User talk:Smiddly

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Badgernet (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Jack Said Graphic Novel Cover.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Jack Said Graphic Novel Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Jack Said Graphic Novel Cover.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Jack Said Graphic Novel Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Jack Said Graphic Novel Cover.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Jack Said Graphic Novel Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Jack Says Poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Says Poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Jack Says Film Poster.jpg)[edit]

You've uploaded File:Jack Says Film Poster.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Jack_Says_Film_Poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jack_Says_Film_Poster.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 non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to MacGuffin, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Said and MacGuffin[edit]

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote your film. See e.g. Wikipedia:PROMOTION and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There might be a MacGuffin in the film, but it is not a WP:Notable one and it is not attested to by WP:Reliable sources. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly valid addition to the list and not up to you to decide not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiddly (talk • contribs)

The list is by no means an exhaustive list of every example of MacGuffin, and should never be such. The examples listed there are there to provide the reader with a general idea of what a McGuffin is, so only notable popular films should be listed, since those are the ones most people can relate to. The film you are trying to add does not really help people understand what a McGuffin is, since a lot of people have not seen it. Also, your contributions show that you focus on articles relating to Jack Said, indicating a potential conflict of interest. Please take that into account when you edit. Netalarm^talk 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions are irrelevant - they simply show I know my subject matter. It is a matter of your opinion - which is no more valid than mine - that a lot of people have not seen it. That statement in itself is not true as many people have seen it. It is a worthwhile contribution to the list and not down to you to decide otherwise. Please leave alone. Smiddly.

I've replied on the article's talk page. Again, please reread the message and see that these are only examples that people can relate to, not a complete list. Netalarm^talk 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jack Said. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Netalarm^talk 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netalarm, please stop vandalising the Jack Said page. You clearly have an issue with me from the MacGuffin edits, and have decided to continue your vendetta here. You use your opinion rather than facts to support your claims. It's YOUR OPINION that Heyuguys is not a reputable film site - despite the fact that many sites including IMDB use them as a news source. It's YOUR OPINION that the graphic novel is irrelevant, when it quite clearly is not (and you only decided this after I reverted your last edits). It's YOUR OPINION that it follows an unsuccessful film, despite the fact the awards it won would suggest otherwise. Here's evidence the graphic novel was runner up for the Pearson Prize http://www.prlog.org/10235692-the-pearson-prize-announces-2009-teen-book-award-winner.html - you clearly didn't want to research that, did you? And despite mixed reviews, you have deliberately chosen to only include the negative ones, belying your motives of portraying the film/page in as negative a light as possible due to a grudge against someone who dares to revert your unneccessary edits. Smiddly, 10 August 2010.

Smiddly, heyuguys and the IMDb are not WP:Reliable sources, but the sources that you removed were both WP:Notable and reliable sources. Please be careful about SPA, COI editing. Thank you for finding a working link for the Pearson Prize; while a free press release site isn't the height of RS, perhaps it's better than nothing in proving 100 high schoolers thought that the graphic novel deserved to be one of two runners up for the prize. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"perhaps it's better than nothing in proving 100 high schoolers thought that the graphic novel deserved to be one of two runners up for the prize." - Loving the sarcasm there - you're clearly impartial too!

"heyuguys and the IMDb are not WP:Reliable sources, but the sources that you removed were both WP:Notable and reliable sources" IMDB I can understand as anyone can add information, but heyuguys is no different from Time Out or the Guardian - the are both independent sources that review films - there's no difference.

Please sign your posts, if you would. Four tildes in a row will do it. Time Out and The Guardian are publications of some repute, and heyuguys is a movie blog; blogs like that are self-published sources and are rarely reliable sources/notable by Wikipedia's standards WP:SELFPUBLISH. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion; the film (and graphic novel) should not be made out to be more notable or praised than it really is, and criticism from RS should not be erased. WP:PROMOTION The film received some praise for some things and that should be acknowledged in the article, but on the whole it appears to have been panned, which should also be acknowledged in the article. If other RS come to light with praise for the film, they can be added. If I find any, I'll add them myself! I suspect, however, that further inquiry will only keep turning up more bad ones like RadioTimes 1/5 "a weak and unsuccessful attempt to emulate the hard-boiled style of Sin City"; "a dour, humourless affair"[1] and The Sunday Times1/5 "a dull, poorly acted affair that doesn’t deserve the brief release it’s getting." [2], etc. It's probably just as well blogs aren't usually included, as most of the blog reviews I found were negative too, not that there are even that many reviews of the film at all. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Said[edit]

You can't add facebook links to articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Your 11 November 2010 edit to Jack Said diff had the edit summary "removing dead links," and in your edit you removed low ratings and quotes critical of Jack Said along with the links to reviews at TimeOut, The Observer and Little White Lies . I checked those links and the only one that was not working was the one to Little White Lies.

Per WP:DEADLINK, when a link is no longer working, one should not automatically remove it, but should instead use a search engine to find if the page has moved, and if it no longer seems to be live on the internet, whether it may have been archived. The Little White Lies review in fact is still online; the page had only moved. Additionally, for print publications the links are just a WP:CONVENIENCE, since one could still look up them up in a news database or the print publications themselves for the given dates.

That the edit summary was incorrect, and that only negative reviews were removed is problematic in itself. That this was done by an editor all of whose edits concern Jack Said and who twice before removed two critical reviews (by TimeOut and The Guardian) from the same article (diff and diff) is also a matter of some concern.

Please be careful to follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to consider any way you may have a conflict of interest and how to avoid COI edits. Thank you. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Jack Said, you may be blocked from editing. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, SmartarSE, you please stop YOUR disruptive editing... Wait... I said your editing was disruptive, so it must be, mustn't it? No, because it's my opinion, just like your assertion is your OPINION, so don't state it like fact. There is a massive amount of snobbery from editors on here who, because they've been around a while, think they are always right and can dictate to everyone else. You can't. You are not infallable and your opinion is not the word of god, so stop acting like it is.

Ok, this is where you reply and say that "actually, I'm being objective and if you continue to disagree with my opinion then you may be blocked from editing - so that threat should shut you up now." Come on, let's hear it.

PS: I find your note intimidating and therefore you are harrassing me.

You've been consistently removing well sourced, but negative reviews at Jack Said and the single purpose nature of your account suggests you might have a conflict of interest, as Шизомби has noted here. Even after Шизомби pointed this out above, you continued, after I had replaced the content that was previously in the article. As you continued after the warning, I issued a standard message to you letting you know that if it continues, you may be blocked, if you find this intimidating you should probably bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm a snob or a smartarse from and I certainly do not think I am infallable or that my opinion is the only opinion, in this case, I have my only opinion is that including the negative reviews is crucial to maintain a neutral article. If you want to discuss why they shouldn't be included, you should start a thread at Talk:Jack Said. SmartSE (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]