Talk:Jason Scott/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jason Scott. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Format of article

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this article needs to be reorganized- there should be a section for biography, merging in the education and the overly lengthy intro, with the speeches a sub-section; then move the Wikipedia section, which is rather close to self-reference, and not really important (I mean, let's get some perspective here- this isn't Daniel Brandt or Sanger of Encyclopedia Britannica criticizing Wikipedia here- criticizing Wikipedia is very much a minor sideline for Scott, he even says so) down to just above References/External links. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the word they use in Wikipedia? Be bold? Feel free to fuck with my life story as you see fit. It's all gone so well up to now. And thanks for the side-swipe about my apparent lack of status in the Wikipedia criticism stage; I guess I better get cracking! --Jscott 16:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles deleted by Wales

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you have a list of these somewhere? *watching*Yeago 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Great Failure of Wikipedia

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we get more info on this? Mathiastck 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Autobiography

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I removed several paragraphs, with the edit summary "removed unverifiable paragraphs added by the article subject (see Wikipedia:Auto-biography); Jason, you could write a detailed autobio on your own site and then link to it from this article..." Jason Scott then replied in another edit summary, "So if I write it here, it's "unverifiable", but if I put it on a webpage I created, it's verifiable? Why color is the sky in your world?", to which I am now replying here:

No. An autobiography on your own page wouldn't be verifiable either, but it would be clear to readers that they were reading an autobiography. Most wikipedia readers won't click the article history, and even if they do they probably wouldn't realize that large portions of the article were written by the subject. If you have published (on the web, or elsewhere) your own autobiography, facts from it could be repeated here (and it can be cited under References). But if you haven't published these facts elsewhere, I don't think you should put them in the Wikipedia article about yourself. Can anybody think of a good reason why the guidelines at Wikipedia:Auto-biography shouldn't apply here? I would appreciate comments from other people watching this page. I must admit that I feel like a bit of an asshole for being the one to bring this up, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be addressed. ~leif (talk)[[]] 01:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, having now seen [1] I've linked it in the References section, and added a note about the article being partially autobiographical. I don't think this solves the problem, but it's an improvement as long as the material in question stays in the article. ~leif (talk)[[]] 01:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for doing your part to make Wikipedia a little more worthless, in the name of "theory". Jerk. -Jscott

Made more worthless because he's tamed rampant egotistical, self-indulgent self promotion? I think Wikipedia will get by. Sortned 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the autobiographical paragraphs (nice touch describing your own addition about yourself as "Untrue, possibly libelous statements"). I pointed out the Wikipedia:Auto-biography guidelines for real and practical reasons, not "theory". Hopefully most of the information which can be confirmed elsewhere will be added back into the article eventually by other people. I am sorry that you think I'm a jerk. ~leif ☺ _HELO 09:53, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

1 year later... still thinkin' it! --Jscott 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: In August 2006 we kissed and made up :) ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Non-standard styling" on TinyTIM

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This revert describes rendering TinyTIM as TinyTIM as "non-standard styling". No, it's really not; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) calls for TinyTIM to be italicized, as the title of a computer or video game. This convention is followed through most MUD-related articles. I see that it hasn't been applied to the TinyTIM article itself, though, so I will leave the instance in this article alone until I've fixed that, as obviously it's confusing to use a different convention than the destination article itself uses. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Presentations and Projects

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Are we to add an entry to the "Presentations" section every time this prolific speaker gives a talk? Likewise, shall we add an entry every time this prolific technology evangelist takes on a new project, notable or not? Isn't both these sections nothing more than TRIVIA? Be honest, and you will accept that this is so. And we all know the official Wikipedia line on "trivia". Thus, both sections must either be rewritten or deleted. It's a fact, guys and dolls, simply an honest acceptance of the truth. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument here has several problems. First you are not using words as they are used here on Wikipeida. The first contribution on your account is four months ago. So I assume you haven't really read enough of the policies, guidelines, and essays to really understand what WP is about, and how we do things.

Content is not notable or not. Only the subjects of articles are. This article has been judged notable in an AfD, which is a process where an article is judged notable or not.

Content is encyclopaedic or not. That's a different standard.

Trivia on WP is a disconnected list of items about an article, that might be encyclopaedic, if added with the right support to the narrative of an article. Both of these lists are very focused on one kind of contribution by this person. So they are not Trivia in the Wikipedian sense of the word.

Of course, WP doesn't list all presentations or all projects. But a lot of those listed are encyclopaedic. Some probably aren't. This article needs serious work by an editor who does extensive in-depth research, and makes the judgement based on cited reliable sources as to what is encyclopaedic or not. That is why I added the Specific template, and am about to replace the Trivia template with the Cleanup-laundry template. They come closest to giving an editor the right guidance, and informing the reader what the article's problems are.

The best thing you could do for WP is to improve content according to our policies and guidelines. Not ask other editors to do so. Best. Lentower (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a fact, heathen. Squeaky says it, I believes it, that settles it! Johnny forbid that anyone coming to Wikipedia would actually find information about the subject of the biography. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Collard!: Not useful for improving the article. Humor??? Lentower (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Per our titling conventions (by way of the naming conventions on nicknames and middle names), JS is universally referred to as "Jason Scott" in the reliable sources, never Sadofsky (though it's fine to stay bolded up top). The article title should be at "Jason Scott" (I'd argue) or else at "Jason Scott (archivist)"/historian. Thoughts? czar ♔ 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ done czar ⨹ 18:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://tapedocumentary.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jason Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106004705/http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ to http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cow.net/jason/person.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cow.net/jason/employ.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150117221457/http://www.the6502.com/ to http://the6502.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cow.net/jason/person.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jason Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)