Project Matrix

Page types	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User pages	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User page histories	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User talk pages	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User talk page histories	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Your Preferences ("Number of edits" includes deleted edits)	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Your Watchlists	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
View and Edit Your Watchlists	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Contributions	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Contributions & Edits (Luxo's Global user contributions tool; includes deleted edits)	all	all	all	all	all	all
Gallery (Duesentrieb's WikiSense Gallery DuesenTool script)	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Project Matrices	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
History of Project Matrices	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Edit Project Matrices	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple

Page last updated 00:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #104

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to my user talk page!

Please do all of the following:

Always link to the text, image, or edit you want to discuss. When linking to an image, use a colon. For example, "[[:Image:Example.jpg]]" produces "Image:Example.jpg".
Don't forget to provide a proper Edit Summary for each and every edit, and a proper signature for each and every post to a talk page or notice board. I may revert edits that do not have such features, rather than respond to them.
Reply to interactive messages at the location of the original topic to not scatter talk all around, fracturing the discussion. I do have nearly all pages I have posted to recently on my Watchlist. If I missed a comment, please use {{Talkback}} to drop me a short reminder with a link here.
Respect my babel boxes.
If you're copying files from another project to Wikimedia Commons, be sure to use the CommonsHelper.
If your text or image is lacking source, license, or permission, fix that instead of asking here what is wrong. There should be a message on your talk page explaining things in detail. Apologies for having to be so clear if this message is not related to the matter you would like to address.
Post here if you want to reach me, or reply to a post below via the edit link above that post.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to the Monthly Archive for the month of the last timestamp. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Current Monthly Archive

(redlinked the first week
or more of each month):

2024/July

Past and near future
Monthly Archives:

References

Any references on this page will appear here:

Maintenance

Other correspondence

Hello

Hello, Jeff G. You have new messages at Stereotyper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've found a way round the partial ellipses.--Stereotyper (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Acula

How can I include in the article how they are significant? They are a fairly well-known band and they deserve a page. Could you help me out with this? I would link to the page but I think it already got deleted. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripka (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that info from a reliable source? Can we verify it? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: 68.45.253.51's warning level

Initally, I thought it was appropriate considering he had already vandalized the Sonic page twice. While maybe it was harsh and I should've started with the level 2 warning, his further edits of undoing my reverts and nonsense on the talk pages for myself and Thingg seem to suggest he wasn't here to contribute constructively anyway. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have started with a {{subst:uw-bv}} (probably appropriate in this case) or a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for a less blatant case. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Climate

Pittsburgh's climate is clearly not Humid Suptropical. I have never seen a source that claimed that. If one could be found... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.26.76 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:DavidWS#Koppen_climate_classification for more information on the climatic classification of Pittsburgh. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Van Gundy

This article contains an assertion of notability, and as such, is not a candidate for speedy deletion. If you feel that it should be deleted (and I think you could make a reasonable case, if not an ironclad one), then it should go to PROD or AFD instead. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I PRODded it instead. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weirton West Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weirton,_West_Virginia

You deleted the whole history of a city. This doesn't make any sense. Please leave the history there.

Where did the history come from? Is it from a reliable source? Can we verify it? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) history it self, 2) yes it is available in the Mary H. Weir public Library., 3) you can verify it 3442 Main Street, Weirton, WV 26062,(304) 797-8510, You're Welcome.

I found an online reference, as follows: Fundis, Lois Alete (1992). "Weirton History: A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WEIRTON AREA". Mary H. Weir Public Library, Weirton, West Virginia. Retrieved 2008-10-30. Published since 2004-10-26.

I have added it to the article. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling?

What misspelling? --Againme (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating implausible redirects. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the title of a book... If somebody searchs for it not knowing the author, it can be helpful, don't you think so?--Againme (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I do it almost every time. Oh, you mean my edits in your own talk page, sorry fot that. But I think the main issue here is you did not answer my question regarding titles of books.--Againme (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia has a search capability for finding an author based on a book title. Were the titles of those books the main subjects of the articles you redirected them to? Sorry, I don't have access to the deleted content. "A girl who spreads light" could be any girl, and "A story writer on the crucifix" could be any writer. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought administrators had to read things before deleting them...--Againme (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Thingg (talk · contribs) read A girl who spreads light before deleting[1] and also read A story writer on the crucifix before deleting[2]. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info.--Againme (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

In what way do you think this recent edit, fully explained on the Talk page, is unconstructive? NoCal100 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to mention the talk page or a source in your Edit Summary or in the text. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding, perhaps too harshly, to a personal attack made against me in the previous edit summary (which also made no mention of the Talk page) Do you agree that the edit is constructive, then? If so, please undo your revert. NoCal100 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PLO appears to have amongst its membership many living persons. Per WP:BLP, we editors have to be very careful to verifiably source any negative allegations about it before placing them in its article. In the case of the information I reverted, even after a careful reading of Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization#Dubious_text, I didn't see sufficient sourcing, so I went further. Here are some sources I used to justify the reversion of myself that I am about to do: [3], many of the sources on Dawson's Field hijackings, and many of the sources on Ma'alot massacre. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

come on. This has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP, no individual was named. It's ok to make a bad call once in a while, and then revert it. NoCal100 (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I am an I/P editor dealing with Israeli Palestinian issues, a very difficult area. It requires slow patient work, and a lot of reading before one edits. In an AN/I case, where NoCal popped up, I happened to correct his confusion of 'flaunt' with 'flout'. From that day, he stalks pages I customarily edit, and reverts without intelligent reason mostly, quite consistently. I think your original revert correct. As I said, I had posted a request for comment on my proposed edit in Feb 2008, waited patiently for several months, and no one objected. As soon as I made my edit, within minutes NoCal reverted it. He knows nothing of the subject.

That the PLO has affiliates (the better word) rather than members, was true. There was a huge rift in that organization, with many groups, while affiliated, acting against Arafat, who became the head of that organization. Many used, as with, notoriously, the Ma'alot massacre of May 1974, a terrorist attack to undermine the PLO's head (in the same year the UN officially recognized the PLO), Arafat. In the article, acts undertaken, independently of the PLO's head and deliberative bodies by splinter groups, formerly affiliated, but forming a 'rejectionist front' in the PLO, are all attributed to the PLO, while this crucial factional infighting between Arafat's PLO and the rejectionists is ignored. It thus makes out that Arafat's PLO is responsible for acts of terrorism performed by his dissident adversaries. Every act of terrorism should be specifically assigned to the group that undertook it, and not generically to the PLO, unless the act was specifically condoned, approved or helped by the PLO. This is a matter of being historically NPOV, precise, and consistent with the books on the subject, and not using these articles to create misleading and superficial impressions.

I apologize for the length. I'm in no hurry to revert. Indeed I have withdrawn, as often, when I find a page is about to be troubled by editors who do not appear to understand the complexities, but who hunt round for controversial pages before informing themselves about the topic. This is obviously not your case, since I see both your first edit and second edit were in good faith. No harm done. In the long run, three or four years, these appalling pages will be improved. I should add that the PLO did engage in acts of terrorism, but not many of those frivolously attributed to them by people who don't read serious historical literature dealing with the period and that organization. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which acts of terrorism did the PLO engage in, that are not currently documented in the article? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSN TV

hello, the page MSN TV needs fixing, it needs to revert back a ways before the spot where I tried to fix it, much vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyrightthieveswillpay (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got there before I did, good job! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Sikhism

Hi Jef

Kindly read the discussion page and you will notice that I am simply restoring the article which was there (yesterday) prior to the vandalism/additions/deletions of October 29th 2008 by User Talk: 90.196.3.37 alias User Talk: 117.96.174.218. All these changes were made without any discussion. Several editors have requested this user to prove/discuss his points in the discussion page first but he did not listen and this user has made several changes/additions without any discussion/consensus on October 29th 2008. Please see:

So I sincerely believe that you mistook my edits, please reply otherwise I would simply restore This Version which was there on October 28th 2008 and by this way this IP will get another opportunity to discuss his reason behind all these major edits. Regards..--Irek Biernat (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and I'm sorry for mistaking your edit. Please see User talk:90.196.3.37#October_2008, User talk:117.96.174.218, and this edit. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you Jeff G. for reverting the vandalism in my talkpage. Much appreciated. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits on Breakout

Hey, I didn't anything wrong, look at the page, I was correcting wrong edits that a user made.--200.216.63.82 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On November 18, 2008 Cyrus released" cannot possibly be true, that date is in the future. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God! So sorry about this, I didn't see that, I thought that you was talking about the tracklisting, that was wrong.

Sorry again.--200.216.63.82 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, I will pay more attention in the next time, I swear.200.216.63.82 (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user at 152.53.13.94

Hey there. A revert you made showed up in my watchlist, that led me to see that you appear to be reverting-without-comment every edit made by the anonymous user at 152.53.13.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). While that user is clearly new and unaware of the finer aspects of Wikipedia, their edits appear to be in good faith. Some of them might even qualify as encyclopedic. I think you're doing the community a disservice by coming down so hard on an apparently well-meaning newcomer. I know vandalism fighting is a never-ending battle, and I appreciate the work you and others do on that front, but Wikipedia needs newcomers to thrive. WP:BITE, and all. Eh? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 was unsourced. 3 cannot be described as anything other than vandalism. 4 was signed. We don't sign articles, as we don't own them. Also, this "newbie" has 151 edits[4][5] and has been editing here longer than I have. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from a shared IP address can generally be assumed to be from multiple people. An IP address isn't a user. You can't point to edit history for an IP address and claim anything about a particular user working from that IP address. · Signing article edits is improper, and a common newbie mistake; failure to cite sources is also a problem; however, neither are vandalism. Vandalism is strictly defined as deliberately making non-constructive edits. Reverting an entire edit, and threatening a ban for vandalism, because somebody put their initials in the edit, is also improper. Likewise, unsourced edits are not vandalism. I think you're being very quick to call all edits from this IP address vandalism. That troubles me. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Samuelian

Please keep an eye on the Steven N. Samuelian page. There has been a trend on the site to turn it into a promo piece!!!!Flackthehack2008 (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Jeff the Clayton Smith scandal might be a great addition to the scandal page. http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/927954/posts Flackthehack2008 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, Mayor Autry withdrawing his endorsement from the 2002 election might have value to expanding upon. There is a reference in the footnotes.Flackthehack2008 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that link doesn't work any more. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff all your work was undone on the Samuelian pageFlackthehack2008 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been redone now. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

hi i did know this thanks for teh tip though 17:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.31.233 (talk)

You're welcome. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

hi i think you're mistaken i haven't vandalized anything it's ok though i'll let it slide this time. i'm just trying to make some contributions to this great encyclopedia. maybe you should consider doing the same instead of going around imposing on other peoples business 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't vandalism but 24.63.31.233, you added your comment at the top of my talk page instead of starting a new section. That's why it was reverted. Vandalism template is automated. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes do. You shouldn't have top-posted, and you shouldn't have re-posted something the recipient had deleted. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi well i'm sorry about and i guess i can see how that would be considered vandalism if someone had no clue. but i'm confused are you, unpopular opinion the same person as jeffg? do you just have two different accounts? 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jeff g i was not clear that the recipient had delated it i thought maybe the clean up bot had taken it out. i find it odd how you are so willing to jump to conclusions and call something vandalism that quickly. thank you though for clearing my name 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also i noticed you signed my talk page as a level two warning? what does this mean and is it taken away now that we have resolved things. 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never wrote that we had resolved things. And no, I am not Unpopular Opinion. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do we resolve things. AND I love how some people consider it vandalism every time i make a post on here. I'm just trying to resolve things but moderators I guess don't like talking things out. 24.63.31.233 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do the following:

Start using Edit Summaries for each and every edit.
Stop deleting content without using Edit Summaries.
Sign your posts.
Avoid edit wars.
Avoid asking other editors if they are "fucking stupid".[6]
Avoid posting at the top of talk pages.
Learn to spot removals like this one.
Avoid blanking the user talk page allocated to discussing your current IP Address. It is a record of the history of that IP Address here at Wikipedia.
Avoid accusing other editors of "undoing improvements". [7]
Avoid accusing other editors of being "wrong". [8]

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No we are different persons. I jumped into this because it has to do something with reverts on my Talk. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to basics, I agree with Unpopular Opinion that this was a personal attack. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Tashkent's External Link section

Hi Jeff G,

I tried to edit "External Links" section of article about Tashkent city: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent in order to add a new link to source of Tashkent Photos which were made this summer:

Photos of historical monuments and modern buildings in Tashkent

Noticed that you reverted my changes and wondering why. I'm a new in wikipedia, so not sure whether it's a correct to do it, but being a naturally born in Tashkent I have confidence that pictures of Tashkent from my source have professional quality and might greatly contribute to the wikipedia's article about this beautiful city.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks.

PS. This section contains only 2 external links to photos of Tashkent and one of them is completely broken:

The biggest collection of photos from Tashkent in Russian

So it might be a good idea to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkonix (talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flewis (talk · contribs) considered your addition as 24.0.130.250 (talk · contribs) without explanation to be vandalism. I considered your re-addition of it (replacing "*The biggest collection of photos from Tashkent in Russian") without explanation to also be vandalism, partially because it removed content. I have reversed myself given your explanation above and my review of both links. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys for doing it wrong on the first place. And thanks to you all to adding the link back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkonix (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please sign your posts and use Edit Summaries. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert pillgraham

I don't know if you noticed my note, but I left a question on AIV asking for clarification on a user you reported, Robert pillgraham (talk · contribs). If you could stop by and clarify, I'd appreciate it, Metros (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replied there. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last November. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a block because there doesn't seem to be a major reason to block him right now. His only warnings so far have been for spam once (by a bot), a prod warning, and three (3) warnings about removing deletion tags which were given inappropriately. Metros (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot (talk · contribs) thought this edit was spam per this revert - was it wrong? Was I wrong in duplicating its action? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot will, basically, revert any addition of a myspace link, so that's why it would be reverted as spam. However, not all uses of MySpace links are spam, so that's kind of the grey area we have to search for. In this case, I don't think the link is necessarily inappropriate, but that's debatable, Metros (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False positive?

Hi! Thanks for all your great work at AIV; however, I just have a tiny question. Was this report a false positive? As I said in that edit, the links you provide are normal, constructive edits. Anything I'm missing? Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see both edits as unexplained removal of content. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copying from AIV for conveniences' sake)

This isn't a removal; he fixed up the lead (at least it looks much better). It may not be cited but not citing something isn't vandalism. This, I don't know about, but I'm sure that we can find out by asking. No need to wear out our {{uw-test4}} keys. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Sikh History

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=249028287

This editor changed much of what is on the Islam & Sikhism page, I should stress that anyone claiming to be a religious 'scholar' historian ought to know the basics on other faiths and not constantly further their political agendas by altering basic facts to suit themselves.

Hajj is the 5th Pillar of Islam but as you can see here, his edits as usual amount to vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, removal of the link "a pillar of their faith" was bad. I have reverted and warned the user. Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I have commited no Vandalism. As you will find the person posting from the above IPtalk has used a number of IP's to vandalise many articles on Sikhism. The IP range is currently under investigation and will be soon banned. The edits in question were done to revert back to the original article on Islam and Sikhism. Please do not take my word for it but view talk and see the confrontational nature of the edits that have been made. I have been asked to keep as eye on Sikh articles to ensure a NPOV. If you do not think I am doing that correctly then please let me know. What I would say is revert the article to the original text and not the edits by talk with the tags.Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, thank you for correcting the mistakes.

There seems to be broad agreement with Master of Puppets.

I do not change my IP, its automatic depending on the provider as you may be aware.

I'm not really a wiki expert, but I hope I have a good knowledge base and can contribute positively.

I will point out there is a heated argument over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Vandalism_by_user_.27Sikh_History.27

Sikh fundamentalism or Sikh Terrorism just as any other religious ideology.

With respect to wiki, its important to notice that both Islam and Sikhism indeed all the major faith pages are blocked, and this seems to be a wise decision. I do think its about time that Wiki administrators looked at religious fundamentalism/Terrorism/Theocratism with respect to wikipedia. One needs to examine the issue(s) of Sikh fundamentalism, in fact it would be interesting to know the views of those critical of me if they supported an open honest article on Sikh Fundamentalism - dont hold your breadth. We have Islamofascism and Hindu Fascism and various others but there seems there is a concerted effort by certain people to disguise the reality sometimes under the banner of other names for example Khalistan etc. But I do feel there is a need to have the article to do exactly what wikipedia was meant for. To make people more aware, educate the public as well as admins and not hide anything or be cowed into silence.

Thank you

Times Online - Extremists hijacked play protest

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, your reverted edit seems to have been undone by SH ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_Sikhism&action=history

Hi Jeff would you please see this edit by the above IP and decide on your own here.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.145.139 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, you maybe also interested into this Sockpuppet investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/90.196.3.244. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle :)

hhhmmmm since when do we Warn Editors when they vandalise the sandbox i though it was meant for test editing ^^.Alexnia (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user libeled "Great yarmouth" AKA Great Yarmouth. Libel is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia, even in the sandboxes. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert de Holand

What's the problem? You told me what I did was un-constructive because I did not put an edit summary. Then I added an edit summary, and lines to the discussion page, and you revert the edit and accuse me of vandalism?? 76.116.5.27 (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've withdrawn my warnings. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Man, you are really on a roll. Every page out there getting vandalized, I see your name in the history (or before my revert goes through; this is more likely >:\| ) Keep up the awesome job! Thingg^⊕^⊗ 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jeff G.

Top Links