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

Vandalism warning issued to User:Ghghyo
I am curious why you chose to issue a level 4 final vandalism warning to User:Ghghyo even though he apparently did not have any vandalism warnings issued previously. I assume this was a mistake, since we typically issue level 1 warnings for a first vandalism offense. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't remember, but it directly followed this level 3 warning. You'd have to ask  about the reason for that numbering.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought, although the level 3 warning was not for vandalism, but for creating articles that would be speedy deleted. Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a specific type of vandalism.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Liez listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Liez. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Liez redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Killiondude (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jose Manuel Velazquez
In reference to this article, I merely deleted the redirect because it led to a person under the name Jose Velazquez, but the article I was writing dealt with a Jose Manuel Velazquez. I was just trying not to confuse the user by leading them to a page of a different person. I in no way meant to cause trouble by my actions. Spartan008 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Replied in my page. --XBOXaddict (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So did I.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your help with the Far Eastern University article. Anons are at it again. Same pattern of edits, same edits too. Might need your help fixing this again. Thanks. Rmcsamson (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That article has bigger problems, with copyrights.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Scottish National Party
What I did was not vandalism. The current "consensus" is essentially bullying - "SNP" is a stand-alone acronym for Wiki when compared to "British National" and other Wiki standard names given in Election metadata files. There are numerous voices on the discussion page standing up for my decision to use the standard and accepted name "Scottish National".

Not vandalism, merely common sense.

80.193.130.5 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked admin Deacon of Pndapetzim to review the situation at User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

hey
Just so you know, if you're going to remove my submission to Scott Paterson's page, you might as well remove his birthday as a whole. The actor confirmed that May 27, 1990 is NOT his real birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandnewfanx (talk • contribs) 04:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So where can we find a source that states that his real birthday was October 11, 1988?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And can you find one that says his real birthday is May 27, 1990? If you deleted my edit why didn't you delete the other one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandnewfanx (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

revert
you revert one edit on diary of a wimpy kid article. you are deadly wrong. check before you revert as i was fixing grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.221.132 (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your Edit Summaries for these two edits were uncivil personal attacks, and will not be tolerated.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:September 2009
Hello my friend. You are right and I understood you. But all I wanted to do is to move Pontic Greek to Pontic language. It did not work with this too. I requested it then formally but it was cleared by a bot. Could you help me?--ZaDiak (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are already redirects from Pontic language to Pontic and from Pontic Language to Pontic Greek. It seems that most references, including the name of the Pontic Greek edition of Wikipedia, refer to "Pontic Greek" or "Pontic dialect of Greek" rather than "Pontic language" or "Pontic Language", so I think you'd have an uphill battle trying to make such a change stick.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well in my sources is written as Pontic language but it is okay.--ZaDiak (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lohengrin (opera)
Concerning your reversion here and the subsequent warning to the editor (User talk:207.237.1.119). He was editing the synopsis (plot) of an opera. His changes appear to be made in good faith, and are not inaccurate, although one could quibble about the writing style. Rollback should only be used when reverting clear vandalism. I would suggest you look more carefully at the written context in which changes are made before marking them as vandalism. One of the disadvantages of Huggle is that's so fast that it discourages diligent scrutiny. Also, plot descriptions generally do not require referencing. Your "warning" on his talk page isn't really valid in this case, especially a level 2 one. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to second this. I have now undone your edit.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for striking your warning. A lot of people arent big enough to admit their mistakes, so you deserve recognition for foing so.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
Thank you for informing me of an oversight in a lack explanation for removing the data on the page titled Detailed musical oeuvre of Morgana King. Your reaction to vandalism activity prompted my email to "info@wikipedia.org" and a response from Maggie Dennis at Wikipedia.org was received ("if you have encountered a vandalism patroller who is over-zealous in his or her efforts - you may be doing the project a great service in cordially reminding him or her not to label good-faith edits as vandalism..."). I am not vandalizing the Morgana King article (which I have greatly contributed to over the past few weeks) and its lateral pages, I am changing the self-created lateral pages in an effort to build a solid article for the latter artist. Again, thank you for the response to your misunderstanding and my oversight.Imoya (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Blank page on "Hydraulic brake"
You recently made a comment on my talk page about the fact that I left a "blank" discussion page on the entry for Hydraulic brake. You were right to do so, of course, and my apologies: what I wanted to do was to remove all of the page's content and, therefore, the page (the discussion page contained only a request for a schematic diagram and nothing else, and I generated that diagram, so the point of the discussion page had become moot). I realized after I deleted the page's content that I did not, in fact, know how to actually delete the page-- but rather than leave content that was irrelevant, I left the page blank. And then I meant to go back and fix that somehow, and then got sidetracked into three other projects, and forgot. The discussion page needs to be removed and I do not know how to do it. A little help?? Thanks! KDS 4444 Talk  06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replaced Talk:Hydraulic brake with two templates which should help to bring more editors to help edit Hydraulic brake.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Go
Template:Go has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cyber cobra (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:66.143.16.253
You warned this user about not giving an explanation for removal of content, I just thought I'd let you know that the user did provide a rather good edit summary but basically said he was censoring, so the revert was correct. Upshot is I've left an explanatory note beneath your warning, hope you don't mind! Cheers, RaseaC (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I don't mind what you added, but I tossed in a COI notice, which I hope you don't mind.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call, I was just making sure I wasn't stepping on any toes! Regards, RaseaC (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate that, it actually made me smile! RaseaC (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Keepcases
It looks like Keepscases is still disrupting RfA: Though Keepscases is not editing currently, and that these are late August incidents, it is apparent that this user hasn't learned anything yet, and that is most likely not possible if users keep supporting Keepscases's RfA usage. What do you think? Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Keepscases asks Beeblebrox "When is the last time you told a lie? What were the circumstances, and do you regret it?"
 * 2) Keepscases supports MZMcBride with the reason "Because that's just funny."
 * No comment.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, okay. Let me know if you change your mind. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Mythdon. Keepscases (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been back for three days. You came a little late. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be more prompt when you return from your next break. Keepscases (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What "next break"? Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever it might be. Everyone takes breaks, right? Keepscases (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to remain disengaged from these two users when they persist in posting on my user talk page. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If so, could you please make your comment and response to my posts here, particularly my first comment in this section? Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not until I get some admin guidance.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Go
Template:Go has been marked for speedy deletion under criteria T3. To object, use hangon and comment on the template's talkpage. --Cyber cobra (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not supposed to be done to templates already undergoing WP:TFD.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to count
I have not violated the 3 revert rule. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? Ckatz provided a link to an unrelated discussion in order to give the impression that it has some relationship to his current attempt to delete a completely different external link - for which he has no consensus, and which is unsupported by policy. How else would you describe that, exactly, other than "deliberately misleading"? If you are going to insert yourself into the middle of a dispute of this nature, please do us the courtesy of familiarising yourself with the subject under discussion first.

Sublimefan97
I saw your vandalism warning on this user's talk page; please see this report at ANI. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I have commented at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And the user has been blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have bitten a newbie
You reverted User:Ethelcorp's removal of a nomination of User:Tammie.souza for G7 Speedy Deletion; please note that Criterion for Speedy Deletion G7 specifically applies only outside userspace. Ethelcorp appears to have been trying welcome Tammie.souza but accidentally put the welcome on the user page instead of the usertalk page. Recognizing his or her error, the welcome was cut and pasted to the talk page leaving the userpage blank. User:Vipinhari then incorrectly nominated the page for Speedy G7, Ethelcorp (correctly) removed the nom. You then reverted Ethelcorp, restoring the improper nom and warned Ethelcorp for blanking a page. This warning was also inappropriate and should be retracted with an apology. A blank userpage is not a problem and there is no point to deleting it. The reason we delete blank pages outside of userspace is that they are confusing to other users. Deleted pages take up just as much room on the servers as pages that editors can see. Although in this case, deletion probably wouldn't have had any negative effects, it's unnecessary and reverting and warning over it was bitey - though I'm sure it was unintentional and caused by a misunderstanding of policy.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Some users get very touchy about keeping their userpage links red instead of blue.  I was trying to turn it red, just like it appears that User:Vipinhari was.  I took "by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others" at User_space to be grounds for helping to return the page to its status quo.  Perhaps G6 would have been more appropriate?  Also, looking at the letter of G7, the exception for userspace appears to be only for determination of the intent of the blanking - in this case, the intent of the blanking was quite clear to me.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tw3435/Good Night → List of tallest people Movereq
I have move the movereq of User:Tw3435/Good Night → List of tallest people to the talk page, where the movereq is supposed to be placed. I also signed the movereq under you since you were the one that originally made the movereq. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Meadows at Castle Rock
I need to delete the Wikipedia page The Meadows at Castle Rock that I created, at least for now. I tried blanking the content, but you put it back up with a message on the policies of blanking and deleting, etc. I am new, so I apologize for not knowing that I shouldn't blank the page. That being said, can you please completely delete the page and its associated images for me? Unless I am mistaken, only administrators can do this. The reason being, I created this page for someone else, and they aren't comfortable with the content at this time. I wouldn't have posted it in the first place, except that it was just too hard to learn with only using the sandbox. I will try not to make this mistake again in the future. Thanks, Themeadows 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That page has already been deleted per this log. Please see WP:USERSUBPAGE for information on creating a user subpage so you can develop that article further, another article, or something else.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Brake's wikipage Mark Brake
Professor Mark Brake is a notorious liar. He has been lying about MANY things, including having a PhD (which he does not - that is a matter of public record) for at least the last 10 years, probably longer. Mightyboosh99 claims to have documentary evidence that Brake lied on a grant proposal. He has the proposal, as I have seen it. Surely he should be able to cite this as evidence of Brake's lying. Also, Brake deliberately wants to be vague about what qualifications he got from his time at Cardiff. Only because he STILL wants the world to believe that he has a PhD, and it has nothing to do with comparing what he did or didn't get 20 years ago to whether he has a GCSE in pottery or a 25 metre breaststroke badge.

I thought living bios were meant to be balanced. Rosit is Mark Brake, on that I can assure you. His page is not balanced, but is replete with self promotion and exaggeration, and economy with the truth. For example, the Rocotto project which he mentions included a telescope, which in 8 years has never worked, even though students at Glamorgan like me were promised use of it when we applied to go there. We waited and waited to get the chance to use it, and Brake kept on feeding us with bullshit when all along it was not working.

He also employed his partner Rosi Thornton on a project where she was allowed to work from home. In 7 months she didn't produce any work of any worth, and meanwhile their 8-month old daughter was with her. When this was discovered Rosi decided to quit. Brake was removed as director of the Centre For Astronomy and Science Education at Glamorgan when this scandal broke. Mightyboosh99 has documentary evidence of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annoyedofglam (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He also posted information on the CASE website which was deliberately misleading. For example, the website claimed that students doing the Astronomy & Space degree at Glamorgan would have access to robotic telescopes around the world, which he knew was not true, and when we as students challenged him about it he said he did not author it!! Annoyedofglam (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible Rosit is Rosi Thornton?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me about wiki's policy on libel? There are some serious accusations about Professor Brake here, and implied accusations about policy and procedure at the University of Glamorgan. The person writing these comments was sacked from the University in 2007 for cyberbullying and harassment of Professor Brake. It seems he is continuing to do so, through this forum. Rosit (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly sure Rosit is either Rosi Thornton (his partner), or Brake himself. Mightyboosh99 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now seen defamation from multiple viewpoints. I recommend that each of you review Contact us/Article problem and consider using it to send information positively identifying yourselves to OTRS. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It doesn't seem possible at this time that the article will be edited in a way that will be WP: NPOV It seems appearent that at least two editors are too closely attached to the subject of the article. I think it should be tagged to show the reader that major contributions have been added by someone with close ties to the subject. There is an appropriate tag; however I can't seem to find it. Im sure it will be removed shortly ater placing. Maybe an editor with edit-copy experience should take an unbais look at it. where would someone make such a request? &spades; B.s.n.   &hearts; R.N.   02:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have received an email this morning from Wikimedia Support Team to say that Mightyboosh99, "has been blocked as they are indeed the same person who was previously blocked and thus evading their block". I am confident that many of the other users doubting the veracity of this article are also the same person. As another administrator said recently, "Wikipedia works poorly when edited by crusaders who have their own version of the truth to push". This article is sound. Rosit (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * has been indefinitely blocked thrice and identified as a puppetmaster.  has been blocked indefinitely and identified as a puppet.   has been blocked indefinitely and identified as a puppet.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Rosit (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, but some questions remain, starting with your relationship to Mark Brake and Rosi Thornton.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am an ex-student of the Prof's who decided that he was deserving of a page. I am sorry I started.  I think that the page has been ruined by the sock-puppeting and campaigning of one individual.  Personally, I would rather see it deleted.  For we have now given a focus for those with a grudge to bear. Rosit (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of sock-puppeting is continuing, and this is getting harassing for me, let alone Professor Brake. Can we please take down this page?  I am finding it hard to cop with the harassment. Rosit (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think archival would be better than deletion for Talk:Mark Brake. All are welcome to voice their opinions on the matter at the current bottom of that page.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is evidence the Talk page is being used as a means of harassment. I would prefer not to communicate this in an open forum.  There was without doubt an injurious intent in fostering an antagonistic forum associated with the article, by the use of sock puppets.  It is very unfortunate that you have seen fit to tag the main article as dubious, when it is not.  Please advise as to how I can communicate outside of such an injurious and antagonistic forum.  I no longer see fit to discuss things there, when I can not guarantee users are not also sock puppets. Rosit (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You may email me via Special:EmailUser/Jeff G.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please do not leave silly warnings on users talk pages as you did to user:Peter_Napkin_Dance_Party. The discussion page redirecting to Kanye West while the article itself was a disamig page. Please look before you leap. I expect an apology on my own talk page or this will be taken to the administrator's notice board. Thank you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I never touched user:Peter_Napkin_Dance_Party. If you meant User talk:Peter Napkin Dance Party, why shouldn't a disambig page like Kanye have an associated talk page?  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you blank Talk:Kanye?  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at how it use to be. Talk:Kanye was a redirect to the article on Kanye West, I removed that redirect so that the talk page for Kanye did not redirect to another article. I am still waiting for my apology. Thank you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that your policy of reverting all page blankings apparently without checking why it was blanked, has been the source of problems in the past. I assume that you have the best intentions, but please do not needlessly unblank page blanks as you have been wont to do in the past. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks dude :) :) :) Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia
Circassiankama (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Jeff G., I would like the issue of Abkhazia edited to serve a Georgian slant addressed. I have read your message with surprise and would like to comment on it.

I understand that this site strives to provide "neutral" information when it comes to most topics. However this page describing Abkhazia is anything. I understand that this is a "controversial" subject and that currently most of the world recognizes Abkhazia as a Georgian entity (which is another interesting issue altogether, since they are entirely different ethnic groups and Abkhazia was a free entity in the past). However, this page does not even attempt to appease what Abkhazians themselves feel, think, and know as fact regarding their own native territory. With that in mind, I believe it is terribly irresponsible of Wikipedia to not even attempt to address this issue. It is irritating to people like me to see this site and know that not only is a great deal of this information is incorrect, but that a good deal of it is pure propoganda. The fact that the USA is Georgia's ally, and that it flouts its status as a result of this should not come in the way of providing clear and accurate information on a region like Abkhazia. In addition, what we will provide here in regards to "our" POV is all verifiable, historically CORRECT, and solid historical facts that we would like your readers to see. Now, why is this being denied to people like me? Why are key statements and links being removed? Is that Wikipedia's doing or a rabid Georgian revisionist who merely seeks to surpress the truth when it comes to their country's actions? I do believe I deserve a response. The only reason I am even writing to you is because Mr. Babakhev refuses to acknowledge any of my previous and many words that I have written on his talk page. Please advise. Thank you.


 * Is the info you will provide from a reliable source? Can we verify it? Also, please sign with four tildes (~) after your posts, not before them. Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 12:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

YES AND YES. However, I honestly would just like the truth of how Wiki operates here. I understand that you are obliged to follow a certain trend when it comes to particular subjects. As it is, the Georgian state is a tributary state of the US and I understand that this means that its views about its history and culture are upheld more highly than those opposing this view. The view I am trying to portray is clearly not part of this "norm" (or rather, accepted norm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circassiankama (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:USERSUBPAGE for information on creating a user subpage so you can develop a more balanced version of that article at User:Circassiankama/Abkhazia; then, you can follow the dispute resolution process.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your warning at my talk page
Hello Jeff. Could you explain this, please? A Huggle error? Thanks --Vejvančický (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The page Anthony o'rouke was deleted by - please ask him.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I tagged the article as . It was correctly deleted by . I've also notified the user. You reverted my edit at his talk page and sent me incorrect warning.  --Vejvančický (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I was trying to warn (the original editor) and Huggle got confused.  I have fixed both talk pages.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Windhoek and User talk:196.12.10.5
Hi Jeff, just to let you know: I effectively re-inserted part of the edit that you reverted. A statement like "The city is the major commercial and financial center of the country" is maybe too trivial to warrant a reference, whereas the previous formulation, that it is (foremost) a sheep skin trading place, does not really do justice to Namibia's capital. --Pgallert (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hypersensitive moderation
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1) I added two paragraphs of content, all of which can be verified by using the references already available within the page. I did not cite this reference further as I am not fully acquainted with the editing system. Please present any evidence suggesting the content was unreliable, or alternatively, don't copy and paste generalised criticisms.

2) You state it is recommended, not obligatory to discuss potentially controversial edits. I did not however think the edit would be controversial - the explanation I provided for the edit was valid.

3) All edits were, and will be genuine. Read and fact-check before deleting.

Please verify that my edits were not vandalism.

Re: recent edit category
I think it was because of the wrong name of the houses. I woule like to change them into the correct name. How do I change the name of the house into the correct name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Chakri (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please propose each move/rename at Categories for discussion.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New Messages
64.219.163.119 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dale Gregory
Hi Jeff, I removed your on the above article since "unreferenced" is not grounds for deletion. The article looks fishy to me (possible copyright vio), but I think that reference-wise, it's best left with the BLP unsourced tag. If you want to argue that it is not notable (Google search says no) or for any other reason at WP:DEL, go ahead and it back again. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion, and are invited to express it at Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Dale Gregory.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

wtc collapse
Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me in what way my edit constituted POV. The building received an Outstanding Civil Engineering Award from the American Society of Civil Engineers for the robustness of its construction. That is not POV, that is a fact. If you look at the edit history you will find that the reversion of User:Acroterion was for a different version of the edit that was subsequently modified. The fact that the building received an award from America's oldest and most respected body representing professional civil engineers is an important and not merely anecdotal piece of information. The 9/11 Commission report fails to mention the 47 steel girders in the core of the building whose job it was to provide the backbone for the building. That is a fact and not POV. I therefore look forward to your explanation before I revert your deletion. Thankyou 81.109.10.218 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Multiple documentaries (probably including Modern Marvels on the History Channel) about the collapse of WTC Towers 1 and 2 have shown me that all of the load bearing was done by the outside columns, the trusses hanging from them, and the concrete on the trusses, and that once the trusses were weakened enough by heat and one floor in a particular building pancaked, the rest of the building was doomed.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hollow Earth revert
Hi, with | this edit, you were not reverting vandalism. I wonder if you could slowly re-read the chunk of text you restored, take a look at a comment I made about it on the article's talk page, and tell me if you think it's anything but original research. Here's a link to a 3rr report I just filed on the attempts to force that chunk of text into Hollow Earth. Cardamon (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Was just about to post the exact same thing but Cardamon beat me to it! :) Lot   49a talk 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel the best way to deal with fringe theories is to let the theorists fully expound on their theories, and then to discredit them with facts and logic. I also feel that the best way to deal with a vandal is to note in your Edit Summary that you are doing so.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, facts and logic sometimes work on Wikipedia. I had a good success with them in a somewhat similar situation. We shall see whether user:TelsaBlue replies to what I wrote on talk:Hollow Earth a couple of days ago. Cardamon (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pots and kettles, all of one colour
I suspect, from the edit histories, that you may have something to contribute at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, but which user(s) and/or page(s) led you to post here?  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been involved with several of the user talk pages concerned. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Story
Would you care to review the undo you did here? It's pretty badly written, highly POV and unreferenced, which is why I removed it. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When reverting vandalism, please say that you're doing so in the Edit Summary and warn the vandal. Please see WP:WARN for details.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which doesn't address your reversion of my edit. Care to turn your attention to that? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit was unexplained removal of content.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeff G.
I have no idea who you are, but as soon as I started editing entries related to women artists I was flagged by you as a vandal. That was certainly a shock to me, I consider myself an artist rather than a vandal.

I do however have an ancient history as a wikipedia editor in certainly fields.

So I am now very much interested in you, and what your decision making process is when it comes to censoring people.

So, what's up with that? Do you just automatically censor people who show up and make comments? Or do you automatically censor people who seem to have a different opinion than you? or...what exactly is your censorship criteria? Cause I was being pretty sincere and suddenly found myself censored and that was quite a shock.

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.231.74 (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thank you for writing to me calmly. As a starting point, am I correct in assuming that you are the same person who was at IP Address earlier today?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The revision history of Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe says yes, for what it's worth. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

SEIU
Hello, I noticed you recently reverted an edit by an IP to the SEIU article, and your restoration included (amongst some other questionable material) this section:

"Stewart's presidency has been marred by controversy and allegations of nepotism, despotism, and unfair labour practices. These complaints seem to be legitimate in light of the fact that she has hired and rapidly promoted her daughter and close friends, while dismissing several staff members who were in the way of appointments she wished to make. The allegations of nepotism also extend to the National SEIU office where Stewart has hired her brother and other close friends from Saskatchewan - none of whom brought any qualifications to their well-paid union positions. In her dual role as president of the largest Canadian local and International Vice-President (essentially, President of the Canadian National Office of SEIU outside Quebec), Stewart has a stranglehold on power and seems reluctant to give it up"

I was wondering if you could point out which of the citations includes this material? When I see terms like "seems reluctant" it "seems to" smack of rather pointed POV editing. Thanks in advance, Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been watching you going about, here and there for a few hours now. I see you doing uniformly good work. I ask, do you think there is some veracity to the removals of material by that particular "209 I.P" address? I did the same thing as you a while ago... Then I read the thing. There was, at one point something about finding the union president "out on the golf course most days". User:Bookandcoffee is familiar with the shenanigans on that article. I suggest that the 209 IP is simply parsing it down to a "socially acceptable state," as far as an encyclopedia entry should read. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The majority of the content of that article needs massive injections of referenced material. Of course, if the (COI) allegations by the union members are true, perhaps the Canadian government needs to look into the issue.  But if the IP address is a shill for the local's president, that's a big COI too.  Sorry, I haven't had the time to do the requisite research to do more about this issue yet.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's one of the articles I've been following for quite some time. It has had a bit of ebb and flow. Over the next couple of days, I will take a crack at a line by line look at what is referenced in the citations, vs. what is in the "expanded" version of the article. By expanded I actually mean "embellished." I'm only looking for something that is at least referenced to a tangible source. Not tonight though, it's getting late here! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's getting late here too, but your username has convinced me to go downstairs for a ham sandwich. Nite!  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wellsir, I have looked at the citations. One of those links is -appearently- for sale. I pondered the issue while at work over the past couple of days, and I am leaning toward "Be Bold." This is an article about a going concern. Real people are affected by it.

There may, or may not be any veracity to the critisisms leveled in the text, but the only source material that can be verified comes from the union webpage. That has to be the starting point, at least until verifiable embellishments can be made to that framework. I expect that I will make some kind of similar argument on the talk page before I copy edit, but as it stands, the "209" Ip version at least reads like something encyclopedic. I dislike reading terms like "Seems like/ Seems to" ect. Weasel words; they make encyclopedias cheap, and tawdry.

Questions? Comments? Ideas? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/71.141.231.74
Hi –

I just wanted to note that I've added some information to the above page. I strongly suspect (in fact, I'm damn near certain) that the suspected sockpuppets are the same individual as an editor who has been abusive toward me over the course of several years now. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Template Go
--Cyber cobra (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued vandalism from User talk:132.3.13.68
You gave him a "final warning" last week. I'm not sure how to mark him for an admin to actually block, but he just vandalised Ukulele a few minutes ago (and I reverted). Thanks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: September 2009
I was just blanking vandalism. I'll leave an edit summary next time if that's what you're talking about.--KatelynJohann (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

is it a personal attack
when someone calls me a vandal and accuses me of disruptive editing after i make a legitimate edit? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Huggle Use
Please slow down when performing RC patrol. I have removed this report. You cited six diffs (using Huggle) as vandalism.


 * 1. Not vandalism 2. IP was actually reverting vandalism 3. IP leaving me a talkback template 4. Concern about their privacy, and confusion in regards to policy (which I later cleared up) 5. Reverting vandalism 6. Reverting vandalism.

Now, I'm not sure if this was a big mistake, but it's not the first time that something like this has happened today. Please be more careful and slow down. Thank you. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 07:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, thanks for your concern. In many of its most recent edits, has been reverting changes of numeric words to numeric figures or digits which are supported by Manual of Style (dates and numbers). That behavior spurred my most recent report. Regarding the diffs, 1 was of this type, 2 was one of many edits in the window in which Huggle saw me revert, but I didn't warn that IP about it (sorry, Huggle added this to the AIV report automatically), 3 was an edit Huggle saw you undo (sorry, Huggle added this to the AIV report automatically), 4 was an unexplained removal of content when I reverted it but was subsequently explained (sorry, Huggle added this to the AIV report automatically), 5 was reverted incorrectly (sorry, Huggle added this to the AIV report automatically), and 6 was an unexplained removal of content when I reverted it but was subsequently explained (sorry, Huggle added this to the AIV report automatically). There were many more reverts of this type, but diff 1 was the one I felt to be most egregious.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 07:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, has been indefinitely blocked as being one of the nine socks of  discovered via Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive.  — Kralizec! (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but diff 1 was still not vandalism. I doubt that this editor is familiar with the MOS on dates and numbers. Perhaps it would have been better to explain your concerns with their edits, as opposed to tagging it as vandalism? I don't think it was their intention to harm Wikipedia. :) Keep this in mind. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 07:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would have been better for me to explain, but it also would have been better for this user to explain why it was reverting all the edits of without edit summaries, which it had already been asked time and time again on its user talk page not to do. Also, please note that Numbersnow explained exactly what it was doing and why in response to this IP Address on its user talk page in this edit 11 minutes before diff 1, that Numbersnow is also discussing its behavior at User talk:Closedmouth, and that this IP Address's first four edits included removal of unsourced content, an undo, a PROD, and removal of a peacock paragraph (all of which give insight to its knowledge of policy).   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 07:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but not everyone will know every policy at once. I'm not familiar with every policy. Might be best to assume good faith in this case? All four instances you noted above are positive edits, are they not? Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, those were positive edits. I am sorry this incident happened, and I am willing to ignore this IP Address and to drop my request for intervention. However, I may bring Huggle's way of gathering and presenting evidence to the attention of its coders.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I love it; even at the end, it's Huggle's fault, not Jeff's. These "incidents" are why I prefer to edit as an IP. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... unless I am provoked again.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And now it's my fault, with the justification of prior provocation. LOL 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPA.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV report for 98.248.33.198
Hello. When you reported to AIV, you noted the following vandalism edits as proof: Many of thise shoking intrviews are naw on internet on You Tube and videogoogle to warn the people of comming one very dictatorial all Europian burocratic socialist government controled from Brusel. I presume you have a good explanation for this, but eagerly await your detailed response on my talk page. — Kralizec! (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cowboys Stadium do you really believe that The Cowboys' stadium is called "Giants Own You Stadium"?
 * Cardiff appears to be a proper undo of number-format churn against WP:MOSNUM
 * User talk:Steve Crossin a talkback message on another user's talk page is vandalism now?
 * Mt. Eden High School the school's web page shows that the IP actually reverted vandalism
 * Christopher Story is this really appropriate encyclopedic content:


 * Please see the previous (now parent) section's discussion, already in progress.  — [[User:Jeff G.|Je

ff G.]] (talk&#124;contribs) 07:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
On your user page, you note that you are a Wikipedia administrator hopeful. As such, I have a question for you.

Given that:
 * WP:ROLLBACK states "If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back, please do not use this feature...Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator"
 * and that before Huggle may be accessed, its user must acknowledge that, "abuse or inappropriate use will be dealt with by removal of access or blocking of your user account. Responsibility for edits rests with the owner of the account with which they are made.  "Use of an automated tool" is not an excuse."

And given that:
 * this Huggle revert restored vandalism to the article that the IP had actually removed
 * Sorry, that was a mistake. I took the user's edit summary at face value. Within the first two minutes after I made that revert, I realized my mistake, went back 13 edits to this edit, and fixed it.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and that this is a Huggle revert of an IP's good-faith un-do of another editor's WP:MOSNUM violations
 * Sorry, I do not agree with your characterization of Numbersnow's edits as being WP:MOSNUM violations; to the contrary, what Numbersnow and I were enforcing was specific compliance with the second bulletpoint at MOSNUM "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." "eleven" was the only number spelled out, whereas in comparison "11", "0", "5", and "1" were not. What 98.248.33.198 was doing was violating the second bulletpoint at MOSNUM, en masse.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and that this is a Huggle revert of an IP's correct removal of a test edit that might as well have been vandalism
 * Sorry, I reverted what I saw as unexplained deletion of content by an IP Address. Once I realized my mistake, I went back 4 edits to this edit, and fixed it.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and that this is a Huggle revert of an editor who was properly removing the original research added by someone pushing their own agenda in an edit war
 * Sorry, I already explained this above at section "Christopher Story".  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and finally that via Huggle the IP was reported to AIV for "vandalism" where the report included diffs to six vandalism instances that were anything but vandalism
 * Sorry, I already explained above in the parent section exactly why Huggle chose those edits to include in that report.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you state any reasons supported by Wikipedia guidelines or policies that would result in me not removing your rollback rights due to the misuse of the rollback and Huggle tools as outlined above and exacerbated by your apparent blaming the tool? — Kralizec! (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can state such reasons. In addition to the above inline responses, I was tired and the following editors agree with me and Numbersnow regarding our interpretation of the second bulletpoint at MOSNUM: Steve Crossin (via this edit); Hertz1888 (via this edit); and Closedmouth (via this edit). I was also aware that you had blocked 98.248.33.198 for edit warring on 22 August 2009, and I interpreted what 98.248.33.198 was doing at the time of my report to be a resumption of edit warring, but with Numbersnow in what looked like a wikistalking manner and in a different sense (all over article space rather than in one article). I apologize for taking so much of everyone's time with this incident.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you still don't see the issue at hand here. The problem is somewhat your use of Huggle, but more the fact that you a) Blamed the tool for your errors and b) characterised edits as vandalism that clearly were not vandalism. Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism, the fact you have not done so, and are unable to differentiate between what is and is not vandalism, concerns me. Another question - When you realized Huggle included edis that were not vandaosm on the AIV report, why didn't you remove them? The factyour six diff report contained no vandalism concerns me. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your question, you removed my report from AIV in this edit at 07:12 UTC, without it having been commented upon there. You were the first one I saw question it, on my user talk page in this edit six minutes later at 07:18 UTC. I had no time in which to react to your concern (or anyone else's subsequent concern) before my report was already gone from AIV.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * a) As a result of the above, I obviously didn't have time to correct my error in reporting once I was notified of it, but I did correct my own errant reverts.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * b) What do you call repeated errant reversions of edits which are enforcing the second bulletpoint at MOSNUM? I call it disruptive editing, at the very least.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  04:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Template Go
When are you going to make your policy proposal regarding Template:Go? --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)