User talk:Fred-stine

Flyguy649^talk_contribs 08:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but I don't think the article can survive lone. If you add inline references (befitting of a featured article) it can be merged with the parent's production section. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment, but I have to disagree. For one, the existance of article Quint (Jaws character) validates the existance of my article as a stand alone piece. In fact there are several sub-articles existing including Amity Island. I also have been denied a link for the history of ORCA on parent article because it was said to be irrelevant. The extent of detail involved in the history of Orca (Jaws boat) would deviate from the generalization of parent article and it's purpose were it merged. Furthermore, it can be argued to a degree that the "ORCA" is a character in the film in so much as Quint is. Deleting my article without more substantiated rationale would appear to be beligerent IMO. I am a new contributer here and would alternately like to think I am not being discriminated as such. Fred-stine 12:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you are not being discriminated. This would probably have been contested in anyone had created it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, if this is true, please explain why sub articles such as Amity Island and Quint (Jaws character) have not been contested and wholly exist without question. For the record, your tone in responding to my link adds to the parent article several months ago do IMHO suggest the possibility of a negative bias towards my article. While I might be incorrect in that assumption, the validity of my rationale has still not yet been logically argued. Therefore, I steadfastly disagree with any merge. Thanks Fred-stine 12:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the external site was and still is inappropriate. It's not a reliable source. Please leave the merge tags in place in order for the community to reach a consensus. Thanks, The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if you really want to do something that the community would appreciate, and might save this article -- you can add inline citations. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to add citations if I am alloted enough time. As it is I have been slated for deletion before I can thouroughly complete the article in a sufficient manner.

Also, thankyou for clarifying the necessity of the merge tags. They were placed without my consent and therefore I did not understand their need. As I am still the author of the article I deemed them as overt. Accordingly please not remove links or edit my page until said group consensus has been reached if that is indeed what is pending. A formal complaint with Wikipedia (if that is possible) might be a consideration for me as I feel the contribution (article) might be rejected without merit (like prematurely deleting my link). This however is not my goal. Rather, I wish merely to contribute. I have been forthright in my discussion with you thus far and the website I added contains verifiable and reliable fact. I will however add citations where needed per your request. For the record, when you last deleted a link I posted several months ago that was because it was for a discussion forum not a website. Your current action therefore might suggest a belligerent bias. Technically Jawsmoviearchives.com is an un-reliable source and is run by fans of the film, it is not an official website sanctioned or originated by Universal Studios. Please pick up a copy of the JAWS log if needed.

Please read WP:OWN. It is not your page. --Onorem Dil 13:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to the Jaws Log would be excellent. I would encourage you to add them ASAP. As for your site, the difference is that there is clearly a conflict of interest in your desire to add a link The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thankyou for pointing that out. COI does appear to be a consideration. The AmityIsland.net site carries the same relevant data and will suffice. Also, in reference to Onorem's comment the use of 'my' was not meant to infer ownership of the article, rather as a way to describe the article itself in so much as I instigated the piece as primary editor. Nonetheless, 'the' might be less controversial. I also will do everything in my ability (time allowing) to further strengthen the article so that it will meet requisite criteria. I appreciate any feedback and suggestions in doing so (as I'm still a newbie) and encourage additions and edits that improve upon said article. I firmly believe this article deserves to be a stand alone piece subjugated to parent article being that it would deviate from the general purpose of parent article (the film itelf) were it merged. Fred-stine 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're treating this article as "yours", which we specifically and strongly discourage. Please don't treat those who might be suggesting a merge as "enemies", or be trying to "get rid of them". I don't know a thing about the subject, but chances are, they do, and they can help you present it in the best possible fashion, be that as a standalone article or part of another! However, please do keep in mind that any work you submit is going to be worked on and edited by others, and that we very much encourage that. I would encourage you to work more collaboratively and less competitively in that vein, and have an open discussion with everyone involved rather than your mind made up that you're right and they're wrong. (It may turn out you are indeed right, but that'll generally come out in the end.) Good luck and happy editing! (You also might want to see What about X? and the fiction guidelines.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my views have been slightly geared towards the defensive so thanks for pointing that out. None the less, having quite the learning curve here has left me feeling somewhat at a disadvantage. In truth I love the idea of contributing editors and would rather sit back and watch the article develop independant of my own contributions unless I find somewhere desiring said edit. I think thats what I like best about Wikipedia. My apologies to the Wiki community should my intentions have been deemed otherwise owner-ship oriented. Having instigated the article I am simply hoping to see it allow for its full potential and want nothing more than to see it become part of the Wiki group colaborative effort. Fred-stine 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Thanks for adding a couple of books to the references. Would you like to add the relevant page numbers? You can do it by adding at the relevant point <ref>Gottlieb, p. 45</ref> The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll try asap...but I'll need more time. As it is I've been spending the better part of several days working through this to meet criteria. Thanks for your suggestion. Again, I'm still working through the technical curve here. The photo comment below is one example. Onwards I trudge.Fred-stine 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a lot in Wikipedia to get to grips with... it often seems one hurdle after another at the beginning. Usually the answer can be found by looking at an existing example: for the image below, take a look at the image description page of one of the screenshots on Jaws (film). The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Orca2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Orca2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 '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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Sunshine Man 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Orca2.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Orca2.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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Orca ref-1-.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Orca ref-1-.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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orca (Jaws boat)[edit]

The result of the AfD was redirect. If you believe there was a problem with the process, try WP:DELREV. The talk page discussion doesn't trump the AfD decision. Please be more civil with your edit summaries. Calling it a "beligerent action" isn't really appropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orca (Jaws boat)[edit]

Being that IMHO an inappropriate merge was done (without my awareness), after due course already validated its stand alone existence by others in the Wiki community the implication of beligerency could be considered an apropos opinion. What other logical cause could there be in singling out an otherwise commonly created sub article? I can find hundreds of other stand alone articles with a lesser degree of justifiable existance which have not been merged with any parent article, yet they've been ignored as historical arguement in juxtaposition with this issue. It would therefore appear the original plaintiff author for JAWS(film) has made said merge a personal issue even though it really has no redeeming purpose other than to diminish the work of branch authors. Accordingly, I will continue to lobby others to have this action reversed as it is my opinion the overwhelming consensus was not fully represented in the brief AfD decision. Fred-stine (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]