User talk:Jgera5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Jgera5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See my old discussions at:

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:ArthurTreachers.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:BPampm.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. CactusWriter (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jgera5. You have new messages at CactusWriter's talk page.
Message added CactusWriter (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi, I've noticed that most of your edits to wrestling articles end up getting removed or changed drastically because the sources that you use are totally unreliable. Here is a list of sources that Wikipedia believes to be reliable for wrestling topics. I'm guessing that your additions to CM Punk will soon be removed as they reek of speculation and news. You do a great job typing up a lot of material and I'm just giving you a heads up because I hate seeing good faith users like yourself get reverted, especially since you've spent so much time on these things.LM2000 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if you include just reliable sources, a long section on his (suspected) departure seems undue.LM2000 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Billy Gunn. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. STATic message me! 04:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at The Shield (professional wrestling), you may be blocked from editing. STATic message me! 22:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


You might be interested in this discussion. It involves the edits you just made to CM Punk.LM2000 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PilotFlyingJ.PNG[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:PilotFlyingJ.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Scooby-Doo! WrestleMania Mystery, you may be blocked from editing. STATic message me! 01:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Shield (professional wrestling), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director of Operations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at The Shield (professional wrestling), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STATic message me! 09:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion request[edit]

Has been removed because it was in regard to a conduct dispute. 3O does not handle conduct disputes. Consider RFC/U or ANI for conduct disputes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I rather suspect that I'm going to regret doing this, but I want to tell you that I've looked at the notices that STATicVapor has left, above, on your talk page and have also looked at some of your other editing and have to tell you that I think that his criticisms are valid and that your reaction to them is inappropriate (especially this one (and even more so when compared to this assertion by you)). If you continue to lash out by going to places like 3O, and even more if you go to ANI or RFC/U which I mentioned above, you're going to be engaging in self-destructive behavior. Look, I do a lot of content dispute resolution at 3O, DRN, and MEDCOM, and I see recurring problems. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that it has a serious side with articles about things like history and science and politics and a fannish side with articles about sports and movies and video games. There is a vast amount of loose editing on the fannish side which does not comply with Wikipedia policies and which lures editors who edit mostly in those areas into the belief that those loose practices are acceptable. But they're not. And it constantly happens that folks who mostly edit on the serious side, where policies are generally rigidly enforced (in order to prevent chaos) wander over into the fannish side and encounter folks who aren't used to editing to those standards and then some variant on what's happening between you and SV occurs. Editors who aren't used to the higher standards suddenly get held to standards which, to them, seem impossible to meet: Everything has to be sourced and has to be sourced to a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per SOURCES) which isn't a blog or other self-published site and which if it is a PRIMARY source can only be used for very limited purpose (and never as the sole source for an article or about a third party living person), and which actually says what is being asserted in the article without analysis or synthesis, and on and on and on. When confronted with the fact that everything must be sourced and that the required standard for what qualifies as a reliable source is quite high, the editors who work in the looser areas suddenly come to the realization that what the strict-standards editors are saying is that a lot of what they're used to including in Wikipedia can't be included at all. Since they've not had to deal with that, they find it hard to believe and feel like they're being picked on or harassed or stalked, especially since those standards are so universally accepted over on the serious side that the serious-side editors don't generally spend a lot of time explaining them when they revert or place notices about them.[1] But they're not being picked on or harassed. They're just being held to the standards that they should have been following all along.[2] When they then start calling on places like dispute resolution and ANI, they're frequently amazed that they don't get any support and that, in fact, the complaints that they're making against the strict-standards editors boomerang on them and they find that they're the ones who are in trouble, not the ones that they're complaining about. That's where you're headed if you pursue this. While you might not like what STATicVapor is saying to you, or the way that he's saying it, he's giving you straight advice. Please understand that I don't mean any of this to be condescending or unnecessarily critical, but you're headed for trouble and I'd like to divert you into the runaway lane before you crash. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ And they're not just treated like rules with which a gesture-at-compliance is sufficient, which is another common misconception over on the fannish side. They're treated like life and death matters and bloody battles are fought over them. If you've never done so before, click over to the reliable sources noticeboard and read through the current discussions there; they might be an eye-opener.
  2. ^ That's exactly what appears to be happening when you say, "Some of the stuff I can't find sources for. It's not like I'm trolling or anything, I'm actually adding useful information." as you did here. The burden of evidence section of the verifiability policy, which is one of the most basic policies here at Wikipedia, says that it is your obligation not to add unsourced material. It doesn't make any difference how useful it may be; over on the serious side material about, for example, medical advances which could save lives if people learned about it through Wikipedia is routinely excluded because sources meeting Wikipedia standards cannot be found for it.

Comments left on STATicVapor's talk page[edit]

That wasn't nice of you to leave that sort of note on Static's talk page. Wikipedia is not the place for WP:NPA. Let me tell you a quick story. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I was doing things the wrong way. I got furious when User talk:STATicVapor redirected one of the articles I created. Later on, I realized that I was doing several things wrong, and that Static was only helping me out. I don't know what happen in your case, but whatever it is, you shouldn't get so emotional to the point where you start leaving those types of messages. I'm pretty sure Static has his reasons and I believe that you two can work out your differences. As a community, we should look out for one another and discuss our differences in a civilized manner. This is just my 2 cents. versace1608 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Your apology over at ANI is a good first step, Jgera5, and goes a long way, but you can't just shuck this off. Unless you stop adding unsourced and poorly sourced material to articles, something like this is inevitably going to happen again, if not with STATicVapor then with some other editor. The community is pretty tolerant of a newcomer who pops in and does that, but as you yourself point out, you've been around for years. Repeatedly making edits which obviously don't comply with our requirements, even if they're done in topic areas where edits aren't usually held to that degree of compliance and scrutiny, can most definitely eventually get an editor blocked or banned, and monitoring an editor who has the practice of doing that is not wikihounding (q.v.). This isn't a threat, I'm just giving you some advice and I'm not going to be monitoring your edits, but if STATicVapor or someone else does so you may find that there's not much sympathy for your objection that they're doing it if, in fact, your edits are clearly non-compliant (and you may very well have invited such monitoring by making that SPI report). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

White Album move discussion[edit]

I responded to your argument on the move discussion, but I'll reiterate here: May I point out that our own WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL say to use a common name over the official name? Dralwik|Have a Chat 13:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There's been a misunderstanding. To quote WP:RM/CM: "Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral... Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should." As well, I brought up the warning right above this since move request discussions should "make reference to applicable policies and guidelines," and Wikipedia policy is pretty dismissive of the official name argument. Besides discussions not being a simple vote but rather based on which side's arguments win out, I have seen nominations (like the Chelsea Manning mess) be decided after a significant portion of votes were thrown out for specifically not referencing policy. I apologize if I seemed aggressive, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of policy's stance on the official name argument. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion[edit]

There is a move proposal here which has been open for some time now. Please have a look if you're interested. Radiopathy •talk• 21:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disregard. Radiopathy •talk• 09:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chief Wahoo[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chief Wahoo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Go Phightins! -- Go Phightins! (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chief Wahoo[edit]

The article Chief Wahoo you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Chief Wahoo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Go Phightins! -- Go Phightins! (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)