User talk:Jerryg

Not enough cats on Wikipedia

Elizabeth Zimmermann
Hi Jerry. I saw your note on Talk:Elizabeth Zimmermann and wanted to offer some advice. As you rightly anticipated, the article you added is a prime candidate for deletion. If you want to work on a draft without fear of deletion, one way to do this is on a subpage of your user page, e.g. User:Jerryg/Elizabeth Zimmermann. When you are done, you could normally do a page move to Elizabeth Zimmermann, but not in this case since you've already created an article there (you'll have to ask an admin to delete the current article first). Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Mike Dillon 16:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I noticed your addition because I had Elizabeth Zimmermann on my watchlist before it was created. Mike Dillon

Hi again. I put the article into a minimal wiki style and added an external link to a tribute article about Elizabeth, so it shouldn't get deleted now. Have fun expanding the article and remember to provide references! Mike Dillon 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Hi Jerry. To avoid infringing on copyright, generally all you need to do is write original text and cite your sources. Since all you should be taking from Schoolhouse Press is facts about Elizabeth and the business, you should be fine as long as you cite them as a source and don't copy their text directly. Copyrights has more information, but here's a nice excerpt:
 * Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia.

Hope that helps. Mike Dillon 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey discussions with User:Waya sahoni
I ask you to stop calling User:Waya sahoni Jeff. His identity is not relevant to the discussions, Jeff Merkey was never banned, and we can leave Waya's motivations out of it, however transparent. Continuing calling him Jeff is tantamount to baiting and could be construed as WP:PA. Let's solve any disputes over the article as close to Wiki guidelines and policies as we can. --MJ( &#x260E; 07:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC).


 * I respectfully disagree. For substantive reasons that I may need to disclose at a future date, I have done a tremendous amount of research into Jeff Merkey and I can assert to you with no doubt whatsoever that Waya sahoni == Jeffery Vernon Merkey. The possibilty that Waya sahoni is anyone else approaches zero.


 * Jeffery Vernon Merkey has been Indefinitely Blocked as User:Gadugi


 * The fact that calling Waya sahoni "Jeff" or "Merkey" may be called baiting by invocation of WP:PA is merely an indication of Merkey's current tactic: he has realized that he can manipulate Wikipedia from within to greater personal benefit than he can by attacking it, its editors and its founders from without.


 * If there is one thing that Merkey needs to know, over and over again, it is that people have seen through his game-du-jour and, protest as he might, his charade has failed and he must advance his arguments (such as they are) from the basis of being himself and no one else.


 * The tenets of reasonableness and community that are the foundation of Wikipedia may work to its considerable disadvantage when dealing with a personality such as Merkey's. talks_to_birds 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also have no problem with outing Waya as Jeff, but I do have a problem with baiting Jeff. Some may argue that he has done much to deserve it, but this is not the place to do it.  Wikipedia has enough problems with vandals and people with a barrow to push without further inflicting Jeff on them.  It is pertinent to Wikipedia that Waya is Jeff, especially as he has threatened to sue before.  None of us believe is is reformed, and his current behaviour does not lend any credence to the notion that he has reformed.


 * Speaking of being outed, I assume you are Al Petrofsky --Vryl 17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Me? talks_to_birds? No. Not at all. At this point there's not any particular reason for my stating just who I am, but it really shouldn't be too hard to figure out. I'm not being coy: who I am wouldn't give any more credibility to my posts here, and my motivations are rather lengthy :-/ -- talks_to_birds 20:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I thought you were Al when I asked if you were one of the people Jeff sued, and I thought you said you were.  And on your page you said to Jeff that he knows you, 'sorta'.  I was thinking of a certain telephone call.  Nothing very conclusive, just a guess really. --Vryl 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is basically the reason I stopped being a butthead with Jeff. I know Waya is Jeff, you know Waya is Jeff, probably a lot of admins know Waya is Jeff. But this is not Yahoo! SCOX and as you say, Wikipedia has enough real problems without us adding to them. And besides, as good upstanding representatives of the Wikipedia community, we can let Waya continue on his current path and let him hang himself. --Jerry (Talk) 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of admins, the one that Jeff more-or-less got to side with him (not that I necessarily disagree with his decisions) looks like being stripped of his adminship permanently, if I read correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al


 * Not yet. I think.. It appears that the committee has just accepted the request. If you look at the bottom of the request, there is no Final Decision --Jerry (Talk) 21:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is what 'accepted' means. I couldn't really tell.  I thought it maybe meant that they had accepted the complaint and the suggested penalties. --Vryl 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You are named in an ARBCOM Proceeding regarding Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Article
See WP:ARBCOM for the details. Waya sahoni 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You know Jeff.. It would have been nice if you had left a link to the actual place you are making you bizarre accusations, instead of making us dig through links to find it. But then, it's par for the course when you don't want anyone to make a statement --Jerry (Talk) 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Postings about other Editors at Talk:Green_Corn_Ceremony
You need to avoid posting about other editors public figured without facts and posting these types of allegations. This material certainly was not relevant to the article in question. Asgaya Gigagei 06:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop posting allegations and personal attacks against other users. 70.103.108.66 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So you admit being Jeff Merkey, since I posted nothing except information about an anonymous IP address. Since you have *no* problems with posting other peoples information, it patently silly for you to complain. Since there is no defamation, I'll remove the warning, but leave your comments for history. Thanks for playing Jeff. --Jerry (Talk) 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EZwedding.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:EZwedding.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: SP&S 700 and OR&N 197
Way cool. Southern Pacific 4449 needs a good side shot or two (one of which could be used in the infobox instead of the head-on shot that should really be farther down in the text, probably in the "1981 to the present" section that mentions Railfair '91 where I took the photo; that's just the only suitable photo I had that I had taken myself). I don't know about uploading such a large video here, and due to its size, I would hesitate putting it into the External links section (don't want to blow your bandwidth quota); I haven't watched it yet, but I will take a closer look at home tonight. We've gotten the article up to Good article status, it'd be great if we could get it Featured. I look forward to reading the two new articles. Slambo (Speak) 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooh, yes. That would be a much more appropriate lead photo as it gives the viewer a sense of the whole locomotive (and the tender) and not just the pilot and smokebox.  The only drawback is that the wheel area is dark and will be difficult to see at low resolutions. Slambo (Speak)  15:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Much better. Thanks! Slambo (Speak)  11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Great start on SP&S 700. I've made a couple minor updates to the text and added a couple categories (but commented them out so the draft isn't listed there yet). I've probably got some additional reference material in my personal library; I'll see what I can find this weekend when I'm not working on our model railroad (I'm currently building a 7-lap helix). Slambo (Speak) 11:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merkey comment
You weren't adding anything to the discussion. You were trolling. There is nothing wrong with removing trolling. If you want to discuss specific issues with the page's content, go right ahead. If you want to whine, find another site to do it on. --InShaneee 16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jake.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jake.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jusjih (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:AllowMe.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AllowMe.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Nv8200p talk 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:EZwedding.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:EZwedding.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)