Jay-W

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of film production companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Pit and the Pendulum (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Academy Award for Best Picture edits

By no means am I an expert on the subject, but I think some of those edits were questionable. To verify some of your edits, I went to the Academy website. For example, this page on the Oscars website lists both Selznick and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer as the producers. You removed one of them which either means that you are confused, or you're purposely removing information from the page. I for one think its just a minor error, but I will keep looking into all the edits you did. If most of them are also erroneous, I will be rollbacking your massive number of edits. Feedback ^☎ 15:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You also removed United Artists from Around the World in 80 days when the Academy also lists it as a production company. Listen, I don't think you're vandalizing, but I'm going to revert the edits. I know your edits were in good faith, but you're engaging in a weird version of accidental vandalism here. I'll be rollbacking these edits shortly. Please don't redo the changes. Find some sources for the ones you got right (if any) and then re-add them along with the sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, the Academy website would do fine for such basic information. Thank you, Feedback ^☎ 15:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to question individual changes then that's fine, but please don't just revert the whole lot based on guesswork. The changes I made were valid and accurate. The Academy website is a primary source for information on the Academy and the Oscars, but it's not the last word on the films themselves. The credit for MGM on Gone with the Wind is actually "in association with". I removed MGM as a production company, as this is in line with the other entries which list only the principal companies. Jay-W (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're asking me to trust all 10 edits after finding out 3 of them were incorrect. Look, I can't sit here and evaluate them all day to make sure which ones are correct and which aren't. You should check them before you added them, and even then, you should have added rs's to back up your claims. I told you to please not revert the edits. For the record, the Academy has the final say on who is listed in the nominations. Most of the time, some producers aren't officially nominated. As a show of good faith, I'm going to take 10 minutes to check their records and review your edits, but frankly, I feel like a sucker for doing this for you. If I find at least 3 more incorrect, I'm re-reverting it. You can't add a bunch of information and defend it by saying "not all of it is wrong". Feedback ^☎ 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the Academy has the final say on what the nominations are, but that's not what we're talking about. I looked at the Oscars website, and the reason you are confused is because it lists both production companies and distributors. The production companies come first, then after the semi-colon it lists the US distributor. Jay-W (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm not going to make believe I'm an expert on the subject, but some of your edits are just odd. For example, you added Dino De Laurentiis as a Production Company even though the man is most certainly not a company. As of right now, it's the only instance where you put a man in the "Company" section. What gives? The Academy website makes no mention of him anyway. Could you not provide reliable sources for this giant heap of information? Where are you getting it from anyway? Feedback ^☎ 16:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you looking at the 1960s Romeo and Juliet or the 1930s one? De laurentiis is a person obviously but it's also the name of his company. This company is the Italian one so it's Dino de Laurentiis Cinematografica. I just shortened it to save space. It is listed on the oscars site - [[1]]. Jay-W (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cary Grant

A few years ago you participated in a discussion at Talk:Cary Grant about his citizenship. A recent RFC has begun on Cary Grants citizenship reference in the lead paragraph. Please feel free to add a comment at Talk:Cary Grant#RfC: Should the ambiguous hyphenated term, English-American, be used to describe the subject?.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish independence referendum, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

John, the material was not unreferenced or poorly referenced. You are taking that line about “tabloid journalism” out of context. The policy applies only to contentious material. The views of Gordon Brown and George Robertson on Scottish independence are well known and are a matter of public record, the material is not contentious. And an article written by Gordon Brown himself is definitely a reliable source for his own views. You need to use some common sense.The BLP policy doesn't justify you deleting information just because the source is a tabloid newspaper. If you think the article breaches the policy then you can raise the issue on the Talk page or on the BLP noticeboard. Jay-W (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me and plaster my talk page with your stupid logos. I have already explained to you why the material is not in breach of the policy. But if you think there has been a breach of BLP policy then you can use the BLP noticeboard and raise your concerns there. Jay-W (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Enough of your nonsense. I have not violated the policy and you are a fool if you think I have. You are ignorant, aggressive, threatening and disruptive. You appear to think being an administrator is just a convenient way for you to win an argument by blocking anyone who disagrees with you. And you don't even understand Wikipedia's policies. You are clearly not a suitable person to be an administrator and you should resign your position immediately. Jay-W (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked for one week for repeated violations of WP:BLP. If you wish to appeal you should post {{unblock|your reason here}}, but you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Block review

I am reviewing this block. Do I correctly understand that the only dispute here concerns the propriety of quoting from a column written by Gordon Brown himself and from an interview with George Robertson, attributing to each of them views that it is undisputed they hold? I will ask the blocking administrator to comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. As you can see, the user has repeatedly, and following several warnings, added lengthy quotations attributed to prominent living people, using a Scottish tabloid and a blog as a source. Rather than try to find a better source, or discuss centrally, the user has insisted that they understand WP:BLPSOURCES better than I do. There is no support for using tabloids in this way. I'll be happy to unblock if they can demonstrate that they properly understand WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And actually, on reviewing this matter myself, I see that I had edited the article in a non-admin capacity, technically putting me into the involved category. This I had forgotten before making the block. I will unblock you and defer to another admin's view on the matter. I see Brad is already reviewing this and perhaps he will have a view. I still very strongly maintain that restoring BLP material sourced only to tabloids or other weak sources is a blockworthy offence, but I see that I should not have made the block. --John (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I share your (John's) concern about the undesirable overuse of "tabloid" sources, particularly for BLP material. However, in the context of these specific edits, I also see Jay-W's point that the particular use he was making of the material might be considered unproblematic; it certainly is not the sort of gossip-mongering that is at the core of the concern about tabloid sourcing. There seems to be no dispute that Brown and Robertson have precisely the views on Scottish independence that the disputed edits attribute to them; and I certainly see no basis for disputing the attribution of views to Brown based on an article that he wrote. Unless there is some aspect to this situation that I am missing entirely, I disagree with this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the EC there. I make no dispute about the views that the two prominent politicians hold, as I cannot read their minds. The obvious remedy for someone wishing to include this material in the article would be to find a better source, as policy requires. If none can be found, we cannot include it, as policy states. But I shall take this down a different administrative path than blocking. --John (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you raise this on a noticeboard, would you kindly link to that discussion here? Regards, 00:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)