User talk:Jeff G.
Top Links
Thanks in advance to anyone who reverts vandalism in my userspace, it'd get a little tedious if I thanked everyone on their talk page every time. Please click here to see and sign my Guestbook. Please click here to send me a message. |
Page types | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
User pages | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
User page histories | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
User talk pages | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
User talk page histories | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
Your Preferences ("Number of edits" includes deleted edits) | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
Your Watchlists | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
View and Edit Your Watchlists | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
Contributions | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
Contributions & Edits (Luxo's Global user contributions tool; includes deleted edits) | all | all | all | all | all | all |
Gallery (Duesentrieb's WikiSense Gallery DuesenTool script) | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
Project Matrices | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
History of Project Matrices | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
Edit Project Matrices | Commons | en | de | m | b | simple |
Page last updated 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC).
if it is out of date.Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #32 |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome to my user talk page!
Current Monthly Archive (redlinked the first week Past and near future
|
Maintenance
Other correspondence
Empire of Brazil
Hello! Well, I'm quite surprise to see that there is someone else who pays some attention to that article! About your question, I removed because the text is wrong and misleading.
Any reader who would like to know more about the history of the Brazilian Empire should take a look - for now - at the following links (as long I am not done with the article):
It's all a matter of having patience. Soon all will be done. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information. I saw your deletion on recent changes. — Jeff G. ツ 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Adamjaviv
Am I the only one who finds it strange how all of his edits are immediately (within 1 minute) after vandalism edits from IPs? -Regancy42 (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe he's using WP:RC to find edit candidates? — Jeff G. ツ 05:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Too coincidental. I don't know, it looks suspicious to me. -Regancy42 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
False Accusations
Please stop pasting false accusations on my page, I have never removed or deleted anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop removing SineBot's signatures and start adding your own. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 07:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I just checked, and what happened was an accidental deletion, my apologies to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and so I'm still learning the edit rules and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome. You should read the following next: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Signatures, and Template:Welcome-anon. — Jeff G. ツ 07:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What vandalism?
First I have a roll back guy say i am adding un-sourced material. I am not doing that and in fact I am adding sources and putting sources to material that does not have it. And correcting mistakes or what others improperly changed and did not source. When I ask for an explanation of this the roll back guy ignored me. Then I do another edit and you accuse me of vandalism. My edit to that article did not constitute vandalism. Please show where I did any vandalism and please provide the proof of what wikipedia rule I broke in that edit that qualifies as vandalism.74.194.176.82 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- In this edit, you deleted the text "He is projected to be a draft pick in the 2010 NBA Draft. His" and the text "His primary weakness is his lack of strength." without explanation. — Jeff G. ツ 08:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- First of all kindly explain how that is "vandalism". Under Wikipedia's rules that is no such thing as vandalism. The first part about him being an NBA draft pick.......he was not an NBA draft pick. How can it be vandalism for removing that? So for removing something about him being a draft pick, when he was not drafted is "vandalism"? The second part is not vandalism either. "His primary weakness is lack of strength"? Really? According to whom? So someone's personal opinion on how strong someone may or may not be (with no proof of this opinion I might add) is considered encyclopedic to you? And I asked for you to please kindly show me the Wikipedia rule that states what i did was vandalism.74.194.176.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC).
- Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level_templates#Deletion, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Vandalism. — Jeff G. ツ 08:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will repeat it once again. He was not an NBA draft pick. So it should not say in the article that he was going to be one. A personal and unverified and unsourced opinion on how strong someone is or is not, isn't considered encyclopedic content. Removing those two things is not considered vandalism. Do I need to ask some admins to settle this? Because the first thing I get is from the roll backer that I am putting unsourced info which was a false accusation. That's not true as I was putting sources. I asked him for an explanation and he ignored and it would provide no proof of his accusations. I got a level 1 warning whatever that is. Then suddenly you accuse me of vandalism when I was not vandalizing anything. Then say i got a level 2 warning. So is that how this works? Someone did not like an edit I made so he falsely accuses me of not sourcing material, then he has you jump in and accuse me falsely of vandalism? Is that how this works here? Will I get a level 3 warning for some phantom violation next? If you can't explain these actions properly I will have other admins look at this, because I know this isn't right what you are claiming.74.194.176.82 (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you're right. I have withdrawn my revert and warning. I also withdrew your comment on my warning because it no longer had context. — Jeff G. ツ 09:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect level for vandal template
Hi Jeff,
You issued a level one warning diff to 68.173.67.147 for vandalism to 14th Street (Manhattan), when I have already issued up to level three for the same vandalism. Could you please change that to a level four warning and report to AIV? Thanks! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done — Jeff G. ツ 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
French exonyms
Please explain your recent series of reverts (e.g. [1]) there and the AIV report of 82.253.37.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Materialscientist (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- There were about 11 unsourced additions of content to article French exonyms by that IP Address (which has yet to respond to anything posted on its user talk page), following about 21 similar additions by a nearby IP Address. I'm sorry if I seemed bitey. — Jeff G. ツ 08:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you think those edits should be referenced? Do you write in French? Have you looked at other exonym articles? Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't everything in mainspace be referenced? No, I don't write in French and I haven't looked at other exonym articles. Assuming that you do and have, I trust your judgement and have withdrawn my revert and warning. — Jeff G. ツ 09:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. A friendly advice is to write a short note instead of tagging user talk when you can't evaluate the correctness of certain edits. Both rollback and autotagging are offensive tools which do repel many potential writers. Unreferenced edits are gray area sometimes, and tagging users both for not providing refs and removing unreferenced information is, at least, inconsistent. Materialscientist (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't everything in mainspace be referenced? No, I don't write in French and I haven't looked at other exonym articles. Assuming that you do and have, I trust your judgement and have withdrawn my revert and warning. — Jeff G. ツ 09:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you as well. — Jeff G. ツ 09:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why he reverted my edits either?74.194.176.82 (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please see the preceding section. — Jeff G. ツ 08:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did not vandalize anything.74.194.176.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC).
Help in understanding vandalism
Jeff--
I need help in understanding why my edit of a paragraph in the article on O Holy Night was reverted and classified as vandalism. I gave my reason as "immaterial" when making the edit, as the passage referred to an occurrence of a famous song on an episode of a TV series, which struck me as highly insignificant without further explanation. Please help me to understand why this is vandalism. Is the explanation "immaterial" not in keeping with Wikipedia's policy? When a passage of mine was deleted by another user as "subjective" (and not reverted), I took this an indicator that such explanations should be short and sweet. Please give me input on this, in case I am not understanding the policy properly. Thank you.--Udpert (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- This cannot be considered blatant vandalism - Rollback should never be used for this. Oh, Jeff... Doc9871 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, please see my following reply. — Jeff G. ツ 09:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- The name of the section you edited was "Notable renditions". It appeared at the time that the rendition was by a notable character in a notable episode of a notable TV series, and could qualify as a notable rendition. I'm sorry I didn't notice at the time that the episode was a redlink. I have withdrawn my warning and reversion. — Jeff G. ツ 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's always best to undo with an edit summary rather than rollback (except if someone writes "poopy" all over a page). This tool can come back to bite you... Doc9871 (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you as well. — Jeff G. ツ 09:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposed deletion
From what is written at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermegalith, it appears that Juan L. Bacigalupo (talk · contribs) doesn't quite understand Wikipedia's purpose. However, there is a genuine discipline of palaeoarchaeology, and if you take a look with Google Scholar and Google Books you will find several people writing about the history and problems of the field. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. I'll try to look into those. — Jeff G. ツ 01:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- ISBN 9780809315239 p 156–157 and the chapter by Clark in ISBN 9780387764788 are worth looking at. Uncle G (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Not recused
I note your edit summary here. There's no reason for me to recuse from this particular case; however, I was inactive on this and several other cases, and I generally prefer to remain that way unless the request for amendment is very straightforward. In this case, I felt I didn't understand the nuances well enough without reviewing the entire case to be comfortable in participating in this decision. Risker (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation. — Jeff G. ツ 06:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Calculating majorities and implementation notes
Dear Jeff,
Whilst I appreciate your good intentions, any formal procedural work on cases, amendments, clarifications etc. should be performed only by Arbitration Clerks or Arbitrators themselves (and they prefer us to do so). If you see that a clerk has missed posted the majorities, as was the case in the Tothwolf case, please feel free to ping us on the Clerks' noticeboard. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for being so WP:BOLD, and thanks for the info. — Jeff G. ツ 17:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Service award
I've been editing with an account for a month and I have over 1,000 edits and I didn't earn an award. Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have 1,036 edits. Your first edit was 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC). At 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC) (in about two days five hours), you will be officially eligible for the Novice Editor (or Burba) Service award. You are responsible for advertising that fact once you have earned it. Thank you for your service, and congradulations! — Jeff G. ツ 20:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
cole aldrich
page was edited as the information was untrue and abusive. I was at the Draft and am a family member —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruckdashel (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- In this edit, not only did you remove information without explanation (thank you for explaining above), but you also signed the article. We don't sign articles. That information remains removed from the article as it was unsourced. — Jeff G. ツ 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Palaeoarchaeology
Unsurprisingly, your prod was removed from palaeoarchaeology. I have now sent it to AfD. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 04:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. I have expressed my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeoarchaeology. — Jeff G. ツ 07:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
help me out
i can't fix this, the album title for cassidy's album is C.A.S.H. (Cass Always Stays Hard) not C.A.S.H. (Cass a Straight Hustla) it won't let me move Cass a Straight Hustla so i don't know what to do. please don't block me, help me out. --Raise111 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The articles are in the right places now, but there is the copyright problem. — Jeff G. ツ 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
AfD Palaeoarchaeology
Hi
I have cocked up
I checked the votes page as we have had problems with it counting stuck out deletes that were changed to keep and it showed you as a delete vote and a keep vote lol.
I tried to correct it but before mr Haworth clobbers me with his wizened stump can you help me get the count right ? I think you may have to remove the whole word "Delete" or it may be in a cache :¬)
thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- What votes page? — Jeff G. ツ 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry was afk for a bit after my marathon GOCE edits - the link is [2]
- It is on the second line of the AfD page you click on AfD statistics :-
- Palaeoarchaeology ( edit talk history links watch logs) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- User:Chaosdruid (a bit later than 21:00 and earlier than 22:35) 01 July 2010 (sorry batteries went on my keyboard)
- Thanks, I tried to replace it with REDACTED REMOVAL. Does that tool not allow for changing one's mind? — Jeff G. ツ 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did post on someone elses page and call it the dumbcountingbot (if you say it quickly...lol)
- I'm starting to think it may be something else thats not working - maybe the support at the bottom half... Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup - i did a test [3] and added support and I am on both now lol - it must be counting the bottom half and the word support as well Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
House, MD
Hi Jeff,
I am a wiki-novice (as far as editing), but noticed inaccurate information in the House, MD [page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House,_md].
I was not trying to get into an edit war, but rather was simply trying to correct the info. The problem stems with the attribution of the creator credit. David Shore created House. He is the sole creator. While it may be based upon, or inspired by an idea of Paul Attanasio, that is not the same as "created by," as defined in the entertainment industry. This is indicated by the credits on the show, where Shore is afforded "Created By" credit (i.e. NOT co-created by). Furthermore, information in the bar to the right of the House page supports this information, as only DAvid Shore is listed as the creator.
In the entertainment industry, often producers do generate ideas. For their efforts, they are afforded some sort of "producer" credit. However, the creation of the characters, scenes, story, and the writer of the script is what determines the actual "created by" credit. That is what David Shore did.
I believe because of this interview with David Shore (http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20060320_123370_123370), people interpret that to mean that Paul Attanasio co-created the show. That is not the case. Just because he came up with the general idea, does not give you "created by" credit. Further in that interview, Shore says that all he did was come up with the general idea, but that Shore developed the characters and wrote the script.
So it is factually incorrect to say Attanasio co-created the show, which is why I tried to tweak the language to reflect that he had the general idea, which was inspired by the NY Times column. The created by credit is a matter of public record, and even the unrevised entry says that Fox accords David Shore "created by" credit. So, to me, what is actually unsubstantiated is that Paul Attanasio co-created the show. There is no attribution for that anywhere. And just because something has been long-accepted on this page, doesn't make it so.
If you can help me, by letting me know what I can do to make this entry factually correct and have people accept that, please let me know. I'm not too familiar with wikipedia's functions and had initially tried to contact DCGeist via email to explain. I definitely didn't intend to get into an editing war, but i still can't even find that "talk" page that DCGeist refers to (I'm sure it's just my ignorance, but I can't find it).
Thanks.