Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:15, 23 July 2009

Project Matrix

Page types	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User pages	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User page histories	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User talk pages	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
User talk page histories	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Your Preferences ("Number of edits" includes deleted edits)	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Your Watchlists	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
View and Edit Your Watchlists	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Contributions	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Contributions & Edits (Luxo's Global user contributions tool; includes deleted edits)	all	all	all	all	all	all
Gallery (Duesentrieb's WikiSense Gallery DuesenTool script)	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Project Matrices	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
History of Project Matrices	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple
Edit Project Matrices	Commons	en	de	m	b	simple

Page last updated 22:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #19

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to my user talk page!

Please do all of the following:

Always link to the text, image, or edit you want to discuss. When linking to an image, use a colon. For example, "[[:Image:Example.jpg]]" produces "Image:Example.jpg".
Don't forget to provide a proper Edit Summary for each and every edit, and a proper signature for each and every post to a talk page or notice board. I may revert edits that do not have such features, rather than respond to them.
Reply to interactive messages at the location of the original topic to not scatter talk all around, fracturing the discussion. I do have nearly all pages I have posted to recently on my Watchlist. If I missed a comment, please use {{Talkback}} to drop me a short reminder with a link here.
Respect my babel boxes.
If you're copying files from another project to Wikimedia Commons, be sure to use the CommonsHelper.
If your text or image is lacking source, license, or permission, fix that instead of asking here what is wrong. There should be a message on your talk page explaining things in detail. Apologies for having to be so clear if this message is not related to the matter you would like to address.
Post here if you want to reach me, or reply to a post below via the edit link above that post.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to the Monthly Archive for the month of the last timestamp. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Current Monthly Archive

(redlinked the first week
or more of each month):

2024/December

Past and near future
Monthly Archives:

Maintenance

Other correspondence

Conversation with AimalCool

...

Why do you just search for everything I uploaded these minutes? --AimalCool (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

???

I just don't understand why you said This is your last warning. What have I done to Wembley Central Square? --AimalCool (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded unsourced and/or others' information, yet again. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the information on a link, which IS sourced. Go to the Brent.GOV.UK and the WEMBLEY-CENTRAL.COM one, and it says there. --AimalCool (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not third-party reliable sources. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hello? Are you there? Can you please stop keep'on sending me messages. Its getting very annoyed now, while doing my homework! --AimalCool (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of User:Jp710's edits

I series of reverts by you of edits by Jp710 (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your concern. That user continued to remove content from pages and make other changes without explanation[1]. After I reported that user to WP:AIV, I clicked the new "rollback all" tab, perhaps prematurely. The user was subsequently blocked indefinitely by Enigmaman (talk · contribs) at 06:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[2]. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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|contribs) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA. Thanks. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3]. 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)][reply]

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 [4]

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. Fuck you Jeff G (some asshole in his mamas basement) I know Kenny Satterfield, I'm his best friend. Do you want a fucking citation just ask. Don't you have anything better to do then edit a page of a retired NBA player. If my boy Kenny Satty found out he'd whoop yo ass. Uncle uncle uncle 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [5]

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)[reply]

Prodego cleared it up for me. A deletion review [6] is different from a deletion discussion [7]. 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)[reply]

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

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|contribs) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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... HalfShadow 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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|contribs) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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|contribs) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =)

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Keep up the great work, SuperHamster (Talk) (Contributions) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I was aiming to revert only the edit before yours. I think I fixed my mistake. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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|contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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|contribs) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 '''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 [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/Log&diff=prev&oldid=302690989]. 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]]  [[User:Uncle uncle uncle|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 [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews] <blockquote>A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days.</blockquote>  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. [[User:Uncle uncle uncle|Uncle uncle uncle]]  04:43, 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 [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews] <blockquote>A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days.</blockquote>  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. Fuck you Jeff G (some asshole in his mamas basement) I know Kenny Satterfield, I'm his best friend. Do you want a fucking citation just ask. Don't you have anything better to do then edit a page of a retired NBA player. If my boy Kenny Satty found out he'd whoop yo ass. [[User:Uncle uncle uncle|Uncle uncle uncle]]  04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 ::I found something else:

User talk:Jeff G.: Difference between revisions