User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2009/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikistalking of 98.248.33.198

I am concerned that you are following this editor a little too closely for comfort. I don't know whether you have been examining their every contribution, but it's on the verge of harassment and it has to stop. I think it's for the best that you have no further interaction with this editor, and I hope you see reason and abide by this at your own will. I've observed them to be a productive anonymous editor, and I'm not the only one with concerns regarding your interactions with them. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I still see you haven't commented in regards to this. Could you please do so. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have backed off, sorry I took so long to confirm that here. I would appreciate if you (and other readers of this posting) kept an eye on that editor in my stead, as its incivility, familiarity with our systems, pro-IP bias, somewhat uncooperative nature, and refusal to reveal prior account name concern me.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
To address your points
  1. I haven't seen their editing to be persistently incivil, and I've seen worse behaviour from many registered users.
  2. How is being familiar with the policies of Wikipedia a bad thing?
  3. Perhaps they were a user once, and either had bad experiences, or, as many of us have at once, and as they currently do, edit with an IP address, and have bad experiences from Wikipedians who treat all anon editors like vandals, regardless of whether or not they actually vandalised. This can be hard for IP editors, as well as frustrating.
  4. Perhaps they just wish to edit as an anon? They have no obligation to reveal their previous name.

In April 2008, there was a discussion at AIV talk. Two, if I recall correctly. This one discussed an overly aggresive vandalism patroller culture, the fact that some RC patrollers didn't even know the difference between what is and what isn't vandalism. I suggest you read it. I remember you also said you'd take my lessons on vandalism, and I'd hope you still do so. It'd probably help in the long run. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Specific link to thread.  Frank  |  talk  20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your notifications. Is there any penalty for not following "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." in the header of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (as transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader)?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If there is, I'm not aware of it. By the time things get to ANI, tempers are raw already. Personally, I would such a lapse pass in favor of addressing whatever the underlying issue is (or is perceived to be). Dismissing a complaint (or turning around and penalizing someone) for not following that protocol would not serve the project well, in my opinion; it doesn't address the issue. Plus there are plenty of folks who patrol it and clean up by notifying in these cases.  Frank  |  talk  03:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan
Next: Saturday October 10


This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

206.162.189.235

What do you do for living —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.189.235 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I prefer not to answer it at this time. Why do you ask, Pat?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If you have any verifiable information to add from reliable sources about LBJ's alleged involvement in JFK's assassination, please add it to article section Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Lyndon_Johnson_conspiracy, not to article Lyndon B. Johnson.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Elisha Harris

If you're wondering what happened, I temporarily deleted the article to remove the edit that you noticed. That particular editor overwrote an existing article, so it wasn't deleted as an attack page. Just reverted and the revisions deleted while I get it oversighted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I didn't have time to look into salvagability.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries. =) It's all taken care of. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We've tried, he doesn't listen.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Still isn't really vandalism, is it? The place to go is →that a way. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, it's spam, which is vandalism. Hence AIV.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it's a conflict of interest, which is not vandalism, and does not belong at AIV. It either belongs at COIN or ANI. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Devesh_Dabas. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hi, Jeff. I left a message regarding non-admin declining of an AIV report at Steven's talk page. I'm letting you know since you expressed a concern about it at AIV. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been following that discussion and per Crafty's request there I've left a note on your user talk page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff,

I want to apologise if my comments have come across as somewhat abrasive (now I sound like an oven cleaner :) but I am just concerned that a modus operandi is developing among RC patrollers, where new editors who make poor edits, but in good faith, are reverted repeatedly and labelled vandals. It's nothing personal. Just remember that we were all new once, and more often than not are simply unaware of our policies, rather than deliberately breaking them. The cluebat is a tool used to educate, not to beat users into submission. Editor retention is hard, and problematic editors can always be blocked later. We aim to teach first, remind second, and if needed, teach lessons. I hope you understand. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

---


Jeff

The significant other of Robert Peters has created a shrine to Peters on the Peters wikipage. I have known Billy Collins for several years and he doesn't name and hasn't named Peters as an influence. Peters's SO, Paul Trachtenberg, differs, because he thinks Peters was spun of solid gold. Trachtenberg has come up with ONE article about Peters. Although I think it sad that Peters and his boy Trachenterberg feel their only hope is to hitch their wagon on the Collins star, I will work to refute them in the coming days, coming up with numerous citations on who Collins's influence was. (Had it been Peters, why did it take Collins more than twenty years to find his voice and write poetry that was finally publishable?) In the end, Peters is going to look like a benign presence, a failure. But if only Trachtenberg had let it go. I predict that Peters's wikipage will go the way of the spotted horny toad.

!!!

Your message

Could you please check your warning? I've properly cited the addition in a previous edit. The edit you're referring to is merely a correction of the header. Thank you. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The cited addition to Hinsdale Central High School is from a primary source, Hinsdale Central ListServ. Please only use verifiable references from reliable secondary sources.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
But since it is published by an official organization, one would assume that it could be used as a verifiable source? Also, if I find secondary sources, would it be ok to add that content again? 99.152.115.143 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It could be used to verify quotes, but analysis of the changes in strictness between last year and this year should be left to secondary sources, otherwise they are original research. I have withdrawn my warning.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll remove the stricter reference. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? What article would that be referring to? 99.152.115.143 (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the one referenced above - it appears you may oppose the stricter policies, as I would if I were a student there.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Christ School (North Carolina)

Hello Jeff G., this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Christ School (North Carolina) has been removed. It was removed by TerriersFan with the following edit summary '(rm Prod - by long standing convention high schools are notable. I understand the nominator's concerns but the way forward is for him to clean it up and source it and not for deletiom)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with TerriersFan before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war message

About the message you left on my talk page, it is not an edit war, I was attempting to revert the vandalism in the "High Five" section. I am new to wikipedia so I apologize if I did something wrong. Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.117.98 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

Hi Jeff, Not sure if it was intentional or not hence I didn't re-revert, but is this really notable for the article? Cheers Khukri 13:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to watch the video. I didn't intend to revert you, I thought I was just deleting the CNN ref.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
not a problem at all ;) though someone else has come in and reverted it now. Enjoy is funny. Khukri 13:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Your input is welcome at Talk:LCROSS#High-Five_Incident_and_Controversy.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeff, stop reversing the score on the Miami Dolphins 2009 Season, they did not score 20 points.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009092713/2009/REG3/dolphins@chargers

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.11.106 (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Manchurian Edits

One almost has to admire this individual's tenacity. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the orange bar is malfunctioning?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It’s not malfuntioning. He’s just ignoring it. Also, if both of you had been adding warnings to his page, instead of just Jeff, he would have been at {{Uw-vandalism4im}} much earlier, and then he could have been reported to WP:AIV and been blocked. As it is, I see that Huggle (HG) filed a report on your behalf, Jeff, at WP:AIV, so he will soon be blocked. But, you can go to there and add some text showing how egregious his behavior has been and perhaps the blocking admin will hit him with a heavy block. Anyway, I added {{3RR}} to his talk page because he is clearly edit warring. But, he’s doing even worse. He’s reverting your reverts elsewhere too Jeff. Also, since he keeps having the template changed on him, he’s gone and created a new one, {{Manchu History}}, which he is now applying to pages where the other Manchurian templates had been. Take a look at his contribs and you’ll see what I mean. Wow! I have never seen anyone behave like this. You had it right Ginsengbomb: tenacious! — SpikeToronto 06:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Ginsengbomb should have been warning him too. OTOH, he hasn't edited in ten whole minutes! :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
His edits have created such a mess on so many articles, that when HG puts them on my screen I don’t know what to do. If I revert, what reason do I choose from the pulldown menus? Sheesh! We may have to rely on the regular editors of these wikiarticles to see the changes in their watchlists and then go and revert themselves. I am at a bit of a loss. However, I had a guy blocked the other day, where the admin then went through the fellow’s contribs and reverted each of his edits, if they had not already been reverted. But, he was an admin and doesn’t have to give a reason that could get him reviewed if it’s not correct, and that chap hadn’t made nearly as many destructive edits as this fellow. <sigh> — SpikeToronto 06:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe the backlog at WP:AIV! You reported that Altaicmania fellow two hours ago … That’s very unusual. — SpikeToronto 07:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

...used to eliminated csd tagged pages. Been a while since I did the tagging, so I guess I'm relearning the ropes :) 71.153.241.132 (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, warning removed.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome to Wikipedia!

That was real nice of you. It's been at least two years since someone welcomed me to Wikipedia. I was actually restoring something that had been deleted, not deleting anything. I put it back into the section where it had been previously, then decided i liked it better in another section. You caught me in the 15 seconds while i was moving the text. So, thanks for the warning, and thanks for being such a diligent preservationist. No offense taken. Cordially, cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for luckymojo. :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi jeff, today all day along there has been vandalising attempts on the following 3 wiki pages,

The users "Barakabless", "Agarbatti", "Vinter-light" have following the same pattern of deleting large chunks of text and references. This leads me to suspect that they are the same person.

I need help to stop these vandalising attempt. Please tell me how can to stop these users from such attempts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrrunissa (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

One of them has also accused you of vandalism. Please discuss the changes on the relevant talk pages Talk:Naxalite, Talk:Communist Party of India (Maoist), and Talk:Salwa Judum. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please check this history page of salwa judum, the user Barakabless even deleted the revision done by XLinkBot

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salwa_Judum&action=history Barakabless (talk | contribs) (20,956 bytes) (Undid revision 319222653 by XLinkBot

Ramapant vandalism is being done on that page. please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrrunissa (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and start discussing on the pages I mentioned above.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I done so, please check this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salwa_Judum --Mehrrunissa (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I added a section there.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Jeff : Permission needed to revert

Jeff since now it's clear that the vandalising was done by one user and his sock puppets, i request your permission to add the text and references that were deleted from the "Naxalite" and "Naxalite Maoist Insurgency" "Communist Party of India (Maoist)" wiki pages by barakabless, agarbatti and vinter-light.

Please allow me to revert them back to their original state which had a neutral POV and also these pages need protection from future vandalising attempts. So need your advise on future course of action. . --Mehrrunissa (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Maoist) page is being vandalised again, looks like the same person but with a new name. Please protect the page. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical physics and 3RR

The reversions I've made on this page are intended to remove blatant vandalism. The IP 74.225.200.250 is repeatedly adding the name of a fictional character to the list of theoretical physicsists--right above the comment that says "Please don't add fictional characters to this list". I believe the 3RR is not intended to apply to blatant vandalism. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel I have to warn both sides in what appears to be an edit war. I would have reverted my warning of you, but you did so already.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem; I can see how it would look that way. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, 74.225.200.250 (talk · contribs) has been blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

celebrity sex tape link sextape.com

I am not sure why this link keeps going away as you can find nice porn site links everywhere on wiki as long as they are relivent. I finally found a site that had them all and wanted to share the site with the public. But if yall feel different oh well not my problemo, I saw them already LOL ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesexyvideos (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

operation totalize

hi. this is no vandalism. its exactly the same like in other articles. when u dont know the exact casualties u take the participating units and take the most accurate casualtie figures. this is the method for GERMAN! casualties so it sould be the same for allied. please read the casualties section of "battle of verrieres ridge" . german casualties for this 6 day battle are unknown so we have to list the casualties for the whole normandy campaign . u can go to my talk page and read what cam wrote .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

can u take your warning back please? i did nothing wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can, but I choose not to, as your edit was unsourced.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Daniel Henney

Please explain your revert? What is the problem. Did i vandalize something? 97.124.252.13 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A person cannot be a ctor, and I was relying on Alansohn's judgement.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok that was a accidental typo. I fixed that one. Thanks. 97.124.252.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

New message

You accidentally sent that message to me. The edit change was marked as being done by JTRH. Bob.--76.238.4.168 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No accident. "Please continue adding trivia to the article" was not written by Sottolacqua, there is no "seven hundred revert rule", and there was no Wikipedia in 1974.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Salwa Judum Page

Could someone tell me why is this link - http://cpjc.wordpress.com/ blacklisted? It is not violating any guidelines.

Vinter-light (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Michael Stanga

Hello Jeff G., this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Michael Stanga has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(remove prod tag - AfD takes precedence)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Naxalite sockpuppets

Hi there! Sorry to bother you, but, given your interest in the Naxalite-Salwa Judum matter, I'd like to report to you that pro-Naxal editor Barakabless (who, in all likelihood, is a sock of User:Vinter-light) has been using several sockpuppets in order to bypass scrutiny and WP:3RR. The sockpuppets are Agarbatti, Oftenhurry, and numerous others that (I'm sure) should reveal themselves upon performing a checkuser. As you can see, both socks are new, edit in virtual succession with the same POV, and are random combinations of words that are characteristic of troll socks who just put in the capcha text of wikipedia for their login. Please do look into this grave matter when you have some time. Thanks and best regards.117.194.193.242 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Nobilo

Just add up his professional wins; its 15 not 14 or the whole page is wrong. That's why I made the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.33.123 (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One-term congressmen

Each and every name on this list has been verified utilizing the online Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, as noted in the article's 'References' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.124.128 (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Huebner. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. You may be blocked from editing if you continue reverting. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the diffs; some of them were vandalism but others were content changes. Please take care to use Rollback only on obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Both users Kopfel301 (talk · contribs) and 71.235.179.107 (talk · contribs) appear to be SPAs dedicated to vandalizing article David Huebner and refuting the referenced assertion by the JTA that the subject of the article is Jewish. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kopfel301 for details.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

I was reverting vandalism. Also, please see WP:DTTR.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm really sorry. I must have warned you instead of person who vandalized the page when you rolled it back. I'm really sorry and I will go ahead and remove the warning template for you. - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

68.147.200.82

Thanks for your help on this ... this editor has me puzzled. Some edits are constructive, while others are fan-boyish or just plain wrong, especially in the face of cited sources. I think this editor maybe can be redeemed, but needs a reality check. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sit Down, Shut Up.

The edits I did were neither controversial, nor unsupported... let alone 'questionable'. I was actaully reverting completely unsupported edits. Please see the take page on the article in question. I am reverting it to the correct form that has been discussed at length and supported by many sources. Please check up on everything before reverting my edits. I am trying to keep this article factual.72.81.88.8 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, you removed a whole section in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DreamKey

I'm trying to redirect the DreamKey article to Dreamarena instead of Dreamcast, as the dreamcast page has no mention of it. I put a typo in, which Clubot reverted. I fixed the edit, which you then re-undid. Now the code and the page direction don't match up. Please take another look at it. Also mildly annoyed you assumed bad faith instead of looking at the edit, and noticing the problem.81.149.182.210 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the warning.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

wow

i cannot believe how seriously you supposed editors take this wikipedia stuff, personally i thinks its silly to revert everything you see on the site especially when people are trying to have fun on a page no body ever visits!

Can you believe it now?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

I Fixed the error in the Ego article how is that vandalism please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YukiE2ai (talk • contribs) 02:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed information about the remix. Without explanation. Twice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

Howdy there Jeff, in the four years that I've been here I have managed to browse over What is Wikipedia?, but thank you for your concern. The "mother" v. "pregnant woman" debate has been addressed many times and preset consensus favors "mother". Hence, my edit. unsigned by user:Schrandit 05:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm sorry to say that Schrandit is not being entirely accurate. I'm quite willing to do whatever is necessary to fix the damage he's causing, and would welcome your advice and assistance. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been privately warned that Schrandit would like to get me to violate WP:3RR, so I'm not going to take that WP:BAIT. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nightwish discography

The edits in Nightwish discography are ok. The recomed content unnecessary and was moved [don't erased] to List of Nightwish songs. The mistake already was officily reported.DreamNight (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See the article discussion page.DreamNight (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Responded.DreamNight (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this about?

{{subst:uw-copyvio4|Leon Rose}} — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Left on my talk page --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake, already reverted. I left {{subst:uw-generic4|Leon Rose}} on User talk:208.39.137.109 instead.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Okey Dokey. Happy hunting. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For restoring my my talk page twice in less than ten minutes. Apologies for being so slow in getting here to thank you. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 11:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DeltaEnforcer

Will you and the other editors please read the discussion tab in Chaparral High School (Arizona) before blindly reverting my change? I have thoroughly explained my actions, and removed what should be considered vandalism due to bias, and I would appreciate it if you actually read the article first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaEnforcer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you please use an Edit Summary when removing text from an article, sign your posts, post in the proper place (at the bottom of a talk page when creating a new section), and explain why the information on the Speech and Debate club can't be condensed, or the information on the other clubs and athletic teams can't be expanded to compensate, in compliance with WP:WEIGHT?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The other clubs' expansion would be the ideal. However, Chaparral does not win collective honors that often, but rather has individual awards from year to year. To list them all would be tedious, is is not warranted for its page.
Speech and Debate is a different story. The actual story behind the creation of that section is the result of one former student satisfying his own ego, and many current students can vouch for this same conclusion. Looking at the names of individuals year by year does not better the page in any way. To condense that section would have to state that Speech and Debate does very well. However, in actuality it is not an outstanding club to begin with.
To highlight the names of individuals who have perhaps won nationals and have made outstanding achievements year after year would be more reasonable, but to list placing and qualifying for various activities regional tournaments? Not even the National Merit Scholars are listed on the page, so why should these fellows? DeltaEnforcer (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrongly accused I feel

Hello, thank you for intervening in the benzodiazepine drug misuse article. My third revert was nothing to do with edit warring. I reverted to wrong version, then typed in edit summary that I was reverting to correct revision. I was not intending to revert any more times after my 2nd revert. This is not edit warring but just a mistake. Can I request that you remove the template from my talk page? I feel that I was wrongly accused in edit summary by user Skrewler. Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul gene and add any relevant info.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV report

Hey there; just a tiny question about your recent AIV report. Was the only issue the one you cited in the report? Master of Puppets 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking...   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
None of that user's edits today appear to be sourced (continuing the pattern that got it blocked in the first place), and that user appears to have totally ignored that user's user talk page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
True, but they were good-faith and appropriate (after all, the information is, as far as we know, correct). While I don't support this user ignoring our warnings, I don't think they're acting maliciously. I'll try to talk to them; hopefully that yields something. Master of Puppets 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish you good luck in that endeavor. :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur with MoP; this has that sort of weird compulsive editor feel to it. The real problem is, as you identified, these kinds of unsourced additions to low traffic BLPs can lead to serious problems. Note that the birthplace he changed to the correct one was incorrectly added by him a few days prior. I left a clear, unambiguous "invitation to talk about it" in lieu of blocking for now... :) Kuru talk 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish you good luck in that endeavor as well. Looking at Sowisapigtobeexact's contributions and 127 live edits with this tool, every single edit has been in article space, except for 11 moves of the talk pages associated with the articles he was moving. Not once has that editor discussed anything or even provided a non-automated Edit Summary. And from what I can tell about that editor's deleted contributions (by the breadcrumbs left on its user talk page), its deleted contributions were no better. Of course, we could also ask Fastily (talk · contribs) for the reasoning behind this nonspecific uw-vandalism4im warning.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There are five deleted articles in his history - two A7 non-notables, two expired prods (non-notable), and one AFD for a non-notable. All five were the same pattern as above - no sources, all BLPs. To be honest, I have very little expectation that he will take up my offer, but I'd like to extend it and then block "indefinitely" instead of for 48 hours or some other trivial amount that would simply result in him returning to the same pattern. I've also noted two IPs to watch that appear to be him as well. Kuru talk 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Baby Take a Bow

Hello. I just received this and I'm not sure what I've done incorrectly. Could you explain please? Thanks! "October 2009 Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Baby Take a Bow. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 808Starfire (talk • contribs)

If this is the passage: "Baby Take a Bow is a 1934 American comedy drama film with music directed by Harry Lachman" I believe I wrote it some time ago and on second thought the sentence is confusing and could be mistakenly read by some that Lachman directed the music in the film rather than the film. That's why I adjusted the sentence. I think some clarity is necessary here. I'm at a loss! Help! Please clarify the sentence! Thanks! 808Starfire (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure that the information you add includes verifiable references from reliable sources. For instance, where did you get a release date of 30 June 1934 for Baby Take a Bow?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
IMDb, which I understand is an acceptable source. If I'm incorrect on this please inform. 808Starfire (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You would have made things much easier if you had only mentioned that in your Edit Summary.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I will keep that tip in mind and be more careful about those edit summaries! Thanks again! 808Starfire (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

DYNASTY OF HASAN PASHA

Why do you change my research? I have been in contact with this family, looking for a long time 

had so much work that, is not fair.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibi Fer (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see this log.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppets

Hey, I can see why you thought I have more than one account, I only use this one because I lost the password when changing computers, so couldnt accsess the other account, User:Novacool. the reason i stated i have worked under varous names was just that a few years ago i had an account and did some small edits. As im planning only to use this account I really cant see whay the problem is, I put a speedy deletion notice on the Novacool account, not sure what to do next, Any help would be greatly received.

cheers

Novacool88 (talk) 1:03 10 September 2009.

Please see Wikipedia:Passwords#How_do_I_recover_a_password_I_have_forgotten.3F.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Larry Carberry

Hello.

I'm afraid I am a bit of a novice when it comes to wikipedia contributions. I tried to add my sources for my additional info on the career of Larry Carberry. I don't know why they don't show up on the page. Any helpful suggestions?

In any case, my sources are "The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946 - 1998" (ed.: Barry J. Hugman; publ.: Queen Anne Press) "News of the World and Empire News Football Annual 1962-63" (ed.: Frank Butler & Malcolm Gunn) and "http://www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com/

Greetings from Oslo! Odd Jenssen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.210.78 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You failed to cite a good source - please see User talk:62.16.210.78#September_2009 for details.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting changes on SEIU Local 1 Canada's wiki article

Hello Jeff G. Thank you for your emails explaining why you reverted my changes to the SEIU Local 1 Canada wiki article. I work for SEIU in their communications department and a great deal of information that is being posted is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.219.90 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gammon / User:202.146.8.4

Hi Jeff,

This is clearly the same person (sockpuppet?) continually making non-NPOV edits to Victor Dominello (which you just reverted again - thank you!) to make it sound like an advertisement.

Do you have the ability to ban / block this user. It's getting a bit silly - Special:Contributions/202.146.8.4

They are clearly an employee of this Member of Parliament as indicated by a quick IP search which raises questions about WP:OWN.

Would appreciate your assistance.

Stalwart111 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gammon and search Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for 202.146.8.4. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff - much appreciated. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC).
You're welcome. More reading for you: this log.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. Sorry but he's at it again. This time using an IP at the University (149.171.184.45) his sock-puppetry account says he attends. All he did was undo your anti-vandalism edits to Victor Dominello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalwart111 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gammon and its log archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gammon/Archive. You can make similar reports there if this happens again.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way you can block edits to the page itself citing continual abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalwart111 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You can make a report at WP:RFPP if this happens again.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, please use "Talk" to discuss, rather than just reverting valid contributions.

Cites added to article. 174.21.13.141 (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Newbie treatment

Hi Jeff G.!

Because you interacted with User:The Quiet Biographer, I want to inform you about User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my edits under that name. However, I sincerely believe that looking at the way new users are treated, and where we can improve, will be beneficial to Wikipedia in the long run. The project is always looking to recruit new, dedicated editors, and I think it is very important that new users acting in good faith feels welcomed. Again, sorry for the misrepresentation. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Further discussion will be there under User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment#Thomas_Boberg.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with persistent vandal

I’m seeking assistance on how to deal with a persistent vandal (my opinion). It seems the same individual continues to make edits to several pages to include:

The person is editing several other pages with the same sorts of edits that I and others have reverted. The same edits were previously coming from IPs 97.104.31.144 and 68.152.64.6 and User:Niceone2000, which all have been blocked by administrators. The person now seems to be using IP 68.152.64.2. I’m not sure if the level of vandalism (my opinion) raises to the standards set by Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I can report this there if that is the appropriate place. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance. -- Absolon S. Kent (chat), 19:21, Saturday, May 4, 2024 (UTC)

Please see this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Absolon S. Kent (chat), 19:21, Saturday, May 4, 2024 (UTC)

Salwa Judum article talk sections deleted

Hello Jeff,

Parts of the talk section in the Salwa Judum article have been recently deleted. Could you please find out who has done this, and also restore all the discussions? This is a debated topic, so all discussion threads should be preserved. I have outlined in the talk page which parts were deleted from the talk page. I have also posted a detailed refutation of the current article. If you read it, you will see how the current article is inaccurate and inconsistent with it's own reference. In case you do feel that after reading the article, please mark it controversial until a fully referenced and accurate article is created.

This topic is of great importance in the political scenario that is currently in India, and many vested interests would like a certain slant to the article. Many people's lives depend on perceptions that are created in the media with regard to Salwa Judum and the Naxalites and the common people who are caught in the conflict that is raging in India today. This is also the reason why this topic has been so hotly debated in the past few days, which makes it urgent that falsifications presented in the current article be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahangir Salim (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am having trouble identifying exactly what was deleted. If you could give me some quotes of exactly what was deleted, I can help you to determine when the deletion happened, and who caused it.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jeff, I was not able to find some criticisms directed to Ramachandra Guha, which were present in the talk page a few days ago. An user had used the words far-left and anti-Semite on him, but those comments do not appear to exist any longer. Somehow conveniently, the new version of the Salw Judum article by the same authors who had posted the criticisms now refer to an article by R. Guha. It appears to me that the negative comments were deleted because they would go against the new-found reference.

Incidentally, I wanted to point out that I have posted detailed criticism of the page in the talk section, around 20 changes that need to be made. I plan to go ahead and make those. I would be glad to debate any criticism directed to these, but I wanted to let you know ahead of time, in case I am accused of vandalism or something like that.

Thanks, Jahangir Salim (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm?

[1] Why did you warn someone for vandalizing in a place that I specifically asked them to vandalize in? I don't care if it's reverted, but the warning was frankly unneeded. Until It Sleeps Talk • Contribs 16:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I undid both. See also this edit made so it doesn't happen again.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for adding my page to the general ignore list. Cheers. Until It Sleeps Talk • Contribs 03:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Flying disc

Would you care to elaborate on how you feel my edit was vandalism? If you continue to feel this way, feel free to actually revert, as you claim you have. I notice you appear to be using a tool to plonk warnings on a lot of people's pages at the moment, so if you're uncertain what I mean, then check my talk page. Indeed, should I assume from this that you have in fact changed your mind about who was in the wrong, and I should consequently not feel worried about removing the warning from my page? --188.221.54.49 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Your edit removed about 33 KB of text, without an adequate explanation. "Does typing in here mean I won't get reverted by a bot?" is not an adequate explanation, whereas "reverted vandalism" or "rv v" would have been adequate. Yes, I agree the person at 194.66.216.40 vandalized the article. On further review, I removed my warning of your IP Address. Sorry for the inconvenience, and welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd contend though that if the edit itself had been checked it would have been seen not to be vandalism. Similar to the problem the bot had before you where apparently these days I get auto-tagged with blanking if I don't make an edit summary, which I guess they pretty much auto-revert (hence the summary I used second time). I guess I preferred all this before there were hundreds of bots and people with tools running around, 'checking' every edit made by an anon. I'm not going to worry about it though, thanks again. --188.221.54.49 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

Elysian1503

Could you please remove the potential speedy deletion message. I am new and apologise for my error! Thank you. Elysian1503 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done[2]   — Jeff G. ツ 12:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2009/October&oldid=1141812574"