User talk:JeffSpaceman

Quick Note on Pascal's Triangle Article Section
Hi,

Hope you're doing well. I've spotted a small issue in the Arbitrary Bases section I contributed to on the Pascal's Triangle page, following a recent revert you made. Oddly enough, this error doesn't seem to appear in any revision prior to that reversion, which is a bit puzzling given that the revert should technically have restored it to a previous error-free state. Here are the details, hoping you could help me sort it out:

Error on page is: "Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "http://localhost:6011/en.wikipedia.org/v1/":): {\displaystyle a}"


 * The offending code appears to be a "&lt;math&gt;a&lt;/math&gt;" in the Arbitrary Bases section, where "a" is being formatted in LaTex.
 * Error shows up in Chrome and Safari and I tested on laptop and tablet, but not outside my LAN

Really appreciate the effort you put into maintaining the quality of content on here. Looking forward to resolving this together.

Cheers Twoxili (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, I appreciate you reaching out about this issue on the article. I don't quite know how to fix this sort of error, though I'd be happy to drop a comment on the talk page of the article to reach out for help, if you think that could assist with this error. I'll leave the judgment up to you as to whether or not I should do that, though. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks getting back to me so quickly. I appreciate your offer to help with the issue. I'm going to hold off for a bit and see if the problem resolves itself with the next edit. Your willingness to support is truly valued, and I might take you up on posting in the talk page if the issue remains.
 * Warmest regards Twoxili (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

AiV advice on IP user
Hi, I just wanted to consult you on a user we've both warned now, this IP user. This user was blocked for 3 years and 13 days after their block, have immediately returned to vandalism. I think this is grounds enough to just report them to AiV again instead of using the L4 warning next time. Thanks, Neuropol  Talk  16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, I appreciate you bringing this up. I didn't realize this, I saw your warning, and thought I'd naturally go up from there. I now realize that perhaps I should look closer at the block log next time. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All good, and no problem. Thanks, Neuropol  Talk  17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Trouble Reverting
Hello, I can not revert these obvious vandal edits here. I get the following message below. I try reverting to an even earlier version. Any assistance? Also if you have any advice on these situations let me know. Thanks,

Grabbing data of earlier revisions: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link. If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: about.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked. Solutions: If the URL used is a URL shortener/redirect, please use the full URL in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be, If the URL is a Google URL, please look to use the (full) original source, not the Google shortcut or its alternative. Look to find an alternative URL that is considered authoritative. (spamblacklist)

Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, another user seems to have been able to revert. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

North Caledonian League edit
Hi,

I noticed your message re my edit of the above page. I maintain the scottish football historical results archive and I made this change after extensive research of the Highland League also unearthed more on the NCL (then called the NoS 2nd XI League). In 1961-62, the season was divided into 2 competitions, Leg I and Leg II, the winners of each would play a decider for the overall Championship. Inverness Th won the first Leg but the second was incomplete so no play-off was arranged. Local press archives were used for this. 86.29.33.48 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If this is true, then cite them directly. Wikipedia policy states that all information in articles needs to be verifiable, and through you citing sources, you can prove what you are stating here. If you are having trouble with citing sources on Wikipedia, feel free to take a look at the relevant guidelines here. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Danny Graves Pitched against Bert Kreischer
Bert Kreischer used to bat off of Danny Graves as noted and surprisingly discoverd on this podcast episode: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AxfiS1nD4Go 208.199.104.84 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cite that directly in the article then, please. The burden of evidence to prove that content is verifiable lies on any editor who adds or restores material. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Jkaharper
Thanks for helping to revert the vandal. In the future, though, please try to avoid spamming page histories with reverts, especially if the vandalism isn't particularly urgent. Just revert them once, and if they continue you can report them. It saves time for you, and stops someone from potentially getting dozens of notifications. Thanks! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about that. I appreciate you bringing this up -- I just kept on reverting, thinking it was fine due to WP:3RR explicitly pointing out that reverting sockpuppets is exempt from the edit warring policy. But you are right regarding notifications; I should have taken that into consideration before reverting as much as I did. I am pinging you to ask this, though: where should I report incidents like these in the future? Part of why I didn't report it was because, as you pointed out, it wasn't egregious vandalism (hence why I didn't go to AIV), and I wasn't sure how long a response time would take. What venue do you recommend I go to from here on out? JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think AIV would be the best case here, and just point out the history of Vivienne Martin (actress) in your report; any admin should be able to see the block evasion going on. As long as there's obvious disruption/sockpuppetry, AIV is fine. SPI would also work, but that's generally for more complex cases and it could take days for an admin to respond there. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I appreciate your advice here. I will make it a point to take the avenue of going to AIV for obvious, disruptive sockpuppetry from now on. Thank you for the assistance! JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Gus, Lucy and Ivy Malcolms
I apologise for attempting to change the surnames of these three Emmerdale characters from “Malcolm” to “Malcolms”. I won’t carry on doing this. However, I would check your facts before you threaten to block me from editing. In the show they are credited with the surname “Malcolms”. This means that in making these edits I’m not vandalising the page, but rather fixing an error.

Thank you. 31.205.215.227 (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, my apologies for that. I'll actually go change it right now. Sorry for any inconvenience. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

my error—accidentally reverted your ed
Somehow, not sure what happened but my pc review and rejection of four ip edits to animal testing, subsequently a fifth edit by ip editor, then your reversion for OR resulted in no edits accepted. I reverted your edit (in error, then improved a sentence (hashed by the ip (I think) restored your edit, then accepted the entire mess (with your and my changes preserved). Please accept my apologies and best wishes. (I will add a further explanation on the ip's talk page).
 * — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC) —

Whatever Bilk is
A bit from the article about a band named Bilk has gone viral, but the bit about a corned beef theft does not in fact seem to be true. Someone called "Richard Jarrett" was involved in the theft (as sourced), but there is no evidence of him ever having been linked to this band. The band's own Instagram seems rather incredulous as well. I'm trying to get it off the page. Thanks. Nomeluk (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for letting me know. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Plane crash revert
Hello! Hope you're doing fine. Regarding the revert you made to the plane crash article, you listed the reason as no citation, but there are 3 or 4 citations referenced that list the victims included. Muddybasilisk (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry for the late response. I appreciate you correcting me, I see my edit was already reverted with sourcing added to what I was specifically reverting. Thank you for letting me know. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion at BBC News Now
Hi there, this is just to let you know that I reverted your reversion of an IP's edit at BBC News Now because the editor was removing duplicated content from the beginning of the paragraph. As you have warned the user, please consider removing or striking this. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 15:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Warning removed from their talk page, thank you for correcting my mistake. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my edit on Trombone changing "word" to "words"
I would like to know if I was wrong in that edit. (I'm new on Wikipedia)

68.71.15.2 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. To answer, yes, the edit was wrong. It's just one word plus a suffix (the sole word being "tromba," plus the suffix "-one," which in itself is not a word. Additionally, "I'm just some filler text, please don't delete me" is not a constructive addition to the article and could arguably qualify as vandalism, depending on who you ask. I hope this clears things up. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted, but a prefix is still technically a word. 68.71.15.2 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I concede your point. Still, I don't think the sentence would quite work grammatically -- it would be better off as it currently is: "'Trombone' comes from the Italian word tromba (trumpet) plus the suffix -one (large), meaning 'large trumpet.'" Changing "word" to "words" would be incorrect here, since "tromba" is the only word that is part of that section of the sentence, with the suffix only coming after the word "plus," thus being a new, separate part of it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you for clarifying. 68.71.15.2 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Small question
Hi JeffSpaceman,

Lately I had been copyediting the Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W223) article. It took me over an hour, bit longer than expected, to finalise and publish my edit. Although I have a good understanding of the subject, it was that I would often get stuck choosing between two ways of how to word a particular sentence.

Here's one I had been thinking quite a lot on:

A: "For the first time in the S-Class' history, the design features a Panamericana style grille design with a large Mercedes-Benz logo in the center, instead of a hood ornament like on the standard models."

B: "For the first time in the S-Class' history, the design features a Panamericana style grille design with the Mercedes-Benz logo being presented by a large emblem in the center, rather than via a hood ornament like it is on the standard models."

I ended up choosing option A (for now), but anyways, which one sounds better to you, A or B?

Just asking, as I see you also copyedit articles quite often, like I do, so I wondered what would be your say in this!

Regards, — AP 499D25  (talk)  14:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think A works, though I'd argue "as" might work better than "like," since "like" feels slightly colloquial. That's just me, though, and others may disagree. Regardless, I appreciate you asking about this, and I'm happy to provide my perspective, for whatever it's worth. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks!
 * Btw that particular sentence used to read, "For the first time in the S-Class' history, the design features a Panamericana style grille design with a large Mercedes-Benz logo in the center, rather than presented via a hood ornament like it is on the standard models." before I made the copyedit. — AP 499D25  (talk)  06:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

OK Computer
Hello, I'd changed OK Computer's page to say "widespread acclaim" instead of just "acclaim" because it'd be more accurate to the release time period. Upon release, OK Computer was widely revered by many critics and fans alike and still is today. (check any online music site for that). If you have any rebuttals to this statement (that aren't grammatical because the sentence reads fine with or without it), please let me know.

yours truly, Swedishprogressivemetal (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have quite a few rebuttals to this statement, User:Swedishprogressivemetal. For one thing, a lot of the analysis you've presented seems to come from a place of original research, which is prohibited by policy on Wikipedia. For another, online music sites are not inherently reliable sources. While online publications featuring writers with journalistic experience like AllMusic and Rolling Stone pass WP:RSMUSIC due to there being at least a veneer of fact-checking and accuracy, user-generated fan websites like Rate Your Music and Last.fm fail the reliable sourcing guidelines (which can be viewed above), and are self-published sources. Granting fansites like these as much legitimacy in determining an album or artist's impact as AllMusic or Rolling Stone would be to give undue weight to unreliable sources.
 * I have attempted to explain this to the best of my abilities. If you have any further questions, don't be afraid to ask. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * hello again, I do have some things to say.
 * for a start, could you elaborate on "place of original research?" I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by that.
 * 2. on those fan websites (or some of them at least, such as albumoftheyear.org) have aggregate scores for both fans and critics. and for many album pages on Wikipedia, there is sections in the Critical Reception parts for aggregate scores (such as Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic?) so, i'd count that as a valid source.
 * yours truly, Swedishprogressivemetal (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to elaborate: When I said "place of original research," what I meant was that it felt like you were synthesizing the sources to draw a conclusion not explicitly reached by any one of them -- see WP:SYNTH for more information on what I am talking about. Additionally, the problem with those fan websites is that nearly all of them fail WP:RS, as illustrated by their presences on WP:NOTRSMUSIC, which includes popular fansites like the aforementioned RYM and Last.fm, as well as other popular ones like Discogs and WhoSampled. Album of the Year is in the same boat -- as noted by its inclusion on NOTRSMUSIC, where it is included with the following description: "No clear editorial discretion between sources, including several amateur critics alongside otherwise reliable/professional ones." You can find a 2020 discussion about that specific source here, where editors came to a consensus that it is a self-published source that presents user-generated content, thus failing WP:USERG and WP:SELFPUB. Additionally, as noted by the description, it includes non-professional and unreliable reviewers (including ones who self-publish on YouTube) alongside journalistic publications for its critical rankings, unlike Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic, whose critical consensuses meet the RS guidelines and are listed at WP:RSMUSIC. Because of this, AOTY is considered generally unreliable as a source. If you feel differently, don't hesitate to go to the reliable sources noticeboard (linked here) to make a case for the source's reliability. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)