeing if it actually violates any policies, because mine certainly didn't. Wguskind (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you posted a link to a site that has statistics on it. That's all. That's not a reliable source for what was obviously your analysis... just like every other article you try to spin. I gave you links to the policies you're talking about. Don't lecture me about them until you've actually read them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently never visited uselectionatlas.org because it is an extremely reliable source. It literally says right there on the website that their information is taken right from the Board of Elections of the respective state. In Michigan's case, it was taken directly from the Michigan Board of Electors. Should I perhaps directly cite the state board of electors rather than the site? If so, perhaps you should have suggested that to me rather than deleting my edit and giving me the standard boilerplate "you didn't follow the rules" template that was obviously prewritten. And what do you mean I've tried to "spin" other articles? I RARELY edit articles and when I do I inserts facts, not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wguskind (talk • contribs) 05:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't question the validity of the statistics on that site. But you aren't simply quoting statistics from it. You're writing up analysis, telling us what you think those statistics mean and what you find interesting about them. (In this case, you argued that Stabenow's win actually shows that James was a good candidate.) That's not how primary sources are to be used. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BillyBarty.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about what happened, i'm just trying to be a new member of Wikipedia writing my ideas without causing any trouble, Jason. I'm doing good writing with LGBT-related controversies in countries and others, I'm just trying to help plus i'm autistic anyway, Jason. Plus, The Nazi-era and Hitler being homophobia in Germany, means controversy, which is not good.

On Wikipedia, "controversy" means something in which there are two sides to the argument. Murdering people is not a "controversy". Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the wikilinking by user:Nerdious is problematic, but I wanted to talk to you about your exhortation not to create redlinks. If a subject belongs on Wikipedia, redlinking it in other articles is one way to encourage its creation (Wikipedia:Red link). In my view, links to places, especially populated places, should generally go somewhere even if it is only a redirect to the next political level up where it can be mentioned. Neridous' edit in Siege of Veracruz added a link to Playa Vergara, a place we currently have no information on and may only have existed historically. Readers will at least want to know where that is. There are other place names in that article that don't have a clear location. Not everything this user is doing is bad. SpinningSpark 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kunlun is mythological despite also being the namesake of some actual rocks. Same thing here, even though there isn't enough content to fork 'em. There's no actual rock that Jesus stood on with Satan while taking in all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. The fact that there are important stories concerning said rock makes it a noteworthy inclusion on that list. Even for believers, its association with XYZ particular rocks or traditions is a feature of medieval mythology without scriptural support. — LlywelynII 20:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always surprised at how frequently I'm reverted when I edit as an IP when I forget to login at a temporary location. 65.127.183.235 (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the edit summary on this edit. I didn't revert it because I can, I reverted it as I believe the previous wording flowed better and was clearer. Additionally the grammar of the previous version is correct and acceptable usage. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Unusually for the time" is an overwrought attempt to show off that the writer learned how to diagram sentences. I see that kind of fancy phrasing a lot from lawyers who think they're drafting the Declaration of Independence, when I just asked them to write a primer for our newsletter about antitrust law. Instead of doing backflips, sometimes it's better to unpack it, so the reader doesn't have to read it twice to figure out what it's trying to say. One of WP's readers found this awkward and tried to clarify it. There is nothing gramatically wrote or unclear about his version. But he was bitten repeatedly for it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. I think "Unusually for the time, Babylon 5 was conceived as ..." is much snappier and easy flowing and that "Unusual at the time of its airing, Babylon 5 was conceived as ..." is kinda awkward the one suffering from the fancy phrasing. I just don't think it flows well at all and really can't see when reading it out how "Unusually for the time" can be accused of being overwrought compared to "Unusual at the time of its airing." Additionally the original editor mentioned that it was grammatical changes and the original was ungrammatical, which it was not and many dictionaries support that. Anyway this isn't just about the actual edit, but the edit summary which I took some issue with as it came across as slightly accusatory implying that I just reverted because I felt I could, and that there was no reason for it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying and correcting my horrible error regarding the Lost Boys in the film's plot, I think I was listening to commentary on MSNBC while I was copying the text when I made that terrible slip-up. As far as your comment on my talk page, I try to strictly adhere to proper Wikipedia editing standards and policies so that I do not copy plots for silent films but transcribe them to remove inappropriate period language of 1920s magazines. As to my historical contributions to Wikipedia, I invite you to review them; your edits will improve the articles. Keep up the good work. Deanlaw (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it turned out to be a mistake. Jason A. Quest (talk)

I'm gonna try to take a little break from Wikipedia for a bit. It's been making me cranky lately (sorry), and the tenacity of people who assume the worst about you is more than I can deal with right now. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working with me on that edit of The Danish Girl and for reverting the transphobic vandalism that IP made a couple of weeks ago. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading my edit that time. The one you reverted said pretty much the same thing. Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You care enough to restore a warning, but not enough to fix it. Why not go in and remove anything with which you have a problem? If you aren't qualified to do the fixes, you aren't qualified to decide that warning needs to stay. 98.13.3.175 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Wikipedia has maintenance tags is so that editors can draw others' attention to an issue without necessarily having to fix it themselves. It's part of collaborative editing. Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wanted to clarify some things about my edits to the Peter Secchia article you mentioned on my own talk page. I do admit that my reasoning should've been clearer in the edit summary. What I've seen regarding ambassador and diplomat articles is that these individuals go by both forms. For example, Maria E. Brewer was changed because she goes by that, but also can go by "Maria Brewer". The same can be argued for people such as Tulinabo S. Mushingi or Michael A. Raynor. Usually I move/rename those articles because doing so helps to disambiguate pages, shorten titles and find better links between pages. However, I do understand your concerns regarding naming conventions. Let me know if you have any other concerns, and apologies again for any confusion. Losipov (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "reasoning" still isn't clear. And I really don't appreciate the fact that you have continued to make these kinds of edits, as if your "it seems appropriate" settled the matter. It did not.

Wikipedia policy is that we don't make article titles needlessly longer and and less intuitive just because... you'd like it better that way? We make linking easier by keeping the titles simpler and more obvious. For example, pretty much everyone who knew (or knew about) Secchia knows his first name. Most people don't know his middle initial, because he hardly ever used it. Contrary to your rationale, what you are doing doesn't "help to disambiguate pages" (it isn't needed), it doesn't "shorten titles" (the opposite), and "find better links between pages" is word salad that I can't decipher. WP:INITS says "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format." The obvious implication of this is that we don't do it otherwise: if most reliable sources don't commonly use their middle initial, we shouldn't either, because it isn't their "common name". If you don't like WP policy, then lobby to change it... don't ignore it because it appeals to your apparent preference for ambassadors to be treated with more elitist puffery. Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the move of Secchia's page wasn't appropriate, simply ask for it to be reverted; I won't have a problem with it. Also, I've been using a tool that helps to find links between articles, and for a lot of them, they have their middle initials even when they rarely use it (Ex: John Bolton is notable and doesn't really use his middle initial, but many articles use "John R. Bolton" because its unique to him and not to other people named John Bolton). It's usually like this: John R. Bolton|John Bolton. Changing the title to "John R. Bolton" would render "John Bolton" unnecessary and therefore make the link shorter. Others, for example, have something at the end of their names like (diplomat) or (ambassador). This causes problems when trying to make links due to mismatches in the names. For example, Michael J. Adler was moved from "Michael Adler (diplomat)". See? It's shorter and unique to him. That's what I meant by making titles shorter and more unique (which, now that I think about it, is a better way to say "find better links between pages").

Moreover, I'm not sure what you mean by "don't ignore it because it appeals to your apparent preference for ambassadors to be treated with more elitist puffery". I myself certainly don't have a preference. Moving the page title is appropriate in several of these instances because that's literally the names they go by. Also, I'm not doing this for "myself", which seems to be what you're implying. I can just make a request to move pages before proceeding, if that's better. I hope this clears up my reasoning. Losipov (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making links shorter like that is not more important than naming articles correctly. You're prioritizing an optional feature of some tool over a rule. If we have two people with the same first and last name, we don't routinely disambiguate them by adding a rarely used middle initial. It's more intuitive to the reader to add a profession or some other distinguishing thing, because it's something that people are likely to know about them. For example, "Michael Adler (diplomat)" relies only on things the reader would presumably know about him. Or since you brought him up, look at John Bolton (disambiguation): instead of a bunch of obscure middle initials, we disambiguate most of them more clearly with a distinguishing word or phrase.

Furthermore, in many cases you've been "fixing" things that aren't even broken. There is no other "Peter Secchia" article, so there isn't even a need to disambiguate him. You claimed that Gregory Schulte needed an initial for disambiguation,[3] but it didn't.

(Frankly, part of the problem is that many of these people's "notability" is based only on press releases and government records, which include initials for the sake of either puffery and clarity. But those aren't enough to meet WP's standards of notability, because there's little or no independent media coverage of them. It's poor referencing, which may be giving you a bad indication of what these people are commonly called. For example, the only citation on Michael J. Adler that isn't a government document calls him "Michael Adler". Try pulling your head out of the State Department web site and look for better sources.) Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in joining the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy, subjects " Capitalising or omitting words in Dutch surnames and Guidance on amalgmating multiple pages that contain spelling variations of the same name I am especially interested in your opinion because you still seem to be interested in the Tussenvoegsel article, whereas the auctor intellectualis( Rex Germanus) of that article seems to have huffily withdrawn from Wikipedia. I am especially interested in what you could contribute on the alternative "separable family-name affix" (Note the notion "separable affix" is currently noted in the lede of Affix. but the concept itself is a redirect page to Separable verb). Ereunetes (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to