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

arudraraju
hope the changes in the article make it more clear and the referrences are acceptable for verifyability. Any other issues? There is one guy that is hell bent on vandalising it though, hope you guys keep a watch.--Arudraraju (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which article did you write about, Rajus? Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates. This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

got it
ok doc! Weltanschaunng 16:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your cooperation!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your attention required
I have cited a number of reliable third party sources in the article Youth United and then reposted it after intimating wizardman, who had deleted it earlier. The lack of reliable third party sources was the only reason given to me and I believe citing 5 different third party reliable sources( mostly from reputed National newspapers) would naturally conclude this discussion. further I have appealed against the previous deletion of the article, so it is not accountable for any speedy deletion tag atleast for the time being, so i removed the tag. I now request you to be cooperative and try to improve the wikipedia with its liberal policies and usages. please go to Deletion_review for further details. Extolmonica (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Youth United
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth United. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Extolmonica (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It does seem low, but most of the edits I make are Vandalism reverts - does it take into account automatic summaries? I'm looking at my contribs and it doesn't look nearly as bad as that percentage says.

It shouldn't alter the minor edits bit though, I'll try to increase my edit summaries for those.

Thanks for the notification! ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thanks for your contributions and for trying to improve them!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question
Actually, i started a article on it... Then i forgot i had it, then i edited anon under IP's and i was browsing articles and checking history on a article and i saw this user User:lolipod wich i completely forgot i used and the password still worked :) --Lolipod (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of notes
Hi, Jeff G. I wanted to point out a few things in regards to the Lucifero4 situation. First, you warned him with a vand4 template, even though he had only ever been warned with an unsourced3 template, and that was 2 months ago. Generally, it's best to start at or near the bottom, warnings-wise, especially if it's been a significant period of time since the last warning. Also, whether his edits constitute vandalism is somewhat questionable; he appears to be acting in good, if ill-informed, faith. The last thing I want to do is scare off a contributor, and when it seems like everyone's attacking you, that's often what happens. Last, my personal pet peeve, is not templating the regulars (heck, the only templates I use are block notices, even with IP users). I find it's generally best if you take a second to write out what you're trying to say instead of slapping a template on a talk page. It's much more personal, I think :) Anyways, don't take this to mean that I think you've done something horrible, just a little constructive criticism on some minor points. In any case, you've done a good job bringing this issue to light. Hopefully Luficero4 will be around tomorrow to explain himself. If you want to reply here, I'll see it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your concern. I used {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC) because I thought starting at the bottom for recent edits was only for IP Addresses (on the theory that they are dynamic), I saw no less than a dozen instances of negative feedback on that user's user talk page with no response whatsoever from that user, I saw a pre-existing level 3 warning, I saw that user make this unexplained deletion, I saw that the user had recently created Italian language redirects Sottotenente and Tenente, and I saw that the user had created and continued to maintain article Raffaele Cadorna jr without English references.  I didn't consider this user to be a regular, because regulars usually respond to their user talk page messages, don't delete cats without explanation, don't create implausible redirects, cite English language references, use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and use Edit Summaries.  The numbers at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Lucifero4 are pretty darn low.  And after seeing that I used that template, he reposted deleted content and redeleted an existing cat in at least three instances.  I also hope that user will explain.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 07:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what might be part of the problem is that he doesn't appear to speak English very well, which is probably a barrier. His time here is also very erratic. He's apparently not familiar at all with a lot of the core policies that govern Wikipedia. Still, his actions are often counter-productive, and his inability or unwillingness to answer questions is a problem. Hopefully he'll be around sometime today to explain. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, his English is poor, and he is not answering. However, overt hostility translates poorly across the web even when you speak the same language--and this is what his talk page looks like: multiple attacks on all of his contribution.  He has made some valuable contributions to en.wikipedia, imo, by writing articles about Italians who are very noteworthy, but who have been overlooked.  This makes the attacks, possibly from his viewpoint, look groundless.  Which is why I call them attacks, not because you are attacking him, but if you nominate a perfectly notable Italian statesman's article for deletion, it seems like such.  General Cadorna, from his history in Italian, and the little bit about him in English, was a major player at the end of the war in Italy, and in post-WWII Italy.  It seems there is no place to argue that he is not notable.  Could you make a GF gesture and withdraw this nomination for deletion and try to work with this editor who has limited English skills rather than making his user talk page an attack page on all of his contributions? --69.226.108.255 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been many more contributions than critical posts to that user's user talk page. It concerned me that that user had not responded to anything on its user talk page.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mussolini was executed, not assassinated. Not even the Wikipedia articles and definitions attempt to contort it into an "assassination," except for this one instance, categorizing Mussolini as an "assassinated Italian politician." The RSI fell on 25 April 1945, Mussolini was executed a few days later--few Italians would be mistaken about this date and the time sequence of events. Rather you should have investigated who put Mussolini in this category in the first place and what other unsuspected political inaccuracies they are including in Wikipedia to promote their own agenda.  Lucifero4 probably just assumed he was reverting vandalism.  Reading other Wikipedia articles in English on the same topic, he might have been surprised to see anyone questioning his reversion of propagandized inaccuracies inserted in Wikipedia articles.  I'm surprised, but realize that it would be dangerous to remove this serious case of abuse of Wikipedia seeing what has happened to Lucifero4 for attempting this.  --69.226.108.255 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gennarous first made the assertion that the killing of Mussolini was an assassination in this edit at 00:15 (UTC) on 14 January 2008, the Edit Summary of which read hm actually "assasinated is probably the right word ... "Assassination is the murder of a public figure. the assassin has an ideological or political motivation", quoting the then-current state of the Assassination article. The current version of that article says Assassination is the targeted killing of an individual who is in a high-profile position. and references Assassin (from Wordnet, Princeton University), and changed cats in this edit 8 days later.  I think both definitions fit with what actually happened to Mussolini, as he still was a public figure with a high profile as a fleeing former dictator.  Please reconsider what appears to be your position that the victim of an Assassination must still have been in power at the time.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reference link says, "assassin, assassinator, bravo (a murderer (especially one who kills a prominent political figure) who kills by a surprise attack and often is hired to do the deed)." The grammar of this sentence shows the importance of "surprise attack" to the meaning of the word.
 * Here's Encarta, "1. murder: the killing of somebody, especially a political leader or other public figure, by a sudden violent attack." Merriam Websters says, "1  : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously   2  : to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons."  Dictionary.com, "to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously."
 * The source you provide has been inaccurately used in the article. My "position" is not what you assume.  Most importantly, Lucifero4 did not in this instance act in bad faith.  He does not appear to have acted in bad faith the other times.  He appears to have raised your ire, though, and this is not good for Wikipedia to have to spend time debating whether or not to eliminate bona fide articles about Italian statesmen.  Please reconsider your position on Lucifero4.  But, if you don't want to, I realize that is your prerogative.  --69.226.108.255 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the appropriate forum for discussing the wording of that article. Please discuss it in that article's talk page.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's okay. It was an appropriate forum for your discussion of the wording of the article.  Now that I have raised your ire, my comments are no longer appropriate at all, anywhere.  I understand this.  --69.226.108.255 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I am open to changing my opinion on the deletion if English language sources, or at least English translations of the relevant portions of the Italian language sources, are provided.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg. 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) 12:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I put it back again, redid the rationale, and added it to another article.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

71.32.77.112
Dear Jeff,

Hi I just got a message saying something about you reverting some vandalism of mine? I was just wondering where exactly was this vandilism? --71.32.77.112 (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In this edit, you (or someone else using your IP Address) replaced the "Exceptions to the theory" section of article Cell theory with " bush ".   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't recall this. But thank you for your reply. --71.32.77.112 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. That incident happened over three months ago, and was the only contribution of that IP Address until you posted the above.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I borrow your Flickr Pro account?
I think we'll need a Flickr Pro account for our Wikipedia Takes Manhattan project, which will require a large number of uploads. It would be great if we could borrow yours for a bit. If you want to find out if I'm a trustworthy person, see my User:Pharos page and my organization of the Wikimedia New York City chapter. Please respond promptly by e-mail, because the event is March 28. Thanks for your help.--Pharos (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's expired and they want a minimum of $24.95 for renewal.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Blanking
Hi Jeff, an anon IP blanked your user page for no obvious reason. I've restored and semi-protected it. If this isn't convenient, please let me know. Cheers. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 14:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking that action! The reason appears to have been revenge for my previous posts to that IP Address's user talk page User talk:76.84.248.181 and/or this related edit.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning given to NuclearWarfare
Hi Jeff. I noticed that you recently posted on my talk page, reminding me to provide an edit summary. I had been forgetting to do that recently, so that message was perfectly valid and I thank you for it. Yet later on, I noticed that you warned me. I was a little surprised by this, and wondered what prompted you to do so. NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was your deletion of "on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power" regarding Nixon's potential impeachment in this edit, without explanation.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have since noted that and reverted that part of my edit. Thank you for pointing it out. NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thanks for reverting that part of your edit. You also removed a whole section from article English law in this edit.  Why?    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)