User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2011/October

Talkback

Hello, Jeff G.. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 03:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jeff G.. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
Message added 11:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Username policy

Is this warning serious? What part of the username policy is that in? Elizium23 (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see it as disruptive and promotional.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Prince vandal

I appreciate your last revert of KopJ, an editor whose been making mass/frequent unconstructive edits to everything Prince. I've just reported him to AIV, but would it be too much to ask if you help with some of the editor's recent reverts? I'm afraid I'll make myself look bad if I continue to revert and engage in an edit war. Dan56 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The one revert I made was due to unexplained removal. I haven't seen any other violations quite as egregious - which ones do you think are worst?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem I've had with his edits, such as unsourced addition like recording dates, repeated/excessive wikilinks of "Prince" in the infobox, dubious caps to genre links, mass addition of "English-language albums" category (even to instrumental jazz album articles), is that the user does not explained any of these changes and I revert them with a sufficent edit summary. After a couple warnings and reverts, he starts summarizing one change, addressing the smallest and avoiding the rest, and it goes in that trend. The editor obviously ignored the template warnings, making no effort to address the issue until the warnings caught up to him and he was blocked. Dan56 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi Jeff. I just saw the conflict of interest notification you left at User talk:HawthornFC10, presumably because they have been editing the Hawthorn Football Club article. I highly doubt that the user is actually affiliated with the club – it is one of the biggest sporting clubs in Australia and has hundreds of thousands of supporters. It's almost the same as someone calling themselves "User:New York Yankees" or "User:Manchester United". Unless there's something that I'm missing, I'd appreciate it if you could retract the notification. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA problems

The problem with your RfA is that you have a huge automated edits (over 50,000). I suggest to read this for better admin-ship see my lists that you need. Thanks --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but that is a draft, those are semi-automated edits, and I still have over 24K manual edits and over 29K edits in mainspace.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Adelmang

Well, that was really nice of User:Adelmang to admit he was a marketing guy for Showplace Ice Cream Parlour. Made SD'ing the three pages he owned much easier. I wish everyone on Wikipedia was so kind. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was nice. Thanks for your assistance.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Good job with helping kick vandals out and removing their malicious edits.1966batfan (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia

Hi! As someone who's spent some time at Your Archives, I thought you might be interested - if you haven't seen it already - in a recently started GLAM project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia. Ideas & participation welcome! Dsp13 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent Message..

Thanks for the recent Message - Will do. Regards, ms22PHD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms22PHD (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why do you keep vandalising Wikipedia by reverting correct edits? 81.158.112.243 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to Philip Hammond as the UK's Secretary of State for Defence without citing a verifiable reliable source like ""Conservative Hammond named as UK Defence Secretary". Reuters. Retrieved 14 Oct 2010."? See also WP:BLP.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Because he is! Don't you read the news to find out what's going on in the real world?86.154.176.96 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC) The problem with you guys who spend all day with your head in Wkipedia is that you have lost all sense of reality! 86.154.176.96 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"the news" is not specific enough. Also, you appear to be advocating The Truth.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well by the news I mean the media that report what is going on in the real world. Your reference to The Truth displays I think the fact that you should really log out of your PC and go and get a life.

At the time you reverted my edit, Philip Hammond's Wikipedia page was already showing him as the Secretary of Defence.

If you are going to continue editing Wikipedia, maybe sgould try and do a better job of it! 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.176.96 (talk)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you are going to continue editing Wikipedia, maybe you should try and do a better job of it!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You could also try to help an IP learn locate and cite reliable sources. Perhaps help us gain a more skilled editor.[1].--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I overreacted, but the person using this IP Address is no newbie.[2][3] Also, I asked for citation of a verifiable reliable source and gave such a source, above at 17:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC), just above this IP Address's first ever edit, above, twenty minutes later at 17:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You gave a source attached to a sentence dripping with sarcasm. Your link to WP:TRUTH is fairly outrageous considering that the IP was trying to add a clear fact that you'd already verified. I'm not the one that you need to apologize to, but this reaction to good faith (and factualy correct) edits is the type of thing that drives people away from editing. I've said my peace though, I do hope you consider this.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Hsteach

Hi, I have rarely made edits to Wikipedia. I did two today and found they were immediately deleted. As my intention is not to offend or do things incorrectly, I would like some help in understanding a few things before I go in to edit again. I'm not sure that this is where I should be posting my questions--if not, by apologies and would you redirect me?

I see you deleted my changes to the Child Sacrifice page. This is the note that I posted to someone else who objected to my edits on the Pseudoscience article.

In particular, I want to edit the pseudoscience page as it is biased in at least two paragraphs. Apparently, my original changes did not conform to proper standards.

1. Where do I put my reason for making this change? Is this required of all posts? Or only posts on controversial subjects like atheism and evolution for example?

2. Does each page in Wikipedia have an "owner" or "mayor" that watches over it and the changes that are made? Do they have absolute veto power? How do I communicate with this person--or even find out who it is?

3. Much of the bias I see on Wikipedia pages is ingeniously subtle and may not even always be consciously done. These are difficult to edit as a debate is not the purpose of the page--I know this. How then is it best done--the inclusion of contradictory facts without inflaming others? For instance, the inclusion of creation science and ID as pseudoscience is an opinion--an opinion held by many, but never-the-less, an opinion. Many people, including reputable scientists will disagree with this characterization. Some highly respect scientists consider evolution to be pseudoscience. The question is, if I post this fact with appropriate citations and whatever else is expected, will it be deleted?

Please let me have your thoughts. Thanks in advance for you help.

Hsteach (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't intend to post an "edit" to vandalism. But that's where my post went none-the-less.

Hsteach (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote on User talk:Scjessey:

1. Reasons are put in Edit Summaries.

2. The person who reverts you is the person to discuss with in that instance; in general, use the article's talk page.

3. Wikipedia is admittedly biased towards the hard science that supports evolution, as are most scientists. It appears that your pro-ID, anti-evolution edits would be more welcome on Conservapedia, which is biased more to your liking.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion you might be interested in. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Content replacement

Hi Jeff, I put some {{delete}} instead of replacing the spam in order to delete it from history also and because I'm not a regular on en.wiki so I should not welcome users.. anyway here another customer for you :D
Have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello Jeff G,

I received your message on neutral point of view. With what do you take issue?

Regards,

68.33.193.148 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.193.148 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be very interested in the reputations of certain universities in Scotland.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Simplebay

Hi Jeff. I am a new wikipedia contributor, and I have been having some issues regarding neutral point of view, formatting, etc on two of my pages i created from scratch. Thelastplaceyoulook and See The Light Inside You. I was wondering if you could possibly check out my pages, and suggest any improvements? The moderator i'm dealing with is suggesting i haven't read the Manual, as it's labeled in the tab, and is accusing me of vandalizing my own pages. I've been trying to take any suggestions he has so that the templates can be removed from the page, but i seem to still not have the correct answers. I noticed you back my deletion vote for The Last Place You Look, because this page seems to suffer from even worse standardization errors than the ones i have created, but has existed for over 3 years. Any help you could provide me on Thelastplaceyoulook and See The Light Inside You would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplebay (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done some work on the band's page, I hope to be able to do more there and on the other page in about 12 hours.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Iamnotregistered

Hello. Just received your message about my username. Supposedly it doesn't meet the Wikipedia username policy. After reading it I can't see which exactly rule my username is violating. Willing to explain? Thanks

I believe it is disingenuous, in that you are, in fact, registered.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice?

I help maintain the Fallen Empire: Legions page, and User:Eik_Corell will at times (randomly) remove an external link to the game's official website, this time without reason. Short backstory: The game company (InstantAction) got shut down, but before this they handed it over to the community so they could still develop and play it. They renamed it, but it's still the same game simply outside of the browser. It's hosted at legionsoverdrive.com, which Eik seems to be removing. It's literally the only way to access the game and it's the official website. Should I simply rename the wiki to Legions: Overdrive, since that's the official name of the game now? EvanVolm (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but please reference this discussion in your edit summary.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Beauford Delaney

I'm curious as to why you believe the edits "WTf man" and "That's a gay way to die man" are valid edits to the Beauford Delaney article? You reverted an editor who attempted to revert these edits from an anon. Bms4880 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't my intent. Of course, those additions were vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to find out how to get some opinions from experts on whether or not an article about a company I work with can be published. I know it sounds like advertising, and maybe it is, but the subject is similar to others on Wikipedia, so we'd like to figure out best way to become an entry in Wikipedia.

Would really appreciate connecting with an expert who may be willing to look at text developed and let me know if it's possible to publish as an article without being immediately deleted.

Thanks,

Darlafree (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Got a live one...

I got a post on my talk page from user Myyyyy (u) (t). I also suspect he's sock-puppeting. It seems warnings are pointless. I'll let you do the honors. I certainly don't want to engage him. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bailong52

A few minutes ago you reverted the addition of incomprehensible, unsourced content by User:Bailong52 at Falun Gong. He's added it back, and then some. His list of contributions[4] is one of the weirdest things I have seen on Wikipedia; the fellow does not seem to have a sufficient command of the english language to edit here. I am currently participating in an AE case concerning the Falun Gong page, and as such, don't want to get involved in reverting, even for vandalism. Would you care to do so again (and maybe do something about this user)? Best, Homunculus (duihua) 05:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

re "Unexplained removal of notices"

Hello, Jeff G.. You have new messages at Efe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Efe (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I have a message for you, THANK YOU... THANK YOU... OH MY GOD, IM FILLLED WITH MESSAGES THATS MEAN TO ME... THANK YOU Dr. Comentary 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)