User talk:JeffJonez

Stereoscopy

You were absolutely right to cull all those links. The policy in question is WP:EL, which provides some pretty guidelines about what should be linked to (very little). Watch the three-revert rule on that article. I have watchlisted it, and will help to revert inappropriate links. I have also warned the user in question. Pastordavid (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Furry fandom. Thank you. You marked my edit as 'vandalism' when it was clearly not. Please see WP:VANDALISM. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 10:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, your 21apr08 insertion of a inflammatory, pejorative nickname for the group without discussion was merely insensitive. My apologies. JeffJonez (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--JeffJonez (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly consider it offensive in the context that it is used much more frequently than 'furotic' or whatever. Wikipedia is not censored, and I felt that was a correct statement to put in the article. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

In Empowered, Spooky's ethnicity is quite clear from her appearance and her self-chosen "title" of "Sistah." Seriously, just look at her: Darkest skin in the colour artwork, thick, wooly hair put into something akin to cornrows, thick, broad lips, flat nose, all of the classic Negroid features. And the form "Sistah" is still strongly associated with urban blacks, to the point that nobody not black would likely use it. Also check the dialogue in volume 2, pages 69 to 73. I'd say that Spooky's ethnicity is fairly obvious.

Well, Mr/Ms 75.157.164.224, Maybe Canadians are comfortable assigning race based on nonstandard spelling, but that's now how we roll in Americah. :) Seriously, Adam Warren draws most of his women with huge lips and broad noses. http://adamwarren.deviantart.com/ ... but yes, if I had to bet on it, I'd say she's black. However, I still can't find any authoritative source materials online that explicitly declare her ethnicity. When I removed the word, it was the only mention of any characters' ethnicity in the article, which struck me as odd... since Thugboy specifically mentioned he was half Japanese late in book one. - JeffJonez (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009 janet napolitano article

Ah yes, thank you for updating me on that. I'm sorry I'm afraid I didn't read the full article again after they deleted my Criticism section. After your comment I went back and read it, and realized that the content of my criticism section had been reformatted and put into the preceding section. So my post wasn't simply deleted it was used and absorbed into the previous section of the article. So a big thank you to whoever did this! Thanks for the update. --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Myers edit war

The sections you keep removing are necessary. Particularly the one relating to Jason Ng. Ms. Myers was director of ICE during his death and is thus directly responsible for it, the other deaths of which Ng's death is emblematic, and the other instances of maltreatment of which Ng's case is also emblematic. The section cites The New York Times; it is adequately sourced. As for your neutrality complaints, neutral does not mean amoral. If you want to correct the spelling error contained in the other section, please do so.

Beyond that, I will continue to oppose your persistent efforts to whitewash Myer's responsibility for the actions of her agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USA12345 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have been wrongly accused of vandalism concerning the repeated removal of some off target accusations and events regarding ICE, and not Julie Myers. User USA12345 has professed a commitment to restoring this copy verbatim in spite of reasoned arguments against it. User USA12345 was blocked last august for editwar behavior, and has exclusively been editing this article since then. Looks like history repeats itself, even when it's been removed from a user's talk page. - JeffJonez (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your post at wp:EAR regarding this edit war.Drew Smith What I've done 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set you two straight, the protecting admin was of a mind to block both of you, but took my adivce on protecting the article to force discussion. Watch yourselves, stay civil, and discuss on the talk page of the article your reasons for wanting to include/remove text. If a consensus cannot be reached, do not edit war again, but try going the WP:MedCabal and WP:MedCom. Those are the next step in dispute resolution, and are only for conent disputes.Drew Smith What I've done 05:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I've been civil, have tried to engage USA12345 directly and thru the related discussion page, and specifically asked for oversight on this. USA12345 was blocked a year ago for edit warring, and since then has only edited the Julie Myers article. Once I realized this, it was obvious that no resolution was forthcoming, and posted at wp:ear. What else could I have done, other than what I did??? - 05:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my tone sounded accusatory, I was merely trying to encourage you to remain civil and to continue trying to engage in discussion. You did the right thing in seeking outside assistance. Now we need to sit back and see what happens on the talkpage. If he engages in discussion, find a consensus. If not, he will be blocked and the article unprotected.Drew Smith What I've done 05:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. On the rare occasions I keep a civil tongue, I'd like full credit. :) - JeffJonez (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I know what you mean. On a side note, it seems an outside admin has blocked USA12345. While this wasn't the outcome I was looking for, it does kinda solve your problem. Just watch your back, if he makes a sound enough case, you could get blocked too, because you were edit warring as well.Drew Smith What I've done 05:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, but I stand by my actions: I explained each edit, and tried to engage. But if I get a wiki vacation, I'm sure I'll find something to pass the time. :) - JeffJonez (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good that you are keeping a level head about all this. Keep it up, ok?Drew Smith What I've done 06:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in

How are things with the Myers/ICE Dispute? Did my suggestions help?Drew Smith What I've done 00:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure how best to move forward. USA12345 has been blocked for little white, and while I've cleaned up the ICE article a bit, I'm afraid to touch this article, even once's it's unprotected. I'm not a fan of the woman, but I still believe that most of the contested text is more relevant (and already largely exists) in the ICE article. - JeffJonez (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-aging article

Don't know if you've seen it but it's got some problems that might be up your alley. Nevard (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who can say? :) - JeffJonez (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Gogos

Did you read WP:Burden before leaving me your message? I've known about it for some time, and it's only common sense, too. Nightscream (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Consider". Not "you are required to..." Unsourced material should be removed. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said it best here. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda hard to "finish" a sentence when I never started one to begin with. I never provided a sentence. I provided a link that contains the entire quote. As for what's "contentious", using that term as a criterion is not very useful, since it simply means "causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy." Since we are arguing over it, then's contentious! (:-)) Seriously, though, any material that is either negative, or aggrandizing, should not be unsourced. Praise or awards should be sourced for the same reason that negative info should. Just as material that may aggrandize should not be sourced to self-published sources, and criticism or negativity should not come from a blog, web forum, or non-reliable/non-notable source, so too should these things not be left unsourced, or with a fact tag. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visionary Art

Dear Jeff

Thankyou for your message.

"but they can only be included in the article with sufficient credible citations."

How does one determine 'credible citation' in the field of visionary art ? Isn't 'credible' a subjective assessment ? Many of the artists listed on the visionary art page have participated in creating the Visionary Revue and Lila through their contributions. They are important hubs to the movement, despite not having their own Wikipedia entires.

The actual text of the wikipedia entry for visionary art was originally lifted from Lila.info !

Jeff, I am one of Brigid Marlin's collaborators, a regular contributor to the Art of Imagination society, a contributor to Visionary Revue, and networked to almost every living artist mentioned on the visionary art page, knowing many of them personally. I am informed of the state of the movement.

If you can give me some advice as to how Laurence's seminal and highly influential Visionary Revue, Lila, and Beinart passes your editorial sword please let me know, because in all honesty, I appreciate your holding to Wikipedia's policy, but wouldn't want to start to suspect that the repeated undoing of other peoples contributions to the page is preventing its development.

Danielmirante (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Daniel Mirante[reply]

My only advice is to find third party sources that support the claims of these organizations being "important" to the visionary art movement. Are there no articles, writeups, etc? - JeffJonez (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff I really appreciate your response and I'm sorry if this is a bit of a hassle... You will find if you explore the visionary art 'scene' in its current form, that there is an identifiable 'hub' of organisations that are strongly linked to each other. Visionary Revue is given a lot of esteem and respect amongst the artists that are strongly affiliated with the term 'visionary art'. We are talking about an emerging subculture here so it is difficult to find documents that mention it as 'important'. A lot of it works through a teacher/apprentice structure. For instance, Brigid Marlin is one of Ernst Fuchs' students, as is Amanda Sage and Laurence Caruana. Laurence apprenticed for far longer and his site is one of the best english language resources on information of the Fuchs circle that exists, but my wiki reference to his work keeps getting knocked out, despite virtually all the living artists on the list being professional collaborators and great acknowledgers of Laurence's work. Its the same with Lila - it one of the only developed resources on the web to carry many interviews and expose with the artists affiliated with this movement. Several of the artists on the list contribute to Lila regularly and it carries all the current exhibitions. Its not a scholarly movement so citations are thin on the ground. But investigations into visionary art sites on the web would bear out what I've asserted, you'll find a core repeatedly referenced, outlining the relative importance (to what is still an art subculture) of Visionary Revue, Lila, Pod Collective and Beinart as 'destination' portals - definitely as much as Art of Imagination. All these sites have been refered to in printed media btw. The difference is AOI is a profit making organisation where as the others are just made from enthusiasm. Theres a lot going on in contemporary visionary art, galleries are emerging, as are annual exhibition events (such as 'The Interdimensional Art Show', and other diverse media such as sporadic publications, trading cards (carrying art from all nations and a diverse range of artists). Let me know your thoughts and hopefully we can reach an understanding to allow the development of the page. Danielmirante (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Daniel Mirante[reply]

It's not a matter of convincing me. Another obstinate editor can come along and you'll have to convince them too. The only solution is to provide citations. That's it. This isn't me being a prick, it's me adhering to the perhaps the most important principle of wikipedia. - JeffJonez (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect I diagree to your claimed neutrality, Jeff, because otherwise you could delete a lot of this entry, because of the inability to provide citations. Its an art community, a subculture, not a scholarly and cited branch of academia. So you may consider you are applying your own law preferentially. The 'citation' is the real world. Do I need to send you photocopied documents so that you stop deleting new entries in the development of the accuracy and breadth of the wiki? You could consider citation goes both ways. Lila and Visionary Revue cite the artists of the visionary art movement, and many of these artists have 'cited' the websites importance, by giving their time to them. Does this qualify? Danielmirante (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Daniel Mirante[reply]