User talk:JasonAQuest

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]

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.

Hello, JasonAQuest. It has been over six months since you last edited the

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

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

]

Orphaned non-free image File:BillyBarty.png

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

]