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 10:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #222

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

Committed identity: 727de6b488652594443d85385a2cfd607fa15b739c8b755390d6621c3199b4d42f7c3877ca6746a6dc536836fcf0b8c96620135523fe88af6d6c2e44e87aa21b is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

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. Write in English. I'm also able to communicate in Spanish a bit, but with that language I can't give a guarantee that I will really comprehend the meaning of your message.
If you're copying files from any project to Commons, be sure to use the CommonsHelper.
If you're copying pics from Flickr, be sure to use Flinfo, the easy way to upload pics from Flickr.
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/November

Past and near future
Monthly Archives:

Maintenance

Other correspondence

2010–11 Watford F.C. season

Hi there. FYI I've restored the IP's edit to that page. I provided a source, but on a second look the previous ref did actually verify what he or she wrote.

That said, I see a lot of very good reversions in your recent contributions, with extremely few false positives reported. Keep up the excellent work! Regards, --WFC (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peaches

The thing about peaches is not only obvious in the song (and not even referred to as such, which is incomprehensible), but an obvious thing in popular cultura/language as well. If you don't want to leave it there, or simply can't find a source yourself -- one that fits Wikipedia's standards as you know them better than me -- then, alright, leave it a partial information. Whatever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.190.184 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

block?

Please block 142.104.215.130? Mr. R00t ^Talk 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Young

Why is a link to an interview/promo done by Darren Young saying his own nickname considered "inappropriate" or "vandalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.248.206 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdapalooza

Thanks for your suggestion, but if you plan on pointing out lack of citation to me, please examine the that all the other artist line-up information of previous years for the Nerdapalooza page do not link back to anything either. As such, the official website has all this information, as was all information about the previous artist line-ups. Thanks.--Amari42 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit to Carrie Underwood

I noticed you reverted an edit on the Carrie Underwood article that said Mike Fisher was her spouse. Well, that's true. From what I've heard, she got married last weekend. But before I put that back up there I'd like to discuss it with you, so as to avoid an edit war. Thoughts? The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ~~~~

--WFC-- (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaritaville Page

You note in your page that the first Margaritaville was in Orange Beach, Alabama. In Fact it was in Gulf Shores Alabama. On the corner of Hwy 59 and Hwy 180, I know for a fact because I was the DJ there.

Stephan Zakrzewski 954 675-5597 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakdj27 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth W Brown

Thanks for the support, but I don't think you're supposed to leave your signature with a {{prod-2}} tag. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, sorry. She deleted it anyway, so I used a {{subst:prod blp}}, which you might want to consider in similar future situations. — Jeff G. ツ 05:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article should be deleted, there is no point in leaving unencyclopedic material and nonsense in the article. This all could have been avoided if the speedy deletion tag had been left in place. Taroaldo (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and just as I clicked 'submit' on the above comment, the article was happily deleted. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!!!!

KEVIN MANN ARTICLE NOT FA BUG WHAT IT IS PLEASE HELP JEFF WHALE JIM IS CRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.225.187 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Level 4 warnings

Hello. I noticed you gave a level 4 warning to Δ apparently for an edit he made to Zero-turn mower. I raised concern about the appropriateness of this warning at User talk:Δ, but has not been responded to by you. Δ, myself, and Jack Merridew feel the warning was inappropriate. Based on comments there, I checked your level 4 warnings to registered editors and found another inappropriate level 4 warning given [1] to Hamiltha over the addition of a wiki internal link to a non-existent article at Photovoltaic micro-inverter [2]. You conduct a lot of user warnings; about 350 in the last 5 days alone. Please be more cautious in your use of these warnings and apply them correctly. I also recommend you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

Also, at User talk:Δ a concern was raised that your signature violates Wikipedia:Signatures, in particular the "<font size="4">" element in your signature. Wikipedia:SIG#Appearance_and_color advises us not to use such markup as it can disrupt the way the surrounding text displays. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your overly large signature, again

Ya, I know about:

User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2010/May#Signature,

You blew it off. See WP:SIG#Appearance and color and change the <font size="4"> to a "2" or otherwise make your sig complaint. You've been asked before; time to listen. Jack Merridew 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you picking on me? My signature is not the tallest. — Jeff G. ツ 22:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 'picking on you'. Your sig has been discussed before, and you've blown it off. Just adopt a reasonable sig, ok? I've been tighening sig policy for a long time; getting rid of images, for example. And, ya, I see a HUGE one in the next section. That should be addressed, too, of course. You've been here a while and should know better. Jack Merridew 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I just looked at his recent talk posts and it seems a one-off, or a first instance... tbd. Jack Merridew 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask you about this, and it appears I am not the first. Please, please listen to what people have asked you. Your signature is violating WP:SIG, and it severely interrupts the line flow. Your ignorance of this issue is bordering on disruptive. (X! · talk) · @177 · 03:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the line flow. Is this better? — $Jeff G. ツ$ 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better. Thanks for following up on this, it's a huge improvement. Some may say that it's still too big, but for me, it's much better now. (X! · talk) · @243 · 04:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a WP:SIG-vio. It's not better, it's nearly as big (15.8833px vs 18px), and now BOLD. The class="texhtml" is invoking

.texhtml {
font-size:125%;
line-height:1.5em;
}

which is *still* at odds with: Avoid markup such as <big> and <font size="3">^{(or more)} tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags)—I added the underscore to indicate the bit you continue to evade. You *want* your sig BIG, to stand out from others. This is inappropriate. fyi, the text-shadow="004400 4em 4em 4em is invalid and being ignored. Jack Merridew 05:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Thanks for the userpage revert! G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 18:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! — Jeff G. ツ 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same Here! I forgot to check those files. quaz gaa 19:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sourced

It has been discussed more than once and users have supported keeping it out of the info box, I cited WP:BRD asnd I find your continuation of the reverting very disappointing indeed, having some citation is not a guarantee to insert affiliations to living people, imo if you support the addition you should have opened a talkpage discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that it is cited, where is it cited, he has said he doesn't believe in God and then he has said since then that he is more of an Agnostic, this has been an ongoing issue and we have previously discussed and the consensus was to keep it out of the infobox, I would like you to self revert your addition and move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the inconvenience - I was a bit late reverting my edit. I have warned Georgereev118118 with {{uw-3rr2}} and asked him 'Why is it so important to you that the infobox on Nick Clegg show "Atheist"?'. Re sources, I saw these in the article for the statement "In an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live on the morning after his election to the leadership, Clegg stated that he does not believe in God, but that he has great respect for people of faith":

"Clegg 'does not believe in God'". BBC News. 19 December 2007. Retrieved 19 November 2007.
Hurst, Greg (19 December 2007). "Nick Clegg says: 'I don't believe in God'". The Times. London. Retrieved 20 November 2007. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' new leader, has defied political convention with a blunt admission that he is an atheist.

— Jeff G. ツ 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the press ,,you gotta love them, blunt admission..there is the other cite that the agnostics all cite where he says, actually I am more of an agnostic, the discusson came to the conclusion that it is actuallu not very important to him and that we would leave a few comments in the article but not affiliate him to any specific group either in the infobox or in cats. The atheist cat actually stated that a clear declaration and understanding the subjects position are required to labal the person as this or that, all Clegg has ever said is no I don't believe in God and when poshed about it he said in another interview, actually I am more of an agnostic than an athiest, all very fluffy indeed and thats why it is better to simply keep it out of the infobok and personally I have removed atheist and agnostic from there, of course it is always open to a new discussion on the talkpage. Thanks for reverting . Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clegg actually I am more of an Agnostic its a google search but his openess and his apparent undecided and uninterested comments are too strong to easily label him Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Wwextx

Hello. Issuing a level 4 warning for removing a speedy deletion template to a new user who has only made two edits seems to constitute biting a newcomer. New users commonly remove speedy templates because they are not yet familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. A little bit of good faith on your part would seem to be required in cases like this. Taroaldo (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle chose the level. — Jeff G. ツ 22:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users are ultimately responsible for the scripts they use. Taroaldo (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Between Pages

Jeff,

There appears to be a conflict of information contained in these two pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast%27s_Eagle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

In the "Size and habits" section of the Haast's Eagle's page, the last sentance of the second paragraph states, "it represents a departure from the mode of its ancestors' soaring flight, toward higher wing loading and increased maneuverability". This is in direct contrast to the last two sentances of the opening paragraph of the Wing Load page which state, "The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability. The same constraints apply to birds and bats."

I have not been able to determine which page to edit, as neither fact has been cited. Nevertheless I have a feeling that the Haast's Eagle's page is in the wrong.

Best Regards,

Adterzo (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have changed it in this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

What's Template:Sec link auto about? gz³³ (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Huggle got into a race condition. :( — Jeff G. ツ 02:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it would be something like that. No harm done, but I'll be watching you... (but not really) gz³³ (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson: Music edits

In editing the song Thriller, I have both the 2001 special edition Thriller booklet and the 1995 HIStory booklet (which contains production information on all the songs from the album), and in both cases, it shows that Michael Jackson did NOT produce the song "Thriller". He only sang the song. Quincy Jones was the sole producer for that song. Even the 2003 Number Ones booklet and the 2005 The Essential Michael Jackson booklet both credit Quincy Jones as the sole producer of the song "Thriller". I will be sure to include this explanation in the "Edit summary" section from now on. In every "Personnel" section there is on Michael's songs, if the album booklet says that Michael CO-PRODUCED it (NOT produced it), I try to include the differentiation in the personnel editing.

I also have the 2001 special edition booklets for the albums Off the Wall, Bad and Dangerous. They show specifically who wrote, composed, and produced what song (in a specific order) AND who co-produced a song. In many other Michael Jackson articles, the order of songwriters (and producers) of a song is out of order from what they are in the album booklets. I always wanted to list the names of the songwriters, composers, and producers in the same order as they appear in the album booklets. This is what I was trying to change by editing Thriller, as well as many other Michael Jackson articles. I meant absolutely no vandalism whatsoever, and I apologize for not explaining my changes in the Edit summary. But I have noticed that with music albums (in the infoboxes), there is a section for the "Producer", but there is no section for the "Co-Producer". I really do wish there was a separate category for Co-producer in ALL music albums and singles for Wikipedia, just so that the differentiation could be clearly displayed for everyone (and if there IS no co-producer, that column can simply not show up, like with other categories). I just think the producer and co-producer, even though they are both helping to produce the song, have a slight, but still significant, difference in roles. This is why I wish to have that extra category in music infoboxes, but unfortunately, I am not skilled enough in Wikipedia and so I don't know how to properly propose one. This is why I always try to include "Co-produced by Michael Jackson" in the producer section of many of Michael's albums and singles, instead of labeling him as the producer, before Quincy Jones' name, just so people understand the differentiation (Example: the 2001 "Bad" booklet) clearly lists all the songs on the album as "Produced by Quincy Jones for Quincy Jones Productions" AND "Co-Produced by Michael Jackson for MJJ Productions." (This co-production credit is also given on the songs on "Off The Wall" and "Thriller" that Michael wrote. This mistake keeps appearing, though, on many of the pages for Michael's songs. (According to the album booklets for "Off The Wall", Michael Jackson did NOT produce "Rock With You", "She's Out of My Life", "Off the Wall", or "Girlfriend", yet he is frequently listed as producer, before Quincy Jones, even though the album booklet says that these songs were solely produced by Quincy). Again, I mean absolutely no vandalism, and from now on, I will be sure to include and "Edit summary" for every edit I make. Thank you for letting me know.

Another request I have: for some of Michael's Double-A singles (such as Scream/Childhood and HIStory/Ghosts) appear to have cluttered infoboxes, due to having to include information about both songs in one infobox. There have been many requests (which I support) to give each song (even songs from double-A singles) their own page, to make things slightly more organized. If this cannot be done, my other suggestion is that Double-A singles be on one page, but each individual song is given its own infobox, so that there are two organized, neat looking infoboxes instead of one cluttered one. Again, I am not skilled enough in Wikipedia, so I don't know how to create this myself, or how to properly propose this idea to the Wikipedia editors. Please let me know if these changes are reasonable and possible. Thank you. Luminoth187 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Luminoth187[reply]

You're welcome. Have you considered using the A-side and B-side parameters for Template:Infobox single? — Jeff G. ツ 03:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits

everyone else erases stuff on the kinmundy page. I put that illinois hall of fame basketball coach gary shirley is from there and it was erased. who even knew that lady existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.239.66 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you are King of the Internet? What I have put is fact. Go ahead and look it up. Ok are you back. Good. Maybe if someone checked the accuracy of pages like you watch for "comedy" then I wouldn't have changed that page. You want to ban me...Ban me if that makes you feel better. You still are going to be a loser when you wake up in the morning, banning me won't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.239.66 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that incorrect info on pages should be allowed to be made fun of as I did on the KTVI website. If it's already wrong then what is the harm of adding commentary to incorrect info? I think that the moderation of these entries should also be as strict about the accuracy on the pages themselves rather than the commentary added to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.239.66 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No "making fun of" is allowed in mainspace. If you remove something, please write why in the Edit Summary. If you add something, please add a source inline, in the references, or in the Edit Summary. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thexfactor.com

Jeff, Thanks for looking over my fansite article. Is there anything you can do to help me save the page? Any edits that could save me? Please?? The_X_Factor_Fansite --Robtencer (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nothing I can do would help you save that page. Please see my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X Factor Fansite. However, you may continue to work on your userfied copy of it at User:Robtencer/The X Factor Fansite. — Jeff G. ツ 03:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Plan (film)

Your assertion that my edits to "A Simple Plan" are "disruptive" is baseless and without merit. Please be somewhat more considerate of others before throwing out aggressive warnings. If you vehemently disagree with my edits then feel free to discuss them. I'm all ears. 173.28.165.76 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of 2154 bytes of synthesis to that page without a visible reliable source is without visible base. You (or someone else using the IP Address you are using) have been warned for addition of unsourced info to articles four previous times in this month alone. — Jeff G. ツ 04:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me Jeff?

Jeff I am new to the wikipedia editing and have been attacked constantly, instead of helped. While I understand I have been given 7 days to edit the article properly, the admins are piling up against me for removal.I have seen my articles removed within an hour with speedy deletions, and let me tell you, it scared me. What recourse do I have, what can I do to satisfy the pack of angry wolves? I mean you no harm, and I only care to contribute in a positive way to wikipedia. Who can help me besides yourself? I saw the wikiproject X factor members, and was trying to appeal to them for assistance, I was pleading for help. and you may not have seen it like that. Just so you know.

Please Help Me Jeff, --Robtencer (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all I can for you. Good luck! — Jeff G. ツ 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeffrey

Just checking to say "hi". Thanks setting on the right track in Wikipedia. I couldn't have turned into the man I am today without your sagacious wisdom and untiring guidance. So, thanks! By the way, I was wondering if you would like to collaborate on a project with me, on Wikipedia! Just get back to me whenever you tin can. In fact, drop me a line on my talk page :) Well, time for me to sleep now (my roommate is already brushing his teeth). Sorry if this message is a little long.

Love, Hugo

PS. Hope you don't mind some color... (1 picture = 1,000 words)

Statement: My name in a state
I rode and ate one (actually, they were two different living beings)
Animus revived

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.225.187 (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi. — Jeff G. ツ 07:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Wow. I improve a wikipedia article and the vandals come immediately to undo what I did. Wikipedia is worse than I thought! You can't improve it's quality without being reverted? Please stop warning me like I am a vandal! 188.80.59.174 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "rconfidence"[3]? I didn't even edit Confirmation bias today (if ever). — Jeff G. ツ 01:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer when you're unblocked. — Jeff G. ツ 01:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focolare Movement

Sorry i didnt communicate the website before... i'm going to erase a few lines and write some others with the intention of help on the understanding of what is the Focolare movment...

thank you have a good day Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how did spamming Teens4unity and removing the sourced criticism section "help on the understanding of what is the Focolare movment"[sic]? — Jeff G. ツ 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what is the Focolare Movement or do you participate of it? So how can you tell me what's the best way of understanding it?

If someone criticates your father the wrong way to the whole world, would you be quiet or would you want a way to explain better?

Is wikipedia a encyclopedia of everyone? Or only "selected" people can put information on it???

Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that movement your father? What is your relationship with that movement? — Jeff G. ツ 01:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, my father is at home, why didn't you responded my questions? I want a way to fix that article

Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how did removing the sourced criticism section "help on the understanding of what is the Focolare movment"[sic]? — Jeff G. ツ 02:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it helps, if it didnt help why would I remove that?

Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with that sourced criticism section? It appears necessary in order to provide a balanced article per WP:NPOV. Also, what do you mean by "non-corresponding information"? — Jeff G. ツ 03:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you let me change the article or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will if you follow our policies and guidelines detailed at Wikipedia:Welcome. I am not charged with blocking those people and articles which do not follow them - Wikipedia:Administrators are charged with that. — Jeff G. ツ 02:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand... I read them and i saw that I'm doing everything correctly, so... I made some changes

Thank you for understanding. Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ 02:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, thank you!! Have a good night, and job!

Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're welcome. However, please pay more attention to where you place comments (hit the edit link above the text, not below it). — Jeff G. ツ 03:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will... i'm sorry about that... bye! Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNJUST!

The speedy deletion [of Vancouver Southsiders] is unjust! It is being put on WHILE THE PAGE IS BEING CREATED! You cant decide on the significance of the page while the page isnt written yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistoriographer (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DELETE, WP:FIRST, and WP:WIZARD. — Jeff G. ツ 02:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of that applies! There is at least as much justification for this as for every other MLS supporters group. Youre spending time undoing my work. Just stop it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistoriographer (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting the Speedy Deletion tag and you will reduce the likelihood of getting more warnings and potentially getting blocked. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 02:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahead

I'm taking a little break from simple to help comb through RC. Please don't be ahead of me. Hazard-SJ^Talk 04:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. — Jeff G. ツ 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blanking a talk page (UW SoM):

I didn't delete any portion of the article. I deleted the sole comment on the talk page which was (and since your reversion, is) a poorly worded request for information on how to obtain admission to the school. I was of the opinion that a comment such as that (appropriate for a medical students forum at best) would be more confusing to readers than a blank page (which, on a talk page, would imply that there is no discussion re: the article, correct?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.130.224 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that article University of Washington School of Medicine could use a link to the following reference? — Jeff G. ツ 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"MD Program Admissions | UW Medicine, Seattle". University of Washington. Retrieved 2010-07-23.

I have included one. — Jeff G. ツ 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions concerning Boyd Crowder

Hello. I created a page entitled Boyd Crowder. You have nominated this page for deletion. Your reasons for doing so are as follows: "Unreferenced and possibly unnotable per WP:IINFO. Contested PROD." I am slightly confused by this. I have left the page unreferenced for the simple fact that I do not know how to reference. If someone could explain to me how to do so, or cite it themselves, I would be quite glad. The part that I am the most confused about is when you stated that my information is unnotable. Am I correct in thinking that this means my information is irrelevant? For I assure you, All my information is completly relevant. Please answer my questions about this matter. Thanks. Skydog892 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Skydog892[reply]

Hello, and thank for writing. I think our pages on indiscriminate collections of information, reliable sources, verifiability, notability, citation, and writing one's first article should help you. — Jeff G. ツ 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate

Listen I found u wiped out the entry I made to Alexei Severinsky. Why u do that? I posted a pic to make the article more interesting. I also managed to include the license / copyright.

Francisco81a Francisco81a (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

190.43.104.47 removed {{dated prod blp}} from Alexei Severinsky in this edit without explanation. — Jeff G. ツ 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I have discovered that you have been erasing my edits and wondered why you would do that? I was trying to edit the page because i have just watched an interview where Lucy Hale and Ashley Benson said that they had been friends for 5 years and they lived in the same apartment. Queenivy101 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I and others explained about our need for verifiable information from reliable sources in our many posts to your account's user talk page and your IP Address's user talk page. — Jeff G. ツ 01:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhacel Parrenas and rollback

I have revoked your rollback until this situation is dealt with. It should have been fairly clear that the editor, who is likely the subject of the article, was acting in good faith. Definitely not a case for rollback + warn. NW (Talk) 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, what do you make of this case? NW has removed my rollback over this as well. Jusdafax 03:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that, Jusdafax. I have been trying to communicate constructively with this user for half an hour already, and they edited four minutes after I posted on their user talk page. You, MC10, and I were all following the lead of Administrator Gogo Dodo (the first to block the original user) in this matter. I respect all of you for your past accomplishments in protecting the project from vandalism. NW appears not to have revoked any privileges for MC10 and Gogo Dodo. How can this situation be dealt with if the user is uncommunicative? — $Jeff G. ツ$ 03:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting off a bit of steam in the bots channel, you active? I see your name but it is greyed out. Jusdafax 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back restored, I've contacted NW. Keegan (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref

thanks for reminding me to add a reference. I put the content back in and added a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.73.54 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 06:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moneymafia

I Tested My Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneymafia (talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so happy for you. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 02:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your instincts were right, I'm thinking, just the report misfiled. Refiling under the probably parent, User:Dingbat2007 -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dingbat2007, for those following along at home. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 05:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Czelko

Jeff, please have another look at the warning you left on that page, and what prompted you to give the warning on the first place (recent edits on Karl May by User:Buggy Marlies. The editor rightfully removed self-promotional text placed there with an obvious conflict of interest and no value to the article, and I would like to ask you to remove the vandal template from Czelko's page (a real welcome would be nice, but I'll put that there). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm sorry, and I have removed my warning from there. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's actually a pretty bad case, and I've left that user a final warning. Thanks again Jeff, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

I am aware of Wikipedia's spoiler policy. Had I gone to an article on the film in question, an article related to the film in question, or about someone involved in the film in question and seen a spoiler, fair enough.

In this case, the spoiler for the film was in an article about a video game that has absolutely nothing to do with the film in any way, shape, or form. The only reason it's there is because one editor (and the reviewer his source links to) believes that the game's plot and the movie's plot have some resonance or inspired each other, despite that being technically impossible.

If I wander into the article on the Sixth Sense and find out Bruce Willis is a ghost, I have no reason to be pissed off. If I'm reading an article about door knobs and the article mentions how a door knob was used to foreshadow the fact that Bruce Willis is a ghost in the Sixth Sense... that's just a WP:DICK move. Some common sense, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.246.24 (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many movies could be described with "the ending begs the viewer to come up with their own conclusion of what they have seen." Please feel free to discuss the issue at Talk:Limbo (video game). — $Jeff G. ツ$ 05:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I agree, many movies could. However, until reading an article about a video game I played this weekend, I didn't know that this description applied to a movie I plan on seeing next weekend. Since I plan on seeing said movie I didn't go near its article on Wikipedia, or any article about its stars, in order to avoid spoilers. Then I get one in an article about a puzzle platform game that has absolutely no relationship to the film. Basically, not fair.

At any rate, I posted to the article talk page, additionally mentioning that the editor obsessed with this reference is bordering on WP:3RV, and would have violated it had he rather than you (vandal-patrolling, I've no doubt, and just attracted to the article by the mention of a spoiler in the edit history) done the revert. harrysaxon (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouko block

I blocked shouko for one day, but I"m inexperienced in dealing with disruptive content editors, so please bring it to ANI where people more well versed in this can figure it out. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I posted a draft for ANI at User_talk:Active_Banana#Draft_for_ANI. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 06:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shouko0624 has been given a 24 hour block. The blocking admin made a comment on my talk page [4] suggesting this might be an issue for ANI. I am probably just going to wait to see if the block was effective in getting the user to pay attention to the rules, but if you decide to bring it to ANI, drop a message on my page and I may pipe in with what I saw. Active Banana (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I posted a draft for ANI at User_talk:Active_Banana#Draft_for_ANI. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 06:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:CyberEditor

Hi, I recently started editing some articles but I don't have much understanding of the Wikipedia rules. For most of the changes I made, I cited sources to back up my contributions. In one or two cases, I deleted false information. For instance, there was this entry: "A phone survey in which Alexander Ortega and colleagues at the University of California asked illegal immigrants how often they receive medical care reported that illegal immigrants are no more likely to visit the emergency room than native born Americans[30]" The writer then added that "illegal immigrants" did not pay their bills, which was not in the original survey and was false.

So let me know how I can make my edits to be permanent, since I'm basically a newbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberEditor (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove content, please use the Edit Summary to indicate why. When you add content, please cite a verifiable reliable source in the same edit, preferably using one of the templates at WP:CITATION. Also, until you get the title of Illegal immigration to the United States to not include "Illegal" and instead include "Undocumented" (perhaps via consensus on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States), please do not change to "Undocumented" or "undocumented" within the article. Thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page for search Independent Medical Examination

Dear Editor, I am an avid Wikipedia user and normally feel real good about the information that you present; however, I wanted to bring to your attention a page that I visited that was sub par and I think you should consider deleting. Your page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_medical_examination for the search term independent medical examination is in my opinion not factually correct in numerous areas—I’ll just point out a few. Your organization seems to be giving legal advice in posting this page, which might not be so bad except that the information is false and therefore you are giving false legal advice. For instance, the statement “ Workers' compensation insurance carriers, auto insurance carriers, and self-insured employers have a legal right to this request,” is not always true and someone who has been asked to submit to one should not be told that they (or their legal representative) have no right in many cases to refuse an independent medical examination. Furthermore, the so called ‘Statutory definition’ listed on the webpage is misleading as it is presented as it applies to only one state and in our state of California the information is much different. Therefore, you are giving the Wikepedia reader false information in touting this as a Statutory definition. The reader, if they follow the link, may not appreciate that this is applicable to only one State in the Union and then carry away a false impression. Furthermore, the Independent Medical Examination article has outdated information in it due to subsequent litigation surrounding the particular situation. —I just wanted to point out that this is the only page (even the ones with likewise brief text) that I ever visited in Wikepedia that wasn’t appropriately informative—it’s probably because it’s a mostly legal term—in any case, I just wanted to take the time to point it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetobemike (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but blanking is not the answer. You'll probably get a wider audience at Talk:Independent medical examination. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein

The person adding that information has taken text from http://www.scribd.com/doc/32589268/Encyclopedia-of-Vampires-Werewolves-And-Other-Monsters and cut and paste it into multiple articles. It is a downloadable book on scribd. Just scroll down and check the listings. It is alphabetical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.229.37 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where? — $Jeff G. ツ$ 22:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You found it? Yeah. It is page 1 on the text itself, but 18 or 19 on the scribd scroll bar. I wasn't sure what number to give you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.229.37 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan

I have recently made 3 edits to Bob Dylan's wiki page which were considered bias. I would like to appeal against this as what I have said is what I do believe to be fact. is there no middle ground that isn't thought to be bias? for example what about at the end of the first paragraph, "Bob Dylan is thought by many to be the greatest singer/songwriter of all time".

If you have any problems contacting me please feel free to contact me at conor@ackhurst.com

Yours Conor Ackhurst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.11.247 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whom are those many? Please point out a verifiable reliable source. Thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-robotics

I added my source, which consisted of the book Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifasj123 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a verifiable reliable source, preferably using one of the citation templates. Thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A ref might look like this:

Kaku, Michio (2008). Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the world of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. Anchor Books. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) ISBN 978-1616880736. ASIN B002G8BQN4.

— $Jeff G. ツ$ 01:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:July 2010

First off, WP:DTTR. Generic message's are REALLY condescending. Second, did you actually read his edit? It's purpose was entirely disruption. Soxwon (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It was a talk page that had been vandalize... 99.114.94.169 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it should have been tagged {{db-g10}}, not just blanked. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits have been deleted

I attempted to put some balance in the following articles by inserting comments with reliable sources, but all my comments have been deleted. Help me out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

CyberEditor (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked:

From what I see on your user talk page, you have added copyrighted material and removed content without explanation.

====

What is the copyrighted material I added? I only posted links to publicly available information. Yes, while I was editing I removed some info without explanation, but that was because I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia rules, since I'm a newbie. However, I went back and posted an explanation for my edits.

From your contributions, you have also done some edit warring, you have tried to use Wikipedia as a reference multiple times, and you dumped 17KB of pro-immigrant text in this edit.

====

I don't know what edit warring is, but I simply edited information to reflect the facts. I only referenced Wikipedia once, and from my understanding, it was OK to reference Wikipedia as a source, as when I googled information, the Wikipedia text came up.

And why do you claim what I wrote was "pro-immigrant"? I simply did the edits based on credible sources, which I cited.

 From your request for Reviewer and your inability above to use wikilinks per Help:Link, you have too few edits.  Also, Schrandit sensed a POV in your edits.  You seem to have POVs which are for Mexicans (both immigrants in the US and living in Mexico, including former corn farmers) and against CIS, NAFTA, and heavily subsidized US farmers (especially corn farmers).  Having POVs is not a problem, but editing to promote your POVs is a problem - please see WP:COI.    —  $Jeff G. ツ$  04:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==

Oh please... My edits were based on research made by reputable sources. From the original articles, I sense a sense of bias against immigrants. That's what should be addressed. For instance, in "Economic Impact of Illegal Immigrants in the United States", there's a section that said:

Research by George Borjas (Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University) found that the influx of immigrants (both legal and illegal) from Mexico and Central American from 1980 to 2000 accounted for a 3.7% wage loss for American workers (4.5% for black Americans and 5% for Hispanic Americans). Borjas found that wage depression was greatest for workers without a high school diploma (a 7.4% reduction) because these workers face the most direct competition with immigrants, legal and illegal.[20]."

I then added this

In contrast, a study by Economist Giovanni Peri concluded that immigrant workers raised the wages of native born workers by 4%. [21]

How is this a POV edit? My other edits have been similar, contrasting the anti-immigrant bias on this article.

CyberEditor (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 86.30.217.115

I notice that you have been paying a bit of attention to 86.30.217.115 (talk), a person who does seem to need some ... firm guidance. Judging by his/her efforts, 86.30.217.115 is sort of trying to be a good contributor, but does not:

Read their talk page
Read comments left by other users on their changes
Understand why references are important
Comprehend the idea of notability
Understand that sometimes less is more

Judging by the contributions, I imagine the user is a twelve-year old somewhere in the British Isles, who uses a school computer and a pile of back issues of Top Gear and What Car to insert references to the British market and Vauxhall wherever at all possible. However, it is possible that he/she could become a useful contributor with some guidance (I'm a sap, always hopeful). In any case, I think that as we build a case for a temporary block (to get users' attention, in the hope of improved behaviour) it is necessary that we only go after the user for actual misdeeds. I think that 86.30.217.115's contribution to the Opel Calibra page (adding the Vauxhall Cavalier as a relative) wasn't necessarily a transgression, and would rather see the progress take a few days longer and try not to make user feel targeted. Best, ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joran van der Sloot article, responding to message just received from you regarding source reference links (82), (83), (84)

Hi, I am trying to respond to the message I just got from you regarding the Joran van der Sloot wikipedia article. Hope this is the way to send this message back to you, I don't seem to find a normal message box back. Anyway, you said the references I'd just linked to support my addition were removed because wikipedia articles "aren't meant to be a collection of links, nor are links to advertising permitted." But we have to cite sources for any edits or additions we make. I was making an addition of two sentences. The sources I linked (I hope they're right now if something was wrong with them before) are necessary to substantiate. They aren't advertising links. The point of the addition is the unusual circumstances surrounding when DNA evidence was collected from the victim's body (the victim in Peru, Stephany Flores). In initial reports the father of the victim said (before the suspect was returned to Peru) that there was DNA evidence on the victim's body that would convict Joran Van Der Sloot, including evidence from under the victim's fingernails. Meanwhile the funeral was held for the victim. Then it was subsequently reported that her body would be exhumed to collect the DNA evidence, that in fact this was why she had not been cremated, so she could be exhumed later to collect this. After the suspect was in custody in Peru we heard reports that the victim's body had now supposedly been exhumed and the DNA evidence from under her fingernails was now on its way to the lab. The fact that the collection of the DNA evidence was postponed in this manner is unusual and potentially important in various ways. The sources were (82) an audio interview with family of the victim on the specific subject/date on the Nancy Grace television program discussing how there was DNA evidence from Joran van der Sloot on the victim's body (83) an associated press article stating that her body would be exhumed to collect the DNA evidence (84) a newspaper article where the father explained why she had not been cremated, with the plan that her body would be exhumed later to obtain the DNA evidence. Thanks for alerting me, it is my first time to add references and I couldn't understand why the meaning of my two sentences kept getting changed and the source references disappearing! Thanks again p.s. Also, it seems like the opening paragraph of the article may contain some biased phrasing IIRC, lack of word "alleged". Thanks again and best wishes Urthcreature (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC) p.s. I have to say I was disappointed to read the message that appears above mine, in which one wikipedia user is basically trying to get another user shut out from posting, and insulting and belittling that person in the description. What a shame that is to see that here. Wikipedia is supposed to be for just about everyone I thought. That's the idea anyway. The front page use as far as adding an edit to an article, adding your references, etc, is pretty user-friendly. But then when you see your simple little straightforward edit has been dropped, your reference for it dropped, and you try to respond and see this orange block with additional stipulations and rules and so on, then wind up on this page and see where people have actually posted trying to get others shut out from posting.....it's rather discouraging/disappointing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthcreature (talk • contribs) 07:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Links

Welcome to my user talk page!

Maintenance

Other correspondence

Peaches

block?

Darren Young

Nerdapalooza

Regarding your recent edit to Carrie Underwood

Margaritaville Page

Level 4 warnings

Your overly large signature, again

Userpage

sourced

Re: User talk:Wwextx

Conflict Between Pages

Your revert

Michael Jackson: Music edits

edits

thexfactor.com

Can you help me Jeff?

Hey Jeffrey

Seriously

UNJUST!

Ahead

blanking a talk page (UW SoM):

Questions concerning Boyd Crowder

Hi mate

Edits

Rhacel Parrenas and rollback

Ref

Spoilers

Shouko block

Page for search Independent Medical Examination

Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Bob Dylan

Nano-robotics

Re:July 2010

Reply

All my edits have been deleted

====

====

==

User 86.30.217.115

Joran van der Sloot article, responding to message just received from you regarding source reference links (82), (83), (84)