User talk:JeffJ/Archive 01

Thank you
for your support on the SAMM issue. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Street Gaol

 * I would suggest not that a 'former' prison is less encyclopedic than what the building is actually used for today, but that a standard is not being followed here. It isn't as if Skydome is still named as such here WP. The article should be renamed to its current title as the existing description is misleading. It hasn't been a prison for decades.  The fact that the building was once a prison is in fact less relevant as it betrays the idea of what the encyclopedia is all about. Currently, the focus should remain on its current use. I'll seek an independent admin viewpoint on this one.  Also, the infobox is wrong. it's not a prison, anymore. TravelJournalNetwork (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is now there are two articles - I bet someone else suggests a merge. I'd like to side with the idea that an encyclopedia  like this can fit many different articles...Good luck with your project! TravelJournalNetwork (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Ironsides
The History of the Anglo Saxons (1823) states Edmund was assassinated Britannica states he "probably" died of natural causes, but nothing as difinitive as you are insinuating. Do you have other sources? NJGW (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All reputable sources indicate that he simply dies or "probably died of natural causes". No reputable sources indicate that he was killed with a poker/sword, etc. There were some rumours of assassination by smothering or strangulation (which may account for the "probably" caveat), but they are unsubstantiated and excluded from reputable articles. There also seems to be some confusion between Edmund II and Edward II in numerous articles found on the internet, the latter having had a red-hot poker inserted into his anus. Unless a reputable source will support the legend/rumour/myth of the sword in the anus, it should be excluded. We could leave in reference to the assassination theory, however.--JeffJ (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The History of the Anglo Saxons doesn't state unequivocally that he was assassinated, but does speak to several conflicting accounts that suggest that he might have been. Certainly there is enough there to mention the assassination theory with the same weight as the natural-causes theory. My main concern here was Edmund's mention in the Unusual deaths article.--JeffJ (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the assassination ref needs to be in there (as with the ref to the rumors you mention, appropriately qualified) because I see that the latrine story has been inserted many times over the life of the article. If you write-up what you're saying above with the sources you are referring to, it may put a stop to the reinsertions.  NJGW (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to add the assassination to Edmund II's article when I realized that the reference in the History of the Anglo Saxons is to the assassination of Edmund I (Edmund the Elder). So we are back to where we started... just "died" or "probably"...--JeffJ (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "The brave Edmund did not long survive the pacification. He perished the same year. The circumstances attending his assassination are variously given. Malmsbury mentions that two of his chamberlains were seduced by Edric to wound him at a most private moment with an iron hook but he states this to be only rumour. The king's violent death and its author are less reservedly avowed by others. The northern accounts go even farther. The Knytlinga Saga and Saxo carry up the crime as high as Canute. They expressly state that Edric was corrupted Canute to assassinate Edmund." - The History of the Anglo-Saxons from the Earliest Period to the Norman Conquest  By Sharon Turner
 * It's like trying to sort out my family's genealogy; Everyone has the same name. So lets go with your last reference then. :-) --JeffJ (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Brampton Jail - nice article
Hello, I just marked your new article on the Brampton Jail as page patrolled -- and I wanted to take a minute to say that it was an interesting and very well written piece. Kudos on a job well done! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the possibility of building the article further for WP:GA or WP:FA status. Say, have you considered entering this in the WP:DYK?  If you were, however, you should add references to the article, which I believe is lacking at the moment. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to flesh out my stubs in the future. My mission right now is to get the articles started so that others with more knowledge (or free time) will be encouraged to build on them. I'm also a bit of a rookie, so any help or advise is always appreciated. I thought about creating a reflist for the Brampton Jail article, but listed "Sources" instead, as I used bits and pieces from each throughout. This article has a little more that some of my other stubs, simply because there were more interesting sources available.--JeffJ (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A reflist is usually the way to go. If you want, let me see if I can expand this piece a bit.  Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I already started. You've inspired me. But feel free to wade in!--JeffJ (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I’ve sliced and diced the references in your article and submitted it for WP:DYK consideration (see here: []). You did a fine job with the article, and a job well done deserves praise:

Cheers! 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! Keep up the great work -- I'll be on the watch for your future articles. And let me know if you win a DYK honour for this piece.  Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's additional appreciation for the work on the article - it is also listed on Canadian Wikipedians' notice board to inform other Canadian Wikipedians of the DYK nomination. Dl2000 (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, one and all! I'm very grateful for your interest and support!--JeffJ (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

page move
Hello. I recently moved Correctional facilities of Ontario, Canada to its present title so that the initial f is in lower case, as clearly required by WP:MOS. I've fixed many of the links to the page. Can you help with that? Thanks. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons/Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities
You appear to have much more experience with this subject matter than I do. So far, I've been leaving notifications of this proposal on a few other wikiproject talk pages and prison article talk pages but I haven't seen a great deal of response. I just think this is a very worthy idea and it would be a shame if it failed for lack of interest. I would really appreciate any help or advice you have in getting this project off the ground. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll help out any way I can. I've been trying to encourage interest in the corrections-related groups on Facebook, but there has been virtually no response. But I will continue. Also, regardless of my experience with corrections, I'm still very much a Wiki-novice, so feel free to critique my work. --JeffJ (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not quite sure where to go from here except to keep doing what I've been doing. If a project doesn't get 5 to 10 interested participants within 4 months it gets archived so we have about 3 and a half more months in order to locate two more interested people. Unfortunately, I have the bar exam in about a month from now so I may not be able to drum up as much support as I would like. However, I think this project will eventually be approved just for the fact that it's important and there's a place for it here on wikipedia. I'll try to keep you updated with any info I have about the project being approved.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities
Thanks for your expression of interest in Wikipedia Prisons, otherwise known as Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities. Seven people have now indicated here that they would like to help out so I am now assuming that this project will actually happen. I suppose we need to take care of a few preliminaries: getting through the proposal stage, and creating a wikiproject page, page tag, and maybe an infobox. Thanks again for your interest. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities Update
As you can see, this project has now taken off. Thanks for your support!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kearney,_Ontario_Welcome_Sign_(2008).JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kearney,_Ontario_Welcome_Sign_(2008).JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities update
I am pleased to announce that the assessment function is now in operation!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Jeff, I was admiring your work on the unusual deaths page and was hoping that maybe you could lend your expertise to the List of unusual animal anecdotes. You seem to be the guy that'd be able to whip it into shape. RyanHoliday (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Internet vandalism?
I got your message today, calling the content I added to the List of unusual deaths (the deaths of Bohumil Hrabal and Drago Gervais) "unconstructive" and "internet vandalism". Since when is adding the data that can be found even on Wikipedia (as is the case of Hrabal) "internet vandalism"? As for Gervais, the data on Wikipedia concerning his death is incorrect, and that can be easily confirmed by checking several other sites. That is why I would like to hear any arguments for this, completely unnecessary move, since without them, the act of reversion is the real case of internet vandalism. 93.136.75.40 (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the data in the linked Wiki-article is inaccurate, then you should fix that and provide references. You should also provide references within the Unusual Deaths article. The onus is on you to validate your work, not others. If I check a wikilink that you provided and it contradicts your work, I am going to assume frivolous editing on your part, not search the net for alternate information. You certainly didn't make a good first impression when you reported "falling out a window" as unusual. --JeffJ (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To give you the benefit of the doubt, I researched Drago Gervais using Google. No irrefutable sources came up (i.e.: National newspapers, etc.), but all the sources I read listed his cause of death as car accident. If you have a credible source that reports him falling off his balcony, then you should list it in the references, although falling off a balcony isn't terribly unusual either. --JeffJ (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you
Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

April 2009 on 12 monkeys
You left a message to user Wildroot about removing content from 12 monkeys. I add those content and I wonder why Wildroot removed that. It seems you have the same doubt beforehand, but later you apologized to Wildroot. May I ask what happen? (User 119.246.10.193) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.246.10.193 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research concerns. Wildroot (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IP
He's already blocked. -- Abce2 | How  dy!  04:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... Thanks :-) --JeffJ (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from anal disease, anally introduced disease, and anal trauma
I realize that this is a no-brainer, but you might have allowed me some time to finish the nomination (I'm a slow typist) before taking it over yourself. :-) Deor (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just excited. :-) --JeffJ (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Excited" probably isn't the best word to use considering the article in question LOL...  But hey, whatever floats your boat  ;) Excuse my tasteless drive-by humour :P  • Gli k tch •   (Talk)   00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It took you 6 months to come up with that? --JeffJ (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tesla coil

 * How is using the US patent template for references considered "vandalism"? 24.167.175.220 (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed the references and substituted imbedded internet links.--JeffJ (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I used the template, as did other references. I DID make the mistake, however, of not including the title of the patent and its author. Please have a look at the articles references section, specifically references 32 and higher. Your bot should recognize Wikipedia templates, no? -- 24.167.175.220 (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't use a bot, but yes, you're right. It was the format of your first edit that attracted my attention and I (wrongfully) assumed a straight revert on your part. I should have looked more closely the second time. Sorry about that... I spend too much time chasing vandals. --JeffJ (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. :) I'll spend a bit more time tomorrow cleaning up those refs, and seeing if I can't consolidate some of the repeated ones. --24.167.175.220 (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You were mistaken about my edits to Lurdusaurus
You incorrectly identified my recent edit 3 recent edits to Lurdusaurus as vandalism and reverted them. In the first two edits, I made existing article text into links. This is plainly not vandalism. In the third edit, I moved problematic text to Talk, with the edit summary "moved section to Talk. See Talk". On the Talk page I explained: "Doesn't seem appropriate to include this list of various other dinosaurs in the article, especially considering that many of these aren't even from same area as Lurdusaurus." This is certainly adequate documentation of this edit. In the future, please be more careful about reverting good edits, and please do not claim or imply that edits are vandalism when they are not. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem was that you blanked content from the article without explanation in the summary. When an explanation is not provided and a whole section is removed, it creates concern. The next time you removed the section, you provided an explanation and as such your edit was not reverted and you received no further warning. Content blanking is a very common type of vandalism, often perpetrated by anonymous users (such as yourself), so legitimate editors are encouraged to create user-accounts. And, as I said, clear explanation of extreme edits is a must. --JeffJ (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that my edits were as you describe. AFAIK, I only removed the section once, there was no "next time". I also provided an edit summary and a perfectly clear explanation in the form of a Talk page comment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lurdusaurus&oldid=289019589 ), as I've already mentioned above. " Content blanking is a very common type of vandalism" - Of course, no argument there, but IMHO any "concern" in a case like this would be quickly alleviated by a quick look at the edit summary and comment I provided, and/or a quick look at my general pattern of edits, and/or by assuming good faith, or for that matter by politely asking me. IMHO issuing a "warning" to me in this situation was wholly inappropriate and is a violation of WP:GOODFAITH and a mild violation of WP:CIVIL. I assume that this is some sort of good-faith oversight on your part, or a good-faith misunderstanding of what you're saying here on my part. However, I see a couple of other comments here on your Talk page mentioning other disputes when you've called someone's edit "vandalism". Fighting vandalism is IMHO very good. Mistakenly thinking that something is vandalism when it's not is not so good. Calling someone a vandal when they are not is bad. Please be careful not to jump the gun in these situations. Thanks. Have a good one. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I never called you a vandal. What I wrote on your Talk Page was:


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Lurdusaurus. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JeffJ (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a standard warning template and since you failed to specify a reason in the edit summary per WP:FIES, the warning was justified. --JeffJ (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths
You wrote on my talk page:
 * Great work on the latest additions!

Thanks. I hope to add more in the near future.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

the greyhound murder
well, it's less the murder itself than the circumstances surrounding the murder that are unusual. yes, being stabbed to death by a stranger isn't particularly unusual, except that it typically occurs pursuant to some form of dispute, altercation, robbery. in this instance, having a man board a bus in the middle of nowhere, who without giving *any* warning - nobody on the bus ever has reported that he seemed 'strange' or 'angry' or anything like that, which typically goes with a random attack - then having the man *calmly* start stabbing the guy in the neck - well, it's all quite unusual. the proximate cause of death - stabbing - no, not unusual. the circumstances - very unusual. i'm not sure if "unusual deaths" explicitly excludes the circumstances as warranting inclusion. for example, included is the guy who hung himself while on live webcam. hanging oneself isn't unusual - the circumstances are. but all that said - a strong argument has been made that the entire article isn't encyclopaedic, it's more a conglomeration of curiousities. i'm really not 'married' to the issue at all - in or out, doesn't really matter. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It IS a tough call. If the attacker had killed him through the beheading process then likely this story would have fit perfectly. The trend with List of unusual deaths seems to be to tighten the focus around the actual death. But, I'll admit that it's a very grey line - the webcam example you gave is bang on. --JeffJ (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Security guard.
Hi Jeff. I note you changed my edit on Pierlucio Tinazzi who is also referenced in the Mont Blanc Tunnel article. Your change reflects consensus of the best sources but I've added a cautious note to another reference saying he also helped the other 2. Whilst this has a picture, have you any thoughts as to whether it is reliable enough? It may simply be a copy of some old bike magazine article.

Regards JRPG (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where your changes are or the new reference. --JeffJ (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
You're welcome. You've earned it. ☻ Geeky Randy (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths
I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work on the list of unusual deaths. Your contributions to the discussion page are always thoughtful and substantive, and your vigilant monitoring of content keeps it a respectable list. Keep up the fantastic work! Verkhovensky (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks! :-) --JeffJ (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod and AfD
I noticed that you added a Prod tag to an article and then nominated it for deletion at AfD. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions, and works according to whether anyone else removes the tag within 7 days. AfD is for when deletion may be expected to be disputed, and is debated for 7 days. Once an article is taken to AfD or has been deprodded, Prod is no longer a valid way to delete the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was a bit confusing. --JeffJ (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it confused the hell out of me to start with too! (there's speedy deletion too). Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD commentary apology
I see I'm either offending you or very close to it. If so, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to.

I think you're wrong in your actions, but I don't think you're evil, and hurting your feelings isn't going to help convince you, or anyone else. I'll try to be more careful with my comments. Please understand it's not intentional offense.

By the way, I don't feel that I own the articles. I didn't start either one, have barely touched Jill-Lyn Euto, and my main contribution to Deanna Cremin before the AFD was taking the photo of the square. --GRuban (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. My ADD is kicking in anyway. I'll let my arguments stand as is. --JeffJ (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

JeffJ (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)