User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2010/July

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



Unsurprisingly, your prod was removed from palaeoarchaeology. I have now sent it to AfD. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[::User talk:RHaworth|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 04:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have expressed my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeoarchaeology.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

help me out

i can't fix this, the album title for cassidy's album is C.A.S.H. (Cass Always Stays Hard) not C.A.S.H. (Cass a Straight Hustla) it won't let me move Cass a Straight Hustla so i don't know what to do. please don't block me, help me out. --Raise111 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles are in the right places now, but there is the copyright problem.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Palaeoarchaeology


I have cocked up

I checked the votes page as we have had problems with it counting stuck out deletes that were changed to keep and it showed you as a delete vote and a keep vote lol.

I tried to correct it but before mr Haworth clobbers me with his wizened stump can you help me get the count right ? I think you may have to remove the whole word "Delete" or it may be in a cache :¬)

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What votes page?   — Jeff G. ツ 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry was afk for a bit after my marathon GOCE edits - the link is [1]
It is on the second line of the AfD page you click on AfD statistics :-
Palaeoarchaeology ( edit talk history links watch logs) – (View log • AfD statistics)
User:Chaosdruid (a bit later than 21:00 and earlier than 22:35) 01 July 2010 (sorry batteries went on my keyboard)
Thanks, I tried to replace it with REDACTED REMOVAL. Does that tool not allow for changing one's mind?   — Jeff G. ツ 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I did post on someone elses page and call it the dumbcountingbot (if you say it
I'm starting to think it may be something else thats not working - maybe the support at the bottom half... Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup - i did a test [2] and added support and I am on both now lol - it must be counting the bottom half and the word support as well Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

House, MD

Hi Jeff,

I am a wiki-novice (as far as editing), but noticed inaccurate information in the House, MD [page,_md].

I was not trying to get into an edit war, but rather was simply trying to correct the info. The problem stems with the attribution of the creator credit. David Shore created House. He is the sole creator. While it may be based upon, or inspired by an idea of Paul Attanasio, that is not the same as "created by," as defined in the entertainment industry. This is indicated by the credits on the show, where Shore is afforded "Created By" credit (i.e. NOT co-created by). Furthermore, information in the bar to the right of the House page supports this information, as only DAvid Shore is listed as the creator.

In the entertainment industry, often producers do generate ideas. For their efforts, they are afforded some sort of "producer" credit. However, the creation of the characters, scenes, story, and the writer of the script is what determines the actual "created by" credit. That is what David Shore did.

I believe because of this interview with David Shore (, people interpret that to mean that Paul Attanasio co-created the show. That is not the case. Just because he came up with the general idea, does not give you "created by" credit. Further in that interview, Shore says that all he did was come up with the general idea, but that Shore developed the characters and wrote the script.

So it is factually incorrect to say Attanasio co-created the show, which is why I tried to tweak the language to reflect that he had the general idea, which was inspired by the NY Times column. The created by credit is a matter of public record, and even the unrevised entry says that Fox accords David Shore "created by" credit. So, to me, what is actually unsubstantiated is that Paul Attanasio co-created the show. There is no attribution for that anywhere. And just because something has been long-accepted on this page, doesn't make it so.

If you can help me, by letting me know what I can do to make this entry factually correct and have people accept that, please let me know. I'm not too familiar with wikipedia's functions and had initially tried to contact DCGeist via email to explain. I definitely didn't intend to get into an editing war, but i still can't even find that "talk" page that DCGeist refers to (I'm sure it's just my ignorance, but I can't find it).

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundart99 (talkcontribs) 02:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to make your point on Talk:House (TV series). Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 02:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ツ (is what I originally meant to accomplish). Thanks. User:Obsessivelanguagelearner —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC).

Wii Play

Lotta IP-shifting vandalism on this article, and it seems ongoing. Have you or anyone else gone to a checkuser to bust the source? Thanks, Jusdafax 04:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time, it's probably 4chan or another coordinated group - massive vandalism on videogame-related articles since midnight EST.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll ask on the IRC until-it-sleeps channel. Thanks again. Jusdafax 05:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My response

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

-- (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry!   — Jeff G. ツ 05:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


You keep reverting to a wrong non informative and manipulated article, you cannot ban free speech, sorry mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the information you are removing from Cars in Mexico? Can you please discuss that on Talk:Cars in Mexico? Please see WP:OWN as well. Are you Fluence? If so, why are you not logging in? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 06:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Jeff! I'm just wondering why you're undoing everything I do on the article "doboj"... I just want to update some photos (they are entirely my own work) and clean up the page!

Regards LjubisaJankovic

Hi Ljubisa! I'm just wondering why you're deleting things other people have done on that article. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 08:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Madden NFL 08

That was bizarre. What caused the sudden breakout in vandalism by dozens of IP's, I wonder? And how did you revert all of them? 2D ℳaestro Nag/Brag 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The same thing happened last night starting at midnight EDT. I reverted to the version before that.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for cleaning up my talk page. Dkreisst (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


There are millions of imposters posting on 4chan's /v/ imageboard pretending to be you. Are any of them you? (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't post there.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Templating Delian Diver

Hi. I think you and I are in some agreement regarding what the content of Plato should be, but I don't think that DelianDiver's edit constituted vandalism such that he needed a warning on his talk page. He's only been here since April and probably doesn't need to be bitten. RJC TalkContribs 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit removed content without explanation. This edit appeared to be unsourced, possibly WP:OR. The user appeared not to even have learned to sign its posts to user talk pages as recently as four days ago. Sorry if my level 1 warning seemed bitey.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor

You or him need to open a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations somewhere and state your case, so that action can be taken. If you already posted such a request, please let me know where it is. The situation will be resolved once that is taken. If you feel it is blatant, report it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI WhisperToMe (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI, actually. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. That was in addition to my earlier unactioned report at AIV. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
... and blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Userpage Protection Barnstar.PNG The Userpage Shield
Just dropping by to thank you for keeping my userpage safe from the IP attack. Much appreciated! :) Orphan Wiki 01:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Roj TV edits

What do you think about the constant rewrites to remove negative material from Roj TV? Should we get it protected it or just keep after the individual editors that are popping up?--GnoworTC 01:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:DileShilan has been blocked, perhaps that will take care of the problem.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me make my post sound neutral to you

I would just like the public to be made aware of important votes in congress I didn't express my own view I just pointed out what these congress persons did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarpeVeritas1 (talkcontribs) 06:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your view? Why was that vote so important? Why was that bill so important? What is your relationship (if any) to the subject of the bill, or to any congresspersons interested in the bill? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 06:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, I have spoken to a number of people and they were surprised at your call to delete the material since they are the facts from Mr. Jaques Bar who planned that battle as well as many others.

For you to delete this without checking with the USHMM of the Israeli Govt makes me see that information that is here lacks anything except information that news agencies print with many being wrong since as per my quote from Don Hewitt who refused to do anything mainly due to his close friendships with people like Dayan.

I will leave things for now and will re-edit the same information which is true - as well have written to CNN who know the reality with people like Larry King, Pat Buchanan, Mickael Kingsly, Anderson Cooper, Sandy Crawley and many more which for you should be simole to affirm since this material as stated before was not common knowledge primarily since MR. Bar didn't agree til 1988 to do something with it being close to death and the falling nof the Soviet Union.

Would appreciate your rational since I do undrstand your need for comfirmation but this story is not some made-up stuff and comes from Top Secret material from that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, just read your points on coy rights ... my rights with the USHMM are for any economic activity ... I am willing to share the material with respect to the Battle of Haifa since it brings forth a very different light on Israel's creation in 1948.

How and what do you require to put that material on which would still retain the copy right shared with Wikipedia only.

Yoram Bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, If I place some information which could be considered as Public Domain - my understanding is that only that information would be - if so I could limit what with only main things which whatever is not placed still being mine/USHMM.

Is that correct? Secondly, I am not a writer and am not seeking to win a prize, only the facts and that's all.

Yoram Bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Wikipedia only" would not work (the folks at WP:OTRS would tell you the same thing), but you could place a summary of your copyrighted work on Wikipedia with one of the acceptable licenses above, and a pointer to the full text at USHMM or elsewhere and how to purchase that. I would imagine that some Israeli, Jewish-American, and Jewish-Canadian publishers might be interested in the full text and corroboration with the original materials.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Youngest doctor article

I see it's been recreated, with the argument that if something else exists this should. The article is probably no big deal, but we have the situation where Heenal Raichura passed AfD being seen as notable because of her coverage for being the youngest doctor. Except that she isn't now. There may be younger doctors in the future. Do we really want a series of youngest doctors, lawyers, etc? I'm almost tempted to take them both to AfD, but it might be a waste of time or just plain wrong. Advice? Thanks for chipping in on my talk page by the way even if the editor decided your comments were evidence that his article shouldn't have been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but now having read the AfD, I have decided the article should be kept.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect revert in List of oil spills

I disagree with this edit you made, which you accompanied by this remark in the user's talk page, telling him he added content without citing a source.

The edit was not adding any content; it was simply updating some totals based on an equation included in the comments of the page. Math does not require a source. Several of us who are maintaining the page are taking turns updating the totals every few days, and we would appreciate it if you didn't revert these updates.

Thank you! Johnson487682 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. An appropriate Edit Summary would have been "recalculated based on".   — Jeff G. ツ 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


I don't break 3RR but this user is actually a sock for User:Yattum as detailed in this SPI case against the user. Thus contesting a sockpuppet's edits aren't in violation of 3RR as this user has already been indeffed. Vedant (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I try to be evenhanded when giving out 3RR warnings. Thanks for your excellent work on that SPI case.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No problems and thank you. I don't fault you however for the warning as it's not always easy to tell based on a page history who is at fault and who isn't which is why I try to avoid edit-warring but I'm hoping that reverting and semi-protecting pages will give the user the message that he is no longer welcome here. Vedant (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Metro Station (band)

hi, i just got a message about altering the "metro station" page. i actually havent altered it or even looked at it before, just letting you know. Might be a glitch in the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone at your IP Address did, in this edit. Why don't you sign your posts and create an account? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Haifa 1948

Hi Jeff, my editing of the battle of Haifa 1948 was done to correct a few things that I had inserted before and was unaware that I could fix them by clicking edit.

All the materials that I have submitted are sitting at the USHMM in Washington D.C. which I donated copies of Mr. Jaques Bar's materials back on Nov 2000 along with the copies of the original plans that I still retain.

I was surprised that the material that was there is incomplete and misses the person who planned that action mainly due to the Labour Party in Israel that made up their own history which I thought would have been corrected long ago.

I do retain all copyrights for this material and put it in on May 31, 2010 after my first reading of your site which missed the whole situation and errs in too many ways to be allowed to remain as the factual history as well omits my father's work which from a military point of view needed a correction so that future generations understand the reality of what and why the action took place without which Israel would have never been created since the British Plans would have removed all to Cyprus.


Yoram Bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete my insert —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit appeared to be unsourced, poorly written, and possibly biased. If it has been previously published from personal experiences or writings or stories from your father, Wikisources might be a more appropriate place, as we have a policy here that prohibits original research.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

The material for the battle of Haifa are sitting at the USHMM along with the plans and could be accessed there.

The article from the Jewish Tribune of Jan. 11, 2001 is also available on line.

The IDF archive can validate the material as well - if you have a fax could send you their letter from June 22, 1986.

The unfortunate situation with this is that for years it was best to omit who etc. since Mr. Bar being in Soviet, Polish and Israeli military along with the Cold War made it best to keep quite since no benefits only problems were in store with such material.

Since Mr Jaques Bar was doing many of the underground activities against the British along with Israel's need to keep everyone not knowing who etc. the material was only placed with the USHMM 10 years after his death.

You must understand that the people who created Israel militarily were apolitical and most left since they were simply ponds in the politics of the day.

the material at the USHMM includes the IDF archives and Polish Archives with the Russians never having such since they made stuff according to their political needs.

Thanks for your message, and I do understand you policies which require backup to which my material have tons of but there is/was much resistence including from 60 Minutes form Don Hewitt in 1990 who said to me " we never put out the original story about Israel, so we are not bound to correct it" making me see that truth is not a commodity here, only protecting ones friends.

Joran (Yoram) Bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


The USHMM has materials which I tried to access today without success.

People like Pat Buchanan, Mickael Kingsly and many others in the news business are aware of the material that was placed by me.

Would like to get in touch with you via fax - so I could send you material you are seeking for veriability for the Battle of Haifa 1948 & Dnieper River Crossing 1941.

Yoram Bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You have some options for the information you wish to share. Typically, these include the following, in order from most free to least free:
  1. Public domain (PD): anyone can use it for any reason; you relinquish all rights.
  2. Creative Commons licenses (CC): it can be used, but only with attribution (BY) and a link to the license. Some licenses (marked NC) prohibit commercial use (these can't be used by Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia). Some licenses (marked ND) prohibit derivative use (these can't be used by Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia). Some licenses (marked SA) provide require ShareAlike (SA), which is basically sharing under the same terms you received (these can be used by Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia).
  3. GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL): it can be used, but only with attribution and a full copy of the license. Slightly less free than CC-BY and CC-BY-SA because it requires a full copy of the license.
  4. Aggregators like USHMM. Anything you allow them to share becomes copyrighted by them as well per this page. You essentially transfer half of your rights to them. They say they can take it if you place information into the Public domain.
  5. Private licensing can be used for materials the licensee is willing to pay for. They may be higher resolution, higher quality, in a collection, whatever value the licensor wants to add and the licensee wants to pay for. The attribution for the CC and GFDL licenses can point to the availability of privately licensed material, as can watermarking and inclusion of requests for attribution in lower quality / lower resolution media you put into the Public domain.
You may try to email me on any public Wikimedia wiki, but (at least on this site) you have to login first per Wikipedia:Why create an account?. You may also reach me on WP:IRC as "Jeff-G" (the closest I could get in a username, as I could not use space and dot).   — Jeff G. ツ 21:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, would like to speak to you regarding including material re: Haifa & Dnieper River Crossing 1941 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff: I don't use the web to chat and mistakenly removed your request to chat since I didn't know who it was until later. Would prefer to talk on the phone which I could email that to you by sending me an email @ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I re-sent the request.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My warning

I replied on my talk page. (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As did I.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I replied again on my talk page. And thank you for the reply. (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightwish discography

Hi, can you vote here please? Thank you. DreamNight (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done   — Jeff G. ツ 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit protection

I requested semi-protection for the Brady Campaign article. That should cut some of the silliness down. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


Care to comment here? RG (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No longer necessary, already blocked, thanks for your report.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Take care. RG (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 Done added to Twinkle's arsenal. Marcus Qwertyus (signs his posts) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Could you please clarify why an edit conflict would have resulted to a 'final warning'? (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You removed the language "is a requirement of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, Article 23. Article 23 requires the special administrative region to enact laws prohibiting any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China." without explanation, about 13 hours after receiving this level 3 warning, and without specifying that your edit was the result of an edit conflict.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

Please review your definion of what vandalism is per WP:VAND. My edits to National University of Modern Languages are not vandalism. I am was reverting a bot incorrectly reverted my edits. What I am doing there is removing deleted/missing images and getting rid of the cruft that is non-encyclopedic and was placed there as an attempt to promote the school. Δ (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate why you are removing content in your Edit Summaries. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
If you actually take a look at my edit, [3] you will see that I did exactly that. But because I recently changed accounts (I am User:Betacommand, see WP:BN#Rename for details) Cluebots AI made a mistake and reverted my edit, I reverted the false positive and you then re-reverted it without bothering to take a look at the whole picture. When using huggle be careful. Δ (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
All this edit claimed to be was "Reverted to revision 373017623 by Δ; revert dumb bot." Technically, you have not complied with Rlevse's restriction "as long as the two userpages link to each other" in this edit to WP:BN#Rename, in which you were instructed to have your new userpage link to your old userpage, which you have not yet done, so I'm not disposed to welcome you back just yet.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff, sorry to butt in, but I'm very much concerned that you still appear to be defending your description of this edit as vandalism. Not only does the edit-summary indicate the purpose of the reversion ("revert dumb bot" is perhaps not comprehensive, but is entirely clear) but summaries are anyway not required, and you should have examined the edit before undoing it, especially with the rollback policy being as strict and unambiguous as it is. Please be significantly more careful in future. ╟─TreasuryTagUK EYES ONLY─╢ 12:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

National University of Modern Languages

The article has been fully protected. Your thoughts on the talk page would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Expressed, thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My uploads

Sorry if I have created any problems uploading some of my photos to the commons and Wikipedia. Trying to follow directions, but some of it is a bit confusing. I will try to place images at the beginnig of text to that the text can wrap around.

Dan D'Auria —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDauri (talkcontribs) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the band Weezer

Why did you revert my edit on the Weezer page? As I stated before, the band was formed in Los Angeles, California, not in Monterrey, Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policies on biographical articles, our core policy on including only verifiable information and insisting on reliable sources for information.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Alter Bridge's One Day Remains

I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand why you reverted this edit to the article One Day Remains. As I said in the article, it is a noteworthy album because it is the only album that Myles Kennedy appears on as a member of the band where he does not play guitar. Every other album that he appears on, Alter Bridge or otherwise, as a member of the actual band, features him playing guitar. He also joined the band halfway through the album's writing stages and only wrote half the songs, whereas on Alter Bridge's second album and their upcoming third album, he co-wrote all the songs. I don't understand why this can't be mentioned in the article. Thanks! — (Sorry, I'm not good with Wikipedia so I don't really know how to make a signature lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policies on biographical articles, our core policy on including only verifiable information and insisting on reliable sources for information. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If I add a source, would that suffice? — —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, as long as it's reliable and verifiable.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just So You Know

just so know if you look at season 3 and season 4 there is mistake in the size of the air date boxes of season 4 as opposed to the other seasons. If you have a way to fix that without being "disruptive" be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magix1009 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the problem with List of 7th Heaven episodes (season 4) in this edit. Please note that the last two episodes have the same number, and each list needs to have verifiable references from reliable sources.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fanboy and Chum Chum

Hi Jeff G., I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that some Wikipedians hit HannahForever with a series of undos and ultimately with a banhammer, some of which may have been motivated by her edits to the Fanboy and Chum Chum page. Firstly, I wish to disclose that I do not know her and I am not contesting your objections. Secondly, I'm just curious to understand the rationale behind the undos. For example, Fanboy and Chum Chum has begun production on its second season, and it has a number of new episodes in production. HannahForever made a change to the FBCC page that raised the # of seasons to 2 and increased the number of episodes to 40. While I think that she pulled the number 40 out of a hat, it's not entirely out of the ballpark. I don't yet understand all of the rules about making updates to TV shows and how Wikipedia would prefer that contributors update information such as the # of seasons and the # of episodes. If there was some other kinda funkiness that you noticed I am curious to understand. I will also settle for an abrupt "it's none of your business."  :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the question. My first expressed objection to her activities related to this series of edits, which effectively added "<br>[[Raven Goodwin]] <small><br> (season 2-present)<br>" without a reliable source. My second objection was to her next series of edits to that page, which effectively moved some content and added other content, again without a reliable source. My third objection was to this edit, which removed net 103 bytes without explanation. My fourth objection was to this edit, which increased the number of episodes by 17 and seasons by 1 and terminated the series in the future on October 3, 2010, all without a reliable source. My AIV report concerned the four above (numbered 5-2) plus this edit, in which she continued the previous theme by terminating the second season prior to 2011 by deleting "-2011", again without explanation. Fastily appears to have considered some or all of the above, plus her edit history and her next two edits to List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes, which continued the previous theme. Even simple notations like "per suchandsuch URL" or even "per ref 2" would have been acceptable; she passive-aggressively refused to cooperate despite four warnings. Regarding the undos, each of them undid all of her consecutive edits, starting from the most recent edit to the article and moving backwards to restore the article to the state it was in when she last started the objectionable behavior (a fairly standard method). Is that enough info?   — Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, thank you for your quick reply. I appreciate the info. I like to understand why certain peer decision are made as they help me to understand how I can be a better contributor. I surmised from her contribs that she was making questionable edits, although the n00b in me was trying to support those changes to FBCC as "reasonable" in spite of limited sourcing. It's difficult at times, as there isn't a whole lot of documentation out on the series yet. Again, thank you for the write up. I appreciate your time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

re Prosperity Gospel page edit

While searching for a page to add some info on the "New Church Movement" in the States, as it is presently impacting in the UK, I came across the Prosperity Gospel page. The list on the page was entirely "fair enough" appart from the listing of Yongi Cho as someone who puts forward the PG line. Even a basic look at his work compared to, eg, Benny Hinn, would show that he is not "in the same boat". This is largely due, I think, to the difference between the Chinese/Japanese/Korean expression of post 3rd wave christianity, compared to the American "Televangelists" and the religious right.

Yongi Cho was obviously not "of a mind" with the others listed, so I deleted him from it.

I'm sorry if this offended you / transgressed some policy, but I only ever comment on areas of Wikipedia where I have either direct profesional or personal knowledge. This is a case in point.

All the Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. An Edit Summary would have explained in the first place.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, and my apologies. I would still like to see him removed from the list (on the grounds given above) but will leave this to yourself / others, as I have no wish to play "Wikipedia-text-deletion/appelation ping-pong ! (-grin-) My Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message and guidance on how to behave on Wikipedia. I do appreciate the help. I was responding to the person who reverted the new, updated and correct information about Callaway Golf and who used a vulgar term to describe it. Is that kind of language acceptable, or have you emailed them, as well? By reverting the page, they have reverted to outdated and incorrect information that reflects poorly on the accuracy and veracity of Wikipedia information. Two For Mirth (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The accusation "you have some sort of vendetta against Callaway Golf" is unacceptable. Please see WP:CIVIL. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I commented, thanks for the notification!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


See my talk page. RlevseTalk 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Dear Jeff

I am trying to put the picture that is more beautiful of Diane Kruger and it also resembles her very well. Please understand. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwoltzen (talkcontribs) 04:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherukunnu page

Hi, I just want to say thanks for reverting some of those edits to Cherukunnu, and to marvel at your patience. Did you de-link all those manually? Once again, thanks! :) __Flaming Goldfish (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I reverted to the last good edit before the massive overlinking, but I may have lost something good along the way - please check that. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I'm pretty sure the majority of the vandalism was just linking every other word on the page, but I'll double check it to make sure nothing was lost. __Flaming Goldfish (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't work out what you mean

You posted "Level 1 warning re. Council of Canadian Academies" on my bot talk page.

I don't think Lightbot ever added external links. I tried to check but I can’t find the edit you mention. Nor can I find the page you mention. Nor do I know what a "Level 1 warning" is, it sounds unpleasant and I don't want to suffer from whatever sanction you can impose. Can you allow me to see the edit and I'll investigate? Regards Lightmouse (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My problem was with this edit (now deleted), probably due to addition of a MySpace, Facebook, blog, or other self-published page in violation of WP:ELNO. I'm sorry, but I don't remember exactly. Perhaps an admin or someone else with access to deleted pages or revisions can shed some light on it.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lightbot didn't add MySpace, Facebook, blog, or other self-published pages. Do you have any other information such as when the alleged edit took place? Lightmouse (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a mystery. Any idea what month this occurred, Jeff? Tony (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You seem to trying to lock the barn door looooong after the horse has bolted – Lightbot's last edit was in April 2009. I had assumed you were an admin and were in a position to dig up more relevant details of the edit, but it seems that you are not. If you're seriously all that bothered about something like that, whatever it was, I suggest that you find that horse yourself before you start slapping on warnings, because it does you no credit. In all probability, it's a case of mistaken identity. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the deleting admin for help at User talk:Fastily#Council_of_Canadian_Academies.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled by this claim. I think you may be mistaken and it may be in part due to the use of a tool such as Twinkle. Do you think it's possible you made a mistake? We all make mistakes from time to time. Lightmouse (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I may have been mistaken. Pending additional information, is it possible that you used your Lightbot account to add or restore any of the references visible at User:Jeff G./Council of Canadian Academies?   — Jeff G. ツ 23:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I was mistaken. I have fixed the problems and restored the article to Council of Canadian Academies.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see now that Lightbot delinked [[December]] [[2004]] and changed it to December 2004. It was operating as intended and was a reasonable edit. I appreciate you investigating and correcting your mistake. Thanks for removing the warning from the Lightbot page. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DC Fan 5

Hey you filed a WP:AIV report against DC Fan 5 yesterday, I believe this user is a sock of the banned account 1989 Rosie. You may which to comment on the sockpuppet investigations. Thanks. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I commented, thanks for the notice!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on this SPI. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

A barnstar (or two) for your help with the creation of this version of The Ways of White Folks:

WikiLinkBarnstar.PNG The Wikilink Barnstar
For responding quickly to an IP's request to edit the {{editsemiprotected}} article on Langston Hughes.

Red Link Removal Barnstar.png Red Link Removal Barnstar
for fulfilling the bonus request that accompanied the editsemiprotected request, which enabled an IP editor to create The Ways of White Folks.

Thanks. (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for the barnstars!   — Jeff G. ツ 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
See also Cora Unashamed.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing references in "Ekhane Aakash Neel"

Your suggestions and warnings--all are welcome; I do not have any intention of breaching any set rule of editing in the Wikipedia; if unknowingly,I've done so, I apologize for that.

When citing references should I do like this? Example:tota Roy Choudhury as Dr.Romit Sen[2]

For newspaper articles, should I write what is written in the article and then put the link in the References?

Do please help me out.


Smitmuks (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE and the {{Citation}} series of templates. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 17:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Maelstrom (band)

Hello. I am the creator of this page. And you have nominated twice now this article for speedy deletion. I respect your right to nominate any article for a deletion, however I do not believe it fits the criteria for an Article destined for Speedy Deletion. I would like to know your reasoning for this, and I would like to dispute any claims to the best of my ability. If my page truly is not wikipedia material, and after a debate on the subject material, I will agree to have it deleted. Nonetheless I would like to contest any arguments you have declaring it not appropriate for the online encyclopedia Maelstromlusby (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First, you appear to have a conflict of interest. Second, the relevant guideline is WP:BAND. Going through the points there, none of them appear to apply:
  1. I would characterize your footnotes as follows (none of which are reliable sources):
  • Heather, Fred. "PJMA CEO blog". : a blog on a website of an alliance which promotes bands; qualifies as self-published
  • Heather, Fred. "PJMA Awards to 2009 BOB". : a website of an alliance which promotes bands; qualifies as self-published
  • "Maelstrom Myspace page including biography". : self-published
  • "My Brothers Place Venue". : a page which does not appear to support the text "The band performed covers of artists such as Anthrax and Black Sabbath. In 2007, the band underwent a line-up change and played with the name Hail False Heroes, performing originals all across Southern Maryland attracting the most fans at a Waldorf, Maryland venue called My Brothers Place" (and if it did, it would still be a venue promoting the band, which would qualify as self-published)
  • "Southern Maryland News, including Maelstrom concert advertisement". : a listing of nightlife for the weekend beginning Friday, Jan. 22, 2010 in Calvert County with a one-word mention of "Maelstrom" as scheduled to play that night at Southern Community Center in Lusby, no doubt as provided by said Southern Community Center in concert with the band, which would qualify as self-published
  • "Jaxx Schedule of Events". : a listing of dates and bands for one club with a one-word mention of "Maelstrom" as scheduled to play in the future at the club, as provided by said club in concert with the band, which would qualify as self-published
  • "Park Rock 2010 Festival Schedule Of Events". : a listing of dates and bands for one park with a one-word mention of "Maelstrom" as scheduled to play in the future at the park (with no mention of having played there in the past), as provided by said park in concert with the band, which would qualify as self-published
  • Heather, Fred. "PJMA ad for the Sandybottom Studio". : a website of an alliance which promotes bands; qualifies as self-published
  1. No indication of any singles or albums having charted
  2. No indication of any records having been certified gold
  3. No indication of any international or national concert tour
  4. No indication of any albums released by a named major label or named more important indie label
  5. No indication of any notable musicians
  6. No indication of being one of the most prominent representatives of notable scene or the most prominent of a local scene (not even any indication of having been booked as a sole act)
  7. No indication of any major music award
  8. No indication of having placed in a major music competition
  9. No indication of having performed music for a work of media that is notable
  10. No indication of having been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network
  11. No indication of having been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network
Please feel free to point out where I may have been mistaken. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make a clear distinction of what is and what isn't a "Major Music Competition". And by self-published, are you claiming that I am the author of the citations given in the article? I would like to have my article authenticated by legitimate "reliable sources". Would that be sources such as a magazine article printed about the band, or perhaps a review of their Demo CD? Both of which I am told they have, as Maryland Music Magazine featured them in an issue. How would I go about citing a real world publication that is not online? Maelstromlusby (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A "major music competition" is not well-defined, but you could ask at WT:BAND. By self-published regarding the footnotes, I mean published by the band, its promotion people, and its venues (anyone with a vested interest in the band doing well, as opposed to the listening pleasure of the public, all those exceptions in WP:BAND criterion 1). Yes, magazine articles and reviews are the types of reliable sources Wikipedia likes. To cite them, please see {{cite}} and its children {{cite magazine}} and {{cite newspaper}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well its a little too late; User:JamesBWatson deleted the article without so much as a word to why. I still believe this band has thoroughly made a cultural impact on the Maryland musical scene. There are indeed magazine reviews about the band and their recently created Demo CD. However it is a useless endeavor as the tireless editors of wikipedia have deleted a valid article before allowing others to give it reinforcement. I cannot argue this case further, as I am sure to meet a wall of resistance from said editors. Thank you for your time however Maelstromlusby (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You can appeal the deletion at User talk:JamesBWatson or WP:DELREV, once you have citations for at least two reliable sources, or one that corroborates another reason for inclusion under WP:BAND.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You can also work on the userfied copy at User:Maelstromlusby/Maelstrom (band).   — Jeff G. ツ 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for salvaging the remnants of this page for me to work on. I will work on it, and when the time comes, ask for you to review it to see if it is Wikipedia-friendly Maelstromlusby (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

New WatchlistBot in the works

Hey, I just wanted to let you know I'm working on a rewrite of WatchlistBot. The new version will include many new features, and I'd be interested to hear your feedback on what I have so far. Also let me know of any features you would like to see included; I'm always open to new ideas. Thanks! --Chris (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and your work so far. I left a request at User talk:Crazycomputers/WatchlistBot/New#Fault_tolerance.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?

[4] was not blanking or deleting anything, as you saw fit to warn Δ here. Please be a bit more careful with your warnings next time. Regards, –MuZemike 20:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The user deleted a whole section without explanation.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It was two external links and nothing else. That is a very poor reason, not to mention in poor taste, to template an established user with a final warning. –MuZemike 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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


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 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Please block Mr. R00t Talk 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


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)

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)

Information.svg 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)

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 (talkcontribs) 05:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth W Brown

  • 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)

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)

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


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

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 [5] to Hamiltha over the addition of a wiki internal link to a non-existent article at Photovoltaic micro-inverter [6]. 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)


Thanks for the userpage revert! GainLine 18:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Same Here! I forgot to check those files. quazgaa 19:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


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)

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)

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":
  — Jeff G. ツ 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

Huggle chose the level.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Users are ultimately responsible for the scripts they use. Taroaldo (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict Between Pages


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

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)

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

Your revert

What's this edit about? gz33 (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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)


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 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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


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! (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is "rconfidence"[7]? I didn't even edit Confirmation bias today (if ever).   — Jeff G. ツ 01:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You can answer when you're unblocked.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 01:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talkcontribs) 02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Henrique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique.marque (talkcontribs) 03:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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


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 (talkcontribs) 02:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 02:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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)


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)

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

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 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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


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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Roll back restored, I've contacted NW. Keegan (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much!   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Your overly large signature, again

Ya, I know about:

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)

Why are you picking on me? My signature is not the tallest.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry about the line flow. Is this better?   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 {
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)


I Tested My Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneymafia (talkcontribs) 02:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm so happy for you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
Thanks! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dingbat2007, for those following along at home.   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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


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 (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

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

User:Shouko0624 has been given a 24 hour block. The blocking admin made a comment on my talk page [8] 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)

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


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 (talkcontribs) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 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 (talkcontribs) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein

The person adding that information has taken text from 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 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where?   — Jeff G.  ツ 22:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
OIC, it's the first entry, on Page 19. Copyright © 2005 by Visionary Living, Inc.   — Jeff G.  ツ 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Please cite a verifiable reliable source, preferably using one of the citation templates. Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
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.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help); ISBN 978-1616880736. ASIN B002G8BQN4.
  — Jeff G.  ツ 01:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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)


It was a talk page that had been vandalize... (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
So it should have been tagged {{db-g10}}, not just blanked.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

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

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)

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)

Another change I made: 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, though their bills are usually either unpaid or passed on to the state[38].

I deleted "though their bills are usually either unpaid or passed on to the state", because the cited source makes no such claim. That is false. Why was it put back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberEditor (talkcontribs) 07:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In "Illegal Immigration to the United States" there's this VISA section:

According to a 2008 study by the Center for Immigration Studies, there were a number of different types of green card marriages. Among others:[27]

   * mail-order bride arrangements;
   * phony arranged marriages (as opposed to legitimate arranged marriages in cultures that practice them);
   * arrangements in which the American resident is paid;
   * human trafficking or other exploitation of the new immigrant by the American partner; and
   * "heartbreaker" partners who trick American spouses into believing a marriage is genuine, when their true intention is to obtain a green card.[neutrality is disputed][unbalanced opinion]

I added:

"However, research by the Center for Immigration Studies has been called faulty. The Southern Law Poverty Center in "Fudging Facts: A Look at CIS' Studies" concludes that the center manipulates date to produce anti-immigrant reports. This non-data study alleges widespread fraud among marriages between American citizens and foreigners, but then goes on to admit that "there is no way of knowing" just how prevalent marriage fraud is because there is no systematic data. CIS admits that most marriages "between Americans and foreign nationals are legitimate.[1]"

How is this biased? A reputable organization is calling into question the methodology of the research. In addition, the source states that the author admits most marriages are legitimate.

CyberEditor (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


I notice that you have been paying a bit of attention to (talk), a person who does seem to need some ... firm guidance. Judging by his/her efforts, 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'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)

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. Your mssg to me 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 short statements. The sources I linked were necessary to substantiate. They aren't advertising links. I added them back to the article before I understood what was going on and that you were removing them, sorry, they may be back there currently. 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. If the collection of DNA evidence was postponed in this manner it is unusual and potentially important in various ways. The sources I linked were (82) a video/audio link to a television interview with family of the victim, dated prior to the funeral, where they discuss DNA evidence from Joran van der Sloot being 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 from under her fingernails. Thanks for alerting me, I couldn't understand why the meaning of my two sentences kept getting changed and the source references disappearing. Thanks again and best wishes P.S. It seems like the opening paragraph of the article may contain some biased phrasing IIRC, lack of word "alleged" for allegations, etc. P.S. I have to say I am sorry to read some of the talk that appears above my post here, the insulting and belittling comments about another wikipedia user. What a shame. I always thought of wikipedia as being a bit more inclusive/user friendly. 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 valid/straightforward edit has been dropped, your reference for it dropped, you get a message telling you this, you try to respond and see this orange block with a bunch of additional hoops and stipulations to jump through, then wind up on this page and see where people have actually tried to get others shut out from's rather discouraging/disappointing! Please keep in mind that most people using wikipedia are not into HTML etc, and are not on wikipedia or other websites trying to make additions all the time, by the way, we're just ordinary internet users who sometimes wish to make some small, valid addition when we see something missing. Thanks again for the heads up and I hope my small addition and supporting links are in order now. Urthcreature (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that Stephany Flores' dad misrepresented the info he had, or the police misrepresented the info they had to him, or the initial DNA tests were inconclusive? Sure, in hindsight, all the evidence should be collected before a victim is buried.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Gary Stockdale

Once again, I did NOT create this article - all I did was move it because the title was incorrectly capitalized. Stop bothering me about it and delete it already. I thought the built in move command usually preserves the edit history. Evidently not in this case. vlad§inger tlk 01:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim Joyce

Hey, Jeffy, my edits were reverted twice, but we hammered out an agreement. See his talk page. So, go revert it back to the last change I made. -- (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok.   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Work of Art: The Next Great Artist

Hi. I read your warnings. I did have a reliable source. It was the episode that just finished airing! Look at all of the other people that are editing without proper citation. Why are you singling me out? WaninokoZ (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Expressive Intelligence Studio

Actually I was the one REMOVING unsourced information, which was reverted by a bot, and then reverted again by a bot that does nothing but enforce other bots edits. If wikipedia is really so hostile to editors trying to make improvements and respect core policies than I'm not sure what the point is. (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in this edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? That page has almost no citations, which should be fixed, but out of everything you arbitarily decide that saying "as opposed to oval tracks and off-road racing" instead of "as opposed to off-road racing" needs to be reverted? If you want to discuss content, take it to the talk page, as this is basically the definition of the term. But to single out and revert that as "dubious unsourced content" is not constructive. (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read the page? Furhter down it says "the term road course often is used as a catch-all phrase for any racetrack that is not an oval". I don't know what your agenda is, but randomly reverting edits and putting warnings on talk pages is not constructive. (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:Cara Russell

I would like to ask you to comment here:

Talk:Cara Russell

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but I'm not sure you're going to like my comment.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, you surprised me. I thought that the Sky Ark article could stay because, while it was probably added by Mickey and/or Cara Russell, it was 1) an non-profit; and 2) it was about the animals, for a greater good than, putting them first. But, the Cara Russell was probably added by Mickey and/or Cara Russell and was done so because she was running for office. The only references are the local county rags. Do you know how hard it is to say out of the local county rag? You would have had to never live there or know anybody who had. My cousin was in the county paper ever time he won a ribbon in cattle judging or grass judging for 4-H. My other cousin gets in their now every time they talk about grading a county road. BFD! Do you know how many First Amendment cases are filed each year in the U.S.? Hundreds, most never make it out of local court. Between five and 12 make it to the U.S. Supreme Court in D.C. each session (and take between five and ten years to get there). If this case was in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc., I would feel differently. This is just another small-time person in a small town that was dismissed and filed a lawsuit, happens all the time, and 99% is nowhere down the road in a few years. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that those alleged "local county rags" are not reliable per WP:RS?   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not saying that they are not reliable, I am saying that they are not notable. They maybe 100% accurate in every detail and if this was the Chaffee County Wikipedia ( or it would be notable. But, Wikipedia is supposed to be bigger and more notable than that. It would be like putting every single homicide case in here. I just went to Google News and did a search for "Cara Russell" "Buena Vista" mayor, and while there are 70 articles, they are all from either the Chaffee County Times & Mountain Mail Newspaper, so every time there was a sneeze in the story, they ran an update. But none from the national papers or even the Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News. At least Sky Ark made the Rocky Mountain News - (Feb 9, 2004); New York Daily News - (Jun 21, 2003); Dallas Morning News - (Jun 23, 2003); Newsday - (Dec 2, 2003). That is more than we can say about the mayor and her little problems. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Korean War Veterans Memorial

Would you consider reverting the addition of that non-free image you added to Korean War Veterans Memorial, and joining the discussion I started here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I commented there.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)