User talk:Jake Fuersturm/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Blehfu (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jake fuersturm (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast lists
The specific part of MOS:TV that you need to refer to is Manual of Style (television) which says ''"main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series.'' Peter Cambor is still included because this reflects the entire history of the series. It's appropriate to note that he is now a recurring character but not to move him from the main cast list. This is a discussion that has been had on numerous pages, including Talk:NCIS: Los Angeles and the out come is always the same because it represents community consensus. If you disagree with the consensus, please feel free to discuss on the article's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (television). --AussieLegend (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing that Peter Cambor should remain on the cast list but the point that "and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series" is ambiguous, as it does not specify whether they should remain on the overall list, or on the main cast list in particular. Jake fuersturm (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research
Speculative content such as this constitutes original research and is not permitted in articles. Everything added must be verifiable and attributable to a reliable source. There is more at What Wikipedia is not. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cut it out. Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of SGU characters
Your work to improve that article is noticed and appreciated. Thanks for helping out. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Jake fuersturm (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject G.I. Joe!
Hello, thank you for joining WikiProject G.I. Joe, and for your recent edits on G.I. Joe-related pages! Great stuff! I'm glad you're here and I look forward to working with you. : ) Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks, and I'm looking forward to helping out. I'll do what I can, although 99.9% of my old comics and toys are in buried in a crate somewhere in my parent's basement :P  Jake fuersturm (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ARAH toy lists
Wow, you are doing some awesome work! I think you're definitely on the right track, and the draft for the list of playsets is looking good - I feel like a separate article is warranted since things like the Terrordrome don't fit neatly into the vehicles list, and a single article might get too long anyway.

As for the FLAGG and the others you mentioned, that's really your call - be bold and someone will be quick to let you know if you mess up. ; ) It might not even hurt to include them in both lists. Moving to the ARAH title for the list of vehicles is a good idea, considering the other toylines that have had vehicles.  Anything with "an hero" in the title is on the pagemove blacklist because of some internet meme, so you'll have to get an admin to perform the move for you.  I really don't know about the tabular format - it looks good and it can be helpful, but if you want to go more in-depth (like with the stuff merged from ROCC), it can be difficult.  Again, it's really your call - you seem to have great judgement with this stuff and I trust you!

I also liked your suggestion about the service branches on the character list, I may try and do that myself sometime this weekend. Thank you so much! --Cerebellum (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, cool, thanks. Didn't realise that about the Hero meme.  How do I flag down an admin? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A while ago when I needed a move performed, I just posted at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist, and the response was pretty quick. I guess you could also post on the talkpage of someone from the List of administrators.  --Cerebellum (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also going to restore Conquest X-30 and H.I.S.S. as redirects, so you can merge them as well if you like. BOZ (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks, that would be helpful. I noticed that H.I.S.S. had been deleted at some point, and I had no idea how to recover the info. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, I just noticed that you've got Admin rights. Any chance you could help me out with a page move: List of G.I. Joe vehicles -> List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles?  It was blocked when I tried to do it this morning.  I've currently got it tagged as a requested move here.  Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry I didn't get to your page move. Looks like the admin who closed the AFDs on Conquest and HISS had a real problem with me restoring them as redirects (first time I've seen that), and re-deleted them, so to avoid what they call a "wheel war", I won't restore them again. If you go to WP:DRV, and state your intentions to merge the content, I'm sure another admin will re-restore them without hesitation.  Or, you could approach the admin who deleted them in the first place and see what he says to the idea. BOZ (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * S'OK, that's cool. I was able to get to the Conquest and HISS articles before they got re-deleted and merged the content.  And I was able to get someone else to do the page move, so no worries.  Thanks again! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I took this one to the other admin; it's my understanding that edit histories are not supposed to be deleted once an article's content is merged, and when he closed the HISS AFD he even said that a merge would be OK. Maybe he just didn't notice that you had merged the content. BOZ (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Also, you're aware that membership in a sub cat doesn't autopop the parent?"
Hi Jake. If by autopop you mean "automatically populate", then yes I was aware. But the LGBT category, in practice, isn't used to hold every L, G, B or T character except where they're included in subcategories; the characters added straight to 'LGBT' rather than gay, bi or lesbian are usually ambiguous examples (such as Santana prior to Falchuk's statement, or Stewie Griffin).~ZytheTalk to me! 16:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I was just of the mind that someone searching out examples through a higher-level category would find it easier to locate characters that way, without having to drill further down.  But if it's more appropriate to only include one or the other category, then I would agree with you that the bi classification is the correct one for Brittany. Does the Manual of Style have anything to say on this? (P.S. Sorry, I try not to use abbreviations like that, but I couldn't spell everything out and still fit it all into the edit summary) -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SUBCAT leaves it flexible to accommodate the requirements of the category itself, which is smart. (Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is discussed in terms of Living Persons.) I assume, though, that LGBT characters would qualify as "partially diffused", which is what I said above: characters of more certain sexualities are 'diffused' to the sub-pages, and characters of less certain sexualities remain in the 'main' category. It's neater that way.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:NCIS-LA - LL Cool J as Sam Hanna - CBS Website.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NCIS-LA - LL Cool J as Sam Hanna - CBS Website.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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what's "fair"? Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Flint Dille
LOL! No, not really. ;) I just brought his article back from the dead after finding decent sources, so I was re-linking everything.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Narnia
Thanks for the review. I replied to your suggestions if you don't mind. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Like I said before, it's more a set of observations rather than a formal peer review.  If you're amenable, I can try to do a bit of re-writing myself, but  I hesitate to do that because you obviously know the source material at a much greater level of expertise than I do, and I don't want to mess anything up by mistake.  I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that the article should be accessible to a generalist audience, for example someone who's recently stumbled upon the Lewisverse and hasn't read beyond the first novel but wants to learn more.  I'll take a look at your replies. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a bunch of stuff to the article. Check it out when you get a chance. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Doing good so far. Keep it up. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your turn .... :P
 * Or, we could do a trade, if you'd feel inclined to review Wikipedia:Peer review/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/archive1 -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been busy with other projects. If you want me to withdraw for now I give you permission to say the nominator has withdrew. And to be honest (or modest) I don't think I would be any good at reviewing a article. I will read the article though and see what I think about it. Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, as discussed, closed the peer review. BTW, thanks for the Barnstar :) -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. I am going to suggest an common peer reviewer to review the article. Fingers crossed. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm still working on a few things, but should be done by tomorrow.  Also suggest that we ask for a copy edit. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know a few other editors who are a good peer reviewers so I haven't gave up requesting yet. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:Novels
Welcome to WikiProject Novels, we don't have very many active contributer right now in the group, so we could always use some more help. We have several backlogs that are in need of work, first and foremost we have our Assessment backlog which can always use some more help (make sure you check categories and formatting while you are assessing). Also, we have a a long list of articles with cleanup tags that can always use some more work. We held two collaboration earlier in the year, which can be found at Novels/Collaboration and we may hold another in the coming months. Make sure that you add the collaborations page, the assessment page and the project talk page to your watchlist and we can see if anything comes up. If you need any help, feel free to ask, and I am more than willing to help on any project of yours. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome! Will do what I can, but a little pre-occupied with Narnia right now =) Cheers.  -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: TOC left at Chronicles of Narnia
Well, in my opinion, the whitespace below the infobox isn't that big of a deal, as the section header draws the eye back to the text well. Which is my issue with the text sandwich. The narrow(er) column of text is harder to read than the left aligned version, and forcing the lead text to the center makes the actual article start at an unusual place; having the actual article text start at the top left is a better starting spot for the article. At least that's the way I see it. YMMV, but I just think it looks better. oknazevad (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Just wondering.  Thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PR request
Sorry, I don't. Reviewers seem to be in perpetual short supply. For copyediting, you can try WP:GOCE/REQ, and there's a short list of reviewers at WP:PRV. Good luck. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia copy edit
Hi, just to let you know that the copy edit is now complete. All feedback welcome. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks very much for your efforts. I know that article can't have been an easy one to edit.  Cheers! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia
Wow, nice work on The Chronicles of Narnia page. It's been a long time since that page has seen that kind of action. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks, appreciate that. Article still needs a bit of tweaking - I suspect the Adaptations section is going to be problematic - but it should be good to go back into the Peer Review queue soon.  Any input you have is welcomed. Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: So what's up?
I don't hat G.I. Joe, I don't even know it outside of a reference to it made in Family Guy. I'm just opposd to any series that has over 200 articles about its characters, and, y'know how it is, if you don't challenge an article's place in Wikipedia there's no one who properly defends it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And have you been following the ongoing discussions re: the article cleanup? Obviously not.  Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe sometime. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes I have. No need for the italics, dude. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then you'd know that the Wikiproject members are working on it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that all Raintheone and Harry Blue5 want to do, is concentrate on disputing sources, instead of helping to find alternate ones. And now that all the G.I. Joe articles have been assessed, they are opposing the notability of them, by removing information and then expecting someone else to clean up the mess. Case in point the Zartan article, which has been marked for deletion, and hopefully will be given the chance to to improve, in much the same way that you have improved the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I just called Raintheone on it, over in your discussion on the Duke talk page. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a pointer.
I have seen what's been going on the G.I. Joe article and I just want to say be careful when it comes to youtube video links per WP:Youtube. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, thanks :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to the comment in Narnia talk page
I am a new member of the G.I. Joe WikiProject so I noticed the problems But it's been not hit as bad as the Transformers articles. At least five AFD's a day used to happen with them. And they were normally successful at that. The comics project uses the same problematic formula sometimes but they haven't been hit hard yet. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably a fair comment, although to be fair you have more guys involved too :) Between Chronicles and the Joe comics article, I'm really tired :P -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * G.I. Joe articles are not so bad. You should see Spidey related articles. Every article but his and Spider-Man in film are awful in Wikipedia standards. If you don't mind and when you are free you can join in my half alive work group and help otut with that. You can help by navigating the template and maybe doing some cleanup. These kind of articles are special because there are the first kind of articles I participated in. So it would be nice for them to look better. I am also thinking of peer reviewing Spider-Man because I kind of want a FA push on that article someday. :) Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GI Joe
If you want to talk about it, not in the AFD.. ;) Besides the only time I mention your edits were directly related to the GI Joe articles. I also noticed you removed articles you worked on, because you fear that people are picking them off. Whoever it was can still look at your page history. :p Hows the GI Joe editing going and What is next on the agenda. =) Rain the 1  BAM 19:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that I removed them, and while I realise that what I (or anyone) do will never be a secret due to edit histories, I'm sure as hell not going to make life easy for them. And it's not a fear, it's real enough - there was another AfD discussion (I'm not 100% sure, but I don't recall you being involved in that one), and shortly afterwards one of the guys I was disagreeing with started tagging articles that I'd worked on, that he hadn't touched before, and which were totally unrelated to the "universe" in question. As for discussing G.I. Joe, I'm just curious as to why you seem to have such a bee in your bonnet about it, when there's a lot more (and a lot worse) out there - is it because G.I. Joe is low hanging fruit (in the sense that there are so few people working on it, and fewer "fanboys" to disagree with you) as compared to, say, the Star Wars universe? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never bothered with any before if I am honest. I'd quite like to see GI Joe Rise of The Cobra, Channing Tatum is haawt! Anyway, I just think they could be better. The articles have a dedicated team in place and I thought a push in the right direction and the project could drive out some great stuff. I used to get confused about using fansites when I first joined, I got nudged in the right direction and found alternatives. That is mean though.. that some people choose to pick on your work as a whole. Really pointless too, like that would help your editing at all... I guess trying to look through the Star Wars articles would be a little time consuming on top of this, and being a regular editor to 3 soap operas and watching over another 2. Rain the 1  BAM 20:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Joe project is a bit hampered by lack of manpower - we're engaged manpower, but we're a very small number and between RL and other wiki-interests, that doesn't leave a massive amount of time to devote to it. We could probably get more work done if we weren't fighting off AfDs, and when we're forced into a push to polish an article due to AfDs like yours popping up, then diverting our attention is a disservice to both us and to other articles that deserve our attention our as well. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some good discussions popping up now too. The editor suggesting alternatives to Yojoe is really good I think. I'll change a few things If i notice any mistakes and the like. Obviously I cannot change any storyline in comic or cartoon sections because I have not the slightest. It is helping putting a few tags in places so willing editors might notice and finally change them. Some of the articles have been tagged since 2008, oh dear, I thought.. Rain the 1  BAM 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that putting correct tags on articles is helpful, but AfD isn't really - in fact it's probably counter-productive. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The name did not have any spaces in the title, it is the front cover anyway? Not page 1. Rain the 1  BAM 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NO, it's the first page. Since when have you seen the cover of a comic book that: 1) shows the title of the issue, doesn't show the title of the comic book series, and shows the detailed credits? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Should of explained it more then in the rationale. Anyway, I thought this was nice. Dunno if it is included anywhere, here is the  start of the competition. I'm just looking at what there is in 1991. Rain the 1  BAM 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean in the Description field where it clearly states: "The title page of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero #21 (cover date March 1984)"? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed the rationale is really thin in each box and fails to explain the use in the article. Besides .. "Title page", I'm a Brit you know. Why not just put page 1 in the text. Rain the 1  BAM 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it makes perfect sense to me. And as for Brits - you mean in the same way that the "first floor" is actually the second floor, rather than the ground? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like that, different words mean different things. That even applies for words meaning different things in different parts of the UK. Rain the 1  BAM 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The links are interesting, but not sure where to integrate that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe on the main article for the GI Joe universe, there might be some more notable searches and competitions like it - may even warrant a new section if there is enough. I feel the comic article will article will fail FAC. They will certainly ask you to remove anything sourced with fansites and remove non free images, all of them. They do not allow one anymore. In the article I tried to remove claims cited by a fansite, they could just make information up or misquote. You tend to question everything too.. like the image name, everyone would favour my trivial change, I changed it from mashed together text to a normal title. The fair use rationales on the images are really thing too. There is so much room to elaborate on why it is used, normally that would be brought up in GA. In a way I have been really accomodating, but you don't seem to want to find the middle ground.. Rain the 1  BAM 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that I should accept everything that you say at face value? That may be how wikipedia works (unfortunately), but not how it works in real life. Or is it just that you don't like being challenged? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As for whether this article will pass FAC - if you're really trying to be helpful, there are several alternatives to deleting an entire chunk of text outright:
 * Help find an alternate source to back up the claim
 * Delete the reference, but keep the claim, and let the claim be challenged independently -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There may not be one if it was an exclusive interview. One this issue yes, because they will kick it out of FA straight away if there is way too many issues. I don't mind you challenging me, but bare in mind I am trying to help, but if someonen uninvolved notices the issues at FAC they will take it back to GAR. I'm not telling you off btw, so can forget that for now, yeah?. Anyway I always said you could find info on the net for the "pre net era" but I didn't look really. I found another link to suggest they hosted annual searches, 1987 -. Then some of the results - .. I like the fact it was the best selling toy, along with a nice quote -. ... - This one is some criticism of the toyline. Rain the 1  BAM 14:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia
Good catch; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - when you consider how many hours I spent editing that article in the week before that, it would have been sad if I hadn't noticed it :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe PR
I looked over the article again and made a few more comments on the talk page. Glad my review was helpful, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping by. We've been scratching our heads too, on adding more supporting refs. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have decided to put some more work into the article, to counteract the points brought up by Raintheone. Thanks for expanding the paragraph about G.I. Joe Special #1! I want to point out a grammatical error in the Promotion section. I can't fix it myself, because I don't have access to the reference that you used. The first quote by Larry Hama contains the line "and there couldn't restrictions based on how you advertised for a publication." It should either be "and there weren't restrictions based on how you advertised for a publication" or "and there couldn't be restrictions based on how you advertised for a publication. Personally, I think the first one makes more sense. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Fortdj33 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Fixed the grammar error (my lousy typing) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Raintheone
If you and the Wikiproject G.I. Joe members are having an ongoing dispute with another user, my recommendation - if discussion seems unlikely to resolve the dispute - would be to look into Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. There are options such as formal mediation if you think regular discussion will not get the job done, or if you feel the problem is more seriously behavioral in nature, there are the options of wikiquette alerts, or a user request for comment. I recommend discussing this with other users such as Fortdj33 (and if he comes back, Cerebellum), and perhaps Mathewignash who has had a lot of experience dealing with this sort of attention on Transformers articles. BOZ (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks. The advice is sound, and I've previously considered going that route - but hesitated as I don't want to escalate the situation anymore than it has - but it seems that Raintheone may not be leaving us any other options.  I'd actually been planning to go on wiki-hiatus due to the ongoing frustrations I've been experiencing on G.I. Joe and other articles (and I'd much rather be editing articles, rather than commenting on discussion pages), but it seems that I may not have the option (not if I want to see this through, anyways - and there are so few active members of the wikiproject, I don't want to leave Fortdj33 dealing with this alone).  Thanks again. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the section hun. To be fair this has never been about me vs this editor. I just thought it best to try and improve the verifibility of the articles, as I've always said. There have been time me and Jake have spoke and it has been fine. You can almost see that he is obviously a cool guy in real life and it is a computer screen's text winding each other up, half the time each parties do not mean to sound like they come across. I've actually said sorry before if there is any feeling that I am targetting GI Joe which I have made clear is not the case. I am prepared to forget ill comments and so forth if you are the same. You may think the suggestion we try and work together is awkward, but what in life is impossible if you put your mind to it. Wikipedia should never be about the way Jake and myself have let certain convo's drift into questionable conduct. Rain the 1  BAM 14:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Ryan
I think Michelle Ryan's page could do with some work, so I might look into that. Zoe's article is being edited by two of Wikiproject EE's newest members and they have done a good job of bringing it up to date so I guess they are good with that. Actually, it is funny you should say that because I have never really edited EE articles that much, yet I have watched it for aslong as I can remember. I do edit Hollyoaks and Neighbours most of the time though, as unlike EE they didn't really have a group of editors working on them. Emmerdale is boring, I stopped watching it a few years ago - and oddly enough again I brought a book about the show I saw in a shop today. (Sorry for my life story according to soap opera lol) Btw, I always assumed you are from the USA - unless they air all the soaps there? I read through your reply on the Rfc page, and I agree so I signed Nikki's comment. Sorry again Jake. :) I will add some more info to Resolute when I get around to it, because I found a few more sources, I don't know if you have expierenced it yet, but when you find so much info and have loads of ideas for improving many articles... I never know where to start and which article to give my time too. (I also often think to myself "Why am I editing all these articles" - but I keep being drawn back into improving them.. ooh dear lol) Rain the 1  BAM 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a Canuck who lived in the UK at one point. Whilst in the UK, I was too cheap to get cable or satellite, so I had to make do with terrestrial freeview :P
 * Other than Coronation Street, I don't think they show any of the other Brit soaps over here anymore (Eastenders for a while, but fairly sure neither Hollyoaks nor Emmerdale have ever made it onto Canadian television).
 * I know of Michelle Ryan from Doctor Who, which I watch religiously, regardless of where I happen to be living :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been forced to watch some Doctor Who quite a few times by my Ex - I watched an episode a long time ago off my own back, because Bruno Langley (From Corrie) was in it. lol You know for sources, I don't know if you already know about this but if you search The Free Library - they often keep accessible archives of deleted webpages which you may find something of use. I'm not sure if they just archive british articles or what. I just think it has been a saviour for some tricky characters to find sources for - I typed in GI Joe and 200 articles appeared. :/ But that might give you and the gang something extra back up for certain characters. I did find this the great peice of reception info for you too.  I won't be hasseling you add them, don't worry. :p Rain the 1  BAM 21:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I've tried it before - the hard part is filtering, as the search engine is a tad liberal with what it matches. Any advice on that? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I always try random words related to the character. Or use google search with the prefix " site:thefreelibrary.com " then the object name, it seems to bring more up for me. I hope that helps. I've noticed it will sometimes bring plenty of unrelated stuff up too. :/ Rain the 1  BAM 12:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah, that was the problem (the unrelated stuff). Also the fact that it arbitrarily cut off the number of hits at 200, but I couldn't figure out how to look at #200+ -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Watery Mars
If (as I suspect/ed) your self-reversion is because you were wrong all along, then you should be very careful before entering into an edit-war again. For your information, I'm aware that WP:BRD is not a policy or a guideline, but unless you have a good reason not to follow its advice, you are liable to find yourself in deep water. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Woolsack ─╢ 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And, I actually posted that in the edit summary and a mea culpa in the talk page, so no need to rub it in. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you could tell if you bothered to look at the timings of the edits, I posted this message at the same time as you confessed to your mistake on the talkpage. I only saw it after hitting 'save'. However, the latter part of my remark above is general Wikipedia advice and still stands. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you could tell if you bothered to look at the timings of the post, your message timestamps after my talk page edit
 * If you'd bothered to post something more useful than "I don't think so" on the edit summary, I wouldn't have made an issue of it -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try reading what I wrote again. I posted this message at the same time as you confessed to your mistake on the talkpage. I only saw it after hitting 'save'. That means that you just happened to click the 'save page' button on the article while I just happened to be writing my message here. If you'd read my reply properly, this misunderstanding wouldn't have taken place. Yet again you've got snotty with me and you are the one who is incorrect. Not impressive.
 * What edit-summary do you suggest I use when removing false information, then? Do you have anything better to propose? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► stannator ─╢ 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to chuckle when I saw your talk page notice for comments to be "polite, positive, and constructive" -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And yeah, how about "Please rewatch the episode, it clearly states in the news article flashback a nuclear blast destroyed the base" -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But since you made your mistake despite having "just watched the episode" (your words), a suggestion that you look over it again presumably wouldn't have made any difference. You don't seem to understand that it is your responsibility to ensure that material you add to Wikipedia is correct, and that entering into a revert-war to restore false information is unacceptable. Trying to in any way blame my conduct for your error(s) is absurd. I'm not engaging in this discussion any longer because I suspect you know you're in the wrong, but given the way you've behaved, I'm bookmarking the contents of this page against potential future need. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL - and yet, I actually admitted my error freely and apologized for it. I guess some people are never satisfied.  Furthermore, you imply that I deliberately included false information, whereas it was simply a good faith edit based on something I mis-viewed.  If you really want to take it to RfC/U, then fine, but don't forget you need a second certifier, someone who is directly involved in this specific matter. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you find this amusing. Just to clarify, however, I do not suspect you of intentionally inserting false information. I know that you did it recklessly: anybody can make a mistake once – I once put incorrect material into an article unthinkingly, as a matter of fact. But when I called you on it, and said that it was wrong, you put it back again, twice, without thinking to confirm that you were right. It is that carelessness of which you are guilty. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► assemblyman ─╢ 18:30, 22 April 2011  (UTC)
 * Actually, I do find it amusing. And given that you've already stated that you're "not engaging in this discussion any longer", but came back anyways, I suspect that you're enjoying it too. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Misleading source at List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters that constitutes original research
The source that you keep adding to List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters constitutes original research, specifically "synthesis of published material that advances a position" and has been reverted. I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters. As per WP:BRD the disputed content should not be restored until there is consensus to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems more like a case of WP:OWN to me, much like most of the edits you do on this article.
 * FYI - WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy
 * I actually find it amusing, after all the firefights I've been in over sourcing, that someone should actually remove one. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg
Ack, sorry, my mistake on the second point, you're quite right. With that said, it's not in my opinion clearly meeting the NFCC either. I'd be happy to restore it and list it at XFD so that we can get a firm decision one way or the other, if you're agreeable to that. Again, sorry for getting the deletion wrong. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Not to mention that Spock is very much "alive"! :)
 * That's cool - I'd appreciate it going through whatever channels/processes it would have normally been subjected to - there was actually a fairly lengthy discussion in progress on the file's talk page, but seeing as how the only two participants were the uploader (i.e. me) and the deletion nominator, I'm thinking we probably need some third parties involved to get a proper consensus going.
 * Thanks! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Now that consensus has been reached at Spock, I feel it necessary to point out in light of comments like this that Wikipedia is not a battleground. There are no winners or losers here, only editors trying to work together. Your approach with me was instantly and unnecessarily combative. When I offered you praise and WP:TEA you accused me of "passive aggressive trolling." I was not; I was attempting to reset the discussion to a more civil tone. I strongly suggest that you read WP:BATTLE thoroughly and take it to heart that Wikipedia is a group effort and do your best in the future to assume good faith with other editors before becoming combative with them and turning your position into a competition. Now you can blow me off, you can come back with more non-productive behavior, or you can just ignore this message and miss it for the sincere suggestion that it is. Despite what you may believe I am happy to see such zeal in an editor, but it's important to temper that zeal with the policies that define Wikipedia's success and to remember the subject on which you are arguing. I'm glad you are an editor here and (again) I look forward to working with you in the future. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 17:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You suggested that my "... approach with [you] was instantly and unnecessarily combative." I would suggest that this reversion (and the associated edit summary) you posted after I'd already attempted to engage you in the Discussion segment of WP:BRD didn't help. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your very first post about the "Spock principle" was about the impending edit war; you were clearly already ready for just such a thing to take place. I hope in the future you won't be.  If you choose to ignore my sincere advice, that is your prerogative.  The discussion is over for me and I refuse to participate in any more finger pointing or needless escalations of a dead issue.   Erikeltic ( Talk )
 * My "very first post" was after you and Mike had already posted three reversions ... that's an edit war. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I made one revert at 17:02 28 May, 2011.


 * You reverted that revert (your second in a row), then modified the article so slightly an admin called it a revert also. Then for good measure you added a period to the article.  This took place from 17:20 – 18:04 on 28 May, 2011 and doesn’t include the revert you did to Mike’s edit.  Then you started the edit war section in the talk page at 17:26  after you had reverted the article three times, with a borderline case to be made for four reverts.   Again, this observation was made by a neutral admin in the bogus 3RR you filed against me.


 * It was when I reverted your edit back (my second and final revert) at 19:39 that you accused me of being an edit warrior and violating 3RR, even going so far as filing a bogus report against me which was dismissed within minutes. It was in that bogus 3RR that an admin warned you, not I, against reverting further  and wrote that your "understanding of the edit warring policy [may be] flawed."  So now that this horse is officially dead and these facts have been entered into the record, I hope you take my advice to heart.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought you said the discussion was over and that you refused to participate anymore in .... a dead issue? I guess not. :P -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Then for good measure you added a period to the article" - wow, anyone who think's that's tantamount to a reversion should probably take a break. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make sure you understand that your role is not one of blamelessness in any "edit war" that you perceive may have taken place. As I stated, I made one revert and then you started an "edit war" topic in the talk page.  The history shows this to the be the case, but you say I edited (with Mike) a total of three times.  That is simply untrue and I would hate for my advice to fall on deaf ears.  Clearly you care about the material.  I only hope moving forward you will take a different approach with other editors than you took with me. (Oh, and I didn't include the period as part of your four revisions and neither did the admin.  Had we done so, you'd have had five from 15:23 - 19:54 . )  Erikeltic ( Talk ) 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I still disagree that it was even four, you're just lucky you found a sympathetic admin.
 * For what it's worth, dealing with you has been the most fun I've had in a long time. There's nothing I enjoy more than sparring with the sanctimonious. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "As I stated, I made one revert and then you started an "edit war" topic in the talk page". It's a continuum, too bad you can't see that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I caution you against making additional uncivil statements like this. Sanctimonious isn't exactly flattering or very apropos to a content exchange over a fictional character -- a content exchange that you started. I'm glad you enjoyed yourself.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Back for more? I think that you're enjoying it just as much. :P
 * What's uncivil is your insistence on having the last word on another editor's talk page. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay.  <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, Jake Fuersturm. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, who's being pointy now? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Easy way to end the aggravation
At WQA, et. al. is to simply walk away. WQA is voluntary, and Erik has already made it clear he did not file the alert to resolve the issue but rather to 'teach you a lesson'. If some neutral party finds issue with what you've done, they'll let you know. (I'm not saying you don't have a right to continue to post on WQA or someone's talk page -- I'm saying you don't have to, it's a good way to end the conflict, and it's way less work. Gerardw (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair. This is the first time I've had to deal with a WQA, either on the receiving end or the nominating end, so I wasn't really sure about how it should be resolved - simply offering up what I thought to be a reasonable defence.
 * My only concern is that even if I walk away, what happens then if Erik continues to pursue the issue?
 * Thanks very much for your advice. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how TParis is trying to broker a deal, it would be probably wise to answer his queries. But comments like this [] could be ignored. Just try to stay focused on topic. Gerardw (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, trying, but ran into a couple of ECs due to the pace of posting. Need to figure out what the heck it is that I tried to write .... -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Happens to me all the time -- copy/paste out of the bottom window on the Edit Conflict page. Also, there would be nothing wrong with taking a break from editing -- I often do that when I get irritated with particular editor(s). Gerardw (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your general question, most often nothing happens if a party stops participating. Gerardw (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing to another editor after  to back away from the dispute. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How did you come to your conclusion that what's happening below is a "bogus claim of harassment or wikistalking"? It seems to me that you're not even willing to consider the matter.  So you're saying that it's OK for a proxy to continue the harassment?  MikeWazowski has a habit of appearing in threads between Erikeltic and I, and the matter of the block is really no business of his - he's only here to admonish, which is hardly helpful, and to get in the last word. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)