User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2008/November

Signing

hi i did know this thanks for teh tip though 17:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.31.233 (talk)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Tashkent's External Link section

Hi Jeff G,

I tried to edit "External Links" section of article about Tashkent city: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent in order to add a new link to source of Tashkent Photos which were made this summer:

• Photos of historical monuments and modern buildings in Tashkent

Noticed that you reverted my changes and wondering why. I'm a new in wikipedia, so not sure whether it's a correct to do it, but being a naturally born in Tashkent I have confidence that pictures of Tashkent from my source have professional quality and might greatly contribute to the wikipedia's article about this beautiful city.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks.

PS. This section contains only 2 external links to photos of Tashkent and one of them is completely broken:

• The biggest collection of photos from Tashkent in Russian

So it might be a good idea to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkonix (talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Flewis (talk · contribs) considered your addition as 24.0.130.250 (talk · contribs) without explanation to be vandalism. I considered your re-addition of it (replacing "*The biggest collection of photos from Tashkent in Russian") without explanation to also be vandalism, partially because it removed content. I have reversed myself given your explanation above and my review of both links.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys for doing it wrong on the first place. And thanks to you all to adding the link back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkonix (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please sign your posts and use Edit Summaries. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert pillgraham

I don't know if you noticed my note, but I left a question on AIV asking for clarification on a user you reported, Robert pillgraham (talk · contribs). If you could stop by and clarify, I'd appreciate it, Metros (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied there. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last November.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I declined a block because there doesn't seem to be a major reason to block him right now. His only warnings so far have been for spam once (by a bot), a prod warning, and three (3) warnings about removing deletion tags which were given inappropriately. Metros (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot (talk · contribs) thought this edit was spam per this revert - was it wrong? Was I wrong in duplicating its action? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot will, basically, revert any addition of a myspace link, so that's why it would be reverted as spam. However, not all uses of MySpace links are spam, so that's kind of the grey area we have to search for. In this case, I don't think the link is necessarily inappropriate, but that's debatable, Metros (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Samuelian

Please keep an eye on the Steven N. Samuelian page. There has been a trend on the site to turn it into a promo piece!!!!Flackthehack2008 (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Jeff the Clayton Smith scandal might be a great addition to the scandal page. http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/927954/posts Flackthehack2008 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, Mayor Autry withdrawing his endorsement from the 2002 election might have value to expanding upon. There is a reference in the footnotes.Flackthehack2008 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that link doesn't work any more.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff all your work was undone on the Samuelian pageFlackthehack2008 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been redone now.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

False positive?

Hi! Thanks for all your great work at AIV; however, I just have a tiny question. Was this report a false positive? As I said in that edit, the links you provide are normal, constructive edits. Anything I'm missing? Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see both edits as unexplained removal of content.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(copying from AIV for conveniences' sake)

This isn't a removal; he fixed up the lead (at least it looks much better). It may not be cited but not citing something isn't vandalism. This, I don't know about, but I'm sure that we can find out by asking. No need to wear out our {{uw-test4}} keys. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Sikh History

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=249028287

This editor changed much of what is on the Islam & Sikhism page, I should stress that anyone claiming to be a religious 'scholar' historian ought to know the basics on other faiths and not constantly further their political agendas by altering basic facts to suit themselves.

Hajj is the 5th Pillar of Islam but as you can see here, his edits as usual amount to vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, removal of the link "a pillar of their faith" was bad. I have reverted and warned the user. Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I have commited no Vandalism. As you will find the person posting from the above IPtalk has used a number of IP's to vandalise many articles on Sikhism. The IP range is currently under investigation and will be soon banned. The edits in question were done to revert back to the original article on Islam and Sikhism. Please do not take my word for it but view talk and see the confrontational nature of the edits that have been made. I have been asked to keep as eye on Sikh articles to ensure a NPOV. If you do not think I am doing that correctly then please let me know. What I would say is revert the article to the original text and not the edits by talk with the tags.Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thank you for correcting the mistakes.

There seems to be broad agreement with Master of Puppets.

I do not change my IP, its automatic depending on the provider as you may be aware.

I'm not really a wiki expert, but I hope I have a good knowledge base and can contribute positively.

I will point out there is a heated argument over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Vandalism_by_user_.27Sikh_History.27

Sikh fundamentalism or Sikh Terrorism just as any other religious ideology.

With respect to wiki, its important to notice that both Islam and Sikhism indeed all the major faith pages are blocked, and this seems to be a wise decision. I do think its about time that Wiki administrators looked at religious fundamentalism/Terrorism/Theocratism with respect to wikipedia. One needs to examine the issue(s) of Sikh fundamentalism, in fact it would be interesting to know the views of those critical of me if they supported an open honest article on Sikh Fundamentalism - dont hold your breadth. We have Islamofascism and Hindu Fascism and various others but there seems there is a concerted effort by certain people to disguise the reality sometimes under the banner of other names for example Khalistan etc. But I do feel there is a need to have the article to do exactly what wikipedia was meant for. To make people more aware, educate the public as well as admins and not hide anything or be cowed into silence.

Thank you

• Times Online - Extremists hijacked play protest

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, your reverted edit seems to have been undone by SH ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_Sikhism&action=history

Hi Jeff would you please see this edit by the above IP and decide on your own here.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.145.139 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, you maybe also interested into this Sockpuppet investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/90.196.3.244. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Huggle :)

hhhmmmm since when do we Warn Editors when they vandalise the sandbox i though it was meant for test editing ^^.Alexnia (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The user libeled "Great yarmouth" AKA Great Yarmouth. Libel is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia, even in the sandboxes.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert de Holand

What's the problem? You told me what I did was un-constructive because I did not put an edit summary. Then I added an edit summary, and lines to the discussion page, and you revert the edit and accuse me of vandalism?? 76.116.5.27 (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've withdrawn my warnings.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Man, you are really on a roll. Every page out there getting vandalized, I see your name in the history (or before my revert goes through; this is more likely >:| ) Keep up the awesome job! Thingg⊕⊗ 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Best of Me (song)

I'm new here and i'm wondering what unreferenced means? --Cuts Like a Knife (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! All Wikipedia articles need to be from a reliable source that we can verify. Specifically with regard to your article The Best of Me (song), we need to be able to verify that the song actually charted on the Canadian Singles Chart. Your reference ""Artist Chart History (singles) - Bryan Adams". Allmusic. Retrieved 2008-06-24." fails to show that. Certified sales numbers would also be helpful.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No references verify that the song actually charted, so I have re-PRODded.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it now and thanks for your message. --Cuts Like a Knife (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally finding a verifiable reference that meets WP:NSONGS.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Cuts Like a Knife (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey i saw you added the cover for the The Best of Me (song) article and i'm wondering if you would add the cover for On a Day Like Today (song) which was created just before The Best of Me. Thanks. --Cuts Like a Knife (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, good news on this one. CLaK is User:Be Black Hole Sun so he's gone for good. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought about applying {{db-g5}} to the article, but it appears to actually be notable.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Post

Dear Jeff G, I did not mean to vandalize the web page. I was simply trying to make the article much more informative and indepth. I am VERY new to wiki and didn't realize I kept changing the web page when I would go to look at my formatting. Obviously I won't do it again, becuase I didn't know I was doing it. Is there anyway I can get the warning status down? thanks, kam90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (talk) Kam90 (moved from this edit)

Dear Jeff G, I am very sorry that my editing was mistaken for vandalism - I did not by any means intend to do that. I just joined Wiki today, so I am still learning. Also, when I tried to post you this notice, I posted in in your november achieves(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2008/November). I don't know how to delete it. I am again, very sorry. I hope my warning level will go down - do you know if it can?

Again, my appologies - kam90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.135 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your previous post here (to the top of this section). Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, login, and post only in the appropriate places. Regarding your edits to Community policing, 1 and2 removed the "Notes" section, and 3 and 4 removed an image, and both added unreferenced information. Please take care not to remove existing information from existing articles when you are adding, and to only add information which is referenced. You may archive the warnings after November. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Winnipeg

Hi. You appear to be reverting good faith edits to the Winnipeg article. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My revert was of unreferenced material.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

List of World War I flying aces

Hi. I noticed you used a semi-automated tool to undo an edit I made and to send me a templated warning. Please be more careful in future; I recommend actually reading the changes before you undo them. Thanks, --John (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the changes. You removed content (section headings) without explanation.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The section headings were recently added and weren't very good or helpful. They also contravened our MoS by being capitalized. If you are unable to distinguish between vandalism and non-vandalism, I wonder if you should be allowed to use semi-automated tools. Again, please be more careful in future. You might also benefit from reading WP:DTR. --John (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll be more careful in future.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. I should have used a more explicit edit summary I suppose. --John (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tagging of Renga

Huggle finger a bit twitchy, or what? Please explain why you made that disruptive edit. If it was an option error, perhaps the editor above has a point. --Yumegusa (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Robinho by 79.79.129.215

dont change stuff i put on and how was i vandalising ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.129.215 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

1 was unreferenced, and 2 and 3 provided false instructions. Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: MTV Europe Music Awards 2008

Surely you can see by the text I removed that the content was pure rubbish, and not really related, or even properly cited? It also looked very "messy". I don't know how you feel, but it should be removed as useless trivia. Le.Kwyjibo (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The content was not pure rubbish. Rickrolling is real. Please use Edit Summaries. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox vandalism reverts

I removed a warning from User talk:Bozz282. You might have not noticed that you are reverting test edits in the sandbox. Clark89 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for cleaning that up for me.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Iranian psych association AfD nomination

You recently tagged an article for speedy, the author of the article (and SPA) removed the tag. I stumbled across it all and just went the regular deletion route. If you want to chime in, it's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Psychological Association of America Best Bali ultimate (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I chimed in at both AfD discussions.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

hi i think you're mistaken i haven't vandalized anything it's ok though i'll let it slide this time. i'm just trying to make some contributions to this great encyclopedia. maybe you should consider doing the same instead of going around imposing on other peoples business 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism but 24.63.31.233, you added your comment at the top of my talk page instead of starting a new section. That's why it was reverted. Vandalism template is automated. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes do. You shouldn't have top-posted, and you shouldn't have re-posted something the recipient had deleted.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

hi well i'm sorry about and i guess i can see how that would be considered vandalism if someone had no clue. but i'm confused are you, unpopular opinion the same person as jeffg? do you just have two different accounts? 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

jeff g i was not clear that the recipient had delated it i thought maybe the clean up bot had taken it out. i find it odd how you are so willing to jump to conclusions and call something vandalism that quickly. thank you though for clearing my name 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

also i noticed you signed my talk page as a level two warning? what does this mean and is it taken away now that we have resolved things. 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote that we had resolved things. And no, I am not Unpopular Opinion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then how do we resolve things. AND I love how some people consider it vandalism every time i make a post on here. I'm just trying to resolve things but moderators I guess don't like talking things out. 24.63.31.233 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You do the following:

1. Start using Edit Summaries for each and every edit.
2. Stop deleting content without using Edit Summaries.
3. Sign your posts.
4. Avoid edit wars.
5. Avoid asking other editors if they are "fucking stupid".[2]
6. Avoid posting at the top of talk pages.
7. Learn to spot removals like this one.
8. Avoid blanking the user talk page allocated to discussing your current IP Address. It is a record of the history of that IP Address here at Wikipedia.
9. Avoid accusing other editors of "undoing improvements". [3]
10. Avoid accusing other editors of being "wrong". [4]

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No we are different persons. I jumped into this because it has to do something with reverts on my Talk. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to basics, I agree with Unpopular Opinion that this was a personal attack.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Unpopular Opinion either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism report

Can you explain why you reported this user's contributions as vandalism? Tan | 39 18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've just struck the warnings from the user's talk and left him a general apology. His edits were clearly not vandalism. لennavecia 18:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The contributions to Vagus nerve stimulation that I saw User:Rishirajmd making were unsourced / unreferenced prima facie, with no Edit Summaries. I told Huggle to use an Advanced revert summary of "unsourced content", but it now appears that my Reverting System Option "Use rollback if available" causes the rollback Edit Summary to be used instead. Given the user's complaints, I would have expected extra references, rather than none. I'm sorry, I should have directed the user to MW:Extension:Cite/Cite.php#Multiple_uses_of_the_same_footnote sooner, and I would have done so if I had seen a reply on my user talk page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

speedy

Please be careful with articles that have just been started a few minutes before you nominate them, such as Aviation Industry Corporation of China. In this case it turns out to be an extremely impt company, one of china's leading firms with major international presence--at least look at the links given. If you use Huggle, there's a tendency to go to quickly. Nobody can properly make even automated edits at the rate of 2 a minute. And if you're going to do new pages patrol, it helps to go a hour or two behind the top of the list. Myself, I do it at the bottom of the ones that can be displayed, usually about 2 days back. DGG (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rishirajmd

Reading the talk page of Rishirajmd (talk · contribs), the situation seems to have calmed down now. Is it OK for me to remove the report from WP:AIV? --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. somebody else did it. Just thought I would check first. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I thought about doing it, then LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) made the decision for me.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Glad it all came to a happy conclusion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hemipenis

Sorry about that penis thing, Jeff. I admit I thought I might get a notice about that, but did you look at that picture? Does that look anything like a penis? It looks like a sea urchin, it has nothing about it that looks like it could be used for intercourse. What I think we should do is delete the picture, becuase I don't really think it's waht it says it is. I think the picture is like some kind of burr caught on the snake's skin and we are all being fooled by a vandal. What do you think? 68.218.222.8 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a real picture of an American Rattlesnake's two-eyed willie (if you will). It has been on Wikimedia projects at least since this edit 19:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Jeff, in looking over your talk page, I'm noticing a pattern of similar complaints, followed by similar responses from you. When using Huggle, there's a warning upon logging in. Users must take care not to make inappropriate reverts. Now, certainly we all make mistakes. It's inevitable. However, we must learn from those mistakes. Anonymous users are not required to create accounts. It is not your place to tell them to login. Edit summaries are also not required. While they are desirable, as the one running Huggle, it is your responsibility to review the edits carefully before hitting that big red button.

It is important to keep in mind that the users you are reverting are quite often new to the project and, with the exception of blatant vandals, we are basically required to assume good faith with their edits. So while information may be added or removed without citation, it is important to consider that they may be doing it because they think they are, and quite possibly they may be, improving the encyclopedia. Block warnings, especially when unwarranted, can confuse and discourage potential and new users. Worse yet, a user receiving an unjust block from a bad report that hasn't been adequately reviewed by the blocking admin seriously risks the loss of potentially constructive new users. Consider using the various welcome templates customized for users whose first edits are of questionable quality or intent. If you would like a list of these templates, I would be glad to provide them.

Please consider the impact these types of actions can have on the project and take greater care with your reversions in the future. Huggle isn't a race, and abuse or misuse of the privilege may result in loss of it. لennavecia 18:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jenna, thank you for the advice. I admit, I am a strong advocate of Edit Summaries, I am an advocate of User Accounts when an IP Address is being used by multiple people, I sometimes use Huggle quickly, and I just found out that some of my Edit Summaries have been overridden by the rollback feature. However, I have only asked people to login when they already have user accounts and yet they are inexplicably editing anonymously. I will take greater care, as you have requested.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are Huggle's level 1 warnings (such as this one) so incompatible with "the various welcome templates customized for users whose first edits are of questionable quality or intent"?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I went back and fixed my original message a minute or two after I posted it (a couple times, actually... I need to preview more). I was referring to the welcome templates, not warning templates, as I first wrote. Those include: {{welcomelaws}}, {{firstarticle}}, {{welcomevandal}}, {{welcomenpov}}, {{welcomespam}}, and {{welcomeunsourced}}. I have TW enabled through User preferences > Gadgets and use it along with Huggle. It's handy. Sometimes the edits we revert as vandalism, when assuming good faith, are really new users just attempting to help, not realizing the policies and guidelines we have. So these templates are a good alternative because it gives the same information as the various warning templates, but it's welcoming. And in my opinion, as I've seen it happen, for the mild vandalism, where it appears that the user is just testing to see their naughty little edit saved on the page, or to see how it works, a welcome with some links to things they can do to help is sometimes enough to bring another constructive editor on board. لennavecia 03:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish Twinkle worked with IE7.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bad times. I use FireFox... ever consider upgrading? XD لennavecia 16:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Josephvk

I read the warning you posted into my talk page. Thanks for the reminder. But Jeff, please note that some people are making use of Wikipedia to malign School of Law, Christ University. Please do help us to remove the comments from the Discussion Page. It is entered by some people who're sent out of the University due to disciplinary issues.We do not know to whom in wikipedia we should formally make a complaint. The Editing I had done with Roman Catholicism in India was correct. New Advent Encyclopedia is not correct in writing about christianity in India. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephvk (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which information do you consider to have been used "to malign School of Law, Christ University"? If you know who added it, please tell me. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thanks for the reply. You can check the talk page of School of Law, Christ University. Starting from five questions about the School of Law and publishing phone numbers etc. Published questions and some responses are without a proper User Name. Personally I feel the lack of constructivism in them. We are worried because some are making use of wikipedia with wrong intentions. Please remove the contents in the talk page if you can. Thanks a lot.~Josephvk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephvk (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The first instance of the questions on the talk page Talk:School of Law, Christ University was in this edit by Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), "comments from user:117.192.138.201 brought over from article" 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) including 'Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Law,_Christ_University"'. The first instance of the questions on the article page School of Law, Christ University was in this edit by Legalexpert (talk · contribs) "/* Admission */" 11:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) including 'Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:School_of_Law,_Christ_University/Comments"'. The first instance of the questions on the Comments page Talk:School of Law, Christ University/Comments was in this edit that created the page by Legalexpert (talk · contribs) "Created page with 'There have been some facts about Christ University, School of Law which needs verification. This article on wikipedia makes Christ University sound like an academic...'" 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) including 'Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:School_of_Law,_Christ_University/Comments"'. So it appears to have been Legalexpert (talk · contribs) who made the allegations. What do you know about the truth or falsehood of the allegations, and what of that can you prove?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thanks once again for the reply. Please correct me if I am wrong. Before start proving or disproving the allegations, are they contributing to the encyclopedic nature and resources of the Wikipedia? Then, if at all there are ways to counter the allegations, why wikipedia's pages are used for this? If you notice the edit history, these persons behind this, first entered the information in the Discussion page and copied the link to the main page. And they send this link to all in the University as if Wikipedia is supporting this process. Majority are not aware of Wikipedia systems. A lot of students were using wikipedia in the campus, and the authorities had to block the site from the campus. Finally, we were unable to access wikipedia in our campus. The allegeations are of personal nature and the author(s) had used some personal names and phone numbers in it? What is the merit in this action? Help us to make use of Wikipedia for the cause it is standing for. Even if you remove and further block the article School of Law, Christ University, it's not going to affect Wikipedia in any manner. But because we are unable to use Wikipedia in the campus, we are missing a great resource of knowledge. Thanks a lot.~Josephvk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephvk (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oregano

Hey, Jeff, have you had time to reconsider your accusation that I vandalized the page on Oregano? Please remove the comment that you made about that on my userpage, okay? I'm trying to be good. 68.218.222.8 (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have had time to reconsider my accusation regarding this edit. No, I have not reconsidered my accusation. Your Edit Summary was very rude and therefore uncivil. In answer to your question, people who read and write the English and Urdu languages would be helped by the material you removed, in making an article on Oregano in the Urdu Wikipedia that could be used by people who only read the Urdu language. Also, your "trying to be good" at 07:22 (UTC) is belied by the subsequent warnings and other advice on your user talk page 1, 2, 3, and 4.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, please look at those accusations again. While they were posted to my talk page after I told you I was going to be good, they were based on edits that I had done several hours before they were posted--and before I stopped vandalizing. The Wikignome warning (which I actually disagree with, because I think I made a fair point) came nearly eight hours after my edit. The Belmont school warning came more than 15 hours after my edit. The accusations fromthat Arcayne guy came about nine hours after the edits he is talking about. Jeff, I have gone straight, but no one will believe me. Please acknowledge that you can see that I have reformed since I told you I was going straight. 68.218.222.8 (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit Summary for this edit attacked the previous editor. In fact, for international football (which we call in the US soccer) competition, the countries' names, if they are linked at all, should be linked to the countries' national teams' pages, rather than to the countries' pages themselves. For instance, "West Germany" should be linked to Germany national football team rather than West Germany, using the pipe trick [[Germany national football team|West Germany]], which appears as West Germany. Also, your accusation in this edit that another editor was "lazier" than you was an attack.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Red hothead

Just to jump into this, I have been accused of vandalism when I removed text from an article that was repeated later in the same article, it was just editing, not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red hothead (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You failed to explain your removal. Please sign your posts and use Edit Summaries.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining that. Could the warning message be removed too...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red hothead (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Would you please sign your posts? Also, exactly which was the "text from an article that was repeated later in the same article"?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think someone else has removed it since me because it's not there anymore. It was under the bit about his beliefs - two bullet points about christology and something about the mormons. But as I said, someone else seems to have removed it. I didn't know it was compulsory to sign posts but I do now. :) Red hothead (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear; it's not compulsory to sign, just highly recommended, otherwise a bot will come along and do it for you. But that can cause edit conflicts, which are a pain in the butt. --Rodhullandemu 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Waffle fries

Pretty good, huh? Can I get credit for starting the article, even though I didn't? Everything there is stuff I wrote, all the old crap is gone. 68.218.222.8 (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I found a picture and added it to the article Waffle fries but its all gone out of control, and I don't know how to make it right. Can you please help me? 68.218.222.8 (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it using these two edits.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff, it looks great now. 68.218.222.8 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I delete the vandalism template you tagged me with a month ago?

Last month you said I vandalized for not citing a source on the article "Dracula". Well that was my first time editing Wikipedia. I know how to edit Wikipedia properly now. So can i delete the template now? Oh one more thing. Is not putting a reference down really vandalism? What if there's an article on a book, there's edits in the book like it's a edited copy or re-released. You want to put down the difference between the original and new. You read both and you put it down. What's the reference? Thanks!--VampireKen (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Have replied on user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu 21:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rodhullandemu!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

University of Nottingham vandalism

I think you;ll find that i have not vandalised anything, i was merely removing information which was inaccurate and out of date and therefore served no purpose --Ldyajmf (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which material was "inaccurate and out of date"? Can we verify that it is no longer accurate or that it is out of date with a current reliable source? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Serentity

I am not validising Why should i get banend for speaking the turth

http://inanetalk.com/smf/index.php?topic=1567.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.224.55 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

but do you agree that the creator os serenity and firefly have plagarised ? to many simialrities?

please help me. how do i prove on wikiepdia that the plgarism is in fact true and then save it there forever without somone removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.224.55 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You can either prove it to someone who can get the claims published by a reliable source, or get the publisher of the infringed work to sue for copyright infringement, and get a report of the lawsuit published by a reliable source. Sorry, but you can't use original research on Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar imagery isn't always plaigiarism. It could well be a deliberate homage- artists refer to one anothers' works all the time in various ways. It could be purely coincidence- imagery does tend to occur to more than one person independently. Kind of hard to tell with no reliable sources, and even if this is a reference to another work, a list of allusions in Joss Whedon television would probably be overlong and not particularly encyclopedic. Personally, I like all the 'Batman' references in his 'Angel' series. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverts at Doug Engelbart

Just trying to figure out why you reverted User:Berkeley@gmail.com addition of the two photos. I didn't see anything that matched the warning you gave him of vandalism on that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit added a link to a self-published page about the subject of our article, which is not a reliable source. This other edit removed content without explanation.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but you reverted a group at once to correct those instead of the specific edits, and removed two photos that were added by him as well in the process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the reversions. The photos are back.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Grouchstink needs full history review

Hi there, thanks for reverting Grouchstink on Stefano DiMera. This user needs a full review of contribution history and possibly significant reverts on most of the pages, but I'm using a borrowed PC that's way to slow to run Twinkle at the moment, can you assist? If not I'll try to revisit in 24 hours. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I can't run Twinkle right now either, and I'm about to hit the sack.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'll check it again tonight. Chuckiesdad (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I think this is more or less done, and I left L3 warning on user page. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Edit: Cursed (TV show)

The article now has an infobox, so I deleted the template which said it had one. No vandalism on my part! The muffin is not subtle (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finally providing an explanation. Please ensure that your signature bears some resemblance to your username.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case it was rather obvious what she was doing, if you looked into it. I know it's easy to get carried away while vandal-fighting, and we appreciate your work - but a double-check of contribution history can prevent any bad blood forming in discussions like this. I have informed Panyd about her signature and WP:SIG, it's not an absolute rule and it's meant in good faith, so I can't see any problem with it. Thanks for bringing it up though, you meant well :-) Regards, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, on second thought, you're right, and I'm sorry.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What "attack"?

On my talk page you accused me of "attacking" an editor. Please explain exactly which words I wrote constitute an "attack" on him. I would ignore this, but you have threatened to block me for this infraction, so I need to know what it is you are talking about. Since he actually apologised for his original mistake, and deleted both his original sneer at me and my response, why are you making an issue about this? Barsoomian (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the exact word that constitutes an attack is "idiot," personally. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Except the word "idiot" was referring to the anonymous IP edits that both of us were reverting, not to the editor in question. Barsoomian (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. In other words, this is a case of, "Move along, nothing to see here?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would "move along" except apparently I'm under a "Level 2 warning". I need to have this either rescinded or explained in detail. Barsoomian (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You referred to unnamed third party editors as "idiots", a prohibited attack on their their intelligence, rather than as "vandals", an allowed description based on their actions. You went on to accuse Sintaku (talk · contribs) of automatically reverting your work without using their own brain, when in fact they used huggle, a semi-automatic tool, and of making patronising remarks on your talk page, which were actually written by Gurch (talk · contribs) based on the work of the User Warnings WikiProject. You also broke {{Infobox Primeval Creature}} with this edit, edited an archive with this unsigned post, and broke {{zh-stp}} spellings with this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• "You referred to unnamed third party editors as "idiots""" -- You accused me of making "personal attacks" That was NOT a personal attack on anyone. A personal attack has to name a person, these were unspecified anonymous IPs. And I am far more offended to being described as a "vandal" than an "idiot", which is why I was angry. "Idiots" can make mistakes but be well-intentioned. A vandal is malicious. I do not accept your interpretation of these words.
• "making patronising remarks on your talk page" -- What? How about what I was responding to: "You may also wish to read the introduction to editing." How patronising is that? How about "have removed content from the page without explanation" which was UNTRUE. Anyway, when did "making patronising remarks" become a capital offence?
• "without using their own brain, when in fact they used huggle," -- Yes, exactly. Using an automated tool is NOT using your own brain. That's true by definition. This "tool" did not detect the original vandalism the day before, but raised a bogus alarm at my remedying them. I do not accept that it absolves the user of responsibility to understand the context before taking action and accusing people of destructive editing and leaving patronising and accusatory messages.
• "You also broke {{Infobox Primeval Creature}} with this edit " -- NO I DID NOT. How can you so carelessly make such an accusation? That edit was halfway through my FIXING that error after it had been vandalised. TWO MINUTES LATER I had worked out what was wrong and reverted it completely. In fact I have been repairing similar mistakes and bad information on that and associated pages for months. You are making the same mistake Sintaku did when he accused me of vandalism, confusing a reversion with a new edit. Look at the history of the page.
• "edited an archive with this unsigned post, " -- which I reverted one minute later after realising it was a mistake.
• "and broke {{zh-stp}} spellings with this edit. " -- That was a mistake I was unaware of. Encoding error of some kind. I was only trying to correct the English spelling.
• -- Anyway, you seem to be very determined to nail me. You've gone and trolled through my history looking for problems to throw at me, completely unrelated to the original complaint. The worst you could find were some unwise edits that I immediately reverted, and a technical error due to my text editor choking on Chinese. Just what are you trying to prove? That I'm an idiot/vandal/scumbag? Or what? How about some acknowledgement that Sintaku was COMPLETELY WRONG to accuse me of vandalism (which he apologised for, of course, before you rushed in to take up cudgels on his behalf). Whatever happened to assuming good faith? -- Barsoomian (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't bothered to reply in the last week since you used your Huggle bot to try to find some dirt on me and made these trivial and/or incorrect accusations against me. I'm sure you think that you're infallible and don't need to explain, let alone apologise. You spend so much time whacking vandals that you think that anyone who conflicts with you must be one. You're wrong.-- Barsoomian (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have rescinded your "Level 2 warning", and I am sorry that I took so long to do so.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! No hard feelings. Barsoomian (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

68.218.222.8

If you two want to have a conversation, that's fine, but you should go do it on your own pages. This is Jeff's talk page, and he does'nt need to get involved with your pety bickering. 68.218.222.8 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, it's better to leave this conversation here to reduce fragmentation.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, thanks for reverting vandalism to my page! LovesMacs (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

It's kind of confusing that you used a sentence with the word "you" on it that doesn't refer to me on my user talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was referring to Ianvista (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely. I have updated my post on your page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I have just forgotten to add 4 tilda! (Not for this time :) Barbara20006 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NORTH CYPRUS

The last edit is not vandalism since Lapithos is in North Cyprus. In NC, only NC Visa is valid, only NC flag waves, only NC national anthem is valid. The official language of NC is only Turkish. If you do not believe me, use Google Earth: Everywhere in North Cyprus, the NC flag waves. Even the largest flag of the world is NC flag that can be seen from space and from Google Earth as well. Barbara20006 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove all of the sources in this edit?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots Abondoned 103 Villages In South Cyprus

Since you tagged this for prod, I thought I'd follow up with you and let you know that I speedied it as G5/a page created by a banned sockpuppet of puppeteer User:VivaNorthCyprus who is pushing a political POV. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if pushers of radical POVs at least learned how to spell? ;} AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it surely would be!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

Hey...just a quick question, do we not list that people are gay in the lead, like the IP did? I'm not sure how that works, is it not important enough for the lead? CTJF83Talk 03:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I guess it's not... CTJF83Talk 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Useight slave

sorry i was asking for help. honestly. please help me. thanks. Useight slave (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you want help with? Please see {{welcome}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

what is a good way to get started. thanks Useight slave (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You can start by reading Wikipedia:Introduction.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[5]

Please explain your reasons for revert. 78.146.109.200 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of the sources by Wikiscribe (talk · contribs) is more convincing to me than your interpretation of the sources.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hey jeff that ip is back under another ip trying to incite another edit war can you make a note of this on the talk page for the article Olive skin this--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Er no. You will check what it is that I actually added this time. Dear oh dear. 78.147.30.206 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Xmas Story

Sorry for not providing an explanation. I removed it because I found the information irrelevant and poorly presented. --DarkSideSith (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, but how was the information you removed in this edit any less relevant than anything else in the "Continuity" section?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not replying sooner, I've been rather distracted. The reason I found the information irrelevant was because it referred to throaway gags that I didn't feel were related to the programme's overall continuity. --DarkSideSith (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

North York Astros

Since you take issue with my apparent WP:COI. I attach the link to club website: www.northyorkastros.ca. The club and fans look forward to your continued and diligent updating of the article, with citations of course, hopefully your amendments will not be undone by someone vandalizing and deleting information on the page before citations can be attached.

Thank you for helping me out of my WP:COI by undertaking to update the article. Sincerely appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.64.156 (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility and pointers to articles from verifiable, reliable sources would be appreciated.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ASAP Article

Oh Im sorry i reverted already the ASAP Mania article. But did you know that somebody vandalize the article that some of the co-host are not included including example using names aren't available like Sharpay Evans of High School Musical among other however It is not true at all and all the history and controversial issue regarding the show are already delete still part of the History. I apologized. This is not a vandalism at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.168.45 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Regarding ASAP (variety show), I have struck out my warning on your user talk page and warned BShaw20 (talk · contribs) instead. On the other hand, you are not excepted from showing verifiable references from reliable sources, either.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don Touhig

Hi. I see you've just blocked 86.159.58.41 from editing. Are you aware that he has also used 80.176.228.5 to vandalise the same page ? (Don Touhig) Different ISP, exactly the same edits. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 12:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 13:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but please note that it was Efe (talk · contribs) that blocked 86.159.58.41 per this log, not me.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I see that now. Sorry to clog up your talk page. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 13:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. FYI, if you don't like redlinks, the syntax for linking to English Wikipedia articles from Commons pages like Commons:User:Jongleur100/Gallery is [[w:Don Touhig]]. Cheers!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. I've got a bit of work to do! ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop it!

Stop undoing my edits right now! 195.248.122.97 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing right now!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Look

Look, to be fair, I did no personal attacks. You may edit the sandbox as you please. So mind your own business because I did nothign wrong.

Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"WHO IS THE FRUIT WHO JUST DELETED THAT?" is a personal attack.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

" No, it is not. Get it right, and the other comments are not personal attacks? Is there an attack in the phrase? No. So be quiet."

Blackeyedfool12

Yes, there is an attack in the phrase. It calls the previous deleter a "FRUIT".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Big deal, there is NO attack. A fruit is not cursing anyway. it's not like I called him an ass hat or something. So be quiet and give up because you already lost the fight

Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If losing the fight means getting blocked, I guess you were the one that lost the fight.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Huggle has been visiting the sandbox quite a bit lately, but in this case I didn't want to revert your warning without making sure it wasn't an accident. I don't know enough about sandbox policy myself.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in the sandbox(es)."[6] is very clear.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a request to avoid such postings in the sandbox exists. What I don't know about is the policy regarding sandbox edits. I'm interested in learning, so if you could point to the specific policy or guideline that would clarify if and how edits to sandboxes are treated differently, I would be most appreciative. Thank you.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"it must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks and civility still apply."[7]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Star Shipping

Please take a Google check and read the article carefully before tagging things as A7. Star Shipping which you nominated for speedy deletion was described as a large shipping company with 60+ ships. In fact, the company is so notable that it's covered in a separate article in Store norske leksikon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the article could still reference reliable sources in the English language.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page --RedKiteUK (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion the article Artak Ghulyan

Hi! I want to inform you, that mr. Artak Ghulyan is one of the most popular modern armenian architects and I think that article named Artak Ghulyan is useful and it must not be deleted. My username in Wikipedia doesn't mean that the article Artak Ghulyan was the autobiography.--Ghulyan (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what, exactly, is your relationship with the subject of that article?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How dare you? images

Hi. I do not understand your reasoning behind deleting those images. So what that the user was banned? It does not mean that the image should be deleted - it seems valid pic with free license and used in articles. Just because the editor screwed up somewhere else does not mean that all his/her image uploads should be nuked. Renata (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD#G5. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It says: "pages created by banned users in violation of their ban". The user was not banned because s/he uploaded images, but because s/he vandalized pages. These images are not vandalism and are valid pics. Otherwise you would have to go back and delete/revert every single edit by every single sock and banned user. Renata (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Banned users have violated our trust. How can such people be trusted when it comes to attribution for the images they upload? Aren't those pictures easily recreatable by anyone at or visiting RPI?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not particularly care :) But you are not assuming good faith. You think "s/he vandalized once, so everything s/he touched must be vandalism." I would generally agree with that, but only if I saw something suspicious in those images. But nothing jumps at me that would indicate any bad faith in uploading those images. Maybe the person got blocked, learned the lesson, and tried to reform? I disagree with your approach ("nuke everything banned user touched"), but I do not particularly care. If you want to pursue the deletion, maybe you will find more trigger-happy admin. Renata (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the deletion, huggle doesn't resolve edit conflicts. That person vandalized and puppeteered enough to get at least three accounts indefblocked. Would you mind if I reinstated the G5 tags? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

???

The explanation of the fact I removed the position in the pay tv Alice Home TV from the page ESPN Classic (Italy) is beacuse this channel is not aired by this provider. It could be received only by subscribing a contract with SKY Italia via satellite or on Telecom Italia's ADSL network, but the contract is ONLY with SKY, without any realtionship with Telecom Italia. Telecom Italia (owner of Alice Home TV) lends its ADSL and line networks to make people who could not or would not install a satellite dish subscribe SKY Italia offers as well. Very few people in Italy did not understand this, but they are who make this mistakes in composing a page like that. I'm sorry, but I think people should be informed as well as possible. Thanks for that message (you're only doing your own job, I know). I also would like you to know I'm not disappointed because this gave me the sureness that in Wikipedia everything is checked before people could read something wrong. 21:49 CET, 30 november 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.21.227 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. An Edit Summary would have helped me to understand your reason for deleting.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

It is not my intent to attack others. My intent is to improve articles that are important to me. If I am prevented from doing so by users who have shown a history of bigotry and hate, then of course I am going to lash out. Wikipedia is extremely ineffective in that you have no way of preventing abusive users from doing what has been done, and continues to be done, to articles pertaining to Afghanistan. Yes, I am new here. But, what enthusiasm I initially had is quickly starting to diminish. --KoonWoz (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)