User talk:Jusses2

If you might take a look at the work performed on Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) and revist the AFD discussion, I believe a redirect and partial (and now sourcable) merge be done to the Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations... the one place where film adaptations of this children's tale have a reason to be mentioned in context. I also suggest a redirect of the film title to A) prevent a premature recreation and B) save the history so the redirect might be reverted and the article sourced if RS DVD reviews are found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My fault there, I read Regionals, not rehersal. I was in the midst of rearranging the section and adding more content in any case, but I left that bit in this time around heading a paragraph in my rewrite. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It was partly my fault as well. I used the wrong preposition, "at rehearsal" should be "in rehearsal". I added a plot summary to the lead and wikified the plot some more. Jusses2 (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jusses2, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 09:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jusses2 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Crakkerjakk's talk page.

If Fox is actually using that as a title for the fourth episode, it makes no sense at all. An apostrophe is used in English to replace a missing letter, and the only missing letter there is the "f" in "Of", which is *after* the "O", not before it. Hence, "Pot O' Gold" makes the most sense. Even with the Fox info, renaming the article here seems premature.

On the other hand, this is Fox, and it could be that the incorrect usage is due to Brittany not knowing where the apostrophe belongs. For now, however, I'm betting on a typo by the folks at Fox. Their press releases are notoriously bad (e.g., "Principle Figgins"), so a misplaced apostrophe is tame by comparison. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree with you about the misuse of apostrophe. However, the question is which source is more reliable: Ausiello or Fox? Until there are enough sources available to form a consensus on the episode title, I would say the Fox website is the best we have. Jusses2 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Russian article has already been renamed, ru:Pot ’O Gold, and the Russian Wikipedia is peer reviewed. Jusses2 (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's the Gonzalez Entertainment Weekly from yesterday, which gives "Pot O' Gold" when showing the photo of Rory being shoved against the locker; it agrees with the Ausiello orthography. It looked like we were getting consensus until Fox chimed in. As for the Russian Wikipedia, I don't doubt they're using the same source as you are. I rather suspect we're going to have to wait until Monday or Tuesday and the Fox press release before we get a parallax "official" view; if the apostrophe is placed correctly there, I'd say it'll be time for another rename. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll have noticed that the Fox press release, as displayed by The Futon Critic, calls the episode "Pot of Gold", and the episode title here has been moved/renamed again. Since the "Pot of Gold" article is currently a "Did You Know?" entry on the Wikipedia main page, if another source turns up in the next 11 hours, please hold off further renaming until the next batch of DYKs are moved to the main page; we don't want to have the article become unavailable, even temporarily, while it's being featured there. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, all that confusion about where the apostrophe goes, and now it turns out that there's no apostrophe at all! I wish Fox would make up their mind. Jusses2 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says they've made up their mind? By the time they put the press release out onto FoxFlash, it may have changed again! Or even after that. For me the good news about the next episode is that Carole Hudson (now Carole Hudson-Hummel, according to the release) is appearing in the episode. It's about time! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in patrolling recent changes, but I have to inquiry about why you reverted my removal of these former students from the famous alumni section? These students (low ranking soldiers who are/were in the army for a few years) have no notability that would warrant listing them along with people such as Anthony Kennedy. Moreover, there is no way to easily verify that these individuals actually attended the school, hold their mentioned occupations, or even are real people. The entry for Abran Yates is clearly worded that though he added his own name to the list! There is a very high probability that these students just added their names to the list.

While it is true that edit summaries can be useful, they should not outweigh notability and verifiability. I suggest you thoroughly reviewing these policies. The more appropriate action for you to have done would not have been to automatically revert my edit without reading it, but rather to keep the edit and just send me a message encouraging me to use an edit summary next time. I have reverted your revert under the assumption that you were using automatic tools and didn't take the time to review it. If you truly think that these students are worth listing in the famous alumni section then let's have a reasoned discussion on the article's talk page. Have a nice day! 98.248.194.130 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an edit summary would have helped as I am not an expert on the topic. In the future, when removing entire sections from an article, please indicate WP:N and/or WP:V violation in the edit summary. I will remove the user warning from your talk page. Thanks for catching my error! Jusses2 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Golden I.T. Corridor, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Nilgiri (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

really, it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.121.9 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions about an article should go on the article's talk page, not in the article itself. Start a discussion here: Talk:Padiddle. Jusses2 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)