User talk:JeffJ

Thanks

For your work on a death list - that is always a thankless challenge - you might or not know we have a project too -= as well at this very minute are changing (proposing) to change - some death categories as well- cheers SatuSuro 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths

Would you be kind enough to explain why you deleted Anacreon and Aeschylus from the list?Wolfymoza (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Aeschylus: Virtually all scholars believe the eagle story to be a myth or legend. [1], [2],[3]. And the accounts are inconsistent with some claiming that the eagle dropped a stone, thinking his head was an egg [[4]], or that it was a Lammergeier, not an eagle. Many encyclopedias don't even mention the story. As such, I don't think it appropriate for Wikipedia to perpetuate it. --JeffJ (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anacreon: Again we have another very dubious story that's given little credibility in the main article. But that aside, choking to death on a seed doesn't strike me as being unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As for Anacreon I was a bit unsure too and I go along, but as for Aeschylus, I think Pliny is enough source to give it an entry. Also, many deaths on that list are legentary, and cannot be conclusivly be proved to be true or false. I think the note on the top, (many of these deaths might be legendary) covers for all that. If we add this death -on Aeschylus- is highly doupted, could you consider leaving it?Wolfymoza (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the ancient legends are considered apocryphal, but editors leave them in place if there is no scholastic evidence that they're fabrications. In the case of Aeschylus, there are several sources that discount the legend, many main-stream encyclopedias that omit the legend, and sources that offer alternate versions (i.e., it was a rock dropped by a lammergeier), that it would be inappropriate to perpetuate what is very likely a fabrication. --JeffJ (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I ll continue my search, and post and changes in the talk page for list of unsual deathsWolfymoza (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_unusual_deaths&diff=next&oldid=373851998 I believe I was (Or, I thought I was) correcting a grammar mistake, not making an unnecessary edit. If the grammar edition was wrong please state that rather than just "Unnecessary" - Little confusing... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to the article's talk page. --JeffJ (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths

If it wasn't for vandalism, List of unusual deaths would be a really boring article. I still miss the turtle falling on whats-his-name's head, though. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Officer William Morrison, Dorchester

I understand the need for a cite. But am confused as to how I can can attest to something personally? I was there at the time. In any event, here is a cite for you. http://canada.odmp.org/officer/155-correctional-officer-william-morrison

Morrison was shot with a shotgun by the keeper on duty at the time. The hostage takers had dressed him in prison greens. After the wall was blown, Morrison tried to escape by scrambling up a ladder, dressed as I said, in prison greens. The keeper killed him with one shot from his shotgun. He thought he was killing an inmate. The range, D range if I recall, was very dark at the time as the inmates had hung blankets in the windows to deter snipers. The other stories are lies and white washing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.104.216 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Bill_O173.35.104.216 (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi JeffJ. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fairly Common Decapitation

Moved discussion to Article Talk Page. --JeffJ (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Corrections. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. JeffJ (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a fake warning with no diff. I've removed a WP:PROD notice, which I'm allowed to. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You have violated the WP:PROD policy

You are not allowed to reinstate a {{prod}} template once it has been removed in good faith: "If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." Your first addition [5]. Your reinstatement. [6] Please revert yourself. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a good faith violation. Instead of reinstating the Propose Deletion template I should have tagged the article with an Nomination template, which I have since done. In the meantime, while you were entitled to remove the tag, you made no good faith attempt to abide by the guidelines. --JeffJ (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

More incorrect tagging

Additionally, the article is not unreferenced. [7] Only some details are. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reference makes no mention of "Department of Corrections".--JeffJ (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I WP:AGF that this was a mistake, although the citation was pretty clear to me, and I have enhanced it. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It was in good faith in that the "citation" removed was only a Wikilink to Black's Law Dictionary. This may have been "pretty clear" to you, but it violated WP:CITEHOW.--JeffJ (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AGF

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:JeffJ. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corrections, I made it very clear to you that you had placed the citation in the wrong place within the paragraph. Once you corrected your error, I acknowledged the correction and have not since removed the citation. Since then, posting a 3-revert rule warning on my talk page smacks of violating WP:AGF. I would remind you also that the material to attached the citation to is obviously plagiarized from the source. JeffJ (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First you removed the reference which had a {{page needed}} tag as "non-citation". I did assume good faith that you were merely confused, and for the record, the poorly formatted reference had been added by someone other than me. Then you removed the enhanced citation claiming that it doesn't mention Department of Corrections, which actually it does. Quote from source: "correction [...] 3. (usu. pl.) The punishment and treatment of a criminal offender through a program of imprisonment, parole and probation <Department of Corrections>." (The angle brackets and italics are in original. Page xxvi in the 9th ed. explains "6. Angle Brackets[:] Contextual illustrations of a headword are given in angle brackets".) Then you found a reason to revert which beggars belief, namely that the source doesn't contain the exact sentence about many US states. Leaving aside that the Black's Law Dictionary is about the US, the fact you contested doesn't even need a citation. Perhaps you should nominate Department of Corrections for deletion as well, because there are slight variations in terminology, "Correctional" instead of "Corrections" etc., and there's no source cited saying that they are all really, really Department of Corrections. And going back to your edits, you repeatedly removed the citation for the entire paragraph, the rest of which is less than obvious, but was surely well supported by the citation. Finally, you reverted my WP:EW warning as [8] as "vandalism". You're exhibiting a lot of good faith. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm also amused how on one hand you complain above about plagiarism, and on the other you continue to delete references claiming that the text I added to Wikipedia does not follow the sources cited close enough. [9] [10] I can't ever do anything that meets your high standards, it seems. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't removed the citation since you placed it properly. And plagiarism is plagiarism regardless of the citation. --JeffJ (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you read plagiarism. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. And unless I'm mistaken, when you copy and paste copyrighted material (such as that found in Black's Law Dictionary) verbatim, you are plagiarizing. Unless, of course, you place the pasted text into quotes and directly cite the source, as in: According to Black's Law Dictionary, corrections is defined as...quote, unquote. Just copying and pasting - even with a reference - is just lazy. And bad writing of the worst kind. I don't believe you're the original plagiarizer, but now you're defending it. --JeffJ (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And I thought you weren't going to argue with me anymore? --JeffJ (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sagging Jeans

Thank you for calling me a vandal but the fact I added is well known and is sourced. The source is on the page if you follow the link. I added the sentence : "The jeans are worm loose and sagging because the prisoners are not allowed to wear belts." The word sagging is a link to the page where this fact is reliably sourced. Would you like me to copy the reliable source to the Prison Uniform's page?

See:- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j6y42Idh-h8C&lpg=PP1&dq=isbn%3A9781405189200&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false

and http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html

QuentinUK (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that you added "The jeans are worm loose and sagging because the prisoners are not allowed to wear belts." to the article, without a citation. So I wrote on your Talk Page: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Prison uniform, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JeffJ (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)" I never called you a vandal. The Wikipedia:Twinkle script automatically labelled the uncited addition as vandalism in the edit summary. Wikipedia requires that when you add content you must provide a reliable citation. And yes, you should "copy the reliable source to the Prison Uniform's page". Placing sources on our Talk Pages serves no useful purpose as future readers would not know to look here for verification. As for the citation itself; It does mention sagging pants as a gang-banger fashion, but nothing about prison and lack of belts, although Google books does not display all pages. The New York Times article supports your statement, but the problem I have with the explanation is that a lack of a belt does not suddenly make pants become over-sized and baggy. If the pants are too big, prison officials issue better fitting pants. I've done this myself when inmates fashioned homemade belts so they could purposely wear oversized pants, which helped conceal contraband or weapons. Once the belt was removed, the pants (already saggy) fell down. The inmate is then issued pants that fit. The point being that the pants were already loose and saggy. Now, correctional facilities in Ontario, Canada issue pants with elastic waistbands, so belts are moot. But you do have the reliable source required, so feel free to restore the statement, but be sure to cite the NY Times source in the article so other readers can find it. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a good place to start for citation guidelines and how to add them to articles. --JeffJ (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Incarceration in the United States

I would argue that a statement like "...and that statement is absolute horseshit", expressed to an editor who is asking a very valid question, is uncivil per WP:CIVILITY. The basic tenet of the policy is "...editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." I don't consider the anonymous statement I quoted as holding with that tenet. Editors can get into conflict easily enough without trolls making invidious comments that offer nothing to the improvement of the article. --JeffJ (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of comments

I would argue that a statement like "...and that statement is absolute horseshit", expressed to an editor who is asking a very valid question, is uncivil per WP:CIVILITY. The basic tenet of the policy is "...editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." I don't consider the anonymous statement I quoted as holding with that tenet. Editors can get into conflict easily enough without trolls making invidious comments that offer nothing to the improvement of the article. Pleased to discuss. --JeffJ (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To help things along, WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL section speaks more specifically to this particular issue:

"In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page."

In this case, it appears that the comment in question was made by a troll, in that it was inflammatory and did not contribute to the improvement of the article.--JeffJ (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing a substantive article complaint is a violation of WP:TALK. I changed the offending word as a compromise for delicate ears. I moved non-substantive discussion to this talk page per WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You really consider "...and that statement is absolute horseshit" to be "a substantive article complaint"? --JeffJ (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Ontario Sol-Gen Correctional Services Bailiff.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ontario Sol-Gen Correctional Services Bailiff.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hello JeffJ,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And the headlines say....

Today's featured headlines

• "Sex-ed from porn and posing half-naked 'to feel sexy like Megan Fox': Shocking documentary reveals how the digital age is influencing girls as young as 12 "
• "'I wanted to punch Obama': Romney's son says he felt like 'taking a swing' at President after he called his father a 'liar' during TV debate "
• "Man arrested for bigamy after his second wife finds out he's still married... while paying first wife's bills "

and

• EXCLUSIVE: Family of troll behind sick Creepshots forum of sexual images of young girls brand him 'evil and nasty' . . . and reveal how they live in fear of him

it is a tabloid not only in format, but in content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)