User talk:Jmj713/Archive 1

The Gunslinger Publication Date?
Out of curiosity, where did you get the June 10 1982 date? I've seen it listed as October 1982 for the 1st printing and April 1984 for the 2nd (as in |here).

kernunrex (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The date was given in the Grant promotional flyer announcing the book. Jmj713 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

N.
Great work on that article! Bravo! &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 08:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And you deserve a cookie!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 08:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you :) Jmj713 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Stephen King fact tag
Why would a citation not be needed for the release date and title of a book that hasn't been released yet? Seems like the type of thing where anyone could say "and his next book, 'Flibbertigibbets and the Men who Love Them', will come out two weeks from tomorrow!" unless we call for a citation on future publishings. Did I miss something? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because anyone can follow the link to the book article and verify the release date. Jmj713 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LT/MM filmographies
Hello, while I appreciate your effort to help on these pages, I reverted your edits because they break the sorting mechanism for some of the columns. There needs to be actual text to use the sorting mechanism. Having just images will not work. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think sorting is unneeded in these tables. That makes the tables look cumbersome. I tried streamlining them. I've also been adding some info on restored Blue Ribbons, too.Jmj713 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, your edits have been reverted. Some people may actually like the sort tool (and use it to help on researching these cartoons). I will, however, add back the info on restored BRs. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephen King short stories
I'll look over what stories are there, and if I've read any that don't have articles yet, I'll see what I can do. But I think most of the ones I've read are already covered, I'm afraid. Kuralyov (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Bag of Bones 10th.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bag of Bones 10th.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.


 * File:Colorado kid chadbourne.jpg
 * File:Colorado kid miller.jpg
 * File:Colorado kid potter.jpg
 * File:Coloradokid pb.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Duma Key
Thanks for limiting the CopyVio template for me. I forgot to put the /div tag at the end and it blanked most of the article. I just wanted to take a moment and make sure you know that I appreciate your looking out for your fellow editers. Later! Gr0ff (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Murakami
Why are you arbitrarily changing the covers of images I have uploaded for several Murakami articles? Please stop overwriting images others have uploaded. Upload yours separately so the article can be changed more easily. Secondly, why are you changing them at all? Many of them represent the 1st english editions, which are preferred over later editions. --TorsodogTalk 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I could see they were mostly paperback covers, so not first editions. Jmj713 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Greenmilepart1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Greenmilepart1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:GreenMileComplete.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:GreenMileComplete.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. —Angr 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Harvey's Dream
As you reverted my redirect of this article I have created a discussion at Talk:Harvey's Dream about whether this page should be a redirect. Personally I don't think the short story meets notability requirements as there appears to be be reliable sources to establish notability despite my good faith efforts to find some. Personally I think redirecting would be much more useful than deleting in this instance as it's a viable search term. Please feel free to comment in the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Updike
That Dick bibliography is excellent. What exactly do you find deficient about the Updike one? I rather like the way it is set up now, although you're right that the articles about the books themselves are woefully deficient. I've been very preoccupied with the Updike article itself, I haven't had the time or the will to work on the books. Grunge6910 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind books set up in categories like they are now, but perhaps in a separate bibliography article we could have them in chronological publication order. So that's one aspect I'd like to fix, and then of course have article for every book, because it's a shame that such an important writer has a third of his books unrepresented on Wikipedia at all. Jmj713 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to get started on the project -- assessing which books absolutely need articles, at least creating the articles, etc. -- I'd be happy to help with the research (but not for several weeks; I have a lot of school work)! Grunge6910 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let me know when you're free and we'll coordinate our efforts. Every book that doesn't have an article needs one, I think. And those that already exist need work. Plus a complete chronological bibliography. Jmj713 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I shall endeavor to help. It looks great already! Grunge6910 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Song of Susannah.jpg
Hello Jmj713, I've noticed that you and CyberGhostface have been reverting each other's uploads on File:Song of Susannah.jpg. This file is being used to display the First Edition book cover in the infobox of the article Song of Susannah. I did a little research and it turns out that the image you've been using is a limited edition book cover according to StephenKing.com. I encourage you to upload this file under a different name and add it to the gallery on Song of Susannah, but please do not continue the edit war with CyberGhostface. Please feel free to follow up with any questions or concerns on my talk page! -Gr0ff (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC) -Gr0ff (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC) -Gr0ff (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my feeling is that it is the first edition cover. Grant published the first four books in the Dark Tower series in hardcover long before trade editions. They also published the remaining three, but these were done concurrently with Scribner. My feeling is that, for the sake of continuity, we should have Grant covers used to represent the first edition covers for the entire series. It looks awkward seeing Grant first editions for DT 1-4 and then the Scribner first editions for DT 5-7. Also, if you read carefully the page you linked to, Stephen King's official site states: "Originally published in 2004 as a Limited Edition by Donald M. Grant, Publisher", and then they list the Scribner trade hardcover. So, if in their mind the Grant limited comes first (and to my recollection I had that book a few weeks before Scribner's edition), then it should be the true first edition. Jmj713 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an EXCELLENT point. I don't care as much about the consistency, since it is more important to show the actual first cover released. I think we should include CyberGhostface in this discussion and try to gather a concensus. Then we can settle on a picture together. Thanks for taking the time to explain your concern as well! I'm going to ask CyberGhostface to post any additional thoughts below our discussion here.
 * With the first four books, the initial Grant hardcover was the only hardcover released and a trade paperback was later released. In the case of the latter three, the limited hardcovers were only available to a select few beforehand, and the trade hardcovers were the ones made available to the majority of the book-reading population. Off the top of my head, Eyes of the Dragon was released as a limited edition prior to the mass market one, but the one on display at the Wikipedia page is the latter.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is this: Is the First Trade Edition the same as the First Edition?
 * The answer to that is no, especially in this case. But it's an unusual situation, I'll grant you that. I still believe the Grant limited editions were published and available first and are thus the true first editions. The Scribner hardcovers state explicitly "First Trade Edition". Jmj713 (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Change them back if you want then.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both Jmj713 and CyberGhostface for taking the time to discuss this with me. I will make the necessary reverts. This will prevent Jmj713 from being forced to break the Three-revert rule (aka 3RR). I will also revert the First Edition image for Wolves of the Calla. Thanks again! -Gr0ff (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This also applies to The Dark Tower, the seventh book. Jmj713 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Those covers are so similar that I hadn't even noticed the change when it was reverted. I'll take care of that one too and create a gallery for The Dark Tower (VII). -Gr0ff (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Short story notability
I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) that you may wish to comment on. NJGW (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your comment on Talk:Harvey's Dream
Hi there. I'm glad to see my work on Harvey's Dream was appreciated. I think I will take you up on your request regarding the other stories in the Just After Sunset collection. I'll probably work on improving the existing articles first though, just to make sure notability is somewhat established, and then I'll move on to articles for the missing ones. I'm a huge King fan, so this should be a fun challenge to undertake. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Witches of Eastwick cover
I reverted to the original version (as 1st edition is preferred) Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless your version is 1st US edition in which case please make explicit and put back !!!GrahamHardy (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stephen King template
Should we report him to the noticeboard?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe so. There's a definite consensus between us two, and the IP keeps reverting our edits. Jmj713 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I reported him and he was warned. J/w, since King didn't write the DT/Stand comics, do you think they should be on the template? He just serves as executive producer/"creative director", but it's more or less Peter David and Robin Furth doing the writing.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I would keep them for completeness sake. He has a lot of influence on their direction. Jmj713 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1994 Stanley Cup Finals
I'm going to be patterning the details about the Vancouver Canucks for the Rangers one, with the lineups. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just started working on it. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Bettia  (talk)  10:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if I'm doing this wrong protocol-wise. I'm Ted Anthony, and I work for The Associated Press, and I fixed your reference to Canadian Press in reference to my review of "Under the Dome." It was indeed picked up by CP, as it was in many places, but I'm not Ted Anthony of The Canadian Press. I work for AP, and I'd like the reference to be accurate. Many thanks.

Anthonyted (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Ted Anthony

Orphaned non-free image File:Under the Dome.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Under the Dome.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See Stephen King Template Discussion
I have added the topic of what should be done Ghost Brothers of Darkland County and Black Ribbons for discussion. I think I found a suitable solution.BillyJack193 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel
I have nominated Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

DisplayTitle
This template is NOT to be used on film, book, or any other such articles. Its use has been wholescale rejected by the community numerous times except specifically for genera and species articles only. See Template talk:Italic title where it was discussed and rejected for use outside of taxonomy articles. As such, your employing them on various Stephen King articles have been reverted. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

List of World War II short films
Hi,

So I did create that page of course.

But it's the usual story. So far I'm the only contributor.

Ever figured out how to encourage people to pitch in and add a row to a table? (Because it's really not that hard.)

Varlaam (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Damned (novel)


The article Damned (novel) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not-yet-published novel. No third-party references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GreatGatsby.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:GreatGatsby.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

List of NHL seasons
I am completely ok with season numbers. Start with 1917–18 and omit 2004–05? ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've done the early years numbering. I plan to add the top finisher and no. of teams to the other tables. This will take a few days to finish, what with 'real life' and all. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we leave both Toronto and Montreal as top record holders in 1913-14. They played off for the title because there win-loss records were the same. They didn't use tie-breakers then, so I suggest we don't either. What do you think? ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that, as it is historically accurate. I'll revert it. It's just that I prefer not to have ambiguity. Jmj713 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can 'note' that the league did not use tie-breakers? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, that seems logical and needful. Jmj713 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the ref and note templates seems to be a bit broken. If you click on the '1' in any of the sections, it takes you to the note in the NHA section. I don't know what the solution is, but there probably is one among all of the Wikipedia templates. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 18:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... Maybe just use different numbers throughout? Jmj713 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-AHAC
I have just forgotten about that article. I think I was going to look for the list of teams playing and add that. Must of gotten busy in real life, or something like that. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 13:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Frozen Fury


The article Frozen Fury has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No reliable sources to establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. tedder (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This article looks ok to me.
 * But whether is the ongoing discussion? Can't find it. Varlaam (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WWII series
I finally started a table for that as I mentioned months ago.

Going to see how much data there is to see whether it warrants its own page.

How does that sound? Varlaam (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep at it, looks good. Still many movies missing from the main table though. Jmj713 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But I'm only moonlighting there.
 * My main pages are the Books pages which have been under sustained attack for 6 months.
 * I'd rather see independent parallel development so both can borrow from each other as needed.
 * I have been polishing the formatting of WWII slo-o-owly hoping somebody else would get the general idea and jump in.
 * But there is this huge unscalable wall separating editors from ordinary readers.
 * Varlaam (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, I pinch in whenever I think of something. Nobody wanted to do a WWII documentary list until I did it. That's the Wikipedia way, anyway. If you want to see something done, you do it. There are lots of areas I'm interested in, so it's hard to concentrate on something. If you need any help, though, feel free to ask. Jmj713 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (SIMULTANEOUS EDITING CONFLICT)
 * On my own pages, I have designed numerous opportunities for junior editors to jump in.
 * Basically I have set up a fill-in-the-blanks scenario where it's obvious what goes in the blank.
 * Or, rather, obvious to anyone with a genuine interest in the subject matter.
 * All the kid editor needs to do is take the next step. ---> PLEASE FILL BLANK <---
 * But has anybody ever done it in like a year or a year and a half?
 * Never.
 * Varlaam (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to be the main documentary contributor at the IMDb a decade ago.
 * So, I already did my part in that regard.
 * That's why I haven't contributed to your page here.
 * When I started adding to the IMDb, Stalin and Lenin did not have pages. I created them.
 * Churchill's only credit was as an author! I did all his Actor credits.
 * Triumph of the Will. That's my research. I watched that bloody thing a million times. Yuck.
 * Varlaam (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Goering and Goebbels. I had to pick a spelling, oe or umlaut? I had to make a decision.
 * Lenin. Vladimir? Vladimir Ilyich? V.I.? Ulyanov aka Lenin?
 * Stalin. Joseph? Josef? What about Dzugashvili? Pain in the neck.


 * Gandhi and his buddy Nehru. That's a tricky case.
 * I couldn't decide. Should I go for names:
 * Mohandas and Jawaharlal
 * or their respective courtesy titles:
 * Mahatma and Pandit.
 * I chose names, and created the Mohandas K. Gandhi page.
 * But after several years, I forget how many now, Gandhi got renamed to Mahatma, which is certainly much easier for the average person who doesn't even know that that's a title.
 * Varlaam (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you ever gone WWII touring in Europe?
 * I've visited a couple of relevant spots in Hong Kong as well.
 * Varlaam (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

One of these days I'd love to. Jmj713 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:New York Rangers 85th Anniversary logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:New York Rangers 85th Anniversary logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Acather96 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Damned (novel)


The article Damned (novel) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable per WP:BK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Big in Japan.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Big in Japan.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States
Many thanks for your comments on my proposal for a new format for the list. I am now looking for consensus to replace the list, at the conversation here. Many thanks. BartBassist (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Dziekuje Poland Live 83.jpg
Thanks to User:Fox, the file's been moved and it appears correctly in the article now. Have fun! :) Banaticus (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help. Jmj713 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

NHL team seasons template
I reverted your edits to Template:Philadelphia Flyers and Template:Colorado Avalanche and someone else to Template:Pittsburgh Penguins. The seasons templates for Colorado and Pittsburgh were previously deleted (see here and here) and the Flyers one was merged. --Izzygood (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think having the seasons in the team template is a good idea, personally. Those seem to have been deleted because the seasons were both as a separate template and inside the main template. Separating them, I believe, is the way to go. Jmj713 (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephen King
Hi. Sorry about not looking at your last edit more carefully before reverting it. Although I recall the first revert, and the message I left you here (which oddly enough it seems like I screwed up a bit too), I don't recall even making the second one, so I'm not sure how that happened. Mea culpa. In answer to your comment about references, however, yes, material needs to be sourced in each article in which it appears. There is no centralized "parent" article to which readers are supposed to go to for references, since each article must stand on its own, even if it's a list-type article. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jmj713. I'll try to address each one of your points. Print publications are easy to cite. You just add the publication information, just as you would an online one (author, name of article, name of publication, publisher, date, page numbers, etc.). There are entire templates to make this easier at Citation templates. There are templates there for books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, etc. It's even easier than citing an online source, because you don't have to worry about making a link work. Even if you don't want to use templates, much of what I learned about editing was done by simply looking around and imitating (in addition to reading pages like the aforementioned one), so all you have to do is look at examples, like the magazine or newspaper articles cited in articles like Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew or Union City, New Jersey.


 * Regarding the message board, I could not find the material in question on that page, despite multiple attempts to look for key words and phrases that appeared in the article. For example, when I try looking for the phrase "slag-heap", it shows up in a post by a "junior member" (not King or anyone identifiable as his assistant), and it merely quotes the Wikipedia article, which violates WP:CIRCULAR. Using secondary sources is crucial in cases like this. Keep in mind that even if it does appear in that forum, forums and blogs are generally not acceptable sources under WP:IRS, unless it's the blog of someone who is themselves considered a reliable source, so if the person in question is indeed an assistant to Mr. King, it is important that we be able to establish that fact.
 * The citation of King's assistant on the official forum was not for the 2007 synopsis from Marvel Spotlight, but instead for the statement that the plot details of the novel have changed. King's assistant, Marsha DeFilippo, does post on the official forum of which she is a moderator under the name Ms. Mod. It's a well-known fact, thought I'm not sure how to provide a verifiable link for that. If you look through Ms. Mod's posts of the official forum, it will become evident. Jmj713 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The material I pasted from the LA Times article is not a synopsis, but an explanation of the premise. Since King provided that explanation to the LA Times for journalistic and publicity purposes, it easily falls under Fair Use, since it represents a limited amount of material, and is properly attributed. Use of it on Wikipedia is no more copyright infringement than use of it in the LA Times article that served as the source.


 * Liljas Library is indeed a fan site, as is indicated in the site's FAQ section. However, while writing a book, in and of itself, does not automatically qualify one as a reliable source, the fact that his book is indicated to include over 40 interviews with King, and is published by a non-vanity press publisher, may qualify him. I've started a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get more feedback on this. If others indicate that it's a reliable source, I'll restore the material in question. In the meantime, however, you say that most of the material sourced to that site actually comes from King's site. If that's the case, then why not just cite King's site? Do you have the urls for that material? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * News items mainly either came from the front page of StephenKing.com (which always changes), the official Message Board, or Bev Vincent, a published author and King scholar, who's close to King's office. For instance, the cited newsitem about the voting process on which book King should write next is no longer available, as the poll has been taken down from the front page of King's site. The text, as far as I can see, only remains at Liljas Library. Jmj713 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. The Bulletins Page of Asia Carrera's official website, from which some of the material in her article is derived, has the same problem, and my attempts to inquire with her as to whether they're archived somewhere have not yielded a response. I've brought up your concerns in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion. Nightscream (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I got some responses on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I think you should read the discussion. Nightscream (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. Someone posted a new message in the RSN discussion, and mentioned a web reference archiving site called WebCite. I thought you should know, so that you could cite posts from Stephen King's official site if you want. Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you edited the Dark Tower Series page. I was just wondering if you were a fan of the series?Rhonda (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. Jmj713 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruins-Canadiens rivalry
The reason why I'm moving the series tabke into the infobox is because it's done that way in the other rivalry articles. – SNIyer12, (talk), 18:19 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but with this being such a long-standing rivalry, it would look unwieldy in the infobox. A separate table is easier to grasp and comprehend at a quick glance. It gives a great and clear overview, I believe. Jmj713 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically 1893 Stanley Cup championship, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT The only constant 01:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Rice Burroughs bibliography
I very much like your new Edgar Rice Burroughs bibliography page. The only thing I am unsure about is how to deal with short stories that were later collected into books. On the bibliography as you have it now, they are listed under the original magazine title (e.g., "The City of Mummies"), and the collection is not listed (e.g., Llana of Gathol does not appear in your list). On the other hand, books that consist of just one single story are listed under the book title, not the original magazine title (e.g., you have A Princess of Mars rather than Under the Moons of Mars). So it's a mix of original and final versions.

Also, someone unfamiliar with ERB's output might become confused to see four separate stories listed as "Barsoom #10", even though that is correct.

What would you think of the following: Add another column. The first column would be Original title, and the second would be Book title. That would let you show both titles for Barsoom 1. And then when you come to Llana, the first column would show all four separate stories (in quotation marks, not italics, because they are short stories) and the second column would say Llana of Gathol. The Series column would remain as it is now -- counting by books -- but it will now be clear why "Barsoom # 10" appears four times.

What do you think of this idea? &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's something I hadn't thought of, actually. I think it's a good idea. I'll try to implement it as soon as possible. Hopefully it won't make the table too large. Also, the Forgotten Tales of Love and Murder book was added by another user. I purposefully left it off, because I was unsure about how to present it, since I wanted to adhere to order of writing, and I don't think that's known for some of those stories. Jmj713 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The table is sortable by column by clicking on the little icon, and therefore you can think of the table not as being "in order of writing" but rather "in whatever order the reader wants". I like the fact that you have three dates (writing, magazine publication, book publication).  If the date of writing is unknown, you can put the word "unknown" in that column.


 * If a magazine story was never released as a book, you can leave the Book Title and Book Date columns blank for that entry. However, I'm not sure what to do about a story that never appeared in magazine form, but was published solely as a book.  Should the Original Title and First Publication be left blank for such things?  Or should you include them, and just make them identical to the book?  &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stand1990.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Stand1990.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dark Tower film adaptation article
Re: The Dark Tower series film adaptation I can understand your defensive feelings toward an article that you created. But the simple fact is this: Wikipedia is not meant as place for articles about films that are in development. A film must currently be filming in order to have its own article. This is spelled out plain and simple in Notability_(films) and WikiProject_Film/Future_films. You said in your undoing of my nomiation for deletion that the article is a "Comprehensive and well-sourced article chronicling the roots of the adaptation, which is still on track, and progressing." Unfortunately this is not an argument for keeping the article. Being well sourced or comprehensive is not an argument against Wikipedia Notability Standards when the article is about a film that has not begun filming. Until such time as prinical photography of a Dark Tower film or television project begins the information on this future film adaptation belongs as a section in another article. You can fill the article with sources but that does not change the fact that until the movie starts filming it does not warrant a Wikipedia article.Danleary25 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

... on the official Jets page to match the rest of the templates because of the editing restrictions placed on that page:

Thanks a bunch. --Vuzor (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. ✅ Jmj713 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great. :D --Vuzor (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ask another favor of you, but do you think it would be a bit more pleasant to turn the text at the top of the page (in the table) white instead of grey? And I suppose to add azure as an official color seeing as there's an azure (light blue) stripe going through the official web page, as well as because of its use on official merchandise? Thanks so much, and sorry if I'm inconveniencing you. :(

--Vuzor (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I made the text at the top of the infobox white. I would wait to add the actual color to the list of official colors. Official word so far has been blue, silver, and white. Jmj713 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks. :) --Vuzor (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Dark Tower series film adaptation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Dark Tower series film adaptation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Dark Tower series film adaptation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Jean Calleo (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:The Cannibals.png
Thank you for uploading File:The Cannibals.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly hi! 16:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Images for The Second World War (book)
Hi there. I see you've just uploaded a photo of the 1st Edition of Churchill's The Second World War. That's great as the article needed it. But you've done it by putting your image of the 6-volume 1st edition as a new version of the 12-volume paperback edition image, which it isn't, so the history (and non-free fair usage rationale) are in fact wrong.

Could you possibly upload your image as something like 'Churchill_History_WWII_6vols_1st_Edition.JPG' for use in the article, so I can put back the 12-volume paperback image? Then I can move the paperback image down in the article, leaving your image at the top.

That would be really helpful. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I've added it here, and reverted the paperbacks. Jmj713 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wind Through the Keyhole
Hi. Thanks for all the attention you've given to The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole. Just one thing, though: Regarding edits such as this one and this one, just so you know, punctuation such as commas and periods goes before the citation, and not after, according to WP:PAIC. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Source information needed for File:NHL Network 2011.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NHL Network 2011.jpg. However, the file description needs source information before it's okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:


 * 1) Add a detailed description of who the original author is and where you got it. Please be specific, and include a link to the source if you can.
 * 2) Be sure to save the page.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Wind Through the Keyhole Cover Final.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Wind Through the Keyhole Cover Final.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NHL Network 2011.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:NHL Network 2011.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

List of The Stand characters
Hi, Wikipedia is considers deleting the List of The Stand characters. If you are the novel's fan, you probably want to save it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

1991 Kings/Rangers outdoor exhibition game
Wowsers, I remember that contest, particulary the long shadows of the players, on the ice. It was similar to the triple shadows made by the old Chicago Stadium. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was definitely something else. I'm surprised we didn't have an article on it, and I kept wanting to do one. Saw the game again just before the 2012 Winter Classic. If you can help out with more details, please do. I'd especially like to add rosters and a complete boxscore. Jmj713 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications
Hi Jmj713,

Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchuk@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please don't edit war. You are attempting to force your personal version of the template Template:Washington Capitals seasons against the consensus of opinion in WP:ACCESS, in particular WP:HLIST, and against two other editors. I advise you to stop now and revert yourself as I have made a report on your four reverts to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You will need to carefully examine the arguments made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive51 as I do not believe that simply restating your opinion that you don't like the way it looks carries any weight against the accessibility reasons provided to you by four other editors. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit warring at all, I just believe big changes to longstanding articles and templates should be discussed first. Jmj713 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Jmj713. I reviewed the 3RR report. No blocks were given. Discussion is better regardless of which version is kept temporarily, so your reversions were unnecessary, and do indeed constitute edit warring. This is a warning to cease from this in the future. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 05:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

List of player names on the Stanley Cup
Well there are a few things about this page that have been problematic. Aside from the overall size that the page will be once its completed and the amount of time it takes to include everyone on the tables, the main problem is that finding a source for who is or isn't actually engraved has been difficult. I have the rosters for the winning teams in the National Hockey League Official Guide & Record Book (when I check it out from the library) and on line at http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=31125 but neither stat if the player was for sure engraved. I know that the current requirement is 41 regular season games or 1 in the final but I'm not sure when this began being enforced or who the sources list as rostered players that may not have paid to their name put on the Cup when the custom first started. Add to that some of the notes on Stanley Cup Finals pages like this one (from the 1932 Stanley Cup Finals page): "Smythe wanted to include 17 investors on the Stanley Cup, and playoff scores. In order to have enough room five player's names were engraved by their last name only: Darragh, Finnigan, Gracie, Miller, Robertson. When the cup was redesigned during 1957–58 season, the playoff game scores, 17 investors, and five players listed by only their last name only were removed. Those five players played every playoff game and qualified to be on the cup. There was more than enough room to include them." That is unreferenced makes it difficult to know how accurate any of the information is.

Right now the name of the page could be changed to be rosters if no definitive source can be found, but the page is still a long way from being done considering that it looks like that last full squad I got put in was the 1935 Maroons (I originally Started trying to go alphabetically before switching to the team rosters). At any rate, any help you want to give would be appreciated I agree there should be some kind of page for this. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WWII
I responded to your response.

ERB. I hadn't realized you were an ERB reader. I recently reread Princess, and it's still a delight. But I never finished that series. I read the first 6 or 7 some years ago.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Vonnegut. Do you have a favourite?
 * Pynchon. A friend of mine says I'm the only person he knows who would appreciate Gravity's Rainbow. But if I were to read something that dense, I think I would read another Melville, or another Dostoyevsky. And I've still never finished Ulysses or Don Quixote.
 * Varlaam (talk)


 * Hiya. It's Varlaam. I am currently blocked for 3 months for trying to add a POV notice to a seriously POV article.
 * This place, sometimes, y'know. The kangaroo system exemplified.
 * I had not quite finished the tripartite split earlier of WWII, but I have done that now.
 * Some delusional individual just this past week -- by pure coincidence -- accused me of being a sock, which makes steam come out of my ears (Canadian engineers swear an oath of honesty, right, we do) so I have signed my half dozen or so new edits.
 * Can you doublecheck what I have finalized? I think we're ok. Then I want to leave the page in your care for a while, if that's ok with you. Is it?
 * And, hey, you didn't give me personal opinions on Vonnegut and stuff.
 * Cheers, 99.237.226.35 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as Vonnegut, there is no one favorite. If you're interested, I suggest you go for the two volumes in the Library of America series, which contain the bulk of his best work. As for the WWII movies, I honestly haven't been keeping up with your edits. I'll take a look. Jmj713 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read tons of Vonnegut since the 1970s, including some which may be rare now, like Time and Timbuktu and Wanda June.
 * Just not recently.
 * Favourites of mine would have been Player Piano, Monkey House, Mother Night (which I bought in Greece in the 1970s as I recall), Wampeters, Jailbird.
 * Some friends love Sirens but I've never read it.


 * With WWII, my access is not blocked from here.
 * But I am happy to have a vacation from the enwiki bullcrap. If you'd care to supervise, that would be awesome.
 * I'm doing my own thing at present, which is translating a Spanish article into French and German. I was given special rights in German WP presumably because there are few native English speakers who know German nowadays and they want to encourage translation into German.
 * Cheers, Varlaam. 99.238.134.143 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, someone in recent months added genre to WWII and I formalized and regularized that.
 * But I'm not crazy about the space that consumes.
 * I started tabulating List of World War I films just before I was blocked.
 * There I have tried a single-character column for Genre on the far right.
 * I am curious to know your insights on the two approaches.
 * Hasta luego, Varlaam. 99.238.134.143 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

ASOIAF page number question
Hello. You recently changed the page number count of the A Song of Ice and Fire series to the US first editions. In my Good Article review for the ASOIAF article, I was asked to check that. However, since I don't have any US first edition books, I only have the page number count in old Publishers Weekly reviews for cross-checking, and they sometimes deviate from your numbers (yours 694-768-973-753-1040 vs PW 704-768-992-753-1056). Do you have any suggestions where these deviations come from? Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 11:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just went by the numbers given on the individual book articles. Jmj713 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hats off to you sir
I just saw what you are doing to all of the war articles. VERY cool idea! Belchfire (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I doubt I can really do all. Just going off the lists of wars, and not all have exact dates. Jmj713 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

preceded_by/followed_by for Stephen King Books
Hi. I noticed that you reverted without comment my changes to some Stephen King books (Carrie/'Salem's Lot/The Shining/Rage/Night Shift) in which I had removed the preceded_by/followed_by data. In so doing, I carefully included an edit summary that read as follows:
 * Per Template:Infobox book, preceded_by/followed_by should only be used for the title of prior/subsequent book in series or sequel (do not use to connect separate books chronologically)

Perhaps you didn't read the edit summaries or aren't familiar with the usage of the Template:Infobox book? If so, please take a look at the instructions for using this template. Based on the above, I'll be reverting your reversions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, and cheers! --BehemothCat (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC) (User:67.169.100.237, who had forgotten to log in)
 * I'm quite familiar with the template. As I explained in a reversion of Rage, this has been a longstanding use of these template parameters for Stephen King books, in place for years, and very useful in terms of navigation and chronology. I've used these links myself countless times, and find them necessary, despite that "officially" they're meant for book series. To me, an author's body of work is all a series, an oeuvre, not simply a dissipate grouping of random books. Other author's book templates are used this way too, by the way, but I mainly edit King's books. Jmj713 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply, apologies for not being as quick. I can see how the chronological approach has it's benefits, but I found it disconcerting, being accustomed to the logic and the functionality of the series/sequel approach that's in more general use.  Anyhow, it sounds like you're reconciled to the manual of style entry for novel articles that Mrmatiko referenced in the Rage revision history.  Accordingly, I'll continue to update the King novels (and others, as I run into them).  Thanks, and happy editing!  --BehemothCat (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"not edit-warring but reverting vandalism"
You left a comment when removing my warning: "not edit-warring but reverting vandalism". The way you were reverting vandalism it was not obvious to me at least. You should always leave an edit summary stating your actions and you should communicate with the editor via that editor's talk page explaining why their actions are unacceptable (read as: warn the vandal). You did neither. Please see WP:R Van for more suggestions on dealing with vandalism, and thanks for your work on the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslims
Hi, I noticed that you returned that material that was removed this morning. The claims had no reliable source and was within policy and guidelines to remove. Youtube videos are user generated and in this case the primary source. They cannot be used to source facts or claims. Also, I found a reliable source for some of the information but need to re-add it (it is in the lede). I spent several hours on the copy edit and had to go to sleep. I am returning to that article today if you would like to help collaborate. I am in the middle of a major sweep through the article to fix unsourced claims (some are accurate but just need RS), correcting bare urls as inline citations and adding notes for further clarification of the subject, the sources and additional information not needed in the article but useful in the notes section.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe such descriptive information needs to be sourced from secondary sources. For instance, most plot summaries for films or novels don't generally require sourcing, and are based on the primary sources. Here, too, I added purely technical information which I felt was pertinent: exactly when the videos were uploaded, exactly how long they were (previously the article kept repeating "around 14 minutes", which I felt needed clarification), and in what video format. Plus I wanted to add description, like general description of the narrative, that while the videos purport to be trailers, they don't actually display any features of trailers, which I also felt was noteworthy. Jmj713 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Pet Sematary novel discussion
Hi Jmj713, as a frequent editor of the Pet Sematary article, I hope to get your opinion on a comment I made on its Talk page regarding the detail of the Film, TV or theatrical adaptations section. Hope to hear from you soon. Charger2 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Esquire July 2007.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Esquire July 2007.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Korean crisis
I noted that you reverted Soffredo's edits on this article regarding the end/end date of the crisis. Some IPs and SPAs have been restoring this content, and I've made a talk page section for it. Could you please visit Talk:2013 Korean crisis? Thanks, Ansh666 03:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages
Since you have over 100 edits at Stephen King, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games
There are two main issues at work here. 1) The first is that it is meant to be just a medal table. A short summary of the medal winners, that's it. Clogging it up with non-medal winners is unnecessary and I don't think I've ever seen a similar table on any Olympic page (though I could be wrong). Hence why it is not a "standard" table. All the expanded table does is include information already found elsewhere on the page and it makes things longer and more complex.

2) There was a discussion a while back ( and I think there was a longer one at WP:HOCKEY, but I'm not going to search for it) about splitting the table into men's and women's sections, and this was largely rejected again because of standards and because it is meant to be a simple summary. -- Scorpion 0422  17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, I was striving to display an overall history of participation in a concise table, which means listing non-medaling nations. Just because it doesn't appear anywhere else, doesn't mean it can't be included (sort of a reverse "Other Stuff Exists" argument). As for men's and women's, I would prefer to keep those separate. I'm not sure what the rationale would be for combining the two. As a compromise, perhaps, a third table could be added, containing just medal winners and combining men and women. That could be useful. Jmj713 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. More people would be interested in a ranking of medal winners as opposed to every nation. After all, there is a much better listing of every nation and ranking. The problem I've seen with many wikipedia lists these days is that users get hooked up on summary tables. They assume wikipedia readers are incredibly stupid and need information chopped up and served to them in an easy format. All it does is add unnecessary lists and clog up pages. And again in the men & women issue, it is wikipedia custom to combine them. -- Scorpion 0422  20:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the summary table that I added is a ranked table and is much easier on the eyes than the participation table above which is unwieldy. Jmj713 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go back in time and ask the IOC to stage less tournaments, then we can have a nice, wieldy and pretty results table for you. Are you actually saying the full results table is less useful than the summary one which contains 1/4 of the information? -- Scorpion 0422  20:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

iihf appearance table
got it done in my sandbox, probably needs some notations about nations that split/ceased whatever. the iihf contradicts itself on naming and handling of Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia, I tried to make it as accurate as possible but I don't understand all the subtleties of that situation.18abruce (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks very good, the only thing is I'd separate the top level and the other Divisions. Jmj713 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah crap, sorry, that is going to require a little more work, but maybe I will develop charts for all four tiers at the same time. Give me a little time.18abruce (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I meant. For example, the US team has made appearances in the lower division as well as the top division. So it would be interesting to see that. Some teams will appear in several tables as they get promoted and/or relegated. Maybe we can also show a symbol like / for movement between divisions? Also, ultimately, I'd really like to have each team's record formatted in a way similar what somebody started doing here (the last two years). It seems to be a daunting task though... Jmj713 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got something workable and notated in my sandbox now, for all levels. See what you think.
 * This really looks fantastic! I'm assuming you have access to the IIHF record book, otherwise this would've taken enormous amounts of research. This is why I'd also like to get to each national team's year-by-year standings and turn them into usable and informative tables, like team season tables. Jmj713 (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I've just added an overview table there, I hope you don't mind. I think it helps to quickly gauge a given team's participation. Jmj713 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The one key thing I am missing is hosting history for the lower levels, I would have to go through year by year for that and I am not keen on attacking that right away, but maybe soon.  I primarily used the IIHF record book along with Duplacey's Total Hockey.18abruce (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, no rush. Is this a physical book you have? Also, as far as team season tables, I've started one for Serbia (because it was just quicker, I guess). Any thoughts on this? Jmj713 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes both the primary resources I used are physical books, but neither contain hosting history for the lower levels, so I will go through the years online for the rest. The IIHF Media Guide and Record Book has a lot of handy tables and charts.  I really like how that looks on the Serbia page.  Some of the pages include the location of the tournament as well, don't know if that could be incorporated easily or not.18abruce (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I had actually forgotten able the IIHF WC appearance tables. I had added the lower division tables to the articles for those divisions, but for the top division I was unsure if it should replace content there, or be added.  Then I forgot about it.  I don't see anything that needs adding, just not sure where (or how) it would be best used.  I notice (now) that I have a bunch of notes of how to do the lower tiers of the women's tournaments, but had not decided on anything yet.  It also appears that I started crunching numbers for 2018 Olympic hockey, but I have no memory of actually doing that.18abruce (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment
As an active member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, you should be aware that there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment concerning how NHOCKEY will be interpreted. Dolovis (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Olympic pages
Just trying to make them more aesthetically pleasing.1906cubs (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, but the smaller type, in my view, makes it less pleasing. When everything is uniform, it doesn't stand out, even though it is a long name to be sure. On the other hand, I would love to get more help with this project. I've been working on converting or creating medal tables for every Olympics participant NOC. Hopefully you can use that as a guide as to what needs work. Jmj713 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Already 1952?
Did the German Democratic Republic take part in the Olympic Games already 1952: talviolympialaiset 1952? --85.76.53.43 (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

F. Scott Fitzgerald bibliography
Hi there. I see you undid the deletion of the Cambridge Editions. When I saw the edit earlier today, I tended to agree that it was mostly spam. You didn't leave an edit summary though. Why did you undo this? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a long-standing part of the article and it's an authoritative complete works collection, which is a unique series of books and not just some random collections. I feel it's important to list it. As for no edit summery, I thought that was apparent. Jmj713 (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you deleting?
Hi. Why do you keep deleting my entry about the Norwegian publication of 1Q84? Roald Andresen (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have anything to do with the English-language Wikipedia, there's no reason to include book information in any language other than the original and English. Jmj713 (talk)
 * OK. While I don't agree with you, I will not bother to argue. It would, however, have been good of you to inform about this when you first did the deletion, as not all of use know all the conventions that are applicable. Roald Andresen (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in my opinion, . This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. If the information is properly referenced and doesn't amount to undue weight, there is no policy based reason to exclude it, simply because neither of the languages is English. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

re: Foreign film Oscar nomination tables
Nice work! That code is much more easy to use than the previous version.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you get time, the Bulgarian page needs a reworking. I'm looking at the vast amount of unsourced cruft on there at the moment.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Stephen King books
I don't have a problem with your reverts. Since you are visiting pages for King's books, you might be interested in a discussion at Talk:Dreamcatcher (novel). Happy editing! Sundayclose (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

IIHF
Hey, yeah i don't mind those tables and colours, it's really not important (just consistency is needed). Not sure where to find that info, maybe at iihf.com or some databank (no idea where). Kante4 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Don't count on me for help, have other things to do on WP and of course RL, sorry. But you have my support Kante4 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)