Jump to content

User talk:JaGa

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BorisTM (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 17 September 2008 (→‎Image:CreatineSynthesis.png). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archive
Archives


Peter Gabriel discography (again)

Hi, JaGa. We corresponded a few months back regarding this article, and the same person is back at it again, trying to restore the same inflated chart stats on the article. The logged in user is Jman505, and the IP address is 72.224.49.240. If there was ever any doubt that they are one and the same, the fact that neither has done anything for about a month, then they both edit the same page within three minutes should signify something. I reverted both the edits, but I don't know what the next step should be (didn't a few people already try being nice?). Besides, I don't really want to get caught in the crosshairs on this. Could you notify an admin or something? Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll check it out, see what can be done. Thanks for letting me know about it. --JaGa (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you for intervening (even though you didn't do anything that merits having to get in the middle of it either!) Having read your talk page, though, you seem to know how to report these kinds of incidents. I've spent a fair amount of time on music articles of late, and I'm trying my best to follow the "rules"; but it's discouraging to see somebody change things, seemingly on a whim or because they are a fan of someone. I informed Abrazame as well, since he did a great job on the aforementioned page. Anyway, thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a couple of warnings on his page. I've decided to give him this one last chance - if he makes one more disruptive edit, I'll do my best to get him blocked. Could you let me know if you see him doing this again? --JaGa (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I've got it added to my watchlist, and I'll check his account(s) every now and then. I appreciate your assistance, JaGa. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it didn't take them long to return to their old tricks. 72.224.49.240 undid my undoing of their altering the Peter Gabriel discography page - I almost reverted it back but thought I might be breaking some 3-revert rule, so I left it alone (sigh). Then they made seven edits to a featured article page, Peterloo Massacre, all of which were reverted (including blanking the page), and multiple warnings were placed on the IP talk page. Then a few minutes later, Jman505 logged in as himself (I assume - is there a way to prove where he logged in from?) and added stupid things to the Michael Jackson discography page like replacing links with Billboard Hot 1000000000999 and "suck my..." Well, you get the point. These were all reverted and warnings placed on his talk page as well, so there may be a note of this on that admin board you posted on before. Would you mind asking someone to revert the false chart stats on Peter Gabriel's page and reporting this? And if I get a vote on keep vs. block, BLOCK!! Using wikipedia like a big graffiti wall is irritating, especially if it's taking away from something you worked on and seriously tried to improve. I owe you one - thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he had a real meltdown there. It looks like the admins shut him down before I saw your message, but I'm going to see if I can get an investigation started into the the Jman505 = 72.224.49.240 theory. Thanks for letting me know! I like getting involved with this admin-y stuff. --JaGatalk 06:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like watching a tornado tearing through a field! The comments on the IP talk page are disturbing and indicative of a lot of unresolved hatred. I was just about to update you that the IP is blocked when I saw your reply. I'm glad I contacted you if you enjoy getting involved in this stuff, since I neither know how nor really want to be in the middle of a big deal. Is there any evidence to link Jman505 to the IP? Thanks again, JaGa. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I put a message on the admin noticeboard, I'll post here what the result is. Isn't is all so weird - I mean, for a Peter Gabriel fan to act like this? I really enjoy his music, and would think his fans would be more mellow that this fellow. :) --JaGatalk 06:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, maybe they just picked the page at random or something. By the way, what could serve as proof that they are the same: Jman logged in and edited Feist (singer), and in the edit summary typed offensive things about ESanchez013, who had reverted edits to the Peter Gabriel page by the IP (not Jman). For all I know, we may be on his radar too, so I left a message on ESanchez's talk page. Like I said before: UGH! Zephyrnthesky (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, I wish I'd noticed that before my report, that really proves it. Well, the admins put a comment on my report saying "IP block adjusted so it's not anon-only" which I suppose means all activity from that IP will be blocked, which is but a partial victory, because the IP was blocked for only one week. So I bet we'll have another chapter in this saga before it's all said and done. When he comes back, I'll use your ESanchez example to try to shut the account down for good, and get at least a one month block on the IP. Thanks much for your vigilance; he probably would've got away with at least some of his edits if it weren't for you. --JaGatalk 07:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mixed up in this too, but hats off to you for knowing what to do and having the guts to do it. I guess there's a record of all this brouhaha for anybody who wants to investigate, but I'm grateful for your intervention. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JaGa. Guess what? (LOL) Jman505 is back, which shouldn't be a surprise. This time he did a bunch of nonsense edits to Eagles discography, which were reverted before I saw them. However, the mistaken chart positions for Sting's song "Englishman in New York" reappeared on both the song's page as well as the Sting discography page, and they were both still there. Until I edited over them both and provided a new-fangled concept called 'references'. What's a bit unsettling is that in one of those edits he called me out and said for me to e-mail him before changing anything, and listed his e-mail address in the edit summary. I may have found info about him through google, but I'm not sure I even want to. That Sting song is one of my favorites, and it's how I noticed him before he ever leapt over to Peter Gabriel and caused all the havoc there. I think the block on the IP may have expired, and now I'm a bit concerned. There are even more connections between the two, like the phrase "fix this you <blanking> bitches", and the E. Sanchez issue from above. I wound up finding your last incident report on the board and posted my two cents, but I think it got archived without any further action. Wanted you to know (it's like a soap opera!) and see if you had any ideas on how to proceed. Sorry to type such a long message, and thanks for any advice or assistance in advance. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z, I reported him to WP:AIV with a pretty incomplete description, but they haven't acted on it and now I'm going to bed. If they punt (and I suspect they might) I'll go back to ANI with it. Thanks again for keeping me up to date! --JaGatalk 07:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though an admin (Icairns) temporarily blocked Jman505, so maybe this will end the disruptions. Or maybe he'll come back even angrier. No, no, the glass is half full, right? I'm grateful for your help with this ongoing issue, JaGa. Thank you. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only a 31 hour block - that's a little disappointing, since he usually waits longer than that before reappearing. The good part is, if/when he comes back, I can report him again under the category "vandalism after recent release of block", which is usually a sure thing. We'll probably always have to deal with this guy, because even if we get the Jman account blocked indefinitely, he'll still be able to make IP edits. --JaGatalk 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and he seems bound and determined to cause chaos instead of trying to help in this grand communal effort. I'll keep an eye on him, and thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure Searching on Wikipedia

Jaga, I welcome your comments on the presentation I sent you about how Wikipedia can be made structure searchable.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the PPT presentation and checked out Structure Search on Chemspider. This is a very cool idea. Here are my thoughts/questions:

  1. I think "Search Wikipedia" is a must. I did a substructure search on ChemSpider and got SO MANY results it was hard to find what I was looking for. A Wikipedia search would give you a narrower set of results - usually more "notable" chemicals - so could have its uses.
  2. The chembox new template has only one field for InChI. I suppose we'd have to add another for the key - seems like we want both string and key. Or is there an easier way?
  3. Would there be a chance to implement a Structure Search within Wikipedia, or would the user have to go offsite?
  4. If you also generated the structure, for one thing, SVG would make the most sense by far. Not only are we trying to move chemical structures away from raster formats to vector, but also it would be much easier to make a small edit to a generated SVG than a PNG or other raster image.
  5. If we did go for the structure generation, the tool would need to make higher-quality images. Set bond lenths, fixed bond angles, and a different style for double bonds (excepting the C=O bonds) would be a must. It would also be nice if the lines joined, but that could be fixed in an SVG editor. (I do my drawing in BKChem, export it via Cairo, and clean it up in Inkscape. I'd say your editor would want to approach BKChem quality.)
  6. Should this discussion be moved to Wikiproject Chemicals, or is there another discussion going on that I know nothing about?

--JaGatalk 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback...we can continue the discussion offline on email if you'd like. You have my email address I think...it's just easier in email since I don't have to keep checking Wikipedia. ANyway comments to your questions.

1) Regarding too many results...please send me some examples then I can explain why you might get a lot of results. 2) The WP:Chem team are working on both InChIString and InCHIKey for the Chembox 3) I can't comment on doing structure searching on WP itself. I believe that's been discussed for a long time but needs to be implemented in Media-Wiki. If there's a decision to do so we can help. 4) Ok...vote for SVG. Will wait for further feedback 5) Don't worry about our structure images for right now. We are working on that issue and commit to high quality images. 6) There is a discussion going on about it on WP Chemicals I believe.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism by IP 203.20.35.101

I am contacting you because you gave IP 203.20.35.101 a final warning for vandalism, and since that time, IP 203.20.35.101 has vandalized the Everybody Loves Raymond article (at 02:55 on 17 August 2008). Could you go ahead with blocking this IP address? Thanks! JTSchreiber (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got him blocked for one month. Thanks for the heads up! --JaGatalk 05:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome for the heads up and thanks for the block! --JTSchreiber (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Cohen and related issues

JaGa, I noticed that on 18 July you made this edit [1] to the Richard A. Cohen article. If that was the right thing to do, and it very likely was, then you might consider making the same kind of edit to the articles on Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, Edmund Bergler, Joseph Nicolosi, and Elizabeth Moberly. I added the 'Mainstream medical view of conversion therapy' (or the equivalent) sections to several of those articles myself, but that was despite my doubts about whether that was a good idea (I explained them on the Socarides talk page). Skoojal (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think removing them IS the right thing to do, encyclopedia-ly speaking, but I'm not sure I want to wade farther into this. Why haven't you taken them out yourself? If you think it was wrong for me to remove the section from the Cohen article, I wouldn't edit war with you over reverting my change. I care more about not offending a polite and AGF editor like yourself than fixing an article for the likes of Cohen. --JaGatalk 06:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take them out myself because of a disagreement with another editor over the Socarides article. I removed the 'mainstream view of conversion therapy' section from that article, but User:TheRedPenOfDoom put it back in with a few modifications. I didn't want to edit war over the issue, and at that point, I decided that if the Socarides article was going to have that section, then articles about similar figures should have them as well. I added them only in the interests of consistency, and would actually have been more happy to remove them from all of those articles. I may well remove them, but it would be best if there were some discussion among editors interested in these topics before that happens. Skoojal (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadoba

Fixed, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

hello moto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar020 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G2ZT

If I can help in any way? --Stone (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. Would it be OK if I ran the structure by you before I put it in the article? I think I know how to draw it based on your description and some research I've done. --JaGatalk 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! The point is always where to put the charge in the organic molecule. --Stone (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya... I was wondering if we could have a "2" in front of azolium cation, and display it once only. Also, since you've drawn it, perhaps you can calculate the formula and MW, and enter it in the chembox? :) Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - but where should the 2 be, and how large should it be? I'm pretty inexperienced with drawing salts. --JaGatalk 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If BKChem has brackets, perhaps you can use the bracket around one cation and subscript 2? In ChemSketch, it is the polymer tool... --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, it does. My original files are on an inaccessible computer right now, but when I get to it, I'll make the change. I guess I'll just put a bracketed cation centered on top. I'll drop you a line when I update it. --JaGatalk 08:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. :) But this one was quite easy case. It took me just 3 to 4 hours from the beginning of case examination to the report submission. Google does wonders these days :). M0RD00R (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the Ror page

Hi JaGa,

I saw your edits to the page of the Ror community and I just wanted to discuss one of the edits with you. I hope you are fine with a small friendly discussion. You removed some names from the recent personalities section saying "remove those who do not have their own wiki page". I was wondering if that is absolutely a rule. The thing is that I am from this community and usually look after this page and by removing all those names you may put me in trouble. Reason being that even if some of those names do not qualify the notability criterion to have a dedicated page, they are still revered within the community and some members may feel hurt. I leave it to your discretion. Thanks Rorkadian (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rorkadian. Thanks for the friendly note. It pained me to remove those names, because I thought it would hurt some feelings, but I knew the list wasn't in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability (people) covers it pretty well, and I do believe those rules should be applied here. On a side note, many editors would simply revert my change, or answer angrily, or both, and I'm very impressed to see the professionalism you've shown in dealing with my edits. Thanks. --JaGatalk 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JaGa, I just read through the notability guidelines and reached the conclusion that some of the names removed do meet notability criteria under WP:POLITICIAN and WP:Athlete. Do you think we should consider re-instating some of them as they have been members of legislature and some of them have competed at a high level in sports. Thanks Rorkadian (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It sounds like you know what qualifies, and I will trust your decisions. My apologies for missing notable non-linked individuals. I usually only go with linked notables because without a link, I can't verify that someone really is a high-level athlete or member of parliament or whatever they claim to be. But since you are familiar with the material, I can rest assured you won't let bogus edits slip through. Thanks. --JaGatalk 05:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JaGa. I will double check and then re-instate some of the names depending on the notability guidelines. Rorkadian (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Feature request

It would be nice if "Show log" were one of our configurable options. I like having as much screen as possible to look at the diff so I uncheck "Show log" at the beginning of every session. --JaGa (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godd idea. If this isnt already done I will do it, Added to google code bugs. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 09:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is fixed in the next version -- Gurch (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, thanks for the update! --JaGatalk 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

please do not delete a page called "Nuats Ultimate" because it's important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antsbugg (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to delete or not will be up to an admin, not me. You should add inline citations to establish notability; the subject may very well be notable, but it has to be proven in the article with proper references. --JaGatalk 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

can you please Richa Ghimire save from the deleton thank you.(Amir Gurung (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The decision whether to delete or not isn't mine, I just tagged the article so an admin can review it. I tagged it because there were no references of her WP:Notability. Putting in the {{hangon}} tag was a good start; now you should make inline references to news articles/non-fan websites that talk about her to prove she is in the public eye and not just an aspiring, unestablished model. --JaGatalk 17:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Musical Theatre of San Jose, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
--Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re revert war at Emil Gilels

I would draw your attention to the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rollback abuse.3F. It is inappropriate to use Huggle, or any other automated script, in content disputes. Under the circumstances, it may be appropriate for you to re-acquaint yourself with the proper use of semi-automated tools before using them again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I stand by my edit. I saw a user remove cited content, and I put it back. I didn't warn the user, since it wasn't definitely malicious, so I don't think I abused Huggle in any way. I disagree with the idea that this was definitely not vandalism; I saw this as a POV struggle (trying to spotlight vs. obscure Jewish heritage) and sided on keeping the adjective, since it was already established in the article and cited. What good is there in removing information? (Side note, of my many Beethoven sonata recordings, Gilels is my favorite. I only wish to honor him, and not offend his family; but I also want to maintain a good encyclopedia, and don't think I did anything wrong, despite my warning.)

Kotkapura

Could you help in reverting vandalism by 171.23.129.9 ? this person keeps adding POV content and advertising for his "astrologer". In addition to that this person has spurned attempts at reconciliation. Could you use huggle to help the page out? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DET

Hey there

Just wanted to let you know that per CSD I8, bit for bit copies may simply be speedily deleted. It's a way to avoid backlog at IFD. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wondering how it got deleted so quickly. Thanks! --JaGatalk 08:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law School Outlines

Outlines.com is free. Removing it from the search "law school outlines" is truly a diservice and detriment to all Wiki users. Please undo your edit upon verifying my statement. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlines (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the site, looks like a .com to me. I see a "contact me for promotions" checkbox. I see "If you do not have a credit and wish to download an outline, simply purchase (1) credit for $4.95". Spam link. I'm not putting it back. --JaGatalk 05:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for the note! --JaGatalk 06:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same message from me :) Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 10:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :)

Thanks for the disambiguation redirect. I should not keep so many tabs open whilst editing :) svaksha 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Svaksha

Heh, no problem. :) It took me a while to figure out what you were doing, but once I did it seemed perfectly reasonable. --JaGatalk 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the reversion of my user page :) Stephenb (Talk) 08:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, we've got some bad ones out tonight. --JaGatalk 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CreatineSynthesis.png

If you ever bothered to read the page where the image was used and had followed some of the links there, you should have known that there was a reason for the "typo" - the two steps of the Creatin synthesis are catalized by two different enzymes, hence two different abreviations - GATM (Glycine amidinotransferase, mitochondrial) EC 2.1.4.1 and GAMT (Guanidinoacetate N-methyltransferase) EC 2.1.1.2 . The change - Image:CreatineSynthesis-GAMT.png - makes it look as if both steps are done by the same enzyme which is not the case. So, I would suggest that you revert the change and do not delete my image yet. - Boris (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JaGa&oldid=239084352"