User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2007/November

Admin?
Hi Jeff, would you be interested in having a few extra buttons on your toolbar? Tim Vickers 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tim, I would be interested. Thank you for considering me!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As a comment on this, I know you'll get criticised about your low number of mainspace edits. This might not be such an issue as it usually is since your main effort is on templates and commons. However, if you want to wait until you have more mainspace experience, we can postpone the nomination for a few months. At the moment I'd give you a 50/50 chance of passing RfA, but if you were to spend a while doing some mainspace maintenance - perhaps vandal patrol using TWINKLE - you'd be sure to pass. Anyway, its your decision. Tim Vickers 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll be using TWINKLE and looking in on Special:Recentchanges as time permits.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AT&T Inc. horizontal logo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:AT&T Inc. horizontal logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. Having served out its life and been replaced by Image:AT&T logo (horizontal).svg, this image can now be safely deleted.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:SpamCop.gif
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:SpamCop.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:SpamCop
Hi. Would you please review your comments in User categories for discussion, given the fact that Category:SpamCop had existed for a long time, since before creation logging, per this log? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted it as recreation of Category:Wikipedians who use SpamCop, which was created in June 2007 (and deleted in July). According to the logs, Category:SpamCop was created in August 2007, not "since before creation logging".  The log link you provided only lists deletions, moves, and page protections, not page creation dates, which is why it isn't showing up. Hope that clears things up for you. VegaDark (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info. How can I see page creation dates?  Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an admin, when I click on a page there is a link towards the top that allows me to see deleted edits, which is where I look. I'm pretty sure there is a way to see as a non-admin, but I don't recall where to look. VegaDark (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone reading this message recall where to look? Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure where Jeff wants us to respond to this, if at all. Doczilla 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did want a response. I felt posting the above in section User categories for discussion would be inappropriate given the closure of that discussion.  I posted on the user talk pages of the Administrators and one other involved per Deletion review.  VegaDark has responded on my user talk page.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I would characterise being created August 2007 as existing "for a long time". But besides that, what are your concerns? - jc37 13:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my memory was fuzzy on the issue. I would like some advice on how the users of SpamCop and/or the editors of the SpamCop article can collaborate on English Wikipedia.  Evidently, Category:Wikipedians who use SpamCop and Category:SpamCop were insufficient or inappropriate for this purpose.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By collaborating on the article? But to adress what I am guessing is your broader question, Wikipedian categories shouldn't be used for a topic of only a few (or even one) articles. They can go through the edit history of the article to find others who may be interested in further collaboration on the article. They can also do a "whatlinkshere" on the userbox to find others who may also have that userbox. You might also see if there is a WikiProject related to the topic, as well. - jc37 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dana International
Actually, the edit I carried out was not a mistake...the article starts with "Dana International. Dana is" when in fact it should just continue..."Dana International (Born blah blah blah) is a....." please restore my edit --81.159.176.27 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, but with an extra space. Please consider creating an account.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

recent reverts of 76.24.145.157
Although it appears to be vandalisim, the reverts you did were of the user removing info that came from an episode that was gotten erly by hacking Nick's website. Would you be able to undo your reverts? The Placebo Effect 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I reported what I saw at Administrator intervention against vandalism - please voice your opinion there. Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ack, it's already blocked per this edit and this log. What's your source for the info you posted here about "info that came from an episode that was gotten erly by hacking Nick's website"?    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I unblocked the User. And accourding to TvGuide.com, the episode doesn't air until November 30. And have seen said video and it doesn't have a channel mark on it so it couldn't have been aired in the UK. The Placebo Effect 06:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree to reverting my reverts, but I'd like an exemption from the 1RR. :)    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted, and thank you for your cooperation. The Placebo Effect 06:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the grant and for alerting me. The damage I did is undone and easily forgotten.  It would have been really helpful if 76.24.145.157 had explained what it was doing and why at the time (like Piemanmoo did later in this edit), so as not to pass WP:DUCK.  :)  Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 07:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Message from User 71.239.133.107
I see you've reverted a perfectly reasonable edit according to your own personal wishes. Of course, which criticisms are "silly" or "little" is a matter of opinion. I have mine, and I won't allow you to change it; you have yours, and I don't care to try change it. However, there are two things about which you are unclear: The first is the definition of the word libel, and its real-world ramifications; nothing I've written here on Wikipedia constitutes libel, and even if it did, it wouldn't concern you unless what I wrote was libelous against you, or, if you're an attorney in my state, libelous against your client. The second thing about which you are unclear is that an article about Jar Jar Binks is not the place for information about the character Watto. It's topically irrelevant. And that's just a fact. 71.239.133.107 07:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you won't be angry about this. I really do.71.239.133.107 08:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another message from User 71.239.133.107
Please leave me alone. Thanks.71.239.133.107 08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I need to ask more than once to be left alone?71.239.133.107 08:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Once I've noticed these things, I can't just ignore them, sorry.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. At least you can admit it. But that's a third time you've come to my User Talk page and made a change that I've reverted. Is this meant to be humorous, or are you trying to goad me into breaking Wikipedia policy so that I'll be blocked? Are you really so angry about the message above? I won that little edit war with both logic and Wikipedia policy on my side, now, if you please...LEAVE ME ALONE.71.239.133.107 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: It seems you forgot to log in, and the change you made to my User Talk page at 15:30 on 16 November 2007 was credited to your IP address (24.90.165.254). The only other edit made by this IP address was made by you, signed in as Jeff G. I just thought you would want to know. Cheers. 71.239.133.107 (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Covad Logo.PNG
A tag has been placed on Image:Covad Logo.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. • Lawrence Cohen  14:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. I hope this meets with your approval.  Please also note this discussion.  Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good! :) Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 71.239.133.107
Hello, Jeff. I noticed that you recently placed a number of messages, and performed a number of reversions, on this user's talk page, so I would like to discuss this issue with you. This user's attitude is, to say the least, quite belligerent and guarrelsome, and it is impossible to communicate with him. His attitude of ownership of his talk page is completely at odds with Wikipedia policies, and his overall demeanor violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CIVIL. Of course, I am not really telling you anything you do not know already. What I am getting at, then, is do you think this rises to the level of seriousness that I should take it to ANI? I do not like wasting administrator's time with minor matters, but this user's snarky attitude is at odds with the project we are attempting here. I would love to hear your opinion, given the fact that you have had direct dealings with the chap. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your note. I wholeheartedly agree with you that one or more Administrators should get involved.  I already tried to report this user at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and (more recently) at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where your input would be welcomed.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, this guy's got some issues. He keeps making smart-ass comments like "I don't really want to talk to you. Sorry, just being honest. And there's no policy against that.". What crap. He keeps acting like Mrs.perfect when he's just really being stupid. Handle this before it gets out of hand.Green Kirby (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I would have handled it myself if I had shiny buttons. :) Please feel free to comment at the sections I linked to above.  Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I thought it might interest you, Jeff G. (and Republican Jacobite, since you seem interested as well) that while I was making constructive edits to an article, Green Kirby was being indefinitely blocked for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Curious... 71.239.133.107 (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, to you, Jeff G., had I seen this message earlier, I would have let my feelings be known over at ANI. Clicking over there now, I see that they consider the matter to be resolved.  I suppose only time will tell whether that is truly the case. part of a larger post by  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if "Please do all that I ask" is not clear enough; I don't respond to messages posted here on the posters' user talk pages unless specifically requested to do so, to avoid fracturing discussions. I also hope that the matter of 71.239.133.107 (talk) is resolved.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As to you, and your comments, 71.239.133.107 (talk), I am going to assume good faith, and strive to believe you are not ill-intended. Whatever Green Kirby (talk)'s problems might have been (and they were many), this does not justify the attitude you have evinced in your edit summaries and in your repeated deletion of messages on your talk page.  You do not own your talk page, whatever you might think.  I propose that we make a new start.  My first suggestion to you would be to start an account.  That way, you haven't any reason to worry about edits made by anyone else at that IP address.  What say you? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping off a quick note, thanks for your attention to this, even if we didn't exactly see eye-to-eye on it. If they should get a bit more belligerent, again, once they're out of the limelight, feel free to drop a note. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note and invitation, I will surely make you aware if any further misbehavior by this user that I come across. And I apologize for letting others' actions goad me into taking this to ANI in the first place.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Rixiang Reef and Gageo Reef
Hello Jeff G, How do you do? Thank you for your advice. Although I think that you have already noticed something, I want to explain the case of Gageo Reef.

Rixiang Reef was created by Yeahsoo at 18:11, 8 May 2007 UTC. But Surehoped3 has moved it to Gageo Reef by cut-n-paste. This editing is with no consensus and lacking some requirements on WP:RM. Of course, there is also a problem of GFDL, because editing history is cut by that method.

And RFCU showed that Surehoped3 was a sockpuppet of Bason0 who was blocked indefinitely. Then I and administrators have reverted all edits by his/her sockpuppets.

As per above mentioned reasons, I think that it is not a edit war, but restoring from vandalism. I hope that you understand my circumstances. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. My SOP when confronting what appears to be an edit war is to ensure fairness by warning equally all who appear to have interest in the page or pages, without assigning blame.  I'm sorry that I did not understand what was going on with the sockpuppetry until 8 minutes after I posted to your user talk page; now I understand even better.  I would have understood sooner if you had mentioned the sockpuppetry in your Edit Summaries.  I have just retracted my post to your user talk page, which I feel is a slightly better solution than deleting the whole section, but you have my permission to delete the whole section if you want.  I hope that we can put this incident behind us.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Resolved. :) --Nightshadow28 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dyke on a bike
I was under the impression the caption improved the picture. Perhaps your definition of vandalism is not universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.130.145 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it looked like an insult at first glance. On second thought, you neglected to include the attribution, I think I've improved on what you did now.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison
I used an edit summary, and I think the logic of my removal was utterly sensible - the article had Ellison's participation in a civil rights march listed as a controversy. This seemed ridiculous. Now, what to do with that sentence is another question - perhaps it should have been moved instead of removed. But my edit used an edit summary, and to revert it with automated tools and leave a vandalism warning on my talk page is utterly unreasonable. Please remember that the right to edit from an IP address is an Foundation issue, and harassing IP editors with talk page messages that are inaccurate and would never be used against established and logged-in editors (i.e. if I were logged into my 2004-era admin account right now instead of just using my IP) is unacceptable. 24.250.193.241 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said you didn't use an edit summary, just that you deleted information from Wikipedia. I did not leave a vandalism warning on your talk page, I left a consensus-approved uw-delete1 level 1 template that assumed good faith.  And I resent your implications to the contrary.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The template you used says "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." I used an edit summary that specified the reason, and did not believe the edit to be controversial. Even if I had, WP:BOLD endorses making the edit first and seeing if consensus forms, and so the point is moot. The template is explicitly part of a series of templates that escelate to threats of blocks, and the clear message is that my edit was unacceptable. This is utter baloney, and you know full well you would have never templated the edit if it hadn't come from an IP. Since the edit was entirely within policy - in fact, I would say that suggesting that Mr. Ellison's contributions to the Civil Rights movement was a "controversy" violates WP:BLP - to use a warning template is utterly inappropriate. Resent the implications all you want, but it was a bad warning done through careless use of automatic rollback tools, and you should be more careful. 24.250.193.241 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be more careful.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I genuinely appreciate that. 24.250.193.241 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Caesar (video game)
Hi. Why did you revert my reversion of deletion vandalism to Caesar (video game) by 67.163.2.230 in this edit? Would you please consider reversing your action? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but my reversion of deletion vandalism to Caesar (video game) is actually due to my mistake. I have already reverted the article back to your previous edit. Sorry for the inconvenience that have may caused you. E Wing (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and for joining the fight against vandalism. I accept your apology.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Warnings
I think you should be a bit more conservative with u4 warnings. The purpose of the series of warnings is so that the user has several increasingly severe warnings, and thus a chance to stop, before he is blocked. Going straight to u4 after a bot does a u1 is not how the warning system should work. I (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. If I consider the vandalism blatant, and the user has a uw-vandalism1 from a bot, should I use uw-bv or uw-vandalism2 or 3?  Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, personally, I don't go to a higher level usually. To be on the safe side, I'd use uw2, maybe uw3 if it's serious. But you might want to ask WP:UW what they believe qualifies as blatant vandalism, and warrants that specific template. I (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a question about this to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotary International
Fair enough, although see my comment here. AndyJones (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Universal Florida Studio Tour
Hi Jeff G.. I'm currently in the process of a building up a page for Universal Studios Florida's former Studio Tour, The Universal Florida Studio Tour, And i'm in desperate need of a ride video of the tour to post on the article, Would you happen to have any? Please respond with a message back to my talk page, Or post a video of the Tour on the article, First, And Then send me a message. Thanks--5VH9 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Thanks for trying. I understand that you were confused about me posting this message. As i said before (Above) "I'm in desperate need of a ride video...". I've been asking most users for a video, and i just happened to ask you. Thank You--5VH9 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be spamming, which is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Please discriminate more in your posts to user talk pages.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotary
I'm sure the message you let on my page was only motivated by the will to make things well. Yet it is inappropriate as the real problem is in fact the floating IP which is currently vandalising the article. If you read the talk page of the article, you'll understand what I mean. PierreLarcin & floating IP between 84.100.**.** and 84.102.**.** are the same personn, banned for life on the French WP and blocked several times here. The best thing to do is instead to ask for the IP to be blocked if you see him vandalizing. Regards. --Bombastus (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I noted above, "My SOP when confronting what appears to be an edit war is to ensure fairness by warning equally all who appear to have interest in the page or pages, without assigning blame."  Perhaps you should ask for semi-protection for Rotary International to at least keep the random IP Addresses in those ranges at bay?  Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, I hadn't thought of it. --Bombastus (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Is there any truth to these allegations?    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FTR: Bombastus has been active on Commons, cs, da, de, el, en, eo, es, et, fi, fr.wikiquote, fr.wikiversity, fr, he, hu, it, ja, ku, lb, Meta, mk, nl, oc, pl, pt, ro, ru, sk, sr, sv, vi, wa, and zh; Hayek has been active on ar, Commons, de, es, and fr; and Bombastus99 has been active only on fr.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, Bombastus is a regular editor in WP:fr. Although we do not share the same interests, we incidentally have been working together to try to avoid the Rotary articles in various wikipedia's to become the playground of Pierre Larcin, a rather strange character who has now been indefinitely blocked on WP:fr (and here too I think) (an interesting approach of that character can be found in this RfA).
 * Bombastus has strong views, but is a honest editor. And even a honest editor can have more than one account. I will let Bombastus reply on that if he thinks appropriate, but it is perfectly transparent that the user page of Hayek redirects to fr:User:Bombastus, while fr:Utilisateur:Bombastus99 says "I am Bombastus" (and the userbox says "I am a sockpuppet").
 * Now I am curious about two things: first, the semi-protection you suggest. You seem to refer to it as a long term solution while on WP:fr, we generally consider that protection, whether full or semi, can only be temporary. There have been arguments in favour of long term semi-protection as a regular tool, but at the end of the day our policy did not change. I do not think it is any different here, so what you suggest is a temporary measure, right?.
 * Second: I am still a bit surprised about the way 3RR is applied here. I mean, in this case, a registered editor is reverting edits that have been rejected after lengthy discussions on the article talk page. In fact, regularly putting these edits in after loosing the argument everywhere (including in the RfA) is vandalism in my opinion. Knowing that, I guess you reckon 3RR was not appropriate in the case of Bombastus? I am just trying to sort out the way you consider 3RR around here. Bradipus (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that information. Yes, semi-protection on English Wikipedia is regarded as only temporary.  Yes, it appears now that Bombastus was just fighting the vandalism of PierreLarcin, and thus Bombastus was not violating the 3RR.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot3
I noticed you answered a question or two there, so if you know the answer to this I'd appreciate it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply there. Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)