Talk:Jeffrey Jones

message: I think the Crucible ought to be listed in the filmography section. Should a table be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.54.202 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Crucible

message: "It was later revealed on a European news program that Jones' computer was hacked in an elaborate extortion scheme. Hackers exploited Jones' love for online poker and reportedly uploaded various materials including bomb making, tips for committing credit fraud, and pornography. Whether this revelation will affect his standing in the U.S. criminal justice system remains to be seen."  I removed this part.  A search of all major European print sources turns up nothin on Jones after July 2003.  This can't be verified. lots of issues  | leave me a message 22:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacking

message: The image that I uploaded (I'm spliph on the article history) was taken from the IMDB and is a screenshot, protected for use, labelled with the following:
This definition can be found on the Image copyright tags page, and is considered fair use as film screenshots are allowed, one per article.
:As the image is being used as information on how Mr Jones looks like, and not for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents, we can't claim fair use here. --Abu Badali 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshot image

message: This seems tricky, but in order to view the subject's entry in Florida's list of sex offenders, you must click on the link. You will see the site's general home page. Click on the back arrow on your browser menu to return to article. Now, click on the link again. This time the Jones' record will show up. Don't know why this is the case, but this is the only way you can view the entry utilizing the link. --XLR8TION 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes straight to Jones' mugshot when I click the link only once, they must have fixed it.172.201.91.31 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida mugshot

message: The "bisexual" categories should be removed. His child pornography arrest does not automatically make him gay or bisexual; absent any other evidence of his sexual orientation, this is an offensive (and, I'm sure, unintended) statement that pedophilia and bisexuality are somehow related. They're not: check your own articles on the subject. --Treybien 21:39 12 July 2008 (UTC) moved comment to bottom of talk page per WP:TALK.  --SSBohio 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can see where, at first blush, it looks questionable, the circumstances of Jones' offense indicate that it did not involve a prepubescent child, so his activity does not constitute pedophilia.  Sexual attraction to a peri- or post-pubescent member of the same sex, coupled with a previous history of heterosexual involvement would, to my understanding, constitute bisexuality.  --SSBohio 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: How are they not related? They're both paraphilic manifestations of mental illness. 68.47.27.143 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bisexual is not a mental illness.Dannman (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what would you call confusion over one's own sexuality and or gender?173.86.60.239 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not a forum about the subject of the article, Jones. It is a place to discuss the article, itself. Only if the matters described above are found in a reliable source, should they appear in the article or be discussed here. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality

message: I don't know why but it seems that someone is making a great effort at scrubbing this page clean of all references to this guy's child porn arrest & conviction and his LIFE TIME status as a sex offender.  He has been arrested twice now for failing to register.  Once in Sarasota, FL, and now just recently in LA.  Needless to say, I will keep on top of this and make sure that this information stays on the site.24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus
Well at least part of my own question was just answered - some fool is using some kind of robot program to mess with peoples' pages!!!!  I wish there was something I could do to stop it.  I will look into that. 24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus  —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, but calm down. Jones is indeed a sex offender and someone has removed that information. His rap sheet is noteworthy so I'm going to restore the info with reliable sources when I have time for it. Karppinen (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I already have reliable sources - links to the court records themselves as well as news articles.24.243.2.132 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Child porn charges & his frequent arrests

message: Anyone able to see if our cotent is a copy vio from here? Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't that content be a copy of our content?  Lots of people cut & paste stuff off of Wikipedia and then repost it somewhere else.  I think you need to establish what the circumstances were, and what was copied from whom, before you start erasing stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.179.35 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited section 

message: The article http://www.deadline.com/2010/09/burton-finds-his-frankenweenie-cast/ does not list Jones as being in this movie and neither does IMDB.  I'm not sure where the last sentence of the article came from but I am deleting it.  If you have a reliable source, please feel free to reinsert the information.  Wickedjacob (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Frankenweenie]]? 

message: There are worse pictures out there than this that are from other mug shots. This is one of the better ones. You would think an actor would have more presence but I guess when you are sexually abusing children that may slip your mind when you get caught. He could flee to France and that would make for some more interesting arguments. He was sued by the boy he abused but it appears to have been settled out of court. There are many people trying to defend Jones image in public and that definitely violates wikis neutral point of view. He committed the crime, plead no contest which is the same as an admission of guilt under CA Penal Section code 1016(3) for "all" purposes. By doing so he saved himself from going to prison and a long public court trial on TV thus ruining any future he may have left. He ruined his image, not the people reporting it. Let the cards fall as they may. 172.56.11.8 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored vandalized picture 

message: Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I asked for the courtesy of discussing the use of non-free images, here. Your reply was in an edit summary as "obviously fail NFCC#8, nonfree screenshots in actor BLP, not remotely debateable".  The criterion in question states: "8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Both "significantly increasing" and "detrimental to that understanding" are judgment calls. 
I'll grant that it's probably undesirable to have multiple non-free images of routine portrayals. However, I request that we discuss the one non-free image that I'm restoring, before you opt to delete it. This is the image showing Jones as Emperor Joseph II in Amadeus, a defining role for Jones. We have an image of Jones as a person in the infobox. The significantly increased understanding with use of this image arises from seeing the transformation into a role. The detriment to understanding is the inability to see how Jones' portrayal of an august historical figure achieves an odd and eccentric effect. That one picture is worth the "thousand words". Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For better or worse, consensus is well-established against your position on this point. Absent substantive sourced commentary on the point, focusing on the performer's specific appearance in the role, nonfree screenshots simply aren't allowed in performer biographies.  Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Charlize Theron, Robert DeNiro all get by without nonfree screenshots, and I could fill a page with more examples. And while a single still photograph might be an adequate demonstration of the makeup artist's craft, it does next to nothing to illustrate the nature and quality of the actor's actual performance. Given a few hours in the makeup artist's chair, it wouldn't be difficult to create a comparable image of me portraying the same person. It would hardly demonstrate my capabilities as an actor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your explaining that to me, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This was more helpful than your earlier summary, which might have been "WP consensus establishes that screenshots fail WP:NFCC #8." Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free images 

message: Unless I missed it, the section listing various roles that Jones has played does not mention a role he made featuring Captain Cook in a documentary about the same. I think it was on one of the Discovery channels. Anyone recalling this?  Okama-San (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no reference to such a role, Okama-San. If you can, perhaps you could cite it here with a link. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role as Captain Cook 

message: This article has been fully protected for 3 days due to edit warring. Rather than edit warring, please discuss the content disagreement, develop consensus, and seek help resolving the dispute if needed. Getting a third opinion may be helpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: We've multiple third-party, reliable sources cited stating both cases, investigations, and individuals are related. Text reflects this. In the :m:The Wrong Version that was protected, additional references were included to further support and strengthen this material – consensus through editing seem to accept these additional sources.
The IP contributor has presented no information supporting their preferred version, nor contradicting the RS. (IP has further indicated they may not be here in good faith to collaborate, as evidenced by .)
We welcome the IP contributor to engage in a collaborative process, explain how the information is factually incorrect, and to present evidence supporting their position. -- dsprc [talk] 22:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material relating to Paul Reubens