User talk:Jack Greenmaven

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, I will! Anselmotalotta (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks: that has been a useful discussion. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

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

A Tesla Roadster for you!

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

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)

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)

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)

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! Left^Noise? 03:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

I have sent an email to the copyright owner as requested. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Then we will have to wait until someone has read that e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

My edit

I was correcting a spelling error.