User talk:Jaqu

Hi.

Aaron Sorkin at FAC

Hello. I've tackled the issues you brought up about the Aaron Sorkin article. Would you mind either reinforcing your opposition to the Aaron Sorkin article on the FAC page, or striking out your opposition in favor of a Support?-BiancaOfHell 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jolie revert

You reverted stating that her height cannot be confirmed; to the contrary, the height that was listed for her was the height listed at her IMDB bio [1]. Do you want to put it back, want me to put it back, or feel it's irrelevant and shouldn't be there anyway?--H-ko (Talk) 07:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Jaqu 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

input sought

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderbra FAC

Hi, I followed you lead and edited the article to eliminate the Pop culture section. As I mentioned, I had the same instinct when we developed the article into a business history, rather than fluff piece, but I wanted to be sensitive to earlier contributions that seemed innocuous at the time. Take a look and if it works for you, perhaps you can revise you view of the article. Thanks again. Mattnad 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jolie

Hi, I'd like to know why you removed: 1) "Her middle name is named after Jean Nouvel, a famous French architect who is among Pitt's favorites" in the children section in the Angelina Jolie article; 2) "Jolie has put her career on hold to stay at home and take care of her four children" [2] Since I have a link for reference; and 3) The family divide their time between Los Angeles, California and New Orleans, Louisiana. [3] Again, I have a link for reference

I understand why you removed the Golden Globes win, but I don't understand why you'd remove the above three points.--Sli723 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though USA Today reported it, the Jean Nouvel connection is pure speculation; neither Pitt nor Jolie ever commented on that. I don't think it is necessary or advisable to include it, since it is nothing but an internet rumor basically.
Her career status shouldn't be in the "Children" section and it seems like an exaggeration, as she is far from ending her film career, she still has several projects lined up for later this year. Taking a few months of is nothing out of the ordinary and probably not notable enough to be mentioned.
Again, it has nothing to do with Children, plus it contradicted what you put in the lead ("lives with Pitt in New Orleans").

I have no intentions to start an edit war here, I'm just trying to preserve the article's featured status. Jaqu 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I understand the reasons to why you removed the first two and I can accept that. For the third point, I have a link for reference. If it has nothing to do with Children, can you drag-and-drop the sentence to another section (e.g. Relationships)? By the way, I did not include "lives with Putt in New Orleans" in the lead and I do not know why you removed that too. I am not trying to start an argument/edit war but I am trying to improve the article. --Sli723 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borat FAC

I have responses for your comments on Borat!'s FA nomination. I hope you'll take a look to get a consensus determined on what needs to be done. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:995HAC_Angelina_Jolie_059.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:995HAC_Angelina_Jolie_059.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 13:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:995HAC Angelina Jolie 059.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:995HAC Angelina Jolie 059.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flocke

Hi, thanks so much for your comments at Flocke's FAC. I completely understand your concerns re: comprehensiveness, and so I've tried to address them with the edits I made here. Please let me know if more is needed, or if you have any other suggestions for what could better represent the issue. If you're satisfied with the changes, I would appreciate it if you could revisit the FAC. Thanks again! María (habla conmigo) 16:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jaqu, I just wanted to thank you again for your help during Flocke's FAC. The article has been promoted to Featured status, mainly due to your wonderful suggestions and provided sources, which ensured its comprehensiveness. If you happen to come across any updates that I may have missed in the English media, please feel free to contact me directly, post on the talk page, or feel free to update the page yourself if you're willing! Thanks again. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]