User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2009/July

Kaka edits
Hey Jeff, I saw your message. I still do not understand how listing Kaka as an attacking midfielder and a play maker is considered vandalism. That is his playing position in both Club and Country.

Thanks,

Numba1xclusive (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider "play maker" in sense 2 at play_maker to be a peacock term, which needs to be backed up with a solid verifiable and reliable source.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=658348&sec=europe&cc=5901.

Paragraph 6. "The 27-year-old playmaker will wear the number eight shirt."

Is that a good enough source?

Numba1xclusive (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. I have retracted my warning.  Sorry for any inconvenience.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof
Proof that McKenna is not writing a vanity page should be produced. Your proof is very impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Try, drool.
Try and block me, drool. I use endless IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks but they could have spelled it out, after all Wikipedia is not censored :) Joking aside, it was much appreciated. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandal on both User:Cst17 and my user page :-)  Zoo Fari  23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusion?
I think you got something wrong. What I removed was a personal opinion written on the talk page of a redirect. The user had already broken the redirect on the article itself, and later added the same text to the talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't we allowed to express non-egregious personal opinions on talk pages any more?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

French People
I did no such thing. - Jeffrey Mall (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was aiming for 86.66.146.239.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Why are you all so suddenly interested in Meet the Deedles? You just up and assumed it was vandalism even though i added a source. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please add verifiable references from reliable sources BEFORE you click "Save page".   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, more like you. The movie's mentioned in both references, and its not like i especially care since you already proposed the page be deleted. Please make more sense BEFORE you click "Save page". NitroMan3941 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I deleted it by mistake. Wheeloffortune26 (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the PROD on this article - it does need a lot of work but deletion seems a little over the top. I've left some comments for the other editors on the talk page, if you can help them further, please do Smartse (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll check into the talk page.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

not part of sandbox
Lol so it wasn't part of the sandbox. Talk to Magibon 02:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Melissa Coates
I had an objection to the PROD nomination for this article, and the rules state that anyone with an objection can remove the tag. I have also placed a rationale in the Talk Page, but my reasoning is that the individual does appear to have notability based upon a cursory glance at AFD; that, coupled with the activity in the article, and its placement among various user groups, means that a nomination at WP:AFD is more appropriate; the lack of sources is not in and of itself a reason for PROD deletion unless the subject is patently unnotable and this individual has notability in wrestling, bodybuilding, and has also had TV exposure, which may or may not be enough (notability rules change every 5 minutes around here), but AFD discussion will find consensus. There has been some editing done since the PROD tag was added, so that may be sufficient. Otherwise you're welcome to nominate at AFD. (I would do so myself, but for reasons I mention in the Talk Page, I am choosing to edit anonymously for the time being). If there is anything in the article that is unsourced and a violation of WP:BLP - libel - it can, and should, be removed, so you don't need to wait for a nomination to do that. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - please see Articles for deletion/Melissa Coates.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ACC
Sorry, created an account you'd marked, apologies for that...  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * np, I wanted more input for that account anyway.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ACC account creation interface (sand)
I requested an account on the ACC account creation interface (sand). — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert of User:Jp710's edits
I series of reverts by you of edits by showed up across my watchlist today. Since most of them seem like good edits, or at least not bad ones, I was wondering what the rationale was for your reverts. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thank you for your concern. That user continued to remove content from pages and make other changes without explanation.  After I reported that user to WP:AIV, I clicked the new "rollback all" tab, perhaps prematurely.  The user was subsequently blocked indefinitely by  at 06:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC).    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

G6 at User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA
Can you explain it? I'm not seeing the rationale offhand. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This userbox appears to be designed to undermine the very foundation of Wikipedia, article content. It is therefore inconsistent with the goals of the project.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what G6 is for. It's for the kind of deletion that nobody could possibly object to: making way for page moves, merging histories of merged articles, etc.  If you want this deleted, I think WP:MFD's your only option. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA. Thanks.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the MFD that you filed was given the proper amount of time before it was closed. Previous MFD's have been allowed at least 48 hours before closure. I think part of the problem is that due to the [WP:NODRAMA] event now going on that many of the people who are aware of the proper running of the encyclopedia are busy on other matters and were not able to comment in your MFD. I believe that it should be left open until after the [WP:NODRAMA] event is finished to allow those editors to comment. I myself took part in the [WP:NODRAMA] as can be seen here. My cleanup is at the top of the "cleanup tags removed" list because in computer alphabetical order [ASCII], the numbers come before the letters. So anyway - do let the [WP:MAXDRAMA] people take advantage of the [WP:NODRAMA] event to discuss things freely. Editors discussing thing is certainly NOT the purpose of the [WP:NODRAMA] event. Anyhow - I think I've said all that needs to be said and I don't think that anyone would object to your MFD staying open until the end of the [WP:NODRAMA] event. [I'm not very good at formatting - there should be links in there instead of bars Uncle uncle uncle  04:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)]


 * Ahah! I was wrong - the Deletion Review time is not 48 hours - it is 7 days (164 hours).  So if proper Wikipedia behavior was followed in this case as it should be - there would have been sufficient time for a proper review - not just a review by those who believed that the Miscellaneous Item should be kept.  See here  "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days."  I cannot vote for the next couple days as I am an unofficial participant in the [WP:NODRAMA] event and it would be bad form. Technically I believe that it would have been bad form for me to enter a log of my NODRAMA activity as such a log would not technically be improving an article.  But I got around that by making my improvement (and subsequent log entry on the improvement) before the official start of the NODRAMA event. Some would consider that the edit I made to have been an ordinary edit and not an official NODRAMA edit as it was not made during the official NODRAMA time frame.  But obviously the [WP:IGNOREALLRULES] rule applies in such a case. Again - I think I've said all that needs to be said but I'm not positive. Uncle uncle uncle  04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found something else:

I don't know where to post this - so I'll post it here and elsewhere. If you read it elsewhere - no need to read it again. I see that in the closed deletion review here

The text states: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. "

Why does it say that no further edits should be made to the page, but that subsequent comments should be made in a deletion review? It is already a deletion review - it makes no sense for it to request that future comments go in a deletion review. Should I edit the template or whatever the wiki thing is that is adding that confusing text? Uncle uncle uncle 05:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Prodego cleared it up for me. A deletion review is different from a deletion discussion . A deletion discussion would come first and then possibly a deletion review. I was confused because in some cases a review is a discussion but here a review is a discussion, but not the same kind of discussion as the original discussion. Uncle uncle uncle  05:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The normal procedure for MfD is 7 days. I closed it very early. Prodego  talk  05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Malta
I have no idea what you are talking about, please explain the message you left. The source indicates the ability of Malta to supply itself was decisive. It also indicates victory over Malta made the North African victory possible. 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)


 * In this edit, you credited German Albert Kesselring with commanding the Allied forces and New Zealander Keith Park with commanding the Axis forces. Those credits were erroneous, in that they were backwards.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you can see that was a simple mistake - there was no need for a note. Dapi89 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

KING OF BARBARIANS is his page. I'm not sure you can actually vandalise your own page.
It's up for a speedy anyway, so... Half Shadow  20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern, but when I see that the creation of a page is an act of vandalism, I warn for that act.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:75.130.90.209
Jeff: Merely changing the size of a picture does not constitute vandalism. It better illustrates the subject for the reader. If you think pictures should be so small as to be hardly recognizable then, perhaps, YOU are in the wrong and attempting to engage in censorship. See WP:NOTCENSORED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.90.209 (talk) 21:36-7, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing the size of a picture on an article to be so big as to overwhelm a small screen gives the picture undue weight - please see WP:UNDUE.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks =)
Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Keep up the great work,  Super  Hamster  (Talk) (Contributions) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Eoghan Quigg
Hi there. I noticed you revert my removal of vandalism edits on the article Eoghan Quigg, and just wanted to check why. The edit you reverted reinstated an incorrect edit that is against community consensus. On Wikipedia the consensus is to use County Londonderry to refer to the county in Northern Ireland on the grounds that this is the name of the county. County Derry is a name it is called by but has no standing. This isn't just an opinion, this is the accepted consensus on Wikipedia (see WP:IMOS for further details.) Community consensus is to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. With the city there was a town there called Derry on the same site before the British set up a new city and called it Londonderry, and the city council has since renamed it, and refers to itself as Derry. County Londonderry on the other hand was created from County Coleraine and some small areas of the other surrounding counties, but there wasn't a previous County Derry. This has given rise to the community consensus detailed above. I'm sure it wasn't an intentional edit, just yourself reverting what you thought may be vandalism due to a removed reference. Canterbury Tail  talk  22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was aiming to revert only the edit before yours. I think I fixed my mistake.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine, these things do happen and I understand. However I also just wanted to explain in case you did deliberately revert my edit and thought it to be vandalism, which I could understand considering there was a reference removed in there. No harm done. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your use of a template on Dapi89
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Siege of Malta (World War II) has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information... Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: Was there actually a need to use this template and notice for such a trivial mistake on the talk page of an experienced editor such as Dapi89? I know that I would be somewhat insulted if such a notice were to be placed on mine. A simple deletion and, if you feel the need, a quiet freindly reminder on Dapi89's page would have sufficed. Even the most experienced editors overlook such details as a duplicated citation from time to time. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the quantity of blocks that user has gotten, yes. This was no duplicated citation, it was information potentially offensive to anyone who served in or was affected by WWII, and their descendants.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The blocks have nothing to do with the quality of Dapi89's work, should you care to look into it. I see what you mean about how it is possible for readers to take offence; but why not give Dapi89 the benefit of the doubt and ask him whether this was intentional, instead of simply planting a template on his page? What would you want other editors to do if you had made this type of error? Ask/quiet reminder or template? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Crouching 80's Hidden Acronym
The whole article is just a mass of nonsense, no point quibbling over minor edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucas Brigido
I think you've come down a bit hard on this editor. He committed a newbie copyright violation: he's neither the first nor the last to b confused by why he can't just upload random images. I gave him this warning when I nominated the image for speedy deletion. He didn't make any more edits, but you placed this warning on his talk page. Then you hit him with this one, which looks completely inappropriate, as he hadn't blanked or deleted anything: he had just done some housekeeping on a template.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bad article creation bot

 * Please help! I am very confused. The notice I removed said that I can remove it if I disagree! --Bad article creation bot (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You will pay.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Civil --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you are now retaliating for my civility warning above. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's okay— I forgive you. ;) For those watching, this is just a bit of sillyness and Jeff G. has done nothing wrong. Cheers! --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys suck. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Felt (hip hop) edit
I recently tried to edit the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felt_%28hip_hop%29 article to include Felt vol. 3. I have it from a very reliable source (Murs himself) that this is happening, and it will happen in 2010. I do not, however, know how to include a citation or reference when editing, so can I request you to do it for me? Here is the evidence of Felt 3. http://twitter.com/MURS/status/2892852642

Kinetix7 (talk)


 * Is that info from a reliable source? Can we verify it?  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. http://twitter.com/MURS/status/2892852642 <-That comes from Murs' twitter, which is verified (by Twitter) to be the real Murs and not an impersonator.

It is a Verified Account, so the statuses on it are from Murs, who is one half of the Felt duo, and I'm pretty sure he would know whats going on with his group. The fact that its a Twitter Verified account is as verified as its going to get.

Kinetix7 (talk)


 * That sounds like it is still original research. Once you have evidence in a reliable source we can verify, then we can include it.  Otherwise, we appear to be looking into a crystal ball.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PA
Ok, Sorry. I won't do it again. HumanFrailty (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LISTEN!!!=
I'M TRYING TO CREATED A PAGE AND YOU KEEP INTERFERING, LET ME FINSIH IT THEN YOU COULD EDIT N STUFF JUST RELAX !!! - kai200995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai200995 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

IT'S NO USE!!!!
I DIDNT EVEN GET A CHANCE TO ADD LINKS AND STUFF BECAUSE YOU OR WHOEVER ELSE KEEP MESSING IT UP!! YOU GUYS ARE ANNOYING LET ME AT LEAST GET A CHANCE TO FINISH THE DAMN PAGE! IF THATS 2 HARD THEN DELETE IT, I JUST STARTED THIS PAGE AND YOU GUYS ARE READY TO DELETE IT, THERE'S NOTHING TO DELETE I DIDNT EVEN GET TO WRITE A SECTION FOR GOD'S SAKE!! BACK OFF OR DELETE IT, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOTHING TO DELETE THANKS TO YOU AND WHOEVER ELSE!! - kai200995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by kai200995 (talk • contribs)


 * Please work on a new article in a subpage before putting it in the mainspace.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting
why can't I vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercarr (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me sir but why cant I voteMastercarr (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have 13 edits. Where are you trying to vote (or what are you trying to vote on) and what error message are you getting?    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, what do you mean by "the crowd proclaimed King of pedia Jeff G"?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant that you are the king of wikipedia(or all things pedia) and i wanted to know why can't I vote for any

trusteesMastercarr (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, according to the requirements, you do not qualify for either of the following two:
 * have made at least 600 edits before 01 June 2009 across Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account); and
 * have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 01 July 2009.
 * Sorry.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 19:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS Workshop survey
Hi Jeff,

do you think you can fill out the survey; if you still remember how my workshop went? :) --Bastique demandez 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks for the followup.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)