User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2008/February

Wowowee
OK, so you added the notability warning for the show; I'm not really a rabid fan nor a critic of the show, but I think the variety show's notable enough, as evidenced by its IMDB profile, adding to the fact that the PhilSports Arena stampede incident involving the show was listed in Guinness World Records... Blake Gripling (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Please feel free to add any applicable references to that article.  Thanks again!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:JimBobUSA
Greetings. You placed a warning on my talk page User_talk:JimBobUSA. Care to explain why? Jim (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. You called another user "a sociopath".    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope...you did not read the link. Another user (Admin) called me a sociopath...follow the link ;)Jim (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here ya go: Wikiquette_alerts   "My good faith is long since exhausted. The guy is a sociopath. He has repeatedly deleted referenced content. He just did it again. See also this, for a worse example. They are just the two most recent cases. Grant | Talk 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)" Jim (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, when making this edit, you neither put quotes around nor directly attributed "The guy is a sociopath". OTOH, you also called many warnings "frivolous".    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So...it must be alright for "admin" to call others names, eh? ;) FYI...those frivolous warnings were placed there by the same "admin" who is calling me names for removing his false references, OR and other dubious materials from an article. Jim (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway...is it alright to move your "warning" that you gave me, for copy/pasting the insult that was directed at me? Mistakes do happen ;) Jim (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed that (and your comment upon it, because your comment would have looked silly by itself). Sorry for the inconvenience.  Please be more careful with attribution in the future, so that others don't make the same mistake.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, kind Sir! Jim (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Sir!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to User:Cgilbert76/Userboxes/MLB-Yankees
I noticed that you made some edits to my Yankees fan userbox over the past month. Please do not modify userboxes within a specific user's userspace. You can create your own userboxes if you do not like the ones that other users have created. Also, I know that the logo looks very nice but copyrighted logos are not allowed to be used in userboxes. Thank you - cgilbert(talk 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it's not copyrighted any more - the copyright ran out 27 years after 1913, or perhaps 27 years after that if it was renewed timely.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you're busy here, but just to remind you of this. No big issue, just a talking thing. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left cgilbert's Yankees fan userbox to cgilbert and created my own userbox based upon it. More specifically to the point of the copyright on the image I used, referring to Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, I see it as one of the "Works Published in the U.S. ... Before 1923" and therefore "In the public domain".  OTOH, I have never even touched cgilbert's "Wizard of Oz box" (whatever that is).    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?
You're definition of vandalism hardly qualifies as such. You're just sore b/c your Giants template design is not valid. Logos cannot be used, or any brand design that resembles a trademarked logo.

You obviously need to read the definition of vandalism: Vandalism

I never compromised the integrity of Wikipedia, and you are wrong and pompous to assume such a thing. You are not the ultimate authority, so do not threaten me.

I suggest you read this: Civility

Also, just to prove that the helmet design is trademarked, see this page: Deliberately skewing the image doesn't change its copyright. That is exactly why they exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaMikePA (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Misguided and unfair, in my view, but they've obviously seen your RfA on Commons and assume they can bait you; the better man will rise above it, of course. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My warning originally applied to this edit (page blanking per Template messages/User talk namespace), but it applies equally to this other edit (adding unsourced information) and this other other edit (removing content). I take your post above to be a personal attack.  As regards the New York Giants uniform helmet Image:NFCE-Uniform-NYG-Helmet.png, I did not deliberately skew the image, I cropped it from what I assumed was an appropriately licensed uniform image for the New York Giants here, and licensed it accordingly.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to place a box frivolously on someone's page, like this:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption.

Stop posing as an admin, as am well aware you have no power to block me. Even if you were an admin, your way of imposing policy is grossly unjust and violates Wikipedia policy. There are ways around that, too. I can recommend to have you blocked by an admin for your flaming comments, but that's all anyone can do if they're not an admin. Also, three warnings are required before a last warning is issued. You violate policy by posting a final warning as an initial one. You are dead wrong for deliberately breaking policy, assuming that I would know none the better. Shame on you. JaMikePA (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have advised JaMikePA about this template, although perhaps you should not have templated him first, even though your correction was justified. Perhaps the two of you should have negotiated the changes to the the logo, but I'm not going to descend into a piffling content dispute and have advised him in the following terms: to quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." and I hope you will also take that advice on board. I will be watching for further developments. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to chill, but I'd be remiss if I didn't defend my good name below.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your third level warning was this edit. Your second level warning was this edit.  Your first level warning was this edit.  Anyone can place the warnings and other user template messages listed at Template messages/User talk namespace, not just admins, and I never claimed to be an admin.  Had you not blanked your user page, perhaps you would have seen them.  Did you see them?  Did you archive them in accordance with the guidelines laid out here?  Did you know that you can do that automatically with MiszaBot III?  Exactly what policy did I allegedly break?  What personal attacks did I allegedly make?  I take your unfounded accusations above as personal attacks - kindly cease and desist from making them.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
Why do you keep editing/altering/adding-to my talk page without asking my permission first? Leaving a conversational post or asking my advise is certainly cool. (Lot of people come to me for help with Wikipedia) But Pat has rv'd 2 edits which altered the look/content/message of the page and were not OK'd by me. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited your talk page exactly twice. The first edit was to correct what I perceived at the time to be misinformation - thank you for correcting me.  The second edit was to add some location and ISP information, for the same reasons that location and ISP information are at the top of User talk:68.39.174.238 without dispute, although perhaps I shouldn't have used the whois template.  Would you please consider copying something from the top of User talk:68.39.174.238?  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My header pretty much identifies me for being "just me" plus I have that black floaty-boxey-thing-a-ma-jiggy that pops up when editor loads my page and gives a 'sort-of' "Wizard of Oz" like welcome to anyone who doesn't know me (and that's not very many :D ). My already existing header could use a cosmetic enhancement. It would look great with a box around it and a slightly smaller font. Right now it makes it so that editors have to scroll down too far to get to all the ego-puffing Barnstars. If you want to box it up for me then feel free to do so. Have a nice day! "Libs" 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS... in case you're wondering where 'Libs' came from... I am a librarian and an admin nicknamed me that after I slipped him a few book citations. Cheerio. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks great... thanks! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mystery Method
You're calling MY edits to the Mystery Method page biased?

The current page is WORD-WORD-WORD what is on the Venusian Arts website and Erik von Markovik's official statement. It is also factually untrue, as the links to the actual court documents demonstrate. Those same claims were broguht TWICE to state and federal court and denied both times.

I'm trying to get something int here that reflects both sides. Why don't you read what I actually wrote and tell me what in there in actually inaccurate or biased? Or have you decided to take Erik's side of the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.140.107 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Mystery Method. Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Lanlp 1
A tag has been placed on Template:Lanlp 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarsanda
Hi, I have declined the PROD you put on the above article. I think that there is a pretty stong consensus that all human settlements are valid article topics. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of that consensus. I have improved the article.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:List of Languages
A tag has been placed on Template:List of Languages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but please check your spelling next time.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Silly mistake. The message was incorrect, which I see you fixed. Probably not really worth the extra edits to clean up the mess, but if you really want to.... Cheers --MZMcBride (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I thought up and implemented the AWB solution before I thought up the redirect solution.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

24.22.242.128
What vandalism are you talking about?

Also, please do not not spam my inbox with your threats and please stop posing as an admin.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.242.128 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These two edits were unwarranted deletions and these two edits were unsourced. I did not spam.  I put nothing in your inbox.  The information I put in your current IP Address's user talk page was approved by WikiProject user warnings.  I was not posing as an admin.  And I resent your accusations otherwise.  Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The TLS edit was not by me; the Konkurs edit was because the original (unsourced) sentence did not make sense(the Milan/HOT came after the AT-4/AT-5). I'm here to improve articles not vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.242.128 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So why not create an account so you won't get blamed for edits like the TLS edit?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will consider it, but for now I will extend the olive branch and say that I do not want be suspected of malicious intent. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.242.128 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about signing your posts and using Edit Summaries?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cox Communications Logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cox Communications Logo.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I have added a fair use rationale.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

71.166.48.71
Hi. I removed this report from AIV as it did not seem like a case of obvious vandalism to me. Perhaps if the IP continues to re-insert unsourced information then a WP:AN3 report may be better. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That IP Address is now blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Often, prior to signing in, I get warnings from you. Is there any way I can find out what I am being warned about? I used to forget to sign in in the past, but I think that I am getting much better. I do try to remember to enter sources and I would say that I am better than average concerning providing a reason for making the entry/edit each time. I will admit that I do not provide a source for mispellings and typos I find. I just fix them. I tend to work with articles about World War II. Many of the existing articles I come upon are clearly translations by someone who may not speak English all that well. Many of these articles indicate that Wikipedia would like some help in cleaning up the text. However, it seems like whenever I try to do so, I get a warning from "Jeff G.". I am open to improvement and I suspect I may be receiving automated warnings. Please let me know what I can do. Thank you. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are seeing repeated automated references to page User talk:71.166.48.71. I posted approved user warnings to that page because Wikipedia's content needs to be sourced and verifiable, not original research.  If people other than you are responsible for any of the 690 contributions of 71.166.48.71 since 22 December 2007, I'd suggest logging in before editing Wikipedia, and talking to those other people (if you are the only one supposed to be on your home Verizon FIOS Baltimore network, check its security).    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cox Communications Logo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cox Communications 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. BJBot (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, I added it back.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it!  Cbrown1023   talk   21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Youth United
Hi Jeff. My article 'Youth United' was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I have gone through the details for this and I found that the answer to the question why its subject is important or significant, is implied by the full article, particularly, headings of philosophy, vision, and mission statement really imply the answer to the same question. Youth United is a registered Non Governmental Organization, as Rotary International or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The only difference is that they are quite reputed and old. Youth United solely works for the betterment of Society and Youth and it does not have any profit making motive as per its Constitution. Moreover everything was written from a neutral perspective. Had it not been the case, everything about the past events, activities and tabloids would have been flooded in the article. It was avoided to make the article as neutral as possible. Everything written was written to make the article informative and inform the general mass about Youth United and its missions and objectives which in turn have absolute nature of Community welfare. This article is to propagate the mission statement of Youth United and not the Youth United itself. If required I can send you the official charter and bye laws of Youth United. However you can also let me know as what all should be incorporated in the article to make it agreeable to wikipedia policies. really soliciting your cooperation, Regards, Extolmonica (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion belongs in Articles for deletion/Youth United - please continue it there. Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Yu logo1.jpg
I have uploaded a new pic with all the necessary information. Extolmonica (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect you are the copyright holder for both images you uploaded and for the logo on the left side of the image http://youthunited.in/templates/gavick_news_portal/images/np_logo.png - if that is the case, you have to say so on the image description page. If that is not the case, exactly how did you get permission to license it?  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your speedy deletion tag didn't make any sense... Make sure you pick the right one. :-) Grand  master  ka  05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Yu logo2.jpg, like the deleted Image:Yu logo1.jpg before it, is sourced from or derivative of the same copyrighted design as the logo on the left side of the copyrighted image http://youthunited.in/templates/gavick_news_portal/images/np_logo.png and we would need specific licensing not in evidence on the website http://youthunited.in/ or an OTRS ticket as proof that Rohan Aneja / Extolmonica have/has made sufficient arrangements for a license that meets Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, or at least that meets Non-free content criteria with a fair use rationale.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)