Jump to content

User talk:Jack Greenmaven

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 119.18.14.6 (talk) at 12:20, 29 January 2014 (→Highest point on King Island). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


About Quicksort page

Hi, I received your message in which you are communicating me that you undid my change on the partition algorithm because you believe that the previous version was better.

Unfortunately you didn't explain why, or gave any evidence of your understanding of my change.

I am new as a contributor of Wikipedia, so I don't know its etiquette, but the way you proceeded seems rude to me.

Anyway if this is normal practice, sorry, my bad.

In any case I would like to discuss my change with you.

My change remove unnecessary operations in the execution, so seems to me clearly better.

But maybe you think that the only reason of that box is to give an understanding of how the algorithm works, and doesn't need to be cleaned to be operational.

Or maybe you just believed that my change was not correct? It is possible I made some syntax mistake and I would be happy to verify that, if this is the problem.

I would really appreciate your answer. Thanks, Anselmo

Anselmotalotta (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected your version was not correct. The article has been around for a long time and I thought any errors would have been picked up long before now. My apparent rudeness comes about because I am using an automated tool to pick up malicious or vandalistic edits. The messages are pre-written and may not be appropriate in every case. Vandals sometimes mess with formulae or statistics, so I reverted your edit. In this case I am mistaken, it seems. I sometimes check over 300 articles a day and I make some mistakes. Apologies. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, no problem then. I am new and I have to say I haven't read all the docs I should have before committing. I created the account just to modify that algorithm because I noticed a minor defect. If you are a software engineer (or equivalent) may you review it more carefully, please? Anselmotalotta (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not expert in sorting algorithms. I will try to locate an editor who is. If you do more editing, I believe you are better off explaining a little about your professional background on your user page. Then people will have more confidence in accepting edits where there is some doubt. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will! Anselmotalotta (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any news? I found something that I would like to change in the Merge Sort algorithm page as well, but I was waiting for this to be approved first. Thanks. Anselmotalotta (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor I contacted has not got back to me. I hope your changes will improve the Merge Sort article. We rely to some extent on experts watching articles. I do have a continuing concern because you are altering algorithms that have probably been unchallenged for some time. But of course you may still be able to improve on them. So, go ahead. --Greenmaven (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. About the Quicksort page and the partition algorithm, the change I wanted to apply removes not necessary swap operations on the same element, but the current version is still correct and easier to read. Also, being written in pseudo code, it can be implied that a call to swap the same element of the array is just ignored. In other words, I guess it is ok not to change it. About the Mergesort, I think that the change I wanted to apply is even less meaningful, so it is not worth it. Thanks again. Anselmotalotta (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: that has been a useful discussion. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lyon

Hi! I've recently been cleaning up Survivor-related articles, along with User:Gloss. I've noticed that he will redirect articles without consensus, so I assumed it was appropriate to do that. So you're saying that even if an article clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines, it still needs to get consensus before being deleted or redirected? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these articles do not receive much editor attention or viewer traffic, so when an article is in violation of WP:BLP1E - it's safe to say that saving everybody's time by boldly redirecting the pages to the appropriate articles is an easy solution. Lyon is one of these cases. She is only known for one event (her appearance on Survivor) so the redirect should not be a problem. Gloss • talk 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions are high handed and I have taken it to WP:ANI. Who are you to judge that an article should be removed because there is not, at this time, much traffic to it? I will read WP:BLP1E. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
High handed? After you're done reading that, take a look at WP:BOLD - "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia." - we aren't making any harmful or controversial decisions. The article violated a policy and as a result, it was redirected to a different page where all important information about the target can be found (including her death information). Regardless, you should try to discuss ANY situation before wasting everybody's time bringing it to an administrative noticeboard. Gloss • talk 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much less time would have been wasted if you had begun to discuss it instead of blanking the page a second time. A look at the references shows that she came to the attention of the media again after she contracted cancer. She began a second, different, struggle as a "survivor". Therefore she passes WP:BLP1E. I repeat, the TV show she appeared in was syndicated worldwide, hugely popular, and people do have an interest in the cast's later life outcomes. BTW I find "Can we hold the dramatics for a second?" on ANI, offensive. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I need to go out. I will check where we are up to in a few hours. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Survivor contestant Russell Hantz also passed WP:BLP1E, but got redirected anyway (see the article as it was). If you want to keep this article, we should get consensus to recreate Russell's article. Otherwise, Jenn's article should be redirected as well. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E cannot possibly apply. She is dead. Please be more careful. As for the Hantz article, I saw no clear consensus. No consensus defaults to "keep". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Please tell me how to create a user page. I could really use your help from you. TheRocknRollPat (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)TheRocknRollPat[reply]

I have typed a short message in your User Page to show you how to get started. The best thing is to look at a few pages others have made. You will get a few ideas and see how most people do it. There are no hard and fast rules, but remember: this is how other editors will form their opinion of you, other than seeing the edits you make. Have a look here too Wikipedia:User pages. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomer13 reply to Mr. Jack Greenmaven

Hello! I believe I have figured it out now! I left you a reply on my talk page.(It will explain this reply) From now on I will reply to you on your talk page. ThanksAstronomer13 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You definitely have not figured it out. You keep the conversation ON ONE PAGE. You don't keep flipping from one talk page to the other. And you don't start a new section with everything you want to say (if it's on the same topic). When you want to start a conversation with someone, you start a section on their talk page, because they will automatically get notified that you have left a message, and it will not get ignored. From then on you have the conversation where it started, on their page. You also need to "watch" their page, so that you get notified on your watchlist WP:WATCH. See the sections above this one, to see how other people do it. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomer13 reply to Mr. Greenmaven

You asked if I was okay about leaving the Horse Head Nebula article the way it was.

No. I think that somewhere in the article it should at least say 'Star Formation has never been observed'. The article assumes that star formation exists: this is false information! Especially since the top of the page states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."Astronomer13 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving the article alone and not inserting 'Star Formation has never been observed'. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Re your edit.

Please reinstate the edit. I provide that William Epter of New York and, most importantly, Roger Horchow himself can verify the contents of this edit. Further Meshulam Riklis, if still alive, can verify some financial maneuvering in the eventual sale of the Kenton Collection to Horchow. Unfortunately Edward and Stanley Marcus have passed. Roger is your best bet since, as noted in the edit, he admitted that the page was totally true. Please contact me if you need more.

Don Shipman, 214 763 2957 or laiva@swbell.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by DONALD SHIPMAN (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your message and will reply before long. It might be helpful for you to read WP:COI in the meantime. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem with your addition to this article, is that it is what WP calls 'original research' WP:OR, as opposed to being verifiable from reliable secondary sources; see WP:V. The next problem is that it is not written from a 'neutral point of view' - WP:NPOV. You report a conversation in which someone is called "a bumbler" - not neutral! You also begin your edit with the words "SEQUENCE OF DEVIOUS EVENTS LEADING TO..."; this is also not neutral. You also clearly have a conflict of interest WP:COI; you are one of the participants! The entire edit is not encyclopedic, because it is a long account of conversations and opinions; see WP:NOT. I hope you can see that none of it is acceptable, and will remain deleted. Thanks. --Greenmaven (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC TV and WWII

Hi, I was the one who made the edit to the History of Television page about BBC TV service being ended at the onset of WWII. I understand that you reverted my edit because believe the line about the service being ended to prevent transmissions being used for tracking by enemy aircraft is both factual and important tot he article; I will not argue whether this is correct or not, although it seems to me logically inconsistent with radio broadcasts continuing for the duration of the war. However, the source cited for the two lines I edited states something different about the content of those broadcasts immediately before and after the war than what is stated in the article. I have re-edited the article to correct the sentences with reference to the content of the broadcasts; I have left the claim about tracking, but it needs a citation. Thanks, and have a good day!--KnucklesKnave (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good outcome - I agree that a citation would be good. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim al-Haqqani's organization

First of all, how are you? Happy new year, sir. Second of all, I'm a bit concerned about this edit at Nazim Al-Haqqani as the source given is the website of an organization run by the subject itself. Doesn't it raise some issues of reliability in that context? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too. Here's how I see this section of the article. Firstly, this man is clearly a notable religious leader. Secondly, an encyclopaedia is intended to be informative, and those who view this page could reasonably expect to be told what he stands for, or "his mission". So, where would you expect to find accurate information about that? The website, of course. I see this as a different case to the one, where certain events are claimed to have occurred. Then one can reasonably say "we want verification". But here we see statements about intention and by implication, beliefs. Whether or not we believe them, or find them ridiculous or disagreeable, is not relevant. Religious articles all over WP are full of unverifiable statements. As you know they are often disputed over. I should make it clear that I am not a Muslim nor a follower of Sufism. I wish to be impartial. But I try to err on the side of leniency on religious articles, out of a desire not to offend those who edit in good faith, that is WP:AGF. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user who you welcomed after he edited the article, Rafaelmaron, actually vandalized it. He deleted a section with reliable sources which is often deleted by the subject's followers. He's a noob but I think it's behavior worth watching, followers of Muslim religious leaders can get aggressive real quick in my experience. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware that his edit might be disputed. I welcomed him so that he would be able to find basic policies and guidelines on editing WP. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Slater Personal Life

Hi Jack, The information about Michael slater is in the main subjective, and misleading..... I am working with Michael and decided to take it all down, and then will repost, what is more factually correct

OK. I am watching the article. Go ahead. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you!

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you!

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Two cars now. Are you sure you can afford this! I may have to give one away! Thanks for your gift! --Greenmaven (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Box Office Mojo

Rounding figures seems inappropriate to me, which is why I made my edit but thinking about it more I see a bigger problem. I am not happy with unreliable sources. Fixing mistakes in unreliable sources seems very close to original research. Since you disagreed with my edit your opinion to help get to some consensus would be helpful. Please discuss on article talk page. Please do not reply on this talk page. This may be indicative of a larger problem with Box Office Mojo and may need to go to WP:MOSFILM to get a larger consensus. -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copypasta wrong link error. I meant to ask you to reply on the article talk page -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Disorders

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to Thought disorder, in which I removed a reference to a viral video that an anonymous editor had inserted into the text, returning it to what it was before their edit (here's the diff of their edit). I was wondering if this was an accident, or if not, whether you could provide your reasoning for reverting it. Thanks! LeftNoise? 03:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my edit. Sorry. It looked like removal of sourced material. Hard to tell - a disordered monologue! --Greenmaven (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Flag of Guam page

I can't seem to figure out how to edit the references on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Guam, the first reference on that page is going to an outdated link that just needs to be changed but I can't seem to figure out how to do that. It shows ^ http://flagandbanner.com/fab/productpage.asp?id=SGUAM1218 but that link is invalid it should be http://www.flagandbanner.com/Products/FBPP0000012671.asp, Link should basically say Modern flag design based on 1949 art.

Is there any way you can figure out how to fix this? I saw you were the last person to edit the page in November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean1972 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See the page history for the change I made. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOTHING

I didn't edit any pages in Wikipedia. nor do I have an account! 81.148.71.240 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses such as yours, above, are often shared, usually without your being aware of it. So, someone else has been editing using that IP address. If you do want to edit in future, it would be worth registering. These shared IP Accounts are one reason why we recommend becoming a registered editor. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced Post

Hello Jack, I now understand that my post was misplaced. And after stepping away from the computer to walk my dog I was going to change it. I must inform you that I am Hurt by what you did. I worked hard on that post and did not save it anywhere. I now know I should have started a new article about "Starry Eyed Boutique". What I wrote was not meant to take away from your work or article. If it looked like that I am Sorry!! Can you help me please by tell where I should have post the article.McBarker T. (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your post does not stand a chance of surviving as an article. Your shop is in no way notable and your post was a blatant advertisement for it. Please read WP:NOT for further details. WP is not a free website for people to promote their own self-interest. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Biami people, near Nomad patrol post, 1964.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Biami people, near Nomad patrol post, 1964.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to the copyright owner as requested. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Leaving KIBULI Village 6th June 1963 – Oriomo-Bituri Patrol.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Leaving KIBULI Village 6th June 1963 – Oriomo-Bituri Patrol.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to the copyright owner as requested. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Afore patrol post, police barracks consruction 1964.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Afore patrol post, police barracks consruction 1964.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to the copyright owner as requested. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then we will have to wait until someone has read that e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Marcus article

Hello, I would like to ask, why did you made the change (removed what I added in the article)? Thanks 35.11.56.100 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you signed your posts. I edited that name out because the person did not appear to be notable. However, I see other names in the list that have no article of their own, so I have undone my edit. Thanks for asking. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm still new to the Wiki. That name is a very notable person in the music world. The name is also listed in the link in the sources section. Thanks If20222425 (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has a particular definition in WP. If you look here WP:N, and follow the links, you will find there is a section on notability for performing artists of various kinds. I hope this helps. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've asked for other eyes to review at this thread at ANI in which you are mentioned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to hear the opinions of other editors. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

I was correcting a spelling error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.176.27 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You were doing well with correcting the spelling error in Kingdom of Redonda. Unfortunately, you then changed "The Purple Cloud" to "The Purple Butt" - we call that vandalism. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rittenhouse

Information icon Hello, I'm Jack Greenmaven. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to David Rittenhouse because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Greenmaven (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I apologize. I will tell my children to stop messing around with Wiki articles. I'm sorry to have taken up your time. 173.49.138.210 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to keep WP accurate and reliable. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through all the edits performed by IP address 173.49.138.210 . Almost all of them were not helpful and have been undone by other editors. If you want to keep on editing, please register an account. IP addresses are often shared and perhaps not all the edits originated from your computer. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Monsters We Met (Land of Lost Monsters)

Hello, my name is Preston. I am a fan of the BBC miniseries Monsters We Met and I have watched the series repeatedly since I got it last Thursday. I revisited their Wikipedia page and noticed significant changes. While what was created would make an awesome documentary series, I simply know that this is not the show I had watched. The first two episodes are entirely wrong, and the third is a reference to Wild New World, another BBC miniseries which also uses CGI animals alongside actors and live animals. I am looking all around for suspects, which is what brought me to you. I checked the dates of the update, and that lead me to you. So can I ask you why you put all of this incorrect information there (provided it was you, of course as you are only my first contact, I will be looking into other people as well)? I do not mean any form of attacks or argument, I am just trying to get to the bottom of things.

Thank You for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMS123 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly work on reverting vandalism. A slab of text had been removed without explanation, so I put it back in. Feel free to revert my edit. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procurement PunchOut

Hi Mr. Greenmaven, I just started editing Wikipedia articles, and I noticed that you undid a couple of changes that I had made on an article. Granted it was a subject that I knew nothing about, I was just trying to look for grammatical errors. I came across a few, and changed "their" to "his or her" in order to denote a single entity. I noticed that a few hours later, you changed it back to the original "their." I was just wondering if perhaps I could have an explanation for this, as I thought that I was bettering the article by finding some minor grammatical flaws. Thank you. Ray Fishman (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "his or her" is a clumsy construct, whereas using "their" is a well established and concise way to maintain gender neutrality. I reverted it partly because I wanted to forestall you from systematically making this change all over WP. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Scaccia

Hi, my name is Max Brody. You have taken it upon yourself to remove what I had added to Mike Scaccia's page. Why? Is it not enough that I was in Ministry with him, became his close friend, and recorded several hours of music that has only partially seen the light of day? Do you think it is your place to decide what his fans know about? Goobersmoochers is a real project, and you can listen to it for yourself if you go to my website: maxbrodyworld.com

Who are you, and why did you do this? At the moment, I am offended. Can you explain yourself? What am I missing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.157.49 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "Goobersmoochers" looked like the typical nonsense that vandals add to WP pages. So I was actually trying to protect your friend's page. No, it is absolutely not enough that "I was in Ministry with him, became his close friend, and recorded several hours of music that has only partially seen the light of day". Any editor can remove content that has not got a verifiable source. Instead of being offended, supply a reference to demonstrate that "Goobersmoochers" actually exists. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you, like myself, feel the need to be "protective" of Mr. Scaccia, but I am trying to tell you that you are doing him a disservice. He cared and was proud about the project, and would want it mentioned. I know this. It also doesn't matter what YOU think of our project's name, and you still have not answered my question as to who you are. Are you an "editor" for wikipedia? I'm just trying to understand why I'm getting picked on and by whom. I want to play by the rules here, of course. But I would hope that you would do your due diligence before just hitting the old delete button.

Meanwhile... you ask me for a "reference to demonstrate that "Goobersmoochers" actually exists". And I feel that I had done that already in the original communication. To quote; "Goobersmoochers is a real project, and you can listen to it for yourself if you go to my website: maxbrodyworld.com". So go to the website, click the "projects" tab on the upper left side of the page, and the word "Goobersmoochers" will pop out. You can listen to several songs there and read about it... or copy and paste the link http://www.maxbrodyworld.com/goobersmoochers.html

Does that qualify as "actually existing"? What more do you need? Are you unable to navigate to the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.157.49 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Finding Bigfoot Bobae

Hello my good man, I believe that you have missed a very inportant relationship in this show, which i do infact watch every sunday. please return Bobae so that i may have some enjoyment, Professor Dr.Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebraslayer47 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have vandalised two pages. Goodbye. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About my Edmund Ironside Contribution

I think it was rather unfair to have deleted my edit on Edmund Ironside's death because what I said was true, Edmund Ironside really did get stabbed through the asshole while he was on the toilet.

In that case provide a reference that backs it up. It would be more encyclopaedic to use the word "anus". I will watch the article. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longmont Potion Castle edit to Longmont Colorado

Hello.

I believe you removed my post based on the assumption is was vandalism on the Longmont, Colorado website.

There is a well known prank phone call artist named Longmont Potion Castle whose work is available for purchase online and whose discography is well documented (I will leave it to you verify this). I posted on the Longmont Colorado website that he is a "notable person"

This post was removed. If you can please explain why I would appreciate it. Thanks, Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.128.225 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it looked like vandalism. OK, he exists. But his article Longmont Potion Castle states that no one knows who he is, so how can he be claimed as a resident of Longmont, Colorado? --Greenmaven (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Thanks for the notification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorWho&Comics (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highest point on King Island

The highest point on King Island is not, I repeat, is not Mt Stanley. It is an unassuming hill called Gentle Annie. In my justification for the change on my talk page I cited a web reference to that fact, even though it was a person living next to Gentle Annie that told me on the day of my walk. On reflection, the King Island 1:100,000 map also showed that fact: Gentle Annie 162 m, Mt Stanley 148 m. It took me four hours to walk from the town of Grassy to Mt Stanley and back. It would have taken me half that time to reach Gentle Annie, even though the bush probably would have prevented me from actually attaining the summit. That's two hours of unnecessary walking all because of an error in Wikipedia. It seemed worthwhile correcting. Rob Cannon 119.18.14.6 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like you I try to make sure WP contains accurate information. I could only find "Gentle Annie" as the name of a song, and some other unrelated references. It is the sort of thing that vandals do to a page. On the other hand, I could find references to "Mt Stanley" as a highpoint. So I made a judgement that that was the correct highpoint. Now I will make sure that the info you have uncovered finds its way back into the article. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second thoughts: I see I was not the first editor to undo your edit. I see also that Mt Stanley was deemed to be 213m high, not 148m as you state above. I will therefore not restore the info you entered. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a reference to a document that states that Gentle Annie is the highest point on King Island. You might like to google <gentle annie king island 168>. When I do this, the relevant document and the one I cited is number 1 in the finds, along with a couple of other probable derivative references. I suspect that the difference between the heights of 168 m in the older documents and the 162 m on the King Island map might be because of a change in the base sea level used over the years. There is also a transmitter called Gentle Annie: it is near but not on the highest point. I also googled <gentle annie king island 162>. Among the pages found was one at peakbagger.com which suggested that Gentle Annie and Mt Stanley were alternatives. However the Australian Gazetteer (at www.ga.gov.au/place-names/)gives the two places at different locations. There is a property called Mt Stanley near Gentle Annie (I passed it on my long walk, and access to the transmitter is via it). I have also informed Encyclopedia Britannica of their identical mistake. I guess I'll find out in a few days whether they believe the proof I have provided.

119.18.14.6 (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-awareness

You have multiply tagged the article Self-awareness, claiming that it may have been copied and pasted from a source, and may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material. However, on the talk page you have not indicated the sources you think were inappropriately used. Would you please point to those sources. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epipelagic. I occasionally keep an eye on Jack's page as he tends to be swamped with enquiries, uncivil responses to valid concerns expressed by him, etc. The article in question appears to be of a highly specialised nature, yet heavily lacking in references and citations for in-depth, analytical descriptions and definitions of 'self-awareness' in a plethora of areas. I don't think it is up to Jack to sort through potentially paraphrased, plagiarised and WP:OR tractats. I'm certain you're aware of the onus being on those involved in the development of the article to cite and provide WP:V and WP:RS.
In tracking some of the major contributors, I haven't encountered anyone who could be regarded as a qualified scholar in any of the specific areas. Qualified nurses (not veterinary but human) writing authoritatively about self-awareness in animals? There are detailed sections, such as In Schizophrenia, that are virtually unreferenced. In fact, the 'In philosophy' section and... well, pretty much everything, has rung an alarm bell or two for me. How do autodidacts manage to be so thorough and balanced without having studied more than one or two texts? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting for one moment the article is well written. It needs rewriting from the ground up. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that Jack has claimed the article has plagiarised and improper use of non-free material. I can't find text that is plagiarised from online sources. Perhaps Jack has access to offline sources that are plagiarised. In any case, it creates difficulties to make sweeping allegations like these without specifically disclosing the sources the allegations are based on. Otherwise other editors , like me, end up wasting time trying to track them down. If I find plagiarised text, I usually try and clean it up myself. I do not tag it for someone else to do the hard work. But if it is tagged, then I think there is an onus on the tagger to indicate the problematic source or sources they have found, and not add unnecessarily to the work load for other editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A large section of text from the article can be found here [1]. The Image of the dog also appears on the same page. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the medlibrary site acknowledges its content comes from WP. God help us all. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am still suspicious of this material. Take look at this diff [2], which is where I came in on this article. On December 10th, 8,078 bytes were added in one edit - always an indicator that it might be a copypaste. In particular, see how it includes references in the post. They are not done in the correct way. It reeks of a copypaste. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is our source of wisdom, from his User Page: "Hello my name is Jeremy and am enrolled in Psychology of Consciousness. I hope to expand my knowledge in this exciting course." (User:Jeremyhausman 12 September 2013). Check out how much editing he has done for WP. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Add to that, the 'development' of the section in his sandbox. If only I could put a lucid section together in just two edits! I don't know where it has come from, but I'm a monkey's aunt if it's his own. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he has access to online material that is not picked up by search engines. Maybe we will hear again from User:Epipelagic. I will take this opportunity to say that all work is voluntary on WP. No one is obliged to "do the hard work" (they choose to), or to blame another editor for not following something up. Tags have been developed precisely so an editor can flag a problem without going on to resolve it. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that Jeremyhausman additions are copypastes. It is not good enough to reject the efforts of new editors trying to get started merely on the ground that you are "suspicious" and think their efforts "reek" of a copypaste. You need to show that they actually are a copypaste. Likewise, I have not found evidence of passages in the rest of the article that have been copied and pasted, or contain excessive or improper use of non-free material. Where the material is duplicated elsewhere on the web it occurs on Wikipedia mirror sites, or on the scurrilous "topdefinitions.com", a site which rips Wikipedia off without acknowledgement. Accordingly I have removed your tags. If I were to criticise the article, it would be on the grounds that it is unbalanced with undue emphasis in certain areas, and contains additions that might belong better in other articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Greenmaven&oldid=592951007"