User talk:JeffSpaceman/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hi JeffSpaceman! I noticed your contributions to Pod Save America&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. i forgo to shower

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — Galaxy Dog talk • contribs 17:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

User warning templates
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Pod Save America: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. — Galaxy Dog talk • contribs 17:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was actually wondering how to do these. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hello, I'm Trains2050. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Exhibitionism, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Trains2050 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, a mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

its not your mistake, i was using Huggle and i reverted it the same time you reverted it but i restored your edit. Trains2050 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Double oof on my part. I didn't realize I was in the right here. Ah well, all is good now. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What was the reason for removing my edit from Anikha?
Angdy😠 Ananya S Panicker (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it was not written with a neutral point of view. And even if she does hold that nickname, it's unsourced, so it was kinda going to be tossed out either way. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried RedWarn?
I used to only use Twinkle for anti-vandalism (like you're doing), but now I use a newer tool (currently in beta) called RedWarn. It allows for a lot of customization and has some other upsides too. One thing I like about it is how it opens the warning interface right after you rollback edit(s) (rather than simply opening the user's talk page). Since the tool is in beta, it lacks some features that Twinkle has (and thus I still have Twinkle installed), but I thought it would be worth telling you about if you haven't heard of it. Since you're a newer user, you may have an easier time acclimating to it. If you prefer Twinkle, that's okay too — I just thought I'd make you aware of RedWarn. Anyway, thanks for all the anti-vandalism work you've been doing! It makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! — Galaxy Dog talk 22:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never used RedWarn, since I don't know how to set it up. I am perfectly happy with Twinkle, but I guess it could be nice to mix it up every now and then. If you could tell me how to set it up, that would be excellent, and thanks for the compliment -- always love getting some props! :-) JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you need to install Enterprisey's script-installer by going into the "Gadgets" section of your preferences and checking "Install scripts without having to edit JavaScript files." Then just go to RedWarn and click "Install" on the infobox on the right side of the page. After you've installed it, you can configure it to your liking by clicking the gear icon that it adds to the top-right corner of every page. — Galaxy Dog talk 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think I will stick to Twinkle at the moment, but I am happy to try out RedWarn at any time, maybe even in the near future. Thanks for the heads up! Cheers. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. Yeah, I just wanted to make you aware of it. Have a nice day! — Galaxy Dog talk 22:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Names of the Phillipines
You removed my correction to the transcription of the Hebrew name because it "did not appear constructive". I am a native Hebrew speaker. The previous transcription, which you brought back to the page, is incorrect. It's not a matter of minor orthographic stylings, it's literally transcribing a different phrase from the Hebrew text next to it. It should be obvious, as the Hebrew text has three words, and the transcription only has two. If I made some sort of styling error, I'll be happy to be made aware of, but if you just removed my correction randomly or automatically, I'll put it back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.97.169 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, that was a mistake on my part. Fortunately, it is back now, so I don't even need to restore. Thanks for alerting me. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
PS. You have go to try Redwarn (i did read your discussion above), it's a huge improvement over twinkle. That's an order! :-) Field Marshal Aryan  ( talk ) 17:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * YES, MASTER! :-P JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Scottie McClue
Hi Jeff, I noticed someone had vandalized The Scottie McClue page so that when you search up scottie you get some other guy and I was just trying tp put it right if you can help[ great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.118.116 (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a case of unexplained content removal, if you're asking why I reverted your edit. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Pest
I just ranged the hell out of them. Until next year... OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, so they've been here before? JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's either one person, or the IP range of a nursery school. The result is the same either way. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Oversight
Just in case you were about to with this edit, I've already put it to the attention of the oversight team, just in case you also sent one and two went through. :) Thanks,  Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 20:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually was not planning on sending it to the oversight team, since I didn't see anything particularly wrong with it. Oh how wrong I was. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you might be right... I thought it had what looked like a phone number in it, I usually send that kind of stuff over.  Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 20:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does look a lot like a phone number, good rationale. Either way, it probably won't hurt for that to be suppressed. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Two Dogmas of Empiricism
I thought my addition was pretty clearly just a clarification. It only concluded the existing line of reasoning in the text. It is explicit in Quine's original paper that he synonymity must be predicated on a notion of necessity and thus analyticity, making the whole argument for defining synonymity quite circular! That's precisely what he tries to show, and is well-known by any philosopher who has read his paper. There is no whiff of 'opinion' about it, since I was merely wrapping up Quine's argument. Please revert.

2A01:388:536:110:0:0:1:3 (talk)
 * Apologies for that. I initially found it somewhat of an obvious, unnecessary edit, but I definitely understand why you admit it now. Apologies, I see you have reverted my edit, and I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries at all. And I appreciate you being open-minded. I agree that given the right background, it's an obvious statement, but I just thought that someone coming across this material for the first time would probably value the explicit 'spelling out' of things, which I suppose you also see now. In any case, thanks for reverting, and of course feel free to rephrase the sentence if you think it can be improved. 2A01:388:536:110:0:0:1:3 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You are now a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker!
Hi JeffSpaceman! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the rollback or pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that these user rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of both tools. Instead of having you formally request these user rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave them to you. These user rights allow you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection, as well as to quickly revert the edits of other users in cases of blatant vandalism.


 * Rollback permissions




 * Please keep these things in mind at all times when using rollback to revert edits:
 * Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a "[Rollback]" button next to a page's latest edits - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only, and never used to revert good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose, the rights will be revoked.
 * Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask.


 * For more information on how to use rollback, see this tutorial page.


 * Pending changes reviewer permissions


 * Please keep these things in mind regarding the tools or when you're reviewing any pending changes:
 * A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges, and a list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
 * Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
 * You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
 * Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.


 * You may find the following pages useful to review:
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
 * Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
 * Protection policy, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with these user rights - they're pretty straight-forward and they don't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, run into any issues or problems, or if you're not sure if the use of either tool is appropriate or not and need my input or advice - I'll be more than happy to help you any time you need it. If you no longer want one or both of these user rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove them for you. Thank you for helping to locate, revert, and remove vandalism, as well as review and keep disruptive edits off of Wikipedia - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad rollback
Hi Jeff - this rollback restored the vandalism that removed (and understandably upset them somewhat). Please slow down and check each rollback you make ~TNT (she/her • talk) 00:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To add to this, unfortunately it appears that it caused them to leave Wikipedia. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry. I guess I thought it was vandalism when I reverted it, seeing as how changing "soup" to "sewage" in most contexts I would consider to be vandalism -- my intention was never to alienate anybody, and I'm very sorry. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mistakes happen, and the world hasn't ended so it can't be all bad! ~TNT (she/her • talk) 13:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that it was a simple mistake, but at the same time, I also don't want to upset or alienate users editing in good faith by accident. I do thank you for your politeness on this matter, since I do like being told if I've made a mistake so I can learn from it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an easy one to make, and I'm sure I've done it plenty of times before - the best advice I can give is if you're ever unsure, don't use rollback and instead edit the article. That way you're more likely to spot the context if you were about to make a mistake ~TNT (she/her • talk) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I usually edit via Rollback since I typically just revert obvious vandalism or unsourced claims, but that's actually a very good point you drive at for when I'm unsure. Typically, in those situations, I leave the article alone, but I think I was thrown off by a mixture of the word replacement and an edit summary that, out of context, looked like a vandalistic edit summary. Once again, I do thank you for your advice. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for butting in but I really like the advice the essay you linked gives, look at pictures of cute animals instead of starting an ANI thread (I don't even know why I'm still watching ANI). Also, I see your thoughts, you saw them change soup to sewage and assumed it was vandalism because in most cases it is. I've made my fair share of mistakes (sometimes i even forget rollback included in most semi-automated tools undos all the edits an editor has made up until the last edit by a different editor, after which I have to go through and add back the content that I meant to keep). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Epic Mickey
The change I made was already cited, just the description of the citation was wrong. 100.40.220.189 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I have reverted it back. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:42812 TV
Hello. You have been involved with some editing with. Please note that a discussion has now been opened at WP:ANI and their editing here. Please refrain from edit warring with the said user and wait for an outcome (or contribute as necessary to the discussion). ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West lead section
Hey, I appreciate your edits and your good intentions, but we have to get this right. Strictly speaking, [...], resulting in further controversy is not currently supported by the article body. If you can find a reliable source that supports a causal link between West's statements in the InfoWars interview resulting in "further controversy", please include it in the article body. If not, I strongly suggest removing that part from the lead again. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 19:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, good point. I think I was trying a bit too hard to expand the sentence, without considering the fact that a reliable source was needed there. Thank you for pointing that out. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Although now the sentence again reads as though the statements happened before the brands dropped him. Can we just separate the sentence so it reads: He later publicly praised Adolf Hitler and denied the Holocaust in December 2022? Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 20:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

April 2023
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ticket to Ride (song) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. 'The hatnote is intended for those looking for a DIFFERENT article with a similar title. By removing it, you made it more difficult to navigate Wikipedia.' Sundayclose (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, since you clearly reverted my edit in good faith, the hatnote does not belong on a page that has been disambiguated. The Ticket to Ride disambiguation page is where people can look for a different article with a similar title. That is where people can navigate articles with similar titles. Ticket to Ride (song) has a clear distinction in the article title, and thus the hatnote does not belong there. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah!!! My brain cell must have stopped working for a few minutes. You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. Anyway, apologies and thanks for the message. Sundayclose (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, accidents happen. Thank you for your civility here, I appreciate it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You're so fast!
Hi Jeff. Thanks for the 'thank' a few minutes ago. I'm currently enrolled in the Anti Vandalism Academy and am progressing through the training. I've started using Huggle to identify possibly vandalism but every page I go to you have already reverted the vandalism! I have to ask: what are you using to identify possible vandalism edits?? Cheers Cabrils (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry for the late reply. To revert vandalism (or any other problematic edits I spot on recent changes), I use Twinkle. Given that you are an older user than me, I'd assume you've heard about it, but if you don't know what it is, it's a tool that allows me to quickly revert edits that, for one reason or another, should not continue to stay up (vandalism, addition of unsourced content, NPOV violations, etc): in addition, it provides me with a set of user welcome and warning messages, in case I feel the need to do either. It's proven to be very useful in the nearly three years that I have been on here, and is probably my favorite tool that I have access to here. I'd definitely recommend it, if you haven't tried it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jeff, I do use Twinkle too, but I suspect I've only scratched the surface of its abilities. Thanks for the info, I will dig deeper. All the best, Cabrils (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
2 comments:
 * The cricketeer is truly a major historic figure in cricket, similar in stature to Willie Mays or Jack Nicklaus. And since cricket's so big outside the Americas, I suspect the consensus will evolve to keeping the page as is, independently of HiLo48's Yankeephobia.
 * At Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I encouraged you to ignore HiLo48. I didn't mean to blow off your concerns, I was just trying to be helpful to you. I expect an admin may sanction HiLo48.

Thanks for what you do around here. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if the page is kept as is, this was merely a proposal -- one that, based on how discussion is going, seems to be against my motion, but consensus is consensus, and I won't argue too much with that if people can prove that the cricketer is as or more notable than the political commentator. I appreciate your politeness about this matter. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

William Riley
Most links to disambiguation pages are mistakes and end up on a list of links that need to be fixed, and cause more work for people who fix them. So the policy is that all intentional disambiguation links include '(disambiguation)', even if that is a redirect. It's explained better at WP:INTDAB, if you're interested. Leschnei (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you pointing me to this, I will self-revert. Thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Proof about major general albert
There is no proof that he was trying to make soldiers have powers to walk threw walls. So why protect that bs statement? 2600:1006:B195:CC44:1CFE:9C7C:AA12:1763 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is something to be discussed on the article's talk page. Please don't just remove information without first establishing consensus. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies dictate that material must be verifiable in reliable sources, and in this case we have ample citations. See WP:NOTTRUTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sean Slater
Hi,

Thanks for your reversion at Sean Slater. This IP editor is an intriguing case I've been following for a little while now. Most of his edits involve going against WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE, and he will often change the word "after" to "following". His favourite subject areas are British politics, British television, and Hampshire. He operates from a range of IP addresses - mostly in England, but occasionally in the Netherlands - and returns to the same addresses periodically.

I've (tentatively) identified him as "Harry the house". Following the advice of another editor I've been reporting him to AIV and reverting his edits. I've tried persuasion once or twice without any positive outcome, but it seems to me that this is a hardworking and diligent editor who could be a productive member of Wikipedia - if only we could get him to follow the guidelines.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry I didn't see this until now. I didn't know that this was an SPI case, and I'll definitely keep that in mind should I see editing along the lines of what you described again. I really didn't know that this was an editor with a history, I assumed good faith and just saw it as someone unintentionally going against the NOPIPE guidelines (admittedly, I wasn't aware of NOPIPE until last year, and I've been editing here since 2020). I appreciate you bringing this person's editing patterns to my attention. I do want to ask, though -- should this editor be reported to AIV? Given the background that you have provided, I think, since the SPI exists, it should probably just be reported there, since as disruptive as their editing may be, it doesn't appear to be obvious vandalism, and it could probably just be reported as block evasion (and potentially even ban evasion, per WP:3X, though that is reliant on CheckUser evidence). I certainly see this as disruptive editing and block evasion, but I don't believe it to be vandalism. Is AIV the right venue for reporting their edits? Just wondering. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I've been reporting to AIV because I was advised by a more experienced editor that that was the best course of action. The comments at the SPI I linked to above suggest that AIV is the quickest way to limit the damage, and SPI is largely impotent when the IP addresses change so frequently. I'm open to suggestions though.
 * I do take your point about whether or not this behaviour fits the textbook definition of vandalism, and I've hesitated to revert his edits at times because the inevitable back-and-forth can be more disruptive than the edits themselves. It's hard to know what to call it though when he's been asked so many times to stop and refuses to communicate. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense. AIV definitely takes less time than SPI, though I definitely prefer to use it for blatant vandalism over sneaky sockpuppeteering (in which case I typically go to SPI). I understand that it's hard to know what to really classify this user's behavior as, and it's not like it really matters when it comes down to it, since in any case it is unambiguous block evasion. All that aside, once again, thank you for bringing this to my attention, I'll definitely keep it in mind if and when I see such behavior patterns in the future. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Captain Sum Ting Wong" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Sum_Ting_Wong&redirect=no Captain Sum Ting Wong] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Beat me twice
You are quick with the reverts... beat me twice already today. I guess I'm not as fast as I used to be. Keep it up! Fox 3 (Push to Talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Washington State BSA camp closers.
Closed by Scout Executive Ralph Voelker

https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article64256892.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/life/outdoors/boy-scout-camps-close-in-south-sound-could-be-logged-for-cash/ 143.244.116.101 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you providing these sources, but please put them on the page itself. All content must be verifiable, and it is satisfied by providing citations in the article itself to such sources. See the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guidelines for further information. Pay specific to attention to the WP:BURDEN section on the former page -- "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content re: Walt Harris
I was disturbed and confused Jeff by your removal of content you described as ‘puffing and unsubstantiated’. What you removed is completely factual and known in the public domain. Removing this content characterizing it is ‘puffing’ while including opinions critical of his coaching that are non factual is biased. 47.195.244.145 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is factual and known in the public domain, it needs a source to verify it. Additionally, it must conform to our WP:Neutral point of view policy. The negative content is sourced to a reliable source, the positive content wasn't -- in fact, its subjective terminology ("His teams often achieved excellent results") was textbook WP:PUFFERY, and even if it were sourced to a reputable publication, it would need more neutral wording to conform to WP:NPOV. If you would like to restore this content with more neutral wording supported by reliable sources (see relevant guidelines about those here), go ahead. But the burden is on editors wanting to restore disputed content to verify it themselves. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSETITLE
You like to cite WP:FALSETITLE but dont even do it correctly when it comes to commas. See the section #If you feel removing the false title changes the meaning: Your edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dirt_(Alice_in_Chains_album)&diff=next&oldid=1200487158 are wrong and change the meaning --FMSky (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong: He admired the singer, Layne Staley's lyrics and voice, and the lead guitarist, Jerry Cantrell's guitar riffs.
 * Correct: He admired the singer Layne Staley's lyrics and voice, and the lead guitarist Jerry Cantrell's guitar riffs.


 * Yes, sorry about that. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

graham coxon
why do you keep changing his status plus idk how to add sources but i have a ton which say that he is like iconic n famous n stuff so uh yeah 86.98.159.93 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a problem. You need sources to support anything you add to a page. See WP:Verifiability. If you can find reliable sources that support your claim, feel free to add those to the article. If you don't know how to add sources, see WP:Citing sources for the relevant guidelines on that. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In Good Faith talk discussion
I apologize for saying your argument wasn't valid, I wasn't aware you were referring to an actual user. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 14:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's all good, I appreciate the apology. Thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello JeffSpaceman! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

I have a hard time believing this is Ben Rector
As a hardcore Ben Rector fan I picked apart this edit a bit:


 * Ben Rector never refers to himself as "Ben Rector", always just Ben. It's evident in all of his messages online, which usually starts with "Hey guys its me Ben"; see his newsletter or any social media post
 * Ben never uses exclamation points, except for ironic emphasis
 * This information is accurate; I was short on time when writing it's a very simple "statement, source, repeat" section, and it's pretty much impossible for me to misinterpret something when its just one source. Most of the second paragraph is a primary source, so even then it's his words, not mine. These statements are reaffirmed the same way across interviews when asked.
 * Most of this section is just facts; "Jesus" is mentioned in those songs, and his children were born on that year. "information that isn't super accurate" is unlikely.
 * His religion and his wife and kids are literally the only thing this guy cares about. "Isn't super noteworthy" is very out-of-pocket for him.
 * Ben is on tour right now (opening for Dan and Shay), and is currently on a promotional run for a new single. He has better things to worry about at this time.
 * Ben is not WP:BOLD.

Then again, this IP is from the Nashville, Tennessee area, where Ben lives, which is very good evidence for the opposing side... a very curious edit. Panini! • 🥪 19:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this info! I really don't know much about Rector (I wasn't even familiar with his name before this came up on recent changes), so I figured it was the article subject with a COI. Thank you for providing this explanation, I would have never been able to figure any of this out on my own. Cheers! JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is better to be safe than sorry, though! regardless, it's an easy revert as an unexplained content removal. Panini!  • 🥪 21:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * How can you be so fast? Are you using NASA PC?!! Hide on Rosé  (thảo luận &#124; đóng góp &#124; trung ương) 14:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know, maybe I've got some kind of Wikipedia superspeed. In all seriousness, thanks for the barnstar! JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My cross-wiki with SWViewer can't be like this, although sometimes i flooded myself with 50-60 tabs. Hide on Rosé  (thảo luận &#124; đóng góp &#124; trung ương) 14:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

ship of fools world party
Stephanie was/is very humble and didn't/ doesn't credit herself often. I have the original illustration here in the studio - would that be proof enough that she made it? I also have photos of Karl and Stephanie working on it. Am I to disclose she is my partner? does that disqualify her for being credited with her work because I made the edit?

Michael Nash Assoc (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy states that all content must be verifiable, and that the burden is on any user who adds content to illustrate its verifiability. The information you have provided me has not verified the content you added, and additionally, if you really do have connections to this person, see the WP:COI notice that Binksternet has provided on your talk page -- editing Wikipedia in your interest, or those of people you are connected to, goes against the guidelines I have linked above. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no commercial motivation just accurate attribution of a creative work and the association to a friend who has recently passed. Michael Nash Assoc (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about her passing, but if it really is accurate attribution, please provide reliable sources that support this. We cannot take editors at their word about having associations with people who may or may not have been affiliated with notable subjects. Once again, as I stated, the burden is on you to prove through a reliable source that she had involvement here. You cannot cite your own knowledge, user-generated content, or self-published sources (unless provided by one or more of the subjects themselves) to support the material you want to add. Please look over the policies and guidelines I have linked here, since they will likely provide more assistance than I can outside of merely recapitulating portions of those pages. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Its Karl who has passed - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68540877 Michael Nash Assoc (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I appreciate the correction. But please acknowledge the other things I have pointed out -- your addition of unsourced content goes against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I have pointed you to pages where you can read why and avoid such violations in the future. I don't want you to end up blocked, but that's the trajectory you're on if you continue submitting information that falls afoul of the WP:No original research and Verifiability policies. Please read those (along with the multiple other guidelines linked above) before you do any more editing to the page. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ok - I have only just joined as I believed I could add information which I know to be true and be of value and interest to others- I didn't intend to be a nuisance by editing pages randomly. However if an artwork is uncredited in the real world does that mean it will forever be uncredited in wiki ? Michael Nash Assoc (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable sources that support the credits for an artwork, then it will likely remain uncredited on Wikipedia. Articles only include material that is verifiable, and in this case there have been no reliable citations provided that support Stephanie as the credited artist. I don't think you're being a nuisance at all, and I'm not trying to come down on you -- in fact, I specifically stated that I don't want you to wind up being blocked. I'm sure the information you're adding is of value and interest to fans of the band, but the information needs to have sources that back it up or it will be removed. So to answer your question, that would pretty much be a "yes" -- if artwork does not have proper credits in the real world, then it will not receive proper credits on Wikipedia, since that would likely qualify as original research. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me
I'm no longer able to have the ytm template working... --DoebLoggs (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)